Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SHX2015-00062 SEP2015-00059 MEP2015-00033 GEO-2015-00034 - SHX Photos - 3/23/2016
r----------------RT r t � AGENCY USE ONLY t ' Date received: 3T t Ko US Army Corps ; of Engineers t WAS H I N G T O N STATE Seattle District ' Agency reference#:b Rx 7—nis-6610ca Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form' 2 Tax Parcel#(s): y SO - "38 USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. t ' •--------------------------------------• Part 1—Project Identification 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Example Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) "elNesbitt Bulkhead Repair & PRF Replacement Projec Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. el j 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Nesbitt, Doug 2b. Organization(if applicable) 2C. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 5128 86th Ave NW 2d. City, State, Zip Gig Harbor, WA 98335 2e. Phone(1) 2f. Phone(2) 2 . Fax 2h. E-mail (253) 307-1485 ( ) ( ) dnesbitt@ssa-corp.com 'Additional forms may be required for the following permits: • If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit(RGP),contact the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for application information(206)764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act,you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form(SPIF)or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http://www nws usace army mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory/PermitGui ebook/EndangeredSpecies.aspx. • Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits.If you need a Shoreline permit,contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. 2To access an online JARPA form with[help]screens,go to http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/'ar a 'ar a form/9984 laroa form.as x. For other help,contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-8004 17-0043 or help(Qora.wa.gov. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 16 Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this application.) [ne1p] 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Valdeman, Caralyn Michele 3b. Organization (if applicable) Integrated NW Construction 3c. Mailing Address (street or Po Box) 1727 S Cushman Avenue 3d. City, State, Zip Tacoma, WA 98405 3e. Phone(1) 3f. Phone(2) 3 . Fax 3h. E-mail (206) 310-4239 (253) 888-5314 Caralyn@integratedNWconstruction.com Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies)where the project will occur. Consider both upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help] ❑ Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know, contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization. 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) 4b. Organization (if applicable) Tacoma Power 4c. Mailing Address (street or Po Box) P.O. Box 11007 4d. City, State, Zip Tacoma, WA 98411-0007 4e. Phone(1) 4f. Phone(2) 4 . Fax 4h. E-mail JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 16 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. h[�el j ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check al that apply.) [help] ® Private ❑ Federal ❑ Publicly owned (state,county, city, special districts like schools, p)rts,etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR)— managed aq atic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) hel 131 N Potlatch Drive 5c. City, State, Zip(If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) hel Hoodsport, WA 98548 5d. County [help] Mason 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help] '/4 Section Section Township Range 07 23N 4W 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project locatio . [help] • Example:47.03922 N lat./-122.89142 W long.(Use decimal degrees-NAD 83) 47.49333 N -123.24719 W 5g. List the tax parcel number(s)for the project location. el • The local county assessor's office can provide this information.; 42307-50-00038 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. of you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) hel Name Mailing ]Address Tax Parcel #(if known) Tina Duff 13905 184th Ave NE, Woodinville, WA 98072 42307-50-00039 ......... ......... Daniel Mac Milian C/O Kristi 31320 NE 111th PL, Carnation WA 98014 42307-50-00037 Middleton ................................................_............ ............. ........... ............... ........... JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 16 511. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. hei 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. Mid Lake Cushman 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? hei i ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. hei The native vegetation coverage is moderate, and there are numerous large native trees. See BE sec 5.2. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. LftpM Residential/recreational. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. hei l Residential/recreational. 5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s)and current condition. Lelp] There is a SFR, garage, deck, wood shed, an approx. 59 lineal-foot (If) by 5.5-foot (tall) concrete mortar unit (CMU) bulkhead, an associated 335 square-foot (sf) concrete slab/patio, a treated lumber and composite pier and float (97 sf and 118 sf, respectively), a buoy located approx. 85 feet from the shoreline at the site, concrete upland stairs (107 sf), a cottage stone retaining wall (85 If by 5.5 feet tall), and two rock retaining walls (46 If by 2.5 feet tall and 36 If by 1.5 feet tall, respectively) at the site. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. hei From Shelton, take SR 101 North to Hoodsport, turn left on Lake Cushman Rd, follow to Division Two and turn left onto Mount Church Drive. Bear right, follow to the bottom of the hill, and turn left onto N Potlatch Drive. Follow addresses to the site. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 4 of 16 Part 6—Project Description 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide rbore detail in 6b. [heip] • Reface failing cinderblock seawall • Rebuild old and failing pier and floating dock • Remove materials that are harmful to the environment (creosote pilings, unencased Styrofoam billets, and treated lumber) • See section 2.1 for details 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [Help) • Replace failing cinderblock seawall. Existing bulkhead is in danger of failing. • The floating dock is in very bad shape. The Center support joist is broken, and it has Styrofoam that is not encased under it as billets. • The Styrofoam is breaking away and falling out. • There is no level landing upon which the floating dock can rest during low water, which has caused all support members to twist and move to some degree, thereby compromising its structural integrity. • There are six pier pilings that are covered in creosote and will be downsized to two galvanized steel pier pilings due to downsizing in size of pier. • See BE sections 1.2 and 2.0 for additional details. 6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) h[�ei ] ❑ Commercial ® Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (check all that apply) [help] ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert EJ Float ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam /Weir Floating Home (upland) ❑ Boat House ❑ Dike / Levee /Jetty Geotechnical Survey ❑ Road ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Scientific Land Clearing Measurement Device ❑ Boat Lift ® Dock/ Pier EJ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging El Mining ❑ Stormwater facility ® Bulkhead ❑ Fence F1 Outfall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal El Piling/Dolphin ❑ Utility Line ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway Raft ❑ Other: JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 5 of 16 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. hel • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain. Bulkhead • Manually excavate substrate material along and beneath the bulkhead's failing footing • Eight-foot sections of 2" galvanized pipe will be driven approx. four feet below the base of the footing at two-foot intervals, running the length of the bulkhead's footing • The pipe will be driven with a sledgehammer wrapped with a thick towel for noise attenuation. • Rebar and soil anchor screws will also be utilized • Forms for the bulkhead repair will be constructed using lumber, a circular saw, and other hand tools • Concrete will be delivered via a concrete pump truck and poured into the bulkhead Pier. Ramp, and Floating Dock • The existing pier and float will be disassembled using a circular saw and various hand tools • Six steel pilings, four coated with creosote, will be removed by excavating their concrete footings and removing each footing and piling • A single, 18" diameter corrugated, concrete-filled support column will be cut into removable sized pieces • Disassembled material will be removed from the shoreline via manual labor • All old creosote-covered pilings will be replaced with new 6" galvanized pilings, buried 4+ feet in-ground and encased in concrete • The pier and float will be constructed on site • The float will be fitted with polyethylene encapsulated Styrofoam®floats • A float landing constructed of yellow cedar lumber will be affixed between the float pilings • A pre-manufactured aluminum ramp will provide access between the pier and float 6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) [help] • If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start date: Mar 2016 End date: Apr 2016 ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. LbeM $62,030 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? hel • If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation ❑ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.)[he 1pl JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 6 of 16 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. hel ® Not applicable 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? h[�el ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? he[ e ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? hel • If Yes,submit the report, including data sheets,with the JARP package. ❑ Yes ® No 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? (ham] • If Yes,submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JA PA package. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? hel • If Yes,submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer A. • If No,or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan slould not be required. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. heel 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of eachwetland impacted, the extent and duration of the impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below)where we can find this information in the plan. [help] JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 7 of 16 Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area flood, etc.) rating ft. or type (sq. ft. or category2 Acres) acres) If no official name for the wetland exists,create a unique name(such as"Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents,such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3Indicate the days,months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity.Enter"permanent"if applicable. °Creation(C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation(R),Enhancement(E), Preservation(P),Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee(B) Page number(s)for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: 7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. hel 7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help] Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) rhelpi ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)- 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. Meld ❑ Not applicable JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 8 of 16 The Biological Evaluation references several actions to be taken to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, including: • Use of galvanized steel in place of creosote-covered pilings • Removal of Styrofoam billets that are not encased and replaced with encased Styrofoam billets • Planting of native vegetation along shoreline 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area aroun a waterbody? nei ® Yes ❑ No JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 9 of 16 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non-wetland waterbodies? [!IeI] • If Yes,submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No,or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A See attached BE dated 11 Feb 2016 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [help] Alleviate flooding from stormwater runoff and improve the water quality of stormwater being discharged into Lake Cushman by planting native vegetation. 8e. Summarize impact(s)to each waterbody in the table below. nel Activity (clear, W iterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile name' location of impact3 (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of drive, etc.) placed in or waterbody removed from directly affected waterbody Demo Lake Shoreline 3 days 20 cubic yards waste Approx. 59 linear Cushman and buffer materials removed ft. plus < 250 sf —(pier/float) PRF Lake Shoreline Minimal 16.4 cubic yards of 444 sf Construction Cushman and buffer Alaskan Yellow Cedar &Aluminum Ramp added Bulkhead Lake Shoreline Minimal 11.1 cubic yards of 60 sf Construction Cushman and buffer concrete added 'If no official name for the waterbody exists,create a unique name(such as"Stream 1")The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. 3Indicate the days,months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter"permanent"if applicable. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 10 of 16 8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount(in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbod . [ham] Demo — None PRF Construction — Pilings will be encased in concrete equal to 0.1 cubic yard total. All pilings will be buried 4+ feet in-ground, encased in concrete. Concrete will not extend to shoreline surface. Bulkhead — 11.1 cubic yards of concrete will be added to the failing bulkhead, delivered by pump truck. Bulkhead formed in one pour. 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. hem Demo — Existing creosote-coated pier pilings and floating dock pilings will be dug by hand and removed manually from lakeshore PRF Construction — new 6" galvanized steel pilings and new 8" galvanized floating dock pilings will be manually dug and buried at least four feet, encased in concrete Bulkhead — Existing bulkhead footer shows signs of severe'erosion and shall be manually broken away using sledge hammers wrapped in thick towels per BE for noise attenuation. All debris will be manually removed and disposed of in a state-licensed landfill Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the review r(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help] Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact Dept of Fish and Joshua Benton (360) 602-0364 (o) 2/12/2015 Wildlife (360) 280-3572 (c) 9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in P rt 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? help] • If Yes,list the parameter(s)below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/procirams/wg/303d/. ❑ Yes ® No JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 11 of 16 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [hel ] • Go to hfti)://cfi)ub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC. 17110018 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number(WRIA#) is the project in? hel • Go to hfti)://www.ecy.wa.gov/service§L/g.is/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA#. WRIA 16 9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? hel • Go to bitp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/criteria.html for the standards. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? Ihelp] • If you don't know,contact the local planning department. • For more information,go to:,hftp://www.ecy.wa.-gov/i)rograms/sea/sma/laws rules/173 26/211 designations html. ❑ Rural J Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ® Other 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? hel • Go to http://www.dnr.wa..qov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesApplications/Pages/fo watertyping aspx for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. ® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? heel ] • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ® Yes ❑ No Name of manual: Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. 91. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? hel pj • If Yes, please describe below. ❑ Yes ® No 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. hel pj Prior to residence, area was a forest. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 12 of 16 I 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? hei • If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ❑ Yes ® No JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 13 of 16 91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. hel • 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) 9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. hel See above. Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help(c ora.wa.gov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). (Check all that apply.) hel pJ • For more information about SEPA,go to www.ecy.wa.gov/l)rograms/sea/sepa/e-review.html. ❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ❑`A SEPA determination is pending with 4,-5ori (lead agency). The expected decision date is h ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (check the box below in 10b.)help] ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) hel LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance EJ-Shoreline Exemption Type (explain)Fresh` 'ale 0-ale e",- -11ft9,o o d Other city/county permits: JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 14 of 16 i ❑ Floodplain Development Permit Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: -E]Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption —Attach Exemption Form Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash. Check the appropriate boxes: ® $150 check enclosed. (Check# 1118) Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish,and Wildlife. ❑ Charge to billing account under agreement with WDrW. (Agreement# ) ❑ My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption) ❑ HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff. (Agreement # ) ❑ Mineral prospecting and mining. ❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land. (Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.) ❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012. (HPA# ) Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Use Authorization Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for$25 p yable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Do not send cash. Washington Department of Ecology: ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification FEDERAL GOV RNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ❑ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ❑ Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects) ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 15 of 16 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [he_Ip_] 11a. Applicant Signature (required) Lei pi I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby authorise the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application_,- � (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature [help] certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. �!IVMYW 9,11101-11 /�'Z 3 ; Authorized Agent Printed Name uthorize Agent Sign ture at 11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant). hel ] Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0§1001 provides that:Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals,or covers up by any trick, scheme,or device a material fact or makes any false,fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance(ORA)at(800)917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call(877)833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV-019-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 16 of 16 i MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 426 W Cedar St, Shelton, WA 98584 Not$ (360)427-9670 fi DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2015-00059 Description of Proposal: Permitting an existing bulkhead, pier, float, and buoy at Lake Cushman. The proposal includes modifications to bring the existing structure into compliance with shoreline and building codes. Concrete mortar unit bulkhead is 60' long and 5.5' tall with an upland, attached concrete slab that is about 335 sf. The existing treated lumber stairs waterward of bulkhead will be removed. Pier is 6' wide x 16' long. Supported by four 4" diameter steel pipe and one 18" diameter concrete filled corrugated plastic pipe. Float installed perpendicular to the pier is 6'6" wide and 18' long. Supported by two 6" concrete filled PVC pipes. Styrofoam billets installed within the existing float frames. The bottom of the existing float has marine plywood fastened to it to provide encapsulation. Buoy is 85 feet from the shoreline. The shoreline access stairs composed of treated lumber will be removed. A Geotechnical Report and Habitat Management Plan have been provided. Proponent: TURNER & KATHY PREWITT Site Address (if Assigned): 131 N POTLATCH DR NORTH HOODSPORT Directions to Site: Parcel Number: 423075000038 Legal Description: LAKE CUSHMAN #2 TR 38 i Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. MIT-1GATED 11,1 131 ;!, ;T/ACFl" A-T TT e�f t- TEC/'11 1/1L 11 Lam' SEP2015-00059 Page 1 of 3 r t e + J MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 426 W Cedar St, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 �oht-T-�GAT-�D DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2015-00059 Please contact Rebecca Hersha at ext. 287 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 8/26/2015. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period foMthisfinalination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. Authorized ocal vernment Official Date SEP2015-00059 Page 2 of 3 t MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 426 W Cedar St, Shelton, WA 98584 Moto (360)427-9670 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2015-00059 CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION 1) The existing stairs waterward of the bulkhead shall be removed prior to final inspection. X &-v✓ 2) Residential development in shoreline areas should be designed to preserve natural drainage courses. X ` 3) Residential development on shorelines and wetlands should be planned with minimum adverse environmental and visual impact. Structures should be and located to not significantly block views of adjacent residences. X 4) Floatation for the structure shall be entirely enclosed and contained to permanently prevent the breakup or loss of the floatation material into the water. X 1%11" ,L"/ 5) Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the beach area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of the State. X .�r(,/ 6) Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of this project. X �71-t tom' 7) A Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be obtained prior to work on the banks of or within the waters of the State. X J.2bL, ter 8) Archaeological or historical resources, such as ruins, sites, buildings, artifacts, fossils, or other objects of antiquity that may have significance from an historical or scientific standpoint, which may be encountered by the developer/contractor, shall not be further disturbed. If the developer/contractor encounters any such artifacts, he/she shall immediately stop work and notify Mason Cou0ty and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Failure to do so may result in civil penalties. X SEP2015-00059 Page 3 of 3 5 ASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Moto 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2015-00059 Description of Proposal: Revised 3/23/16. Permitting replacement of bulkhead, pier, float, and at Lake Cushman. Treated as new because there's no ation of previously obtained permits. The proposal document p y includes modifications to bring the existing structure into compliance with shoreline and building codes and to make structural improvements. Concrete mortar unit bulkhead is 60' long and 5.5' tall with an upland, attached concrete slab (horizontal) that is about 335 sf. There is also a 5.5' cottage stone wall about 4' inland from the bulkhead. Work on bulkhead consists of: Manually excavate substrate material a ong and beneath the bulkhead's failing footing; Eight-footsections of 2" galvanized pipe will be driven approx. four feet be ow the base of the footing at two-foot intervals, running th length of the bulkhead's footing; the pipe will be driven with a sledgehammer wrapped with a thick towel for noise attenuation; r, bar and soil anchor screws will also be utilized; forms for thr1w, bulkhead repair will be constructed using lumber, a circulars and other hand tools; concrete will be delivered via a concrete pump truck and poured into the bulkhead. The existing pier and float will be disassembled using a circular saw and various hand tools. Six steel pilings, four coated with creosote, will be removed by excavating their concrete footings and removing each footing and piling. A single, 18" diameter corrugated, concrete-filled support column will be cut into removable sized pieces. Disassembled material will be removed from the shoreline via manual labor. All old creosote-covered pilings will be replaced with new 6 galvanized pilings, buried 4+ feet in-ground and incased in concrete. The pier and float will be constructed on site. The float will be fitted with polyethylene encapsulated Styrofoam®floats. Afloat landing constructed of yellow cedar lumber will be affixed between the float pilings. A pre-manufactured aluminum ramp will provide access between the pier and float. Resulting pier will be 8' by 4'. Resulting ramp will be 14' by 4'. Resulting float will be 10' by 20'.1_ Buoy is 85 feet from the shoreline`'.