Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCritical Areas Report - PLN General - 4/30/2012 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Potlatch Transmission Lines North Bay Crossing - Rebuild Project Mason County, Washington Prepared for: CITY OF TACOMA TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Attn: Pat Leach, P.E. 3628 South 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409-3192 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES,INC. 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 April 2012 � Q O DAVID EVANS ANoASSOCIATES INC. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Potlatch Transmission Lines North Bay Crossing - Rebuild Project Mason County, Washington Prepared for: CITY OF TACOMA TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Attn: Pat Leach, P.E. 3628 South 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409-3192 Prepared by: Scott Swarts Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES,INC. 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: 425.519.6593 Fax: 425.519.5361 April 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS........................................................................................................................................5 2.1 Preliminary Data Gathering and Review...................................................................................5 2.2 Field Investigation.....................................................................................................................6 3.0 RESULTS..........................................................................................................................................7 3.1 Preliminary Data Gathering and Review...................................................................................7 3.1.1 WDFW PHS Data.......................................................................................................7 3.1.2 WDNR NHP Data.......................................................................................................8 3.1.3 Wetlands.....................................................................................................................9 3.1.4 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Data..................................................................9 3.1.5 Geologic Critical Areas..............................................................................................9 3.1.6 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.................................................................................9 3.1.7 Floodplains.................................................................................................................9 3.1.8 Shoreline Jurisdiction.................................................................................................9 3.1.9 Zoning....................................................................................................................... 10 3.1.10 North Bay Water Quality.......................................................................................... 10 3.1.11 Amphibians and Reptiles.......................................................................................... 10 3.1.12 Mammals.................................................................................................................. 11 3.1.13 Birds.......................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.14 Marine Fish Resources.............................................................................................. 14 3.2 Field Investigation................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Wetlands................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Tidelands................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.3 Uplands..................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.4 Wildlife..................................................................................................................... 19 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................20 4.1 Project Summary.....................................................................................................................20 4.1.1 Construction of New Structures................................................................................21 4.1.2 String New Transmission Conductor........................................................................23 4.1.3 Removal of Old Structures.......................................................................................23 4.2 Construction Schedule and Design Year.................................................................................24 5.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES...................................................................................................25 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS.....................................................................................................................27 6.1 Marine Substrate......................................................................................................................27 6.2 Marine Tower Nesting Birds...................................................................................................27 6.3 Wetland A ...............................................................................................................................28 6.4 Upland Structures....................................................................................................................28 6.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas........................................................................28 6.6 Species of Local Importance...................................................................................................29 7.0 MITIGATION.................................................................................................................................34 7.1 Timing and Verification..........................................................................................................34 7.2 Yearly Performance Standards................................................................................................35 7.3 Maintenance............................................................................................................................35 7.4 Contingency Action.................................................................................................................35 7.5 Yearly Reports.........................................................................................................................35 8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................36 P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600[NFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page i LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Rare Plants of Mason County.........................................................................................................8 Table 2: Amphibians and Reptiles..............................................................................................................10 Table 3: Mammal Core Habitat Summary for T22N RO1 W.......................................................................I I Table 4: Breeding Bird Summary for Project Vicinity...............................................................................13 Table5: Wetland Summary........................................................................................................................15 Table 6: Proposed Construction Schedule..................................................................................................24 Table 7: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas that may occur in Mason County........................29 Table 8: Species of Importance that may occur in Mason County.............................................................30 Table9: Contingency Actions ....................................................................................................................35 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1:Vicinity Map..................................................................................................................................2 Figure2:USGS Site Map.............................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Slopes and NWI Wetlands Map....................................................................................................4 Figure4: Site Layout Map..........................................................................................................................16 APPENDICES Appendix A: Design Drawings Appendix B: Wetland A Rating and Data Plot Forms Appendix C: Site Photographs P:\e\EPSYOOO00002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report_2012-0412doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page ii ACRONYMS BMPs Best Management Practices CISA Case Inlet Shoreline Association CM conservation measure Corps U.S.Army Corps of Engineers DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc. DP data plot Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology FAC Facultative FACW Facultative wetland FACU Facultative upland FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geographic Information System HUC Hydrologic Unit Code Km' kilometer squared MHHT Mean Higher High Tide NHP Natural Heritage Program NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory OBL Obligate wetland OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PEM Palustrine emergent PFO Palustrine forested PHS Priority habitats and species POW Palustrine open water PSAMP Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program SCS Soil Conservation Service SMP Shoreline Master Program SR State Route SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control TPU Tacoma Public Utilities USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSGA Washington State Gap Analysis P.\e\EPSY00000002\0600[NFO\EP\Critical Arent Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-04 19.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page iii This page intentionally left blank P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NF0\EP\Critical Areas Report\FinW Critical Areas Repott 20124419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities (Tacoma Public Utilities [TPU]), David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted this investigation to document the presence of regulated critical areas, priority habitats and species, existing habitat conditions, and the level of potential wildlife use in the vicinity of the proposed Potlatch Transmission Lines — North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project. Potential project-related impacts and mitigation were also investigated. This report has been prepared to address the requirements of a Wetland Delineation Report per Mason County Code (MCC) Section 17.01.070, a Wetland Mitigation Plan per Section 17.01.070 and 17.01.2001, and a Habitat Management Plan per Section 17.01.110. The project site is located within Mason County, Washington (Sections 16 and 17, Township 22 north, Range 01 west, W.M.). The project area is an approximately one-mile-long section of the Potlatch transmission line that includes crossing approximately 0.6 miles of North Bay in southern Puget Sound (see Figures 1 and 2). North Bay is located at the northern tip of Case Inlet. In summary, the project will replace two sets of lattice steel towers in North Bay with one tubular steel taller tower in the middle of the bay. One set of upland towers on the east side of the bay and one set on the west side will also be replaced. New landward structures will be installed further upland on each side of the bay (see Figure 3). The project will result in temporary impacts to marine/estuarine habitats in North Bay, one Category III wetland (Wetland A), and vegetated uplands. However, the project will reduce the overall in-water footprint by approximately 75 percent when compared to existing conditions, restore approximately 2,556 square feet of a Category III wetland, and remove one set of upland towers currently within shoreline jurisdiction (towers in Wetland A). Conservation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to the aquatic environment, vegetated uplands, and osprey and heron nesting on the structures in North Bay. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Meat Report 2012-0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 1 EVERE7 G i I•n �P I `,` d - - ,=.'h-.. -_.-�.-__ ; t-' •`ids ' �• larr r •klkMr ,� I -� M,.. t Vi_I �.,�;(u0���� --•t �i Poss�s� l S, ! Ni 1 P I;C, ir+r trot. tr f (I ��' °- am afa�1:. — '••,' �9 it r p \ .MS ScoI! 1 O L Y M P l�C' 1y tf,� n - r� `j cC`,�1 A-• rya c•N Mt to eE• ,. ! .. // i•�Y JOnd �' d s t �INIbi ti.o __ `' `_', lS` 'gatV\\\ '" Mo 4e I ac i l O N A L UI C.mau>..•�. _ _ , I ' - - rJ - I tlwla Iach' on Mt S.rr t u:a s w� N t T-+- A L Mt T nn / 2 s �:-. a ��( t d r f ` 1 M •tit r.-R. O N n :� _ l ' / IJ" V.Ka it ./ l l� the Brdn..�s D. h / \ RW nion haY` d., V rit ` I'r k.,»vatera<." �+lo::�anlfik ray t 0 R E ,Ti S�1 ero M '1 '7 „s �• -j, fdf sto-,/ W1&df:,7±t lie Itoji+�C in EV •M'y0lsoa i Rr:: I r_ / h'y. Y o REMER N`C'•:,'y .'