Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHMP Original & Revised - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 6/30/2009 �soN co MASON COUNTY � Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg, 1411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 February 5, 2009 WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ATTN: Gloria Rogers 48 Devonshire Road Montesano, WA 98563 RE: Mason Environmental Permit (MEP2009-00004) for the construction of approximately 280 lineal feet of I-beam pile and wood bulkhead on two neighboring lots on Lake Cushman. Construction is within a Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area and a Landslide Hazard Area. Dear Gloria: The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Therese DeLeo, Charles Smith and Stephen & Amy Latham, who are applying for a MEP. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the Resource Ordinance requires that the MEP be accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan. The proposed activity is the construction of approximately 280 lineal feet of I-beam pile and wood bulkhead on two neighboring lots on Lake Cushman. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the SkokomishTribe. Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, question, or concerns about this plan. I can adopt your comments as conditions into any approval that the County may grant. I have included my e-mail address if you find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a 28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is March 5, 2009. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, J'a'.' Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development (360) 427-9670 x295 tammiw@co.mason.wa.us Enclosures: Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Mason Environmental Permit Application (MEP) Geotechnical Report PgoN co&M MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 February 5, 2009 Skokomish Indian Tribal Center ATTN: Randy Lumper N 80 Tribal Center Road Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Mason Environmental Permit (MEP2009-00004) for the construction of approximately 280 lineal feet of I-beam pile and wood bulkhead on two neighboring lots on Lake Cushman. Construction is within a Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area and a Landslide Hazard Area. Dear Randy: The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Therese DeLeo, Charles Smith and Stephen & Amy Latham, who are applying for a MEP. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the Resource Ordinance requires that the MEP be accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan. The proposed activity is the construction of approximately 280 lineal feet of I-beam pile and wood bulkhead on two neighboring lots on Lake Cushman. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the SkokomishTribe. Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, question, or concerns about this plan. I can adopt your comments as conditions into any approval that the County may grant. I have included my e-mail address if you find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a 28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is March 5, 2009. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, 0,Atc(tLL J Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development (360) 427-9670 x295 tammiw@co.mason.wa.us Enclosures: Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Mason Environmental Permit Application (MEP) Geotechnical Report U1854 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Shelton(360)427-9670 Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467 411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269 PO Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us February 27, 2009 Therese Deleo & Charles Smith 61 N. Gull Place Hoodsport, WA 98584 Steve & Amy Latham 5648 179th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006-5931 RE: Habitat Management Plan Comments Received from the Skokomish Tribe — MEP2009-00004 Dear Ms. Deleo, Mr. Smith, and Mr. & Mrs. Latham: Enclosed please find a copy of the comments received from the Skokomish Tribe regarding the proposed joint wood bulkhead located at 60 & 61 N. Gull Place, Hoodsport, WA. The Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110 Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas allows for a 28-day comment period for the Habitat Management Plan review. The Skokomish Tribe has determined there may be multiple negative impacts to the Skokomish Tribe and/or their resources.Please respond as to how these impacts can be avoided, minimized and/or mitigated.They have also suggested some mitigation proposals that may be incorporated as conditions of permit approval. It is important that these concerns be addressed prior to issuing any permits. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Tammi Wright, Planner Jam,, Mason County Plann'1g PO Box 270 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 295 Tammiw(cco.mason.yva.us cc: Kim Schaumburg, BioResources, LLC Alan Tahja, Tahja Engineering, Inc. / T ew/Sp� Habitat Management Plan Deleo Bulkhead Project Lake Cushman, Washington For: Therese DeLeo 61 N Gull Place Hoodsport, WA 98548 Prepared 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: kimberly035(4 centurytel.net December 19, 2008 Revised June 30, 2009 DeLeo Habitat Management Plan 2 Table of Contents I. Project Description A. Project Location........................................................................ 3 B. Project Description..................................................................... 3-4 C. Action Area..............................................................................4-5 U. Species and Habitat Information A. Species and Habitat Information....................................................... 5 B. Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Puget Sound Chinnook Salmon ............................................................. 6-7 BullTrout...................................................................................... 7 Puget Sound Steelhead........................................................................ 7-8 NorthernSpotted Owl........................................................................ 8 MarbledMurrelet..............................................................................8-9 C. Survey Results............................................................................ 9 D. Existing Environmental Conditions....................................................9-10 III. Effects of the Action A. Direct Effects............................................................................ 10-11 B. Indirect Effects........................................................................... 11 C. Cumulative Effects.......................................................................12 D. Take Analysis.............................................................................12 E. Conservation Measures.................................................................. 12-13 F. Determination of Effect................................................................. 13 IV. References............................................................ .......................... ......... 14-15 List of Attachments 1. Project location................................................................................... 16 2. Site plan........................................................................................... 17 3. Cross Section.................................................................................. ... 18 4. Cross Section..................................................................................... 19 5. Site Photograph....................................................................... ............20 Deleo Habitat Management Plan 3 I. Project Description A. Project Location 61 N Gull Place, Hoodsport(Attachment 1) Tax Parcel#422055200051 Section 05, Township 22N, Range 04W, W.M. B. Project Description This Habitat Assessment Report has been submitted on behalf of Therese DeLeo to facilitate approval to construct approximately 180 lineal feet of I-beam pile and wood bulkhead on their neighboring Lake Cushman lots (Attachment 2, 3, &4). Lake Cushman is regulated under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and the Mason County Resource Ordinance as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. As per the former, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated Lake Cushman as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. The Act states the necessity of preserving the natural character,resources, and ecology of the shoreline. As per the Resource Ordinance, Lake Cushman is "a lake over 20 acres", and the construction of new bank stabilization requires that a Habitat Management Plan be submitted for County review. The site includes one parcel with approximately 180 lineal feet of medium-bank frontage on a shoreline environment that has been designated Urban Residential by the Mason County Shoreline Master Program(Attachment 5). The parcel supports an existing single-family residence. Steep slopes at the proposed project site in conjunction with the unnatural erosion processes that occur on Lake Cushman, (due to powerboat wake and seasonal fluctuations in the water level of the lake, which is used to power a hydroelectric dam), necessitate the need for shoreline bank stabilization. The proposed new bulkhead shall be constructed of steel I-beam piles and lumber along approximately 180 feet of frontage on the DeLeo property. Holes for the piles (six feet in depth and 2 feet in diameter) will be augered by hand and filled with concrete. If treated wood is used, only lumber treated with ACZA shall be utilized(no CCA). The structure shall have a maximum above grade height of 14 feet. Tieback steel cables and concrete anchor blocks shall be utilized to reinforce the bulkhead. After construction is completed, the bulkhead shall