---o,.4&t kt d A Geotechnical Report and a Biological Evaluation have been provided. Mitigation includes planting a 10' by 30' area with native vegetation - at least 30 plants of five different species. SEP2015-00059 Page 1 of 4 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 615 W Alder NP St, Shelton, WA 98584 14 (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2015-00059 Proponent: T-b1fZj7E'R-&--KA7p-l` Site Address (If Assigned): 131 N POTLATCH DR NORTH HOODSPORT Directions to Site: Parcel Number: 423075000038 Legal Description: LAKE CUSHMAN #2 TR 38 Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. MITIGATED MEASURES ARE ATTACHED. Please contact Rebecca Hersha at ext. 287 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-350. The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, -279;Shelton WA 98584 by 4/7/2016. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period ollowing this final deter nati n date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. Author zed Local Government Official Date SHY Men AM 10:/ 0 of re/Pcco to. i'►'t4r Sort , wg.t/S SEP2015-00059 Page 2 of 4 i MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 615 VI Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 y (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2015-00059 CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION 1) Residential development on shorelines and wetlands should be planned with minimum adverse environmental and visual impact. Structures should be and located to not significantly block views of adjacent residences. X 2) Floatation for the structure shall be entirely enclosed and contained to permanently prevent the breakup or loss of the floatation material into the water. X 3) Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the beach area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of the State. X 4) Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of this project. X 5) A Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be obtained prior to work on the banks of or within the waters of the State. X 6) Archaeological or historical resources, such ao ruins, sites, buildings, artifacts, fossils, or other objects of antiquity that may have significance from an historical or scientific standpoint, which may be encountered by the,developer/contractor, shall not be further disturbed. If the developer/contractor encounters any such artifacts, he/she shall immediately stop work and notify Mason County and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Failure to do so may result in civil penalties. X 7) The existing stairs waterward of the bulkhead shall be removed prior to final inspection. X 8) Biological Evaluation All activities related to this proposal shall adhere to the recommendations made in the Biological Evaluation prepared by BioResources LLC (Kim Schaumburg), dated February 11, 2016. X 9) Residential development in shoreline areas should be designed to preserve natural drainage courses. X SEP2015-00059 Page 3 of 4 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2015-00059 10) The approval of this project is subject to the recommendations and specifications outlined in the Geotechnical Report prepared by Tahja Engineering, dated 7/22/2015, and amended 3/3/2016. All recommendations are to be considered to be required conditions of approval. X SEP2015-00059 Page 4 of 4 v►st�l 5��2a ►s - DooS� MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1 . Name of proposed project, if applicable: Nesbitt BulkheasLRepair & PRF Replacement Project 2. Name of applicant: i Doug Nesbitt 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 5128 86th Ave NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 (253) 307-1485 4. Date checklist prepared: 03/03/2016. 5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start Date: March 2016 End Date: April 2016 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal: if yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Habitat Management Plan, 08/16/2015 Mason Environmental Permit, 08/05/2015 Biological Evaluation, 02/11/2016 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or pE+rmits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. A Mason County building permit. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2 later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description). Repair of an existing concrete bulkhead and the replacement of an existing pier and float with a pier, ramp, and float (PRF). 12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist The site is located on Lake Cushman at 131 North Potlatch. Section 07, Township 23N, Range 04W. The legal description is: Lake Cushman #2TR38. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approx. percent slope)? Greater than 40 percent. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Glacial till. d. Are there surface indications of history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The existing bulkhead was backfilled but is failing and will be refaced with concrete. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally describe. No. There is no clearing of native egetation required or construction that could cause erosion. g. About what percentage of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? See Tahja Geo Report 7-22-15 and revised drawings from Alan Tahja on 1/17/2016 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Wherever practical, native vegetation shall be preserved to reduce erosion. Natural vegetation should be preserved on steep slopes, near perennial and intermittent watercourses or swales, and on building sites in wooded areas. 2. AIR: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. duct, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If a y, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known None — Not Applicable b. Are there any off-site sources of em ssions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None — Not Applicable C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None — Not Applicable 3. WATER: a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Lake Cushman. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. See attached drawings from Alan Tahja, 1/17/2016 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Reface existing failing bulkhead with 11.1 cubic yards of concrete 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals...,agricultural, etc.)> Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None will be discharged. C. Water runoff(including storm water): MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff at the site is from roads in the area. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: if so, generally describe. No. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The HMP recommends a swale to alleviate stormwater runoff erosion. Per the BE, natural vegetation should be preserved on steep slopes, near perennial and intermittent watercourses or swales, and on building sites in wooded areas. 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercu , bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgras5, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Bull trout Chinook salmon Marbled murrelet Northern spotted owl Streaked horned lark Yellow-billed cuckoo d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native vegetation will be planted in a ten by thirty-foot (10' x 30') area, approx. 15' landward of the shoreline, where vegetation is currently lacking. The exact location of the plantings will be at the applicants' MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST g discretion. At least 30 plants and five different species will be installed. Planting will occur in the fall (after the cessation of drought conditions) or in the early spring. Vegetation will be in one or two gallon pots, bare root, or harvested from the site. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. • Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), • Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus), • Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), • Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), • Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) • Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) See attached BE sec 4.0 for additional details C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Fish migrate from Lake Cushman to the North Fork of the Skokomish River, but migration to or from Puget Sound is not possible due to major anthropogenic blockages. See attached BE sec 4.1 for additional details d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The BE recommends mitigation for the proposed project, including the removal of 6 creosote-coated metal pilings and downsizing to 2 galvanized steel pilings, the use of non-pressure-treated lumber for the wood components of the PRF, and a native vegetation planting plan. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES: MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 7 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project'slenergy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturi g, etc. None. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. No. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, which could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce; or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The main source of construction noise will be from the sawing of lumber during construction of the bulkhead's concrete forms, disassembly of the existing pier and float, and construction of the replacement pier, ramp, and float. Noise will be intermittent and is expected to be a maximum of 79 dBA at 50 feet. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise frequency and levels are expected to be short term and moderate for the manual driving of steel pipe into the ground and the breaking of approx. 30 holes in the existing bulkhead's concrete block face (providing previously discussed noise MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST g attenuating measures are adhered to). Noise frequency and levels for the manual excavation (with pick and shovel) of the footing is expected to be regular and moderate during the project's initial construction phase. Noise from the disassembly of the pier and float, and the construction (sawing) of the bulkhead repair form and PRF, is expected to be louder (assuming noise from manual labor will be less than that of a circular saw) but intermittent and short-term. Therefore, the sawing of lumber will produce the proposed project's maximum noise level. The noise level of a chain saw was used to ascertain the noise level of a circular saw. 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 (at fifty feet). 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any" Any work requiring a sledgehammer to be completed with the hammer end (of the sledgehammer) wrapped in a thick towel for noise attenuation. 8 LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Residential and recreational. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. C. Describe any structures on the site. A SFR, garage, deck, wood shed and the previously listed appurtenances. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The failing existing pier and floating dock will be demolished to remove the creosote-soaked pilings and unencased Styrofoam,. 0 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? ."'I 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 environmental/cultural resources or associated resource MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9 management goals precluding existing or future shoreline uses; this classification acknowledges existing private uses and anticipates potential future private and light commercial shoreline uses. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Unknown. 0614 - g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? Urban Residential. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "Environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Lake Cushma is a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how may people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. i. Proposed measure to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any Bulkheads, docks, and piers are common to residences on Lake Cushman. 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. AESTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 10 The reinforced bulkhead will be approx. six feet (6') above grade height. The replacement footing will be installed subgrade, to a depth of four feet, where the footprint of the existing, poorly constructed footing was never installed. The bulkhead will be poured with concrete to a width of 12". b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. C. Proposed measure to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Boating, fishing, hiking, etc. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 11 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways erving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. SR 119, N Potlatch Rd. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. Unknown. C. How many parking spaces would th completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. I f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicated when peak volumes would occur. None. g. Proposed measures to reduce or co itrol transportation impacts, if any: None. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 12 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None. Signature: The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Printed Name: Signature: Date submitted: �'i ���/�, SAP 20 5-�05? MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1 RECEIVEI) MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AUG 0 5 1015 A. BACKGROUND 426 W. CEDAR ST. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pruitt Bulkhead, Pier & Float, Concrete Slab/Patio, Shoreline Access Stairs, Upland Stairs, Storage Shed, Retaining Walls, and Buoy ATF Project. 2. Name of applicant: Turner & Kathy Pruitt. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Bay Marine Contractors, Inc. 360.956.3451. John Evans. 4. Date checklist prepared: 08-05-15. 5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Work was previously completed, unpermitted. 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal: if yes„explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An HMP and an MEP. I 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. f 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. A Mason County Shoreline exemption permit and a building permit. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2 proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description). Existing shoreline appurtenances include an approx. 59 lineal-foot (If) by 5.5-foot (tall) concrete mortar unit (CMU) bulkhead, an associated 335 square-foot (sf) concrete slab/patio, a treated lumber and composite pier and float (97 sf and 118 sf, respectively), a buoy located approx. 85 feet from the shoreline at the site, treated lumber shoreline access stairs (11.5 sf), concrete upland stairs (107 sf), a cottage stone retaining wall (85 If by 5.5 feet tall), and two rock retaining walls (46 If by 2.5 feet tall and 36 If by 1.5 feet tall, respectively). Activities were within the 100-year flood plain. The nearest waterbody is Lake Cushman. 12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist The site is located on Lake Cushman at 131 North Potlatch. Section 07, Township 23N, Range 04W. The legal description is: Lake Cushman #2TR38. I B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: I 1. EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approx. percent slope)? Greater than 40 percent. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Glacial till. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3 d. Are there surface indications of history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The existing bulkhead was backfilled. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally describe. The HMP recommends a swale to alleviate stormwater runoff erosion. g. About what percentage of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? See Tahja Geo Report 7-22-15. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The HMP recommends a swale to alleviate stormwater runoff erosion. 2. AIR: f a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. duct, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known N/A b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A 3. WATER: a. Surface: MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Lake Cushman. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. All backfill was placed landward of the bulkhead. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals...,agricultural, etc.)> Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None will be discharged. C. Water runoff (including storm water) MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff at the site is from roads in the area. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: if so, generally describe. No. I d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The HMP recommends a swale to alleviate stormwater runoff erosion. 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs _ grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other _water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Unknown. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown. i d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 5. ANIMALS MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6 a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other_ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus), Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), and the horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Fish migrate from Lake Cushman to the North Fork of the Skokomish River, but migration to or from Puget Sound is not possible due to major anthropogenic blockages. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. No. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 7 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, (spill, or hazardous waste, which could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. N/A 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any" N/A 8) LAND AND SHORELINE USE: I a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Residential and recreational. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. I C. Describe any structures on the site. A SFR, garage, deck, wood shed and the previously listed appurtenances. I d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 8 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Unknown. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Unknown. g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? Urban Residential. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "Environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Lake Cushman is a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area . i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. i I j. Approximately how may people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. i i. Proposed measure to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Bulkheads are common to residences on Lake Cushman. 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9 b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. AESTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Approx. 5.5' above grade. I b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. C. Proposed measure to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 10 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Boating, fishing, hiking, etc. b. Would the proposed project displacE any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESIfRVATION: a. Are there any places or objects liste� on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers knowr to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks o evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance kno n to be on or next to the site. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. SR 119, N Potlatch Rd. + e MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 11 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. Unknown. i C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. d. Will the proposal require any new rods or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project. If known, indicated when peak volumes would occur. None. g. Proposed measures to reduce or co trol transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None. 16. UTILITIES MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 12 a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None. Signature: The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying (in them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: f x r jjtt }k a 4 t t- t 0 R v t € II Along Face of CMU + �- 1 i 13u1k- ca .,� C - r 0 o S2Cn C +yi cn f = 9.SL;-t8V09C N) LPL-t9f-O9 sus f`LLS 8 ✓�L £ 3' = N + u9's 9.at u Y" �i �,�.7 .7s31.1 ,J ,✓.lYtkJJX�i-' Y ua, , i�9.J '• t lit 14 , r , .. . Tc ' 1 x - - , l'f cep 1 r crtj Of � y IX J J h. t S' �y � � � ! JL YT ✓ `,1A y — �'i y .t r y, G ✓ ,� � _ � ��� all"� � '"P�~~ ,1''t� �� yyyy 4 4 a — � T wry `� d +' t • j 1 y e i ti i �. •' `•- � - `�•fit' .t' t` � ! � 1 3 f 70 ear, u: N.. ^ — f r fi . ,... yam, '""--�..._,�� _ ,;,• ..,� F �.. .00 '} If40do Cr �F f ZP f / O �•► yv _--�.Q- n ,r .. rz oq Ar 31 m s y r as-.7 00 v r ap - f l w � r jW ot r OC 1 '• I tt R _ �- a 71 yc / 14 re - eawQ 8._, Eq try, ---1 '" S n '#Dqq r y `lift r J� I 43' 75 a t 4 CO, Cad i+' ♦ 3 i Ll -3 t; v f _ i "^y:z .. w iNa Z _ v ,. T 'z7 t rr: � � Cr. r ' � f Op ` 72. cA po 6A '� ''�-'-.h ! '"� ,. r .