.. arli6ish` b li I aS I:.ean NAVY Yar i ca PROJECT AREA r /flak. ulNwaup _ 1' to " H eahurtt� ll �OYrM ^` r I V ihon 7(� kill T I N ATtl f O R E 5 T. /.,t+ �,r �{ Bur Y f '..s- i . G Plitlatcn TM 0 I 1 1 un rC A Milo V-d (tan rte /'LikO ,i .Soutn I c,! ✓ f_ '` I q.Q A \\ �IuSlon r/ y i t M A N W f •- ' �� •`• "` C I ific y fir ems} \ r 1� elV !i Da�ga hal d!Cr A 1., P iul ann' In _ 1 � � i 'I \ .1 •� , a ktan I eMAlm r.w t � Rath ea Sp Qrti tt - w N 1 ugly f IIEK T 1 MI O rr AI nsha eMr�WII Eltna t • " ° +r w k. --�•T- -3_ - ._ -� �C.hiD borrae c amfcr e/ � •'3. G,r Y C' enin �, akvww ''=--�--i--ea.w. c.a»Isla Mt"' •�� .a.roan llw 'T' .u-K L'-. AIIDM. to Iald it a T! Y1d aloa Source:TOPO!National Geographic Vicinity Map N Potlatch Transmission Lines- North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project 0 5 10 EPSY00000002 Figure 1 DAVID[VANS _.As SOCIATSSn... Scale in Miles February 2012 R ICI ' ✓f wn Source�TOPOI National Geographic USGS Site FZAM Potlatch Scale in Miles ...ASSOCIATES., North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project dfill 2 I. 0 o O A O � 9 • a x. Stringing Site 1 g NW-1 EX-1 t EX-2 NW-2 EX-3 E) NW-3 "pp m p Stringing Site 2 o DL e _ o � e a m � m .. z w E o N 0 U oz � ® Remove Structures Slope NWI Wetlands Slopes and NWI Wetlands Map a • ®Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Set New Structure 0 to 5% .o s z ■ -5 to 15% Estuarine and Marine Wetland Potlatch Transmission Lines- o Stringing Location -15 to 30% North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project d b E WhiteEM Sac Line Contour(10 ft interval) z U Q EPSY0000-0002 3 0 250 500 750 1,000 Figure 3 DAVID EVANSAres,., 2 ..o Assoa Feet February 2012 n This map was created by David Evans and Associates,Inc.IDEA)for Electrical Power Systems Inc.Accuracy and currency depend upon the source data at the time t a acquired.DEA makes no representation or warranty as to the correctness of the mformaaon depicted on this map.It is intended for limited planning purposes as agreed to between DEA and is client and is not suitable fordesign,survey,construction,or other uses or for other projects.It is strictly forbidden to modify,sell,distribute or reproduce this map for any reason without the written consent of DEA. 2.0 METHODS The methods to document if critical areas exist in or immediately adjacent to the project area included a review of public domain information and site visits. Potential project impacts were ascertained by inspecting the area around each existing tower, each proposed tower, access roads, stringing sites, and staging areas. Design drawings were reviewed and project engineers consulted to document construction methods. 2.1 PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND REVIEW Published information about local critical areas was reviewed for evidence of wetlands, streams, priority habitats and species, steep slopes, erosion hazards, floodplains, and aquifer recharge zones. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) program and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were consulted for documented occurrences of priority habitats or species, rare plants, and high quality native ecosystems in the general vicinity of the project site. Priority habitats include, but are not limited to, such features as wetlands, riparian areas, snag- rich areas, caves, cliffs, oak woodlands, rocky shorelines, and old growth forests. Priority species are plants and animals listed by the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, or species of concern. The potential presence of federally-listed species is documented in the biological evaluation prepared for this project (DEA 2012). The potential use of the project area by mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles was also investigated through review of Washington State Gap Analysis(WSGA)data. The information reviewed included: • Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington(WDFW 2000) • Report of Marine Bird and Marine Mammal Component,Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program(Nysewander et al. 2005) • A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1,Puget Sound Region(Williams et al. 1975) • Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors—Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 14(Kuttel 2002) • Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors—WRIA 15 (East)(Haring 2000) • Breeding Birds of Washington State(Smith et al. 1997) • Terrestrial Mammals of Washington State(Johnson and Cassidy 1997) • Amphibians and Reptiles of Washington State(Dvornich et al. 1997) • WDNR NHP data:Natural Heritage Features Associated with Wetlands • WDNR NHP Geographic Information System (GIS)data • National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) Mapper,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) • Mason County GIS data • United States Geological Survey(USGS)mapping via National Geographic TOPO mapping software • United States Department of Agriculture(USDA)—Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS): Web Soil Survey • Title 17.50 Zoning—Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations P:\c\EPSY00000002\06001NFOTP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0419 doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 5 • Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01 • Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update 2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION DEA performed site visits in May 2009, December 2011, and January 2012 to verify preliminary data findings, flag the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of North Bay under the transmission lines on the east side of North Bay, delineate wetland boundaries (Wetland A), and document existing habitat conditions and wildlife use. Wetlands were delineated based on the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2), dated May 2010 (Corps 2010). Wetlands were categorized based on the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology) Washington State Wetland Rating System fox Western Washington(Ecology 2004)with the updated wetland rating form (revised October 2008). P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\FM Critical Are=RWn 2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 6 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND REVIEW 3.1.1 WDFW PHS Data The WDFW—PHS data mapped saltwater wetlands, surf smelt and sand lance spawning beaches, estuarine zone, hardshell intertidal clams, great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery, mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus), and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as occurring in the general project vicinity (WDFW 2012). The northern tip of North Bay, which includes the project area, is mapped as a large estuarine zone. The shoreline of North Bay under the transmission lines is mapped as documented surf smelt and potential sand lance spawning habitat. The largest priority polygon, which includes most of North Bay, is described as "hardshell intertidal clams."A heron rookery is mapped as occurring on the western set of transmission towers in North Bay. Mountain quail have been observed crossing a logging road and responding to survey calls on the east side of North Bay within one mile of the project site. Several bald eagle nests are mapped as occurring near North Bay. The closest mapped bald eagle nest (HALE 47-1) is approximately 0.55 miles north of the project area on the east side of North Bay. The eastern shoreline immediately north of the crossing is mapped as a bald eagle high-use area for the breeding pair associated with HALE 47-1 and 47-2. Other priority wildlife sites within the PHS data (WDFW 2012), but greater than one mile from the project area, include common loon (Gavia immer) at Devereaux Lake (04/21/1979), Pacific pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) near Lake Koeneman (06/01/1992 and 06/09/1995, respectively), and a Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate) in Coulter Creek(07/29/1997). No streams are mapped as occurring in the immediate vicinity of the project area(WDFW 2012). Salmonid-bearing streams entering North Bay include Sherwood Creek (Stream No. 14-0094), Rocky Creek(Stream No. 15-0015), and Coulter Creek(Stream No. 15-0002) (see Figure 2). Sherwood Creek is located approximately one mile south of the project area. This stream is utilized by resident cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki), fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), fall chum salmon (O. keta), summer chum salmon (O. keta), coho salmon (O. kisutch), rainbow trout(O. mykiss), and winter steelhead trout(O. mykiss). Rocky Creek is located approximately two miles southwest of the project area. This stream is utilized by resident cutthroat trout, fall Chinook salmon, fall chum salmon, summer chum salmon, coho salmon, and winter steelhead trout. Coulter Creek enters the northern tip of North Bay approximately one mile north of the project area. All fish entering or leaving Coulter Creek would pass through the project area. This stream is utilized by resident cutthroat trout, fall Chinook salmon, fall chum salmon, summer chum salmon, and coho salmon. The WDFW has operated a salmon hatchery near the mouth of Coulter Creek since 1979, with a target release of one million Chinook fingerlings and one P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0419&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 7 million chum fry (Haring 2000). These fish are not released into Coulter Creek, but are sent to Tumwater for release into other streams. Coulter Creek is approximately 8 miles long with an additional 10 to 12 miles of tributaries. Habitat conditions are generally considered fair to good. There are concerns associated with water quality, seasonal low flow, large woody debris, and riparian width. According to WDFW (Scott Moore, pers com, 2012), small runs of salmon utilize Coulter Creek. The Chinook salmon are likely strays from Minter Creek or other systems.The adult Chinook start to return in August, but generally peak during September and October. The juvenile Chinook typically outmigrate during the April to June timeframe. Steelhead trout are rumored to use this system,but none have been observed by hatchery personnel (Scott Moore,pers com,2012). If present,they are few and far between. Odd year pink salmon and two runs of chum salmon have been documented in Coulter Creek. The first run of chum typically arrives mid to late September, while the second run arrives during November and December. Coho salmon (historically hatchery produced) typically arrive in October. Both resident and anadromous cutthroat trout utilize Coulter Creek. 3.1.2 WDNR NHP Data A review of Sections that Contain Natural Heritage Features Associated with Wetlands did not include T22N R01W S16/17 where the project is located (WDNR 2012). The WDNR reports that 16 rare plants occur in Mason County(see Table 1). Table 1: Rare Plants of Mason County Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status t Historic Record Vancouver ground cone Boschniakia hooked R1 None No Triangular-lobed moonwort Bot chium ascendens S SC No Coiled sedge Carex circinata S None Yes Blunt sedge Carex obtusata S None No Few-flowered sedge Carex paucfflora S None No Canadian single-spike sedge Carex scirpoidea S None No Golden chinquapin Carex s losa S None No Pacific lanceleaved springbeauty Claytonia multisca a T None No Scurvygrass Cochlearia groeniandica S None No Alice's fleabane Chrysolepis chrysophylia S None No Common blue-cup Githo sis specularioides S None No Western hedysarum He sarum occidentale S None Yes Water Lobelia Lobelia dortmanna T None No Adder's-tongue L co odiellainundata T None No Northerngrass-of- amassus Pamassia palustfis IS None No Chain-fern Woodwardia fimbriata Is None I No Note 1.Status Key:T=threatened,S=sensitive,RI=review group 1(potential concern but need more field work),SC=species of concern,and Yes under Historic Record indicates the most recent sighting in the county is before 1977. The 16 rare plants identified as potentially occurring in Mason County by the WDNR that typically have very specific habitat requirements. These range from being associated with prairie/grassland habitats, bogs and fens, freshwater wetlands or lake margins, high elevation/subalpine habitats, old growth forests, or coniferous forests. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\FM Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.doe Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 8 3.1.3 Wetlands A review of USFWS NWI—Wetland Mapper and WDFW—PHS data indicate the near-shore area of North Bay is an estuarine wetland.No other wetlands are mapped as existing in the immediate project area(see Figure 3). 3.1.4 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Data The USDA NRCS mapped soils in the project area as Alderwood and Everett series. Soils on the west side of the bay where the existing structure is located, and where the proposed structure would be constructed, are composed of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam on 5 to 15 percent slopes. Soils on the east side of the bay where the existing structure is located consist of Everett gravelly sandy loam on 15 to 30 percent slopes. The area on the east side of the bay where the new structure is proposed consists of Everett gravely sandy loam on 5 to 15 percent slopes. These soil types are not considered hydric. The Alderwood series is generally considered moderately well drained, while the Everett series is generally considered somewhat excessively drained. 3.1.6 Geologic Critical Areas Geologic critical areas include landslide hazard areas, high seismic hazard areas, and high erosion hazard areas. Landslide hazard and seismic hazard areas are mapped as occurring around most of North Bay. Based on Mason County GIS data, all project-related actions on the west and east sides of North Bay would occur on slopes ranging from 5 to 15 percent(see Figure 3). Both sets of existing upland towers proposed to be removed are close to slopes ranging from 15 to 30 percent, but based on field observations they are on relatively flat terraces. 3.1.6 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas No extremely critical aquifer recharge or highly critical aquifer recharge areas occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. 3.1.7 Floodplains The structures in North Bay are in marine waters subject to tidal influence, but none of the towers are in riverine floodplains mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 3.1.8 Shoreline Jurisdiction Mason County is in the process of updating their Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The current Mason County SMP is outlined in Title 17.50 Zoning — Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations. North Bay is the only water body in the project vicinity with lands and waters regulated under the SMP. Shoreline jurisdiction includes: 1. Lands within 200 feet from the OHWM, or lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater; 2. Contiguous floodplain areas; P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012.0419&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 9 3. