Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMEP2016-00039 BLD2016-00961 Biological Eval - MEP Reports - 10/20/2016 g tj EPZoi cp 0003� HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES ► kz IGo . ,o iVED BIOLOGICAL„EVALUATION,., ....... ESSE,,,,'„TIAL FISH HABITAT ASSES '#tW'tm` ....................................................................... . ...... ...............a AN.D MASON COUNTY HABITAT ASSESSMENTSTUDY....................................................................... PERRYCOOK FAMILY RECREATIONAL DOCK REPLACEMENT ALONG HE LAKE CUSHMAN SHORELINE PARCEL 42331-50-02023 2850 West Cushman Ridge Road Lake Cushman Area of Mason County, Washington Undertak n in Accordance with the Endangered Species Act, the�fiagnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, and Mason County Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 prepared for Mr. Jay Perrycook 1026 —26t" Avenue NW, Suite C Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 prepared by HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, Washington 98371-1088 253-845-5119 June 27, 2016 wetlands,streams,fisheries,wildlife—mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup,Washington 98371 253-845-5119 contact@habitattechnologies.net 1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................1 1.1 PROP SED ACTION ...............................................................................1 1.2 REVIEW REQUIREMENT ........................................................................2 2.0 PURPOSE: OF THE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM.....................3 3.0 OBJECTIVE OF THE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT PROGRAM...................4 4.0 - MASON COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE ........................................................5 5.0 - PRIMARf CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS.......................................................5 6.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................................................6 6.1 NATIO AL WETLAND INVENTORY..................................................................6 6.2 STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES.....................7 6.3 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE................7 6.4 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES .........7 6.5 MASO114 COUNTY MAPPING.............................................................................7 6.6 SOILS' APPING ...............................................................................................8 6.7 WASHINGTON STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ...............................8 7.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................8 7.1 SELECT D DEVELOPMENT ACTION ..................................................................8 7.2 ACTION REA.......................................................................................................9 8.0 LISTED S ECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS .............................................9 8.1.1 PLj let Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)..................... 10 8.1.2 Naive char- bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)......................................... 12 8.1.3 Pu let Sound Steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss)....................................... 12 8.1.4 Cho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)....................................................... 13 8.1.5 Pir k Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) .................................................. 13 8.1.6 So keye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) ...................................................14 8.1.6 Bad eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)......................................................14 9.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS...........................................................15 9.1 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS..........................................................................15 9.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects......................................................................... 15 9.1.2 Interrelated Effects.................................................................................... 17 9.1.3 Interdependent Effects..............................................................................17 9.1.4 Cunulative Effects.................................................................................... 17 9.2 ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS AND ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS........17 9.2.1 Water Quality- Sediment/Turbidity/Chemical Contamination .................... 18 9.2.2 Ph sical Habitat-Access (migratory, refugia, avoidance)......................... 18 9.2.3 Physical Habitat- Substrate and Shoreline Slope .....................................18 9.2.4 Bic logical Characteristics— Prey and Forage Fish ....................................19 9.2.5 Bic logical Characteristics—Aquatic and Shoreline Vegetation.................. 19 10.0 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION ...............................................................................................20 11.0 ANALYSIS OF EFH EFFECTS ..................................................................22 11.1 EFH EFFECTS DETERMINATION ..........................................................22 12.0 MASON COUNTY HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................23 13.0 CONCLUSION............................................................................................24 14.0 STANDARD OF CARE...............................................................................24 15.0 FIGURE ....................................................................................................25 16.0 REFER NCES AND BACKGROUND........................................................26 17.0 PHOTO .....................................................................................................29 18.0 RESUM OF THOMAS D. DEMING ..........................................................33 19.0 DOCK REPLACEMENT PLANS................................................................34 T 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Perrycoo Family is proposing the replacement of an existing recreational dock along the western shoreline of Lake Cushman immediately adjacent to their recreational shoreline prop rty. The existing recreational dock is constructed of wood supports and wood decking nd has been functional for several years. The project site is located adjacent to Parcel 42331-50-02023, 2850 West Cushman Ridge Road, Lake Cushman Area of Mason County, Washington (Figure 1). Lake Cushman is approximately 4,010-acres in surface area and located along the North Fork Skokomish River (WRIA #16) - a tributary to the Skokomish River and the Hood Canal Area of Puget Sound. Lake Cushman is more appropriately defined as a "managed lake/reservoir" which was created through the construction of Cushman Dam #1 generally al the location of a natural dam formed along a glacial trough. Cushman Dam #1 was constructed between 1924 and 1926 by Tacoma City Light (now Tacoma Power) for the operation and management of a hydroelectric power generation facility through a cont oiled outlet at the Cushman Dam #1. A second dam was constructed between 1929'and 1930 — Cushman Dam #2 — downstream of Cushman Dam #1 for additional hydr Delectric power generation. The managed reservoir behind Cushman Dam #2 is ap oximately 25 acres in surface area and noted as Lake Kokanee. Both Cushman Dart #1 and Cushman Dam #2 were constructed without fish passage facilities which isolated the upper reaches of the North Fork Skokomish River from anadromous fi'' h utilization. In 2009, the Skokomish Tribal Nation and Tacoma Power concluded a Settlement Agreement to finalize a series of ongoing disputes. One of the primary elements of this Settlement Ag Bement was a package of restoration and enhancement actions for fish and wildlife species and habitats along the North Fork Skokomish River. These actions include the creation of passage facilities for safe juvenile fish migration downstream through the dam area, the creation of passage facilities for safe adult fish migration upstream thro gh the dam area, the improvement of instream flows to mimic natural flow patterns downstream of the dam area, the restoration of instream and riparian habitats, and the construction of new fish hatcheries facilities to support fish re- introductions into the North Fork Skokomish River. The selected species indentified in the Settlement Agreement included sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and winter ste lhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION The present P rrycook Family recreational dock is constructed in sections and supported by twelve (12) 4x4 wood posts that have been in place for several years. The present recreation dock is composed of solid wood decking and is attached to the shoreline above ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The proposed replacement 1 16098 T recreational dock would be supported by four (4) new 6"x6"x3/8" galvanized steel tubes each attached to a supportive pier and cross supported with galvanized steel diagonal braces. In adc ition, two (2) low water float stop (new 6"x6"x3/8" galvanized steel post) would be insta led and attached to a drilled pier to ensure that the outermost section of the dock does not ground on the exposed, low water surface. Pier installation would occur during a period of low water when the work area is fully exposed. The two innermost sections of the recreational dock would be fixed and held to an elevation above OHWM These two sections would not exceed a combined length greater than 30 feet and would be 4 feet in width. The outermost section of the recreational dock would be allowed to float up and down with lake level changes. To protect the character of the shoreline, low water float stops would be installed on the supports to ensure that the outermost ock section does not ground on the exposed, low water surface. The outermost floa would not exceed 20 feet in length and would be approximately 9 feet in width. The 9-f' of float width has been identified as the minimum, safest width to allow access to and from a private floatplane. The overall length of the replacement dock would not exceed 50 feet in total length beyond the O WM and would be attached to the shoreline as a level above OHWM. The replacement dock would also be surfaced with grated materials to allow light penetration to he shoreline habitats below the dock. 1.2 REVIE REQUIREMENT Effective May 4, 1999, the Puget Sound Chinook salmon was listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as a "threatened species" pursuant to the Endangered S ecies Act (ESA). In addition, the NMFS listed Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed that 3 native char - bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as "threatened species" pursuant to the ESA in 1999. Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was also subsequently I sted as a "threatened species" pursuant to the ESA. Compliance with Section 7 the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) requires all federal agencies to consult with the NMFS and the USFWS were any action federally funded, authorized, or conducted which may affect a listed species or dess ignated critical habitat. The purpose of a Biological Evaluation (BE) is to determine if a project, or authorized action, would have an effect on a listed species and if either informal or formal consultation with appropriate federal agencies is required. Mason County also requires an assessment of potential project related impacts to "fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" (8.52.170). Such areas include both aquatic and terrestrial areas within Mason County and generally include Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Priority Species; naturally occurring lands and ponds; waters of the state, aquatic areas planted with game fish; defined natural area preserves; areas with which federal or state endangered, 2 16098 threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association; and habitats of local importance. 2.0 PURPOSE OF THE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROGRAM The overall purpose of the Biological Evaluation (BE) program is to provide a detailed analysis of thE project related impacts and proposed species/critical habitat that are likely to be fOL nd in the project area. Based on this analysis the BE further provides an "effect determ nation" for the proposed action. The "effect determination" is composed of four primary elements (NMFS 1996, NMFS 1999) and is initially presented within a Biological Evaluation (BE) document. • If the project has "no effect" on a listed species/critical habitat and the project is not a major construction activity, there is no requirement to consult with the NMFS. However, the "no effect" determination is only appropriate if the proposal would literally have no effect whatsoever. Actions which result in a "very, very small' effect or a "beneficial effect" do not qualify as a no effect determination. • A determi ation of "may affect not likely to adverse) affect" is appropriate when the effects, of the Proiect on species or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial discountable or insi nificant. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or critical habitats. Insignificant effects are defined by the size of the impact and should never reach the point where a "take" occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best professional judgment, a person would not be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or expect dis ountable effects to occur. A "take" includes to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage is any such conduct. The USFVVS further defines "harm" as a significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to a listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Take" applies to the individual organism such that actions that have more than a negligible potential to effect individual eggs or individual fish are "likely to adversely effect." • A determir ation of "may affect, likely to adversely affect" is appropriate when any adverse a ect to listed species or critical habitat may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions. When the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the listed species or critical habitat, but is also likely to cause some adverse effects, the proposed action is "likely to adversely affect" the listed species or critical habitat. A "likely to adversely affect" determination requires formal consultation with the appropriate agencies. 3 16098 • A determin ation of "likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed ritical habitat" is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to jeopardize Droposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. With this determination a conference with the appropriate agencies is required. With particular emphasis on anadromous salmonids a number of federal agencies have defined adverse effect to include " short or long-term, direct or indirect management- related impact of an individual or cumulative nature such as mortality, reduced growth or other adverse physiological changes, harassment of fish, physical disturbance of redds, reducec reproductive success, delay or premature migration, or other adverse behavioral changes to listed anadromous salmonids or any life stage. Adverse effects to designated ritical habitat include effects to any of the essential features of critical habitat that would diminish the value of the habitat for the survival and recovery of listed anadromous salmonids" (NMFS 1996). 3.0 OB ECTIVE OF THE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT PROGRAM The objective of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation program is to determine whether or no a proposed action may adversely affect designated EFH for relevant species, and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potentia adverse impacts to EFH resulting from the proposed action. The Magnuson-St wens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainabl Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) requires the inclusion of EFH descriptic n in Federal fishery management plans. In addition, the MSA requires Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect EFH. EFH means those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of int rpreting the definition of essential fish habitat: • 'waters' include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate. • 'substrate' includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities. • `necessary' means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem. • 'spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity' covers a species' full life cycle. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for federally managed fisheries within the waters of Washington, Oregon, and California. The 4 16098 designated E H for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high water line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, seaward to the boundary of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (PFMC 1998). Ground fish and coastal pelagic species, or critical habitats for these species are not present within Lake Cushman —which is freshwater. Pacific Salmon Species Chinook salmon Coho salmon Puget Sound Pink salmon Oncorh nchus -shawytscha Oncorh nchus kisutch Oncorh nchus gorbuscha 4.0 - MASON COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE The purpose of the "fish and wildlife habitat conservation" provisions of Chapter 8.52 are to ensure and management interactions for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated populations are not created. In the case of anadromous fish, the Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy identifies that it will take a b4ilanced approach to addressing the factors of decline that are within human control, including harvest, hatchery, habitat, and hydropower. The underlying assumption within this Chapter is that impacts to anadromous fish or their habitat or to fish and wildlife conservation areas shall be avoided or mitigated as detailed in an approved Hab'tat Management Plan. 5.0 - PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS Within the ESA listings the involved federal agencies have provided guidance on the statutory interpretation of the phrase "physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species." These features include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and ecological distribution of a species. The statutory interpretation further defines that the "focus on the principle biological or physical cons ituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the species." The involved f aderal agencies further developed a list of"primary constituent elements" specific to listE d salmonids relevant to determining whether occupied stream reaches within a watershed meet the ESA section (3)(5)(A) definition of"critical habitats." The primary constituent elements include the following: • Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substra a supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. 