be backed with a layer of filter fabric, then backfilled with gravel and topsoil suitable for growing native vegetation, which will be planted along the top. The bulkhead face shall be located just waterward of the lake's high water mark of 738 feet. Existing Gabion baskets along the bluff toe of the DeLeo frontage shall be removed from the site. Existing beach access stairs shall be relocated to accommodate the new bulkhead. All equipment and materials will be driven to the site. The equipment will consist of a track excavator and various hand tools. Work on the project is tentatively scheduled to begin after the receipt of all required permits and approvals. Work will be completed in less than 30 days during daylight working hours normal to a rural neighborhood. The WDFW's construction requirements for construction of freshwater lake bulkheads (WAC 220-110-223) shall be strictly adhered to: Deleo Habitat Management Plan 4 WAC 220-110-223 (1) The toe of the bulkhead shall be placed landward of the ordinary high water line. (2)Rock used for the bulkhead construction shall be composed of clean, angular material of a sufficient size to prevent its being washed away by high water or wave action. (3) Material that is waterward of the ordinary high water line shall not be utilized for backfill. (4)Excavated or dredged material shall not be stockpiled waterward of the ordinary high water line. (5)All trenches, depressions,or holes created within the ordinary high water line shall be backfilled prior to inundation by high water or wave action. (6) All piling, lumber, or other materials treated with preservatives shall be sufficiently cured to minimize leaching into the water or bed. The use of wood treated with creosote or pentachlorophenol is not allowed in lakes. In order to maintain the present water quality of Lake Cushman during bulkhead construction, Best Management Practices will be implemented. BMP's are defined as physical, structural, and/or managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water(W SDE). The following applicable BMP's shall be used to insure that water quality is not degraded by erosion and sedimentation from rainfall at the site. 1)All existing vegetation shall be preserved except where required to be removed for construction purposes. 2)The construction area shall be surrounded by a filter fence, where appropriate, for sediment control. 3) Equipment shall be cleaned and checked for leaks, offsite and daily,before commencing work. The following Spill Prevention Control measures shall also be followed: 1) The contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom so that solid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. 2)The contractor shall be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous spill. 3)The contractor shall 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, shall 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, Gloria Rogers (360.249.4628 ex. 249), shall be notified immediately. C. Action Area The action area is located on the shoreline of Lake Cushman, along the toe of the bank (Attachments 4 & 5). Besides the proposed project location, the action area includes the area within a one-mile radius of the site in order to account for construction related noise that may affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as either endangered or threatened; specifically, nesting or foraging Northern spotted owls or marbled murrelets. Deleo Habitat Management Plan 5 The action area also includes the fresh water environment within a one-mile radius, in order to account for drift. It is expected that drift moves slowly from the northwest end of the lake, where the North fork of the Skokomish River flows in, to the southeast end, where the North Fork of the Skokomish flows out via the Cushman Upper Dam Prevailing south winds are likely to influence drift. The proposed project will take place when the water level in the lake is much lower than the OHWM (738'), so it is probable that rainfall may slowly disperse any disturbed substrate before it comes into direct contact with the lake water. III. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION A. SPECIES INFORMATION In the proposed project area, there are five species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as either Endangered or Threatened: the Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), the Puget Sound Steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss), the bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus),the marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marinoratus marmoratus), and the northern spotted owl(Stridex occidentalis). Additionally, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publishes a Priority Habitats and Species list(PHS)and a Species of Concern (SOC)list. The PHS list includes habitats, species, and species groups considered to be priorities for conservation and management. The SOC list includes only native Washington Fish and Wildlife species that are listed as State Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, or Candidates for these designations, or Federal Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, or Species of Concern. The Cascade frog(Rana cascadae), Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodvn vandykei, the tailed frog (Aascaphus tmei), and the Western pond turtle(Clemniys maramorata) are ESA listed Species of Concern that could be found in Lake Cushman or streams that confluence with it; however, the pond turtle was essentially extirpated in the Puget lowlands by the 1980's (WDFW 1999), so it is doubtful that the species would be found in the action area. The Puget Sound coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is also an ESA listed Species of Concern. Species of Concern are not species that are being actively considered for listing under the ESA by the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) or FWS. They have been identified as Species of Concern because of concerns or great uncertainties regarding biological status and threats. The Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDE) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) GIS maps reveal the documented presence of three other species of anadromous salmonids on the State's PHS list within the action area: the Puget Sound coho salmon, the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta), and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). The presence of these three species has been documented in Lake Cushman. The WDFW reports that the 2002 Stock Status of Southwest Hood Canal coho and the West Hood Canal Fall Chum are Healthy. WDFW data also 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 salmonid species that inhabit the lake include landlocked Chinook salmon and rainbow trout. In addition, Mason County publishes a species of importance list. The species most likely to be found in the proposed project area include the Chinook salmon,bald eagle(Haliaetus leucocephalus), common loon(Gavia immer), Brandt's cormorant(Phalacrocorax penicillatus), great blue heron(Ardea herodias), hooded merganser(Lophodytes cucullatus),harlequin duck Deleo Habitat Management Plan 6 (Histrionicus histrionicus), and purple martin(Progne subis). Conservation measures proposed in this report are expected/intended to minimize impacts to listed and/or unlisted species that may inhabit or utilize the proposed project site. B. Federal Threatened or Endangered Species PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON Puget Sound Chinook salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act by NOAA Fisheries in March of 1999 (64FR 14308). In April of 2002, critical habitat designation for the species and 18 other ESU(evolutionarily significant units) of Pacific salmon and steelhead was withdrawn--until further analysis of the economic impacts on affected businesses, communities, and individuals--after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a NOAA Fisheries consent decree. A lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association and other plaintiffs, alleging that NOAA Fisheries Service failed to designate timely critical habitat for the 19 ESU for which critical habitat had been vacated_ Ultimately, NOAA Fisheries agreed to file final critical habitat designations with the Federal Register by August 15, 2005. The designations include approximately 2,182 miles of near-shore habitat in Puget Sound and 1,683 stream miles. The boundaries of the Puget Sound ESU correspond generally with the boundaries of the Puget Lowland ecoregion. Chinook salmon are found in most of the rivers in this region. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into the Puget Sound, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Elwha River eastward, including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound, and the Strait of Georgia in Washington State. The majority of Chinook salmon in this area exhibit an ocean- type life history and migrate to the ocean within their first year, as compared to the stream-type Chinook that reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence(Gilbert 1912, Healey 1983). In most streams within the Puget Sound ESU, the overall abundance of indigenous Chinook salmon has declined substantially from historical levels. Factors contributing to this downward trend include widespread migratory blockages and degradation of freshwater and marine habitat, with many upper watersheds affected by poor forestry practices and the mid- and lower- watersheds affected by agriculture and urbanization. Commercial and recreational fishing are also partly responsible for the decline in native Chinook abundance, along with predation by non- native species, marine mammal or bird predation in areas of dwindling salmon run-size, competition from hatchery fish, and natural environmental conditions such as floods and droughts that reduce already limited spawning, rearing, and migration habitat. The WDFW reports that summer/fall spawning chinook spawn in Hood Canal. The Skokomish Chinook stock status in 2002 was rated Depressed due to chronically low natural escapements. The Mid-Hood Canal stock was rated Critical due to chronically low escapements. Critical Habitat includes all near-shore marine areas of the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca(to the western end of the Elwha River delta) from the line of extreme high tide out to a depth of 30 meters (70 FR 52688). Chinook salmon in Lake Cushman are a land-locked population that originated from anadromous fish, although loss of genetic Deleo Habitat Management Plan 7 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). They are considered to be part of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU(Myers et al. 1998, NMFS 1999),but the TRT did not identify them as a remnant of the historical population or a viable independent population(NOAA 2006). Since Lake Cushman Chinook are land-locked it is expected that the upper North Fork of the Skokomish River and Lake Cushman provide spawning, rearing, foraging, and migration habitat, so it is possible that Chinook salmon may be found in the vicinity of the proposed project site. BULL TROUT Brill trout are members of the char subgroup of the sahnon family and are native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. On November 1, 1999,the Coastal-Puget Sound population was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses all Pacific coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound. On September 23, 2005, the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the bull trout, which in Washington State includes over 1,519 miles of streams and 966 miles of near-shore marine shoreline(70 FR 56304). Bull trout and Dolly Varden look very similar and were once considered the same species. Morphological analysises have confirmed the distinctiveness of the two species in their different, but overlapping geographic distributions (Haas and McPhail 1991),but because the two species are difficult to visually differentiate, the WDFW currently manages bull trout and Dolly Varden together as"native char." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified subpopulations for which status, distribution, and threats to bull trout were evaluated. Thirty-five subpopulations were identified in the Coastal-Puget Sound. Bull Trout reach sexual maturity between four and seven years of age and have been known to live as long as 12 years. 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. Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life- history strategies(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary(or nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish remain for one to four years before migrating to either a lake(adfluvial), river(fluvial), or to saltwater(Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989). The latter anadromous bull trout are the only form relevant to this assessment. The WDFW indicates that three bull trout subpopulations occur in the Skokomish River basin in the Hood Canal analysis area: the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, the upper North Fork Skokomish River, and the Cushman Reservoir. Bull trout in the latter are restricted to an adfluvial life-history form, due to the Cushman Dam on the north fork of the Skokomish river. The South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation is considered depressed, while the remaining two subpopulations are listed as Unknown because insufficient information is available. Critical habitat includes the upper North Fork of the Skokomish River(70 FR 56304). Critical Habitat in the North Fork of the Skokomish River includes spawning and rearing habitat. Lake Cushman provides rearing, foraging, and migration habitat, so it is possible that bull trout may be found in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Deleo Habitat Management Plan 8 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD On May 7"'2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Puget Sound Steelhead as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Covered under the listing are naturally spawned steelhead from river basins in the Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the eastern half of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, including more than 50 stocks of summer- and winter-run fish. The listing also covers two winter-run hatchery stocks: the Green River and the Hamma Hamma River. The steelhead, (Oncorhynchus niykiss),has the most complex life history of any Pacific salmon. Known as a rainbow trout if they remain in freshwater, steelhead usually spend two to four years in their home stream before heading to marine waters. They remain in saltwater for approximately three years, then return to their home stream to spawn. Steelhead are iteroparous and do not die as result of spawning. Some will spawn a second or third time. NOAA Fisheries has identified 15 ESU of steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The WDFW reports that the status of the Skokomish, Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosiwallips summer and winter steelhead were rated as Unknown and Depressed, respectively, in 2002. The presence of steelhead has been documented in Lake Cushman(WSDE 2007, WDFW 2003), so it is possible that adult and/or juvenile steelhead may utilize the shoreline at the proposed project site. NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL In June of 1990, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis)as Threatened. Among the largest owls in North America., the average adult is approximately 18 inches tall with a 48-inch wingspan, with females being larger than males. Unlike most owls, the species have dark eyes. Their coloration is chocolate-brown with round or oval white spots on their head,neck,back, and under parts. Northern spotted owls are strictly nocturnal, and inhabit old growth forests from southern British Columbia to Northern California. They 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. These same old growth trees also harbor rodents, which are one of the owls' main prey items, although they also feed on birds, insects, and reptiles. 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. The current population is thought to be between 2,500 and 5,000 breeding pairs. Due to the close proximity of human habitation, it is unlikely that any Northern spotted owls may be found in the vicinity of the proposed project site. A WDFW Biologist reported that the nearest documented spotted owl activity was in the Staircase area, which is over 6 miles northwest of the proposed project site. MARBLED MURRELET In September of 1992, USFWS listed the marbled murrelet as threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. A small, diving seabird in the family Alcidae, the marbled murrelet forages for small fish and invertebrates almost exclusively in nearshore marine waters, while nesting inland in old-growth or mature conifer forests. The primary threat to the species is the loss of nesting habitat due to the harvesting of old-growth forests. A life history strategy involving a relatively long life span, delayed sexual maturity, and low annual reproductive potential is also a problem. Deleo Habitat Management Plan 9 Beissinger(1995) suggests that productivity is below levels required to sustain the listed population. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated in May of 1996,but it is not located within close range of the proposed project site on Lake Cushman. The listed population size in Washington, Oregon, and California was estimated at 18,550 to 32,000 birds (Ralph et al. 1995, Nelson 1997). Marbled murrelet populations in those three states may be declining at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year. A WDFW Biologist reported that the nearest documented marbled murrelet occupancy site was at Cabin Creek, which is approximately 9.5 miles southwest of the proposed project site. It is possible that marbled murrelet may be found at Lake Cushman in the vicinity of the proposed project site. C. Survey Results A field investigation was conducted on November 25, 2008 at approximately eleven in the morning. The project area was surveyed visually on foot. The weather was overcast, the wind calm, and the temperature around forty-five degrees Fahrenheit. The proposed project site is located on two small, developed waterfront lots on the east side of Lake Cushman. The existing SFRs are located approximately 50 and 60 feet from the shoreline. Between the residences and the shoreline, the property inclines at a moderate gradient to the bluff edge. The bluff face is nearly vertical. The upper slope is heavily vegetated with native species, but the bluff face has been subjected to minor mass wasting and is sparsely vegetated. The substrate in lake's littoral zone, which is the near shore area where light penetrates to the bottom, consists primarily of gravel, cobble, and rock. The slope along the littoral zone is extremely steep. No aquatic vegetation or fish were observed. The following native species were observed at the site: Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), bigleaf maple(Ater macrophyllum), Western red cedar(Thuja plicata), willow(Salix spp.), evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinicm: ovatun:),red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium),salal (Gaultheria shallon), Oregon-grape(Berberis nervosa), kinnikinnick(Arctostapltylos uva-ursi ssp. uva-ursi), and the non-native Scot's Broom(Cytisus scoparius). D. Existing Environmental Conditions The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions, to which the effects of the proposed action are then added. The environmental baseline is defined as"the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, and private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or informal section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process"(50 CFR 402.02). 