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act. The current shoreline environmental designation is Urban Residential on both sides of the bay. Marine waters of Mason County lying immediately adjacent to shorelands designated as Urban Residential environments shall be considered as Urban Residential environment from the line of mean higher high tide (MHHT) to a depth of one fathom (6 feet), as determined by the USGS. According to the SMP, the MHHT for Allyn— Case Inlet is 14.13 feet. From one fathom to ten fathoms in depth is considered a conservancy environment. 3.1.9 Zoning The west side of North Bay is zoned Urban Growth Area because it crosses the northern edge of Allyn,while the east side is zoned Rural Residential 5 Acres. 3.1.10 North Bay Water Quality The 2008 303(d)-5 list for North Bay in WRIAs 14 and 15 (excluding Case Inlet) includes seven sites that exceed water quality criteria for fecal coliform.The borderline between WRIAs 14 and 15 runs north/south through the middle of North Bay. 3.1.11 Amphibians and Reptiles The WSGA data for amphibians and reptiles contains limited site-specific occurrence data, but includes a map for each species outlining its core and peripheral zones (Dvornich, McAllister, and Aubry 1997). These zones represent the potential distribution of each species based on the presence of suitable habitat within each zone.Therefore,the species outlined in Table 2 have the potential to occur in the general project area if suitable habitat is present. Table 2: Amphibians and Reptiles Common Name Scientific Name Note Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Potentially Present Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Potentially Present Roughskin Newt Tancha granulosa Potentially Present Western Redback Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Potentially Present Ensatina Ensatina eschschoflzii Potentially Present Western Toad Bufo boreal Federal species of concern,unlikely present Pacific Treefrog Hyla regilla Probably Present Red-legged Frog Rana aurora Potentially Present Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Introduced,common near stormwater ponds and lakes Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Introduced,common in/near lakes Slider Trachemys scripta Introduced,common in/near lakes Northern Alligator Lizard Elgaria coerulea Potentially Present Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans Potentially Present Northwestern Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides Potentially Present Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Potentially Present Rubber Boa Charina bottae Unlikely Present P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INF0\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Am=Report 2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 10 3.1.12 Mammals Based on a review of WSGA data (Johnson and Cassidy 1997), core habitat for 50 terrestrial mammals occurs in the vicinity of the proposed project (see Table 3). Table 3: Mammal Core Habitat Summary for T22N R01 W # Common Name Scientific Name # Common Name Scientific Name 1. Virginia Opossum Didelphis vitginiana 26. Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 2. Bendire's Shrew Sorex bendidi 27. Gapper's Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys gapped 3. Montane Shrew Sorex monticolus 28. Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus 4. Trowbridge's Shrew Sorex trowbridgii 29. Creeping Vole Microtus oregoni 5. Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans 30. Townsend's Vole Microtus townsendii 6. Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsii 31. Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 7. Coast Mole Scapanus oradus 32. Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus 8. Townsend's Mole Scapanus townsendii 33. Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 9. California Myotis Myotis callfomicus 34. House Mouse Mus musculus 10. Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis 35. Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus 11. Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus 36. Black Rat Rattus rattus 12. Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans 37. Coyote Canis latrans 13. Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis 38. Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 14. Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus 39. Black Bear Ursus americans 15. Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 40. Raccoon Procyon lotor 16. Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 41. Fisher Mattes pennanti 17. Townsend's Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii 42. Ermine Mustela erminea 18. Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus 43. Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata 19. Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa 44. Mink Mustela vison 20. Townsend's Chipmunk Tamias townsendii 45. Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 21. Douglas'Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii 46. Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis 22. Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus 47. River Otter Lutra canadensis 23. Beaver Castor canadensis 48. Mountain Lion Fells concolor 24. Mazama Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama 49. Bobcat Lynx rufus 25. 1 Forest Deer Mouse Peromyscus keeni 50. Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Use of North Bay by marine mammals is generally limited, with the most frequently observed species likely being the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Because the predominance of North Bay is dry during periods of low-tide, the presence of marine mammals is generally limited to periods of high-tide, while species that require or prefer deep water would typically avoid this shallow bay. However, as North Bay is associated with Case Inlet, potential or occasional use of the project area by species other than harbor seals is likely. Based on data from the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP), harbor seal density in North Bay during winter surveys ranged from 0 to 5 animals per kilometer squared (km2). According to the Case Inlet Shoreline Association (CISA), other species observed in Case Inlet include river otters (Lontra canadensis), orca whales (Orcinus orca), gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), and harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) (Curt Puddicombe, pers. comm. 2012). No sea lions were observed in North Bay during PSAMP aerial winter surveys from 1993 to 2000. No harbor porpoises were observed in North Bay during PSAMP aerial summer or winter surveys from 1992 through 1999/2000. Based on the available data, harbor seals are the only species of marine P.\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Reoort\Final Critical Area Report 2012-0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 11 mammal documented in North Bay, but there is a high probability that river otters would also regularly utilize this area. No marine mammal haulouts occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. The closest documented haulout site on Map 1 OD: Gig Harbor to Olympia is Site ID 322,which is located on McMicken Island and described as beach and intertidal areas around the island (WDFW 2000). McMicken Island is located approximately 10 miles south of the project site. According to WDFW(2000), use of this haulout is limited to harbor seals. 3.1.13 Birds Based on a review of WSGA data, 61 bird species could potentially nest in the general vicinity of the project area (Smith et al. 1997). This determination is based on combining confirmed, probable, and possible breeding evidence. It is important to note that the species listed in Table 4 are not necessarily directly associated with the project area, but could potentially utilize the project vicinity for nesting, foraging, or during migration. The absence of lakes, ponds, large open-water wetlands, and large rivers in the project vicinity reduces the availability of suitable nesting habitat for numerous species. The presence of marine birds in North Bay was ascertained by reviewing data from PSAMP - aerial surveys. The all-bird species density for North Bay based on summer aerial surveys from 1992 through 1999 indicated that mean density ranged from 75 to 200 animals per km2. Gull density ranged from 50 to 100 animals per km2. Other species reported included pigeon guillemot at 0 to 2 animals per km2, Canada goose at 0 to 5 animals per km2, and great blue heron at 10 to 15 animals per km2 (varied). Species diversity and abundance sometimes varied to the south of North Bay in Case Inlet and some of its associated bays. Furthermore, the data presented above is not absolute in that species presence and abundance will vary from year to year. P:k\EPSY00000002\06001NMEP\Critical Meal ReporffirW Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 12 Table 4: Breeding Bird Summary for Project Vicinity # Common Name Scientific Name # I Common Name Scientific Name 1. Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 32. Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 2. Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 33. Brown Creeper Certhia amedcana 3. Osprey Pandion haliaetus 34. Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii 4. Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus 35. Winter Wren Troglodytes trogloMes 5. Red-tailed Hawk Buteo'amaicensis 36. Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satra a 6. Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 37. Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus 7. Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 38. 1 American Robin Turdus mi ratodus 8. Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus 39. Cedar Waxwing Bomb cilia cedrorum 9. Killdeer Charaddus vociferus 40. European Starling Sturnus vul axis 10. Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens 41. Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius 11. 1 Pi eon Guillemot Cepphus Columba 42. Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni 12. Rock Dove Columba livia 43. Warbling Vireo Vireo gityus 13. Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata 44. Oran e-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata 14. Rufous Hummingbird Selas horns rufus 45. Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 15. Red-breasted Sapsucker S h ra icus Tuber 46. Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica ni rescens 16. Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 47. Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi 17. 1 Northern Flicker Cola tes auratus 48. Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 18. Pileated Woodpecker D oco us ileatus 49. Wilson's Warbler KriIsonia pusilla 19. Olive-sided Fllycatcher Conto us borealis 50. 1 Western Tanager Piran a ludoviciana 20. Western Wood-Pewee Conto us sordidulus 51. Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanoce halus 21. Willow Flycatcher Em idonax traillii 52. Spotted Towhee Pi ilo maculatus 22. Pacific-sloe Flycatcher Em idonax difficilis 53. Song Sparrow Melos iza melodia 23. Tree Swallow Tach cineta bicolor 54. White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 24. Violet-green Swallow Tach cineta thalassina 55. Dark-eyed Junco Junco h emalis 25. Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrThonota 56. Red-winged Blackbird A elaius phoeniceus 26. Barn Swallow Hirundo rustics 57. Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 27. Steller's Jay anocitta stelled 58. Pur le Finch Cafpodacus pufpureus 28. American Crow Corvus brach rh nchos 59. House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 29. 1 Black-capped Chickadee Parus atria illus 60. Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 30. Chestnut-backed Chickadee Parus rufescens 61. American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 31. Bushtit Psaltd arcs minimus Data from winter surveys indicated that marine bird abundance in North Bay increased during the winter. Based on winter surveys from 1992 through 1999, overall species density in North Bay ranged from 1,000 to 36,428 animals per km2. Scoter(3 species) density ranged from 100 to 250 and 250 to 1,081 animals per km2. Bufflehead and gull density each ranged from 50 to 100 animals per km2. Goldeneye (2 species) and scaup (2 species) density each ranged from 10 to 25 and 25 to 50 animals per km2. Merganser (3 species) density ranged from 25 to 50 animals per km2. Pigeon guillemot, murre, canvasback, long-tailed duck, and cormorant density each ranged from 0 to 5 animals per km2. Horned grebe density ranged from 1 to 2 animals per km2. Red- necked grebe, red-throated loon, and great blue heron density each ranged from 0 to 2 animals per km2. As was the case with the summer surveys, species diversity and abundance sometimes varied to the south of North Bay in Case Inlet and some of its associated bays. Furthermore, the data presented above is not absolute in that species presence and abundance will vary from year to year. P:\e\EPSYOOOO0002\06OOINFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 13 3.1.14 Marine Fish Resources Reported fish resources in Case Inlet include Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), big skate (Raja binoculata), Pacific electric ray (Torpedo californica), longnose skate (Raja rhina), ratfish (Hydrolagus collier, Pacific herring (Clupea haregus pallasi), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), chum salmon, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), longfin smelt (Sprinchus thaleichthys), eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), Plainfin midshipman (Porichthys notatus), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus), walleye polluck (Theragra chalcogramma), red brotula (Brosmophycis marginata), shortfin eelpout (Lycodes brevipes), black eelpout (Lycodes diapterus), blackbelly eelpout (Lycodopsis pacifica), tubesnout (Aulorhynchus flavidus), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), bay pipefish (Syngnathus griseolineatus), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregate), striped seaperch (Embiotoca lateralis), pile perch (Rhacochilus vacca), northern ronquil (Ronquilus jordaru), crested blenny (Anoplarchus purpurescens), snake prickleback (Lumpenus sagitta), cresent gunnel (Pholis laeta), blackeye goby (Coryphopetarus nicholsi), bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus), brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus), copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongates), quillback rockbass (Sebastes maliger), sablefish (Anoploma fimbria), whitespotted greenling (Hexagrammos stelleri), painted greenling (Oxylebius pictus), longspine combfish (Zaniolepis latipinnis), smoothhead sculpin (Artedius lateralis), roughback sculpin (Chitonotus pugetensis), spinyhead sculpin (Dasycottus setiger), buffalo sculpin (Enophrys bison), soft sculpin (Gilbertidia sigalutes),northern sculpin(Icelinus borealis),Pacific staghorn sculpin(Leptocottus armatus), great sculpin (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus), sailfin sculpin (Nautichthys oculofasciatus), slim sculpin (Radulinus asprellus), grunt sculpin (Rhampocottus richardsom), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), northern spearnose poacher (Agonopsis emmelane), sturgeon poacher (Agonus acipenserinus), pygmy poacher (Odontopyxis trispinosa), blacktip poacher (Xeneretmus latifrons), bluespotted poacher (Xeneretmus triacanthus), Pacific spiny lumpsucker (Eumicrotremus orbis), marbled snailfish (Liparis dennyi), showy snailfish (Liparis pulchellus), Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus), arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias), rex sole (Glyptocelphalus zachirus), flathead sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon), rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata), slender sole (Lyopsetta exilis), dover sole (Microstomus pacificus), English sole (Parophrys vetulus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), C-O sole (Pleuronichthys coenosus), and sand sole (Psettichthys melanostictus) (Miller,B. S., and S.F.Borton 1980). 3.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION DEA performed multiple site visits during May 2009, December 2011, and January 2012 to verify preliminary data findings, delineate wetland boundaries and OHWM, document existing habitat conditions, and document wildlife use. 3.2.1 Wetlands One wetland (Wetland A) was identified as occurring within the immediate project vicinity during the site investigation (see Table 5). Wetland A is located at the set of structures near the P:\a1EPSY00000002\06001NFOVEMriricel Areas Repon\Final Critical Areas Repoli 2012.0419.doe Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 14 eastern shoreline of North Bay, between State Route (SR) 302 and the bay(see Figure 4). These structures are immediately adjacent to SR 302 and are slightly elevated above the less disturbed wetland area to the west. The structures are on fill material,which likely includes soils excavated during construction. Vegetation under the transmission line is maintained, and trees are occasionally cut down under the wires. Numerous recently cut down red alder trees (Alnus rubra)were in the wetland. Table 5: Wetland Summary Total Wetland Water Quality Hydrology Wildlife Mason Wetland Ecology' Ecology' Functions Functions Functions Functions County Buffer ID Category Wetland Class Score Score Score Score Width2 A III Slope 40 16 6 18 60 feet Washington State Department of Ecology 2Assumes"moderate"land use impact Wetland A is rated as a Category III wetland based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised (Hruby 2004). The buffer width of a Category III wetland in Mason County varies depending on habitat score and impact of land use. The habitat score of Wetland A is less than 20 points, so the buffer width will vary as follows: • Low Impact of Land Use=40 feet • Moderate Impact of Land Use=60 feet • High Impact of Land Use=80 feet The impact of land use from the proposed project is considered moderate, so the buffer width is 60 feet. Additional variables are that Wetland A abuts an estuarine wetland associated with North Bay and is within shoreline jurisdiction. However, the existing structures in Wetland A are immediately adjacent to SR 302. A residential home and yard are located immediately to the south, and a WDFW beach access parking lot is immediately north of the wetland. Therefore, for all practicable purposes, the buffer on three sides of the wetland is either non-existent or significantly degraded. P:\e\EPSY00000002\06OOINFO\EP\Critical Areas Repon\Final Critical Areas Report 20124419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 15 1S ..pfax:. It •t- 4s sue,r 3 Stringing',5ite 1 (� NW-1" t-1 EX-1 NW-2 E M EX-4 NW-3- ' ='. r _ a �. " Aft r� zStringing Site 2 t �a�( rn idr � tl� • 0 t O E zP .a A E d "t r' z �_• �71 �f J. 0 U C L al a> N O 0 Ptn o Depth Contour(meters) ® Remove Structure Site Layout M a p mOU) • Sounding(meters) Set New Structure a .N Coast Line Stringing Location Potlatch Transmission Lines- E 0 Wetland A North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project e.o_ c ..m o zto EPSY0000-0002 o e L a 0 250 500 750 1,000 G Figure 4 »a�iioe::ii,.r s Feet February 2012 _ This map was created by David Evans and Associates,Inc.(DEA)for Electrical Power Systems Inc.Accuracy and currency depend upon the source data at the time it is acquired.DEA makes no representation or warranty as to the correctness of the information dep idled on this map.It is intended for limited planning purposes as agreed to between DEA and its client and is not suitable for design,survey,construction,brother uses or for other projects.It is strictly forbidden to modify,all,distribute or reproduce Me map for any reason without the written consent of DEA. Wetland A Wetland A is a slope wetland that drains west towards North Bay. It is located between SR 302 and the OHWM of North Bay. Appendix A contains a site map depicting the delineation flags, data plot (DP) flags, and OHWM of North Bay (Sheet 10 of 14). Wetland A was rated as a Category III wetland based on a total score of 40 points (Cat. III = Score 30 to 50). Wetland A scored 16 points (high) for water quality function, 6 points (low) for hydrology functions, and 18 points (moderate) for habitat function. Appendix B contains a copy of the completed Ecology rating form and wetland delineation data plot forms.Appendix C contains site photographs. Soils. Three DPs were recorded for Wetland A. DP 1 was located immediately west of the structures, within the wetland, but outside the historic fill. This DP was situated so soils and vegetation within a lesser disturbed portion of the wetland could be documented. DP 2 was also located within the wetland, but immediately under one of the structures where soils had been disturbed. DP 3 was also located on fill material, but in the uplands. A summary of the soils within each DP follows: DP 1: The upper profile from 0 to 12 inches consisted of a very dark brown (lOYR 2/2) colored matrix. Soil texture consisted of silty muck. The second profile from 12 to 16 plus inches consisted of a greenish gray (Gley 1 5/10Y) matrix with yellowish red (5YR 4/6) colored mottles. Soil texture consisted of a sandy loam with some pea gravel. The Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) indicator was selected. Based on this information, it was determined these soils were hydric. DP 2: The soil profile consisted of a sandy silt loam horizon with a very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) colored matrix from 0 to 5 inches. The soil profile from 5 to 16 plus inches consisted of a greenish gray (Gley 14/l0Y) matrix color intermixed with gravels. No mottles were observed in either profile. The Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) indicator was selected. Based on this information, it was determined these soils were hydric. DP 3: The soil profile consisted of a sandy loam horizon with a very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) colored matrix from 0 to 16 inches. Gravels were present. It was concluded these soils were not hydric. Hydrology. Hydrology in Wetland A is supported primarily by groundwater, with additional flow coming from a culvert under SR 302 and runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces. Soils were saturated to the surface, with groundwater typically being 5 to 6 inches deep. Although water was flowing through the ditch,no surface water ponding was observed. Vegetation. Wetland A consists of palustrine emergent, palustrine forest, and emergent classes (Cowardin et al. 1979). The vegetation in Wetland A is variable due to different levels of disturbance. Trees are not permitted under the transmission lines, so they are periodically cleared. The overall dominant species in Wetland A is slough sedge (Carex obnupta). The dominant tree outside the transmission line corridor is red alder. Shrubs such as red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and rose (Rosa sp.) are present, but generally sparse. Other species noted include cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), poplar, P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Area Report 2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 17 giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), soft rush (Juncus effuses), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Several non-native species are also present, including Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Himalayan blackberry(Rubus armeniacus), and reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea). Vegetation on the fill material associated with the structures is dominated by reed canarygrass, soft rush, Himalayan blackberry, cleavers bedstraw (Galium aparine), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens),moss, and other unidentified grasses,and weeds. Functions. Wetland A was rated high for water quality(16 points) functions, low for hydrologic (6 points) functions, and moderate for wildlife (18 points) functions. The high score for water quality function is due to the potential for this wetland to reduce pollutants reaching North Bay. The low score for hydrologic function is due to the minimal depth of storage, small wetland size compared to basin size, and limited opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion. The moderate score for wildlife function is not due to the attributes of the wetland itself, as it is generally degraded, but more related to its location. It received several high scores on specific questions due to it being adjacent to North Bay. Its buffer is relatively disturbed, but there are several other wetlands within one mile. Habitat value is generally degraded by being immediately adjacent to SR 302, residential development, and a public beach access point. Degradation is also due to minimal structural diversity and active vegetative maintenance. 3.2.2 Tidelands Tidelands in the project vicinity are used extensively for commercial shellfish operations along the western shoreline and recreational harvest along the eastern shoreline. The substrate along the upper shoreline is dominated by cobble and gravel where sloped; but once the topography becomes flatter, the substrate is dominated by sand and silt. Aquatic vegetation along the upper tide line consists primarily of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), Lyngbye's sedge (Carex lyngbyez), and rockweed(Fucus gardneri).There are commercial oyster beds along the west side of the bay, and the surface is scattered with Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and the shells of cockles (Clinocardium nuttallh), butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus), manila clams (Tapes philippinarum), snails, horse clams (Tresus capax), bent-nose clams (Macoma nasuta), blue mussels (Mytilus edulus), and a few sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) and moon snail (Polinices lewisii) egg cases. Acorn barnacles (Balanus glandula) encrust most of the rocks and shells. Aquatic vegetation is generally sparse, but sea lettuce (Ulva fenestrata) is the dominant species, with smaller amounts of both brown and green filamentous algae, and laminaria (Laminaria saccharin) that probably washed up on the mud flats from deeper waters. The presence of sea lettuce is likely seasonal and it may become very abundant during the summer months. No eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds were observed during the site visits. The shells of a few Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister), as well as a couple of live sea stars (Pisaster ochraceus), were observed. 3.2.3 Uplands Uplands in the project vicinity are composed of residential homes, infrastructure, and vegetated open space. Residential homes are most prevalent along the shoreline of North Bay and in the P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Critical Ares Report\FM Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 18 vicinity of Allyn, a relatively small community located on the west side of North Bay immediately south of the project area. Major roadways in the project vicinity include SR 302 and SR 3. SR 302 parallels the eastern shoreline and northern tip of North Bay, while SR 3 is the primary thoroughfare on the west side of North Bay. Vegetation communities are variable, but can be segmented based on topography in that there is a lower bench between North Bay and SR 302, and sloped uplands further to the west and east of the bay. The lower bench (the flatter area between North Bay and slope) is generally dominated by deciduous species, but some conifers are present. Red alder and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are the most prevalent species. The slope is dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh), except the lower portions contain some madrone (Arbutus menziesir) trees. Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) is prevalent directly under the transmission line, primarily along the east side of North Bay. Other upland species present include Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon), red huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and bracken fern(Pteridium aquilinum). 3.2.4 Wildlife The project area includes marine waters, forested uplands, wetlands, open areas, and developed areas. Few species were documented during the site visit(s), but field observations included the documentation of approximately 13 great blue heron (Ardea herodias) nests on the western water-based towers (see EX-2 on Figures 3 and 4), with 6 herons present. An active osprey (Pandion haliaetus)nest is on one of the eastern water-based towers (see EX-3 on Figures 3 and 4). Great blue herons usually breed in colonies containing a few to several hundred pairs. Nest building begins in February when a male chooses a nesting territory. Both parents incubate the three to five eggs for 25 to 29 days. The young can first fly at about 60 days old, although they continue to return to the nest and are fed by the adults for another few weeks. The courtship and nesting season is considered to occur from February 15 to July 31 (WDFW 2004). Ospreys build large nests near water. They will reuse nests year after year and continue to add sticks each year, ending up with a huge nest.Nests may be more than seven feet across and over five feet deep. The female typically lays three eggs, although clutch sizes between two and four eggs are normal. Both members of the pair incubate the eggs for 38 to 43 days. The young do not fledge until they are 44 to 59 days old. According to the USGS, osprey monitored in the Willamette Valley in Oregon arrived at their nest as early as March 20 and departed as late as September 25 (USGS 2005). P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012.0419 doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 19 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION TPU is proposing to rebuild a segment of the Potlatch transmission line where it crosses North Bay. At least one of the four existing 120-foot-tall steel lattice towers in North Bay is leaning, and all four are deteriorating and in need of seismic upgrade. The double circuit, 110kV Potlatch transmission line was originally constructed in 1925 to transmit electricity generated at Cushman Dam to the City of Tacoma. Cushman Dam No. 1 is a hydroelectric dam on the North Fork of the Skokomish River in Mason County that forms Lake Cushman. It was built from 1924 to 1926. Two 21,600-kilowatt generators provide 127 million kilowatt-hours annually to the Tacoma Power system. The transmission of electricity to Tacoma, over lines crossing North Bay, Henderson Bay, and the Tacoma Narrows, was activated on March 23, 1926. A second, smaller dam, Cushman Dam No. 2,was completed in December 1930. The design and location of the new structures is the result of an alternatives selection process that included reviewing existing information on soils, topography, critical areas, existing system requirements, potential future system requirements, and available technologies. This information was augmented with geotechnical boring data and site visits. The alternatives selection process resulted in the preferred alternative, which is now being advanced through permitting and final design. 4.1 PROJECT SUMMARY The project involves installing one new, approximately 170-foot-tall tubular steel tower at mid- bay to carry both circuits on davit arms. The two existing pairs of structures(four towers total) in the bay will be removed and replaced with this new taller, but narrower tower. This will reduce the in-water footprint by approximately 75 percent. A pair of tangent structures on each side of the bay will also be replaced with new structures. In summary, four towers in North Bay will be removed and replaced by a taller, single tower. The two existing upland towers on each side of the bay will also be removed, and replaced with new towers further up or further away from North Bay. All new upland towers will be constructed farther than 200 feet from the shoreline and, therefore, out of shoreline jurisdiction. Project design drawings are contained in Appendix A. No critical areas exist where the new upland structures are proposed to be constructed. The project includes three primary construction tasks, including: 1) construction of new structures, 2) string transmission conductor onto new towers, and 3) removal of old structures. - Because at least one circuit must remain energized at all times, construction tasks will be phased to replace one circuit at a time. Construction phasing will consist of the following primary sequences: • Site development and construction of upland foundations and structures(both sides) • Construction of aquatic foundation and temporary structures • Removal of first existing circuit and towers • Erection of new mid-bay tower • Installation of new first circuit conductors P:\e\EPSY00000002W600[•IF01EP1Critical Mess Reporffinal Critical Areas Report_2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 20 • Removal of second existing circuit and towers • Installation of new second circuit conductors • Removal of temporary structures and old foundations The general location of the existing and proposed structures, and stringing sites, is depicted in Figure 4.The three primary construction tasks are described below. 4.1.1 Construction of New Structures Construction of new structures consists of two distinct elements, including upland structures and aquatic structures. The process involved with constructing upland versus aquatic structures is very different and will be described separately below. Upland Structures The project includes the construction of four new upland structures,two on the east side and two on the west side of North Bay. The structures will be anchored and guyed to resist conductor dead-end loading. Buried anchors will be installed approximately 70 feet upland from the structure foundations. Guy wires will be installed between the top of the tower and the anchors. Equipment staging for the upland structures will occur in the immediate vicinity of each new structure. Construction of the new upland structures includes site preparation, foundation and anchor installation, and tower assembly and erection. Prior to foundation installation, a working pad will be constructed. This involves clearing existing vegetation and debris, grading the ground, and then laying down an approximately 8- inch-thick layer of quarry spalls that will form the construction working pad. Each structure requires an approximately 100- by 100-foot working pad, which is used to maneuver equipment and materials and for general parking; and temporary storage of construction equipment, structure components, and general supplies. The working pads (one on each side of the bay) will be within the existing right-of-way. Each upland structure on the west side will be supported by three concrete drilled shaft foundations approximately 5 to 6 feet in diameter and approximately 20 feet deep. Each upland structure on the east side will be supported by one concrete foundation approximately of the same dimensions. Each shaft will require approximately 20 cubic yards of excavation and a similar amount of concrete fill.After the foundations are installed and cured, a crane will be used to position each approximately 70- to 100-foot-tall steel tower in place. It will take approximately three weeks to develop the site and construct the upland foundations and anchors on each side of the bay. It will take approximately four days to assemble and erect each tower. Equipment: • Bull dozer • Equipment trailers • Down-hole auger • Dump trucks P:k\EPSY00000002\06001NF0\EP\Critical Areas Repon\Pvul Critical Areas Report 2012-0419Aoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 21 • Concrete trucks • Crane • Bucket trucks Aquatic Structures Construction of the new structure in North Bay will be performed from an approximately 175-foot-long barge. The barge will include a crane; deck space for storage; and assembly of structure components, generators, and miscellaneous project equipment. The typical dimension of a barge is 175 feet by 35 feet by 11 feet. This is the largest potential size of barge to be used for construction, and the actual barge used may be smaller. The size of barge to be used will be based on the contractor. By design,barges are shallow-draft vessels. The new tower will be supported by four steel piles filled with concrete. Each pile will be 30 inches in diameter and will extend 20 to 25 feet above the mud line. Each pile will be installed with a D-80 or D-100 impact hammer. The piles will have approximately eight cubic yards of sediment removed from within each pile. Once the four piles are installed and filled with concrete, a tower pad is attached to the top of the piles. The lower edge of the tower pad will be at an elevation of 18 feet (NAVD88 datum), so it is 4 feet above the mean higher high water elevation.The concrete tower pad will be cast in place. Temporary aquatic structures are also anticipated to hold the existing conductors out of the way during construction of the new bay structures and for purposes of a temporary platform. The poles used to hold the existing conductors out of the way could consist of up to six approximately 24-inch-diameter by 90-foot-long wood poles or steel piles driven approximately 15 feet below the mud line and reinforced with down guys attached to two large concrete blocks set on the bay bottom.The temporary platform would likely be held stationary by four steel piles up to 30 inches in diameter. The maximum number of piles proposed for marine construction is 16. This includes four permanent piles for the new structure, and up to 12 temporary piles. All piles will be installed with an impact hammer. For purposes of planning, it is assumed the contractor will be able to install a minimum of one pile per day. It only takes approximately two hours to actually drive the pile,but several hours are required for set-up. Equipment: • Barge with crane or derrick • A temporary platform or jack-up barge may be used • Tug boat • Equipment/Supply barges • Skiffs P:k\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Arem Report 2012.0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 22 4.1.2 String New Transmission Conductor Wire setups will be required on each side of the bay, a few hundred feet upland from the new upland structures. One side will include a wire tensioner and reel stands,while the other side will include a wire puller and reel winder. Each site will require approximately a 100- by 100-foot clearing to set up for both circuits. Clearings already exist under the transmission line corridor. The existing conductor will be cut and allowed to drop into the bay and then reeled up onto spools for disposal. A pilot wire will then be strung by boat or helicopter between the new towers. The pilot wire will be used to pull in the new conductor. The wires and conductors will be pulled through sheaves installed at each tower. Once the new conductor is strung across the bay, it will be dead-ended to the upland tower on one side,pulled up to meet the required sag and tension, and then dead-ended to the upland tower on the other side. The conductor will then be clipped in(permanently attached)to the mid-bay tower. For each it ill circuit, it w take approximately ten days to establish wire setups, remove the old PP Y Y P conductors and sag, and dead-end and clip the new conductors. Equipment: • Flat-bed trucks • Equipment trailers • Bucket trucks 4.1.3 Removal of Old Structures Removal of the old upland towers will be accomplished by a crane and excavator. The excavator will have a demolition boom installed with a hydraulic shear cutter at the end. The existing tower leg members will be sheared such that the crane can lower the lattice tower sections to the ground. The lattice sections will then be further demolished on the ground or hauled in large sections to a salvage yard. Existing concrete pedestals will be removed to below grade. It will take approximately one week to remove each upland structure. Existing aquatic towers will be disassembled in a similar manner as the upland towers, except the crane and excavator will be mounted on barges. Existing aquatic foundations consist of three wood piles per leg (12 per tower) tied together with concrete caps and a concrete frame. The concrete will be cut and removed in sections; the wood piles will be withdrawn from the bay subsurface using similar equipment required to drive the piles for the new aquatic structure. The existing wooden piles are not treated with creosote, but are what are called "barkies" (limbed trees with intact bark driven into substrate as-is). It will take approximately one week to remove each aquatic tower and two weeks to remove each aquatic foundation. All removed tower and foundation materials will be disposed of offsite. Proper care will be taken in handling and disposing of the lead-based painted towers. P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Fuul Critical Areas Report 2012.0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 23 4.2 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND DESIGN YEAR The proposed project includes both upland and in-water work. Primary work constraints include the WDFW in-water work window, which restricts work below the OHWM for 65 days from March 14 through June 15. The other work constraint is that line outages cannot occur for a period of 151 days from October 1 through April 30. Due to in-water work timing constraints and limited potential for line outages, project construction must be sequenced. Factoring in the variables, the overall project is anticipated to take approximately one year to complete. It is anticipated that construction of the land-based foundations and towers would begin in the summer of 2013, while construction of the marine foundations, structure, and conductors would occur from January 2014 through August 2014. Table 6 outlines the proposed construction schedule. Table 6: Proposed Construction Schedule Task Start Date End Date Duration Site Development 6/13/13 7/9/13 20 days Land Foundations&Anchors 7/10/13 8/8/13 22 days Erect Line 1 (northern circuit)Land Structures 8/28/13 9/5/13 7 days Erect Line 2(southern circuit)Land Structures 9/6/13 9/16/13 7 days Install Temporary Bay Structures 1/3/14 1/10/14 6 days Tag Off Line 1 (1 day outage) 1/16/14 1/17/14 2 days Tag Off Line 2(1 day outage) 1/20/14 1/21/14 2 days Marine Foundations 1/21/14 3/14/14 39 days De-Energize Line 2 5/27/14 5/28/14 2 days Move Line 2 from Temporary Structure to New 5/28/14 5/29/14 2 days Foundation Erect Pre-Assembled Bay Tower 6/2/14 6/6/14 5 days Remove Line 2 Conductors 6/9/14 6/13/14 5 days Demolish Line 2 Upland and Marine Towers 6/16/14 6/20/14 5 days (4 Total) String/Sag Line 2 Conductors 6/23/14 6/30/14 6 days Energize Line 2 7/1/14 7/2114 2 days De-Energize Line 1 Conductors 7/7/14 7/8/14 2 days Remove Line 1 Conductors 7/8/14 7/14/14 5 days Demolish Line 1 Upland and Marine Towers 7/15/14 7/22/14 6 days (4 Total) String/Sag Line 1 Conductors 7/23/14 7/30/14 6 days Energize Line 1 7/31/14 8/1/14 2 days Demolish Old Marine Foundations and 8/4/14 8/29/14 20 days Temporary Structures P:\e\EPSY00000002\06OOINFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 24 5.