✓roe.,, �� . �. ar , '^� F ✓ i `\\ .. ` _� - ,�- ., to �',�, ci" r k i Fp yy 6 � r �"" as Y •. - .. F}� r 114 us stod `SQL- Q (q > c i M 1 I C' i _ J o Z x 14-2 INA 4} a r r -STAT MASON COUNTY A o 4- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Y o N 2 Planning Division Z T 426 W Cedar St, Shelton, WA 98584 N Y °Y (360)427-9670 1864 ASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT September 09, 2015 TURNER & KATHY PREWITT 11216 3RD AVE NW SEATTLE WA 98177 Parcel Number(s): 423075000038 Expiration Date: 9/9/2017 12:00:OOAN Date Issued: 9/9/2015 Case Number: MEP2015-00033 Project Description: Permitting an existing bulkhead, pier, float, and buoy at Lake Cushman. The proposal includes modifications to bring the existing structure into compliance with shoreline and building codes. Concrete mortar unit bulkhead is 60' long and 5.5' tall with an upland, attached concrete slab that is about 335 sf. There is also a 5.5' cottage stone wall about 4' inland from the bulkhead. Pier is 6' wide x 16' long. Supported by four 4" diameter steel pipe and one 18" diameter concrete filled corrugated plastic pipe. Float installed perpendicular to the pier is 66" wide and 18' long. Supported by two 6" concrete filled PVC pipes. Styrofoam billets installed within the existing float frames. The bottom of the existing float has marine plywood fastened to it to provide encapsulation. Buoy is 85 feet from the shoreline. The shoreline access stairs composed of treated lumber will be removed. A Geotechnical Report and Habitat Management Plan have been provided. No mitigation is proposed. The following critical areas are present on this property: Long-Term Commercial Forest X FWHCA Ch. 17.10.060; Ch. 17.01.110; Mineral Resource Lands Frequently Flooded Areas Ch. 17.01.066; Ch. 17.01.090; Inholding Lands Landslide Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.062; Ch. 17.01.100; Wetlands Seismic Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.070; Ch. 17.01.102; Critical Aquifer Recharge Erosion Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.080; Ch. 17.01.104. m, i This permit, with conditions, is granted pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01 MCC.) Nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project. This permit may be rescinded if the permitee fails to complete the project as proposed or fails to comply with the standards of this ordinance. Authorized Local Government Official ate MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT 9/9/2015 Case No.: MEP2015-00033 Conditions: r fee S5j0 No permit or exemption authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after approval, the Review Authority, the Mason County Planning Department, shall review the Mason Environmental Permit(MEP)and upon showing good cause, may extend the initial two year period by one year. No permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review a�ann-d`extension prior to the exporation date. Signature Date at, Pei�� �� OWNER - REPRESENTATIVE - CONTRACTOR Print Name (Circle one to indicate) 9/9/2015 Page 2 0 2 MEP2015-00033 77 _aIS Ff tt 47 Z � e s- t AOW,`'d 1 l rS3 E� ti '-,�a j(¢ ,`' C' j. m t r I TLIS NO, 38 Ol ODD, II'�}I� � � `j r r 7 JNINNVf d C100 A �!,nOJ NO > T f i 4 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2015-00059 Description of Proposal: Revised 3/23/16. Permitting replacement of bulkhead, pier, float, an-buoy at Lake Cushman. Treated as new because there's no documentation of previously obtained permits. The proposal includes modifications to bring the existing structure into compliance with shoreline and building codes and to make structural improvements. Concrete mortar unit bulkhead is 60' long and 5.5' tall with an upland, attached concrete slab (horizontal) that is about 335 sf. There is also a 5.5' cottage stone wall about 4' inland from the bulkhead. Work on bulkhead consists of: Manually excavate substrate material along and beneath the bulkhead's failing footing; Eight-foot sections of 2 galvanized pipe will be driven approx. four feet below the base of the footing at two-foot intervals, running the length of the bulkhead's footing; the pipe will be driven with a sledgehammer wrapped with a thick towel for noise attenuation; rebar and soil anchor screws will also be utilized; forms for the bulkhead repair will be constructed using lumber, a circular saw, and other hand tools; concrete will be delivered via a concrete pump truck and poured into the bulkhead. The existing pier and float will be disassembled using a circular saw and various hand tools. Six steel pilings, four coated with creosote, will be removed by excavating their concrete footings and removing each footing and piling. A single, 18" diameter corrugated, concrete-filled support column will be cut into removable sized pieces. Disassembled material will be removed from the shoreline via manual labor. All old creosote-covered pilings will be replaced with new 6" galvanized pilings, buried 4+ feet in-ground and encased in concrete. The pier and float will be constructed on site. The float will be fitted with polyethylene encapsulated Styrofoam®floats. Afloat landing constructed of yellow cedar lumber will be affixed between the float pilings. A pre-manufactured aluminum ramp will provide access between the pier and float. Resulting pier will be 8' by 4'. Resulting ramp will be 14' by 4'. Resulting float will be 10' by 20'. Buoy is 85 feet from the shorelinlee.� &4c►c kt A Geotechnical Report and a Biological Evaluation have been provided. Mitigation includes planting a 10' by 30' area with native vegetation - at least 30 plants of five different species. SEP2015-00059 Page 1 of 4 MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT($630 or$380 /other permit) Mason County Permit Center Use: ❑ CONDITIONAL USE($1520) MEP Z D 16 - HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW ($445) Date Rcvd MASON C UNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mason County Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC) ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32, 36.70A, 39.34, 58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW. t � PLEASE PRINT 1. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Nesbitt, Doug Mailing Address: 5128 8611 Ave NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Work Phone: (253) 307-1485 Email Address: dnesbitt@ssa-corp.com Home/Cell Phone: Same Fax#: N/A If an agent is acting for the property owner during the permit process, complete#2. 2. AUTHORIZED AGENT Name: Valdeman, Caralyn, M. Mailing Address: 1727 S. Cushman Ave, Tacoma WA 98405 Work Phone: (253) 888-5314 Email Address: Caralyn@integratedNWconstruction.com Home/Cell Phone: (206) 310-4239 Fax#: N/A 3. PROJECT SITE Site Address: 131 N Potlatch Dr. N, Hoodsport, WA 98548 Parcel#: 42307-50-00038 _ TLegal Description: SFR [=Directions to Site: From Shelton, take SR 101 North to Hoodsport, turn left onto Lake Cushman Rd, turn LeftN Mount Church Rd. turn Left onto N Potlatch Dr. Attach a site plan showing the following: Lot Dimensions,Flood Zones,Existing Structures,Fences, Water Lines,Driveways,Drainage Plans, Shorelines, Septic System, Topography,Proposed Improvements,Easements,North Arrow,and Scale. Also draw a separate topography diagram. i .Conu7ZUmity L)cvclopm�utl'e1�`,:A9L., 4. State which section requires permit: ❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 ❑ Long Term Commercial Forest,Chapter ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas, Chapter 17.01.090 17,10.060 ❑ Landslide Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas, Chapter 17.01.102 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Area,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, ❑ Erosion Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.104 Chapter ❑ In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 17.01.110 5. Identify current use of the property with existing improvements: SFR,used for seasonal recreation. 6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction methods, principle dimensions, and other pertinent information(attach additional sheets, if needed): y t The proposed action is the repair of an existing concrete b khead and the replacement of an existing pier and float with a pier,ramp, and float(PRF). Mitigation for the proposed project includes the removal of creosote coated metal pilings, the use of non-pressure treated lumb for the primary wood components of the PRF, and a native vegetation planting plan. As per the engineered design by P.E. Alan Tahja(Attac nts 4-8), the existing, approx. 59' rock and concrete bulkhead will have the entire length of its failing ce and footing reinforced with new concrete. The reinforced bulkhead will be twelve inches(12") in width, prox. six feet(6') in above grade height, and approx. sixty feet(60') in length with a footprint of appro sixty(60) square feet. The existing pier and float,which has 215 sf of overwater overage, will be replaced by a new PRF structure constructed with galvanized steel or aluminum hardware d steel pilings, and non-pressure treated lumber joists, decking, and trim. Sustainably harvested Alaska yel ow cedar, which is insect and decay resistant,will be utilized.No pressure treated lumber will be used in this project. The replacement PRF will have 274 sf of overwater coverage. The pier,which will be supported by he bulkhead on one side, will be four by eight feet (4' x 8') and will utilize two (2) four-inch(4") galvanized teel pilings. A pre-manufactured aluminum ramp will be three by fourteen feet(3' x 14'), and the float,ten I y twenty feet(10' x 20'). The float will utilize three (3) eight inch(8") galvanized steel pilings and be fitted w'h polyethylene encapsulated Styrofoam® floats. The existing float uses un-encapsulated float material and s a source of Styrofoam®pollution. A circular saw and various hand tools will be used throug out the proposed project. All materials, equipment, debris, and workers will be transported to and from the sit in cars or trucks. Geo-textile fabric will be spread over the dry lakebed before commencement of project cou struction 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 disposal site. See attached plans for additional information. 7. Describe why the action requiring this permit cannot be Foided. The seasonal raising and lowering of Lake Cushman, in conjunction with flow from a stormwater drainage outfall (for the vicinity's road network) on the adjacent p perty,has resulted in severe erosion to the west end of the bulkhead's footing. In addition, stormwater runoff om adjacent upland properties and the neighborhood's access road(North Potlatch Dr.N)deliv s significant quantities of water that flow through the applicant's property and over a concrete slab that is 1 ated on top of the existing bulkhead(and the bulkhead's backfill). According to engineer Alan Tahja,t ie slab was likely poured on top of the concrete mortar unit bulkhead(and backfill)when the bulkhead w s originally constructed. At a later date, a second slab was poured directly on top of the original. The CMU bulkhead does not have cantilever footings, so the concrete slab acts as a tie-back element to the wall desi Because of the geometry and nature of the Concrete Mortar Unit wall located along the lake's shoreline, it apI ears the design relies on the existing wall backfill supported concrete slab to maintain its stability(Tahja 20 15). Besides,providing a horizontal holding force at the top o the wall,the concrete slab also provides protection against potential erosion to the back side of the bulkhead om the previously noted stormwater runoff. Again, according to the engineer,this stormwater runoff has, at t mes, saturated the soils located behind the CMU bulkhead,producing hydrostatic pressures that have resu ed in the bulkhead bulging(slightly)toward the lake. As a result,the existing bulkhead is in danger of fai 'ng. Failure of the structure would necessitate the construction of a replacement bulkhead at the site,which ould necessitate significant disturbance to the shoreline,whereas, repairing the bulkhead will involve n uch less(disturbance). a . Additionally, the existing pier and float are old and poorly constructed. The applicants wish to extend the life of all of their existing shoreline structures, making them safer for both humans and the environment. Therefore, the project objective is to repair the existing bulkhead and replace the pier and float with a PRF while avoiding or minimizing impacts to ESA-listed species and improving shoreline habitat and water quality at the site. 8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area(circle one)? Yes No 9. Identify any surface water on or adjacent to property(circle one): Saltwater Lake Stream Pond Wetland Drainage Ditch 10. Identify existing septic/sewer connection(circle one): If septic is located on project site,include records. Connected to Septic Connected to Community Septic 11. Identify existing water supply(circle one): Public Water Supply Well 11. Type of Job (circle one): New Add Alteration Repair Demolition Other: Print Name Signature Date [Xouununity Development\PAC\MEP Page 2 of Revised June 2010 2oIS -- ood33 Biological Evaluation Nesbitt Bulkhead Repair & PRF Replacement Project Lake Cushman, Hoodsport OVA For: Douglas & Elizabeth Nesbitt 5128 86t"Ave NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335-6168 Prepare by: BioResourc s, LLC Kim Schau nburg Fisheries biologist, Universi of Washington, 1981 10112 Bay Viev r Rd. KPN Vaughn, WA, 98394 (253) 884-5776 or 225-2973 Email: kimberly035 centurytel.net February 1 , 2016 r i Table of Contents 1.0 Proposed Action.............................................................................. 3 1.1 Background ........................................................ 3 ................ 1.2 Project Need and Objectives................................................................ 4 2.0 Project Description........................................................................... 4-5 2.1 Project Activities............... ........................... 5-7 .................................... 2.2 Timing.................................................. 2.3 Conservation Measures...................................................................... 7-8 2.4 Best Management Practices.................................................................. 8-10 3.0 Action Area..................... 10-11 4.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information............................... 12 4.1 ESA Listed Species.......................................................................... 13-15 5.1 Environmental Baseline Conditions....................................................... 15 5.2 Action Area................................................................................. 15-16 5.3 Proposed Project Area..................................................................... 16-17 6.0 Effects of the Action.......................................................................... 17 6.1 Direct Effects.......................................... 17-20 ........................................ 6.2 Primary Constituent Elements............................................................ 20-21 6.3 Direct Effects to ESA Listed Species...................................................... 21-22 6.4 Indirect Effects................................................................ 23-24 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......................................................... 7.2 Determination of Effect....................................................................... 27 8.0 References.......................................................................................28-31 Attachments 1. Project location................................................................................... 32 2. Site plan with existing development.......................................................... 33 3. Site plan with existing development.......................................................... 34 4. Site plan with proposed development.........................................................35 5. Site plan with proposed development.........................................................36 6. Cross Section with proposed development...................................................37 7. Cross Section details........................................................................... 38 8. Cross Section details........................................................................... 39 9. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 40 10. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 41 11. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 42 12. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 43 13. Site Photograph.......................................... .........44 ............................... 14. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................45-46 Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 2 I 1.0 Proposed Action This Biological Evaluation has been submitted o i behalf of Douglas and Elizabeth Nesbitt at the request of the Seattle District Unit d States Army Corps of Engineers to comply with Endangered Species Act(ESA) reg ilations regarding shoreline development. The proposed action is the repair c f an existing concrete bulkhead and the replacement of an existing pier and float with a ier,ramp, and float(PRF). Mitigation for the proposed project includes the removal of creosote coated metal pilings,the use of non-pressure treated lumber for the primary woc d components of the PRF, and a native vegetation planting plan. LIBackground The proposed project site is located in Mason C ounty at 131 North Potlatch Drive N, Hoodsport Washington (Attachment 1). The M on County tax parcel number is 42307- 50-00038. The property is located in Section 07 Township 23N,Range 04 of the Western Meridian. The latitude is 47.49333 N, d the longitude is -123.24719 W. The proposed project site is located on Lake Cushm in the Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA 16) on a shor ine designated Urban Residential by the Shoreline Master Program of Mason County. L e Cushman is regulated under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and t e Mason County Resource Ordinance as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. Fhe Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated Lake Cushman as a Shoreline of Sta ewide Significance. In addition, Lake Cushman is regulated by Tacoma Public Utiliti (aka Tacoma Power),which has designated Shoreline Management Classificatio (SMC) zones. The proposed project site is located in an SMC zone classified as "A."Ta:oma Power defines the"A"management classification as shoreline areas with no known ignificant environmental/cultural resources or associated resource management g als precluding existing or future shoreline uses; this classification acknowledges existing private uses and anticipates potential future private and light commercials reline uses (Kleinschmidt 2012). The proposed project site is located in a rural n ighborhood on a shoreline lot, which supports a single-family residence (SFR) lcat approximately twenty feet (20') vertically and eighty feet (8')horizontally from the shoreline of Lake Cushman. Existing shoreline appurtenances include an approx. fift -nine-foot(59')by five-and-a-half-foot (5.5') concrete mortar unit(CMU)bulkhead, at associated three hundred-and-thirty-five (335) square-foot(sf) concrete slab/patio, a tre ed lumber and composite pier and float that are ninety-seven(97) sf and one-hundred- rid-eighteen (118) sf,respectively, a buoy, concrete upland stairs, a cottage stone retaining wall, and two rock retaining walls (Attachments 2, 3, 9-12). Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 3 r 1.2 Project Need and Objectives The seasonal raising and lowering of Lake Cushman, in conjunction with flow from a stormwater drainage outfall (for the vicinity's road network) on the adjacent property, has resulted in severe erosion to the west end of the bulkhead's footing. In addition, stormwater runoff from adjacent upland properties and the neighborhood's access road (North Potlatch Dr. N) delivers significant quantities of water that flow through the applicant's property and over a concrete slab that is located on top of the existing bulkhead(and the bulkhead's backfill). According to engineer Alan Tahja, the slab was likely poured on top of the concrete mortar unit bulkhead(and backfill)when the bulkhead was originally constructed. At a later date, a second slab was poured directly on top of the original. The CMU bulkhead does not have cantilever footings, so the concrete slab acts as a tie-back element to the wall design. Because of the geometry and nature of the Concrete Mortar Unit wall located along the lake's shoreline, it appears the design relies on the existing wall backfill supported concrete slab to maintain its stability( �Tah'a 2015). Besides, providing a horizontal holding force at the top of the wall, the concrete slab also provides protection against potential erosion to the back side of the bulkhead from the previously noted stormwater runoff. Again, according to the engineer, this stormwater runoff has, of times, saturated the soils located behind the CMU bulkhead,producing hydrostatic pressures that have resulted in the bulkhead bulging(slightly) toward the lake. As a result, the existing bulkhead is in danger of failing. Failure of the structure would necessitate the construction of a replacement bulkhead at the site, which would necessitate significant disturbance to the shoreline, whereas, repairing the bulkhead will involve much less (disturbance). Additionally, the existing pier and float are old and poorly constructed. The applicants wish to extend the life of all of their existing shoreline structures, making them safer for both humans and the environment. Therefore,the project objective is to repair the existing bulkhead and replace the pier and float with a PRF while avoiding or minimizing impacts to ESA-listed species and improving shoreline habitat and water quality at the site. 2.0 Project Description As per the engineered design by P.E. Alan Tahja(Attachments 4-8), the existing, approx. 59' rock and concrete bulkhead will have the entire length of its failing face and footing reinforced with new concrete. The reinforced bulkhead will be twelve inches (12") in width, approx. six feet(6') in above grade height, and approx. sixty feet(60') in length with a footprint of approx. sixty(60) square feet. The existing pier and float, which has 215 sf of overwater coverage, will be replaced by a new PRF structure constructed with galvanized steel or aluminum hardware and steel pilings, and non-pressure treated lumber joists, decking, and trim. Sustainably harvested Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 4 Alaska yellow cedar, which is insect and decay sistant,will be utilized.No pressure treated lumber will be used in this project. The r placement PRF will have 274 sf of overwater coverage. The pier,which will be sup orted by the bulkhead on one side, will be four by eight feet(4' x 8') and will utilize tw (2) four-inch(4") galvanized steel pilings. A pre-manufactured aluminum ramp wi be three by fourteen feet(3' x 14'), and the float,ten by twenty feet(10' x 20'). The flo will utilize three (3) eight inch(8") galvanized steel pilings and be fitted with polye ylene encapsulated Styrofoam®floats. The existing float uses un-encapsulated float ma erial and is a source of Styrofoam® pollution. A circular saw and various hand tools will be us d throughout the proposed project. All materials, equipment, debris, and workers will transported to and from the site in cars or trucks. Geo-textile fabric will be spread over he dry lakebed before commencement of project construction in order to contain any man nade construction debris. At the completion of construction,the geo-textile fabri will be removed from the shoreline at the site, along with all construction debris and o her existing manmade debris. All debris will be disposed of at a licensed disposal site. 2.1 Project Activities Disassembly of the Fier and Float The existing pier and float will be disassemble using a circular saw and various hand tools. Six steel pilings, four coated with creosot , will be removed by excavating their concrete footings and removing each footing a piling.A single, 18" diameter corrugated, concrete-filled support column will a cut into removable sized pieces; the footing will be excavated to at least twelve inc s and cut off. Disassembled material will be removed from the shoreline via manual labo . Excavation of the Bulkhead and Post/"ling Footings Due to the difficulty of accessing the beach wit heavy machinery, it will be necessary to manually excavate substrate material along and beneath the bulkhead's failing footing. The substrate will be excavated to a depth of fc ar feet(4) and a width of two feet(2'). Excavated substrate material will be stockpiled on the shoreline (either on the beach or landward of the bulkhead); a small amount of s Libstrate will be utilized in the project to fill in holes or depressions fronting the newly p oured bulkhead footing or around the post/piling footings. The remaining substrate ill be removed from the shoreline at the site, as per Tacoma Power's rules and regulati s. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 5 Construction of the Bulkhead and Installation of the PRF PostlPilings Eight-foot sections of 2"galvanized pipe will be driven approx. four feet below the base of the footing at two-foot intervals, running the length of the bulkhead's footing. The pipe will be driven with a sledgehammer(wrapped with a thick towel for noise attenuation). Rebar and soil anchor screws will also be utilized to provide structural integrity; the later will be screwed into the existing bulkhead's lower face using a manual T-handle driver, through hole s es that will be broken in the exis ting CMU bulkhead using a sledgehammer (wrapped with a thick towel for noise attenuation). Forms for the bulkhead repair will be constructed using lumber, a circular saw, and other hand tools. Concrete for the bulkhead and the PRF posts/pilings will be poured at the same time. Before concrete is poured, two, four-inch and three, eight-inch galvanized steel pilings will be positioned in the appropriate holes for the pier and float, respectively. The bulkhead will be poured to a width of 12"and an above ground height of approx. six feet. Concrete will be delivered via a concrete pump truck and poured into the bulkhead form and post/piling holes. After the concrete has dried, the bulkhead form will be removed from the shoreline at the site, along with other project debris. PRF Construction The pier and float will be constructed on site and will utilize the following .materials• galvanized steel or aluminum hardware, and yellow cedar joists, decking, trim, and posts. In addition, the existing float will be fitted with polyethylene encapsulated Styrofoam® floats. A float landing constructed of yellow cedar lumber will be affixed between the float pilings. A pre-manufactured aluminum ramp will provide access between the pier and float. Mitigation Planting Native vegetation will be planted in a ten by thirty-foot(10' x 30') area, approx. 