HomeMy WebLinkAboutBulkhead, Biologic Eval - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 6/30/2009 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: kunber1,,-035(u-.centurytel.iiet
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
PugetSound 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 tsha►vytscha), the Puget Sound Steelhead(Oncorhynchus myldss), the bull
trout(Salvelinus conjluentus), the marbled nmrrelet(Brachyramphus mar•moratus marma•atus),
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 caseadae), Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei, the tailed frog
(Aascaphus truei),and the Western pond turtle(Clemmys 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(Gavin 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 tinder 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 tipper 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 Skokotnish
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 52689). 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 generically
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 brill 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 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
(Striae 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 macrophylliun), Western red cedar(Thuja plicata), willow(Salix spp.),
evergreen huckleberry(Vacciniunz ovatum),red huckleberry(Vaccinium parvifoliwn), 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 hurnan 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.
Ill. 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 contanunant-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 shnubs 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(Aces circinatum), Pacific
dogwood(Corpus nuttallii),Western yew(Taxus brevifolia), evergreen huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovation),red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), Rhododendron
(Rhododendron macrophyllum), Indian plum(Oemleria cerasifoi7nis), oceanspray
(Holodiscus discolor), snowbrush(Ceanothus velutinus var. hookeri), salal
Deleo Habitat Management Plan 13
(Gaultheria shallon),Oregon-grape(Berberis aquifolium), Thimbleberry(Rubus
parviflorus var.parviflorus), and sword fern(Polystichum munituni).
F. Determination of Effect
A determination of Mav 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 murrelet 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 III. 1982. Marine Birds and Mainn:als 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. I I I /June, 10, 1998/Proposed Rules
Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 128/July, 6, 19991 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. Array 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). 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. ltttp:,,wH�N.c2a.gov,OWOWiNPS/MMGUChapteru Clio-
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. '1'ebsite:http. wdAx.wa.gov%
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Species of Concern in Washington State.
Internet report. Website: littp:_,� dt��.�Na.guti� liiti dncrsty Dui:suz.iuiii
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.
Mason Environmental Permit
7/22/2009 Case No.: MEP2009-00004
Conditions:
1.) All provisions of the Habitat Management Plan shall be enacted.
X ,;2
2.) Minimum vegetation shall be removed. Native vegetation shall be planted along the top of
the bulkhead as identified in the HMP. X t%ram
3.) Holes for the posts will be augered by hand.
X (•' A-S
4.) No construction to take place when the water level of Lake Cushman is elevated
(approximately May 26th through October 1st).
X ( ;4,'
5.) ACZA treated wood used in the project shall undergo one or more of the following BMP's
to minimize leaching of contaminants:
1. Aqua-Ammonia Steaming Cycle (AASC);
2. Post Treatment Kiln Drying;
3. Minimum Plant Holding Time (MPHT). In addition to recommendations for the ACZA
BMP's-Amendment#1 for MPHT treatment, all ACZA treated wood shall be held under
cover a minimum of 3 weeks at constant temperature that meets or exceeds 60 degrees
F. If the ambient temperature is less than 60 degrees F., then ACZA treated wood must
undergo the Post Treatment Kiln Drying, noted above;
4. In-Retort Ammonia Removal Plus Plan Holding Time, as conditioned in previous
section (3), but held under cover for a minimum of 1 week, at constant temperature that
meets or exceeds 60 degrees F;
5. ACZA wood treatment methods shall be verified by providing a signed and dated
certification from a third party.
X i;
6.) Aquatic friendly sealant shall be applied to the concrete used in the project.
X
7.) Geosynthetic filter fabric shall be used to"back"the bulkhead as identified in the HMP.
X a r <`
8.) Residential developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas disturbed should
be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.
X i
9.) 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 �-<
10.) Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result
of this project. X (am,
11.) 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
7/22/2009 Page 3 of 3 MEP2009-00004
Soil Probe Focaoon it /
1.i1k1' Ikpth to I l:u 1pan.
Reservoir
M
1 U'
4 Q
>lll SSI�NAL 8 '^
a
I: sill
fi ;tlh n y
Rc -nce a
`o QQ�
I Snu -De co
Z •� iq'Iladius \\ r
t� f1f 1� A f Lr \rclltv.
pro / \tCN It11At1iY:
rh Lltti_•(I 10`
i r f
I �
o
l/ o �r, 40 N. � n
s
Biological Evaluation
Latham Bulkhead and Pier & Float Project
Lake Cushman, Hoodsport WA
For:
Stephen & Amy Latham
5648 179th 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: kimberiv035�d`ccnEurvtel.nct
December 9, 2016
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Proposed Action.............................................................................. 3
1.1 Background ................................................................................... 3-4
1.2 Project Need and Objectives................................................................ 4
2.0 Project Description........................................................................... 4-5
2.1 Project Activities.............................................................................. 5-8
2.2 Monitoring and Maintenance................................................................ 8
2.3 Timing.......................................................................................... 8
2.4 Conservation Measures...................................................................... 9
2.5 Best Management Practices.................................................................. 9-11
3.0 Action Area.................................................................................... 11-12
4.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information..................................................... 13
4.1 ESA Listed Species.......................................................................... 14-16
5.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions....................................................... 16
5.1 Action Area.................................................................................... 16-17
5.2 Proposed Project Area....................................................................... 17
6.0 Effects of the Action.......................................................................... 18
6.1 Direct Effects.................................................................................. 18-20
6.2 Primary Constituent Elements............................................................ 20-22
6.3 Direct Effects to ESA Listed Species...................................................... 22
6.4 Indirect Effects................................................................................. 22-24
6.5 Primary Constituent Elements............................................................ 25
6.6 Direct Effects to ESA Listed Species....................................................... 26
6.7 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects......................................................... 26
6.8 Primary Constituent Elements............................................................ ..26-27
6.9 Cumulative Effects............................................................................ 27
7.0 Conclusion...................................................................................... 27
7.1 Take Analysis.................................................................................. 27-28
7.2 Determination of Effect....................................................................... 28
8.0 References.......................................................................................29-32
Attachments
1. Project location................................................................................... 33
2. Site plan with proposed development..........................................................34
3. Cross section with proposed development..............................I.................... 35
4. Mitigation site plan............................................................................... 36
5. Site Photograph,,,,,,, ..................................................... 37
6. Site Photograph................................................................................. 38
7. Site Photograph...................................................................................39
8. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 40
9. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 41
10. Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................ 42-43
Latham Biological Evaluation 2
S
1.0 Proposed Action
This Biological Evaluation has been submitted on behalf of Stephen and Amy Latham
at the request of the Seattle District United States Army Corps of Engineers to comply
with Endangered Species Act(ESA) regulations regarding shoreline development. The
proposed action is the installation of a wood bulkhead, a pier, and a float. Shoreline
access stairs will also be installed; however,this latter project will not be discussed in
detail in this report. Mitigation for the proposed project includes the installation of a
native planting plan on the shoreline bluff. In addition, all lumber in this project will be
untreated and sustainable Alaska yellow cedar. Overwater coverage at the site will be
increased by approx. 296 square feet(sf).