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES In order to reduce and contain sediment suspended during the removal of existing marine structures and the installation of the new structure, and to reduce potential impacts to fish, wildlife, or their habitats, the following conservation measures(CMs)will be implemented: CM 1:An aquatic silt curtain will be installed around each structure during construction. CM 2: All in-water work must comply with the appropriate work windows as agreed upon by the USFWS,National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS), and WDFW. CM 3: A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan and Stormwater Site Plan will be developed and implemented. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the plans will be used to control sediments generated from all vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. CM 4: No contractor staging areas will be allowed within 200 feet of any potential wetland, stream, river, or drainage as identified by a qualified biologist unless a site-specific review completed by the project biologist indicates that no impacts to the sensitive resource areas will occur due to topography or other factors. CM 5: A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan will be developed to ensure that all pollutants and products will be controlled and contained. CM 6: Fully stocked spill kits will be present on the barge. CM 7: A containment basin will be used on the barge for temporary storage of piles extracted or removed during the demolition process. CM 8: All debris accumulated on the deck of the barge during construction will be contained and restricted from entering marine waters. CM 9: Lead paint on the existing towers will not be allowed to enter marine waters. CM 10: Existing piles/legs will be cut at least two feet below the mud line. CM 11: Hydraulic water jets will not be used to clear mud from around the existing piles/legs. CM 12: Temporary marine piles/structures will not be treated with creosote or pentachlorophenol. CM 13: A wood or micarta hammer cushion(or equivalent)will be placed on top of each pile to reduce sound,attenuation during installation. CM 14: A contained air bubble curtain will be used during installation of all aquatic piles to reduce underwater sound attenuation during installation. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Meat Report\Einal Critical Areas Report 2012.0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 - Critical Areas Report Page 25 Additional CMs will be stipulated by the regulatory agencies. TPU will assign an inspector to assure that all CMs outlined above, and those stipulated by the regulatory authorities, are implemented. P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Critical Areas Repon\FinW Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 26 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS The project will result in project impacts due to the presence of critical areas within the transmission line corridor. However,overall impacts are minimal and generally temporary. After the project is completed, there will be a reduction in substrate in North Bay utilized by marine structures, an increase in wetland area and function (Wetland A), and no towers within 200 feet of the shoreline. 6.1 MARINE SUBSTRATE There are currently two sets of structures in North Bay (four separate structures). Each existing steel tower is attached to a concrete platform approximately 20 feet square. Each corner of each platform is supported by a concrete pier cast over a 3-wood pile cluster. Each of the concrete piers has a diameter of approximately 36 inches, which currently displaces approximately 0.79 yards2 of substrate per pier. Therefore, the existing structures displace approximately 12.6 yards2 of substrate. The new structure will be supported by four 30-inch-diameter piers (piles) and will displace approximately 2.2 yards2 of substrate. Therefore, the project will result in a increase of approximately 10.4 yards2 square of available substrate compared to existing conditions, or 82 percent increase in substrate. The existing piers will be completely removed and each of the associated piles will be fully extracted. The process requires disturbing the substrate around each pier or area under each structure. The overall footprint of each structure, when considering the entire area under each structure and an additional 5-foot-wide area that factors in clearing an adequate space for equipment access, assumes a 25- by 25-foot footprint, or a total area of 625 square feet per structure. This is the maximum total area per structure that would be temporarily disturbed during demolition. Therefore, the total area of temporary disturbance to the substrate during demolition of the existing structures in North Bay is estimated at approximately 2,500 square feet. CMs 1 and 11 are proposed to reduce and contain potential temporary increases in suspended sediment during construction activities. Although turbidity will likely increase during construction, it will be localized and temporary. 6.2 MARINE TOWER NESTING BIRDS A heron rookery is located on one set of existing marine towers (see EX-2 on Figures 3 and 4) and an osprey nest is located on the other(see EX-3 on Figures 3 and 4). Due to logistical, line outage, and timing constraints, it is not feasible to demolish the existing towers during the non- breeding season. In order to reduce direct impacts to the osprey and herons nesting on the marine structures, the nests will be removed during the winter of 2013, and hog-wire and netting installed over the nest sites to inhibit reestablishment of new nests. Additional measures such as perch inhibitors may also be employed. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0000INF0\EP\Critical Areas Reporffinal Critical Area Report 2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 27 6.3 WETLAND A Impacts to Wetland A are temporary and limited to where the existing structures are located. The existing structures are located immediately adjacent to SR 302, atop fill material dominated by invasive or weedy species. During demolition, approximately 2,555 square feet of wetland and 1,885 square feet of buffer will be disturbed. After demolition, the area disturbed will be replanted with native species and monitored to assure the installed plants will become established. Section 7.0 outlines the mitigation associated with temporary impacts to Wetland A. Based on implementation of the mitigation, the proposed project will result in an increase in wildlife function to Wetland A. 6.4 UPLAND STRUCTURES The remaining upland tower to be removed is not within a critical area; both sets of new structures to be constructed are not within critical areas; and both stringing sites are in unregulated uplands. These activities are all occurring on relatively flat areas within the existing right-of-way that are generally void of native vegetation. Existing roads can be used to access all of these sites. However, some minor roadway improvements will be required so larger/longer construction vehicles can safely ingress and egress the construction areas from the adjacent highways. Therefore, the primary potential impact is associated with erosion of soils during construction. Erosion containment measures will be developed and implemented as part of the project. Measures will include installation of clearing limits and erosion control fencing, use of a quarry spall pad under the construction area, tire washing requirements prior to equipment leaving the project site, and hydroseeding areas with exposed earth once construction activities have been completed. Additional measures will be implemented to reduce the potential of soil contamination from construction-related liquids such as gas, oil, hydraulic or radiator fluids, or other hazardous materials used during demolition or construction of the structures. 6.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas are to be avoided or mitigated per Mason County Code (MCC) Section 17.0 1.11 O.J. The purpose of this code is to protect these habitat areas, by requiring proper land management to project their value and functions. In so doing, this section of code is meant to supplement and be consistent with the Mason County Shoreline Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The following section provides a summary of regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and their relationship to the proposed project(see Table 7). P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFOTP\Critical Areas Report\FM Critical Arens Report 2012.0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 28 Table 7: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas that may occur in Mason County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Project Influence Commercial and recreational shellfish areas. Commercial and recreational shellfish beds are located in the immediate project vicinity. However,they are located above or higher along the shoreline.No impact to these areas will occur since the structures are in deeper water,below the tide level used by both commercial and recreational shellfish harvesters,and because of implementation of conservation measures.Geoducks are not mapped on the PHS maps as occurring in the project area. Kelp and eelgrass beds. No kelp or eelgrass beds occur in the immediate project vicinity.No impact to either kelp or eelgrass beds is anticipated due to absence from project area and implementation of conservation measures. Sand lance,and smelt spawning areas. No direct impact to sand lance or smelt spawning areas will occur since the marine structures are below the tidal elevation used by these species.Individual adults or juveniles could be impacted if present during pile driving.However,use of a bubble curtain and hammer cushion would reduce potential impacts to these species if present. Pacific sand lance spawn from November through February,while surf smelt have been documented to spawn year-round in some areas,but generally either during the summer months or fall-winter period(WDFW 1998). Naturally occurring lakes and ponds under twenty No impact to these habitats will occur since they do not occur in the acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide project vicinity. fish or wildlife habitat. Saltwater shorelines,and lakes 20 acres and larger. No impact to these habitats will occur since they do not occur in the project vicinity. Lakes,ponds,streams,and rivers planted with game No impact to these habitats will occur since they do not occur in the fish by a government or tribal entity. project vicinity. State Department of Natural Resource natural area No impact to these areas will occur since they do not occur in the preserves and natural resource conservation areas. project area. Area with which federal or state endangered, These species are addressed in Section 6.6:Species of Local threatened,and sensitive species of fish and wildlife Importance.Additional information specific to federally-listed species is have a primary association.Those species known to documented in the Biological Evaluation(DEA 2012)prepared for this be found in Mason County are listed in Table 1 (MCC project to address the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered 17.01.110).Protection of species habitat is Species Act. determined by the State or Federal listing,and their actual presence near the site is subject to review. Other areas that contain habitats and species of local Please refer to Section 6.6.Juvenile salmonid migrate through the importance(which include juvenile salmonid migration project area during the spring(April—June).In-water work is prohibited areas)as listed in Table 1 (MCC 17.01.110).Species during this time period.Pile driving will not occur when juvenile of local importance may include,but are not limited to, salmonids are present.The project will reduce the number of structures State Candidate and Monitor in North Bay,thereby improving habitat conditions.Implementation of Species. conservation measures will reduce potential impacts to prey and habitat. 6.6 SPECIES OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01 lists several species of local importance that may occur in Mason County. The species listed in Table 8 below are as listed in Table l of MCC 17.01.110. The purpose of Section 6.6 is to list the species, potential presence in the project area, and potential project-related impacts. Table 8 summarizes the results of our assessment. P:\e\EPSY00000002\OGOOINFO\EP\Critical Areas RepoWlmal Critical Areas Report 2012-0319.