15' landward of the shoreline, where vegetation is currently lacking (Attachment 13). The exact location of the plantings will be at the applicants' discretion. At least 30 plants and five different species will be installed. Planting will occur in the fall (after the cessation of drought conditions) or in the early spring. Vegetation will be in one or two gallon pots, bare root, or harvested from the site. Recommended native species include: shore pine (Pinus contorta contorta),vine maple (Acer circinatum), Pacific dogwood(Cornus nuttallii), Western yew (Taxus brevifolia), mountain hemlock(Tsuga mertensiana), evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum), red huckleberry(Vaccinium parvi,folium),mock orange (Philadelphia lewisii), Rhododendron Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 6 (Rhododendron macrophyllum),Western azalea Rhododendron occidentale),Pacific ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus), Indian plum(9emleria cerasiformis), common snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus), snowbrush eanothus velutinus var. hookeri), salal (Gaultheria shallon), Oregon-grape (Mahonia a uifolium, nervosa or repens), Thimbleberry(Rubus parviflorus var.parviflo ), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), h los uva-ursi bleeding heart deer fern Blechnum s icant , kinnikinnick(Arc stap y ), g (Dicentra.formosa), creeping dogwood (Cornus nadensis), and wild strawberry (Frageria virginiana). Additional plant species that are native to Weste m Washington may be added to the above list at the applicant's discretion. 2.2 Monitoring and Maintenance The property owners will monitor and water an3 native vegetation plantings as needed during dry months,until the vegetation has becc me established. Dead plants will be replaced throughout the monitoring period. Inva sive,non-native vegetation will be removed or cut back as necessary. 2.3 Timing Work on the bulkhead repair and PRF replace nt will be completed over an approx. thirty(30) day period during daylight working I ours normal to a rural neighborhood. Work will only take place when the water level f Lake Cushman is low,which is generally between October and April. 2.4 Conservation Measures l. No construction to occur unless Lak Cushman's waters are low. 2. No pressure treated lumber to be used in this project. 5ustainably harvested Alaska yellow cedar,which is insec and decay resistant, to be utilized for posts,joists, decking, and trim. Unb eated lumber to be used for the bulkhead repair form. 3. Any work requiring a sledgehamm to be completed with the hammer end(of the sledgehammer)wrapped in a th' k towel for noise attenuation. 4. Existing creosoted pilings to be re ved from the site and disposed of at a licensed disposal facility. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 7 5. Native vegetation to be planted in a ten by fifteen-foot(10' x 30') area, approx. 15' landward of the shoreline, where vegetation is currently lacking. (see Mitigation Planting). 6. For the protection of marbled murrelets that may be nesting in the action area, project activities will occur between two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset; suitable nesting habitat will not be removed. 7. Construction to take place as per the BPA provisions from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 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 physical, 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 Stormwater Management Manual,for Western Washington, Volume H Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (2012), will be implemented for long-term protection of water quality at the site: BMP C154: Concrete Washout Area 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. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 8 •A temporary washout facility shall be construct d on-site or the concrete truck will be washed out off-site. *When temporary concrete washout facilities a no longer required for the work,the hardened concrete, slurries and liquids sha be removed and properly disposed of. *Materials used to construct temporary concre e washout facilities shall be removed from the site of the work and disposed of or rec led. BMP C151: Concrete Handling Purpose: Concrete work can generate process ter and slurry that contain fine particles and high pH, both of which can violate water qu ility standards in the receiving water. Concrete spillage or concrete discharge to surfa e waters of the State is prohibited. Use this BMP to minimize and eliminate concrete, c ncrete process water, and concrete slurry from entering waters of the state. Conditions of Use: Any time concrete is used, ilize these management practices. *Wash out concrete truck chutes,pumps, an I internals into formed areas only. Assure that washout of concrete trucks is perfor ned offsite or in designated concrete washout areas. DO not wash out concre trucks onto the ground, or into storm drains, open ditches, streets, or streams. *Return unused concrete remaining in the tr ick 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 lim ed 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. *Do not allow washdown from areas, such s concrete aggregate driveways, to drain directly to natural or constructed storm ater conveyances (or Puget Sound). *Contain washwater and leftover product ir a lined container when no formed areas are available. Dispose of contained con(rete in a manner that does not violate ground water or surface water quality st indards. *Always use forms or solid barriers for con rete pours, such a pilings, within 15-feet of surface waters. BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation Wherever practical,native vegetation shall be I reserved to reduce erosion. Natural vegetation should be preserved on steep slopes near perennial and intermittent watercourses or swales, and on building sites in wooded areas. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 9 BMP C233: Silt Fence Silt fence may be used downslope of all disturbed areas. Silt fence shall prevent soil carried by runoff water from going beneath, through, or over the top of the silt fence but shall allow the water to pass through the fence. The following additional BMP will be used to insure that water quality is not degraded during and 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 shall 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 hazardous spill. 3) The applicant will have a spill kit and be able to perform basic control, 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), will be notified immediately. 3.0 Action Area The action area is located 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 fork of the Skokomish River discharge sediment laden water into Lake Cushman. It is probable that the project's distance from the lake's lowered shoreline will Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 10 be great enough that disturbed sediments will dis perse gradually(via precipitation) over the exposed lakebed without ever reaching watei until the lake is raised. Therefore, terrestrial noise is expected to be the most far-re ching effect from the proposed repair of the bulkhead and replacement of the PRF at the 'te. The action area for terrestrial noise effects is ba d upon an ambient sound level of 40 dBA for an area with a population of less than 1110 people per mile (WSDOT 2010). In addition,the Olympic National Forest programn atic biological assessment uses an estimated ambient level of 40 dBA for undistur d forested areas (USDI 2003).Noise frequency and levels are expected to be short to and moderate for the manual driving of steel pipe into the ground and the breaking of approx. 30 holes in the existing bulkhead's concrete block face (providing previ usly discussed noise attenuating measures are adhered to). Noise frequency and 1 vels for the manual excavation(with pick and shovel) of the footing is expected to belregular and moderate during the project's initial construction phase.Noise from the disassembly of the pier and float, and the construction(sawing) of the bulkhead repair form and PRF, is expected to be louder (assuming noise from manual labor will be less ban that of a circular saw) but intermittent and short-term. Therefore,the sawii ig of lumber will produce the proposed project's maximum noise level. The noise level of a chain saw was used to asce in the noise level of a circular saw. The noise level at 50 feet from a chain saw is 84 dB (WSDOT 2014). The noise level of a chain saw at three feet is 110 dBA, while a circi lar saw is 100 dBA. Assuming that a chain saw is between approx. five and ten perce it noisier than a circular saw, the noise level of a circular saw at fifty feet was assigned 9 dBA(at fifty feet). To determine the distance that the proposed pro ect's maximum point source construction noise will travel before it attenuates to the ambi nt sound level; the following Practical Spreading Loss Model equation was used: D =Do * 10((Construction Noise—Ambient ound Level in dBA)/a) Where D=the distance from the noise &Do=the reference in rasurement distance of 50'. Average construction noise from the proposed I iroject 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 am Tent sound level. Therefore,the extent of the action area is 3,970 feet or 0.75 mi. over th lake's surface and 1,656 feet or 0.31 mi. inland from the proposed project site and adjacent shorelines (Attachment 1). In addition, the action area includes several amed fish-bearing streams that are located approx. 0.12 and 0.52 mi. to the southe st of the site. Numerous ephemeral streams are located throughout the action area, ncluding one on the adjacent property to the northwest. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 11 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 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(Martes 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 critical 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 salmoides). Additionally, Tacoma Power is presently working in association with the Skokomish Tribe and the WDFW to reestablish migrating salmonid runs in the North fork of the Skokomish River. The North Fork Skokomish Powerhouse and Fish Facility has been completed. This facility collects adult fish at the base of Cushman Dam No. 2 and transports them 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 fry will be released in Lake Cushman, and smolts will be collected and released into the 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 is planned to be complete in 2015 (Tacoma Public Utilities 2015). Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 12 4.1 ESA Listed Species BULL TROUT Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of a salmon family and are native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Water t perature above 15 degrees Celsius is believed to limit bull trout distribution, as eggs d juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Bull trout are also vulnerabl to degraded stream habitat,poor water quality, dams and other stream blocking struc es, and predation by non-native fish. Critical habitat includes Lake Cushman and the ipper North Fork of the Skokomish River(70 FR 56304). Critical Habitat in the fonaer includes spawning and rearing habitat, while the latter provides rearing, foragii g, and migration habitat, so it is expected that bull trout may be found in the action area o 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 nearsho e marine waters, while nesting inland in old-growth or mature conifer forests. Threats i Jude loss of habitat,predation, gill-net fishing operations, oil spills,marine pollution, d disease. The USFWS assembled a team of scientists in October 2011 to investigati causes for the continued decline in murrelet populations. The outcome of these disi ussions listed many factors, chiefly loss of potential nesting habitat as the main reason r hindrance of population recovery goals (WDFW 2012). Potential nest trees are coniferous trees within 5 mi (88.5 km) of marine waters that support at least one 4-inch(10.2-cm) diameter latform located at least 33 feet(10 meters) above the ground,with horizontal and ertical cover(USFWS 2012). If a tree or forested area does not support these habitat fea es, it is "extremely unlikely"to support a murrelet nest(USFWS 2012).Nest success i in by forest structure,the spatial mix of habitat and non-habitat,human disturba ice,prey availability, and marine foraging conditions. Human disturbance can lead to higlcr 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,Marzl iff and Neatherlin 2006). Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet, whict. was designated in May of 1996 and revised in October of 2011, is located extremel close to the proposed project's action area to the north of the project site; therefore, ii must be assumed that marbled murrelets may be found nesting in the action area. State I oute 119 is located between the project site (neighborhood), Lake Cushman, and the bled murrelets critical habitat, so it is expected that any marbled murrelets nesting in he action area, will do so on the far side (north side) of the highway. Additionally,the oposed project will not result in the loss of any trees or other vegetation, and water qua ty at the site will be minimally impacted. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 13 NOR THERN SPO TTED OWL The Northern spotted owl is one of the largest owls in North America, and the average adult female is approximately 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, approximately 9,577,969 acres (ac) (3,876,064 hectares (ha)) in 11 units and 60 subunits in California, Oregon, and Washington fall within the boundaries of the 2 critical habitat designation. The action area is located extremely close to designated critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl (to the north of the project site); however, due to the close proximity of human habitation, it is unlikely that any Northern spotted owls may be found in the action area. Additionally, the proposed project will not result in the loss of any trees or shrubs. STREAKED HORNED LARK Horned larks are birds that utilize wide open spaces with no trees and few or no shrubs. The streaked horned 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 the action area contains unsuitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. YELLOW-BILLED 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 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 Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 14 precipitous decline of western yellow-billed cucl.00s.Agriculture, grazing, reservoir construction, flood control,urbanization, and ott er factors across the West have caused- the large-scale loss and degradation of lowland r parian forest,which is the cuckoo's primary habitat. It is expected that the action area contains unsui ble habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo. CHINOOK SALMON Chinook salmon in Lake Cushman are a land-lo ked population that originated from anadromous fish, although loss of genetic variat on makes it difficult to determine whether they are descended from historical Hooi I Canal populations or introduced hatchery fish (NOAA 2006). Lake Cushman Ch ook are genetically different, smaller in size(and presumably less fecund)than their ana iromous counterparts (Myers et al. 1998). On Jan. 12, 2009,Tacoma Power,the Skoko nish Tribal Nation and state and federal agencies signed a settlement agreement that rese Ived a$5.8 billion damages claim and long-standing disputes over the terms of a long- erm license for Cushman Hydroelectric Project. Tacoma Power has proposed to introdui e sockeye and spring Chinook and enhance the existing winter steelhead and coho opulations in the North Fork in cooperation with the WDFW and the Skokomis k Tribe (Tacoma Public Utilities 2014). In addition, Tacoma Power will annually release u to 100,000 rainbow trout for sport harvest(TPU 2014). Lake Cushman has been designated Critical hat itat, and the site provides rearing, foraging, and migration habitat, so it is expecte 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 envi romnental baseline is defined as "the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, and pr vate actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all p posed 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 contemporan us with the consultation process" (50 CFR 402.02). The proposed project site is in W RIA 16 on Lake Cushman in Mason County. The majority of the fresh and marine aterbodies in WRIA 16 suffer from water quality issues;however, Lake Cushman is not sted on the state's 2012 Water Quality 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for any par meters. Two waterbodies in the Skokomish watershed,the South Fork of the S okomish River and Lebar Creek are listed for the parameter of temperature (high). Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 15 The proposed project site is located in a rural neighborhood on a lot with approximately 60' of frontage on Lake Cushman, in an area classified as an Urban Residential shoreline environment by the Shoreline Master Program of Mason County. Neighboring parcels support single-family residences (or recreational cabins), bulkheads,piers, and floats. 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 Olympic 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) of 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 Proposed Project Area Field investigations were conducted in June of 2014 and November of 2015. On both occasions,the project area was surveyed visually on foot. The elevation of the lake's water level was approx. 735 feet, three feet below the current ordinary high water mark of 738 feet, during the former field investigation and approx. 726 feet during the latter. The site supports a single-family residence with an attached garage and a deck. The native vegetation coverage is moderate, and there are numerous large native trees. Stormwater erosion trails were observed running across pervious ground from the upland portion of the property toward the shoreline, which is accessed via a dirt trail and concrete stairs. The trail also accesses a fire pit area that overlooks the bulkhead and a cottage stone retaining wall that is located directly landward of the concrete slab that is on top of the bulkhead. The proposed mitigation planting area is located between the fire pit and the cottage stone wall (Attachment 13). The bulkhead is constructed of cinder blocks, which are not commonly used in bulkhead construction. The bulkhead's face bows outward slightly in places and the footing has been undercut by erosion at the northwest end. The property's shoreline is located in a cove that likely offers only moderate protection from wave action, depending on the wind direction. A moderate amount of riprap (small pieces of basalt)was observed around the existing pier post and float piling footings; it was likely added to the beach to alleviate erosion. The slope of the shoreline is extremely steep. A perennial stream on the adjacent property to the north discharges into the lake via an 18 inch culvert that collects stormwater Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 16 throughout the north end of the neighborhood. A trickle of water was observed discharging from the culvert; however, a moder, e quantity of water was observed seeping from the hillside into the stream's chant 1 below the culvert. The cove appears to be a depositional area for all sizes of woody mal Drial, and woody material was observed on the lower beach. 6.0 Effects of the Action 6.1 Direct Effects Direct effects to the shoreline include: 1) Loss f benthic habitat from the repair of the existing bulkhead and the installation of two pi pilings and three steel pilings. 2) Creation of shade from the replacement pier, amp, and float. 3) The leaching of wood preservatives. 4) The prevention of potential S ofoam® and creosote pollution at the site. 1)As per the engineered design by P.E. Alan T h'a(Attachments 2-8), the existing, approx. 59' concrete (CMU)bulkhead will havi the entire length of its failing footing and face reinforced with new concrete. The fooprint of the repaired bulkhead will be located 12" landward of the existing bulkhead' face. The replacement footing will be installed subgrade, to a depth of four feet, wher the footprint of the existing,poorly constructed footing was never installed. The ne footing will be 24"wide, extending 12" landward of the existing bulkhead and 12"wat ard, in line with the replacement face. The repaired bulkhead will occupy approx. 60 of benthic habitat. Each pier piling (with a concrete base) will occupy approx. four sf, so 11 the pilings will occupy 20 square feet. However,the area of the pilings minus the con ete, approx. 0.34 and 0.10 sf for each eight-inch and four-inch steel piling,respective y(approx. 1.2 sf),will constitute the only lost surface area, as the concrete bases for each fling will be covered by the lake's (bottom) substrate. Due to the seasonal fluctuations of the lake's ter level, it is probable that benthic species do not thrive in the nearshore areas oft te lake that lack permanent water. No empirical evidence was found to document if b th terrestrial and aquatic species utilize the upper shoreline habitat, or if it has been too altered to support normal concentrations of either species. 2) Another direct effect is the creation of shade from the replacement pier, ramp, and float. The overwater structures at the site produ Ce a reduction in light to the underlying aquatic environment by creating a light/dark b dary that may give piscivorous species an advantage over their prey. The use of over-N rater structures in western Washington waters by bass, a common,non-native predatoi of juvenile salmonids,has been documented by several authors. Largemouth b ss in Lake Washington prefer areas of heavy log and brush cover over other habitat es; however,they are commonly found under docks in early spring and are thought to a present until late summer(Stein 1970). Substrate type typically determines the accepta Dility of an area for bass spawning,but Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 17 adjacent cover and structural complexity are also necessary for protection while the fish are concentrated in shallow water(Stein 1970; Cooper and Crowder 1979; Helfinan 1981b; Pflug and Pauley 1984). The substrate type in the vicinity of the bulkhead and landing is gravel, cobble, and rock. 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 project site possesses unsuitable habitat for bass, so it is doubtful that the proposed float repair 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 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). g 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). The existing pier and the shoreline beneath it lack water for approx. six to seven months each year(Attachment 7). As previously noted, the proposed project will result in a small increase of overwater structure coverage at the site of 59 square feet. However, the reconfigured PRF structure will be narrower(extending further waterward) than the existing pier and will cast a longer,narrower shade footprint with a presumably moderated light/dark boundary that may or may not be an obstacle to migrating juvenile salmonids. 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. 3) The leaching of wood preservatives is a common contaminant-related issue with the construction of shoreline SFR appurtenances. As previously note, no pressure treated Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 18 lumber will be used in this project. Sustainably h irvested Alaska yellow cedar, which is insect and decay resistant, will be utilized for j oii ts, decking, and trim. 4) The proposed replacement of the existing floa is expected to prevent the structure from becoming an eventual source of Styrofoam pollution to Lake Cushman. The new float will utilize polyethylene encapsulated Styrc foams floats. Expanded polystyrene foam(EPS), commonly known by the trade nam of as Styrofoam®is pervasive in the marine environment(CWAC 2008). Polystyreneis made from petroleum and is not biodegradable. Polystyrene is a principle compoi ient 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 dowt 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 hat the composition of conventional petroleum-based plastics as durable polymers means they will degrade to increasingly smaller sizes but never disappear(CWAC 2008 In addition, the project will rid the site of four tal pilings that are coated with creosote. In conclusion,the replacement of the existing fl at (that uses un-encapsulated float material)with a float that utilizes encapsulated J .oat material and the removal of creosoted pilings are expected to have a benefic al impact on water quality. Temporary Direct Effects Temporary direct effects caused by the propose project include: 1) Turbidity and sedimentation in Lake Cushman. 