The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSHX2020-00026 Biological Eval - SHX Letters / Memos - 8/28/2020 A r S�XZa2o -G�Z� Biological Evaluation T�ylolr Bulkhead and Pier, Ramp, & Float Project Lake Cushman, Hoodsport WA For: j Kyle Taylor Taylor Cushman LLC 22311 161"Ave East Graham,WA 98338-8567 Prepared by: I BioResources,LLC Kim Schaumburg Fisheries biologist,University of Washington, 1981 10112 Bay View Rd. KPN Vaughn,WA,98394 (253) 884-5776 or 225-2973 Email: July 21,2018 Table of Contents 1.0 Proposed Action.............................................................................. 3 1.1 Background ................................................................................... 3-4 1.2 Project Need and Objectives................................................................ 4 2.0 Project Description........................................................................... 4-5 2.1 Project Activities.............................................................................. 5-6 2.2 Timing.......................................................................................... 7 2.3 Conservation Measures...................................................................... 7 2.4 Best Management Practices.................................................................. 7-9 3.0 Action Area.................................................................................... 9-10 4.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information..................................................... 10-11 4.1 ESA Listed Species.......................................................................... 11-14 5.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions....................................................... 14 5.1 Action Area................................................................................. 14-15 5.2 Proposed Project Area..................................................................... 15 6.0 Effects of the Action.......................................................................... 16 6.1 Direct Effects.................................................................................. 16-19 6.2 Primary Constituent Elements............................................................ 19-21 6.3 Direct Effects to ESA Listed Species...................................................... 21 6.4 Indirect Effects................................................................................. 21-24 6.5 Primary Constituent Elements............................................................ 24-25 6.6 Direct Effects to ESA Listed Species.......................................................25 6.7 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects......................................................... 25 6.8 Primary Constituent Elements............................................................ ..25-26 6.9 Cumulative Effects............................................................................26 7.0 Conclusion......................................................................................27 7.1 Take Analysis..................................................................................27 7.2 Determination of Effect....................................................................... 27 8.0 References.......................................................................................28-3 1 Attachments 1. Vicinity map...................................................................................... 32 2. Mason County GIS map........................................................................ 33 3. Existing Site Plan.................................................................................34 4. Existing Site Plan Magnified....................................................................35 5. Proposed Site Plan.............................................................................. 36 6. Proposed Cross Section........................................................................ 37 7. Site Photograph...................................................................................38 8. Site Photograph................................................................................. 39 9. Site Photograph................................................................................. 40 10. Site Photograph................................................................................. 41 11. Site Photograph................................................................................. 42 12. Site Photograph................................................................................. 43 13. Essential Fish Habitat.............................................................................44-45 Taylor Biological Evaluation 2 1.0 Proposed Action This Biological Evaluation has been submitted on behalf of Kyle Taylor at the request of the Seattle Districit United States Army Corps of Engineers to comply with Endangered Species Act(ESL) regulations regarding shoreline development. The proposed action on his Lake Cushman property is the installation of a replacement wood bulkhead,4retore T- 1]�a[P ant of)1�a o X IK nat! it, �"" pmei Mitigation for the!proposed project will include downsizing the footprint of the existing ro�vsa.1 overwater coverae from 505 square feet (sf)to 321 sf, which will result in a reduction of overwater covera e of 184 square feet. The replacement PRF will be grated (the existing overwater structures are ungrated), un-encapsulated float material will be replaced by encapsulated float billets, and untreated Alaska yellow cedar will replace existing treated lumber structures. Additionally, manmade debris on the shoreline at or below the 742' elevation will be)removed from the site, including existing retaining walls, a bulkhead, stairs,two steel posts, overwater structures, un-encapsulated float material (Styrofoam®), and log boom anchors and tackle (after the logs are removed by Tacoma Power). I 1.1Back round The propose J project site is located in Mason County at 1520 West Cushman Ridge Drive, Hood port(Washington (Attachments 1 & 2). The Mason County tax parcel number is 4 331-50-01918. The property is located in Section 31, Township 23N, Range 04 of the Western)Meridian. The latitude is 47.44611 N and the longitude is -123.23244 West. The proposed project site is on Lake Cushman in the Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area 16 (WRIA 16) in.Mason County. Lake Cushman is regulated under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and the Mason County Resource Ordinance as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated Lake Cushman as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. In addition, Lake Cushman is regulated by Tacoma Public Utilities (aka Tacoma Power), which has designated Shoreline Management Classification(SMC) zones. The proposed project site is located in an SMC zone classified as "A." Tacoma Power defines the',"A"management classification as shoreline areas with no known significant enviromnental/cultural resources or associated resource management goals precluding existing or future shoreline uses;this classification acknowledges existing private uses and anticipates potential future private and light commercial shoreline uses (Kleinschmidt 2012). The proposed project site is located in a rural area on an approx. 1.38 acre lot with approx. 200 feet of shoreline, which supports a small (approx. 1200 sf)residential structure located approx. eighty-five feet(85')horizontally and thirty feet (30')vertically from the shoreline of Lake Cushman. Existing shoreline appurtenances (Attachments 3, 4, 7-12) include a(small concrete bulkhead (approx. 8' x 3' in height), two wood retaining walls (approx. 6' X 1.5' to 2'in height each), shoreline access stairs(approx. 36 sf with 10 Taylor Biological Oaluation 3 sf overwater), a pier (6' x 16.5'/99 sf), a wood ramp (3' x 12'/36 sf),three floats(12' x 12'/144 sf, 8' x 10'/80 sf, and 10' x 12'/120 so, and a small pier with stairs(approx. 16 sf overwater). The existing overwater structure coverage at the site is 505 square feet. As previously noted, all existing shoreline structures and all manmade debris at or below the 742' elevation will be removed from the site. 1.2 Project Need and Objectives The bluff toe at the site exhibits erosion damage that is common to the Lake Cushman shoreline. There are three primary causes of this erosion and concomitant shoreline instability: • The seasonal raising and lowering of Lake Cushman, a reservoir with two functioning dams. • The lake's unique landscape features, including a steep, unnatural lakebed topography that lacks a shallow foreshore to diminish wave energy generated by strong prevailing winds and approx. eight miles of fetch. • A steep terrestrial shoreline that receives an average of approx. 100 inches of rainfall per year. The west side of Lake Cushman is also subjected to damaging surface flows due to clear cut logging on the steep slopes above the shoreline. The applicant's property is heavily vegetated with native vegetation and the slope is steep above the residential structure. Along the site's shoreline the slope is more moderate, however, due to the potential for further slope instability in the vicinity of shoreline access at the site, shoreline protection in the form of a wood bulkhead is proposed. The bulkhead will be the minimal length necessary (25')to protect shoreline access to the proposed replacement overwater structures. Additionally,the applicants' existing shoreline structures are old and in need of repair or replacement. The applicants wish to extend the life of the existing overwater structures, while at the same time making them safer for both humans and the environment. In conclusion, the project objective is to install a new bulkhead of minimal size that is long enough to protect shoreline access and replace an existing pier, ramp, and float, all- the-while avoiding or minimizing impacts to ESA-listed species and improving shoreline habitat at the site. 2.0 Project Description As per the engineered design by Steve Morta, approx. twenty-five feet(25') of post and plank wood bulkhead will be installed along the toe of the slope at an approx. lakebed elevation of between 736' and 742 feet. The proposed bulkhead will vary between four to Taylor Biological Evaluation 4 seven feet in height, depending on the height of the landward slope. The bulkhead will be constructed of six'(6) six by six inch (6"x 6")Alaska yellow cedar(AYC)posts, three by twelve-foot(3' x 12')yellow cedar planks, and galvanized hardware. Additionally, to aid in alleviating erosion at the site, basalt rip-rap (1/2 man rock)will be placed along approx. 