5 16098 i • Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and ma ntain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and nature cover. • Freshw ter migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover. • Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditic ns supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between freshwE ter and saltwater; natural cover; and juvenile and adult forage. • Nearsh re marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage; and natural cover. • Offshor a marine areas with water quality conditions and forage supporting growth and ma uration. Consistency with the Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation, FE14A Region X, 2013 also identifies that the assessment shall also determine if th project would adversely affect: • The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as threatened or enda� gered; • Essenti il fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service; • Fish an J wildlife conservation areas; • Vegetal ion communities and habitat structures; • Water c uality; • Water c uantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities; • The ch nnel's natural planform pattern and migration processes; • Spawni ig substrate, if applicable; and/or • Floodpl 3in refugia, if applicable. 6.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 6.1 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY The National etland Inventory (NWI) mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 2). This mapping resource identified the area of Lake Cushman along the eastern edge of the project site as lacustrine, lim etic, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, impounded (L1 UBHh). 6 16098 6.2 STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified Lake Cushman along the eastern edge of the project site (Figure 3). 6.3 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Mapping (Salmonscape') was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 4). This mapping resource identified Lake Cushman generally along the eastern boundary of the project site. This mapping resource identified that Lake Cushman also provided the following: Species Below Dam #2 Above Dam #1 Fall Chinooksalmon documented spawning transported presence transported spawning transported rearing Coho salmon documented spawning potential blocked Winter chums Imon documented spawning none Winter steelhqad documented spawning potential blocked documented rearing Summer steel ead documented presence potential blocked Sockeye salmon documented presence documented presence Native char— bull trout presumed presence documented presence between Dam#2 and Dam #1 documented rearing in lake documented spawning above lake Kokanee none documented above lake The WDFW data base also identified coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) and Kokanee as present within the recreational fishery of Lake Cushman. 6.4 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified Lake Cushman as a WDNR Type S Water (Shoreline of the State) (Figure 5). 6.5 MASON COUNTY MAPPING The Mason County Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 6). This mapping resource identified Lake Cushman along the eastern boundary of the project site. 7 16098 6.6 SOILS MAPPING The soil mapp ng inventory completed by the Soils Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 7). This mapping resource identified the soil throughout the project site as Hoodsport soil material (Rc). 6.7 WASHI 4GTON STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM The Washingt n State Natural Heritage Program was reviewed as a part of this assessment. his resource did not identify any high quality, undisturbed wetland or a wetland that supports state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species within or immediately adjacent to the project site. 7.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The project sitB is located along the shoreline area of Lake Cushman. This shoreline area is access via an existing gravel road and dominated by a scattering of single family homesites, re reational areas, and vacant parcels. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for Lake Cushman is defined at the maximum full pool elevation as controlled by Cushman Dam #1. As outlined in the 2009 Skokomish Tri al Nation and Tacoma Power agreement the level of surface water within Lake CL shman is typically held between the 735 feet and 738 feet between the end of May and early of September. Surface water is released during the fall and winter resulting in a drop of several feet and the exposure of shoreline area. However, the lake water lev I must be at least at 690 feet between November 1st and March 31 St. This regular seasonal variation in surface water elevations results in an extremely limited amount of aquatic vegetation waterward of the OHWM. The exposed shoreline areas are dorr inated by gravelly soils intermixed with small alluvial fines and scattered remnant rootb Its (see photos). 7.1 SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION As noted abo , the Selected Development Action for the Perrycook Family is the construction o a replacement recreational dock along the shoreline of Lake Cushman. The completiol of this action would not require any significant modification of the shoreline landward of the OHWM, would not require any significant removal of shoreline vegetation, and would not require any significant modification of lake bed waterward of the OHWM. 8 16098 The proposed replacement recreational dock would replace the existing supportive twelve (12) 4x4 wood posts with four (4) new 6"x6"x3/8" galvanized steel tubes each attached to a supportive pier and cross supported with galvanized steel diagonal braces. In addition, two (2) low water float stop (new 6"x6"x3/8" galvanized steel post) would be installed and attached to a drilled pier to ensure that the outermost section of the dock does not ground on the exposed, low water surface. Pier installation would occur during a period of low water when the work area is fully exposed. The two innermost sections of the recreational dock would be fixed and held to an elevation above OHWM These two sections would not exceed a combined length greater than 30 feet and would be 4 feet in width. The outermost section of the recreational dock would be allowed to float up and down with lake level changes. However, a low water float stop would be installed to ensure that the outermost section does not ground on the exposed, I w water surface. The outermost float would not exceed 20 feet in length and would be 3pproximately 9 feet in width. The 9-foot float width has been identified as the minimu , safest width to allow access to and from a private floatplane. The overall length f the replacement dock would not exceed 50 feet in total length beyond the OHWM and would be attached to the shoreline as a level above OHWM. The replacement dock would also be surfaced with grated materials to allow light penetration to the shoreline habitats below the dock (see Dock Construction Plans). 7.2 ACTION #REA The Action Ar a consists of the existing project site and the area within 300 feet of the project site (Figure 8). Included within the Action Area are the adjacent shoreline, and adjacent forested hillside, and the open water area of Lake Cushman. .0 LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS As defined by he NMFS, the USFWS, the WDFW, and the Skokomish Tribal Nation three (3) salm nid species are listed to utilize the habitats within or potentially may utilize the hab tats within the North Fork Skokomish River Watershed. The identified species and tt eir federal ESA status include: • Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) —threatened • Puget South Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - threatened • Bull trout - native char (Salvelinus confluentus) —threatened In addition, co o salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) a federally identified "species of concern" has Also been documented to use the habitats within the North Fork Skokomish River Watershed. As noted above Lake Cushman was created through the construction of two dams for the production of hydroelectric power. The construction of these two dams initially 9 16098 isolated the upstream habitats and limited anadromous fish utilization to the lower reaches of the North Fork Skokomish River. One of the primary elements of the 2009 Settlement Ag ement was a package of restoration and enhancement actions for fish and wildlife sp cies and habitats along the North Fork Skokomish River. These actions include the cre 3tion of passage facilities for safe juvenile fish migration downstream through the darn area, the creation of passage facilities for safe adult fish migration upstream thrOL gh the dam area, the improvement of instream flows to mimic natural flow patterns downstream of the dam area, the restoration of instream and riparian habitats, and the construction of new fish hatcheries facilities to support fish re- introductions into the North Fork Skokomish River (J. Benton, WDFW, per.comm. 2016). Prior to the 2009 Settlement Agreement Lake Cushman was managed by the WDFW Recreational F'shery Program and the lake regularly received outplants of fish from WDFW hatchery production facilities. 8.1 RELEVA T SPECIES The Skokomis i River System supports seven (7) species of the genus Oncorhynchus. Included are Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchu kisutch), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), pink salmon (Oncorhynchu' gorbuscha), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), rain bow/steel head trout (Oncorhy 7chus mykiss), and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) (WDFW Salmonscape 016). Anadromous and resident salmonids, both wild and hatchery stocks, suppo locally and regionally important commercial and recreational fisheries. Salmonids are also a significant factor in the cultural, religious, and economic base of Native American communities associated with the Skokomish River System and Puget Sound. The shoreline reas of Lake Cushman also provide habitats used by a wide variety of shorebirds, raptors, and waterfowl. Active bald eagle and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nesting locations are also associated with the Lake Cushman and Skokomish River Watershed (WDFW). 