2)Noise. 3)1 Vater pollution from incidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants. 1) Disturbed substrate from the installation f the bulkhead footing and posts/pilings footings may result in increased turbiditt and sedimentation. As previously discussed, BMPs will be strictly adhere, to during construction in order to maintain the present water quality of L e Cushman and prevent runoff and pollution. In addition, the proposed prof ct will take place when the water level in the lake is much lower than the ORW (738'), so it is probable that rainfall will slowly disperse any disturbed substrate efore it comes into direct contact with the lake's waters. Therefore, it is expect d that turbidity and sedimentation will be minimal. 2) The main source of construction noise wJ 1 be from the sawing of lumber during construction of the bulkhead's concretorms, disassembly of the existing pier and float, and construction of the replament pier, ramp, and float. Noise will be intermittent and is expected to be a mamum of 79 dBA at 50 feet. 3)Potential water pollution from accidental elease of fuel, oil, or other contaminants is another possible temporary direct eft. As previously discussed, Spill Prevention Control measures and BMPshall be implemented during the proposed project. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 19 6.2 Primary Constituent Elements PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS In order to properly analyze the effects on designated critical habitat, a logical framework must be utilized. In determining what areas are critical habitat, agency regulations require the NMFS 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 and 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 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— Passage will not be altered during construction as no construction will occur unless the waters of Lake Cushman are low. The reconfigured PRF structure will be narrower (extending further waterward)than the existing pier and will cast a longer, narrower shade footprint with a presumably moderated light/dark boundary that may or may not be an obstacle to migrating juvenile salmonids. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 20 An abundant food base including terrestrial orA anisms of riparian origin, and aquatic macroinvertebrates the project is expected to I ave no direct effect on an abundant food base for bull trout. Permanent water of sufficient quantity and qu ity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited--the proj ct is expected to have a minimal direct effect on water quality. Project construction is likely to cause temporary turbidity or sedimentation as work will occur when the lake' waters have been lowered. BMPs are expected to prevent or moderate potential water ollution during construction. No pressure treated lumber will be used, creosote c ted pilings will be removed, and un- encapsulated Styrofoam® float material that is a potential source of water pollution will be replaced with encapsulated floats. CHINOOK SALMON PCEs: Unobstructed passage passage will not be alt ed during construction as no construction will occur unless the waters of LaU Cushman are low. The reconfigured PRF structure will be narrower(extending further waterward)than the existing pier and will cast a longer,narrower shade footprint with a presumably moderated light/dark boundary that mayor may not bean obstacle to igrating juvenile salmonids. Water Quality—project construction is unlikel to cause temporary turbidity or sedimentation. BMPs are expected to prevent oi moderate potential water pollution during construction.No pressure treated lumbei will be used, creosote coated pilings will be removed, and un-encapsulated Styrofoam® oat material that is a potential source of water pollution will be replaced with encapsula d floats. Water Quantity—the project will have no dired effect on water quantity. Forage—the project is expected to have no dir t effect on forage opportunities for Chinook. Natural Cover—the project will have no direct ffect on natural cover. 6.3 Direct Effects to ESA Listed Species The direct effect from the proposed project to c ther ESA listed species that are likely to be found in the action area have been analyzed as follows: Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 21 NORTHERNSPOTTED OWL Due to the close proximity of human habitation and the small size of the action area, it is unlikely that any Northern spotted owls may be found in the action area of the proposed project site. However, the absence of spotted owls in the action area is not a certainty. While proposed project construction may occur between March 1st and September 30th, which is the nesting season of Northern spotted owls, the following noise threshold guidelines will be followed to ensure minimal disturbance during project construction: •The proposed project will not remove dispersal or nesting habitat. Note: The rural neighborhood where the site is located extends approx. 1.1 mi. south of the proposed project site, 0.19 mi. north to State Route 119, 0.43 mi. east, and 0.32 mi. northwest. With the extensive acreage of undeveloped forest land nearby, it seems unlikely that Northern spotted owls will be nesting, roosting, or foraging in the vicinity of 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 l3MPs 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, although construction may occur during the marbled murrelet nesting season between April 1 st and September 23rd. To ensure minimal disturbance to any marbled murrelets that may be nesting in the action area, the following noise threshold guidelines will be followed during project construction: *Project activities will occur between two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset. *Suitable nesting habitat will not be removed. Note: The rural neighborhood where the site is located extends approx. 1.1 mi. south of the proposed project site, 0.19 mi. north to State Route 119, 0.43 mi. east, and 0.32 mi. northwest. With the extensive acreage of undeveloped forest land nearby, it seems unlikely that marbled murrelet will be nesting,roosting, or foraging in the vicinity of anthropogenic development. 6.4 Indirect Effects 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 Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 22 indirect effects from the proposed project includ 1)The loss of shoreline aquatic vegetation. 2) The exacerbation of passive erosic n.to the shoreline. 3) A reduction in the accumulation of large drift logs on the beach. 4) kn increased motorized boat presence at the site. 1) The replacement PRF will cause a reduction i light to the underlying aquatic environment, which can have significant impact on the health and productivity of both native and non-native macrophytes and algae. M icrophytes and algae are the foundation for most freshwater food webs and their presenc or absence affects many higher trophic levels (NMFS 2004). It is expected that the impE ct of the lake's fluctuating water level on littoral productivity will overshadow the impact of shading from the pier and float at the site. 2)When waves reflect off shoreline armoring stj uctures, particularly concrete or other types of flat-faced bulkheads,they can cause sc 'ng and hardening of the substrate and steepening of the beach. The sediment in front 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 s impounded behind the bulkhead (Macdonald et al. 1994). Hard-armored bulkhea s cut off sediment that was once available to feed the beach, thus adversely affec ing natural beach-forming processes. The shoreline at the site is already unnaturally s eep due to the lake's manmade origin and the adjacent stormwater drainage. Accordin ly, the steepness has caused significant scouring and erosion, as there is no shallow fore shore to diminish the energy from incoming wind waves. The stormwater drainage is also expected to contribute to erosion at the site during/after heavy precipitation in the area. The proposed bulkhead repair is not expected to minimize scouring and steepen' g of the beach. A small amount of excavated sediments will be utilized in the prof t to fill in holes or depressions after the bulkhead footing forms are removed,but them 'ority(of excavated sediments)will be removed from the shoreline following the proje is completion, as Tacoma Power does not allow excavated sediments to be spread ove the shoreline at Lake Cushman. Referenced materials for this report primarily a ess bulkhead impacts to marine shorelines and, in particular, Puget Sound. Whi some impacts are applicable to lake shorelines,beach feeding/forming processes ap ear to differ significantly and be site specific. On Lake Cushman, a lake whose shor ines lack water for roughly six months each year, it seems counterproductive to consid r beach feeding a positive habitat process as the lake was significantly enlarged to accom nodate two hydroelectric dams (that produce environmentally friendly electric powd,free of carbon emissions). 3) Shoreline armoring can also limit the accum lation of large drift logs on the beach, as large woody debris is less likely to accumulate n 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 refugi for migrating juvenile salmon. Due to the moderate number of power boats that utilizi the lake in the vicinity of the proposed project site, it is not safe to recommend ancho g LWD to the beach. Nor is it allowed Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 23 by Tacoma Power. In addition, there are numerous existing stumps along the shoreline throughout the lake. 4) The replacement PRF 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 benthie 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). 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 the bull trout's food base. Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited—The use of yellow cedar(rather than pressure treated lumber) and encapsulated float material are expected to improve water quality. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 24 CHINOOK SALMON PCEs: Unobstructed passage—the project will not hav 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. Forage—the project will not have any indirect afect on forage. 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: NORTHERNSPOTTED OWL & MARBLED HURRELET While it is highly unlikely that either species w uld nest in trees that are located in a rural neighborhood, the proposed project may result iii increased recreational usage at the site, which could prompt both species to nest elsewhere. 6.7 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects Interrelated and interdependent effects are desctibed 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 1998). The project will have no obvious interrelated or interdependent effects. 6.8 Primary Constituent Element 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 Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 25 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 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 macroin vertebrates, 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. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 26 7.0 Conclusion 7.1 Take Analysis Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endanger d or threatened species, "take"being defined in Section 3 as to harass,harm, pursue,I unt, shoot, wound,trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant habitat modification or degradat' n that actually kills or injures listed species by"significantly impairing behavioral p tterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing,migrating, feeding, and sheltering" (50 FR 222.102). "Harass"is further defined as an intentional or negligent act which reates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significan y disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to,breeding, eding, or sheltering(50 CFR 17.3). In regards to the proposed project and the existing levelopment activities, it is extremely unlikely that any"take"will occur. Previously 1 ted 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 adv rsely affect is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species or their critical habi at are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. After reviewing t ie appropriate data and survey information, I have concluded that the proposec project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or Thr atened species if the previously discussed conservation measures are implemented. In my rnost honest and professional opinion, while the proposed project may impact individt 41 Endangered or Threatened species in the project area, it is not likely to adversely aff t or jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their designated Critical Hat itat. The determination of effect for each of the listed species is: 1. Bull trout and their designated Critical abitat Nay affect, not likely to adversely affect. 2. Chinook salmon--May affect, not likely o adversely affect. 3. Marbled murrelet—May affect, not likei to adversely affect. 4. Northern spotted owl No effect. 5. Streaked horned lark---No effect. 6. Yellow-billed cuckoo—No effect. Nesbitt 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 RegisterNol. 76,No. 193/October 5, 2011/Rules and Regulations Google Earth. 2013. Aerial Imagery. Internet report. URL: https://www.google.com/earth/ 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. Leigh, Michael. 1996. Grow your own native landscape: a guide to identifying, propagating, and landscaping with Western Washington native plants. Washington State University Cooperative Extension/Thurston County, Olympia, WA. Mason County, Washington. 2016. Assessor-Treasurer Electronic Property Information Profile. Internet report. URL: h V://Prgperty.co.mason wa us/Taxsifter/Search/results aspx?g=42307 50 00025 Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 28 National Geographic. 2002.Field Guide to the 'rds of North America. National Geographic Society,Washington,D.C. pg. 226, 44, 250, & 320. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Distrib ition of Threatened and Endangered Species. Internet report. URL: htti)://www.nwr.n:)aa.gov NOAA. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Mari xe Species. Internet report. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/ Nightingale, B. and C. Simenstad. 2001. Overw ter Structures: Marine Issues. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Transportation. Olympia, Washington. 177 p. Skokomish Indian Tribe &Washington Depart ent of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Recovery Plan for Skokomish River Chinook S,Imon. Internet Report. URL: httl2://hccc.wa..gov/Downloads/Downtoads Get ile.as x?id=397519&fd=0 Tacoma Public Utilities. 2014. Cushman Hydro Project. Internet report. URL: https://www.ml4pu.org/tacomgpower/about-tac ma- ower/dams- ower-sources/h dro- power/cushman-hydro-project/ Tacoma Public Utilities. 2015. Cushman Fisher es Program. Internet report. URL: hqp://www.pl3qpu.org/tacomapower/fish-wildli e-environment/cushman-h dro- proj ect/cushman-fisheries-program.htm Tahja,Alan. 2016. Nesbitt engineered drawing 1-17-16. Unpublished document. 7 p. Tahja,Alan. 2015. Prewitt(Nesbitt) Geo Repo . Unpublished document. 7 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and Californi . Published by USFWS, Portland, OR. URL: bllp:Hecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery plans/ 997/970924. df U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Re very Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trc Lit (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume II(of II): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 277 +xvi pp U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species I rofile, Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL: hLtp://www.fws.jzov/arcata/es/birds/mm/i ri murrelet.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Guidanc for Identifying Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees in Washington State. Internet report. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonl3Lres/ D97 3D8-D448-43A7-8249- E2319095 C 8 C2/0/MAMUhabitatF W S.p df Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 29 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Season and Analytical Framework for Section 7 Consultation in Washington. Internet report. URL: http://www.wsdot wa gov/NR/rdonlyres/F3847D4F BFIC 476C 8E9D A45A715B624C/0/CoverLtrNestingSeason pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Conducting Masking Analysis for Marbled Murrelets and Pile Driving Projects. Intern et report. URL: http://www.wsdot.wa gov/NR/rdonlyres/3506DAAA 4B13 4E1B 855D 36E047E07090/0/MAMU MaskAnalysis pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Official Species List#OIEWFW00-2016-SLI- 0184. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Streaked Horned Lark, Eremophila alpestris strigata. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/streakedhomedlarkfinal pdf Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. 2012 Water Quality Assessment 303(d) List: Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA 16). Internet report. URL: htip://www.ggy.wa.-gov/Drograms/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Internet report. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1410055.html Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping application. Internet report: URL: http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/appl/fears/viewer htm 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: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/marbled murrelet pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: Northern Spotted Owl. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/northem spotted owl pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: Streaked Horned Lark. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/streaked horned lark pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: bellow-billed Cuckoo. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endan eg red/species/yellow billed cuckoo pdf Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 30 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2 14. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL: http://Ms.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscgpe/ Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. BA Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training Manual—Version 4-02-2014. URL: h ://www.wsdot.wa. ov/NR/rdonl es/AIF85 52-90EO-457B-9A8C- B5103E097FAE10/BA manualpart2.pdf Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 31 Attachment 1 The vicinity map and the extent of the action area from a few designated points. Olympic National Forest 0.300 mi Nesbitt Property N^ N VKe C"Irn an f{{rj 131 N Potlatch Drive N C 119 {•s �;alc ushman Rd N °ottat,h 0._'s00 mi '�1-'S L a k e Cash }} u 0.750 mi ti iL QO" i3- trbKt&RR:.Gr00'b:la`r ffi:'CW MS *m MI:r.. .hWfi41YEC. Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 32 Attachment 2 Site Plan with existing development. k i I A C'u,hnt3n Soil t rub¢l egend. f t l lot 37 4, Soli Prutnx Liwaunn �. & )Cptt{W W.."'Mg \ Lk Cus'hwan t1tY' lo, e F)iv.2 Lot 36 ly ..r-j 7'K�- .�fl .7zx5 t{ PC !,, t\� \ _"s 0 r ) 'I fetes or)I'tewill prupvrit a .ear r �j ��� i � '�j2 1 u', to be grow ing sttiglu aw ce 'dt ,{Ir'fit Witt)no uuittation{.l Of gfOun o OVeglcM or motion. 1 Septic/ l , tis !;• � 'icptic WA �ha `7iS' NN *Z'� t . 'Fir P�+ 'PdQf E' v �� iS /�' I)11.2 1 t 74 7 , �1 s tk 1t I % ✓ �'O'1 \ar A?`Front rJ O i t ✓ �---'`'� � �`�� `� . f� 1,6 Cushman - ° IX{_SIINGCot,'6IIONS PL)RP0.NY In!kl li�t{)t�l�N A APPLICANT'. PRO"Va.Rq la, gnat { 'TAMA FAIGINF.FRING Im 11 #I 1 1- 41i r 1(fA'l k)rAIR AR fPI'I I nv N D ugl., t heaix•Ui Ne tmt � t 4 _ Go l o m *uppn.x pp fWA 235 DATUM I K I tiIIM.AN l811 ar* 1IR AMN ADDRESS +, Wtt x M Hands xr. WA 48548 vl t <<r.o n a u.q{ ,min aA ADIACEN,UWNLRS t i ♦t na h I k,1 ' a)' (360)877 95I2 k i t 1 - I I i i i 'A1 rislx IN i 79 17,11 Inn MAt4INCi AI)F)RYRS AT 1 A t u An r t 1 a h R.or (hucn � I SI COUNTY St— 81 1TY.N A Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 33 Attachment 3 Site Plan with existing development. Ciravcled SurfOa —Y IOU j sz syr FI„r �.. \4 ab/ e �` 4 �rJ X # =f „'� st>firs R tim•ucxf; �. Imsr k?O \ a KR \y Beach 132.8 � y r,rru-ays IoNALE� IiXISIIN I(A[l ES _ PURPOSE.III I.k1I1 AD i tl It A AMLK'AtP!' j PROPO4C+6 KrOi A t..,Ot TAIUA ENGINFF.RING Inc It AI t I' Itr — f1t�41hli'1fHAHiIh1tl.All;til Duug1a3A I1—hoh\robin Ir+i m�up{g,hnigi yt gtrya,n PO H[uC 233 DA ILTW I I,I SIMAN III u 'u> LOC ATEDN ADDHF,SS� t ha i hyrr sk 5 Munn du ADdA(i+hq[gwl41{Ry-tn nt P�rl,n l lx,r<n ix4. E / WA 9834A MI 360 877-9571 aPn.,�nnnu N j I NI m.N t ±8 aA K ( ) i 1>uli Ynr MAIT.Il1C,AD[NtPA4 A I aA f U n N t4 b\ it AT 14 J not i iM �,p Pml N. II307-80-IOW38 t uft d., w� xii;s„ti � CUUNTY na ,,,STATE. ._ DATE t "i= SHUT i a n It Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 34 Attachment 4 Site plan with proposed shoreline development. / _, 1 < J `�....,.) y time .t i F 3 f ` �,-' ,., ...� �ftr,�.. . `cry •.. ^' 4 ���.'gpctsr�cR�p��'� r 1}r/ /n<• ; E`ys of NAL S, 4 if © i rY PR IJ/11C4{1'14�J1. h t� ( 10 r 2o' _ �',t/. 1 i Jr PRC1P() i'I)f . HIRLS PURPOBI'.:911.Kill hR P9t hA APPI-KANT: PROPOSED kV;. AI-wvt' 7AIVA FNGINFJl`R1"NG I[= ! ttnl kty,\Ile X Ili i'i\(:t.Ml h i Ikwxlu..%,.I W boh""I"" y PO R*A 235 �T^. DATUM I K f 1"ll"\w nt u ^f+ LO(ATTON ADMESS i �t: s 4` ffoodyxx+. WA 98348 i ADJACENT OWNERS •t tiN I i i Iki�c l ''.':'f (3W)S77-9-112 i 411f M,w Atril' anrc IN MAR.IN ADDRESS 1 W, 1 in+ Al I l �ta>t 1 ,� M R..I 1),sinFoon LAmr C(AMN \t A #I I P.R d—dro 4xPO-11 Aka R 1A 1 MwwCaftl Nu.-42la7.5441""! •.Ilxh.,� x�i�,F' OATF, ;.1 .FIB Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 35 Attachment 5 Site plan with proposed shoreline development. _ a i ti fire Ring 00, "CIIANCG"HH ICAt.I,I J RI11!ND r � �+ ; // �V$'�� ,, s CURNI R SOU�RI.SNAJ I SOIL AN I1OR _ �� r� ,� ,., $ r g M I I t kdrikal 1 14 !e4d Sttt x'I<0-t)$R I helix i \ h, 1_f Iixlmal I U4 Cxtrnsion.."nc: (ISIN)3&I_hrhxr ,it Square Shun thr sd d Bar ldapwm('I II)AN,a 1 i I-Thna.Ai 4" 141'Nllhamc"I rn foranaur 7lhrcdnt /, ' RvBfirtg=' -t"Sluruge Rrbar&1.1 I 1111 J16 _I Shd t.,ht f,5 I 1 x rewind. i IS !1 t W'eshe Pt4 f 1 J 112xbx8�, �/�f� !nke Cushmxn big.3 t pce anchru(!ang16'__' �; � a � IAA 39 t h ()% grater Areas. � 5 IiInim Pier, 4A 12 x1 Ali. rnn Ramp ix14 4? ' '•. as aM -Jq¢ Gloat !0�_f _'00 SSI4RAL ZT�y\ Pnrpq<al poet, xS SP It)z J7 4i 21xt l PROP(1SI U S1T'I IRi S -- -- rawwsl ul I t to a1 r I It R a ntpi use rr !xx(meU lyre, (1 v t)A1'tlbl. TAtrJA ENCtNPF:RlNG!a r rx 11r)Al:I K t tilixtnr.r1 H P.tIR,[RIIIMIM3.`;I II yln�tifI utrcrN�'enbnc • 1,nrw /'U 8-13S awn 1+ 1 �i, I t1C AllOh nl7tNtE$5: >�I A17IACNNT OWNP.RS- f r1 x,f�uf. !3n..a �In1 n Ic.wvx lfJb01*dp,443 h 911348 Rom? f l i t cr At '.l.Ilxn!r,�nxl 1 11 IM µ � IN € k ( !n 1 AlfCev A- S1 M1 t 1 1 I 1 4 h�uw t r� +� Ad—e f het So.�<2 W7-NYf)aa,9R� 1 ��� a ,v,+.+.l,.r EXxINri nr v, STATi ua MI I-h Raduwle ABHlaI hJre d7l8) ,� 6AT h 1 4BkhT M I I -- Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 36 Attachment 6 Cross Section with proposed shoreline develop nt. T ,- t` 4 IU'�;0'I'Inat Sp+t Hcaeh C{Icvazions: .�,x 4acwrding ,� 724.20 Ahuninued 729.30 and instalacturer's --"� Spedfiearions. Unspecified Canstrw:tion Walk Shall A (,nmpl)Nth MascuT County Prescripnvr J t Standards or IHC Standards. 'N•\�. .•D tit 9 @ �. iV. ' SSiONAt.BTtG r._,___.__ -••iI �•n— 742 742 —_ 74{) _—_— - 734 s _ xu x ar �KBs R;m 730 7 728 — 1 j ! � ° r.A•.r / RIto 720---- _ - - frRf;PtrSt D WAI I:RI RUN I PI-A rlURi�ti i'KUFU.L: PURPOR!' In-1 A i n Alt rn R A APPLICANT 1 PROPOSYD,R"A d.tr.nn `: TAMA 67 INFERING Im nl s I- It, HIM REPAIR&W PI a I-M fmuglu.8 f Ivabnh t.r tnn np x rO xn( um.W"', ! pp Pi 235 ®, DATUMS I K 11''511MAti VI A 7u LOCATION ADDIII I m 01,A t.11, me IMUdg10rt, WA 98548 .Nil dim — %C"xrorm� (354)877-45)1 ADJACENT OWNERS'. II ,il� N\ v�% IN flit J M. N1,1t iRmurl MAtt:JNC ADDRi•SC- isrt r•v Ihrn.9i a F nr I t AT Ia�uMf "tAr x —' floc j {%ri)NTY."t MATT:'.K4 `,r) Pur ltpArndml ea(iilr.Prks 1�3116 Mroa Ca-PrG No 42.407-50-WJR t+�.tlmtxi K t•M.M r,irc DATE: -Ir P,ET:�Iu !i Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 37 Attachment 7 Cross section details. Propened No,4',x8'flier Lxutin8 [lapped PI 2.xt;Ueck with 20,loisls .' ("—ete Stab •`"' or 14 �� in.tailcd on 24"Cr'K All wood constnstion Io K. �� Pre"We treated(i'T)or Yellow " ,�� �'. _. I 41 o � Alaskan Crdar.Hardu�arx to be 9 a V Q�0tsitB6 ti�w I-wistiog `Y10 L t3yG l oncrete Rlocl. 