125' of unbulkheaded shoreline between the approx. elevations of 742' and 736 feet. The proposed quantity of riprap to be installed is thirty(30) cubic yards. The existing overwwater structures will be replaced by a five by twenty-five-foot(5' x 25') pier, a three by twelve-foot(Y x 12')pre-fabricated, grated aluminum ramp, and a ten by sixteen-foot(10' x 16') float. The float will have three(3) eight by eight(8"x 8") positioning piling posts and rest on a cradle that provides a minimum of 18 inches of lake bed clearance during the low water season. The pier, float, and float cradle will be constructed of Alaska yellow cedar posts,joists, decking, and trim.'The decking of the pier and float will have grating installed that will conform to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW's)requirements of a minimum of fifty percent total with 60 percent light passage. The float will be fitted with polyethylene encapsulated Styrofoam®float billets. The total overwater coverage after replacements!will be 321 square feet, a reduction of 184 sf from the existing 505 square feet. All post piling holes will be approx. three feet (Y) deep and eighteen inches (18') wide, and filled with concrete. All concrete for the bulkhead, pier, and float will be hand-mixed per engineered drawings and poured in place. The proposed project is expected to require approx. 3.3 cubic yards of concrete. No pressure treated lumber will be used in this project. All overwalter structures to be grated will use ThruFlow decking panels, which are made of reinforced polypropylene, contain no toxic preservatives, and are recyclable. A circular saw' and various hand tools will be used throughout the proposed project. Workers, equipment, debris, and materials will be transported to the site either by boat or by cars or trucks. Geo-textile fabric will be spread over the dry lakebed before commencement of project construction in order to contain any manmade construction debris. At the completion of construction,the geo-textile fabric will be removed from the shoreline at the site; along with all construction debris and other existing manmade debris.All debris Will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. 2.1 Project Activities Demolition & Removal of Existing Shoreline Structures The existing structures to be will be fully disassembled or have the appropriate sections disassembled and then be removed from the site. Concrete footings on existing pilings, posts, or anchors will be excavated using hand tools or cut 12" below the lakebed. The holes will be refilled with excavated lakebed sediments. Taylor Biological Evaluation 5 I I Excavation of the Post Piling Footings Due to the difficulty of accessing the site with heavy machinery, it will be necessary to manually excavate substrate material for all post piling footings. The bulkhead, pier, float, and float cradle post piling holes (six, six,three, and four, respectively) will be approx. three feet deep and eighteen inches wide. A small amount of excavated substrate material will be stockpiled on the shoreline and later spread around the new post pilings to fill in any depressions. The majority of the excavated material will be removed from the lakebed at the site, as per Tacoma Power's rules and regulations. Pouring of Concrete for the Post Piling Holes Concrete for the bulkhead, pier, and float cradle post piling will be poured at the same time.Existing posts will be augmented with new concrete if necessary. All concrete will be hand-mixed and poured in place. Before concrete is poured,the yellow cedar posts will be positioned in the post piling holes,then the concrete will be poured and allowed to cure. The proposed project is expected to require approx. 3.3 cubic yards of concrete. Bulkhead, Pier, & Float Construction The bulkhead,pier, float and float cradle will be constructed of Alaska yellow cedar, galvanized steel or stainless steel hardware. The pier and float will be grated with ThruFlow decking panels, and the float will be fitted with polyethylene encapsulated Styrofoam® float billets. The aluminum ramp will be installed between the pier and the float using galvanized hardware. Basalt rip-rap will be delivered to the shoreline by a small tractor or a wheelbarrow. At the completion of riprap installation,the geo-textile fabric will be removed from the shoreline at the site, along with all construction debris and other existing manmade debris. All debris will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. 2.2 Timing Work will be completed over an approx. twenty-one(21) day period during daylight working hours normal to a rural neighborhood. Work will only take place when the water level of Lake Cushman is low, which is generally between October and April. Taylor Biological Evaluation 6 2.3 Conservation Measures 1. No construction to occur unless Lake Cushman's waters are low. 2. No pressure treated lumber will be used in this project. 3. All manmade debris on the shoreline at or below the 742' elevation will be removed from the site, including existing retaining walls, a bulkhead, stairs, two steel posts, overwater structures, un-encapsulated float material (Styrofoam®), and log boom anchors and tackle (after the logs are removed by Tacoma Power). 4. Overwater coverage at the site to be reduced by approx. 184 square feet. 5. Construction to take place as per the HPA provisions from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 6. The decking of the pier and float will have grating installed. Grating will conform to the WDFW's requirements of a minimum of fifty percent total wvth 60 percent light passage. 7. Existing un-encapsulated float material to be removed and disposed of at a licensed disposal facility. Floats to be fitted with encapsulated float material. 8. Previously discussed BMPs to be strictly adhered to. 2.4 Best Management Practices In order to maintain the present water quality of Lake Cushman during project construction, best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented. BMPs are defined as physicals structural, and/or managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water('WDOE). The following source control BMPs, which are detailed in the WDOE's Stormlwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume H Construction Stormmwater Pollution Prevention (2012), will be implemented for long-term protection of water quality at the site: BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation Wherever practical, native vegetation shall be preserved to reduce erosion. Natural vegetation should b$preserved on steep slopes, near perennial and intermittent watercourses o(r swiles, and on building sites in wooded areas. BMP C154: C�oncr to Washout Area Taylor Biological Ev luation i Purpose:Prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater from concrete waste by conducting washout off-site, or performing on-site washout in a designated area to prevent pollutants from entering surface waters or ground water. Conditions of Use: Concrete washout area best management practices are implemented- on construction projects where: •Concrete is used as a construction material. *It is not possible to dispose of all concrete wastewater and washout off-site (ready mix plant, etc.). *Concrete trucks,pumpers, or other concrete coated equipment are washed on-site. •Note: If less than 10 concrete trucks or pumpers need to be washed out on-site, the wash water may be disposed of in a formed area awaiting concrete or an upland disposal site where it will not contaminate surface or ground water. The upland disposal site shall be at least 50 feet from sensitive areas such as storm drains, open ditches, or water bodies, including wetlands. •A temporary washout facility shall be constructed on-site or the concrete truck will be washed out off-site. •When temporary concrete washout facilities are no longer required for the work,the hardened concrete, slurries and liquids shall be removed and properly disposed of. *Materials used to construct temporary concrete washout facilities shall be removed from the site of the work and disposed of or recycled. BMP C151: Concrete Handling Purpose: Concrete work can generate process water and slurry that contain fine particles and high pH,both of which can violate water quality standards in the receiving water. Concrete spillage or concrete discharge to surface waters of the State is prohibited. Use this BMP to minimize and eliminate concrete, concrete process water, and concrete slurry from entering waters of the state. Conditions of Use: Any time concrete is used, utilize these management practices. •Wash out concrete truck chutes, pumps, and internals into formed areas only. Assure that washout of concrete trucks is performed offsite or in designated concrete washout areas. DO not wash out concrete trucks onto the ground, or into storm drains, open ditches, streets, or streams. *Return unused concrete remaining in the truck and pump to the originating batch plant for recycling. Do not dump excess concrete on site, except in designated concrete washout areas. •Wash off hand tools including, but not limited to, screeds, shovels,rakes, floats, and trowels into formed areas only. •Wash equipment difficult to move in areas that do not directly drain to natural or constructed stormwater conveyances. Taylor Biological Evaluation 8 *Do not allow washdown from areas, such as concrete aggregate driveways, to drain directly tonatural or constructed stormwater conveyances (or Puget Sound). *Contain wastewater and leftover product in a lined container when no formed areas are available. Dispose of contained concrete in a manner that does not violate ground wafter or surface water quality standards. •Always use farms or solid barriers for concrete pours, such a pilings, within 15-feet of surface waters. The following additional BMP shall be used to insure that water quality is not degraded during'land after construction: 1. Equipment will be cleaned and checked for leaks, offsite and daily, before commencing work. In addition,the following Spill Prevention Control measures will also be followed: 1)the applicant will supply the site with a portable bathroom or allow workers access to an onsite bathroom so that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. 