1.1 Background
The proposed project site is located in Mason County at 60 North Gull Place, Hoodsport
Washington (Attachment 1). The Mason County tax parcel number is 42205-52-00951.
The property is located in Section 05, Township 22N, Range 04 of the Western Meridian.
The latitude is 47.42497 north,and the longitude is -123.22088 west. The proposed
project site is on Lake Cushman in the Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource
Inventory Area 16 (WRIA 16)on a shoreline designated Urban Residential by the
Shoreline Master Program of Mason County. Lake Cushman is regulated under the
Mason County Shoreline Master Program and the Mason County Resource Ordinance as
a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971
designated Lake Cushman as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. In addition, Lake
Cushman is regulated by Tacoma Public Utilities (aka Tacoma Power), which has
designated Shoreline Management Classification (SMC)zones. The proposed project site
is located in an SMC zone classified as"A." Tacoma Power defines the"A'.' management
classification as shoreline areas with no known significant environmental/cultural
resources or associated resource management goals precluding existing or future
shoreline uses;this classification acknowledges existing private uses and anticipates
potential future private and light commercial shoreline uses (Kleinschmidt 2012).
The proposed project site is located in a residential neighborhood on a 0.44 acre shoreline
lot, which supports a single-family residence located approximately (approx.) seventy-
five (75) feet horizontally and sixty(60) feet vertically from the shoreline of Lake
Cushman. There are currently no shoreline appurtenances on the site. Approximately
forty-five (45)feet of shoreline at the site, from the adjacent concrete bulkhead along the
north property line moving southward, suffered a slide that deposited trees and other
native vegetation into Lake Cushman(Attachments 5-8).
Latham Biological Evaluation 3
1.2 Project Need and Objectives
The bluff toe at the site exhibits erosion damage that is common to the Lake Cushman
shoreline. The primary cause of this erosion and concomitant shoreline instability is the
seasonal raising and lowering of Lake Cushman, a reservoir with two functioning dams,
and the lake's unique landscape features, including a steep, unnatural lakebed topography
that lacks a shallow foreshore to diminish wave energy generated by strong prevailing
winds and approx. eight miles of fetch,and a steep terrestrial shoreline that receives an
average of approx. 100 inches of rainfall per year. Due to the existing bluff toe erosion
and the potential for further slope instability at the high-bank site (Attachment 9),
shoreline protection in the form of a wood bulkhead is proposed. As previously noted, a
significant mass wasting event(i.e. a slide) deposited vegetation and sediments into the
lake approx. one to two years ago.
Additionally,the site lacks shoreline access and a recreational usage structure, so
shoreline access stairs and a pier and float are also being proposed. The applicants wish
to install structures that are safe for both humans and the environment. Therefore,the
project objective is to install stairs, a bulkhead, and a PRF while avoiding or minimizing
impacts to ESA-listed species and improving shoreline habitat at the site.
2.0 Project Description
As per the engineered design by MET Engineering, PLLC(Attachments 2-3),approx. one-
hundred lineal feet(100') of post and plank wood bulkhead will be installed along the
bluff and bank toe at an approx. lakebed elevation of 736 feet. The proposed bulkhead
will be an average above grade height of between ten (10)to fourteen (14) feet. The
bulkhead will be constructed of eight by eight inch (8"x 8")Alaska yellow cedar posts,
two by eight-foot(2' x 8')yellow cedar planks, and galvanized hardware. To provide
added stability, galvanized steel cable tiebacks will be bolted to the approx. seventeen
(17)posts and attached to approx. six(6) concrete deadman anchors (2' x 2' x 41)that
will be placed approx. fifteen(l 5) feet landward of the bulkhead. The anchors will be
concrete ecology blocks or poured concrete. At both ends, the steel cable will be attached
to a four inch (4") galvanized steel pipe that will be driven into the bluff slope to a depth
of approx. ten feet and encased in concrete.
The proposed overwater structure will consist of a six by twenty-eight-foot(6' x 28')
pier, and an approx.eight by sixteen-foot(8'3"x 16'3") float. The pier and float will be
constructed of galvanized steel or aluminum hardware, and yellow cedar posts,joists,
decking,and trim. The float will be fitted with polyethylene encapsulated Styrofoam®
floats; a float landing cradle constructed of Alaska yellow cedar will prevent the float
from resting on the lakebed during the low water season. The pier and float will utilize
approx. twelve (12)Alaska yellow cedar posts (8"x 8"). The decking of the pier and float
will have grating installed (fifty percent total with 60 percent light passage, as per the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW] stipulations). Overwater coverage
of the pier(168 sf)and float(128 sf)will total approx. 296 square feet.
Latham Biological Evaluation 4
All post holes will four to six feet(4' to 6') deep, two feet(2')wide, and filled with
concrete and rebar.No pressure treated lumber will be used in this project. Sustainably
harvested Alaska yellow cedar,which is insect and decay resistant, will be utilized
instead. All overwater structures will be grated with ThruFlow decking panels, which are
made of reinforced polypropylene, contain no toxic preservatives, and are recyclable.
To aid in mitigating erosion, basalt riprap(1/2 man rock)will be placed along the
bulkhead toe and around all pier and float posts to a width of one foot(1') following
construction. The proposed quantity will be the minimal quantity required to provide
protection, approx. 10 cubic yards.
A circular saw and various hand tools will be used throughout the proposed project. All
workers, equipment, debris, and materials will be transported to and from the site by car,
truck, or boat. The float may be constructed off-site and transported to the site by boat
when the lake's waters are high. Geo-textile fabric will be spread over the dry lakebed
before commencement of project construction in order to contain any manmade
construction debris. At the completion of construction, the geo-textile fabric will be
removed from the shoreline at the site, along with all construction debris and other
existing manmade debris. All debris will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other
licensed disposal site.
2.1 Project Activities
Excavation of the Posts Holes for the Bulkhead, the Pier & Float, and the
Deadman Anchors
Due to the difficulty of accessing the site with heavy machinery, it will be necessary to
manually excavate approx. twenty-nine(29) post holes to a depth and diameter of approx.
4' to 6', and 2', respectively, and deadman anchor holes to a depth and diameter of 4' and
4' x 2' x 2', respectively. Excavated material will be used to fill any depressions around
the newly installed footing and posts or be removed from the shoreline at the site,as per
Tacoma Power's rules and regulations. In the event of heavy precipitation, silt fencing
(see Best Management Practices 2.5) will be utilized to contain the exposed footing
trenches and stockpiled sediments.
Construction of the Deadman Anchor Forms
If pre-cast concrete ecology blocks are not to be used, then the forms for the six deadman
anchors will be constructed using untreated lumber, hardware, and hand tools.
Latham Biological Evaluation 5
Concrete Pouring of the Post Holes and Deadman Anchors
Concrete for the bulkhead post footings and deadman anchors(if ecology blocks are not
used)will be poured at the same time. Concrete will be delivered via a concrete pump
truck. Before concrete is poured,the yellow cedar posts and rebar will be positioned in
the post holes and untreated lumber forms and rebar in the anchor holes. Excavated
material will be removed from the shoreline at the site, as per Tacoma Power's rules and
regulations,and will likely be placed landward of the newly installed bulkhead.