8.1.1 Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) The Skokomish River Watershed, to include the North Fork Skokomish River and other systems asso iated with the Hood Canal portion of Puget Sound, provides a wide diversity of habitats for Chinook salmon ranging from freshwater spawning and incubation areas to migratory routes and rive ri ne/estua ri ne rearing areas. In general, Chinook salmon typically spawn within mainstem rivers and larger tributaries (Healey 1991). Chinook salmon also exhibit two basic variations (races) in life history. These variations (races) are identified as "spring" and "fall' and are centered primarily on upstream migration patterns and timing, freshwater rearing patterns of juveniles, and 10 16098 the choice of spawning areas exhibited by mature adults (Williams et al. 1975). The residency period and habitat utilization within the lower rive ri ne/estua ri ne areas differs between these two races depending upon such factors as time of entry, size of the individual fish t time of entry, and the availability of habitats. In addition, out-migrating juvenile Chinook salmon also exhibit two generalized variations in timing, residency patterns, and iverine/estuarine habitat utilization (Puyallup Tribe unpublished). Juvenile Chin ok salmon that migrate into the estuarine/marine environment during their first year of life are identified as the 0+ age class and are generally identified by fork-length measurements. Healey (1991) noted these juveniles that typically migrate within a few days to a few months after emerging as fry from their freshwater incubation areas as the " cean-type"life history. The residency period of individual 0+ age class Chinook salmon within the lower riverine and estuarine environments ranges from 6 to 189 days (Si enstad et al. 1982). Simenstad et al. (1982) and Healey (1982) found that juvenile Chinook salmon within the estuarine environments initially utilize the nearshore are s and move into deeper shoreline and openwater habitats once they reach a fork-length of approximately 65 to 75 mm. Juvenile Chinook salmon that spend at least a full year rearing within the freshwater habitats prior to migrating into the estuarine/marine environment are considered the 1+ age class. Healey (1991) identified this 1+ age class as exhibiting the "stream-type"life history. Juver ile 1+ age class Chinook salmon typically migrate into the estuarine environments as yearling smolts and move directly into the neritic habitats (shallow marine surface, water zones) without extended utilization of salt marsh or other near shore habitats (Simenstad et al. 1982). Mature spring Chinook salmon enter the river system beginning in late March and continue through late July. Spawning typically occurs between late July and the first of October with tie peak spawning activities occurring from late August through early September. Williams et al. (1975) noted that juvenile spring Chinook salmon characteristicE illy remain in the freshwater rearing areas for more than one year and migrate into t e marine environment during the second year of life. However, Dunstan (1955) docum nted that juvenile spring Chinook salmon may exhibit both "stream-type" and "ocean-type" components prior to outmigration into the marine environments. Juvenile fall C iinook salmon that exhibit the "ocean-type" life history and typically migrate within a few days to a few months after emerging as fry from their freshwater incubation areas. Juvenile 0+ age class Chinook salmon are noted as the most dependent sal onid species on the availability of estuarine rearing habitat (Healey 1980). Prior to the ac ions taken pursuant to the 2009 Settlement Agreement spring Chinook salmon were generally extirpated from the Skokomish River Watershed. Fall Chinook utilize the hab tats provided within the Skokomish River, the South Fork Skokomish River, the No h Fork Skokomish River downstream of Cushman Dam #2, Vance Creek, Fir Creek, and Kirkland Creek for migration, rearing, and spawning. 11 16098 Occurrence within the Action Area: With the implementation of the 2009 Settlement A reement adult spawning spring and fall Chinook salmon are to be captured do _stream of Cushman Dam #2 and transported for release upstream within Lake Cushman. The agreement also includes the capture and downstream transportation of juvenile migrants and supplementation with hatchery reared juveniles. As such Chinook salmon would be present within the Action Area. 8.1.2 Native char - bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Native char (bull trout - Salvelinus confluentus and Dolly Varden - Salvelinus malma) are adapted t cold water and they are typically associated with the coldest stream reaches withir a watershed (Lee et al. 1997, USFWS 1998). Bull trout were distinguished from Dolly Varden and identified as a separate species in 1978 (Cavender 1978). However, genetic studies of these two species suggest that all Puget Sound native char am bull trout (Cavender 1999, McPhail and Baxter 1996). Within the Puget Sound Basin native char exhibit two general life history forms (resident and migratory, with each form being dependent upon migratory barriers. The resident form is associ ted with cold, headwater streams typically above migrational barriers. The migratory form moves from the headwater spawning and early rearing areas into rearing areas ocated within lower riverine reaches (fluvial), into lakes and reservoirs (adfluvial), or into the estuarine and marine habitats (ocean or anadromous form) (USFWS 1998). The anadromous form generally moves downstream into the lower riverine and estuarine areas in the early spring as 2+ and 3+ age class juveniles. Those individuals that select to migrate into the marine environment typically do so during May at a fork-lengti between 150 mm and 170 mm. The anadromous form generally does not venture fu ther than 30 miles from the mouth of the river and would return as a sub- adult to the lower riverine and estuarine areas during the fall to over winter (Kraemer per. comm. 1995). Within the freshwater environments native char are opportunistic feeders and fed on a variety of larval and adult insects, snails, leeches, amphibians, salmon eggs, and fish (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Occurrence ithin the Action Area: Native char is documented within many areas of the Skoko lish River Watershed. Lake Cushman is defined to provide documented rearing for native char and documented spawning for native char is also defined or the North Fork Skokomish River upstream of Lake Cushman. As such native char would be present within the Action Area. 8.1.3 Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Naturally spawning and hatchery production of steelhead are present throughout the majority of freshwater systems associated with Skokomish River Basin. Juvenile steelhead typically migrate from their freshwater incubation and rearing areas into the estuarine env ronments as yearling smolts and move directly into the neritic habitats 12 16098 (shallow marine surface water zones) without extended utilization of salt marsh or other near shore habitats (Simenstad et al. 1982). Occurrence Within the Action Area: With the implementation of the 2009 Settlement Ac reement adult spawning steelhead are to be captured downstream of Cushman C am #2 and transported for release upstream within Lake Cushman. The agreemei t also includes the capture and downstream transportation of juvenile migrants, post-spawning adults, and supplementation with hatchery reared juveniles. As such steelhead would be present within the Action Area. 8.1.4 oho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Naturally spawning and hatchery production of coho salmon are present throughout the majority of freshwater systems associated with the Skokomish River Watershed. In addition, coho salmon have been the subject of several restoration programs within this watershed. J 'venile coho salmon typically migrate from their freshwater incubation and rearing areas to the estuarine environments as yearling smolts and move directly into the neritic hab tats (shallow marine surface water zones) without extended utilization of salt marsh or they near shore habitats (Puyallup Tribe unpublished). Occurrence Within the Action Area: With the implementation of the 2009 Settlement Alreement adult spawning coho salmon are to be captured downstream f Cushman Dam #2 and transported for release upstream within Lake Cushm n. The agreement also includes the capture and downstream transportatio i of juvenile migrants and supplementation with hatchery reared juveniles. As such coho salmon would be present within the Action Area. 8.1.5 Flink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Pink salmon are documented to use the lower reaches of the Skokomish River for migration and spawning. Spawning typically occurs from September through November. Eggs hatch the following spring and juveniles begin to move downstream r vel. All ink rine environments short after emergence from the a p into the estuarine/marine ine/ma 9 9 salmon return to spawn in their natal freshwater streams and rivers at two (2) years of age. Within the majority of Puget Sound spawning pink salmon are only present on odd-numbered years. Productive freshwater spawning and rearing streams exhibit a good mixture f riffles and pools with overhanging vegetation. Pink salmon generally spawn in the I wer reaches of larger coastal rivers and stream areas immediately adjacent to larger coastal rivers. Pink salmon eat insect larvae (aquatic and terrestrial), copepods, crL stacean larvae, other aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, and zooplankton ( root et al. 1995). Occurrence within the Action Area: This species is not present within the Action Area. 13 16098 8.1.6 ockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Sockeye salmon are documented to use the lower reaches of the Skokomish River and through the North Fork Skokomish River to include those habitats associated with Lake Cushman and upstream habitats above Cushman Dam #2. Spawning typically occurs begins during ugust and can extend through February. Sockeye salmon generally spawn in streams that are tributary or immediately downstream of larger lakes. In addition, sockeye salmon have also been documented to spawn along the shoreline of lakes in areas of suitable springs. Upon emergence from the gravel spawning areas the fry migrate int the lake environment at a size of approximately 25 to 32 millimeters. Young sockeye salmon typically rear within the lake environment for a period of one year and migrate to the estuarine/marine environments during the spring as yearlings at a length of approximately 4 to 6 inches (WDFW). Kokanee — a I ndlocked sub-group of sockeye salmon — area present within Lake Cushman and have been a focus of hatchery outplants to support the recreational fishery. Koka ee spend the majority of their life within the lake environment and spawn in adjacent streams. Occurrence ithin the Action Area: With the implementation of the 2009 Settlement A reement adult spawning sockeye salmon are to be captured downstream f Cushman Dam #2 and transported for release upstream within Lake Cushm n. The agreement also includes the capture and downstream transportatiol of juvenile migrants and supplementation with hatchery reared juveniles. As such sockeye salmon would be present within the Action Area. As defined by or site assessment the shoreline along the project site does not provide suits le springs which may be used by sockeye salmon for spawning. 8.1.6 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) In Western Washington bald eagles typically select large Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) or Soitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) as nesting sites. The height of the nest above ground is typically 30 to 60 feet (Ehrlich et al. 1988). The following generally preference criteria are typically used to define existing or potential nest tree or roost tree habitat: clear lines of sight from the roost, a favorable microclimate, stout perches high off the ground, and freedom from human activity, (Stalmaster et al. In Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium, 1980). Bald eagles are opportunistic feeders and prey on dead or dying fish, small mammals, waterfowl, seabirds, and carrion (Ehrlich et al. 988). Occurrence within the Action Area: Both resident and winter migrant bald eagles are a common occurrence within the Puget Sound Region. Bald eagle nesting locations have been mapped by WDFW along the Skokomish River Watershed. 14 16098 These nesting sites and their associated nesting territories are not mapped within or in the general vicinity of the Action Area. 9.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS As presently proposed, the primary action to be taken waterward of the OHWM focuses on the replacement of an existing recreational dock. The present Perrycook Family recreational dc ick is constructed in sections and supported by twelve (12) 4x4 wood posts that hav been in place for several years (see Photos). The present recreation dock is composed of solid wood decking and is attached to the shoreline above ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The proposed replacement recreational dock would be supported by four (4) new 6"x6"x3/8" gal anized steel tubes each attached to a supportive pier and cross supported with galvanized steel diagonal braces. In addition, two (2) low water float stop (new 6"x "x3/8" galvanized steel post) would be installed and attached to a drilled pier to ensure that the outermost section of the dock does not ground on the exposed, low water surf ce. Pier installation would occur during a period of low water when the work area is fL Ily exposed. The two innermost sections of the recreational dock would be fixed and h Id to an elevation above OHWM. These two sections would not exceed a combined le igth greater than 30 feet and would be 4 feet in width. The outermost section of the ecreational dock would be allowed to float up and down with lake level changes. Ho ever, a low water float stop would be installed to ensure that the outermost se ion does not ground on the exposed, low water surface. The outermost float would no exceed 20 feet in length and would be approximately 9 feet in width. The 9-foot flo t width has been identified as the minimum, safest width to allow access to and from a rivate floatplane. The overall le gth of the replacement dock would not exceed 50 feet in total length beyond the 0I1WM and would be attached to the shoreline as a level above OHWM. The replacement dock would also be surfaced with grated materials to allow light penetration to the shoreline habitats below the dock. 9.1 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 9.1.1 Nrect and Indirect Effects The replacement of the existing recreational dock would require the removal of twelve (12) existing Ax4 wood posts and small concrete block supports, and the existing solid wooden deckil' g waterward of the OHWM. The proposed replacement recreational dock would b supported by four (4) new 6"x6"x3/8" galvanized steel tubes each attached to a supportive pier and cross supported with galvanized steel diagonal 15 16098 braces. In addition, two (2) low water float stop (new 6"x6"x3/8" galvanized steel post) would be installed and attached to a drilled pier to ensure that the outermost section of the dock does not ground on the exposed, low water surface. The replacement dock would also be surfaced with grated materials to allow light penetration to the shoreline habitats below the dock. These actions would reduce the number of supports, would reduce the OVE rall footprint associated with the new dock and would eliminate the potential for ac verse impacts to the shoreline substrates. All existing dock removal actions and the placement of the new supportive pier installation shall occur during a period of low water when the work area is fully exposed. All existing dock materials shall be removed from the project area and properly disposed. ThE new drilled pier supports shall be dug by hand or by a post-hole digger attached to a E mall, rubber tired tractor. Access to the shoreline work area shall be achieved thrOL gh the adjacent property which includes an existing gravel ramp to the exposed shorE line area. With the exception of the potential to require the use of a small, rubber t red tractor to establish the new supportive piles all work shall be done by hand. In addit on, there shall be no maintenance of the small tractor or other required construction equipment waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The size of the equipment she II be held to the minimum practicable which would safely complete the required work. These actions would limit potential adverse impacts to the shoreline and would ensure that there were no potential adverse impacts to the existing shoreline structure. The attachment of the replacement dock to the shoreline shall be at an elevation above OWHM. The attached shall utilize the existing attachment point or shall utilize the new attachment point within the same area of the existing attachment point. The selected attachment point shall be determined by the suitability of area and the desire to limit the removal of existing vegetation as much as practicable. If a new attachment point is used the prior attachment point shall be allowed to re-vegetate with native species. These actions would limit potential adverse impacts to the shoreline and would ensure that there wer D no potential adverse impacts to the existing shoreline structure. The replacement dock would be surfaced with grated materials to allow light penetration to the shoreline habitats below the dock. These actions would avoid potential adverse im acts associated with fish movements/m ig ration along the shoreline and would allow for sunlight to the shoreline to support aquatic production. Because of th limited impact to the shoreline habitats the proposed project is not expected to result in the direct or indirect mortality to juvenile, sub-adult, or adult fish species; or to'''a reduction of shoreline habitats to support fish and wildlife species within the Action ArE a. As a result of the proposed onsite avoidance and minimization designs, and I he use of Best Management Practices during and following project implementatic n the overall project is unlikely to result in any measurable adverse impacts to fisl i and wildlife, or their critical habitats. This project would not result in a "take" of listec species or critical habitats. 16 16098 9.1.2 Interrelated Effects Following the placement of the existing dock no further new development actions are presently proposed within the project site. Best management practices shall be implemented uring and following replacement activities to ensure protection of local water quality and shoreline habitats. No interrelated effects have been identified. 9.1.3 I iterdependent Effects The project sit , and adjacent properties along the shoreline, have been used and managed for recreational purposes for several decades. Onsite, these uses have included the c nstruction/maintenance of a recreational dock and the constructionfir aintenance of a small storage shed. Actions within a number of the adjacent parcels have include the construction/maintenance of recreational docks, the construction/rr'aintenance of single family homesites, the construction/maintenance of storage buildings, and the development of shoreline access points for recreational uses. As such, the proposed replacement of the existing recreation dock would not cause a measurable adverse impact to existing shoreline substrates or shoreline habitats. 