2)The applicant will be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the event of a haza�dous spill. 3) The applicant will have a spill kit and be able to perform basic cor ol, containment, and/or confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and personnel protective equipment available. In other words, small spills, such as'paint or oil,will be promptly and fully collected and disposed of at a suitable disposal site. In the event of a significant spill, a fish kill, and/or if fish are observed in distress the Washington State Department of Ecology(800.258.5990) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's Area Habitat Biologist, Joshua Benton (360.602.0364) or his replacement, will be notified immediately. 3.0 Action Area The action area is IQ'cated on the shoreline of Lake Cushman at the proposed project site. Besides the proposed project location, the action area includes the surrounding area within a designated',distance from the site in order to account for construction impacts that may affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as either endangered or threatened. The limits of the action area are based upon the geographic extent(in both aquatic and terrestrial environments) of the physical, chemical, and biological effects resulting from the proposed action, including direct and indirect effects, as well as effects of interrelated and interdependent activities (WSDOT 2010). Turbidity and noise are expected to be the most detrimental project effects. Because work will occur when Lake Cushman is lowered,project turbidity is expected to be no greater than turbidity that is common to the area during heavy rains, when various ephemeral and perennial streams and the north fbrk of the Skokomish River discharge sediment laden water into Lake Taylor Biological Evajluation 9 Cushman. It is probable that the project's distance from the Jake's lowered shoreline will be great enough that disturbed sediments will disperse gradually(via precipitation)over the exposed lakebed without ever reaching water until the lake is raised. Additionally,the excavation required to install sixteen new and remove approx. ten existing post pilings is expected to be minimal. Therefore,terrestrial noise is expected to be the most far- reaching effect from the proposed project. The action area for terrestrial noise effects is based upon an ambient sound level of 40 dBA for an area with a population of less than 100 people per mile (WSDOT 2010). In addition,the Olympic National Forest programmatic biological assessment uses an estimated ambient level of 40 dBA for undisturbed forested areas (USDI 2003).Noise frequency and levels for the repair and/or demolition of existing structures is expected to be short term and moderate, as the contractor will be using hand tools such as a skill saw. The sawing of the lumber is expected to produce the proposed project's maximum noise level. The noise level of a circular saw at fifty feet was determined as follows: The noise level at 50 feet from a chain saw is 84 dBA (WSDOT 2014). The noise level of a chain saw at three feet is 110 dBA,while a circular saw is 100 dBA. Assuming that a chain saw is between approx. five and ten percent noisier than a circular saw,the noise level of a circular saw at fifty feet was assigned 79 dBA. To determine the distance that the proposed project's maximum point source construction noise will travel before it attenuates to the ambient sound level; the following Practical Spreading Loss Model equation was used: D=Do * 10((Construction Noise—Ambient Sound Level in dBA)/a) Where D=the distance from the noise &Do=the reference measurement distance of 50'. Average construction noise from the proposed project will travel approx. 3,970 feet over hard site conditions(Lake Cushman) and 1,656 feet over soft site conditions (forested areas) before it(the noise) attenuates to the ambient sound level. Therefore,the extent of the action area is 3,970 feet or 0.75 mi. over the lake's surface and 1,656 feet or 0.34 mi. inland from the proposed project site and adjacent shorelines. In addition,the action area includes fish bearing streams located approx. 200 feet, 0.5 mi., and 0.7 mi. to the south and 0.15 mi.to the north. Ephemeral streams are located approx. 0.4 mi., 0.5 mi., and .0.6 mi. to the north. There are no streams immediately adjacent to the project work area. 4.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information In the proposed project area,there are five species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)as either threatened or endangered. The bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Stridex occidentalis), streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated for the former four species. The project area is located Taylor Biological Evaluation 10 on Lake Cushman,which has been designated critical habitat for the bull trout. Two other species in the project area are listed as proposed. The fisher(Mantes pennanti) is listed as proposed threatened, and the Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) is listed as proposed under the ESA "similarity of appearance"provision. In the proposed project area,there is one species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as either threatened, endangered, or a candidate species.!,The Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated. Lake Cushman is a historical watershed of the Chinook that has been anthropogenically blocked; however, it has been designated criticali habitat. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) GIS maps reveal the documented presence of two other species of salmonids on the State's Priority Habitat and Species list within the action area: Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). The presence of these two species has been documented in Lake Cushman. WDFW data reveals that Lake Cushman was stocked with 23,896 cutthroat trout in 2005 and 205,800 Kokanee (landlocked sockeye salmon) in 2004. A WDFW biologist reported that other species that inhabit the lake include rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and non-native largemouth bass (Micropterus salmbides). Additionally,Tacoma Power is presently working in association with the Skokomish Tribe and the WDI*W to reestablish migrating salmonid runs in the North fork of the Skokomish River. The North Fork Skokomish Powerhouse and Fish Facility has recently been completed. This facility collects adult fish at the base of Cushman Dam No. 2 and transports theo to the top of the dam for sorting. It also provides sorting facilities for juvenile fish and transports them to the base of the dam for release into the river. The fr will be released in Lake Cushman, and smolts will be collected and released into the y lower North Fork Skokomish River. Returning adult sockeye will eventually be collected at the base of Cushman Dam No. 2. Two new hatcheries are also under construction, one on the Hood Canal at Potlatch for sockeye, the other on Lake Kokanee for Chinook, coho, and steelhead. Hatchery construction was completed in 2015 (Tacoma Public Utilities 2015). 4.1 ESA Listed Species BULL TROUT Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family and are native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Water temperature above 15 degrees Celsius is believed to limit bull trout distribution, as eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Bull trout are also vulnerable to degraded stream habitat,poor water quality, dams and other stream blocking structures, and predation by non-native fish. Taylor Biological Ev luation 11 Critical habitat includes Lake Cushman and the upper North Fork of the Skokomish River(70 FR 56304). Critical Habitat in the former includes spawning and rearing habitat, while the latter provides rearing, foraging, and migration habitat, so it is expected that bull trout may be found in the action area of the proposed project site. MARBLED MURRELET A small, diving seabird in the family Alcidae,the marbled murrelet forages for small fish and invertebrates almost exclusively in nearshore marine waters,while nesting inland in old-growth or mature conifer forests. Threats include loss of habitat, predation, gill-net fishing operations, oil spills,marine pollution, and disease. The USFWS assembled a team of scientists in October 2011 to investigate causes for the continued decline in murrelet populations. The outcome of these discussions listed many factors, chiefly loss of potential nesting habitat as the main reason for hindrance of population recovery goals (WDFW 2012). Potential nest trees are coniferous trees within 55 mi (88.5 km) of marine waters that support at least one 4-inch(10.2-cm) diameter platform located at least 33 feet(10 meters) above the ground,with horizontal and vertical cover(USFWS 2012). If a tree or forested area does not support these habitat features, it is"extremely unlikely"to support a murrelet nest(USFWS 2012).Nest success is influenced by forest structure,the spatial mix of habitat and non-habitat,human disturbance, prey availability, and marine foraging conditions. Human disturbance can lead to higher predation levels by Steller's and gray jays, crows, ravens, and other species that seek human-related foods and refuse at high- use recreational areas (Peery et al. 2004, Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006). Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated in May of 1996 and revised in October of 2011,but it is not located within the proposed project's action area. It(critical habitat) commences on forested land approx. 1.1 mi. west of the site. In addition,the proposed project will not result in excessive noise or the loss of any trees or other vegetation, and water quality at the site will be minimally impacted. NOR THERN SPO TTED OWL The Northern Spotted Owl is one of the largest owls in North America, and the average adult female is approx. 18 inches tall with a 48-inch wingspan.Northern spotted owls are strictly nocturnal, and require old-growth forests with multi-layered canopies of trees, including large trees with broken tops, deformed limbs, and large holes and cavities to nest in. The Northern spotted owl is very territorial and intolerant of habitat disturbance, and a pair requires a large amount of forest for hunting and nesting. Habitat loss has occurred as a result of forest conversion,timber harvest, fire, windthrow, insect outbreak and disease(WDFW 2012). The USFWS designated revised critical habitat for the northern spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act. In total, approx. 