Bulkhead, Pier & Float, and Stairs Construction
The bulkhead, pier, and stairs will be constructed on site. The float may be constructed on
site or off site and delivered to the site by boat. After construction is completed, rip-rap
will be delivered to the shoreline, via a plastic chute or by boat, and placed along the
bulkhead toe and around all pier and float posts to a width of one foot(1'). At the
completion of the riprap installation, the geo-textile fabric will be removed from the
shoreline at the site,along with all construction debris and any other existing manmade
debris. All debris will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site.
Mitigation Planting
The primary goal of the mitigation planting plan is to install native vegetation,
including trees and shrubs, in order to mitigate for the proposed project (Attachment
4). The planting area will be adjacent to the shoreline access stairs and will occupy
approx. 10' feet on both sides of the shoreline access stairs and the slide area for a
total area of approx. 2,400 square feet.
Vegetation contributes to slope stability in many ways, including the following:
*Vegetation intercepts precipitation, causing absorptive and evaporative losses
that reduce the amount of precipitation available for infiltration.
•Roots extract moisture from the soil, which is lost to the atmosphere via
transpiration.
•Roots reinforce the soil,increasing soil shear strength.
*Tree roots may anchor into firm strata, providing support to the upslope soil
mainly through buttressing and arching.
*Vegetation absorbs the energy of precipitation, which alleviates erosion to
surface sediments and reduces the velocity of surface flows.
Latham Biological Evaluation 6
•Vegetation acts as a filter to catch sediments.
Vegetation will be installed in the approx. 2,400 sf planting area, adjacent the shoreline
access stairs, following construction. Due to the steep slope, it is recommended that
vegetation be planted in a manner that causes minimal substrate disturbance,which
may be accomplished by first installing biodegradable erosion control matting, such as
jute, and then seeding the area with native grasses and installing gallon potted or bare
root plants.
Overall, it is recommended that plants be installed randomly with some clumping of
shrub species, a clump being defined as two or three plants installed in close proximity
to one another. The following atypical, closer than normal, spacing is also
recommended in order to expedite full vegetation coverage over the area: two-foot on
center for shrubs and five-foot on center for trees.
Plants should be thinned or trimmed as necessary and watered at least twice per week
during dry conditions in spring and summer months. Invasive, non-native vegetation
should be removed at least twice a year or as necessary. Due to the close proximity of
Lake Cushman, no herbicides or pesticides should be used in this project. Vegetation
may be harvested on site and transplanted, or purchased from a nursery or the Mason
County Conservation District sale (or other). Potted one gallon or bare root plants are
recommended. Organic mulch should be used to mulch the newly installed plants in
order to minimize runoff from topsoil. Straw will introduce weeds and is not
recommended for mulching at the site. The exact location of the plantings will be at the
installer's discretion.
In order to mitigate for the proposed project, at least fifty (70)trees, and one hundred-
twenty-five (125) shrubs are recommended to be installed. Recommended species have
been selected with excellent erosion control and slope stabilization qualities.
Recommended native species include: Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), western
hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), shore pine (Pinus contorta
contorta), bigleaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), Western red cedar(Thuja plicata), willow
(Salix spp. including scouleriana, sitchensis, and/or hookeriana), vine maple(Ater
circinatum), Pacific dogwood(Corpus nutlallii), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor),
Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis),
evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), common snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus),
salal (Gaultheria shallon),Oregon-grape (Berberis aquifolium or nervosa), and sword
fern (Polystichum munilum).
Mitigation Performance Standards
What constitutes successful mitigation? Providing a habitat that will be functionally
equivalent to one that will be lost(Zedler 1996). The creation of an ecosystem requires
establishment of both structure and function. Structure can be described by the
Latham Biological Evaluation 7
measurement of attributes such as composition and biomass at one point in time.
Describing function requires the examination of complex processes that occur through
time. In a mitigation context,there should be clear performance standards for both
structural and functional attributes; however, while structure can readily be assessed,
there are no easy methods for assessing function. Therefore, mitigation evaluation for this
project will focus on structure. Measureable specific criteria for the evaluation of project
success include:
*Vegetation survival.
The mitigation plantings shall meet the following performance standards for the life of
the project:
980% survival of all installed plants.
Mitigation Contingency Plan
The property owners will inspect the planting area at least once a month until the
vegetation becomes established. The property owners will monitor and water the native
vegetation plantings at least three times per week during dry months, until the vegetation
becomes established. It is expected that vegetation should be adequately established in
three to five years. Dead plants will be replaced throughout the monitoring period. If
necessary, invasive, non-native vegetation will be removed or cut back at least twice per
year.
2.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Maintenance
The property owners will inspect the planting area at least once a month until the
vegetation has been established. The property owners will monitor and water the native
vegetation plantings at least three times per week during dry months, until the vegetation
has become established. It is expected that vegetation should be adequately established in
three to five years. Dead plants will be replaced throughout the monitoring period. If
necessary, invasive, non-native vegetation will be removed or cut back at least twice per
year.
2.3 Timing
Work on the bulkhead, pier, float, and shoreline access stairs will be completed over an
approx. thirty(30) day period during daylight working hours normal to a rural residential
neighborhood. Work will only take place when the water level of Lake Cushman is low,
which is generally between October and April.
Latham Biological Evaluation 8
2.4 Conservation Measures
1. No construction on the bulkhead, pier, float to occur unless Lake Cushman's
waters are low.
2. No pressure treated lumber will be used in this project. Sustainably harvested
Alaska yellow cedar, which is insect and decay resistant, will be utilized for
all wood members of the bulkhead, pier, float, and shoreline access stairs.
3. Grating will be installed on the pier and float (fifty percent total with 60
percent light passage, as per WDFW's provisions) using ThruFlow decking
panels, which are made of reinforced polypropylene, contain no toxic
preservatives,and are recyclable.
4. Construction to take place as per the HPA provisions from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
5. Previously discussed BMPs to be strictly adhered to.
6. Native vegetation to be planted on the bluff at the site (see Mitigation
Planting).
2.5 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:
Latham Biological Evaluation 9
•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.).
eConcrete trucks, pumpers, or other concrete coated equipment are washed on-site.
•Note: If less than 10 concrete trucks or pumpers need to be washed out on-site, the
wash water may be disposed of in a formed area awaiting concrete or an upland
disposal site where it will not contaminate surface or ground water. The upland
disposal site shall be at least 50 feet from sensitive areas such as storm drains,
open ditches,or water bodies, including wetlands.
•A temporary washout facility shall be constructed on-site or the concrete truck will be
washed out off-site.
•When temporary concrete washout facilities are no longer required for the work,the
hardened concrete, slurries and liquids shall be removed and properly disposed of.
*Materials used to construct temporary concrete washout facilities shall be removed from
the site of the work and disposed of or recycled.
BMP C151: Concrete Handling
Purpose: Concrete work can generate process water and slurry that contain fine particles
and high pH, both of which can violate water quality standards in the receiving water.