744 S t1'all n 7 88 4"•Pia Gal, a4 Wall Re-Bar 12"Ctok V.Ss l l I $reel PocC5121 Concrete: 2500 psi,.d 28 Da,,min. tics Ri 4'Beep x 740.0 73v.8 f..--- 5' 73(Soil Anchor 2 dill Ii Mes, - __ Inslailaln:n fil�warinn 714 (au Attgic �Galvanited ~`~ ft1`1n*1 4 Stccl Post j 734 pipes ,cUOn };xia�Pton� (2 Tatal) n+uctiom i �4 P I 8 i 7'41.D - j t al-.1 un Pipes ut -4•l>eplh ti --4"Jla,Note 710A ._. Ins5all 4 Iwow banom of rrew uaR 8'1m8 x 2"i7 U a Al F I � � Gafw.Iron Pipes ssK �i j 4x8 Net &New Wall Detailti on 2 r UA 1 — --—— -- — _._. 1'URA I RI A I&11 x4 ,I n C APPLICANT PItt7PD8CtR Hnl s F.n> TA7iJA FiNClNEF,kjN(}(r1C 11(fAi RI PAIR.>i 81 VY Al I xtln I IT�.hplc k t 1 rnbrfh Nrshin } .n1i� t f ohu.^.apix,•a IN)&u 23i Al t-..4 1 hrleJ 1 DA71r11 i K i1 5I It11. 1.1 u 'I. t-4L'ATK1N ADDAPSS. r 1 t ih A s t�f t a�¢ I AWACT.NT OWN!?AS f M1ly�tl hlnf.�'n uk 1 .csw �aadepurr. WA 98348 Mid usox�.m �ueprax�itwe f illlil tt.rMdlmt trr,in� ii n4gon unexs.tri IN ra,�iu+I u ( ) 512 MAO..iNG ADDRPSti _ 1 n brah b ^.N ATIN 1 Alarm fa P.1 Nay 42307-500e0034 elMn• u rr,s.e,i� DATN � lloe STATF: w'n NISPIWT tNd�rkYe4 fn 4aA.Lplr� L�'/I6 � Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 38 Attachment 8 Cross section details. sr rt i I x L I n Ex uitin nr g Piln i ti dia Schedui"..9f7 tvrl r et it,4' deep,-30"dia.eNcuvauom ® }"nn uPf}er_i 1xown M corw;vle_BoniI rlw.he lormles. IC ('nrntnICfit— 1 _ Gt 4%8 M Fratnmmk Fram work with i 12 Billet[:dgc Frames I rams wnh FAilcl Lrx:at}orn 112 hiliefsl "IXxI,B(lilder,Suppl),,metal corner,(ICI All w atd,onnrcn tnN rcgwr Yl t>Fe meta[ t M q-dat<d Sl)roloanr Fldlets: nbown at all 4x8 connecuom.in>tall an relnfwc'ed Mold hard are shall to Kalurtivcd IXx K F'I,OA I SUPI'I.Y model D470 t(X'-I`)"tkaside Comer Irnd on 4 ar stated with yawl wh icing Paull In,1411 hdf41.nwdelcd prrn iding LOT(I=")Frrctxtani oul'idc Conley:ill float. Angle-2.Sx5 I I at ea 3.eN uwnecnon. mih a l(In dead load and a 104 live load. 'umhined 17ongaled ile FAcaruBmr - flan View � 8"dia.SChc`xlule 40 (Selz. Rust Inhibiting t♦4�tMo I I Id Welded Sicel 111Mvton" e Yt � ;17 uhinK - 733 l a41 t nds r, Paull welded lotnts- 730 ,d ap 64 t„/q nstali P F 40 o1 4xr. - _ E OlgfLlt%` wpnrlmd" ftamrc- j xcun vnh i.R"p;elr 1_ 1 Profile View scnLr I N -� LANOI'N(i IN I All -"----- --�f Y! - pL(RATK LAVDIR(S PRCIFII_H FLl}r11 &f'Ll)AI f.AN!)IN(i DI':I All-S l pUR►OSE:n1+t.kncnu-rn:K A APVt.ICANn PROP0.9LiA^kept, A toalry ; TAtUA N.NOWEERING tnc scAl I I..K rl tM t RI PAIK A KI YI N'[Nil"I D-91a;A I.liraheth\c,hn1 s atcrt. 11 re.aryw- PO So.215 1 „ bANM=I a I l'YIM AN l4 w i n Id1K'ATION ADM-SS- r t f Mal a 5 m. fv I jJw&gpon. WA 9S.W An dmkn.ca=+u�M+v t t+au ADJACENT OWNERS 1;t ti I4gl t terser r lac r. f 1360)877 9512 i l l l 17 N(ac.1,1 i 1rm,rt+1 t l FNN 1 AN 49". IN (,rl,c l I MAItm ATI MPAS AT I N 1 i..h f.'UUNTy.xt sl-a sr to�. wu A'T _ ,.>na.n„ M.—Gb.(4r1 N. 42307-3(wOpn78 � GATE! I-L't EET:N Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 39 Attachment 9 The existing bulkhead and float at the site (June 2015). i a, .r1 r r_ Y Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 40 J Attachment 10 The bulkhead showing the undercut footing (left and two of the creosoted metal pilings on the existing pier(November 2015). v Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 41 Attachment 11 The bulkhead, the float, and more creosoted pier pilings. a� 1 t Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 42 Attachment 12 The bulkhead, pier, and float (Novemeber 2015) Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 43 , r ,t x� •, �j •'a ia� �' e ,� �'` � ��!.; fig'+� ���.r 7a`N�.. �..;:".a� y c}'�r�h} a• f �A" ♦ �'L!_' b haw' f � � � ° +�" �•� jai � .�+ �','V�,�" .{ � b ef," � 3' Ny s�i it ���`�F°'�+ r�" +Y���`` +ram .+��,* �Aa'����� �s.S1 ������� ��. A'^E a�• .,�^ ''�w. or � rA ,Q d�`'•. � �h �'�l�`�k R }� � �. �ate, r s g e Attachment 14 Essential Fish Habit Assessment Essential Fish Habitat Assessment A. Background The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Mana ement Act was signed into law on April 13, 1976. Under provisions of the Act, eight Re ional Fishery Management Councils were established to prepare FMP's in conformar ce with national standards published in 50 CFR Part 600.305-340. The Magnuson Act v as renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act in a 1996 appropriations bill. On October 11, 19)6, the Sustainable Fisheries Act,which amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act,was signe into law. Provisions included a mandate that the Councils amend each IMP to include a escription of Essential Fish Habitat, including adverse impacts on EFH and consery ion measures to protect EFH. Essential Fish Habitat is defined as those waters and subs ate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council has esignated 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: Chino salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch). B. Essential Fish Habitat The designated EFH for Pacific salmon species 's identified using U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)hydrologic units as well as hab tat association tables and life history descriptions of each life stage(PFMC 1999). T ke EFH for the Pacific coast salmon fishery is defined as those waters and substrate ecessary for salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fish y and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem(WSDOT 2014). To achieve that IeN cl of production, EFH must include all those streams, lakes,ponds,wetlands, and othe currently viable water bodies and most of the habitat historically accessible to salmon Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California(WSDOT 2014). This does not inclu le habitats above the impassible barriers identified by the Pacific Fishery Management Touncil Fishery Management Plan(PFMC 1999). Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 45 C. Proposed Action The proposed project is the repair of an existing concrete bulkhead and the replacement of an existing pier and float with a pier,ramp, and float(PRF) on Lake Cushman. 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. Final environmental assessment and fording of no significant impact for Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat. Internet report. Website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/finalenvironmentalassessmentandfindingof io.htm PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1999. Fisheries Management Plans for groundfish, coastal pelagic 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. http://www.wsdot.wa gov/NR/rdonlyres/AIF85352 90EO-457B 9A8C B5103E097FAE10/BA manualpart2 ydf Nesbitt Biological Evaluation 46 r ' 0()03 3 RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2015 426 W. CEDAR ST. Habitat Management Plan Pruitt Bulkhead/Concrete Slab, Pier, Float, Buoy, Shoreline Access Stairs, Upland Stairs, Retaining Wall, & Storage Shed After-the-Fact Permitting Project Lake Cushman, Hoodsport WA For: Turner& Ka by Pruitt 11216 3`d e NW Seattle,WA 9 177-4715 Prepare by: 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: imucrl)tO l Cetltul-y telxet August 3,2015 S 4 �y Table of Cc ntents 1.0 Proposed Action.................................... ......................................... 3 1.1 Background&ATF Development............... ........................................ 3 1.2 ATF Development Need&Objectives.......... ......................................... 3-4 2.0 Mitigation............................................ ........................................... 2.1 Monitoring&Maintainence...................... ..........................................5 3.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information........... .......................................... 5 3.1 ESA Listed Species................................. ......................................... 5-7 4.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions............. .......................................... 8 4.1 ATF Project Vicinity............................... ......................................... 4.2 ATF Project Site.................................... ......................................... - 5.0 Effects of the Action............................... .................................. 5.1 Direct Effects...................................... ......................................... 9-12 5.2 Indirect Effects..................................... ........................................... 12-13 5.3 Cumulative Effects................................ ........................................... 13 6.0 Conclusion.......................................... ........................................... 13 6.1 Take Analysis...................................... ........................................... 13 6.2 Determination of Effect........................... ........................ ................ 14 10.0 References.......................................... ........................................... 15-17 Attachm ents 1. Project location...................................... ............................................18 2. Site plan.............................................. ........................................ ... 19 20 3. Site Photograph..................................... ........................................... 21 4. Site Photograph................... •••• 22 5. Site Photograph................................................................................... 23 6. Site Photographs.................................... .............................................. 24 7. Site Photographs.................................... .............................................. 25 8. Site Photographs.................................... .............................................. 9. Site Photographs.................................... ..............................................26 Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 2 �� Y 1 1.0 Proposed Action This Habitat Management Plan has been submi ed on behalf of Turner and Kathy Pruitt at the request of Mason County to comply with the County's regulations and procure after-the-fact(ATF)permits for existing shoreline development on their Lake Cushman property. The ATF development includes the following: a concrete bulkhead and associated concrete slab, a pier and float, a buoy, shoreline access stairs,upland stairs, an upland cottage stone retaining wall,two low rock retaining walls, and a storage shed (Attachments 6-9). Proposed mitigation for existing development is the installation of a stormwater drainage swale. 1.1 Background & ATF Development The proposed project site is located in Mason County at 131 N Potlatch Drive, Hoodsport Washington(Attachment 1). The Mason Count tax parcel number is 42307-50-00038. The property is located in Section 07, Townshio 23N, Range 04 of the Western Meridian. The latitude is 47.49333 N, and the longitude is 123.24719 W. The proposed project site is located on Lake Cushman in the Skokomis osewallips Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA 16) on a shoreline designated Urb m Residential by the Shoreline Master Program of Mason County. Lake Cushman is regulated under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and the Mason Cour ty 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. The proposed project site is located in a rural neighborhood on a shoreline lot,which supports a single-family residence (SFR) located approximately twenty feet vertically and eighty feet horizontally from the shoreline of Lake Cushman (Attachment 4). There is a culverted drainage system that runs along the west side of the property that collects stormwater from the upper neighborhood(and likely SR 119)before depositing it into Lake Cushman via a 36-inch culvert (Attachments 2 & 3). Existing shoreline appurtenances include an approx. 59 lineal-foot(If)by 5.5-foot(tall) concrete mortar unit (CMU)bulkhead, an associated 335 square-foot(sf) concrete slab/patio, a treated lumber and composite pier and float(97 sf and 118 sf, respectively), a buoy located approx. 85 feet from the shoreline at the site,treated lumber shoreline access stairs (11.5 sf), concrete upland stairs (107 sf), a cottage stone retaining wall (85 if by 5.5 feet tall), and two rock retaining walls (46 if by 2.5 feet tall and 361f by 1.5 feet tall, respectively). 1.2 ATF Development Need and Objectives The existing shoreline appurtenances are common to shoreline properties on Lake Cushman with the exception of the concrete slab (also utilized as a patio)that is located on top of the bulkhead and the bulkhead's backfill. According to engineer Alan Tahja (see Pruitt Geo Report, 7-22-15),the slab was likely poured on top of the concrete mortar unit bulkhead(and backfill)when the bulkhead was originally constructed. At a later Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 3 } date, a second slab was poured directly on top o the original. Because the CMU bulkhead does not have cantilever footings,the oncrete slab acts as a tie-back element to the wall design. Besides,providing a horizontal holding force at the top of the wall,the concrete slab also provides protection against stormwater runoff delivery and potential erosion to the back side of the bulkhead. On a 6-1-15 site visit, stor�nwater erosion trails were observed running across pervious ground from the upland portion of the property toward the shoreline. The property owner reported that stornwater runoff from adjacent upland properties and the vicinity's road network deliver significant quantities of runoff through his property and over the slab and bulkhead. A in, according to the engineer,this stormwater delivery has, at times, saturated the foils located behind the CMU bulkhead, producing hydrostatic pressures that have resulted in the bulkhead bulging (slightly) toward the lake. Because of the geometry and nature of the Concrete Mortar Unit wall located along the lake's shoreline, it appears the design relies on the existing wall backfill supported concrete slab to maintain its stability(Tahja 2015). 2.0 Mitigation The proposed ATF project mitigation is the instlallation of a low berm or swale that will intercept surface runoff delivered to the subject�property from North Potlatch Drive and the vicinity's road network(Attachment 5). The purpose of the low berm/swale is for flood and water quality control. As per Alan Tahja's plan, a low berm/swale may be installed by enhancing an existing, approx. 50 by 5-foot area of low ground where, presently,water from North Potlatch Drive drains down the site's driveway, across the property, and into an existing catch basin. The site's existing, natural low berm/swale (likely enlarged by un-natural runoff)may be widened(to approx. 10 feet)to create a larger area for surface water infiltration to groundwater and to slow flows. The wider the facility,the more shallow and slow the flow will be which will improve the water quality treatment capacity of the swale (OSU Extension 2008). It is recommended that the low berm/swale be augmented with the planting of native vegetation. Plantings in swales should be dense to reduce flow velocities and prevent erosion and control weeds (OSU Extension 2008). Vegetation that is native to the area should be selected based 04 its tolerance to flooding. The proposed low berm/swale will have zones that vary from1wetland to upland conditions;therefore, vegetation should be selected based on these conditions and where (it) vegetation will be planted. It is recommended that a professional engineer design the augmentation of the proposed low berm/swale. The following vegetation may be suitable for installation in the low berm/swale: vine maple (Acer circinatum),red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera),pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus), stink current(Ribes brateosum), swamp rose (Rosa pisocarpa),and sawbeak sedge (Carex stipata). Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 4 2.1 Monitoring and Maintenance The property owners will monitor and water the native vegetation plantings as needed during dry months,until the vegetation has bec6me established. Any dead plants will be replaced throughout the monitoring period. Any invasive, non-native vegetation will be removed at least twice per year. 3.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information In the ATF project area,there are six species listted under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as either threatened, endangered, or candidate species. The bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus),marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus),northern spotted owl (Stridex occidentalis), and streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata) are listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated for these species. The ATF project site is in the bull trout's critical habitat. The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus a ericanus) and the fisher(Martes pennanti) are listed as proposed threatened and candidate species,respectively. In the proposed project area,there is one species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NM S) as either threatened, endangered, or candidate species. The Puget Sound Chinook s4mon(Oncorhynchus tshawyacha) 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 critical habitat. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) GIS maps reveal the documented presence of two other species of salmondds on the State's PHS list within the action area: Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). The presence of#hese 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 salmoides). 3.1 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. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 5 Critical habitat includes the upper North Fork o the Skokomish River(70 FR 56304). Critical Habitat in the North Fork of the Skoko ish River includes spawning and rearing habitat. Lake Cushman provides rearing, foragi g, and migration habitat, so it is expected that bull trout may be found in the vicinity of th ATF project site. MARBLED MURRELET A small, diving seabird in the family Alcidae,t e marbled murrelet forages for small fish and invertebrates almost exclusively in nearsho e 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 investigat@ 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-4ertical 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 isIinfluenced 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,which was designated in May of 1996 and revised in October of 2011, is located to the northwest of the ATF project site; therefore, it must be assumed that marbled murrelets may be found nesting in the vicinity. State Route 119 is located between the project site, Lake Cushman, and the marbled murrelets' critical habitat, so it is expected that any marbled murrelets nesting in the vicinity of the ATF project site, will do so on the far side (north side)of the highway. Additionally,the ATF project will not result in the future loss of any trees or other vegetation. NOR THERN SPO TTED OWL The Northern Spotted Owl is one of the largest fowls in North America, and the average adult female is approximately 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). Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 6 .9 T The USFWS designated revised critical habitat 1br the northern spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act. In total, approximately 9,577,969 acres (ac) (3,876,064hectares (ha)) in 11 units and 60 subunitsinCalifornia, Oregon, and Washington n fall within the boundaries of the 2 critical habitat designation. Critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl is located in the vicinity of Lake Cushman. lowever, due to the close proximity of human habitation, it is unlikely that any Northe spotted owls may be found in the neighborhood of the ATF project site. Addition Ily,the ATF project will not result in the future loss of any trees or shrubs. STREAKED HORNED LARK Horned larks are birds that utilize wide open sp4ces with no trees and few or no shrubs. The streaked horned lark nests on the ground ini 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 Will4mette Rivers, and in grasslands, estuaries, and sandy beaches in British Columbia(WDF 2012). Today the streaked horned lark nests in a broad range of habitats, including nat ve prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, spa sely-vegetated edges of grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with exte isive bare ground,moderately-to heavily- grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel shoulde of lightly-traveled roads, airports, and dredge deposition sites in the lower Columbia I Liver(WDFW 2012). It is expected that the ATF project site contains unsuitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. CHINOOK SALMON Chinook salmon in Lake Cushman are a land-locked population that originated from anadromous fish, 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. 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 longterm license for Cushman Hydroelectric Project. Tacoma Power has proposed to introd ce 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 ATF project site provides rearing, foraging, and migration habitat, so it is expected that adult and/or juvenile Chinook salmon may be found in the vicinity of the site. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 7 4.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions 4.1 ATF Project Vicinity 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 pr posed 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 Sk komish/Dosewallips WRIA 16 (Water Resource Inventory Area), on Lake Cushman inl 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 2008 Water Quality 303(d)-5 list of impaired waterbodies for any parameters. The proposed project site is located in a rural neighborhood on a lot with approximately 59 feet of frontage on Lake Cushman, in an are classified as an Urban Residential shoreline environment by the Shoreline Master rogram of Mason County. Neighboring parcels support single-family residences (or rec eational cabins),bulkheads, piers, storage sheds, floats, and other appurtenances common to waterfront properties. 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 Olympic 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) of land surrounding the inle 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). 4.2 ATF Project Site A field investigation was conducted on June 1,2014, at approximately one in the afternoon. The project area was surveyed visually on foot. The weather was sunny and the temperature around seventy-five degrees Fahrenheit. The elevation of the lake's water level was approx. 735 feet,three feet below the current ordinary high water mark of 738 feet. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 8 5 The site supports a single-family residence witl an attached garage and a deck. The native vegetation coverage is moderate, and there are numerous large trees. Stormwater erosion trails were observed running across per ious ground from the upland portion of the property toward the shoreline,which is accessed via a dirt trail and concrete stairs. The dirt trail also accesses a fire pit area that ovjerlooks the bulkhead(and lake). A small storage shed is located at the base of the stairs,Aust landward of the bulkhead(and concrete slab/patio). A cottage stone retaining wall is located directly landward of the concrete slab/patio. The bulkhead is constructed of a material, cinder blocks,that are not commonly used in bulkhead construction. The property's shoreline is located in a cove that likely offers only moderate protection from wave action, depending on the wind direction. The cove appears to be a deposition area for all sizes of woody material, and large woody material was observed on the beach at the ATF project site (Attachment 8). The following native plant species were observed at the site: Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), Western red cedar(Thuja plicata), Western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla), rhododendron(Rhododendron spp.), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), Oregon-grape (Berberis nervosa), and sword fern(Polystichum munitum). 5.0 Effects of the Action 5.1 Direct Effects Direct effects to the shoreline include: 1) Loss jof benthic habitat from the installation of the CMU bulkhead footing,the shoreline acces$ stairs footing, four steel pipes, and two concrete-filled plastic pipes. 2) Creation of shade to the shoreline from the pier and float. 3) Contamination to Lake Cushman from the leaching of wood preservatives. 4)The loss of native vegetation. 5) The alteration of aquatic-terrestrial connectivity. 1) The footprint of the bulkhead, shoreline, access stairs, and pier/float pilings are located waterward of the lake's high water mark of 73 feet; nevertheless,they are expected to have had/have an insignificant impact on benth c habitat. The pilings and stairs occupy less than eight square feet(sf) of benthic habitatt. The bulkhead footing occupies approx. 