9.1.4 Cumulative Effects As noted above, the project site and adjacent properties along the shoreline have been used and ma aged for recreational purposes for several decades. The proposed replacement of the existing recreation dock would not contribute to the cumulative loss of critical shoreline habitats for species identified within the Endangered Species Act, the Essential Fish Habitat consultation program, or by Mason County. In addition, the proposed action would not contribute to the cumulative loss of critical habitats used by listed species of listed species of importance. 9.2 ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS AND ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS The potential effects of a proposed project are typically defined in terms of ecological pathways and the expected modification to existing baseline conditions. Ecological pathways and baseline conditions are in turn defined through a series of environmental indicators (N FS 1999, USFWS 1998). The overall objective of this analysis is to proved a detailed "effects determination" with particular emphasis placed on specific listed species and associated critical habitats. ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS • Water Quality • Sediment/Turbidity/Chemical Contamination • PhysicE I Habitat • Access (migratory, refugia, avoidance) • Substrate 17 16098 • Shoreline Slope • Biologic I Characteristics • Prey • Shoreline Vegetation 9.2.1 Water Quality - SedimentlTurbidity/Chemical Contamination The project sit is located along the shoreline of Lake Cushman. Existing levels of total suspended so ids and turbidity within the Action Area have not been identified as causing adver a impacts to fish and wildlife species within this area. Effects on Baseline: The removal of the existing supportive piles and the placement of the new supportive piles waterward of the OHWM would be completed during a period when the shoreline area was fully exposed by seasonal low water levels within Lake Cushman. Nc proposed in-water actions would be required for project completion. As defined by exi ting site conditions, the selected period of work waterward of the OHWM, and the imple entation of BMPs the proposed project would not be reasonably expected to a versely impact existing site conditions of total suspended solids and turbidity. 9.2.2 Physical Habitat -Access (migratory, refugia, avoidance) The shoreline along Lake Cushman provides a movement corridor for rearing and feeding of a variety of fish and wildlife species. These shoreline areas provide protection from predators and are very productive as a prey base for fish and wildlife. Effects on Be, seline: The proposed recreational replacement dock design and installation ac Jons have been established to avoid and minimized potential impacts to physical habitats associated with the Action Area. A limited amount of onsite action shall be undertaken during the period of shoreline exposure and shall not adversely impact shoreline substrates. Upon the placement of the supportive piles the two innermost sections of the new recreational dock would be located at a higher elevation that the maximum full pool elevation. These two innermost sections shall also be limited to a minimum safe width to further avoid shoreline impacts. The outermost section of the new recreational dock shall be constructed as a float and shall not be allowed to ground on shoreline substrates. The new recreational dock shall also be surfaced with igrated materials to allow light penetration to the shoreline habitats below the dock. Th proposed recreational dock replacement action would not adversely p p p P impact physical I habitats for fish and wildlife species. p 9.2.3 Physical Habitat - Substrate and Shoreline Slope The Lake Cushman Shoreline is dominated by small to large gravels intermixed with cobble, large rock, and alluvial fines. 18 16098 Effects on Baseline: As presently proposed the dock replacement actions would not adversely impact existing shoreline substrates or the existing shoreline slope. This proposed action would not adversely impact physical habitats for fish and wildlife species. 9.2.4 Biological Characteristics — Prey and Forage Fish Shorelines act as nursery areas for rearing juvenile and sub-adult fish. The shoreline areas along Lake Cushman presently provide a wide range of habitats for a wide variety of fish, birds, mammals, crustaceans, and insects. Many of these species are sources of prey for other fish and wildlife species. Effects on Baseline: The aquatic shoreline area along the project site is generally defined as alluvial sediments over assorted gravels, cobbles, and rock. As defined by existing site conditions, the pile placement actions would not adversely impact prey species and fc rage activities of not adversely impact critical habitats for fish and wildlife species. In ac dition, the new recreational dock shall also be surfaced with grated materials to al ow light penetration to the shoreline habitats below the dock and thus support the pr duction of prey. 9.2.5 Biological Characteristics —Aquatic and Shoreline Vegetation The Lake Cushman shoreline immediately waterward of the OHWM adjacent to the project site is dominated by alluvial sediments over assorted gravels, cobbles, and rock. As a result in seasonal variations in the water level in Lake Cushman the area waterward of the OHWM is generally void of attached vegetation. The vegetatio along the shoreline of Lake Cushman landward of the OHWM is dominated by a variety of tree, shrubs, and herb species typical of a reproduction forest plant commur ity. This shoreline area is not regularly managed with the exception of the area immedia ely adjacent to the existing storage shed onsite. The proposed replacement of the recreation dock would not require the removal of any shoreline vegetation waterward of the OHWM. However, the proposed dock replacement may impact a minor amount of area (maximum four (4) feet in width by four (4) feet in length) landwar d eOWHoM for the construction of a new landward attachment for the replacement c ock. Effects on Baseline: The shoreline area along the project site is generally defined as dominated by a reproduction mixed forest plant community. As defined by existing site conditions, the replacement of the recreational dock would not adversely impact shoreline vegetation and would not adversely impact critical habitats for fish and wildlife species. 19 16098 10.0 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION The Perrycoo r. Family is proposing the replacement of an existing recreational dock along the shor line of Lake Cushman associated with their property. The proposed action would remove the existing twelve (12) wood piles and their concrete supports, and removal the existing solid wood decking. All removed materials shall be properly disposed and i ill work shall be accomplished during a period of low lake levels. The proposed repk cement recreational dock would be supported by four (4) new 6"x6"x3/8" galvanized ste I tubes each attached to a supportive pier and cross supported with galvanized ste I diagonal braces. In addition, two (2) low water float stop (new 6"x6"x3/8" gal anized steel post) would be installed and attached to a drilled pier to ensure that the outermost section of the dock does not ground on the exposed, low water surface. Pier installation would occur during a period of low water when the work area is fully exposed. The two innermost sections of the recreational dock would be fixed and held to an elevation above OHWM. These two sections would not exceed a combined length greater than 30 feet and would be 4 feet in width. The outermost section of the -ecreational dock would be allowed to float up and down with lake level changes. To protect the character of the shoreline, low water float stops would be installed on the supports to ensure that the outermost dock section does not ground on the exposed, I w water surface. The outermost float would not exceed 20 feet in length and would be approximately 9 feet in width. The 9-foot float width has been identified as the minimu , safest width to allow access to and from a private floatplane. The landward end Df the recreation dock would be attached to at an elevation above OHWM. Lake Cushma i was developed and had been subsequently managed to be isolated from the fish snecies associated with the Skokomish River Watershed. However, in 2009, the Sko omish Tribal Nation and Tacoma Power concluded a Settlement Agreement th t included a package of restoration and enhancement actions for fish and wildlife specie and habitats along the North Fork Skokomish River. These actions include the cr ation of passage facilities for safe juvenile fish migration downstream through the C ishman Dam #1 and #2 area, the creation of passage facilities for safe adult fish migration upstream through the Cushman Dam #1 and #2 area, the improvement f instream flows to mimic natural flow patterns downstream of the dam area, the rest ration of instream and riparian habitats, and the construction of new fish hatcheries facilities to support fish re-introductions into the North Fork Skokomish River. The selected species indentified in the Settlement Agreement include sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Onc rhynchus kisutch), and winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). As such, Lake Cushman has been identified to provide suitable critical habitats for ESA listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. 