Concrete spillage or concrete discharge to surface waters of the State is prohibited. Use
this BMP to minimize and eliminate concrete, concrete process water, and concrete slurry
from entering waters of the state.
Conditions of Use: Any time concrete is used, utilize these management practices.
•Wash out concrete truck chutes, pumps, and internals into formed areas only. Assure
that washout of concrete trucks is performed offsite or in designated concrete
washout areas. DO not wash out concrete trucks onto the ground, or into storm
drains, open ditches, streets,or streams.
•Return unused concrete remaining in the truck and pump to the originating batch
plant for recycling. Do not dump excess concrete on site, except in designated
concrete washout areas.
*Wash off hand tools including, but not limited to, screeds, shovels, rakes, floats, and
trowels into formed areas only.
*Wash equipment difficult to move in areas that do not directly drain to natural or
constructed stormwater conveyances.
*Do not allow washdown from areas, such as concrete aggregate driveways, to drain
directly to natural or constructed stormwater conveyances (or Puget Sound).
*Contain washwater and leftover product in a lined container when no formed areas
are available. Dispose of contained concrete in a manner that does not violate
ground water or surface water quality standards.
*Always use forms or solid barriers for concrete pours, such a pilings, within 15-feet
of surface waters.
Latham Biological Evaluation 10
BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation
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.
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
shal I allow the water to pass through the fence.
The following additional BMP shall 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 will also be followed: 1)
The applicant will supply the site with a portable bathroom or allow workers access to an
onsite bathroom so that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater
pollution. 2)The applicant will be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in
the event of a 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
Latham Biological Evaluation 11
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
be great enough that disturbed sediments will disperse gradually(via precipitation)over
the exposed lakebed without ever reaching water until the lake is raised. Therefore,
terrestrial noise is expected to be the most far-reaching effect from the proposed project.
The action area for terrestrial noise effects is based upon an ambient sound level of 40
dBA for an area with a population of less than 100 people per mile (WSDOT 2010). In
addition, the Olympic National Forest programmatic biological assessment uses an
estimated ambient level of 40 dBA for undisturbed forested areas (USDI 2003).Noise
frequency and levels for the proposed project is expected to be short term and moderate,
as the contractor will be using hand tools such as a skill saw. The noise levels for the rip-
rap delivery and installation will be intermittent and short-term. Assuming noise from the
latter, which will be muted by the plastic chute or, if delivered by boat, unloaded via
manual labor, will be less than that of a circular saw, the sawing of the 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 50 feet).
To determine the distance that the proposed project's maximum point source construction
noise will travel before it attenuates to the ambient sound level; the following Practical
Spreading Loss Model equation was used:
D=Do * 10((Construction Noise—Ambient Sound Level in dBA)/a) Where D =the
distance from the noise & Do=the reference measurement distance of 50'.
Average construction noise from the proposed project will travel approx. 3,970 feet over
hard site conditions(Lake Cushman) and 1,656 feet over soft site conditions (forested
areas) before it(the noise) attenuates to the ambient sound level. Therefore,the extent of
the action area is 3,970 feet or 0.75 mi. over the lake's surface and 1,656 feet or 0.31 mi.
inland from the proposed project site and adjacent shorelines.
In addition, the action area includes unnamed fish-bearing streams located approx. 0.55.
0.57, 0.70, 0.80 mi. to the east, and 0.78 mi. north of the site.Numerous ephemeral
streams are located throughout the action area.
Latham Biological Evaluation 12
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 (S'alvelinus 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 recently
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).
Latham Biological Evaluation 13
4.1 ESA Listed Species
BULL TROUT
Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family and are native to the
Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Water temperature above 15 degrees Celsius is
believed to limit bull trout distribution, as eggs and juveniles require extremely cold
water for survival. Bull trout are also vulnerable to degraded stream habitat, poor water
quality, dams and other stream blocking structures, and predation by non-native fish.
Critical habitat includes Lake Cushman and the upper North Fork of the Skokomish
River(70 FR 56304). Critical Habitat in the former includes spawning and rearing
habitat, while the latter provides rearing, foraging, and migration habitat, so it is expected
that bull trout may be found in the action area of the proposed project site.
MARBLED MURRELET
A small, diving seabird in the family Alcidae, the marbled murrelet forages for small fish
and invertebrates almost exclusively in nearshore marine waters, while nesting inland in
old-growth or mature conifer forests. Threats include loss of habitat, predation, gill-net
fishing operations, oil spills, marine pollution, and disease. The USFWS assembled a
team of scientists in October 2011 to investigate causes for the continued decline in
murrelet populations. The Outcome of these discussions listed many factors, chiefly loss
of potential nesting habitat as the main reason for hindrance of population recovery goals
(WDFW 2012).
Potential nest trees are coniferous trees within 55 mi (88.5 km) of marine waters that
support at least one 4-inch (10.2-cm) diameter platform located at least 33 feet (10
meters)above the ground, with horizontal and vertical cover (USFWS 2012). If a tree or
forested area does not support these habitat features, it is "extremely unlikely" to support
a murrelet nest(USFWS 2012). Nest success is influenced by forest structure, the spatial
mix of habitat and non-habitat, human disturbance. prey availability, and marine foraging
conditions. Human disturbance can lead to higher predation levels by Steller's and gray
jays, crows, ravens, and other species that seek human-related foods and refuse at high-
use recreational areas (Peery et al. 2004, Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006).
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet, which was designated in May of 1996 and
revised in October of 2011, is not located within the proposed project's action area.
Critical habitat is located approx. 5.0 mi. north of the site.
NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL
The Northern Spotted Owl is one of the largest owls in North America, and the average
adult female is approx. 18 inches tall with a 48-inch wingspan. Northern spotted owls are
strictly nocturnal, and require old-growth forests with multi-layered canopies of trees,
Latham Biological Evaluation 14
including large trees with broken tops, deformed limbs, and large holes and cavities to
nest in. The Northern spotted owl is very territorial and intolerant of habitat disturbance,
and a pair requires a large amount of forest for hunting and nesting. Habitat loss has
occurred as a result of forest conversion,timber harvest, fire, windthrow, insect outbreak
and disease (WDFW 2012).
The USFWS designated revised critical habitat for the northern spotted owl under the
Endangered Species Act. In total, approx. 9,577,969 acres (ac) (3,876,064 hectares(ha))
in 11 units and 60 subunits in California, Oregon, and Washington fall within the
boundaries of the 2 critical habitat designations. Critical habitat for the Northern spotted
owl, which was designated in May of 1996 and revised in October of 2011, is not located
within the proposed project's action area. Critical habitat is located approx.
5.0 and 1.0 mi. to the north and east of the site, respectively.
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
precipitous decline of western yellow-billed cuckoos. Agriculture, grazing, reservoir
construction, flood control, urbanization, and other factors across the West have caused
the large-scale loss and degradation of lowland riparian forest, which is the cuckoo's
primary habitat.
It is expected that the action area contains unsuitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo.