9,577,969 acres (ac) (3,876,064 hectares (ha)) lG Taylor Biological Evaluation in 11 units and 60 subunits in California, Oregon, and Washington fall within the boundaries of the 2 critical habitat designations. The action area does not include designated critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl. It(critical habitat) commences on forested land approx. 1.1 mi. west of the site. In addition, due to the close proximity of human habitation„it is unlikely that any Northern spotted owls may be found in the action area. Also, the proposed project will not result in the loss of any trees or shrubs. STREAKED HONED LARK Horned larks are birds that utilize wide open spaces with no trees and few or no shrubs. The streaked hornod lark nests on the ground in sparsely vegetated sites dominated by grasses and shrubs. Historically this type of habitat was found in prairies in western Oregon and Washington, in dune habitats along the coast of Washington, on the sandy beaches and spits along the Columbia and Willamette Rivers, and in grasslands, estuaries, and sandy beaches in British Columbia(WDFW 2012). Today the streaked horned lark nests in a broad range of habitats, including native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural',fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely-vegetated edges of grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground, moderately-to heavily- grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel shoulders of lightly-traveled roads, airports, and dredge deposition sites in the lower Columbia River(WDFW 2012). It is expected that$he action area contains unsuitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. YELLOW-B1LLEID CUCKOO The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is a neotropical migrant bird that winters in South America and breeds in western North America. The yellow-billed cuckoo is insectivorous and lives in riparian woodlands (USFWS 2014). Reports of individual cuckoos�i have been very rare in recent decades, with only three known reports since 2000, these being near Lind (Adams Co.) in 2001, near Eureka(Walla Walla Co.) in June 2007,and from Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge (Stevens Co.) in June 2012. Habitat,loss and pesticide use are thought to be two of the main causes for the precipitous decline,of western yellow-billed cuckoos.Agriculture, grazing, reservoir construction, flood',control, urbanization, and other factors across the West have caused the large-scale loss'and degradation of lowland riparian forest, which is the cuckoo's primary habitat. It is expected that the action area contains unsuitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo. CHINOOK SALM N Chinook salm n in Lake Cushman are a land-locked population that originated from anadromous fi h, although loss of genetic variation makes it difficult to determine whether they are descended from historical Hood Canal populations or introduced hatchery fish (NOAA 2006). Lake Cushman Chinook are genetically different, smaller in size (and presumably less fecund)than their anadromous counterparts(Myers et al. Taylor Biological Evaluation 13 1998). On Jan. 12,2009,Tacoma Power,the Skokomish Tribal Nation and state and federal agencies signed a settlement agreement that resolved a$5.8 billion damages claim and long-standing disputes over the terms of a long-term license for Cushman Hydroelectric Project. Tacoma Power has proposed to introduce sockeye and spring Chinook and enhance the existing winter steelhead and coho populations in the North Fork in cooperation with the WDFW and the Skokomish Tribe (Tacoma Public Utilities 2014). In addition, Tacoma Power will annually release up to 100,000 rainbow trout for sport harvest(TPU 2014). Lake Cushman has been designated Critical habitat,and the site provides rearing, foraging, and migration habitat, so it is expected that adult and/or juvenile Chinook salmon may be found in the action area. 5.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions 5.1 Action Area The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions,to which the effects of the proposed action are then added. The environmental baseline is defined as"the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, and private actions and other human activities in the action area,the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or informal section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process" (50 CFR 402.02). The proposed project site is in WRIA 16 (Water Resource Inventory Area), on Lake Cushman in Mason County. The majority of the fresh and marine waterbodies in WRIA 16 suffer from water quality issues; however Lake Cushman is not listed on the state's 2012 Water Quality 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for any parameters. Two waterbodies in the Skokomish watershed,the South Fork of the Skokomish River and Lebar Creek are listed for the parameter of temperature (high). The current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Water Quality Assessment data for Washington State reveals that tissue samples from fish(various species, including salmonids) collected in Lake Cushman were tested for twenty(20)pesticides and other pollutants, including mercury, PCBs, DDT, Toxaphene, Lindane, Dieldrin, and Hexachlorobenzene. The twenty tested parameters (all)met the FTEC (fish tissue equivalent concentration) and received Category 1 water quality listings. The FTEC is the concentration of a contaminant in fish tissue that Washington equates to the National Toxics Rule water quality criterion for the protection of human health (WDOE 2016). Fish tissue data from the most recent year showed that the FTEC was met; therefore the Assessment Unit meets the requirements for a Category 1 determination(WDOE 2016). The water quality criterion for a Category 1 water quality listing is defined by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), as: Taylor Biological Evaluation 14 Meets tested standards for clean waters:placement in this category does not necessarily mean that a watery body is free of all pollutants. Most water quality monitoring is designed to cjetect',a specific array of pollutants, so placement in this category means that the water body melt standards for all the pollutants for which it was tested. The proposed project site is located on the west side of Lake Cushman in an extremely rural neighbofto l on a lot with approx. 200 feet of shoreline frontage.Neighboring parcels support re rational cabins,piers, floats, and some bulkheaded shoreline. Forested land in the vicinity of Lake Cushman has been logged heavily. Erosion impacts from surface flows have been particularly damaging in the logged areas above the lake's west shore. Before the completion of two dams in 1926 and 1930, Lake Cushman was a natural oligotrophic lake with a mean depth of 200 feet. Now Lake Cushman is 4,010-acre water body in the O�ympic National Forest, having been altered in size to accommodate the hydroelectric dams. Because of the dams, water levels in Lake Cushman can fluctuate up to 21 meters (69 feet), with peak levels occurring during summer and minimum levels during winter. The'magnitude of these fluctuations results in periodic inundation of 12 hectares(30 acres)Iof land surrounding the inlet to the reservoir, resulting in high water temperatures in the'shallow waters of the inlet during the summer months (Brenkman 1998). Currently,the reservoir inundates 17.2 kilometers (10.7 miles)of river, including areas of the original Lake Cushman (Brenkman 1998). 5.2 Propo�ed Project Area A field invest l atioh was conducted in May of 2018, during which the project area was surveyed visu#lly on foot. The elevation of the lake's water level was approx. 736 feet, which is two feet lower than the current ordinary high water mark of 738 feet. The applicant's ap 'rox. 1.38 acre lot was accessed by a long, steep dirt driveway off West Cushman Ride Drive, a gated unpaved road that accesses the shoreline neighborhood.The applicant's property, including the shoreline, is heavily vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The slope becomes more moderate in the vicinity of the site's residential structure and shoreline. The lakebed gradient is also moderate(in comparison to the average, steep Lake Cushman shoreline). The lakebed is composed primarily of sated, avel, and cobble. The shoreline is exposed to approx. 1.5 mi. fetch from north and south winds. It has been protected by an existing log boom that is approx. 210 feet in length; however, the log boom is scheduled for removal by Tacoma Power in the summer of 2018''. The shoreline at the',site, like much of Lake Cushman's shoreline, features numerous, embedded, large conifer stumps from trees that were cut down when the lake was created. No fish, invertebrates, or macroalgae were observed in Lake Cushman at the site. Taylor Biologicol Ev luation 15 I 6.0 Effects of the Action 6.1 Direct Effects Direct effects to the shoreline include: 1) The bulkhead will modify the natural transition between the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the site. 2) Loss of benthic habitat from the installation of the bulkhead,post pilings, and basalt riprap. 3) Creation of shade from the replacement pier, ramp, and float. 4)No contamination to Lake Cushman from the leaching of wood preservatives. 5) The prevention of Styrofoam®pollution. 1) The bulkhead will modify the natural transition between the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the site. This can affect movement of materials and organisms between systems,reduce the quality of riparian functions, and introduce discontinuities to this narrow ecotone and ecological corridor(WDFW 2014). Structures also tend to result in alterations to the pattern of natural drainage to the beach(WDFW 2014). The seasonal raising and lowering of Lake Cushman significantly(and detrimentally) modifies the natural transition between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to a degree that overshadows the modification impacts(to the natural transition between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems) of shoreline armoring.As a reservoir that is used to power two hydroelectric dams, Lake Cushman is lowered for six to seven months each year; during low water season there is a wide gap of exposed lakebed between the lake's waters and the terrestrial ecosystem. Additionally,the natural transition between the lake and its surrounding terrestrial forest at the site is unnaturally steep due to the lake's manmade geomorphology. Loss of vegetation directly landward of the shoreline, due to the presence of the shoreline structures contributes to the modification of the natural transition between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; however, at the applicant's site,the majority of the shoreline buffer has been maintained in a naturally vegetated state with the exception of an approx. 