20 16098 SPECIES STATUS IN ACTION PROJECT EFFECTS AREA Puget Sound As a result of the 2009 "may affect, not likely to adversely Chinook salmon Settlement Agreement affect" (Oncorhynch is this species is present tshawytsch ) in the Action Area. Any potential adverse impacts to this species or its critical habitats would be discountable or insignificant. The recreational dock replacement would be beneficial to the shoreline habitats by reducing the number of supportive piles and utilizing a grated dock surface to allow light penetration. Native char - This species is present "may affect, not likely to adversely Bull trout in the Action Area. affect" (Salvelinu confluentu ) Any potential adverse impacts to this species or its critical habitats would be discountable or insignificant. The recreational dock replacement would be beneficial to the shoreline habitats by reducing the number of supportive piles and utilizing a grated dock surface to allow light penetration. Puget Sour id As a result of the 2009 may affect, not likely to adversely Steelheat Settlement Agreement affect" (Oncorhynct us this species is present mykiss) in the Action Area. Any potential adverse impacts to this species or its critical habitats would be discountable or insignificant. The recreational dock replacement would be beneficial to the shoreline habitats by reducing the number of supportive piles and utilizing a grated dock surface to allow light penetration. The actions associated with the proposed replacement of the existing recreational dock would not result in a "take" of individual species or critical habitats. 21 16098 11.0 ANALYSIS OF EFH EFFECTS The selected site development action focuses on the replacement of an existing recreational dock along the shoreline of Lake Cushman. As noted above, Lake Cushman has been identified to provide suitable habitats for EFH listed species (Chinook salmon and coho salmon). This lake and associated habitats is also the focus of significant restoration and enhancement programs at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. 11.1 EFH EFFECTS DETERMINATION Based on the assessment of the proposed project related impacts the project team has concluded that this dock project would have no adverse affect on EFH. As such, formal consultation does not appear required pursuant to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267). FACTOR EFFECTS DISCUSSION EFFECTS DETERMINATION The project's The proposed action would not adversely No adverse potential to impact of the primary constituent elements effects. impact the associated with defined critical habitats for primary listed species. constituen elements for a listed species. Essential fish The proposed action would not result in direct No adverse habitat or indirect adverse impacts to listed ESA or effects. EFH species. Fish and wild ife Lake Cushman provides habitats for No adverse conservatio i endangered, threatened, or sensitive species effects. areas listed pursuant to the ESA and EFH. Vegetatior The placement of the new recreational dock No adverse communities and would not adversely impact vegetation or effects. habitat struct U res habitat structures. Water quali The placement of the new recreational dock No adverse would not adversely impact water quality. effects. Water quant ty, The proposed action would not result in direct No adverse including flo' d or indirect adverse impacts to listed ESA or effects. and low flo EFH species. depths, volumes and velociti s 22 16098 The shoreline's The proposed action would not result in direct No adverse natural planform or indirect adverse impacts to listed ESA or effects. pattern and EFH species. migration processes. Spawning The proposed action would not adversely alter No adverse substrate. potential spawning substrates associated with effects. the lake shoreline. Floodplain The proposed action would not result in direct No adverse refugia. or indirect adverse impacts to listed ESA or effects. EFH species. Shoreline The proposed action would not result in direct No adverse vegetation. or indirect adverse impacts to listed ESA or effects. EFH species. 12.0 MASON COUNTY HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN The purpose of the "fish and wildlife habitat conservation" provisions of Chapter 8.52 are to ensure and management interactions for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated populations are not created. The underlying assumption within Chapter 8.52 is that impacts to anadromous fish or their habitats, or to fish and wildlife conservation areas shall be avoided or mitigated as detailed in an approved Habitat Management Plan. The proposed project would replace an existing recreational dock along the western shoreline of Lake Cushman. To ensure that this dock replacement action is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 8.52 the following actions shall be implemented. 1. The replacement of the existing recreational dock would not adversely impact existing shoreline sediments and would not adversely impact the physical shoreline along the ordinary high water mark. 2. The re lacement of the existing recreational dock would remove twelve (2) 4x4 wood piles and supportive concrete blocks from the aquatic environment. These existing supports would be replaced with four (4) galvanized steel piles and two (2) galvanized float stops. 3. The replacement of the existing recreational dock would not require the placement of fill within the shoreline area. 4. The replacement of the existing recreational dock would be completed during a period when the shoreline area is fully exposed by seasonal water levels within Lake Cushman. As such no construction materials shall enter the aquatic environment and no in-water work shall occur. 23 16098 5. The replacement of the existing recreational dock would not adversely impact the movement of juvenile, sub-adult, or adult salmonids; or other fish and wildlife species of importance. 6. The rep acement of the existing recreational dock would provide a beneficial increas in the amount of sunlight onto shoreline habitats which would provide a beneficial increase in aquatic and terrestrial prey production. 7. The placement of the new recreational dock would not adversely impact water quality. 13.0 CONCLUSION As outlined above the proposed site development action to replace an existing recreational dock has identified the following conclusions: ASSESSMENT METHOD CONCLUSION Biological Eva uation consistent with the provisions of the may affect, not likely to Endangered Species Act adversely affect Essential Fish Habitats assessment consistent with the no adverse effects Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Mason Count fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas no adverse effects 14.0 STANDARD OF CARE This BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION, ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT, AND MASON COU VTY FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS ASSESSMENT has been completed by abitat Technologies for use by the Perrycook Family. Prior to extensive site planning t e findings outlined in this document should be reviewed and verified by the appropriat federal, state, local, and potentially tribal resource permitting and resource ager cies. Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance w th the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accompl shed. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by t ie appropriate resource and permitting agencies. 1710 tas J-) Dewl'g Thomas D. Deming, PWS Habitat Technologies see attached resume 24 16098 Figure 1 Site Vicinity ohm 1" I1 � -r { � o r _L,a w L w o= a N c W M c o L c a c LL j N t U Ig U L a W C C F- mcN o O f6 �i T C N i d° E Y � �a._a 1 0 l�1 f6'rn r L �C: � occ3 C 0.O c6 _ rn 3 N C N �� U 0 O L U 0 Vl C fA N C d U cu._ N (aID U a N (0 C)�o. Z N N L � O c m L L U) N � C LL d OL W T m m U) CO) m Y LL LL J rr� Z3 � � L (D cu ca O N N � c c Lm "M *-A c c W cc m m c c cfl � 3 o V; in L 04 W W LL U)'r E o -o -o o � J{ a a a C O s1 {. = C C O O N m N C Cl)U) T) N T O mN'N LL LL l.L tJ 7 }J T. o o O O EQ y C w jt p CL N =O a c m m m E += C !� O rn rn rn L a > EU 7 f n ..Q -CC,' >' Q T Q T 3 =C t�n!L7 a a a :3 z T o O 4 N = C a o N �i ocfcoo0 8-2 (a oa) 5,3: E o w� m k cu U V G1 c.. o a a f6 o mg 2 2 2 cn fn f° rn N Iq F- N 4)C )O/) 3 m 7 ^ f0 j U �ou)a c Q N. g E c c V L > 'M a a a a a a N c or-) .0+ C N .- N N N CT O N 07 N fU N C J C J Ccc cc J N a fn N a v! N m L 2 C = L C L C 2 v! N O L w w o r w o r w 04 C) J E.3 a�2 cc J m � N�T O. Q O- w U L H (0 Q ..Q Q^ Q Q Q w fJ ZO f1 p Z z z '0 Co r O O O (p N m:E = w Lw = 2 7 LL O O OU c c 3 c c 3 c c 3 ca o w a) o�uN Cc m 3 m m m m c op c m m m m m m �E o roc C N c G m' ow Q U) m w c a ~ m Co m = w w Q N� No C. � Z m N (� fn to 2.4 _ d � 3 3 3 m _ n o crr =ooa _ Q LLI O O O o 2 .2 v O QQ '0 (n o.o C13 LP L.L W fn CU U) a fA ,-mo w o� N Uf o r E � g = ' N O O 0 O O C O ffl p o .X ;X ;x Uo3NE E Y O N to � u') M O � O Lo � r N O O O Cl LL ■ I 2 M � a L = U z ■� O L ~ El 0 ul a a O �: Q �7 � U � Q cii ~U' M Q m m Q n U 0 a a� co U) 0 2 I- z N a. a J CD a� Figure 4 WDFW Mapping June 6, 2016 1:9,028 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 mi Township 0 Total Blockage,Fishway Present 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km —; Partial Blockage Section Partial Blockage,Fishway Present All SalmonScape Species _ Unknown Blockage USGS/NHD - Total Blockage Esri,HERE,DeLorme,Mapmylndia,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and the g Unknown Blockage, Fishway Present WDFW community FOREST PRACTICE WATER TYPE MAP TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH HALF 0, RANGE 04 WEST(W.M.) HALF 0, SECTION 19 Application#: 1g 117 13 79964d ` 799642 V 797044 1 X < 000, 79 20 799622 \ 7 62 + + — � —800— i I -- 24 19 20 S Lake Cushman 798684 29 Feet Date:6/6/2016 Time:2:43:44 PM NAD 83 Contour Interval:40 Feet Figure 6 Mason County Mapping �bR Lake Gushm e d Z Z y WN F N v O M M,1Z,bT o£ZT M�1Z,bT o£ZT O O N � m N r- 01 f— m a a� .c 0 0 U c 0 cn m a c m c 0 a� 0 `m 2 >1 m m m U 0 r T m a rn U rna °T' in a � � � > (n � U) m w = m � o tna No N 00 Q � U N � c 0 Li v @ m Z CD .m Z 0 .Q E o O c Lq c 0 � m O (� X O YS o CO v N g `L r J U ¢ o a o U n o y Cm N o Vl'> C O N O (� O O O 0 Z Q o o 41 3 m C ZQ ZU M„TT ST oM M„iS ST e£ZT 6 1 z Z iV mN Q ry N O M O L N m O Ol N O w = 01 O N N N N 3 > a O a) � 0 0 N = C O m N fa a) m m p N L — O) cmi U) > 2 w 0 U m rn � �� c d °) LP m 3 c N r a a) o mm c 2m 2 m o N u o c cc rn o a) U ° N w ww aNi o .c m = cTi c°i cmi m � � a N ° ° a) m e 2 on= m 5 a)E aa) 0 L)i f6 0 O1 E U a) a N E o ° Qw a c - L)) a) ° rn 3 a c - m m N a) m - N o. o m E in cu ao Z E ai am0)2 mcco :E0 U) U 0W) o ovoN2 E 0 � mN U Q a) mvma a) 2 > "' cmN � U Q = cmuiuim o � � o m y E m@ a) ti ZN v w 2 ma Z tN E co w E .oa a°)i a o N 3 o m E o n c ro s a)-o u°1i-a •` N � o o (V n�_' E 3 a) L g Q p a) E E L) = � m � oa 0 m LLCM omc ,�m ° n 3Nyc m cmi m£ `6 s N U) � _ ° a � (n � aai m Q EEC r > m c� o Q ° L o m N w(n =O a) a) N C m C « Q) m O o m m E 3 c m La)) m m .0 c m ° _ _ U a) m a m m o m o a >,o > w 0 o a) ° 3 T � g 3 - � n 70 °-o. n o E T m a) y LL ( � a) - moo o � a) > oa) Eo Uc z � c � a) mEE y a a) � E L O N N a) O_ w U = > O N T Z 'Q M Q N = L L 7 N U 'O m '5 c .2 'd m .2 m y C U N m o y m o T O c m a) U a) m n o v ° V) E = N '.