Latham Biological Evaluation 15
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 long-term license for Cushman Hydroelectric
Project. Tacoma Power has proposed to introduce sockeye and spring Chinook and
enhance the existing winter steelhead and coho populations in the North Fork in
cooperation with the WDFW and the Skokomish Tribe (Tacoma Public Utilities 2014). In
addition, Tacoma Power will annually release up to 100,000 rainbow trout for sport
harvest(TPU 2014).
Lake Cushman has been designated Critical habitat, and the site provides rearing,
foraging, and migration habitat, so it is expected that adult and/or juvenile Chinook
salmon may be found in the action area.
5.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions
5.1 Action Area
The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions,to which the effects
of the proposed action are then added. The environmental baseline is defined as"the past
and present impacts of all Federal, state, and private actions and other human activities in
the action area,the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area
that have already undergone formal or informal section 7 consultation, and the impact of
state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process" (50
CFR 402.02). The proposed project site is in WRIA 16 on Lake Cushman in Mason
County. The majority of the fresh and marine waterbodies in WRIA 16 suffer from water
quality issues; however Lake Cushman is not Iisted on the state's 2016 Water Quality
303(d)-5 list of impaired waterbodies for any parameters. The current Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA)approved Water Quality Assessment data for Washington State
reveals that tissue samples from fish (various species, including salmonids)were tested
for twenty(20) pesticides and other pollutants, including mercury, PCBs, DDT,
Toxaphene, Lindane, Dieldrin,and Hexachlorobenzene. The twenty tested parameters
(all)met the FTEC (fish tissue equivalent concentration)and received Category I water
quality listings. The FTEC is the concentration of a contaminant in fish tissue that
Washington equates to the National Toxics Rule water quality criterion for the protection
of human health(WDOE 2016). Fish tissue data from the most recent year showed that
the FTEC was met; therefore the Assessment Unit meets the requirements for a Category
Latham Biological Evaluation 16
I determination (WDOE 2016). The water quality criterion for a Category 1 water quality
listing is defined by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), as:
Meets tested standards for clean waters:placement in this category does not necessarily
mean that a water body is free of all pollutants. Most water quality monitoring is
designed to detect a specific array of pollutants, so placement in this category means that
the water body met standards for all the pollutants for which it was tested.
The proposed project site is located in a rural neighborhood on a lot with approx. 100' 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
A field investigation was conducted on the afternoon of September 23, 2016, and the
project area was surveyed visually on foot. The elevation of the lake's water level was
approx. 725 feet, which is thirteen feet lower than the current ordinary high water mark
of 738 feet.
The site supports a residential structure located approx. 60 feet vertically and 75' feet
horizontally from the shoreline of Lake Cushman, and approx. 18' from the bluff edge.
The slope between the residence and the shoreline is steep and heavily vegetated with
native plants, including numerous large trees on the south half. The north half lacks large
trees along approx. 45' (horizontally)on the bluff crest and 35' (vertically) on the bluff
face,the latter giving way to the slide area. The shoreline was accessed via stairs on the
adjacent property to the north.The shoreline of Lake Cushman at the site is steep and
rocky, and exposed to significant fetch.No fish, invertebrates, or macroalgae were
observed.
Latham Biological Evaluation 17
t
6.0 Effects of the Action
6.1 Direct Effects
Direct effects to the shoreline include: 1) Loss of benthic habitat from the installation of
the bulkhead, pier and float posts, and riprap along the bulkhead's toe and around all post
footings. 2) Creation of shade from the pier and float. 3)No contamination to Lake
Cushman from the leaching of wood preservatives.
1) As per the engineered design by MET Engineering, PLLC(Attachments 2-3),), approx.
one-hundred feet(100') of post and plank wood bulkhead will be installed along the bluff
toe at the site. The replacement bulkhead will occupy approx. 100 sf of benthic habitat.
Each pier and float positioning post(with a concrete base) will occupy approx. four sf, so
the approx. 12 posts will occupy approx. 48 square feet. However, the area of the posts
(approx. 0.45 sf for each post,totaling 5.4 sf) will constitute the only lost surface area, as
the concrete bases for each piling will be covered by the lake's (bottom) substrate and
basalt riprap (1/2 man igneous rock), the latter to aid in alleviating erosion. The riprap
will be placed along and around the bulkhead's toe and post footings to a width of one
foot (l'). The riprap will occupy approx. 1]2 sf of benthic habitat. The project will
occupy a total of 217.4 square feet.
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. Additionally,the basalt riprap to be placed along the bulkhead's eroded
toe is natural rock that will create habitat, similar to cobble and other rock on the
shorelines of Lake Cushman. It is expected that angular rock such as basalt is a common
and abundant habitat component of all Olympic Mountain alpine lakes. The proposed
riprap installation will have significant interstitial spaces that provide refuge habitat for
juvenile salmonids or other aquatic species. In addition, rock provides habitat for bacteria
(some involved in nitrification and denitrification processes), macroalgae, and
invertebrates.
Rock is also a source of minerals that are used in redox (oxidation/reduction) reactions,
(which are critical for clean water quality) and elements and minerals used by aquatic
invertebrates to form their skeletons. Chemical weathering of basalt rock releases readily
water-soluble cations such as calcium, sodium and magnesium, which gives basalt a
strong buffer capacity against acidification. Calcium released by basalts binds
UP COZ from the atmosphere and forms calcium carbonate,thus acting as a COZ trap. The
angular shape of basalt does not impede these processes and, in fact, presents a greater
surface area for chemical weathering.
2)Another direct effect is the creation of shade from the proposed pier and float. These
overwater structures will produce a reduction in light to the underlying aquatic
Latham Biological Evaluation 18
environment by creating a light/dark boundary that may give piscivorous species an
advantage over their prey. The use of over-water structures in western Washington waters
by bass, a common, non-native predator of juvenile salmonids, has been documented by
several authors. Largemouth bass in Lake Washington prefer areas of heavy log and
brush cover over other habitat types; however,they are commonly found under docks in
early spring and are thought to be present until late summer(Stein 1970). Substrate type
typically determines the acceptability of an area for bass 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 1981 b; 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 pier
and float 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).
Shade can also affect migrating salmonids. It is not known whether over-water structures
disrupt the migration of salmonids in lakes. Numerous studies suggest that docks,piers,
and floats attract fish, and that the attraction of fish is linked to shade produced by the
object not tactile stimulus. While the effects of shade on migrating juvenile salmonids in
lakes is unknown, it is also unclear in marine waters, and there is no empirical evidence
of mortality. The significance of predation to migrating populations has never been
empirically assessed (Simenstad et al. 1999). No studies have examined mortality due to
predation much less that mortality is attributable to overwater structures (Nightingale &
Simenstad 2001).
As previously noted,the proposed project will result in an approx. 296 sf increase of
overwater structure coverage at the site. However,the proposed pier and float will be
grated to allow 60 percent light passage (as per WDFW's stipulations). In conclusion,
shade created by the proposed project is expected to have discountable and insignificant
direct effects on ESA listed salmonids that may be in the action area.
Latham Biological Evaluation 19
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
lumber will be used in this project. Sustainably harvested Alaska yellow cedar, which is
insect and decay resistant, will be utilized for posts, facing,joists, decking, and trim.