236 sf, but the exposed area(i.e. the area located waterward of the bulkhead's face) is predominantly buried by native shoreline substiate. In addition, due to the seasonal fluctuations of the lake's water level, 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. 2)Another direct effect is the creation of overwater shade from the pier and float. The pier and float 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 Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 9 prey. The use of over-water structures in weste Washington waters by bass, a common, non-native predator of juvenile salmonids,has b en documented by several authors. Largemouth bass in Lake Washington prefer are s of heavy log and brush cover over other habitat types; however,they are commonly found under docks in early spring and are thought to be present until late summer(Ste' 1970). Substrate type typically determines the acceptability of an area for bass spawning, 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; Helfman 1981b; Pflug and Pauley 1984). The substrate type in the vicinity of the bµlkhead and landing is gravel, cobble, and rock. 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 project site possesses unsuitable habitat for bass, so it is doubtful that the proposed pier,ramp, and float will increase the concentration of bass at te site or the occurrence of juvenile salmonid predation by bass. The project site surports 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 y narrow residential piers, due to the presence of more optimal light conditions than Jound 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 providi g more refuges for prey species as well as 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 w1aters, and there is no empirical evidence of mortality. The significance of predation to igrating 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). One final important fact: the pier and float lack water for approx. six months each year. In conclusion, shade created by the proposed pier, ramp, and float is expected to have had/have discountable and insignificant direct effects on ESA listed salmonids that may be in the ATF project vicinity. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 10 3) The leaching of wood preservatives is a co on contaminant-related issue with the construction of shoreline SFR appurtenances. ACZA pressure treated wood, which is more prevalent on the west coast because it effectively treats Douglas fir, contains copper, zinc, chromium, and arsenic. The main active ingredient of concern for effects to fish is copper. Environmentally realistic concerritrations of free copper are noted to impact the resistance of fishes to disease, cause hyperactivity, impair respiration, disrupt osmoregulation or impair olfactory performance (NOAA 2009). The majority of projects proposing to use treated wood are smaller than e 100 piling size which predicts potentially problematic water column concentr tions of copper at current velocities of 1 cm/sec or less (NOAA 2009). Also,ACZA lea hing rates were very low in fresh water within ten days of installation(Brooks 1995,NMFS 1998, Hutton& Samis 2000). A boardwalk study (FPL 2000)was conducted in Oregon on a 1,800 foot long boardwalk, constructed in a wetland area from three different copper treated products,to evaluate the product's environmental effects. The environment was slow moving freshwater,with fine grained sediments and heavy rainfall (NOAA 2 09). A localized pattern of distribution indicated that the majority of leached copper w is bound to suspended materials that settled into the sediments (NOAA 2009). Moni oring of leaching found that the greatest amount leached during initial rainfall (NOAA 009). Four invertebrate sampling events were conducted at the AZCA site over a one y period to detect potential adverse effects. Results did not show a significant re du ,ion in habitat quality, and no taxa were extirpated from the study area, despite elevated concentrations of copper near the boardwalk(NOAA 2009). It is unlikely that leaching from treated wood his had/will have a noticeable impact on aquatic life in Lake Cushman at the proposed p�cject site, due to the small amount of treated wood used in the project. 4) Shoreline armoring modifies the natural transition between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 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 r atural transition between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems) of shoreline armoring. The bulkhead at the site does possess access stairs; the author has observed wildlife, includi g deer, fox, raccoon, and a harbor seal pup utilizing shoreline access stairs. Drainage to the shoreline at the site has already been significantly altered by upland runoff,primarily from roads. Proposed mitigation will involve the planting of native vegetation in a swale that is expected to alleviate stormwater erosion at the site and improve the water quality of stormwater runoff that is discharged into Lake Cushman. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 11 2)Another direct effect is the loss of vegetatio directly landward of the bulkhead, due to the presence of the bulkhead. Native vegetation has recolonized(or was planned by the applicant)a significant percentage of the pervious surface area landward of the bulkhead. Proposed mitigation will involve the planting of native vegetation(see 4 above). 5.2 Indirect Effects 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 bulkhead has/will exacerbate passive erosion to the shoreline. 2) The bulkhead has/will cause a reduction in the accumulation of large drift logs on the beach. 3)The loss of shoreline aquatic vegetation. 4) Potential increased motorized boat presence ' the area. 1) 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 f a bulkhead will gradually become coarser as wave action and littoral drift remove the finer sediment and there is no sediment available for replenishment because ii is impounded behind the bulkhead (Macdonald et al. 1994). Hard-armored bulkhe ids cut off sediment that was once available to feed the beach,thus adversely affe ting natural beach-forming processes. The bulkhead at the site does not appear to have caused scouring or steepening of the beach at the site, which, unlike the majority of Lake Cushman's shoreline, features a relatively gentle slope. Scouring at the bulkhead's footing was observed at the northwest end,but it is likely that it may have been caused by discharge flows from the thirty-six inch culvert, which is located approx. 40 feet to the north and landward(of the bulkhead). 2) 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. I There is no shortage of large woody material at the ATF project site. 3) The pier and float have/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). It is expected that the impact of the lake's fluctuating water level on littoral productivity will overshadow the impacts of shading from the PRF at the Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 12 proposed project site. As previously discussed, ite (1975) determined that PYt p h o lankton primary production is not signifi antly 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. 4) The pier and float may have/may result in an increased motorized boat presence in the area. Fuel spills from powerboats can contaminate water quality and potentially affect directly or indirectly through their re source (NMFS 2005). listed salmonids d g prey Y Y Powerboats also create amplified wave action t t can erode the shoreline, and prop scouring can erode benthic habitat, although be thic habitat in the littoral zone is already significantly marginalized by the lake's fluctuat g 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 n 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). 5.3 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 he 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. 6.0 Conclusion 6.1 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,ihunt, shoot,wound,trap,capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed species by"significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing,migrating, 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,but are not limited to, breeding, feeding,or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). In regards to the ATF project, it is extremely unlikely that any"take"has or will occur. The proposed mitigation will further insure the likelihood that no"take"will occur. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 13 i 6.2 Determination of Effect A determination of May affect, not likely to adversely affect is the appropriate conclusion when effects 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 ATF project has had/will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or Threatened species. In my most honest and professional opinion, while the ATF proje may have/may impact individual Endangered or Threatened species in the proje area, it is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of those spe ies or their designated Critical Habitat. The determination of effect for each of the liste I species is: 1. Bull trout and their designated Critical �Iabitat—Mqy 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-billed cuckoo—No effect. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 14 7.0 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, �eptember 12, 2006/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 200/October 18, 2010/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/77 FR 14062/March 8, 2012/PXoposed Rules Godwin, D., M. Sowles, D. Tullos, M. Cahil. 2008. Water Quality Swales. Oregon State University Extension. Internet report: htt ://extension.ore onstate.edu/watershed/site default/files/swales. df. Google Earth. 2013. Aerial Imagery. Internet report. https://www.google.com/earth/ 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. 69 pp. Leigh, Michael. 1996. Grow your own native landscape: a guide to identifying, propagating, and landscaping with Western W in on native plants. Washington State University Cooperative Extension/Thurston County, Olympia, WA. National Geographic. 2002.Field Guide to the iBirds of North America.National Geographic Society, Washington,D.C. pg. 226, 244, 250, & 320. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species. Internet report. http://www.nwr.noaa.dov Nightingale, B. and C. Simenstad. 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Transportation. Olympia, Washington. 177 p. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 15 NOAA. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Marne Species. Internet report. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/speciesiesa/ Poston, T. 2001. Treated Wood Issues Associated with Overwater Structures in Marine and Freshwater Environments. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Skokomish Indian Tribe & Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Recovery Plan for Skokomish River Chinook Salmon. Internet Report. http://hccc.wa.gov/Downloads/Downloads Get ile.as x?id=397519&fd=0 Tacoma Public Utilities. 2014. Cushman Hydro Project. Internet report. https://www.m3jpu.org/tacomgpower/about-tac ma- ower/dams- ower-sources/h dro- power/cushman-hydro project/ Tahja, Alan. 2015. Pruitt Geo Report. Unpublished document. 7 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume 11 (of II): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 277 +xvi pp U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species rofile, Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/mm/m mu elet.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Guidance for Identifying Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees in Washington State. Internet report. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2D971 3D8-D448-43A7-8249- E2319095C8C2/0/MAMUhabitatF WS.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Season and Analytical Framework for Section 7 Consultation in Was 'ngton. Internet report. http://www.wsdot.wa.govNR/rdonlyres/F384 4F-BF1C-476C-8E9D- A45A715B624C/0/CoverLtrNestin Season. d U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Conducting Masking Analysis for Marbled Murrelets and Pile Driving Projects. Internet re ort. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NRJrdonlyres/3506 AA-4B13-4E1B-855D- 36E047E07090/0/MAMU MaskAnalysis.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Fischer,Martes Pennanti. Internet report. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20s ets/Fisher%20S ecies%20Profile%20Fin al.pdf Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Streaked Horned Lark, Eremophila alpestris strigata. Internet report. htt :%/"ww.fws.-,ov%wafwo/s ecies/Fact%20sh is/streakedhornedlarkfinal,Rdf Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008. 2008 Water Quality 303(d)-5 List: Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inven ory Area(WRIA) 1. Internet report. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/ 03d/w16-303d. df Washington State Department of Natural Reso ces. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping application. Internet report: htt ://foitress.wa. v/dm•/a 1/t] ars/viewer.htm Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Olympic Fisher Reintroduction Project: 2010 Progress Report. Internet report. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01393/wdfwO 393. df Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 012. Annual Report: Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. http://wdi'Nk.wa.gov/conservation/endanv,ered/stecies/marbled murrelet. df Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 012. Annual Report: Northern Spotted Owl. Internet report. htlp://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/s ecies/northern spotted owl. df Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: Streaked Horned Lark. Internet report. htt ://wdfw.wa. Gov/conservation/endan ered/s ecies/streaked horned lark. df Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4012. Annual Report: Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Internet report. htt ://wdfw.wa. ov/co nervation/endan rered/s ecies/ ellow- billed euckoo.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1014. SalmonScape. Internet report. http://qpps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. BA Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training [anual—Version 4-02-2014. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NIZ/rdonlyres/A1 F8 352-90E0-457B-9A8C- B5103E097FAE10/BA manualpart2.pdf Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 17 Attachment 1 The vicinity map. Rd N ��s fj S ake- 4 NF.24 Ctiy/� Olympic National Forest mery Rd D Church r A4 r Jf Pot, —�� � Dr N F Pruitt Property N^ 131 N Potlatch Drive \\ /�.� +l, 11 s L a k e C u s ,h m a r , E Y z `v Sundowna .a RC3'C P+. :V:a4'iCNEtlt.'h'�6i"dC0'.2Co-Sfi b_X7—A"r.' RMEW Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 18 Attachment 2 Site Plan. I k C�u.hmai� (_ • Amil Prolk L"an t 4 Pig :I ?' r tinil Prt be y, lfk ',nn mp ,Rht y�F 6 r if 'c l 1� on I r um pr pirt�uFt—r to h`.Er NinE stn�hi it 1"Ad, y? t•iln n t ........... g „ ,�yy In t .._ VA A � � a LA('uehnian °t� srcdXV U 4rcje'V'ar.l X ITon�N S��� CCC y v F �n w 1 '4 I a t U�hlilJlt W ! ` N t.Aki: C USHMAN 5 Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 19 Attachment 3 Site Plan with existing development quantities. fk,A r 1 I' 750 11. a�u lxnda-apc $ , Fm y n 46 / J !� b �- i 1h+•A .f _ / W 8�flat-., t �+g IXistingDoelojwdQuantitie,: hchindhuuha t Fb I8-" IIN>t r v Nort-Compliant Stair ( n t 4C LandinG tits Iu heH nn»cd. ' Con c stinto SfR 1 fail 8y8vI(l Atl R IA at Aft tt it - — %<It i' I all( n k St '�.. III S N all\,+ 21 II tilR A . Nail it ,'Aa N it I 1 'call Ft 'L U all Il pp< N-.I. \Lr n_ I �f I�pxcdl,n.ttta t� tnS<INall,�". I Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 20 Attachment 4 Cross section. Rev m _ Dmwr"M l3ene TAHJA ENGINEERIN 3,INC. CROSS SECTION"A-A" Alan Tahja P.E- Tumer&Katy Pmwitt Prrwitt PO Box 235 11216 3rd Ave.NW - - -- Hoodsport, WA 98548 Seattle, WA 98177-4715 4 of8 leA2lsm Cm.Phel xo-. 423o7-Solwo3x (360)877-9512 (H)360 367-2092 (W)364284 5756 — _.---- � Q _ i It . 4'4''4 1«f1 t 111J 4i 3uo�}: rh yt ( ri _ : f I J 'r ' ne �I I •\ I � �Yd /�v� y t _ 1 Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 21 Attachment 5 Proposed low berm/swale. Rev ocsmp— DWW TAHJA ENGINE ERIN INC. UPLAND DRAINAGE Alan Tahjx P.E- 1 Turner&Katy Prrwin prew-yrt PO BOX 235 112163id Ave.NW Hoodaport, WA 98548 1 SeaWc. WA 981774715 of JeffasLm Co.Prcllhio. 42307-50-"38 (360)977-9512 (H)360-367-2202(W)360-294�5756 --------------- V-\1 f,6 A, 2 A, z Of Vj ta 0 de Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 22 Attachment 6 Existing concrete bulkhead, slab/patio, and retaining wall. �7 f a r t r 1 _ rigIk414,j h AMP Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 23 Attachment 7 Existing pier(bottom left)and float. Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 24 i < 4 �.'. ��N •✓��� t� "ham f\`T �7 JR �� ��F"f-I r. ,� .�►` �„�.+,t'�"' „fir -. c. 7'' x , � m mot- Attachment 9 Existing concrete upland stairs and shed. t � Pruitt Habitat Management Plan 26 GEO-2®rS 3y Mason County Review Checklist for a Geotechnical Repo Instructions: This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Report should explain the basis for the conclusion. The Report is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should refer the,case to the Planning Manager or Director. Applicant's Name: Permit#: 40&7-3 Parcel#: f.23a7 5 D poo 3 Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: 1. (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicin y of the proposed development, OK? v," Comment: (b) A discussion of specific soil types OK? V� Comment: (c) A discussion of ground water conditions OK? Comment. (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology OK? ✓ Comment: (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies EwetlandsOK? y" Comment. (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the viable in the referenced maps and records OK? 7 Comment: 2. A site plan that identifies the important development and geologic features. OK? w"- Comment: 3. Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. OK? ✓Comment: 4. The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic ma/p`of the site. OK? ,. Comment: A. �N�'r � 6k/�hKa���P�r.��•• a✓��Ci1 - 5. A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subs ace profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. OK? w"" Comment: 6. A description and results of slope stability analyses perfor ed for both static and seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysi should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minim m seismic safety factor is 1.1 and the quasi-static analysis coe cents should be a value of 0.15. OK? Comment: 7. (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features OK? Comment: (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields OK?�—Comment: (c) Appropriate r strictions on placement of compacted fills and footings. OK?_ Comment: Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 e (d) Recommae�ded buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. OK? p �j _ Comment: (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. OK? 1Vyj _Comment: 8. Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. / OK? ✓ Comment: by 71 tr e - 9. Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. OK? Comment: ^, 3 f I< <. 10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. OK? Comment: 11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. OK? ✓ Comment: 12. Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposedmitigation. OK? Comment: h•n C px� ,� o�,�, �rrm % �'� •, o�f 13. A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. OK? �Comment: Are the Documents signed and stamped? Ll� By whom? odlA�2 /X�.i License#: 3078`/ License type: 2E FFIRST REVIEW Approved ❑ Need more info. ot approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by � on ) . Time spent in review: ,r _ FSECOND:REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by on . Time spent in second review: FTHD REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by on . Time spent in third review: Disclaimer. Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 i 0201 RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2015 Mason County Department of Community Development 426 W. CEDAR ST. Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s) who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Applicant/Owner Turner& Kathy Prewitt Parcel# 42307-50-00038 Site Address 131 N Potlatch Drive N Lk Cushman Di .2 Lot 38 Hoods port,Washington (1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions In the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) Pages 1-3 (b) A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) Pages 2-3,4,5&6 . (c) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) Page 4 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) Page 2&4 (e) A discussion of the location of upland wate bodies and wetlands Located on page(s) Page 4 (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s) Page 3 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Plan Sheets 1 - 8 . (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Plan Sheet 2 (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) Plan Sheets 1 - 8 (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed gra�e changes. Located on Map(s) Plan Sheet 4&GAL NA Stability Analysis pages 1 &3 (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1. and the quasi-static analysis coefficients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) Page 4-5 GALENA Stability Analysis Printout pages 2&4. (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features Located on page(s) Pages 5-6 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields Located on page(s) Pages 1 &2 . (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) Page 6 Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. r _ � ., (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) Pages 5& 6 . (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) Pages 5&6 . (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) Page 5 (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a deta led temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful con ruction methods. Located on page(s) Page 6 (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts f the proposed development. Located on page(s) Nee 6 (11) Specifications of final development conditions s ch as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) Paee 6 (12) Recommendations for the preparation of struct ral mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) Paee 6 (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s) Plan Sheets 1 —3& PI n Sht 8 I, Alan A Tahia P E hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Reports, dated 7/22/2015 ,and entitled Turner& Kathy Prewitt Geotechnical Report meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, are complete and true, that the reports demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) SAT 3U784 w� 0A +Q�+GIST Eg�� �SSIONAL E�G� Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. TAHJA ENGIN ERING, Inc. PO Box 235, Hoodport, WA 98548 (360) 87 -9512 Mason County DCD Planning Division 426 W Cedar St. Shelton, WA 98584 Turner&Kathy Prewitt 11216 3rd Ave.NW Seattle, WA 98177-4715 (W) 206-367-2092 (H) 206-284-5726 turnerkamnameplate.com Re; G technical Report L e Cushman Div.2, Lot 38 13 N Potlatch Drive N H odsport, WA 98548 Pavel No.: 42307-50-00038 M Lson Co. Case No.s; Se Aic: 1968 Thurston-Mason Health Dist. Permit No. 3123 INTROD JCTION I was contacted in late May of this year by Mr. Turner Prewitt who requested my investigation and findings regarding geotechni 1 issues and feature permitting issues relating to the above referenced property. I visited the ste on July 9th to collected topographic information for development of Geotechnical Report Drawings and waterfront features prepared for this report. Measurements were in ide using a Trimble T5415 total station, a 4- foot range pole, a Sokkia model No. 8047-55 i clinometer, 100 foot and 300 foot long fiberglass surveyor's tapes and other field equi ment common to surveying. Software employed in creating a site plan and writing thi s report included AutoCADTM 2006, a SoftreeTM Terrain 3-d contour modeling program, GALENATM Slope Stability Analysis software and MicrosoftTM Office Word 2003. The site has been developed as a recreational s asonal use property with a single family residence, septic system(installed 1968), a wal erfront bulkhead and other amenities as shown on the attached AutoCAD drawing set. The m 'ority of the property is landscaped with native low growing vegetation and a scattering of second growth Douglas Fir and Hemlock trees. Property development and landscaping is included the installation of a Concrete Mortar Unit(CMU)wall along the 734 elevati n of Lake Cushman with a height of—5-1/2'. A concrete slab was poured on top of the CMU vall, likely at the time the wall was constructed in 1985. Since the slab's original placement, a econd slab has been poured directly on top of the original slab. It appears apparent that the C MU wall was backfilled when it was originally constructed. The slab located on top of the CTV U wall varies from-4' wide at the westerly end to approximately 9' at its easterly end. Laidward behind the retaining wall slab, a Cottage Stone (CS)wall—3.7' tall has been i talled. Further up the hill a 2 to 3' tall riprap rock rockery has been installed and provides t e border for a fire pit patio area which is File:C:TrojectslPrewitt Geo-Rpt I of 7 7/22/2015 TAHJA ENG ERING, Inc. PO Box 235, Hood port, WA 98548 (360) 87 -9512 bounded further towards the upland residence 4th a 1 to 2' tall rockery. These features are displayed on the attached project plans. The upl d portion of the property contains gentle slopes,but the ground located between the exis ng residence and the lake vary from near vertical sections to slopes typically standing at E pproximate 60% slopes as the lake shoreline is approached. The elevation difference betweei the fire pit area and the footing elevation of the CMU wall is on the order of 15-feet. With s opes on or within 300 feet of proposed property improvements exceeding 40% with a 1.right of 10 feet or more, Mason County requires a geotechnical report to be developed te address stability issues relating to the property's development. The following thirteen elements are required by Mason County to be addressed in geotechnical reports prepared to comply with Mason County's Critical Resource Ordinance(MCRO) Sections 17.01.1 10 through 17.01.104. 