25-foot area where the existing shoreline structures are located or accessed. The proposed bulkhead will consist of a 15-foot lineal section with two, five-foot wing walls set at 30 degree angles (angled landward) for a total of twenty- five feet. This is the minimal size necessary to protect the site's shoreline access area. As for movement of materials such as large woody debris and sediments, the former is regularly removed by Tacoma Power, while the latter can be detrimental to lacustrine systems(see Indirect Effects) and is also expected to be counterproductive to the anthropogenic functions of a reservoir(i.e. storing water for human consumption, agriculture,power generation, etc.). Additionally,the bulkhead will be constructed with wood and will be pervious to water and therefore unlikely to impact natural drainage to the beach. 2)As per the engineered design by Steve Morta, approx. twenty-five feet(25') of post and plank wood bulkhead will be installed along the toe of the slope at an approx. lakebed elevation of between 736' and 742 feet with an additional approx. 125' of the Taylor Biological Evaluation 16 applicant's approx. 200 feet of shoreline to be protected with the addition of basalt riprap. The bulkhead and'riprap will occupy an elevation that is partially landward of the lake's OHWM of 738; therefore, it should only displace approx.295 sf of benthic habitat. The proposed installation of sixteen 6"x 6" and three 8"x 8"post pilings with concrete bases will occupy approx. 2.25 sf per post and concrete, so the nineteen post pilings will occupy approx. 43 square feet; however, the area of the posts (approx. 0.25 [6"x 6"] or 0.44 [8"x 8"] sf, totaling 5.3 sO will constitute the only lost surface area, as the concrete bases for each post piling will be covered by the lake's (bottom) substrate. Therefore, the project will occupy approx. 301 sf of benthic habitat. Due to the seasonal fluctuations of the lake's water level (shoreline structures at the site lack water for approx. six to seven months each year), it is probable that benthic species do not thrive in the nearshore areas of the lake that lack permanent water. No empirical evidence was found to document if both terrestrial and aquatic species utilize the upper shoreline habitat, or if it has been too altered to support normal concentrations of either species. 3) Another direct effect is the creation of shade from the replacement pier, ramp, and float. The exiting verwater structures at the site are ungrated and produce a reduction in light to the underlying aquatic environment by creating a light/dark boundary that may give piscivorous species an advantage over their prey. The use of over-water structures in western Washington waters by bass, a common, non-native predator of juvenile salmonids, has been documented by several authors. Largemouth bass in Lake Washington prefer(areas of heavy log and brush cover over other habitat types; however, they are comrponly found under docks in early spring and are thought to be present until late summer(Stein)1970). Substrate type typically determines the acceptability of an area for bass spa": ing, but adjacent cover and structural complexity are also necessary for protection while the fish are concentrated in shallow water(Stein 1970; Cooper and Crowder 1979; Helifman 1981b; Pflug and Pauley 1984). Largemouth bass prefer moderate to dense vegetation and silt or sand substrate, and nests are constructed at depths from 0.6 to 1.5 meters, in vegetated areas with soft sediment or gravel substrate on moderate to steep slopes (Pflug 1981). The substrate type at the proposed project site is sand, gravel, and cobble, and the lakebed supports no aquatic vegetation, so it is doubtful that the proposed oyerwater structure replacement will increase the concentration of bass at the site or the occurrence of juvenile salmonid predation by bass. The project site supports no existing macrophyte vegetation and has no potential to support macrophyte vegetation, due to the lake's (anthropogenic) seasonal water fluctuations. In addition, White (1975)determined that phytoplankton primary production is not significantly reduced by narrow residential piers, due to the presence of more optimal light conditions than found in surface waters, where light intensities are higher than those in which algae thrive. Data suggests that other fish species, including salmonids, are also attracted to the shade produced by over-water structures, so it is possible that adult salmonids could prey on juveniles at the site.'However, researchers have indicated that structural complexity can moderate predator-prey interactions by providing more refuges for prey species as well as Taylor Biological Evalluation 17 reducing the foraging efficiency of the predator(Cooper and Crowder 1979). This moderation may apply to naturally occurring structural habitat complexity, as well as habitat complexity due to the presence of docks,piers, boathouses and associated pilings (WDFW, WDOE, WSDOT 2001). Shade can also affect migrating salmonids. It is not known whether over-water structures disrupt the migration of salmonids in lakes.Numerous studies suggest that docks,piers, and floats attract fish, and that the attraction of fish is linked to shade produced by the object not tactile stimulus. While the effects of shade on migrating juvenile salmonids in lakes is unknown, it is also unclear in marine waters, and there is no empirical evidence of mortality. The significance of predation to migrating populations has never been empirically assessed (Simenstad et al. 1999).No studies have examined mortality due to predation much less that mortality is attributable to overwater structures(Nightingale & Simenstad 2001). As previously noted,the proposed project will result in a 184 sf reduction of overwater structure coverage at the site. Additionally, all replacement overwater structures will be grated to allow 60 percent light passage, as per WDFW's stipulations. In conclusion, shade created by the proposed project is expected to have discountable and insignificant direct effects on ESA listed salmonids that may be in the action area. 4) The leaching of wood preservatives is a common contaminant-related issue with the construction of shoreline SFR appurtenances. As previously noted,no pressure treated lumber will be used in this project. 5) The removal of three existing floats that have exposed Styrofoam® (or other exposed) float material is expected to stop the structures from being a source of pollution to Lake Cushman. Expanded polystyrene foam (EPS), commonly known by the trade name of as Styrofoam® is pervasive in the marine environment(CWAC 2008). Polystyrene is made from petroleum and is not biodegradable. Polystyrene is a principle component of urban litter and marine debris, and it is detrimental to wildlife that ingests it(Harvard University 2008). Polystyrene is lightweight and floats. It eventually breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces that fish and other wildlife mistake for food and consume. The lifetime of plastics in the marine environment is unknown. Some researchers feel that the composition of conventional petroleum-based plastics as durable polymers means they will degrade to increasingly smaller sizes but never disappear(CWAC 2008).Research appears to have primarily focused on the marine environment; however, it is expected that the deleterious impacts of EPS on freshwater aquatic environments is the same or similar. In conclusion, the replacement of three existing floats with un-encapsulated float material by one float with encapsulated float billets is expected to have a beneficial impact to the Lake Cushman ecosystem. Temporary Direct Effects �n Taylor Biological Evaluation 10 Temporary directieffects caused by the proposed project include: 1) Turbidity and sedimentation in sake Cushman. 2)Noise. 3) Water pollution from incidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants. 1) Disturbed substrate from the installation of new post pilings may result in increased turbidity and sedimentation. As previously discussed, BMPs will be strictly adhered to during construction in order to maintain the present water quality of Lake Cushman and prevent runoff and pollution. In addition,the proposed project will take place when the water level in the lake is much lower than the OIHWM (738'), so it is probable that rainfall will slowly disperse any disturbed Substrate before it comes into direct contact with the lake's waters. Therefore,it is expected that turbidity and sedimentation will be minimal. 2) The main source of construction noise will be from the sawing of lumber.Noise will be intermittent and is expected to be a maximum of 79 dBA at 50 feet. 3) Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants is another possible temporary direct effect. As previously discussed, Spill Prevention Control measures and BMPs shall be implemented during the proposed project 6.2 Primary Constituent Elements PRIMARY CONSSTITUENT ELEMENTS In order to properly analyze the effects on designated critical habitat, a logical framework must be utilized. In determining what areas constitute critical habitat, agency regulations require the NMFSI to focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the species. The regulations identify Primary Constituent elements (PCEs) as including, but not limited to: "roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland,water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types�(69 FR 71888)." In 2003 NMFS biologists developed a list of PCEs specific to salmon; based on a decision matrix(NMFS, 1996)that describes general parameters aihd characteristics of most of the essential features under consideration when critical habitat is designated. There are six specific types of sites essential to support one or more life stages of an ESU(sites for spawning,rearing, migration, and foraging). Each site names physical or biological features(PCEs) essential to the conservation of salmonids. In 2010, USFWS biologists developed a list of PCEs specific to bull trout, based on a decision matrix(NMFS, 1996)that describes general parameters and characteristics of most of the essential features under consideration when critical habitat is designated. Lakes and reservoirs figure prominently in meeting the life-cycle requirements of adfluvial bull trout. Lake Cushman is designated critical habitat for the Taylor Biological Evaluation 19 bull trout and the Chinook salmon; therefore, the direct effects on the designated critical habitat of bull trout and Chinook salmon have been analyzed using the appropriate PCEs for the nearshore lacustrine environment. BULL TROUT PCEs: Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 degrees F but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 degrees F--the project will have no direct effect on water temperatures that support bull trout use. Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows— the project's grating of the replacement overwater structures may have a beneficial direct effect on migratory corridors that support bull trout use. Also,passage will not be altered during construction as no construction will occur unless the waters of Lake Cushman are low. The project will not impact existing embedded conifer stumps on the lakebed, and approx. 175' of the applicant's shoreline will remain natural. An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, and aquatic macroinvertebrates the project will have no impact.No trees or shrubs will be removed. The riprap will create interstitial habitat for invertebrate prey species. Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited—the removal of un-encapsulated Styrofoam® float material is expected to improve water quality. Project construction is unlikely to cause temporary turbidity or sedimentation as work will occur when the lake's waters have been lowered. BMPs are expected to prevent or moderate potential water pollution during construction. In addition, the use of yellow cedar(rather than pressure treated lumber) is expected to improve water quality. CHINOOK SALMON PCEs: Unobstructed passage—passage will not be altered during construction as no construction will occur unless the waters of Lake Cushman are low. The project's grating of replacement overwater structures may have a beneficial direct effect on Chinook passage along the shoreline. The riprap will create interstitial habitat for migrating juvenile Chinook. Water Quality—the removal of un-encapsulated Styrofoam® float material is expected to improve water quality. Project construction is unlikely to cause temporary turbidity or sedimentation. BMPs are expected to prevent or moderate potential water pollution Taylor Biological Evaluation 20 during construction. In addition, no pressure treated lumber will be used. The use of yellow cedar(rather than pressure treated lumber) is expected to improve water quality. Water Quantity—,-the project will have no effect on water quantity. Forage--the riprap will create interstitial habitat for invertebrate prey species. No trees or shrubs will be removed. Natural Cover—the project will not impact existing embedded conifer stumps on the lakebed, and approx. 175' of the applicant's shoreline will remain natural. 6.3 Direct Effects to ESA Listed Species The direct effect I om the proposed project to other ESA listed species that are likely to be found in the action area have been analyzed as follows NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL Due to the chose proximity of forest land, it is possible that Northern spotted owls may be found in the action area of the proposed project site. However,with the extensive acreage of undeveloped forest land nearby, it seems unlikely that Northern spotted owls will be nesting, roosting, or foraging in close proximity to anthropogenic development. MARBLED MURRELET The primary threats to marbled murrelet from anthropogenic activities include loss of nesting habitat, gill-net fishing operations, oil spills, and marine pollution. Previously noted BMPs and spill Prevention Control Measures will be adhered to during project construction to protect the water quality of Lake Cushman. Noise impacts to any nesting or foraging murrelets in the action area are expected to be negligible. With the extensive acreage of undeveloped forest land nearby, it seems unlikely that marbled murrelet will be nesting,roosting, or foraging in close proximity to anthropogenic development.. 6.4 Indirect affects Indirect effects are those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur(50 CFR 402.02). Possible indirect effects from the proposed project include: 1) The loss of shoreline aquatic vegetation. 2) The replacement overwater structures result in an increased motorized boat presence at the site. 3) The bulkhead and the placement of riprap exacerbate passive Taylor Biological E, aluation 21 erosion to the shoreline. 4) The bulkhead causes a reduction in the accumulation of large drift logs on the beach. 1) The replacement overwater structures will cause a reduction in light to the underlying aquatic environment, which can have significant impacts on the health and productivity of both native and non-native macrophytes and algae. Macrophytes and algae are the foundation for most freshwater food webs and their presence or absence affects many higher trophic levels (NMFS 2004). As previously noted, the replacement overwater structures will be grated to allow 60 percent light passage, and the proposed project will result in a reduction of overwater structure coverage of 184 square feet. However, because the lakebed beneath both proposed structures lacks water for approx. six to seven months each year, it is doubtful that it(lakebed) is capable of supporting macrophytic vegetation that would be benefited by the grating. In conclusion, it is expected that the impact of the lake's fluctuating water level on littoral productivity will overshadow the impacts of shading from the overwater structures at the site. 2) The replacement overwater structures may result in an increased motorized boat presence in the area. Fuel spills from powerboats can contaminate water quality and potentially affect listed salmonids directly or indirectly through their prey source (NMFS 2005). Powerboats also create amplified wave action that can erode the shoreline, and prop scouring can erode benthic habitat, although benthic habitat in the littoral zone is already significantly marginalized by the lake's fluctuating water levels. Powerboats also provide some oxygenation of surface waters, although the extent is probably negligible at best. Overall,the indirect effects of powerboat usage on Lake Cushman is likely insignificant due to the lake's large size, the small number of boats that access the remote lake, and the short boating season(primarily May thru September). 3) When waves reflect off shoreline armoring structures,particularly concrete or other types of flat-faced bulkheads, they can cause scouring and hardening of the substrate and steepening of the beach. The sediment in front of a bulkhead will gradually become coarser as wave action and littoral drift removes the finer sediment and there is no sediment available for replenishment because it is impounded behind the bulkhead (Macdonald et al. 1994). Hard-armored bulkheads cut off sediment that was once available to feed the beach, thus adversely affecting natural beach-forming processes. The steep,unnatural topography of the majority of Lake Cushman's shorelines are routinely subjected to substantial wave action from the lake's long fetch (approx. 8 mi.) and strong prevailing winds. Accordingly,these abiotic habitat features cause significant scouring and erosion, as there is no shallow foreshore to diminish the energy from incoming waves. Cobble and rock,therefore, are the predominant sediments along the shoreline at both bulkheaded and un-bulkheaded sites. The proposed wood bulkhead will be the minimal length (25')necessary to protect shoreline access at the site. The proposed placement of basalt riprap along the shoreline toe is expected to alleviate scouring(to the extent that this is possible on Lake Cushman), as the rock will create interstitial spaces and roughness that help to absorb and dissipate wave energy. Taylor Biological Evaluation 22 Additionally,Lake Cushman is relatively deep with a maximum depth of approx. 275 feet, so it is expected that sediment movement along the foreshore moves primarily one- way: into deeper waters. Referenced materials for this report primarily assess bulkhead impacts to marine, shorelines and, in particular, Puget Sound. While some impacts are applicable to lake shorelines, beach feeding/forming processes appear to differ significantly and be site specific. Like most lakes, Lake Cushman has an inlet source of water(the North Fork of the Skokomish River) and an outlet one (the same river funneled through Cushman',Dam No. 1), so it is probable that the primary source of sediments to the lake is the North Fork of the Skokomish River, while numerous smaller streams and eroding shorelines contribute smaller sediment quantities. A 2012 study by Stanford University on a large, deep Alpine lake in Italy revealed that suspended sediment concentrations (S$C) can significantly affect the ecological health and function of lakes and reservoirs for!,several reasons, including the following: 1) Sediments can regulate primary production by limiting light availability and also by acting as a source of nutrients (Schallenberg and Burns 2004). 2)High sediment concentrations in a lake or reservoir can lead to poor water quality from high turbidity levels as well as decreased basin volume through sediments ion (Morris e al. 2008). 3)Lakes and reservoirs can act as sinks for many sediment-bound contaminants that can accumulate and deleteriously affect aquatic ecosystems (Mariani et al. 2008). Additionally, a 2004 USDA Forest Service Technical Report (PSW-GTR-193)revealed that another large,,deep Alpine lake, Lake Tahoe, was found to be very sensitive to the input of fine sediments (less than 63 micrometers in size). Because of its slow settling rate and the long hydraulic residence time in the lake,the impact of fine sediment on water clarity is persistent: a 2 micrometer particle takes 2 years to settle out of the water column (in Lake Tahoe). In conclusion, regarding Lake Cushman, a lake whose shorelines lack water for roughly six to seven months each year, it seems counterproductive to consider beach feeding a positive habitat process as the lake was significantly enlarged to accommodate two hydroelectric dams that produce environmentally friendly electric power free of carbon emissions. 