Temporary Direct Effects
Temporary direct effects caused by the proposed project include: l) Turbidity and
sedimentation in Lake Cushman. 2)Noise. 3) Water pollution from incidental release of
fuel, oil, or other contaminants.
1) Disturbed substrate from the bulkhead, pier, and float installation may result in
increased turbidity and sedimentation. As previously discussed, BMPs will be
strictly adhered to during construction in order to maintain the present water
quality of Lake Cushman and prevent runoff and pollution. In addition,the
proposed project will take place when the water level in the lake is much lower
than the OHWM (738'), so it is probable that rainfall will slowly disperse any
disturbed substrate before it comes into direct contact with the lake's waters.
Therefore, it is expected that turbidity and sedimentation will be minimal.
2) The main source of construction noise will be from the sawing of lumber. Noise
will be intermittent and is expected to be a maximum of 79 dBA at 50 feet.
3) Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants
is another possible temporary direct effect. As previously discussed, Spill
Prevention Control measures and BMPs shall be implemented during the
proposed project
6.2 Primary Constituent Elements
PRIMARY 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.
Latham Biological Evaluation 20
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.
An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, and aquatic
macroinvertebrates—the project is expected to have a minimal direct effect on an
abundant food base for bull trout. Construction will take place when the lake's waters are
lowered and native vegetation,a potential source of insect prey, will be installed on the
bluff slope that fronts the lake. Riprap will provide habitat for potential prey.
Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction,
growth, and survival are not inhibited--Project construction is unlikely to cause
temporary turbidity or sedimentation as work will occur when the lake's waters have
been lowered. BMPs are expected to prevent or moderate potential water pollution during
construction. In addition, no pressure treated lumber will be used.
CHINOOK SALMON PCEs:
Unobstructed passage—passage will not be altered during construction as no
construction will occur unless the waters of Lake Cushman are low.
Water Quality—the project is not expected to significantly impact water quality. Project
construction is unlikely to cause temporary turbidity or sedimentation as work will occur
Latham Biological Evaluation 21
when the lake's waters have been lowered. BMPs are expected to prevent or moderate
potential water pollution during construction. In addition, no pressure treated lumber will
be used.
Water Quantity—the project will have no effect on water quantity.
Forage--native vegetation, a potential source of insect prey, will be installed on the slope
that fronts the lake. Riprap will provide habitat for potential prey.
Natural Cover—rip-rap will provide natural cover for juvenile Chinook.
6.3 Direct Effects to ESA Listed Species
The direct effect 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
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. 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 BMPs and Spill Prevention Control Measures will be adhered to during project
construction to protect the water quality of Lake Cushman.Noise impacts to any nesting
or foraging murrelets in the action area are expected to be negligible. With the extensive
acreage of undeveloped forest land nearby, it seems unlikely that marbled murrelet will
be nesting, roosting, or foraging in 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
indirect effects from the proposed project include: 1) The loss of shoreline aquatic
vegetation. 2) The bulkhead exacerbates passive erosion and impoundment of shoreline
Latham Biological Evaluation 22
sediments. 3) The pier and float results in an increased motorized boat presence at the
site.
1) The pier and float will cause a reduction in light to the underlying aquatic
environment, which can have significant impacts on the health and productivity of both
native and non-native macrophytes and algae. Macrophytes and algae are the foundation
for most freshwater food webs and their presence or absence affects many higher trophic
levels (NMFS 2004). As previously noted, the pier and float will be grated to allow 60
percent light passage. However, because the lakebed beneath both proposed structures
lacks water for approx. six to seven months each year, it is doubtful that it(lakebed) is
capable of supporting macrophytic vegetation that would be benefited by the grating. In
conclusion, it is expected that the impact of the lake's fluctuating water level on littoral
productivity will overshadow the impacts of shading from the pier and float at the site.
2) When waves reflect off shoreline armoring structures, particularly concrete or other
types of flat-faced bulkheads,they can cause scouring and hardening of the substrate and
steepening of the beach. The sediment in front of a bulkhead will gradually become
coarser as wave action and littoral drift removes the finer sediment and there is no
sediment available for replenishment because it is impounded behind the bulkhead
(Macdonald et al. 1994). Hard-armored bulkheads cut off sediment that was once
available to feed the beach,thus adversely affecting natural beach-forming processes.
The steep, unnatural topography of the majority of Lake Cushman's shorelines (and at the
proposed project site) are routinely subjected to substantial wave action from the lake's
long fetch (approx. 8 mi.) and strong prevailing winds. Accordingly,these abiotic habitat
features cause significant scouring and erosion, as there is no shallow foreshore to
diminish the energy from incoming waves. Cobble and rock,therefore, are the
predominant sediments along the shoreline at both bulkheaded and un-bulkheaded sites.
Additionally, Lake Cushman is relatively deep with a maximum depth of approx. 275
feet, so it is expected that sediment movement along the foreshore moves primarily one-
way: into deeper waters.
In addition to the previously discussed abiotic habitat features and the seasonal raising
and lowering of Lake Cushman, the footing of the proposed bulkhead will likely suffer
some erosion from its own flat face, which exacerbates wave reflection. The proposed
addition of riprap to the replacement bulkhead's footing is expected to alleviate scouring,
as the rock will create interstitial spaces and roughness that help to absorb and dissipate
wave energy. However, because of the lake's unnaturally steep foreshore, it is expected
that the addition of riprap will neither exacerbate nor alleviate steepening of the lakebed.
Referenced materials for this report primarily assess bulkhead impacts to marine
shorelines and, in particular, Puget Sound. While some impacts are applicable to lake
shorelines, beach feeding/forming processes appear to differ significantly and be site
specific. Like most lakes, Lake Cushman has an inlet source of water(the North Fork of
the Skokomish River)and an outlet one (the same river funneled through Cushman Dam
No. 1), so it is probable that the primary source of sediments to the lake is the North Fork
Latham Biological Evaluation 23
of the Skokomish River, while numerous smaller streams and eroding shorelines
contribute smaller sediment quantities. A 2012 study by Stanford University on a large,
deep Alpine lake in Italy revealed that suspended sediment concentrations(SSC)can
significantly affect the ecological health and function of lakes and reservoirs for several
reasons, including the following:
1) Sediments can regulate primary production by limiting light availability and also
by acting as a source of nutrients (Schallenberg and Burns 2004).
2) High sediment concentrations in a lake or reservoir can lead to poor water quality
from high turbidity levels as well as decreased basin volume through
sedimentation (Morris a al. 2008).
3) Lakes and reservoirs can act as sinks for many sediment-bound contaminants that
can accumulate and deleteriously affect aquatic ecosystems (Mariani et al. 2008).
Additionally, a 2004 USDA Forest Service Technical Report(PSW-GTR-193) revealed
that another large, deep Alpine lake, Lake Tahoe, was found to be very sensitive to the
input of fine sediments(less than 63 micrometers in size). Because of its slow settling
rate and the long hydraulic residence time in the lake,the impact of fine sediment on
water clarity is persistent: a 2 micrometer particle takes 2 years to settle out of the water
column (in Lake Tahoe).