1. SURFACE AND GEOLOGIC CONDI IONS: The property has been cleared in the past durin the development of the property with the currently existing features (driveway, residenc parking, septic,power,phone). Most of the property is in a relatively natural condition wi the northerly 3/4s of the property generally level. The steep slopes on the property are gen rally located with 30± of the lake shoreline. Inspection of the Geologic Map of Shelton 1:1 ,000 Quadrangle, Washington', finds the property located in an area between Lake Cush an to the west, and the Olympic Mountain foothills to the east. The upland geomorphology of the area surrounding the Prewitt property can be typified as steep and mountainous. A po lion of the Shelton Quadrangle map reveals the site soils are classified as flow dominated C rescent Formation basalt. Inspection of the site found glacia tills, weathered and consolid ed on and around the site. The basalt formation underlies a shallow surface till soil 1 yer of varying and shallow depths. Crescent Formation basalt, undifferentiated(lower to middle Eocene}—Submarine,plagi lase-pyroxene basalt with local diabase and gabbro;pervasive zeolit and chlorite alteration in the matrix, commonly amygdaloidal wit ze©lite and(or)chlorite amygdules; dark gray with greenish tint, rown where weathered,..reddish and variegated along altered con t zones,contains flows,pillow basalt, and breccias;refilled lava to common in breccias;columnar joint orientation is commonly hi 1y variable,highly vesiculated and(or) pillowed units are common! highly altered and contain abundant clay minerals,whereas thick units with strong colun-mar joint forma- tion tend to be less altered;c nrimonly sheared and faulted;contains rare interbeds of laminar has ttic siltstone or fine sandstone with fora- miniferal faunas referable to the Ulatisian Stage(Rau, 1981). Locally divided into: v C'rewent Formation asalt,flow dominated As a portion of the Geologic Map of Shelton 100,000 Quadrangle on the following page reveals,the Prewitt property is located in the cinity of several fault lines identified on the 'DNR OFR2003-15 Geologic Map of Shelton 1:100,0 0 Quadrangle,Washington File:C.TrojectsTrewitt Geo-Rpt of 7 7/22/2015 TAHJA ENGIN-'-ERING, Inc. PO Box 235, Hood port, WA 98548 (360) 87 -9512 following map as (1) the terminus of two faults emanating from the north and terminating approximately 3.4 miles to the southeast of the rewitt property on the north side of Dow Mountain(2) a fault line runs southwest to nort east through Lake Cushman approximately 0.6 mile east of the Prewitt site, and(3) a fault 1 ne which follows Hood Canal is located approximately 7'/4 miles east of the Prewitt site. The presence of these features does not represent a hazard, and standard seismic analys of the site is intended to anticipate potential tectonic impacts. Further inspection and soil an lysis finds the soil to be classified under the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as GP-GC soil division. Probing of various locations throughout the property revealed a sh low surface horizon of soil generally 2 to 3 feet in depth or less resting atop of a densely ce ented glacial till layer. The till layer is composed of the same soil components as ident feed above, but with a cemented character which gives it good stability, even in vertical ct ts. Investigation of Washington's interactive geol ical mapping and Washington State's Dept. of Ecology's Coastal Atlas found no areas in th Prewitt property vicinity identified as unstable. _£ a cad site Est t � �, QW GO aw Mackmas y l` d RG3c vc L-dlow _ ? r i ot G n 'p 2. SITE PLAN WITH IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT AND GEOLOGIC FEATURES: An Onsite Septic System (OSS)resides generE Ily in the location shown on the attached site plan. The existing septic system presents no p blems relating to the site's stability or geology. No wetlands or water bodies were fol md on or near the property other than Lake Cushman located along the southerly boundar r of the Prewitt property. The attached site plan shows the location of property improvements constructed on the property. Because of the glacial till substrate, he steep slopes in the property's neighborhood File:C:IProjectsTrewitt Geo-Rpt 3 of 7 7/22/2015 TAHJA ENGINEERING, Inc. PO Box 235, Hoodsport, WA 98548 (360) 877-9512 are stabile. The upland geomorphology of the property may be described as you progress north from the Prewitt property as rocky and mountainous. 3. LOCATIONS OF LOGS OF EXPLORATORY HOLES OR PROBES: Soil exploration probes were performed with a hand driven 4-foot steel rod. Penetration of the surface soil horizon met moderate resistance, but the soil character turned to a hardpan character, usually within 2 to 3 feet of the ground's surface. Soil probe locations and depths are indicated on the attached site plan. The groundwater appears to be deep enough below the ground's surface as to not reveal itself. The groundwater elevation may be assumed to be at the Lake Cushman ordinary high water elevation(73 8) —21-feet below the Prewitt residence. No upland water bodies or wetlands other than Lake Cushman were found on or near the Prewitt property. 4. AREA OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT & BOUNDARIES OF HAZARDS, BUFFERS, AND SETBACKS: The natural slopes in the neighborhood are stabile in their existing condition, and do not represent a hazard. Areas containing steep slopes (>40%) are identified on the attached plan sheets along with the 50-foot Hazard Area Vegetated Buffer. No new construction is proposed at this time, but the existing features were apparently not entirely permitted at the time they were installed, generally in 1985 at which a Tacoma City Power permit was acquired for the property, but County permits were not acquired. Standard 20' side &back yard building setbacks and a 25' front yard building setback are shown on the attached plans. 5. CROSS SECTION WITH PROPOSED GRADE CHANGES: A cross section view is provided in the attached plan sheets At the time the shoreline_ bulkhead was installed (19851, it was common to backfill shoreline protection features like the Prewitt bulkhead. The original concrete slab located on top of the retaining wall provides evidence of backfill at that time. The beach erosion at the Prewitt property has been relatively minor at the Prewitt site, has expressed itself with the exposure of the footing located beneath the retaining wall. It appears that the wall was constructed at a location that gave contractors access to the back of the wall for block mortaring and assembly. The backfill source is not readily available, but was likely derived form onsite soil sources. 6. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS: The steepest slopes on or near the Prewitt property in its present condition contain no obvious recent mass landslides or stability problem indicators. Trees in the neighborhood are growing vertically showing no signs of soil movement. The leveled building area in the central area of the property is based on the dense cemented till material and has no discernable irregularities, settlements, fissures, or evidence of consolidation problems. With the CMU shoreline retaining wall-bulkhead, the toe of the steep slope(s) on the Prewitt property has been protected and the slope's integrity preserved. Mr. Prewitt reports that stormwater runoff form upland properties and the vicinity's road system delivers large quantities of stormwater runoff through his pro erty and over the shoreline features including t o concrete s a oca e on op o t e wall an over e wall. This stormwater delivery has at time saturated the soils located behind t e CMU wall producing hydrostatic pressures File: C:I Projects Trewitt Geo-Rpt 4 of 7 7/22/2015 TAHJA ENGIN EKING, Inc. PO Box 235, Hood ort, WA 98548 (360) 87 -9512 that have bulged the wall towards the lake. The istortion is fairly minor, measuring less than an inch,but the wall's face shows some minor c cking in several locations along its length. The wall is straight across the front(shoreline) f the property, but has a 40' angle at its westerly end and then continues an additional 1 ' onto the neighboring property. Concrete block walls are typically not designed with cant ever footings, so vertical stability is provided by(1)the angle in the wall at its west ly end, and(2)the concrete patio slab located on top of the retaining wall is acting as tie-back element to the wall design. Besides providing a orizontal ho ing orce a op , e concrete slab also des protection against stormwater runoff-delivery te the back side o the wall. Without the bulkhead backfill and slab located on top of the retaining wall and backfill, it appears evident that the wall's failure would be much further along that the wall has already expressed. Unified Soil Classification System typing place the soils in a dual symbol category due to its fines content falling above 12%. The coarse ele nent of the soil conforms to a GP classification, and the fine soils conform to a G soil category. The surface soils are modeled as a GP-GC soil characterized with a soil unit v eight of 123 lbs/ft3, a phi angle of 37°, and a cohesion value of 150 lbs/ft2. The consolidated lacial till soil is modeled as having a soil unit weight of 125 lbs/ft3, a phi angle of 37, an I a cohesion value of 300 lbs/ft2. A phreatic surface is modeled at the Lake Cushman high v ater elevation of 738. The slope geometry and soil characteristics provide a minimum fact r of safety for the site in a static condition of 1_8 and a minimum dynamic factor of safety o .4. Both values exceed the County's minimum safety requirements. 7. RECOMMENDED SETBACKS &DR kINAGE: The slope stability analysis indicates that the 11 supported slo a on the Prewitt property is stable in its present geometry and condition an does not represent a landslide or geological hanird to the existing Prewitt property or pl d improvements. Without an identified hazard on or near the Prewitt property,there a ears to be no need for recommending or requiring a setback from the property's steep 1 supported bank(s). Drainage from the present site sheets in its na al drainage direction generally to the south towards Lake Cushman. An extensive drainag system has been installed along the westerly side of the Prewitt property. A culvert issuing om Mount Church Drive delivers stormwater C<"`"� collected from the length of Mt. Church Drive elivers the collected runoff in a 2' diameter culvert installed under Potlatch Drive to a Typ 2 WSDOT style catch basin installed on the property line between lots 37 & 38. This catch asin delivers collected stormwater and directs it to a second Type 2 catch basin instal d approximately half way to the Lake Cushman shoreline. The second catch basin re ewes stormwater from a Type 1 Catch Basin located on the Prewitt property which collects urface runoff from a small area surrounding it and from a CMU Block catch basin sited on Prewitt property. The CMU block catch basin receives runoff from an 18"dia. culvert stalled beneath the Prewitt driveway which receives runoff by way of surface flow from a otlatch Drive cross culvert. These features are displayed on the project drawings. Mr. Pre 'tt reported that stormwater runoff issuing directly off of Potlatch Drive floods over his property, contributing to the stormwater discharging off the surface to Lake Cushman. ?lan sheet 8 of the attached plan set shows a File:C:IProjectslPrewitt Geo-Rpt 5 of 7 7/22/2015 TAHJA ENGINfIERING, Inc. PO Box 235, Hood ort, WA 98548 .}i a�+an rcco # , (360) 87 -9512 I t1 MP beneficial location fora low berm or swale whi is intended to intercept any surface runoff delivered to the Prewitt property from Potlatch rive. The site's existing drainage will be altered very ittle and the existing drainage features should be adequate to accommodate the develol ed site's stormwater runoff. 8. CLEARING, GRADING, AND VEGE ATION MANAGEMENT: General site grading and preparation for the pro osed property improvements was accomplished when the septic system and resid ce were constructed in the late 1960s. Very little, if any additional clearing will be necessa to proceed with the residential development of the property. The property is expected to be aintained as it has been since the late 1960s. 9. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL: Inspection of the Soil Survey of Mason County found the site to be located in an area with Hoodsport soil type(s), which are not identified in the County's Critical Resource Ordinance as susceptible to severe erosion when disturbed Nearly all stormwater runoff will exit the Pre property through the existing culverts and catch basins drainage system. Runoff from the existing property improvements has had little if any impacts on the hillside or Lake Cushman Access to the site already exists off of N Potlatch Drive N (a private Lake Cushman DeN clopment Road) and is stable in its present condition. 10. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPACTS: Construction and completion of the planned i rovements to the Prewitt property are not expected to result in any adverse on-site or off ite impacts. 11. SPECIFICATIONS OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT: Because of the geometry and nature of the Co rete Mortar Unit wall located along the lake's shoreline, it appears the design relies on the existing wall backfill supported concrete slab to maintain its stability. The present site i icludes a pier, float and buoy along with the features already identified. These features are 1 ortrayed in the attached project drawings. The existing features are nearing the end of their s e use,but may still be considered functional and generally compliant with current regulator requirements. Inspection of the existing shoreline features indicates that ongoing maini nance has been performed at various times over the years since the features were original construction.No new improvements are proposed at this time, and no structural fills or ootings are presently beingopo prsed. 12. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE P PARATION OF STRUCTURAL MITIGATION OR DETAILS OF OT ER PROPOSED MITIGATION: Modeling of the southerly descending bank in icates that the existing features are safe and no structural measures or mitigation appears nece ;sary. It is my opinion that the existing shoreline bulkhead,bac 1 an concrete s ab are necessary for the protection of the Prewitt property from Lake Cushman's erosive condit ons. File:C:IProjectslPrewitt Geo-Rpt 5 of 7 7/22/2015 TAHJA ENGINEERING, Inc. PO Box 235, Hood port, WA 98548 (360) 87 -9512 13. SITE PLAN WITH THE LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE: A site plan is appended to this report which shows views of the property and existing features in their present completed condition(s). Summary & Conclusions: The Prewitt site does not contain any jeopardizing landslide hazard features, nor is it within a distance from any identified hazards which would raise a concern. No adverse impacts are anticipated from development completion. Please feel free to contact me if there are any qi iestions or concerns regarding this report or my findings. A T WA 3078� sv� ��' �L'�1 �SSIONAL E�G� Sincerely, Alan A. Tahja, P.E. Attached: Geotechnical Report Checklist 8 Sheet Plan Set Including; 3 Plan Views & 1 Cross Section View 1 Pier Plan& Profile, 1 Float Plan&Profile, 1 Float Landing Plan& Profile 1 Drainage Plan GALENA Stability Analysis Printout Design Calculations File: C:TrojectsTrewitt Geo-Rpt 7 of 7 7/22/2015 Rev# Description Date TAHJA ENGINEERING,INC. SITE PLAN �'' Alan Tahja,P.E. Turner&Katy Prewitt Prewitt PO Box 235 11216 3rd Ave.NW Hoodsport, WA 98548 Seattle, WA 98177-4715 1 of 8 Jefferson Co.hr No.: 42307-50-00038 (360)877-9512 (H)360-367-2092 (Wq 360-284-5756 \ / fpoll \ kn W � Eo z —g '/ � N \ 3 1 c U > o CE Q a� U �aa4P j ail? �/ • � aa�' �o a o � // / a� d �iP/ �yo ��1a2 d Area BouP/ 140 I �' Jiaut? Ira i o Lt `^ w C! O N TAHJA ENGINEERING,INC. SITE PLAN Rev# Description Date Alan Tahja,P.E. Turner&Katy Prewitt Prewitt PO Box 235 11216 3rd Ave.NW Hoodsport, WA 98548 Seattle, WA 98177-4715 2 of 8 Jefferson Co.hr No.: 42307-50-00038 (360)877-9512 (FI)360-367-2092 (W)360-284-5756 / / a O 0tL CA V] > L ti w. N E O,l \I Ne v Y U U Qr �.__� �� �=��. ,.•tom` ,.,'.�... � t� n 110 61 CA O �P16b do �__.. z o I � 0 0 M E N Q- 3 c_ U o ;.. o awl �W - 53 z 8 3 o W0 o 3 Rev# Description Date TAHJA ENGINEERING,INC. SITE PLAN Alan Tahja,P.E. Tumer&Katy Prewitt Prewitt PO Box 235 11216 3rd Ave.NW sht Hoodsport WA 98548 Seattle, WA 98177-4715 3 of 8 Jefferson Co.Prcl No.: 42307-50-00038 (360)877-9512 (ID 360-367-2092 (W)360-284-5756 3 .00 to cn a�0 n a mod' U / > ` k •C j _ N � •L N oV � �Qr co U N ..1 A � tiles � •� � ^ z r4��� ���� ma,, adoado.,, � w � ,,.�• a b � A. a .� r "�• o 0 ro w$ U O Ln o Gj~ ,•' O� a •:N b.s 1 Cl•V ��_y 00 � N3 00 N M O y cd cd Li. � M ^ � = r) 33 Ld Y Ilk a� a� 6 oo iv 0� 2 �o U , o wo 0 O k �o o L 00 i� NN ka _ 3 W C � � ^ � crN fV cn •>C 2 �_ •c� U N 0 O IO It N ^ 00 N M `O W Lz 0. � 0. 0 2 i Rev# Description Date TAHJA ENGINEERING,INC. CROSS SECTION"A A" Newitt Alan Tahja,P.E. Turner&Katy Newitt PO Box 235 11216 3rd Ave.NW HoodspoA WA 98548 Seattle, WA 98177-4715 4 of 8 Jefferson Co.hr No.: 42307-50-00038 (360)877-9512 (H)360-367-2092 (W)360-284-5756 0 M O allow C� o paujInfl I 1 f l I + f1INO3o aouj Ouold en / uoi ena en I v i t a� x o U O � � E= a + O o � w ' 53 o� • t Rev# Description Date TAHJA ENGINEERING, INC. STAIONARY PIER " Alan Tahja,P.E. Turner&Katy Prewitt Prewitt PO Box 235 11216 3rd Ave.NW Hoodsport, WA 98548 Seattle, WA 98177-4715 5 of 8 Jefferson Co.Prcl No.: 42307-50-00038 (360)877-9512 (H)360-367-2092 (W)360-284-5756 cv ° U CL7 � cu x de 2", VD 4 CA u U o � W o U `' L t 0 � � w a.Q � � U Q U;U U O > w2 o ' 75 0 3 co L w0 wcs O 4 i Rev# Description Date TAHJA ENGINEERING,INC. FLOAT PLAN&PROFILE P"'. Alan Tahja,P.E. Turner&Katy Prewitt Prewitt PO Box 235 11216 3rd Ave.NW , Hoodsport, WA 98548 Seattle, WA 98177-4715 6 of 8 Jefferson Co.Prcl No.: 42307-50-00038 1 (360)877-9512 1 (H)360-367-2092 (W)360-284-5756 Q. b on E � O U O 3 U O � Q U � O � G U o E 0 a c7 o O cn+ � - a) .0 O = N °*� ti) O 0 C O N 0 Li L2 s 7'v z a m O >, cz r., L N .2 O Q y O II V I [].. ✓] 'k 2 : L ouixoaQ luold jz)jjagwi.L OIXZ EL T! I a. Q co F . II - w 63v o� 0 Rev■ Description Date TAHTAENGINEEREVG,INC FLOAT£LINO Cam££ ~— witt Alml�%P£ Turner a Ka«�wik © fo as 235 11216+d Ave.NW gh� £oodspo& WA 98548 Seattle, WA 981774715 7o R Jefferson Co.h1N: 4 k9!&�» g60 pg91 �3$3 9202 3 02&55 _ = k 7 § m \ % / d E / \ / \ ® / ® tt u \ \ / \ \ $ \ . � 63J / \ \ � / \ � U G \ ƒ \ I ® f , � + \ ƒ 3 / k \ \ ( /ƒ / 2 \ § Q \ / egad § % \ \ % � \ \ \ cn e«osmuf?u mSp#i?U mmlMo \ , pllm mv0 J%Silo �?U 7oole ƒ ga u w Id z!«z ƒ \ 0 7 ` TAHJA ENGINEERING,INC. UPLAND DRAINAGE Rev# Description Date pre�tt Alan Tahja,P.E. Turner&Katy Prewitt PO Box 235 11216 3rd Ave.NW Hoodsport, WA 98548 Seattle, WA 98177-4715 8 of 8 Jefferson Co.NO No.: 42307-50-00038 (360)877-9512 (H)360-367-2092 (W)360-284-5756 i U Al OQOt O V ¢°a as � 0 w U ?L '` U d„ r O a >, �'al 4 `\ z ka1rQ pa Ina aAoqV� 0ttrz6 dpr p llplsul arrr?,rltadOld e Qi �0 Z 4 TAHJA ENGINEEI UNG, Inc. PO Box 235, Hoodspo t, WA 98548 (360) 877-9 112 Prewitt X-Section A-A Stat c Stability Analysis GALENA vania+5.o2 860 840 A. ` v� azo 800 P5 e4m i h a 780 30784 w ti �c m 3 Deep weathered Surface Till Soils �+�' EGISTEg� �� �; a a Existing Single Family Residence 0e Kati �SSIONAL E��� yo 760 a'b �.•tea c Consolidated Glacial Till Strata La i Cushman=Phreatic Surface @ 138 740 ..._.. ,,,--. . __....-. �. .........._--.......__.._ 720 - Analysis: 1 Multiple Stability Analysis 700 Method: Bishop Simplified Surface: Circular 680 Results Critical(minimum) Factor of Safety: 1.81 660 0 50 100 150 00 250 300 Edited.22 Jul 2015 Processed:22 Jul 2015 Proiect: Prewitt Cushman Div.2,Lot 38 Static File: CADocuments and Settings\Ownerft Documents\Galena Files\Models\Prewitt 0.2 L-38.gmf Tahja Engineering,Inc. Galena 5.02 Analysis Results Licensee: Tahja Engineering, Inc. DATA: Analysis 1 - Static Material Properties (2 materials) ----------- ------- Material: 1 (Mohr-Coulomb Isotropic) - Weath red Surface Soil Cohesion Phi UnitWeight Ru 150.00 37.0 123.00 1.10 Material: 2 (Mohr-Coulomb Cu increases with epth) - Consolidated Glacial Till Cohesion Phi PI UnitWeight Ru 300.00 37.0 0 125.00 1.10 Water Properties ----------------Unit weight of water: 62.40 Unit weight f water/medium above ground: 62.40 Material Profiles (2 profiles) ------------- -- Profile: 1 (2 points) Material beneath: I - Weathered Surface Soil 0.00 820.00 300.00 820.CO Profile: 2 (11 points) Material beneath: 1 - Weathered Surface Soil 0.00 757.00 125.00 750. 0 126.00 749.00 147.00 749.00 148.00 744.00 155.00 741.00 156.00 738. 0 160.00 736.00 161.00 733.00 178.00 732.00 279.00 709.00 Slope Surface (11 points) ------------- 0.00 760.00 125.00 753.( 0 126.00 751.00 147.00 750.00 148.00 746.00 File:C:IProjectslPrewittlStabilityAnalysis 1 of4 7/22/2015 TAHJA ENGINEE ZING, Inc. PO Box 235, Hoodspo t, WA 98548 (360) 877-9 12 155.00 744.00 156.00 740.00 161.00 740.00 162.00 734.00 178.00 733.00 279.00 710.00 Phreatic Surface (2 points) --- 0.00 738.00 300.00 738.00 Failure Surface --------------- Initial circular surface for critical search defined by: XL,XR,R Intersects: XL: 140.00 YL: 750.33 XR: 165.00 YR: 733.81 Centre: XC: 159.80 YC: 753.13 Radius: R: 20.00 Variable Restraints ------------------- Parameter descriptor: XL KR R Range of variation: 27.00 22 .00 11.00 Trial positions within range: 12 12 12 --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- RESULTS: Analysis 1 - Static Bishop Simplified Method of Analysis - Circular Failure Surface ---------------- Critical Failure Circle Search using Multiple Circle Generation Techniques Factor of Safety for initial failure circle a roximation: 1. 97 There were: 853 successful analyses from a total of 1729 trial circles 876 analyses terminated due to un cceptable geometry Critical (minimum) Factor of Safety: 1.81 Circle and Results Summary (Lowest 16 Factor f Safety circles) ----------------- Circle X-Centre Y-Centre X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Radius FoS 1 164.35 758.37 141.23 750.27 164.05 733.87 24.50 1.806 2 162.08 755.49 141.23 750.27 162.14 733. 99 21.50 1.816 3 163.63 757.37 141.23 750.27 164.05 733.87 23.50 1.816 4 162.03 752.49 143.68 750.16 162.14 733.99 18.50 1.827 5 163.74 754.37 143. 68 750.16 164.05 733.87 20.50 1.829 6 162.89 756.34 141.23 750.27 164.05 733.87 22.50 1.830 7 162.60 759.49 138.77 750.39 162.14 733. 99 25.50 1.840 8 165.10 759.24 141.23 750.27 165.95 733.75 25.50 1.841 9 164 .41 758.20 141.23 750.27 165.95 733.75 24.50 1.844 10 162.92 753.34 143.68 750.16 164.05 733.87 19.50 1.845 11 161.29 754.47 141.23 750.27 162.14 733.99 20.50 1.846 12 162.13 755.29 141.23 750.27 164.05 733.87 21.50 1.850 13 163.70 757.14 141.23 750.27 165. 95 733.75 23.50 1.851 14 161.90 758.49 138.77 750.39 162.14 733.99 24 .50 1.859 15 162.97 756.05 141.23 750.27 165.95 733.75 22.50 1.862 16 161.13 751.46 143.68 750.16 162.14 733.99 17.50 1.867 File:C:IProjectslPrewi&StabilityAnalysis 2 of 7/22/2015