4) Shoreline armoring can also limit the accumulation of large drift logs on the beach, as large woody debris is less likely to accumulate on beaches that have steepened due to the presence of a bulkhead (Macdonald et al. 1994). Large woody debris (LWD)provides detrital input, food sources, and potential refuge for migrating juvenile salmon. Due to the moderate number of power boats that utilize the lake in the vicinity of the proposed project site, it is not safe to recommend anchoring LWD to the beach.Nor is it allowed by Tacoma Power; In addition,there are numerous existing stumps along the shoreline throughout the lake. Taylor Biological Evaluation 23 In conclusion, regarding Lake Cushman, a lake whose shorelines lack water for roughly six to seven months each year, it seems counterproductive to consider beach feeding a positive habitat process as the lake was significantly enlarged to accommodate two hydroelectric dams that produce environmentally friendly electric power free of carbon emissions. 6.5 Primary Constituent Elements PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS The indirect effects on the designated critical habitat of Bull trout and Puget Sound Chinook have been analyzed using the appropriate PCEs for the nearshore lacustrine environment. BULL TROUT PCEs: Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 degrees F but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 degrees F--the project will have no indirect effect on water temperatures that support bull trout use. Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows—the project will have no indirect effect on migratory corridors that support bull trout use. An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish--the project will have no indirect effect on an abundant food base for bull trout. Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited—the removal of un-encapsulated Styrofoam® float material and the use of yellow cedar is expected to improve water quality. CHINOOK SALMON PCEs: unobstructed passage—the project will not have any indirect effect on unobstructed passage. Water Quality—the project will benefit water quality(see bull trout). Water Quantity—the project will not have any indirect effect on water quantity. Taylor Biological Evaluation 24 Forage—the project will not have any indirect effect on foraging opportunities for Chinook. Natural Cover—the project will not have any indirect effect on natural cover. 6.6 Indirect Effects to ESA Listed Species The indirect effects from the proposed project to other ESA listed species that are likely to be found in the action area have been analyzed as follows: NORTHERN SP9TTED OWL &MARBLED MURRELET While it is highly unlikely that either species would nest in trees that are located in a rural neighborhood,the proposed project may result in increased recreational usage at the site, which could promlpt both species to nest elsewhere. 6.7 Interrelalted/Interdependent Effects Interrelated and interdependent effects are described as the effects of the action under consultation analyzed together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated to, or interdependent with,that action.An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation (FWS &NMFS 1.998). The project will have no obvious interrelated or interdependent effects. 6.8 PrimaryConstituent � s tuent Elements BULL TROUT PCEs: Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 degrees F but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 degrees F--the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on water temperatures that support bull trout use. Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including Taylor Biological Evaluation 25 intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on migratory corridors that support bull trout use. An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish--the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on the bull trout's food base. Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited--the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on water supply or quality. CHINOOK SALMON PCEs: Unobstructed passage the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on unobstructed passage. Water Quality—the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on unobstructed passage. Water Quantity—the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on water quantity. Forage—the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on water quantity. Natural Cover—the project will have no interrelated or interdependent effects on natural cover. 6.9 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the action subject to consultation" (50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative impacts are difficult to access. Continued growth and urbanization is likely to detrimentally impact fish and wildlife resources. Global warming could raise the water level of Puget Sound, leaving many waterfront properties underwater. Global warming could also result in warmer water temperatures,to the detriment of species such as bull trout. Additionally, over- fishing may deplete stocks of salmon, even as restoration of habitat in the watershed furthers their likelihood of survival. Taylor Biological Evaluation 26 7.0 Conclusion 7.1 Take Analysis Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species, "take" being defined in Section 3 as to harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant haGbitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed species by"significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migratin 1, feeding, and sheltering" (50 CFR 222.102). "Harass" is further defined as an intentional or negligent act which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, bud are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). In regards to the proposed project and the existing development activities, it is extremely unlikely that,any`,`take"will occur. Previously listed conservation measures will further insure the likelihood that no "take"will occur 7.2 Determination of Effect A determination of May affect, not likely to adversely affect is the appropriate conclusion when effectsi on the species or their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable; or insignificant. After reviewing the appropriate data and survey information, I have concluded that the proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or Threatened species if the previously discussed conservation measures are implemented. In my most honest and professional opinion, while the proposed project may impact individual Endangered or Threatened species in the project area, it!,is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their designated Critical Habitat. The determination of effect for each of the listed species is: 1. Bull trout and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 2. Chinook salmon--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 3. Marbled murrelet—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 4. Northern spotted owl No effect. 5. Streaked horned lark---No effect. 6. Yellow-biped cuckoo—No effect. I Taylor Biological Evaluation 27 8.0 References Literature Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 170/September 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 70,No.185 /September 26, 2005/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 176/Tuesday, September 12,2006/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 200/October 18, 2010/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/77 FR 14062/March 8, 2012/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 77,No. 106/June 1, 2012/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 76,No. 193/October 5, 2011/Rules and Regulations Coats, R. 2004. Nutrient and sediment transport in the streams of the Lake Tahoe Basin: a 30-year retrospective. USDA Forest Services general technical report PSW-GTR-193. Deal,R.L.,tech. ed. 2008. Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve multiresource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Research Station. 306 p. Google Earth. 2016. Aerial Imagery. Internet report. URL: Johannessen, J., A. MacLennan, A. Blue, J. Waggoner, S. Williams, W. Gerstel, R. Barnard,R. Carman, and H. Shipman. 2014.Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Kelty, R.A. and S. Bliven. 2003. Environmental and Aesthetic Impacts of Small Docks and Piers, Workshop Report: Developing a Science-Based Decision Support Tool for Small Dock Management,Phase 1: Status of the Science.NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 22.National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 69pp. Kleinschmidt. 2012. Shoreline Management Plan, Cushman Project,FERC Project Number 460. Tacoma Power, Tacoma Washington. Taylor Biological Evaluation 28 Leigh, M. 1996. Grow your own native landscape: a guide to identifying,propagating, and landscaping with Western Washington native plants. Washington State University Cooperative Extepsion/Thurston County, Olympia, WA. Mason County, Washington. 2018. Assessor-Treasurer Electronic Property Information Profile. Internet report. URL: 631 Mason County, Washington. 2017. Mason County Resource Ordinance. Internet report. URL: Morta, S. 2018. Taylor engineered drawings, 4-20-18. Unpublished document. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2018. Distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species. Internet report. URL: t�� NOAA. 2018. Endangered and Threatened.Marine Species. Internet report. URL: t 1$!•, 11 l�_flil)�ti.lhtlil'.':_`„�l i I '�&1 t fk.� 4r1;% Nightingale, B. and C. Simenstad. 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Transportation. Olympia, Washington. 177 p. Scheu, K.R.,'D.A.!Fong, S. G. Monismith, and O.B. Fringer. 2012. Sediment transport dynamics near a river inflow of a large alpine lake. Environmental Fluids Mechanics Laboratory, Stanford University. Stanford, CA. Skokomish Indian',Tribe & Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Recovery Plan for:Skokomish River Chinook Salmon. Internet Report. URL: �..-.