In conclusion, regarding Lake Cushman, a lake whose shorelines lack water for roughly
six to seven months each year, it seems counterproductive to consider beach feeding a
positive habitat process as the lake was significantly enlarged to accommodate two
hydroelectric dams that produce environmentally friendly electric power free of carbon
emissions.
3) The pier and float may result in an increased motorized boat presence in the area. Fuel
spills from powerboats can contaminate water quality and potentially affect listed
salmonids directly or indirectly through their prey source (NMFS 2005). Powerboats
also create amplified wave action that can erode the shoreline, and prop scouring can
erode benthic habitat, although benthic habitat in the littoral zone is already significantly
marginalized by the lake's fluctuating water levels. Powerboats also provide some
oxygenation of surface waters, although the extent is probably negligible at best. Overall,
the indirect effects of powerboat usage on Lake Cushman is likely insignificant due to the
lake's large size,the small number of boats that access the remote lake, and the short
boating season (primarily May thru September).
Latham Biological Evaluation 24
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.
Basalt riprap will help buffer acidification of the lake's waters from CO2 emissions.
An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic
macroin vertebrates, and forage fish--mitigation plantings may eventually provide leaf
matter and insects for aquatic life in Lake Cushman, improving foraging opportunities for
bull trout.
Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction,
growth, and survival are not inhibited—the project will have no indirect effect on water
quality.
CHINOOK SALMON PCEs:
Unobstructed passage—the project will not have any indirect effect on unobstructed
passage.
Water Quality—basalt riprap will help buffer acidification of the lake's waters from CO2
emissions.
Water Quantity—the project will not have any indirect effect on water quantity.
Forage—mitigation plantings may eventually provide leaf matter and insects for aquatic
life in Lake Cushman, improving foraging opportunities for Chinook.
Natural Cover—the project will not have any indirect effect on natural cover.
Latham Biological Evaluation 25
6.6 Indirect Effects to ESA Listed Species
The indirect effects from the proposed project to other ESA listed species that are likely
to be found in the action area have been analyzed as follows:
NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL & MARBLED MURRELET
While it is highly unlikely that either species would nest in trees that are located in a rural
neighborhood, the proposed project may result in increased recreational usage at the site,
which could prompt both species to nest elsewhere.
6.7 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects
Interrelated and interdependent effects are described as the effects of the action under
consultation analyzed together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated to,
or interdependent with, that action. An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the
proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An
interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action
under consultation (FWS & NMFS 1998). The project will have no obvious interrelated
or interdependent effects.
6.8 Primary Constituent Elements
BULL TROUT PCEs:
Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in
streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 degrees F but are found more frequently in
temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 degrees F--the project will have no interrelated or
interdependent effects on water temperatures that support bul I 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 oj'riparian origin, aquatic
macroinvertehrates, and forage fish--the project will have no interrelated or
interdependent effects on the bull trout's food base.
Latham Biological Evaluation 26
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.
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 Take Analysis
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species, "take" being
defined in Section 3 as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, or
collect listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined
as a significant 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
Latham Biological Evaluation 27
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. Previously listed conservation measures will further
insure the likelihood that no "take"will occur
7.2 Determination of Effect
A determination of May affect, not likely to adversely affect is the appropriate conclusion
when 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. Bull trout and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely to
adversely affect.
2. Chinook salmon--May affect, not likely to adversely affect.
3. Marbled murrelet—May affect, not likely to adversely affect.
4. Northern spotted owl No effect.
5. Streaked horned lark---No effect.
6. Yellow-billed cuckoo—No effect.
Latham Biological Evaluation 28
8.0 References
Individuals
I would like to thank the following individual for her help:
Wynnae Wright, Tacoma Power, Shoreline and Lands Coordinator
Literature
Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 170/September 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations
Federal Register/Vol. 70,No.185 /September 26, 2005/Rules and Regulations
Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 176/Tuesday, September 12, 2006/ Proposed Rules
Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 200/October 18, 2010/Rules and Regulations
Federal Register/77 FR 14062/March 8, 2012/Proposed Rules
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 106/June 1, 2012/Proposed Rules
Federal Register/Vol. 76,No. 193/October 5, 2011/Rules and Regulations
Coats, R. 2004. Nutrient and sediment transport in the streams of the Lake Tahoe Basin: a
30-year retrospective. USDA Forest Services general technical report PSW-GTR-193.
Deal, R.L., tech. ed. 2008. Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve
multiresource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture workshop. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PN W-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 306 p.
Geology.com. 2016. Basalt igneous rock. URL: httl2://geology.com/rocks/basalt.shtml
Google Earth. 2016. Aerial Imagery. Internet report. URL:
https://www. og000gle.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.
Latham Biological Evaluation 29
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, M. 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:
http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Search/results.aspx?g=42307-50-00025
Menashe, Elliot. 1983. Vegetation Management:A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property
Owners. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of
Ecology. Olympia. Publication 93-31.
Met Engineering PLLC. 2016. Latham engineered drawings, 9-01-16. Unpublished
document. 4 p.
Myers, Rian D. 1993. Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation:A
Manual of Practice for Coastal Property Owners. Shorelines and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia. Publication 93-30.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Distribution of Threatened and Endangered
Species. Internet report. URL: http://wwtiv.nwr.noaa.gov
NOAA. 2016. Endangered and Threatened Marine Species. Internet report. URL:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/
Nightingale, B. and C. Simenstad. 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues.
Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Transportation. Olympia,
Washington. 177 p.
Scheu, K.R., D.A. Fong, S. G.Monismith, and O.B. Fringer. 2012. Sediment transport
dynamics near a river inflow of a large alpine lake. Environmental Fluids Mechanics
Laboratory, Stanford University. Stanford, CA.
Skokomish Indian Tribe & Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010.
Recovery Plan for Skokomish River Chinook Salmon. Internet Report. URL:
http://hccc.wa.gov/Downloads/Downloads GetFile.aspx?id=397519&fd=0
Latham Biological Evaluation 30
Tacoma Public Utilities. 2014. Cushman Hydro Project. Internet report. URL:
https•//www mZpu or/tacomapower/about-tacoma-power/dams-power-sources/hydro-
power/cushman-hydro-pro iect/
Tacoma Public Utilities. 2015. Cushman Fisheries Program. Internet report. URL:
http•//www mytpu org/tacomal2ower/fish-wildlife-environment/cushman-hvdro-
project/cushman-fisheries-program.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled
Murrelet in Washington, Oregon,and California. Published by USFWS, Portland, OR.
URL: http://ecos.fwsgov/docs/recovery plans/1997/970924.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget
Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus conJluentus). Volume 11 (of
II): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit.
Portland, Oregon. 277 + xvi pp
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Profile, Marbled Murrelet. Internet report.