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. Deleo Habitat Management Plan 10 The proposed project site is located on two rural lots with approximately 280 feet of frontage on Lake Cushman, in an area classified as an Urban Residential shoreline environment by the Shoreline Master Program of Mason County. Much of the shoreline in the neighborhood has been developed with single-family residences (primarily utilized as vacation cabins) and bulkheads. Besides shoreline hard-armoring, it can be assumed that the existing environmental conditions in the area have been degraded by organic and inorganic pollutants, deforestation, fishing, and other anthropogenic changes that accompany urbanization. III. Effects of the Action A. Direct Effects Direct effects are the immediate effects of the project on the listed species and their habitats (FWS &NMFS 1998). The direct effect to the proposed project site will be the construction of a steel pile and wood bulkhead on a lake that is habitat for three previously discussed ESA listed salmonid species. Direct effects to the shoreline along Lake Cushman include the alteration of supralittoral habitat from the placement of steel I-beam piles along the bluff toe. Direct effects to the shoreline include: 1) The loss of benthic habitat from the installation of the steel piles. 2) Contamination of Lake Cushman from the leaching of wood preservatives. 3) The loss of native vegetation. 1) The footprint of the piles will be located just waterward of the lake's high water mark of 738 feet, so the piles are expected to have an insignificant impact on benthic habitat. 2) The leaching of wood preservatives is the most common contaminant-related issue with pier, ramp, and floats. A bulkhead constructed of treated wood would also be expected to leach contaminants. Laboratory studies by Weis et al. (1991, 1992)have shown that leaching decreases by about 50%daily once the wood is immersed in seawater. Given that all ACZA treated wood used in the proposed project shall be sufficiently cured to minimize leaching of contaminants into the water, it is unlikely that leaching from treated wood will have a noticeable impact on aquatic life at the proposed project site. In addition, due to the bulkhead's location(landward of the high water mark) it is doubtful that more than the toe of the bulkhead will ever be immersed in water (and then only rarely). However, rain that falls on any treated wood utilized in the proposed project will drain directly into Lake Cushman, causing an unknown level of water and sediment contamination. 3)Another direct effect is the loss of vegetation directly landward of the bulkhead, due to the presence of the bulkhead. Presently, the bluff face is nearly vertical and sparsely vegetated. After construction is completed, the bulkhead shall be backed with filter fabric and backfilled with gravel and topsoil suitable for growing native vegetation, which will be planted along the top. Temporary direct effects caused by the proposed project include: 1) Sedimentation and/or siltation, and turbidity in Lake Cushman. 2)Noise. 3) Water pollution from incidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants. Deleo Habitat Management Plan 11 1) Disturbed substrate from the installation of the bulkhead may result in increased turbidity and sedimentation and/or siltation, which might effect the migration of juvenile salmonids along the shoreline by creating a temporary barrier in the littoral zone. Juvenile salmonids are mobile, so it is possible that they will avoid the area of disturbance and not be impacted. Salmonids have been observed to move laterally and downstream to avoid turbidity plumes (Sigler et al. 1984, Lloyd 1987, Scannell 1988). Gregory and Northcote(1993) suggested that turbidity could be used as a protective cover by juvenile salmon. As previously discussed, BMP's will be strictly adhered to during construction in order to maintain the present water quality of Lake Cushman and prevent runoff and pollution. In addition,the proposed project will take place when the water level in the lake is much lower than the OHWM (738'), so it is probable that rainfall will slowly disperse any disturbed substrate before it comes into direct contact with the lake water. Therefore, it is expected that turbidity, sedimentation and/or siltation will be minimal. 2) The main source of construction noise will be the operation of heavy equipment. The project site is located in a residential neighborhood, so it is expected that the noise from heavy equipment will not be more excessive than noise normal to the neighborhood. 3) Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants is another possible temporary direct effect. As previously discussed, Spill Prevention Control measures and BMP's shall be implemented during the proposed project. B. 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) Scouring and steepening of the beach in front of the new hard-armored section of shoreline. 2)A reduction in the accumulation of large drift logs on the beach. 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. The sediment in front of a bulkhead will gradually become coarser as wave action and littoral drift removes the finer sediment and there is no sediment available for replenishment because it is impounded behind the bulkhead(Macdonald et al. 1994). Hard-armored bulkheads cut off sediment that was once available to feed the beach, thus adversely affecting natural beach-forming processes. The proposed bulkhead will be located landward of the ordinary high water line. This is expected to minimize scouring and steepening of the beach, which is already unnaturally steep due to the lake's manmade origin. 3) 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)provide detrital input, food sources, and potential refuge for migrating juvenile salmon. Due to the large number of power boats that utilize the lake in the vicinity of the proposed project site, it is not safe to recommend anchoring LWD to the beach. Deleo Habitat Management Plan 12 C. 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. Over-fishing may deplete stocks of salmon, even as restoration of habitat in the watershed furthers their likelihood of survival. D. Take Analysis Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species, "take"being defined in Section 3 as to harass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm'is further defined as a significant 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 proposed project and the existing development activities, it is extremely unlikely that any "take"will occur. The following conservation measures (some previously discussed) will further insure the likelihood that no"take" will occur. E. Conservation Measures 1. Construction to take place as per the HPA provisions from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. The WDFW's technical provisions for freshwater lake bulkheads (WAC 220-110- 223) to be strictly adhered to. 3. Previously discussed BMP's to be strictly adhered to. 4. Only ACZA treated lumber to be used in the proposed project(no CCA). 5. Native vegetation to be planted along the top of the bulkhead. At least 80 shrubs or ferns (five-feet on-center) shall be installed. Vegetation may be harvested on site and transplanted, or, if purchased from a nursery or the Mason County Conservation District sale,be in one or two gallon pots or bare root. Plants shall include the following and/or other suitable native species: vine maple(Ater circinatnan), Pacific dogwood(Cornus nuttallii),Western yew(Taxes brevifolia), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovation), red huckleberry(Vaccinium parvifolium), Rhododendron (Rhododendron nnacrophyllum), Indian plum(Oemleria cerasiformis), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), snowbrush(Ceanothus velutinus var. hookeri), salal Deleo Habitat Management Plan 13 (Gaultheria shallop),Oregon-grape(Berberis aquifolium), Thimbleberry(Rubes parviflorus var.parviflorus),and sword fern(Polystichum munitum). F. 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 proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or Threatened species if the previously discussed conservation measures are implemented. In my most honest and professional opinion, while the proposed project may impact individual Endangered or Threatened species in the project area, it is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their designated Critical Habitat. The determination of effect for each of the listed species is: 1. Puget Sound chinook and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 2. Puget Sound Steelhead--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 3. Bull trout and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely,to adversely affect. 4. Northern Spotted Owl—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 5. Marble nnurelet and their designated Critical Habitat--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. Deleo Habitat Management Plan 14 IV. References Literature Angell, T. and K.C. Balcomb I1I. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle,WA. Brodeur, R.D., K.W. Myers, and J.H. Wells. 2003. Research Conducted by the United States on the Early Ocean Life History of Pacific Salmon. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Comm. Bull. 3: 89-131. Federal Register/Vol. 70, No.170/September 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 70,No.185/September 26, 2045/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 63,No. I I I /June, 10, 1999/Proposed Rules Federal Register/ Vol. 64,No. 128/July, 6, 1999/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 65,No. 1 /January 3, 2000/Proposed Rules Gilbert, C. and Williams J. 2002. National Audubon Society Field Guide to Fishes, Alfred A Knopf, Inc. New York. Groot, C. and L. Margolis (eds.) 1991. Life history of Pacific salmon,UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 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. National Geographic. 