__: $._--_. I�c 3 Er\ .'qt$ .zv � f :" Tacoma Public Utilities. 2014. Cushman Hydro Project. Internet report. URL: Tacoma Public Utilities. 2015. Cushman Fisheries Program. Internet report. URL: 1 fsl� �lrSllt7tc At—��I`,�15. $.� ��it b$'3F2i Fi�➢2E Tacoma Public Utilities. 2017. Pre-Application Meeting for Cushman Shoreline Use Permit, Parcel Number 42331-50-01.918. Unpublished document. 9 p. Taylor Biological Evaluation 29 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Published by USFWS, Portland, OR. URL: ._ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus). Volume II(of I1): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 277+xvi pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Profile,Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL: ll -a e`+il)tI`:} t Iti7,111 lli.t`ivl[1 }l ';l U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Guidance for Identifying Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees in Washington State. Internet report.gUR(Ly: F�� y[, { Ni._._.; `��.�... :_:• L7 ._�.. ..,„-- -�=�_ � .64�1�t{�,�'_.... f r, ) w.l tl._} tCti',_ 1 - tS y,�F U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2042. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Season and Analytical Framework for Section 7 Consultation in Washington. Internet report. URL: 341 ,B 1 - (7C' `�1 kei 1p U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Conducting Masking Analysis for Marbled Murrelets and Pile Driving Projects. Internet report. URL: U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017.. Official Species List#OIEWFW00-2016-SLI-0984 re-checked 5-31-18. URL: i 3 ,-«pox if)j % U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Streaked Horned Lark, Eremophila alpestris strigata. Internet report URL: l '" i a _�t 1a7r i14� fit '{f Il€ blti :,t` i bitetlsfz_,iii_._..1i .._..� 4mE-, Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. 2012 Water Quality Assessment 303(d) List: Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA 16). Internet ill report. URL: 4 !_ v� { __.. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Internet report. URL: Washington State Department of Ecology. 2018. Washington State Coastal Atlas Map. Internet report. URL. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping application. Internet report: URLirtr) Taylor Biological Evaluation 30 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL,: [ 11 1 'l.tit 15 .€yq col)>t t%atioll e"Idlalli" 5 t is iC'S'Itl'gI)led ll"lft'1viet ar3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.Annual Report:Northern Spotted Owl. Internet repo:rt. URL 1 (._. _� ''C�t]SItE 't1{)f� ,ttticl�l�` !'Ci w t 1 11e7 1 1�!(s sr)ott d ov ixdf b _._-----_ _ .___. t 1'i 1�t1I�� . (1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.Annual Report: Streaked Horned Lark. Internet report. URL: �_`_ !rf 1 {ttr �11 ?tlClli t l�(1iPac CC C/� E i ICw �1tt cli tSl3 (BICt +rot Washington Depa ment of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.. Annual Report: Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Internet report. URL: SCI�'�'.iA t 'C)� Oi2St �lk�;r�l t 1 :�] a�� !f jt 1t11V C)ifie ! f G.'C., c r'd Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL: Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. BA Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training Manual—Version 4-02-2014. URL: f i-d()+t,l�- '1 S5 3�?_z�r�1,t�-� B� -1' 1097I` l I3 Taylor Biological Evaluation 31 Attachment 1 Vicinity map. • s Igo N,v r m T Wa Q° ImAm T P11 m gym° , ' Znn�m m fi rnrm�:, A a I z y20 Q ° 0 m m x to Q p z C � T e ' ` to C ^ s pA e m C1 _ *a „ z a m mni _ i a N P # } A cM z a N t pc— O 58y�� R5 yy �A ?4iam Fn i2 Z o,� x� a s Taylor Biological Evaluation �L Attachment 2 Mason County GAS map. Mason County WA GIS Web Map 7�Z<>UV t:t!ylyC�fAfd F�!IE�Ctt�OR L`? '. 4-F`t?'a's't::ttt�ti6a9AN f�aE> s�Ear' I 1:�.;a b'U C:E/5t'ifvl:at�F f21C)<:,E EIR n 1 1,529 001 03 005m, 'APPI IC,F1N7 KYLt_F !OR I—•_.-r----+---m r......_F __,..____�,. .� i71 SE1 ) 0 0.02 0.04 0 08 km PROI K7 )(f2()l�CI1 T RF' FJFtF::MOVf` C'X15TINC,OYET2WATfR STRC) L LIL;TURFLA4 ;>ANO HE PLAQE-AND F-XfS IIIIIII,iINU HLJI KHPAD LOCATION�.7b67 7421t1D AVE KP5 #0120U71MI i NOH1I� SF IPFT 2 or fc UATL trtt-t$t Taylor Biological Evaluation 33 Attachment 3 Existing Shoreline Development. 8 -0 v rn rn mcS0 M iz MO >I C:;U -C'U A M 0 N OR C3 z M C rn -W M C, 9 IM Ni ITI QI all 34 Taylor Biological Evaluation Attachment 4 Existing shoreline development magnified. m � r 9 gnz Find Fop H8, f _ _r a I D � rti m��17777 �„'I ID In, 51 S .nsw' v rz U8 f tl' G)T Sk7 4� S C3 3 52 m = In �UCQ Z h� C7 po r�TiZ X� p U) �A".{gyp-"i]^+'. -f i' >� T R1��2mm p n Q t�� y1 pX ) _Inm c� FA r•J cvnRy _+m -r:rnfixr To O G T V) m I CJ Taylor Biological E"aluation 35 'I Attachment 5 Proposed shoreline development site view. 7_...__.— MU);�o o r. v0 _ a M M N y s� pAmz I J f ti 52, r r J t� (p--- --Am--..�_.p. lv_ n Yr�i�n tq�pc �v r�i y' OF z mx� $- m r -Im Z r Z o fi ��' o D n oocn x_� zroxo q �0v=v O m p 5 tD¢7 g1 ➢yam ml oz a!�>X�•mw�i Crp m�� m O" Cm �K/i cd m pam(rr1 o x xi �D.. spry �,q t O Xdh m 3 60 -i r -c 0 m at m v j A Q12 ) s� msnx`" � ai0 p�ss0 n rnar 6 G MO o zA ° o oam Ei,5> m�pm m a c) n0 CU Dr ya wcniQ of 'moo b r—�m4� O� A�NZ mm z l z m�m0 7J cc cc�� m c�tm m rrri r� �n_cn0 Z rr�z fn C)vxcnm c��n I �m tn� m�ror�GU o �tr`{O Oxj C °mnx7 r mOOrn�i O �nm O� mp -4g_rox 0, p H xZ WO �qm �z�z m ➢� 0iao rc�imOG�a % n0� M G� t._ 7( 0jmz i7� 0+ m v �� t nOoro�ce mU -�im0 t�i 0 G) xs S a s r c mr �'a ri0 y M mm cn 7 m r-� to pxrnc�i� cj-a�7,C>m- y c �° X m mti rt:1i �yN„ O wag7�zoo �2 S� m'n� G1 X m r0 mzow dD Ci � inm n r�� o Ozrn m m �M45M D , b Z. Taylor Biological Evaluation 36 Attachment 6'. Proposed shoreline!development cross section view. I Dir mX m m-mi S 2'm j 0Z m 'o g no 7a Z _ Cp °� CTI c { l i % I s-'M fh rn� m-o �o� 2 CO to ©rn _loopCO �r c�rT- � i/m Cm'3 =J Fn cT3 � G)rg gim i i h�z XWIFn CCn D 0 !/ r ryl x I Taylor Biological E laluation 37 i Attachment 7 The existing concrete bulkhead,one of the wood retaining walls, steel posts, shoreline access stairs, and part of one float at the site. All existing shoreline development at or below the 742' elevation will be removed. f - ! t; t " ,r 4 ar �x Taylor Biological Evaluation 38 Attachment 8 The existing concrete bulkhead, the wood retaining walls,steel posts,shoreline access stairs, and part of the pier(left center),and one of the floats at the site. t 1Vjr � � n rL. 4, d t�. �rtv Taylor Biological Evaluation 39 Attachment 9 The existing concrete bulkhead,one of the steel posts,shoreline access stairs,the pier,and the three floats at the site. a r e ' .�MiWnI11il�lll�il�ll�li►rll/11fAlIMMfa111 k r 4 ,lI w. r; 40 Taylor Biological Evaluation Attachment 10 The existing pier,ramp, and one of the floats at the site. 14 i q ! I Taylor Biological Ev luation 41 A7 'm xf � .��. .� �' few�r� !�.�� r K-t.�.# "�.,^• � �. -'f 'q. ;k � Sr �+ pz = 1 L .�• it. e pj{r Attachment aid An existing pier access stairs that will be removed(center right between the two large stumps).An existing pier,ramp,and float is in the foreground. m f q� ! K 7� -Yf . x �"*' J a f A � a Taylor Biological Evaluation 43 i Attachment 13 Essential Fish Habit Assessment Essential Fish Habitat Assessment A. Background The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act was signed into law on April 1.3, 1976. Under provisions of the Act, eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were established to prepare FMP's in conformance with national standards published in 50 CFR Part 600.305-340. The Magnuson Act was renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act in a 1996 appropriations bill. On October 11, 1996,the Sustainable Fisheries Act,which amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, was signed into law. Provisions included a mandate that the Councils amend each FMP to include a description of Essential Fish Habitat, including adverse impacts on EFH and conservation measures to protect EFH. Essential Fish Habitat is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council has designated EFH for federally-managed species on the Pacific West Coast, including 82 species of groundfish, 5 coastal pelagic species, and 3 species of salmon. The following species may occur in Lake Cushman during some period of their life history: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). B. Essential Fish Habitat The designated EFH for Pacific salmon species is identified using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)hydrologic units as well as habitat association tables and life history descriptions of each life stage(PFMC 1999). The EFH for the Pacific coast salmon fishery is defined as those waters and substrate necessary for salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem (WSDOT 2014). To achieve that level of production,EFH must include all those streams, lakes,ponds,wetlands, and other currently viable water bodies and most of the habitat historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California(WSDOT 2014). This does not include habitats above the impassible barriers identified by the Pacific Fishery Management Council Fishery Management Plan(PFMC 1999). 44 Taylor Biological Evaluation C. Proposed Action The proposed project is the installation of a replacement wood bulkhead, basalt riprap, and PRF. D. Effects of the Proposed Action The effects of the proposed project on designated EFH are expected to be comparable to the effects described in the attached BE. E. Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMPs discussed in the attached BE will be implemented to minimize any adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat. F. Conclusion The proposed project is likely to have no significant impact on designated EFH for Pacific salmon. G. References NOAA, 2006. Find environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat. Internet report. Website: http://www.mnfs.npaa.gov/habitat/eth/finalenvironmentalassessmentandfindingofno.htm PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1999. Fisheries Management Plans for groundfish, coastal'Ipelagic fish, and Pacific salmon. Internet reports. Website: www.pcouncil.org/'' Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. BA Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training Manual, Chapter 16—Version 4-02-2014. Internet report 1 iNill V, 0 NA V�Sds�t �, ��,�� i .' c3F�s � � 7 � 1 i � � � ,€)i tt �5 13 9 8('_. Taylor Biological Evaluation 45