URL: http_//www.fA,s.gov/arcata/esibirds/mm/m murrelet.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Guidance for Identifying Marbled Murrelet Nest
Trees in Washington State. Internet report. URL:
http_//ww,.w.wsdot wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2D97D3D8-D448-43A7-8249-
E2319095C8C2/0,'MAMU habitat W S.pdf
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/rdonivres/F3847D4F-BF 1 C-476C-8E9D-
A45A715B624C/0/CoverLtrNestingSeason.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.2013. Conducting Masking Analysis for Marbled
Murrelets and Pile Driving Projects. Internet report. URL:
http://www.wsdot.wa.
gov/NR,Irdonlyres/'506DAAA-413 I 34EI B-855D-
36EO47EO7090/0/MAMU MaskAnalvsis.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.2016. Official Species List#01 EWFW00-2016-SLI-
0984. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.:-,ov/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/streakedhornedlarkfinal.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: http://wu,w.ecy.wa.gov/programs/,vNq/303d/currentassessmt.htmI
Latham Biological Evaluation 31
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. 2012 Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington. Internet report. URL:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/i 410055.html
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping
application. Internet report: URL: http://fortress.wa.p-ov/dnr,'appI/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/endan eg red/species/northern spotted owl.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: Streaked Horned
Lark. Internet report. URL:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endan eg red/sl2ecies/streaked horned lark.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: Yellow-billed
Cuckoo. Internet report. URL:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/spgcies/vellow-billed cuckoo.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/
Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. BA Preparation for
Transportation Projects—Advanced Training Manual—Version 4-02-2014. URL:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A 1 F85352-90E0-457B-9A8C-
B5103E097FAE10/BA manualpart2.pdf
Wikipedia. 2016. Basalt. URL: https:Hen.wikipedia.org,/wiki/Basalt
Latham Biological Evaluation 32
Attachment 1
Vicinity map.
01
z
0
r
ti
1
/It
LL
fad(`
f � �
Latham Biological Evaluation 33
Attachment 2 sew tl P A4,4-,e�
Site Plan with proposed development. ��lp . LO 1-7
= - I
x �
i
t
r i
I
EZ
F Vol
E � r
� tx 41
i A
dit�4R�R,�Mmpat N14 Pf6fY�� 4�8`1M#RI�Mt�1R� 6 �t"MC�tTt-b
IFA/�f1I �tNi�N2M SV'R^.. .—_—...�-�s.NaPl1 GYM ➢4�H?dW��wf9
Latham Biological Evaluation 34
Attachment 3
Cross section with proposed development.
jj
Ili: �
�
IM,
TAR $ 1�g �g
� xx �
�xa@♦.j �
3 i + •�
I r(
I \
i
rewax°osePax iM.TR9aNZ2W5143 �~�yx�iy:'I't.•*.r...a
i*vwe!ar lYxNntiM"s.s r't he�;! e QLf♦l Ml P.+I iM � • t < ♦ ♦ H Y K H
IY.Il1♦H I
Latham Biological Evaluation 35
i
E',TRGREEN DO UCAA.9 FIR AESTERN WJX=,SFDRE NNE.SLTYA BPRIKE,VIEMERN RED CEDAR' TW.S—W LM IwN Bo AM 4 SPECIE&
DECOL)C S BIG LEAP MAPLE,VANE MAPLE,PACIFIC DOGWOOD,WILLOW41
Stxilan-rYJ LE&$TIfW 125 AND t SPECIES M
TRE+&,,Ff-PLOT OR ONi OAUAN PM6 WIVE
jt+.Wf-BAR[MCM OR W 4NLM PM
LARGE SHRLM&INDIAN PLUM,OCEAN SPRAY,PACIFIC NNIZARK.EVEFO EEN HUCKLEBERRY'ig"5C
SMALL SHRUBS:COMMON*41NNOERRT,SALAL,OREGON GRAPE_SWORD FERN '
THIS IS NOT A SLRVEY,,.PROPOSED PLANLTNG LOCATIOWAREAPPROXMWIATE.
}
TIEPRppp56DMtIGATgNtWNTiNGAWAYIKH LAKE GUShtMAN
I y/Op�TAPPW)L WD TPEES AND 125 94tl.189
} YK18E INSV1 m.
�+ APPFIQX SIZE AND LOCATION
OF E*ZTttY FFR S DECK
I
0
NORTH ORWAPOSCALE:P�2a' I� � PROPOSES P6tiW0 BOAT
AM �MMI011��It >
`- .uaw�aoem tt
----_----
ca
4.0 CIO
o REFERENCE:MNB-- 16-7 UDCATION:00 N GULL PLACE PROPOSED PROJECT.TO INSTALL _O
�21N-62-0OD61 NEW BULKHEAD AND APIER
AP T.PLICAN STEPEN&AMY AND FU:lAT f O
LJATHAM LA 47.42467 �
-123.22060.22066 IN:LAKE CV3HMAN C
ADJACENT PROPERTY QYVNERS: G
V ((1)THERESE DELEY] SHEET.1 QF 1 NEAR/AT:H00D3P0RT
CMERIE TOURANC"aEAU DATE'12-0P-16 COUNTY: MASON STATE: VVA .�
Attachment 5
The shoreline at the site with the adjacent bulkhead to the south(right/center).
si *c
Latham Biological Evaluation 37
Attachment 6
Looking at the slide area from the adjacent property's deck with the adjacent bulkhead to the
south(right/center) in the background.
Latham Biological Evaluation 38
Attachment 7
Looking up at the bluff from a deck on the adjacent property to the north.
f
Latham Biological Evaluation 39
Attachment 8
Another view of the slide area on the bluff at the site.
E
Latham Biological Evaluation 40
Attachment 1
From the bluff edge at the site, looking down on the lake.
i j • rt
�' � � '._'' �.; �Vie- �' .•�. :
Latham
r �
Biological •
Attachment 10
Essential Fish Habit Assessment
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act was signed into law on April
13, 1976. Under provisions of the Act, eight Regional Fishery Management Councils
were established to prepare FMP's in conformance with national standards published in
50 CFR Part 600.305-340. The Magnuson Act was renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act
in a 1996 appropriations bill. On October 11, 1996,the Sustainable Fisheries Act,which
amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, was signed into law. Provisions included a mandate
that the Councils amend each FMP to include a description of Essential Fish Habitat,
including adverse impacts on EFH and conservation measures to protect EFH. Essential
Fish Habitat is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.
The Pacific Fisheries Management Council has designated EFH for federally-managed
species on the Pacific West Coast, including 82 species of groundfish, 5 coastal pelagic
species,and 3 species of salmon. The following species may occur in Lake Cushman
during some period of their life history: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
and Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
B. Essential Fish Habitat
The designated EFH for Pacific salmon species is identified using U.S. Geological
Survey(USGS)hydrologic units as well as habitat association tables and life history
descriptions of each life stage (PFMC 1999). The EFH for the Pacific coast salmon
fishery is defined as,those waters and substrate necessary for salmon production needed
to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy
ecosystem (WSDOT 2014). To achieve that level of production, EFH must include all
those streams, lakes, ponds,wetlands, and other currently viable water bodies and most
of the habitat historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California(WSDOT 2014). This does not include habitats above the impassible barriers
identified by the Pacific Fishery Management Council Fishery Management Plan (PFMC
1999).
C. Proposed Action
Latham Biological Evaluation 42