-L c ; o v a`) -0 a) E c a) E o o a) m o m N m � - 2 'o a m o m ° T N m O >+E c 3 a w N Q U O -j U N ° c r m > `> Q E c O N t c m o a m Q ° co cm a d 0 o m " � m E a) Et t Z T� � � E Ev rnd `° m `° E a m E ° a)cc >c _ 0 ot 'a c ui o Z > a) t m m 0 N m E ❑ cc CO, c Ta E N m ov Qo 7 0 (/� a) ~ U >' �_ U a) .r 3 = 7 C 7 = T T m d ° m t 0 ' n m c E - m E = m O m mZ5 m 2 c ~ 'm . m o a=i m o o o 2Q 20 N �- d `m LL ram°-)-) 2 n o m = rn E a) a E U i) c m n m cp aTi in N m m a) a) �° n v Ern �? o'a a) m N .� E macaiN mm ago 0 °;:4mcai N > - 2 - � 2 � 0i � 0a 5 > - � oEmE �a H w E a u°) d E w U 2 a a Q cmi IL- Lm iA (n N d H m o .� n w `o IL- u o U 0 N >` cu m 2 a w c � n aa)) U° cCM, 2a) c w > m N = m � o i) n U o N O M C m n m U t O o U a c a O) LL > c c 2 " 0 76 J m a) .0.. O O L Z C Q U 65 d @ £ 30 Of it CL Z CL U) in > O rn d cn c a U 'a C Q 0 G p O Z < �, " Y ■ /LLI C U V � � A c m W E J a s Q L Q Q N 15 p to U >N _ C ° .N a a -i IL m c n o 3 m 'o o n c a n a o p a T _ o o - m m U U > a O ns m a LL o c O > m o 0 ao Q u07 3 0 > w > > v m a) coi m x m v U _ - o m o m m c > m c " o o m m c o 0 c m Q U) U) c m m U U C7 (� J J a U U U io U) U O o) IL f�) N a +X u, d 0 (-� �U CL m U o N o c a w d 0 Z U d N w C ZU Soil Map—Mason County,Washing on;and Olympic National Forest Area,Washington(Parts Figure 7 Soils Mapping of Clallam,Grays Harbor,Jefferson,and Mason Counties) Map Unit Legend Mason County,Washington(WA645) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Rc Rough mountainous land, 26.5 85.1% Hoodsport soil material Rd Rough mountainous land,Tebo 2.8 8.9% - soil material W Water 0.7 2.1% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 29.9 96.1%' Totals for Area of Interest 31.1 100.0% Olympic NationaflFc rest Area,Washington(Parts of Ciallam,Grays Harbor,Jefferson,and Mason Counties)(WA632) Map Unit Sy o Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 423D7 Sawpeak-Walkinshaw- 1.2 3.9% McGravey complex,60 to 90 percent north slopes Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 1.2 3.9% Totals for Area of Interest 31.1 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/19/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 16.0 REFERENCES AND BACKGROUND Benton, Joshua. 2016. Personal communication. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Washington Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (S ckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64:139- 174. Dames and Moore. 1981. Commencement Bay Studies. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle. Washington. David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1991. Commencement Bay Cumulative Impact Study. Historic Review of Special Aquatic Sites. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Seattle District. Seattle, Washington. Dunstan, W. 1955. White River downstream migration. Puget Sound stream studies (1953-1956) Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington. Fisher, Larry. 1998. Personal communication. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mill Creek, Washington. Gilmur, Dick. 999. Personal communication. Director, Environmental Affairs. Port of Tacoma. Tacoma, Washington. Healey, M. 19 2. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: The life support system. pp. 315- 341. In Estua 'ne Comparison, edited by V.S. Kennedy. Academic Press, Inc. New York, NY. Healey, M. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-394. In G oot, C. and L. Margolis (eds.) Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada. Kalinowski, Stephan A. 1998. Personal communication. Regional Habitat Biologist. State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Port Orchard, Washington. Kraemer, C. 1994. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, dolly va den (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the north Puget Sound egion. Unpublished. Kraemer, Curt. 1995. Personal communication. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mill Creek, Washington. Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thorow, J.C. Williams. 1997. Chapter 4: Broadscale Assessment of Aquatic Species and Habitats. In T.M. Quigley and S.J. 26 16098 Arbelbide editors An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Po ions of the Klamath and Great Basins Volume III. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fc rest Service, and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-405. Levy, D. and . Northcote. 1982. Juvenile salmon residency in a march area of the Fraser River estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 39:270-276. McPhail, J.D. nd J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life- history and ha itat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fisheries Brar ch, Canada. Miyamoto, Sr. J,. T. Deming, and D. Thayer. 1980. Estuarine residency and habitat utilization by juvenile anadromous salmonids within Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington. Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Division, Fisheries Management Division, Technical Report No. 80-1, unpublished, Puyallup, Washington. Miyamoto, Sr. J,. T. Deming, and C. Matheson. 1985. Estuarine residency and habitat utilization by juvenile anadromous salmonids within Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington. Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Division, Fisheries Management Division, Technical Report No. 85-1, unpublished, Puyallup, Washington. Molenaar, David. 1999. Personal communication. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Muckelshoot Indian Tribe, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, and Washington Department of Fish and Wild ife. 1996. Recovery plan for White River spring chinook salmon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. NMFS. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determination of effect for individual or group actions at the watershed scale. National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. Lacey Washington. 28 p. g NMFS. 1999. A Guide to Biological Assessments. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington Habitat Conservation Branch. Lacey, Washington. Puyallup Tribe. Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Management Divisions Annual Reports to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (1979-1988). Unpublished. Puyallup, Washington. Price, David. 1998. Personal communication. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Simenstad, C., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo, 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific Salmon. An unappreciated 27 16098 function. Page 343-364 in V.S. Kennedy (ed.). Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial International Estuarine Research Conference; November 1981. Academic Press, New York, NY. Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to Human Activities on the Skagit River, Washington. Biology Department, Western Washington University. Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium. June 14-15, 1980. Stalmaster, M.V. 1980. Management Strategies for Wintering Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Dept. of Biology and Ecology Center, Utah State University (Washington Bald Eagle Sy posium- June 1980). USFWS, 1998. A framework to assist in making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions as the bull trout subpopulation watershed scale. 47 pp. Washington D partment of Wildlife. 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's riority Habitats and Species. Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat Management Divisions. Olympia, Washington. Williams, R. W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization Volume 1 Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington. Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press: Seattle, Washington, 220 pp. 28 16098 1. yx"A u C F View of existing recreational dock during a period of low lake level. The shoreline is dominated by gravel, cobble, rock, and a scattering of remnant stumps. Dock replacement would remove the existing wood supports, concrete bases, and solid wood decking. 30 16098 M.� w View of existing recreational dock. May 2016. View of existing dock attached to shoreline at an elevation above OHWM. 31 16098 View of potential alternative location for the connection of the replacement dock to the shoreline above OHWM. View of shor aline area outside the area of existing dock replacement. This area would not be modified as a part of the dock replacement actions. 32 16098