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.pp. 108, 226. NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Biological Opinion for the Duhon New Bulkhead and Stairs Project, Jefferson County, Washinton. Unpublished report for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Preliminary findings of NOAA Fisheries' Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team for Puget Sound and Ozette Lake ESUs. NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. Unpublished report. NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Biological Opinion for the Steve West Bulkhead Replacement, Thurston County, Washington. Unpublished report for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Poston, T. 2001. Treated Wood Issues Associated with Overwater Structures in Marine and Freshwater Environments. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Deleo Habitat Management Plan 15 Rodrick, E. and R. Milner(technical editors). Washington's priority habitats and species. 1991. Management FishManagement recommendations for Management, and Habitat MdanIn me Department D vt�o nt of Wildlife, United States Environmental Protection Agenc , ns, Olympia, WA. 17pp. Pollution). 17 pp• Internet report. Y 2006. Polluted Runoff _. a.slo�ipWOW�NP , (N°npoint Source S MMGUCha terb.%chb- Washington State Department eParhnent of Ecology. l 994. gy and Biological Resources in Puget Soon Shoreline Armoring Studies, Volume 7, Effects on Coastal Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Internet report. Wcbsite:hu . Salmon Stock Inventory I' dt"•��"a•gov. ry of Hood Canal. Washington Department of Fish and Internet r Wildlife. 2006- Species of Concern in Washington wort- Website: http:�lwdfw.wa.go�•'wlm%diversty,soc<soc.htm Washington D a State. Br�tchYr�yyiphus Department (WDW)• 1993. Olympia, WA Washington. Unpublished Status of the marble munelet published Report. Department of Wildlife. Wells, D., L. Hennessee, and J Hill. 2003. Shoreline Erosion as a Source of Sediments Nutrients Middle Coastal Bays, and Maryland Geological Siu-�,e Maryland. Coastal and Estuarine Y Baltimore, MD. 12 pp Geology File Report No. 03-07. Habitat Management Plan Deleo & Latham Bulkhead Project Lake Cushman, Washington For: Therese DeLeo 61 N Gull Place Hoodsport,WA 98548 Stephen & Amy Latham 5648 1791h Ave SE Bellevue,WA 98006-5931 Prepared 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: kimberly035;a,ccnturN tcl.net December 19,2008 1 DeLeo&Latham Habitat Management Plan 2 Table of Contents I. Project Description 3 A. Project Location........................................................................ B. Project Description............................................................... 3- C. Action Area..............................................................................4-55 II. Species and Habitat Information A. Species and Habitat Information....................................................... 5 B. Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Puget Sound Chinnook Salmon ............................................................. 6-7 Bull Trout........................................... ............ ... Puget Sound Steelhead........................................................................7-8 NorthernSpotted Owl........................................................................ 8 Marbled Mucrelet.................. .............8-9 ............................ C. Survey Results...... .............................................................9 D. Existing Environmental Conditions....................................................9-10 III. Effects of the Action 10-11 A. Direct Effects...................... ...................... I I B. Indirect Effects............... ................................ .................... ........................................ C. Cumulative Effects.......................................................................12 D. Take Analysis.............................................................................12 E. Conservation Measures.................................................................. 12-13 F. Determination of Effect...... .......................... 13 ................................. IV. References.................. ................... ......... 14-15 .......................................... . List of Attachments 1. Project location...................................................................................16 2. Site plan...... ...............................................................17 ...................... 3. Cross Section... .............. ... 18 ..................................... 4. Cross Section..................................................................................... 19 5. Site Photograph....................................................................... ............20 Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 3 I. Project Description A. Project Location 60& 61 N Gull Place,Hoodsport(Attachment 1) Tax Parcel #422055200951 &422055200051 Section 05,Township 22N,Range 04W, W.M. B. Project Description This Habitat Assessment Report has been submitted on behalf of Therese DeLeo and Stephen and Amy Latham to facilitate approval to construct approximately 280 lineal feet of I-beam pile and wood bulkhead on their neighboring Lake Cushman lots(Attachment 2,3,&4). Lake Cushman is regulated under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and the Mason County Resource Ordinance as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. As per the former,the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated Lake Cushman as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. The Act states the necessity of preserving the natural character, resources,and ecology of the shoreline. As per the Resource Ordinance, Lake Cushman is"a lake over 20 acres",and the construction of new bank stabilization requires that a Habitat Management Plan be submitted for County review. The site includes two parcels with approximately 280 lineal feet of medium-bank frontage on a shoreline environment that has been designated Urban Residential by the Mason County Shoreline Master Program(Attachment 5). Both parcels support existing single-family residences. Steep slopes at the proposed project site in conjunction with the unnatural erosion processes that occur on Lake Cushman,(due to powerboat wake and seasonal fluctuations in the water level of the lake,which is used to power a hydroelectric dam),necessitate the need for shoreline bank stabilization. The proposed new bulkhead shall be constructed of steel I-beam piles and lumber along approximately 180 feet of frontage on the DeLeo property and 100 feet on the Latham property. Holes for the piles(six feet in depth and 2 feet in diameter)will be augered by hand and filled with concrete. If treated wood is used,only lumber treated with ACZA shall be utilized(no CCA). The structure shall have a maximum above grade height of 14 feet. Tieback steel cables and concrete anchor blocks shall be utilized to reinforce the bulkhead. After construction is completed,the bulkhead shall be backed with a layer of filter fabric,then backfilled with gravel and topsoil suitable for growing native vegetation,which will be planted along the top. The bulkhead face shall be located just waterward of the lake's high watermark of 738 feet. Existing Gabion baskets along the bluff toe of the DeLeo frontage shall be removed from the site. Existing beach access stairs shall be relocated to accommodate the new bulkhead. All equipment and materials will be driven to the site. The equipment will consist of a track excavator and various hand tools. Work on the project is tentatively scheduled to begin after the receipt of all required permits and approvals. Work will be completed in less than 30 days during daylight working hours normal to a rural neighborhood. The WDFW's construction requirements for construction of freshwater lake bulkheads(WAC 220-110-223)shall be strictly adhered to: Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 4 WAC 220-110-223 (1)The toe of the bulkhead shall be placed landward of the ordinary high water line. (2) Rock used for the bulkhead construction shall be composed of clean,angular material of a sufficient size to prevent its being washed away by high water or wave action. (3)Material that is waterward of the ordinary high water line shall not be utilized for backfill. (4)Excavated or dredged material shall not be stockpiled waterward of the ordinary high water line. (5) All trenches,depressions,or holes created within the ordinary high water line shall be backfilled prior to inundation by high water or wave action. (6)All piling, lumber, or other materials treated with preservatives shall be sufficiently cured to minimize leaching into the water or bed. The use of wood treated with creosote or pentachlorophenol is not allowed in lakes. In order to maintain the present water quality of Lake Cushman during bulkhead construction, Best Management Practices will be implemented. BMP's are defined as physical, structural, and/or managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water(WSDE). The following applicable BMP's shall be used to insure that water quality is not degraded by erosion and sedimentation from rainfall at the site. 1)All existing vegetation shall be preserved except where required to be removed for construction purposes. 2)The construction area shall be surrounded by a filter fence,where appropriate,for sediment control. 3)Equipment shall be cleaned and checked for leaks, offsite and daily,before commencing work. The following Spill Prevention Control measures shall also be followed: 1)The contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom so that solid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. 2)The contractor shall be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous spill. 3)The contractor shall 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, shall 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, Gloria Rogers(360.249.4628 ex. 249), shall be notified immediately. C. Action Area The action area is located on the shoreline of Lake Cushman,along the toe of the bank (Attachments 4&5). Besides the proposed project location,the action area includes the area within a one-mile radius of the site in order to account for construction related noise that may affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as either endangered or threatened; specifically, nesting or foraging Northern spotted owls or marbled murrelets. Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 5 The action area also includes the fresh water environment within a one-mile radius, in order to account for drift. It is expected that drift moves slowly from the northwest end of the lake, where the North fork of the Skokomish River flows in,to the southeast end,where the North Fork of the Skokomish flows out via the Cushman Upper Dam. Prevailing south winds are likely to influence drift. The proposed project will take place when the water level in the lake is much lower than the OHWM(738'),so it is probable that rainfall may slowly disperse any disturbed substrate before it comes into direct contact with the lake water. III. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION A. SPECIES INFORMATION In the proposed project area,there are five species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as either Endangered or Threatened: the Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),the Puget Sound Steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss),the bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus),the marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus), and the northern spotted owl(.Stridex occidentalis). Additionally, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publishes a Priority Habitats and Species list(PHS)and a Species of Concern (SOC) list. The PHS list includes habitats, species,and species groups considered to be priorities for conservation and management. The SOC list includes only native Washington Fish and Wildlife species that are listed as State Endangered,Threatened, Sensitive,or Candidates for these designations,or Federal Endangered,Threatened,Candidate,or Species of Concern. The Cascade frog(Rana cascadae),Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei,the tailed frog (Aascaphus truei),and the Western pond turtle(C'lemmys maramorata)are ESA listed Species of Concern that could be found in Lake Cushman or streams that confluence with it; however,the pond turtle was essentially extirpated in the Puget lowlands by the 1980's(WDFW 1999),so it is doubtful that the species would be found in the action area. The Puget Sound coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is also an ESA listed Species of Concern. Species of Concern are not species that are being actively considered for listing under the ESA by the NMFS(National Marine Fisheries Service)or FWS. They have been identified as Species of Concern because of concerns or great uncertainties regarding biological status and threats. The Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDE)and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)GIS maps reveal the documented presence of three other species of anadromous salmonids on the State's PHS list within the action area: the Puget Sound coho salmon,the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta), and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). The presence of these three species has been documented in Lake Cushman. The WDFW reports that the 2002 Stock Status of Southwest Hood Canal coho and the West Hood Canal Fall Chum are Healthy. WDFW data also 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 salmonid species that inhabit the lake include landlocked Chinook salmon and rainbow trout. In addition,Mason County publishes a species of importance list. The species most likely to be found in the proposed project area include the Chinook salmon,bald eagle(Haliaetus leucocephalus),common loon(Gavia immer), Brandt's cormorant(Phalacrocorax penicillatus), Deleo&Latham Habitat Assessment Report 6 great blue heron(Ardea herodias),hooded merganser(Lophodytes cucullatus), harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus),and purple martin(Progne subis). Conservation measures proposed in this report are expected/intended to minimize impacts to listed and/or unlisted species that may inhabit or utilize the proposed project site. B. Federal Threatened or Endangered Species PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON Puget Sound Chinook salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act by NOAA Fisheries in March of 1999(64FR 14308). In April of 2002,critical habitat designation for the species and 18 other ESU (evolutionarily significant units)of Pacific salmon and steelhead was withdrawn--until further analysis of the economic impacts on affected businesses, communities,and individuals--after the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia approved a NOAA Fisheries consent decree. A lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association and other plaintiffs,alleging that NOAA Fisheries Service failed to designate timely critical habitat for the 19 ESU for which critical habitat had been vacated. Ultimately,NOAA Fisheries agreed to file final critical habitat designations with the Federal Register by August 15,2005. The designations include approximately 2,182 miles of near-shore habitat in Puget Sound and 1,683 stream miles. The boundaries of the Puget Sound ESU correspond generally with the boundaries of the Puget Lowland ecoregion. Chinook salmon are found in most of the rivers in this region. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into the Puget Sound, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Elwha River eastward, including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound,North Sound,and the Strait of Georgia in Washington State. The majority of Chinook salmon in this area exhibit an ocean- type life history and migrate to the ocean within their first year,as compared to the stream-type Chinook that reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence(Gilbert 1912,Healey 1983). In most streams within the Puget Sound ESU,the overall abundance of indigenous Chinook salmon has declined substantially from historical levels. Factors contributing to this downward trend include widespread migratory blockages and degradation of freshwater and marine habitat, with many upper watersheds affected by poor forestry practices and the mid- and lower- watersheds affected by agriculture and urbanization. Commercial and recreational fishing are also partly responsible for the decline in native Chinook abundance,along with predation by non- native species,marine mammal or bird predation in areas of dwindling salmon run-size, competition from hatchery fish,and natural environmental conditions such as floods and droughts that reduce already limited spawning, rearing,and migration habitat. The WDFW reports that summer/fall spawning chinook spawn in Hood Canal. The Skokomish Chinook stock status in 2002 was rated Depressed due to chronically low natural escapements. The Mid-Hood Canal stock was rated Critical due to chronically low escapements. Critical Habitat includes all near-shore marine areas of the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound,Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca(to the western end of the Elwha River delta)from the line of extreme high tide out to a depth of 30 meters(70 FR 52688). Chinook salmon in Lake Cushman Deleo & Latham Habitat Assessment Report 7 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). They are considered to be part of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU (Myers et al. 1998,NMFS 1999),but the TRT did not identify them as a remnant of the historical population or a viable independent population(NOAA 2006). Since Lake Cushman Chinook are land-locked it is expected that the upper North Fork of the Skokomish River and Lake Cushman provide spawning, rearing,foraging,and migration habitat,so it is possible that Chinook salmon may be found in the vicinity of the proposed project site. BULL TROUT Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family and are native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. On November 1, 1999,the Coastal-Puget Sound population was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses all Pacific coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound. On September 23,2005,the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the bull trout, which in Washington State includes over 1,519 miles of streams and 966 miles of near-shore marine shoreline(70 FR 56304). Bull trout and Dolly Varden look very similar and were once considered the same species. Morphological analysises have confirmed the distinctiveness of the two species in their different, but overlapping geographic distributions(Haas and McPhail 1991),but because the two species are difficult to visually differentiate,the WDFW currently manages bull trout and Dolly Varden together as"native char.' The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified subpopulations for which status,distribution, and threats to bull trout were evaluated. Thirty-five subpopulations were identified in the Coastal-Puget Sound. Bull Trout reach sexual maturity between four and seven years of age and have been known to live as long as 12 years. 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. Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life- history strategies(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary(or nearby)streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish remain for one to four years before migrating to either a lake(adfluvial), river(fluvial),or to saltwater(Fraley and Shepard 1989;Goetz 1989). The latter anadromous bull trout are the only form relevant to this assessment. The WDFW indicates that three bull trout subpopulations occur in the Skokomish River basin in the Hood Canal analysis area: the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River,the upper North Fork Skokomish River,and the Cushman Reservoir. Bull trout in the latter are restricted to an adfluvial life-history form,due to the Cushman Dam on the north fork of the Skokomish river. The South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation is considered depressed,while the remaining two subpopulations are listed as Unknown because insufficient information is available. Critical habitat includes the upper North Fork of the Skokomish River(70 FR 56304). Critical Habitat in the North Fork of the Skokomish River includes spawning and rearing habitat. Lake Cushman provides rearing, foraging,and migration habitat, so it is possible that bull trout may be found in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 8 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD On May 7`h 2007,the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Puget Sound Steelhead as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Covered under the listing are naturally spawned steelhead from river basins in the Puget Sound, Hood Canal,and the eastern half of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, including more than 50 stocks of summer-and winter-run fish. The listing also covers two winter-run hatchery stocks: the Green River and the Hamma Hamma River. The steelhead, (Oncorhynchus mykiss),has the most complex life history of any Pacific salmon. Known as a rainbow trout if they remain in freshwater,steelhead usually spend two to four years in their home stream before heading to marine waters. They remain in saltwater for approximately three years,then return to their home stream to spawn. Steelhead are iteroparous and do not die as result of spawning. Some will spawn a second or third time. NOAA Fisheries has identified 15 ESU of steelhead in Washington,Oregon, Idaho, and California. The WDFW reports that the status of the Skokomish, Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosiwallips summer and winter steelhead were rated as Unknown and Depressed, respectively, in 2002. The presence of steelhead has been documented in Lake Cushman (WSDE 2007, WDFW 2003),so it is possible that adult and/or juvenile steelhead may utilize the shoreline at the proposed project site. NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL In June of 1990,the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) as Threatened. Among the largest owls in North America,the average adult is approximately 18 inches tall with a 48-inch wingspan,with females being larger than males. Unlike most owls,the species have dark eyes. Their coloration is chocolate-brown with round or oval white spots on their head, neck, back, and under parts. Northern spotted owls are strictly nocturnal,and inhabit old growth forests from southern British Columbia to Northern California. They 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. These same old growth trees also harbor rodents,which are one of the owls' main prey items, although they also feed on birds, insects,and reptiles. 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. The current population is thought to be between 2,500 and 5,000 breeding pairs. Due to the close proximity of human habitation, it is unlikely that any Northern spotted owls may be found in the vicinity of the proposed project site. A WDFW Biologist reported that the nearest documented spotted owl activity was in the Staircase area,which is over 6 miles northwest of the proposed project site. MARBLED MURRELET In September of 1992,USFWS listed the marbled murrelet as threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. A small,diving seabird in the family Alcidae,the marbled murrelet forages for small fish and invertebrates almost exclusively in nearshore marine waters,while nesting inland in old-growth or mature conifer forests. The primary threat to the species is the loss of nesting habitat due to the harvesting of old-growth forests. A life history strategy involving a relatively Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 9 long life span,delayed sexual maturity, and low annual reproductive potential is also a problem. Beissinger(1995)suggests that productivity is below levels required to sustain the listed population. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated in May of 1996, but it is not located within close range of the proposed project site on Lake Cushman. The listed population size in Washington, Oregon,and California was estimated at 18,550 to 32,000 birds(Ralph et at. 1995, Nelson 1997). Marbled murrelet populations in those three states may be declining at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year. A WDFW Biologist reported that the nearest documented marbled murrelet occupancy site was at Cabin Creek,which is approximately 9.5 miles southwest of the proposed project site. It is possible that marbled murrelet may be found at Lake Cushman in the vicinity of the proposed project site. C. Survey Results A field investigation was conducted on November 25,2008 at approximately eleven in the morning. The project area was surveyed visually on foot. The weather was overcast,the wind calm, and the temperature around forty-five degrees Fahrenheit. The proposed project site is located on two small,developed waterfront lots on the east side of Lake Cushman. The existing SFRs are located approximately 50 and 60 feet from the shoreline. Between the residences and the shoreline,the property inclines at a moderate gradient to the bluff edge. The bluff face is nearly vertical. The upper slope is heavily vegetated with native species, but the bluff face has been subjected to minor mass wasting and is sparsely vegetated. The substrate in lake's littoral zone,which is the near shore area where light penetrates to the bottom,consists primarily of gravel, cobble, and rock. The slope along the littoral zone is extremely steep. No aquatic vegetation or fish were observed. The following native species were observed at the site: Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), bigleaf maple(Ater macrophyllum),Western red cedar(Thuja plicata),willow(Salix spp.), evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum),red huckleberry(Vaccinium parvifolium), salal (Gaultheria shallop),Oregon-grape(Berberis nervosa), kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi ssp. uva-ursi), and the non-native Scot's Broom(Cytisus scoparius). D. Existing Environmental Conditions The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions,to which the effects of the proposed action are then added. The environmental baseline is defined as"the past and present impacts of all Federal,state,and private actions and other human activities in the action area,the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or informal section 7 consultation,and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process"(50 CFR 402.02). Before the completion of two dams in 1926 and 1930, Lake Cushman was a natural oligotrophic lake with a Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 10 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. The proposed project site is located on two rural lots with approximately 280 feet of frontage on Lake Cushman, in an area classified as an Urban Residential shoreline environment by the Shoreline Master Program of Mason County. Much of the shoreline in the neighborhood has been developed with single-family residences(primarily utilized as vacation cabins)and bulkheads. Besides shoreline hard-armoring, it can be assumed that the existing environmental conditions in the area have been degraded by organic and inorganic pollutants,deforestation, fishing,and other anthropogenic changes that accompany urbanization. III. Effects of the Action A. Direct Effects Direct effects are the immediate effects of the project on the listed species and their habitats (FWS&NMFS 1998). The direct effect to the proposed project site will be the construction of a steel pile and wood bulkhead on a lake that is habitat for three previously discussed ESA listed salmonid species. Direct effects to the shoreline along Lake Cushman include the alteration of supralittoral habitat from the placement of steel I-beam piles along the bluff toe. Direct effects to the shoreline include: 1)The loss of benthic habitat from the installation of the steel piles. 2)Contamination of Lake Cushman from the leaching of wood preservatives. 3)The loss of native vegetation. 1)The footprint of the piles will be located just waterward of the lake's high water mark of 73 8 feet, so the piles are expected to have an insignificant impact on benthic habitat. 2)The leaching of wood preservatives is the most common contaminant-related issue with pier, ramp,and floats. A bulkhead constructed of treated wood would also be expected to leach contaminants. Laboratory studies by Weis et al.(1991, 1992)have shown that leaching decreases by about 50%daily once the wood is immersed in seawater. Given that all ACZA treated wood used in the proposed project shall be sufficiently cured to minimize leaching of contaminants into the water, it is unlikely that leaching from treated wood will have a noticeable impact on aquatic life at the proposed project site. In addition,due to the bulkhead's location(landward of the high water mark) it is doubtful that more than the toe of the bulkhead will ever be immersed in water (and then only rarely). However,rain that falls on any treated wood utilized in the proposed project will drain directly into Lake Cushman, causing an unknown level of water and sediment contamination. 3)Another direct effect is the loss of vegetation directly landward of the bulkhead,due to the presence of the bulkhead. Presently,the bluff face is nearly vertical and sparsely vegetated. After construction is completed,the bulkhead shall be backed with filter fabric and backfilled with gravel and topsoil suitable for growing native vegetation, which will be planted along the top. Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 11 Temporary direct effects caused by the proposed project include: 1)Sedimentation and/or siltation, and turbidity in Lake Cushman. 2)Noise. 3)Water pollution from incidental release of fuel, oil,or other contaminants. 1)Disturbed substrate from the installation of the bulkhead may result in increased turbidity and sedimentation and/or siltation, which might effect the migration of juvenile salmonids along the shoreline by creating a temporary barrier in the littoral zone. Juvenile salmonids are mobile, so it is possible that they will avoid the area of disturbance and not be impacted. Salmonids have been observed to move laterally and downstream to avoid turbidity plumes(Sigler et al. 1984, Lloyd 1987, Scannell 1988). Gregory and Northcote(1993)suggested that turbidity could be used as a protective cover by juvenile salmon. As previously discussed,BMP's will be strictly adhered to during construction in order to maintain the present water quality of Lake Cushman and prevent runoff and pollution. In addition,the proposed project will take place when the water level in the lake is much lower than the OHWM (738'), so it is probable that rainfall will slowly disperse any disturbed substrate before it comes into direct contact with the lake water. Therefore, it is expected that turbidity,sedimentation and/or siltation will be minimal. 2)The main source of construction noise will be the operation of heavy equipment. The project site is located in a residential neighborhood, so it is expected that the noise from heavy equipment will not be more excessive than noise normal to the neighborhood. 3)Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel,oil,or other contaminants is another possible temporary direct effect. As previously discussed, Spill Prevention Control measures and BMP's shall be implemented during the proposed project. B. 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)Scouring and steepening of the beach in front of the new hard-armored section of shoreline. 2)A reduction in the accumulation of large drift logs on the beach. 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. The sediment in front of a bulkhead will gradually become coarser as wave action and littoral drift removes the finer sediment and there is no sediment available for replenishment because it is impounded behind the bulkhead(Macdonald et al. 1994). Hard-armored bulkheads cut off sediment that was once available to feed the beach,thus adversely affecting natural beach-forming processes. The proposed bulkhead will be located landward of the ordinary high water line. This is expected to minimize scouring and steepening of the beach,which is already unnaturally steep due to the lake's manmade origin. 3) 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)provide detrital input, food sources,and potential refuge for migrating juvenile salmon. Due to the large number of power Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 12 boats that utilize the lake in the vicinity of the proposed project site, it is not safe to recommend anchoring LWD to the beach. C. 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. Over-fishing may deplete stocks of salmon,even as restoration of habitat in the watershed furthers their likelihood of survival. D. Take Analysis Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species,"take"being defined in Section 3 as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound,trap, capture,or collect listed species,or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant 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 proposed project and the existing development activities, it is extremely unlikely that any "take"will occur. The following conservation measures(some previously discussed)will further insure the likelihood that no"take"will occur. E. Conservation Measures 1. Construction to take place as per the HPA provisions from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. The WDFW's technical provisions for freshwater lake bulkheads(WAC 220-110- 223)to be strictly adhered to. 3. Previously discussed BMP's to be strictly adhered to. 4. Only ACZA treated lumber to be used in the proposed project(no CCA). 5. Native vegetation to be planted along the top of the bulkhead. At least 80 shrubs or ferns(five-feet on-center)shall be installed. Vegetation may be harvested on site and transplanted,or, if purchased from a nursery or the Mason County Conservation District sale, be in one or two gallon pots or bare root. Plants shall include the following and/or other suitable native species: vine maple(Ater circinatum), Pacific Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 13 dogwood(Cornus nuttallii), Western yew(Taxus brevifolia),evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum),red huckleberry(Vaccinium parvifolium), Rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), Indian plum(Oemleria cerasiformis), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor),snowbrush(Ceanothus velutinus var. hookeri), salal (Gaultheria shallon),Oregon-grape(Berberis aquifolium),Thimbleberry(Rubus parviorus var.parviflorus), and sword fern(Polystichum munitum). F. 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 proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or Threatened species if the previously discussed conservation measures are implemented. In my most honest and professional opinion,while the proposed project may impact individual Endangered or Threatened species in the project area, it is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their designated Critical Habitat. The determination of effect for each of the listed species is: l. Puget Sound Chinook and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 2. Puget Sound Steelhead--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 3. Bull trout and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 4. Northern Spotted Owl—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. S. Marble murrelet and their designated Critical Habitat--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 14 IV. References Literature Angell,T. and K.C. Balcomb 111. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Brodeur, R.D.,K.W. Myers, and J.H. Wells. 2003. Research Conducted by the United States on the Early Ocean Life History of Pacific Salmon. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Comm. Bull. 3: 89-131. 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. 63,No. 1 I 1 /June, 10, 1998/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 128 /July, 6, 1999/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 65,No. 1 /January 3,2000/Proposed Rules Gilbert,C. and Williams J. 2002. National Audubon Society Field Guide to Fishes, Alfred A Knopf, Inc.New York. Groot, C.and L. Margolis(eds.) 1991. Life history of Pacific.salmon, UBC Press,Vancouver, British Columbia. 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. National Geographic. 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. pp. 108, 226. NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Biological Opinion for the Duhon New Bulkhead and Stairs Project, Jefferson County, Washinton. Unpublished report for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Preliminary findings of NOAA Fisheries' Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team for Puget Sound and Ozette Lake ESUs. NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources Division,Portland,Oregon. Unpublished report. NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Biological Opinion for the Steve West Bulkhead Replacement,Thurston County, Washington. Unpublished report for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Deleo& Latham Habitat Assessment Report 15 Poston,T. 2001. Treated Wood Issues Associated with Overwater Structures in Marine and Freshwater Environments. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rodrick, E. and R. Milner(technical editors). 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat Management Divisions, Olympia, WA. 17pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Polluted Runoff(Nonpoint Source Pollution). 17 pp. Internet report. littp://www.epa.pov/OWOW/NPS/MtviGI/Chaptei-6/cit(i 4.html Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Shoreline Armoring Effects on Coastal Ecology and Biological Resources in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Studies, Volume 7. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Salmon Stock Inventory of Hood Canal. Internet report. A dtV.\� Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Species of Concern in Washington State. Internet report. Website: http://wd a.govlwim,diverst)/soc"socA III II Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marble murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpublished Report. Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Wells, D., L. Hennessee, and J Hill. 2003. Shoreline Erosion as a Source of Sediments and Nutrients Middle Coastal Bays,Maryland. Coastal and Estuarine Geology File Report No. 03-07. Maryland Geological Survey. Baltimore, MD. 12 pp. DeLeo & Latham Habitat Management Plan 16 Attachment 1 Vicinity Map. 0 E t V Lilliwaupo a DeLeo&Latham tot Residences ^N �K,*io °IRd Hoodsport DeLeo & Latham Habitat Management Plan 17 Attachment 2 Site Plan. r E ' . OeLeo & Latham Habitat Management Plan 18 Attachment 3 Dcl.cm cross section. 41 ! DeLeo & Latham Habitat Management Plan 19 Attachment 4 Latham cross section. 1:•1H1:1 F tiG1�'t h'RF�C;,i�'C. CROSS SEC"i'N)ti i3 f? _ Aolaa faha.ItV. 5mitl+il lxo Ls!t ul: �r^,rt,. _.. ..." - 511fi C1\OUR Platy. Piz Mnl4��s..:� .., ----.._. 1-IcW4wrt. IkA yttiV 1?carl5:A7r« W-4 QY40 _ . -- i,''$,.1!S'-(XICS:S O!W+! (ih011F?-9: - 1 X - t G �s �,F DeLeo& Latham Habitat Management Plan 20 Attachment 5 The shoreline at the proposed project site. l ? .