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 29 Table 8: Species of Importance that may occur in Mason County Documented Habitat in Potentially Comment in Project Project Impacted by Common Name Area Area Project Bull Trout No No No No suitable habitat in North Bay or tributaries. Puget Sound Chinook Yes Yes Yes Not present when pile driving proposed. Hood Canal Summer Chum No No No Not associated with North Bay or Case Inlet. Dolly Varden No No No No suitable habitat in North Bay or tributaries. Western Pond Turtle No No No Reported at Lake Koeneman in 1995,which is approximately 1.7 miles northeast of project area.No lakes in immediate project area. Cascade Frog No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Van Dk e's Salamander No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Tailed Frog No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Olympic Torrent Salamander No No No No suitable habitat in project Vicinity. Newcomb's Littorine Snail No No No No suitable habitat in North Bay(it's a coastal species). Marbled Murrelet Yes Yes Yes Habitat present is marine waters.One to two animals observed near Rocky Bay during July 1992 through 1999 aerial surveys.Rocky Bay is approximately two miles south of project area. Bald Eagle Yes Yes Yes Nest located 0.55 miles north of project area on east side of bay.Shoreline immediately north of line on east side of bay is a high-use area. Northern Spotted Owl No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Northern Goshawk No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Peregrine Falcon No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Pleated Woodpecker No Yes Yes Potentially present in project area. Common Loon Yes Yes Yes Common loons have been reported during winter surveys in North Bay and in Devereaux Lake. Harlequin Duck No Yes Yes They have been documented in Case Inlet but not North Bay. Brandt's Cormorant No Yes I Yes Data not species specific;likely. Olive-sided Flycatcher No Yes Yes Based on presence of core habitat. Golden Eagle No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity, Great Blue Heron Yes Yes Yes Nesting on west marine tower and project area. Merlin No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Purple Martin No Yes No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Western Bluebird No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Vaux's Swift No Yes I No Gray Wolf No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Pacific Fisher No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Townsend's Big-eared Bat No Yes No Shelton Pocket Gopher No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Merriam's Shrew No No No Roosevelt Elk No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. Pygmy Shrew No No No No suitable habitat in project vicinity. The following species of importance have been documented in the project area, have suitable habitat in the project area, and/or could potentially be impacted by the proposed project. P_\e\EPS'V'00001)002\0600-INFO\EP\Critical Areas Repon\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0319.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 30 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon.Both outmigrating smolts and returning adults will pass through the project area since Coulter Creek is located at the northern tip of North Bay. No spawning habitat occurs in the project area. Potential impacts to Puget Sound Chinook salmon are primarily associated with pile driving, and to a lesser degree an increases in turbidity. Pile driving includes the installation of four 30-inch-diameter steel structure piles, and up to 12 temporary piles. All in-water piles would be installed between January 3 through March 14, 2014, which is within the approved WDFW in-water work window (June 15 through March 14). The in-water work window is designed to avoid impacts to migrating juvenile salmonids in marine waters. Chinook salmon are not anticipated to be in North Bay when pile driving or removal would occur. Therefore, no impacts to Chinook salmon are anticipated based on project timing. The CMs outlined in Section 5.0 will reduce potential impacts to all species of fish and wildlife that may occur in the project vicinity during construction. Marbled Murrelet. No suitable nesting habitat occurs in the vicinity of the proposed project. Potential impacts to marbled murrelets are limited to disturbance during pile driving while they forage in adjacent marine waters. Marbled murrelets have been observed in Case Inlet, with five reported during comprehensive surveys conducted during June 1978 and 1979 (USFWS 1989). Based on data from the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, the closest observation of marbled murrelets to the project vicinity was one to two animals near Rocky Bay from the July 1992 through 1999 aerial surveys (Nysewander et al. 2005). Rocky Bay is approximately two miles south of the project area. A few marbled murrelets were observed near Rocky Bay during both the winter and summer aerial surveys. Therefore, they could be present in the general project vicinity during pile driving. Impacts to marbled murrelets would be short-tenor, lasting approximate two hours per day for two weeks while piles are installed. Since Rocky Bay is approximately two miles from the project area, impacts would be minor and likely limited to audible disturbance. However, audible impacts are not anticipated to extend to Rocky Bay. Bald Eagle. The closest documented nest site is located approximately 0.55 miles north of the project area on the east side of North Bay. The eastern shoreline immediately north of the crossing is mapped as a bald eagle high-use area. No mature trees or snags suitable for nesting, roosting, or perching will be impacted by the project. Due to the extended distance between pile driving and the nest, no impact to nesting bald eagles is anticipated. However, bald eagles using the shoreline of North Bay would experience an elevated level of audible disturbance during pile driving.A total of 16 piles are proposed during construction of the in-water structures, which can be installed in 16 days assuming one pile per day. It takes approximately two hours of actual pile driving to install each pile, or approximately 32 hours of pile driving to install 16 piles. Based on the available information, impacts to bald eagles will be short-term and minor. Pileated Woodpecker. Pileated woodpeckers have large home ranges and likely utilize the upland forests around North Bay for foraging and nesting. No snags suitable for nesting will be impacted by the project.No potential foraging habitat will be impacted by the project. Although minor audible disturbance could occur during construction of the upland structures, this disturbance would be short-term and minor. P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NF0\EP\Critical Mess Report\Fvtal Critical Ares Report 2012.0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 31 Common Loon. No documented breeding site for common loons has been reported in Mason County (WDFW 2004). Common loons have not been documented in the immediate project vicinity, and the nearest documented observation was at Devereaux Lake in 1979. Devereaux Lake is located over two miles northwest of the project area. Devereaux Lake is likely to urbanized to be utilized by loons for nesting. No suitable nesting habitat occurs in or near the project area. Based on the absence of suitable nesting habitat in the project vicinity, no impact to nesting loons is anticipated. Common loons could utilize North Bay for loafing or feeding during the winter migration period. Should they utilize North Bay during construction, impacts would likely be limited to minor and short-term disturbance during installation of marine piles. Harlequin Duck. Harlequin ducks nest in fast-moving mountain streams. Nesting typically occurs between May and July. Their nesting season is brief since the young leave the nest shortly after hatching. No suitable nesting habitat occurs in the project area. Wintering areas include northern Puget Sound,northern Hood Canal,the Strait of Juan de Fuca,the San Juan Islands,and the outer coast (WDFW 2004). Based on the available data, use of the project area by harlequin ducks would likely be limited to periods of migration. Should they utilize North Bay during construction, impacts would be limited to minor and short-term disturbance during installation of marine piles. Brandt's Cormorant. This species is a colonial nester,which are typically located on slopes or steep cliffs. They typically breed from March to August. No nesting colonies have been documented in North Bay and no suitable nesting habitat is present. They typically inhabit rocky shorelines and open ocean. The PSAMP reported the cormorant density during winter surveys ranged from 0 to 5 animals per km2. However, these may have been double-crested cormorants. Since no nesting colonies occur in North Bay and use of the project area during the breeding season is not anticipated, no impacts to nesting Brandt's Cormorant are anticipated to result from the project. Should they utilize North Bay during construction, impacts would be limited to minor and short-term disturbance during installation of marine piles. Olive-sided Flycatcher. This species typically nests in conifers, and is frequently observed -- along the edge of clearings or open areas where it prefers to perch and intercept flying insects. It winters in South America.No potential nesting trees will be impacted by the project. Since forest edge habitat abuts the transmission line corridor,this species may be present during construction. Should they utilize the project area during construction, impacts would likely be limited to minor and short-term disturbance during foraging.No impact to nesting habitat will occur as no mature conifer trees will be removed as part of this project. Great Blue Heron. There is an active heron rookery on the western set of marine towers, and they regularly forage along the edge of North Bay. Due to logistical, line outage, and timing constraints, it is not feasible to demolish the existing towers during the non-breeding season. In order to reduce direct impacts to the herons nesting on the marine structures, the nests will be removed during the winter of 2013, and hog-wire and netting installed over the nest sites to inhibit reestablishment of new nests. Additional measures such as perch inhibitors may also be employed to discourage re-establishment of the nests. These actions will force the colony to disperse and relocate. Some level of reduced nesting success during 2014 could occur unless all P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Repon\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 32 nesting pairs associated with the existing towers are able to successfully re-establish a rookery during that nesting season. Purple Martin. Purple martins breed in Washington, typically near/over water in artificial structures or cavities. They are typically in Washington from mid-April to late August. Although no documented nesting has been reported along North Bay, suitable habitat is present, especially if any shoreline residents install artificial nest structures. Activities with the highest likelihood of impacting this species are associated with pile driving or the degradation of suitable nesting habitat. However, pile driving will occur .prior to their arrival to Western Washington and no nesting habitat will be degraded. Therefore, no impact to this species is anticipated to result from the project. Vaux's Swift. Vaux's swift is a summer resident associated with old growth and mature forests (WDFW 2004). They typically arrive in Washington during early May and stay through September. Although potentially suitable habitat occurs in the general project vicinity, the adjoining forest lands are only marginally suitable. Vaux's swift have also been observed nesting or roosting in chimneys but are typically associated with old growth forests. Since no old growth forests occur in the project vicinity and no trees, snags, or chimneys will be removed as part of this project, no direct impact to nesting habitat is anticipated. Based on their seasonal use in Washington State, they will not be present when pile driving is proposed. Therefore, no impact to nesting Vaux's swifts will result from the proposed project. Townsend's Big-eared Bat. This species occurs statewide wherever suitable habitat is present. Although widespread, they are generally limited by the availability of suitable roosting habitat. Suitable roosting habitat includes caves, mines, hollow trees, and sometimes built structures. Suitable roosting habitat does not occur within the immediate project area, therefore no suitable roosting habitat will be impacted by the project. Based on the available data, no impact to Townsend's big-eared bat is anticipated to result from this project. Merriam's Shrew. Although this species is listed as a species of local importance in Mason County, it is typically associated with and habitats east of the Cascade Mountains (WDFW 2004). Based on the general range and distribution of this species within Washington, no impacts to Merriam's shrew are anticipated to result from this project. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Pinal Critical Mean Report2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 33 7.0 MITIGATION The proposed project will remove two sets of existing structures from North Bay, and two sets of existing upland structures(one set on each side of the bay). Each set of structures is composed of two individual structures. The proposed project will install one new structure in North Bay, and one new set of structures on each side of the bay. The structures to be removed on the east side of North Bay are located within Wetland A. The remaining upland structures to be removed are all in unregulated uplands and are outside shoreline jurisdiction. Impacts associated-with the construction of one new structure in North Bay are being offset by the removal of four existing structures in North Bay. Conservation measures previously outlined in Section 5.0 have been designed to reduce potential project-related impacts in North Bay resulting from the removal of the existing structures and construction of the new structure. The removal of the existing structures and the implementation of these conservation measures will adequately offset impacts from the actions associated with the construction and removal of marine structures. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary to address the project-related actions in North Bay. The proposed project would result in approximately 2,555 square feet of temporary impact to a Category III wetland (Wetland A) and 1,885 square feet of buffer. This impact is the result of permanently removing two structures from Wetland A, and includes the construction of a temporary crane pad that would partially be in the wetland.The area to be disturbed is on historic fill material and is dominated by invasive or weedy species. The construction of the crane pad would result 1,188 square feet of clearing (included in the 2,555 square feet above) and in 44 cubic yards of excavation in Wetland A. The material to be excavated is historic fill material originally used to provide a level building pad for the towers when constructed during 1926. After the towers are removed, the fill material installed for the crane pad will be excavated and replaced with a mixture of 50 percent native soil and 50 percent mulch. In order to mitigate for this temporary impact, TPU proposes to replant the disturbed area within their right-of-way with red-osier dogwood(wetland plantings) and Nootka rose(buffer plantings). Wetland A Mitigation.Installation of vegetation in Wetland A includes planting 156 two-gallon red-osier dogwood shrubs. Installation of vegetation in the buffer will include planting 55 two- gallon Nootka rose. The location will be as shown in Appendix A(Sheet 11 of 14). Spacing will be 4 feet on center. 7.1 TIMING AND VERIFICATION All plantings will be installed after construction during the fall of 2014. An as-built report, as- built drawings, and photographs will be submitted to the Corps within 12 months from the date of permit issuance. The as-built report will follow the format of the Status Report for Mitigation Work Completion form. P:b\EPSY00000002\0600INFOTP\Critical Areas Repon\HrW Critical Areas Report 2012A419.doe Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 34 7.2 YEARLY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Monitoring will occur for a minimum of 5 years, assuming the following performance measures are attained. The monitoring period will be extended if the following performance measures are not achieved. Replacing dead plants during the monitoring period will count toward plant survival for that year. Year 1: 100% survival Year 2: 90%survival Year 3: 85%survival or 60%cover Year 4: 80%survival or 70%cover Year 5: 75%survival or 80%cover 7.3 MAINTENANCE Maintenance is a yearly requirement that should be conducted at least twice—once in the spring and again in late summer during the monitoring period. At small sites such as this, maintenance includes a quick assessment of plant presence and vigor, and may be combined with official monitoring. However, the primary purpose of maintenance is to remove invasive and noxious weeds within the project area prior to seed dispersal in order to reduce their future abundance. 7.4 CONTINGENCY ACTION If performance standards are not met, contingency actions may be required. Table 9 outlines frequently encountered issues and typical contingency actions implemented to meet performance standards.The Corps will be contacted prior to implementing the following contingency actions. Table 9: Contingency Actions Issue to Address Contingency Action Damage/mortality due to small rodents Replace as necessary and install rodent guards. Damage/mortality due to beaver or deer Replace as necessary and install fencing. Damage/mortality due to site conditions Replace as necessary and change species composition. Damage/mortality due to drought or desiccation Replace as necessary and consider changing plant or soil composition. Damagelmortality due to mowing or clearing Replace as necessary and install flagging and/or fencing;meet with maintenance crews to discuss. Damage/mortality due to disease Change species composition and source of plants. 7.6 YEARLY REPORTS Mitigation monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted to the Corps on a yearly basis for five years from the date the Corps accepts the as-built drawings. The mitigation report format will be as outlined in Mitigation Planting Monitoring Report form. The reports will document plant mortality, replanting efforts, and achievement of performance standards. The reports will include maintenance actions and site photographs from established photopoints. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600[NFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Pval Critical Area Report 2012-0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 35 8.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C.Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.December. David Evans and Associates, Inc.2012. Biological Evaluation—Potlatch Transmission Lines— North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project. Prepared for Tacoma Public Utilities. February 2012. Dvornich, K.M.,K.R.McAllister,and K.B.Aubry. 1997.Amphibians and Reptiles of Washington State, Location Data and Predicted Distributions. Washington State Gap Analysis Project Final Report—Volume 2. Haring,D.2000.Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors— Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (East), Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia, Washington. Hruby, T.2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025. Johnson, R.E., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial Mammals of Washington State, Location Data and Predicted Distributions.Volume 3 in Washington State Gap Analysis—Final Report, (K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue,M.R. Smith and K.M.Dvornich, eds.), Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 304 pp. Kuttel,M.2002.Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors— Water Resource Inventory Area 14, Kennedy-Goldborough Basin. Mason County—Geographic Information System (GIS)data.Available at: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/ is/g data.phR Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.Available at: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/code/Community Dev/resource ord Tune 2009.pdf Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update. Available at: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/community dev/shoreline master Rro rag m/smp documents.phl2 Moore, Scott.2012.Personal Communication. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife—Minter/Coulter Creek Hatchery. Discussion via phone call about salmonid use of Coulter Creek. Nysewander,D.,J.R.Evenson,B.L.Murphie and T.A.Cyra. 2005.Report of Marine Bird and Marine Mammal Component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, For July 1992 to December 1999 Period.Available at: http://wdfw.wa. ov/publications/01135/wdfw01135.ndf Puddicombe, Curt. 2012.Personal Communication.Discussion via email about mammals observed by members of the Case Inlet Shoreline Association. Request to use photographs granted. P:\e\EPSY00000002\060otNFO\EP\Critical Areas Repott\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 36 Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations—Title 17.50 Zoning. Available at: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/code/Community Dev/chapter 17.50 May 2006.pdf Smith,M.R.,P.W. Mattocks,Jr., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997.Breeding Birds of Washington State:Location Data and Predicted Distributions.Volume 4 in Washington State Gap Analysis—Final Report, (K.M.Cassidy, C.E. Grue,M.R. Smith, and K.M.Dvornich, eds.), Seattle Audubon Society Publications in Zoology No. 1, Seattle, 538 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps).2010.Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2). May. U.S.Department of Agriculture(USDA),Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation Service). 1991. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. . Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.goy/api)/ U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)National Wetlands Inventory(NWI)Online Mapper. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/Nvettands/Data/mEper.html USFWS. 1989. Catalog of Washington Seabird Colonies. Biological Report 88(6).August 1989. Available at: httl2://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/diglib/Washinglon on seabird.htm U.S. Geological Survey(USGS).2005. Ospreys in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. USGS Fact Sheet 153-02.December 2002—Revised September 2005.Available at: httR:Hfresc.usgs.gov/products/fs/fs-153-02.pdf 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Mapping via National Geographic TOPO mapping software. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).2012.Priority Habitat and Species Data —Habitats and Species Report in the Vicinity of T22N RO 1 W dated Jan 23,2012. . 2004. Management Recommendations For Washington's Priority Species—Volume IV: Birds.May 2004. Available at: http://wdAv.wa.gov/publications/00026/wdfWO0026.Rdf . 2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. WDFW, Wildlife Science Division. February 2000.Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00427/wdfwOO427.pdf . 1998.Forage Fish Management Plan.A plan for managing the forage fish resources and fisheries of Washington. Authored by Greg Bargmann. September 1998. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00195/wdfw00195.pdf Washington State Department of Natural Resources(WDNR). 2012. Sections that Contain Natural Heritage Features Associated with Wetlands.Available at: http://wwwl.dnr.wa. og. v/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetiands.pdf P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\Final Critical Areas Report 2012.0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 37 Natural Heritage Program(NHP)Geographic Information System(GIS) data.Available at: hLtp://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/gis/index.html Williams,R.W.,R.M.Laramie and J.J. Ames. 1975.A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume I, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. _ P:\e\EPSYOO000002\060OMFO\EP\Critical Areas rt\Pind Critical Areas Reno rt 2012.0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Page 38 APPENDIX A: DESIGN DRAWINGS P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Criticel Areas RepottTinal Critical Are=Report_2012.0419.&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Appendix A This page intentionally left blank. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Report\MrW Critical Areas Report_2012.0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Appendix A PORTION OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 17, SW 1/4 OF SEC 16, SE 1/4 OF SEC 16 TWP. 22 N RGE. 1 WEST W.M. LAKE KOENEMAN 3 302 Y KITSAP COUNTY LAKE y6 N PIERCE COUNTY DEVEREAUX s ALLYN UGA w MITIGATION LIMITS FPROJECT SITE SITE _ TACOMA POWER R.O.W. R p wl } YY n .VICTOR 1 jT KP MP POWER I Go RD KP} f7 MI TO PURDY PCO I LAKE z Z ELGIN CLIFTON RD kp LNDERSON o olo z m9 U c) 302 -- OZIU cr 3 �a oiN $ I 0 0 Y V) vNIJIG BA TREASURE ISLAND VICINITY MAP 0 1/2 MI 1 MI 2 MI CONVERGENCE ANGLE= -16'37' AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT CHANGING BY 0'10' A YEAR 4 REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ----------- ----- NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: IN: NORTH BAY wr TACOMA PUBLIC—UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24' N NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08" W COUNTY: MASON "oASSOCIATE8ime. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 46_IMA�BE VERT: NAVD 88 STATE: WA A. Ph�4 9 w 25B °006�° SHEET 1 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SHEET TITLE: VICINITY MAP PORTION OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 17, SW 1/4 OF SEC 16, SE 1/4 OF SEC 16 TWP. 22 N, RGE. 1 WEST W.M. NEW 3—POLE ACCESS ROAD —�STRUCTURES _ Ay SEE SITE ACCESS PLAN—WEST. Rp - OLD TOWERS ORDINARY HIGH TO BE WATER LINE DEMOLISHED SEE MARINE o,o SEE PLAN AND FOUNDATION PROFILE SHEETS. PLANS. NORT,y BAY ao OLD TOWERS TO BE SEE PLAN AND DEMOLISHED PROFILE SHEETS. SEE SITE MITIGATION SITE ACCESS PLAN—EAST. ORDINARY HIGH rR�f 3� WATER LINE DECLINATION:-16'37' ACCESS ROAD CHANGING BY 010' A YEAR NOTE: OVERHEAD NEW SINGLE—POLE POWER LINES OMITTED 0 300 600 1200 STRUCTURES FOR CLARITY. REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ----------------- NE NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: WETACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N N NORTH BAY LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W AR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS COUNTY: MASON ANoASSOCIATES iuc. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 40-1hAr.nrlE VERT: NAVD 88 STATE: WA B'''"P,Wa 91° SEMI 2 OF 14 DATE: 04/1 B/2012 SI'IEET TITLE: PROJECT PLAN VIEW / /TAX PARCEL ID: 1$ GRAVEL T 122167590041 ACCESS ROAD TAX PARCEL ID:122167590031 1 I - _ t+od i +00 I S DO --- -- -- -------- ! R.O.W.�� 11 TAX PARCEL /Ig LIMITS OF TACOMA I ID:122167590042 PUBLIC WETLAND III r— DISTURBANCE UTILITIES R/IMPI�G-T -- L__ J i TAX PARCEL ESMT. RE TORA ON y I r N1 �' —) �°� ID:122167590032 AREA Z �TAX PARCEL " �s �I ;ID:122167590043 $ j2 �. ° ,TAX PARCEL ID: o TACOMA PUBLIC / STAGING AREA 9 '22164360030 � UTILITIES ESMT. - r , TAX PARCEL IL �� ID:122167590033 EX TIN , I ` !! r c , SINGLE POLE I STRUCTURE (TYP� ' / . T I� RS I �� r � 25 l� S 4 f J 1 �rto0 105' `` n 1 :REMxED r e — i 7'— I // o' , r / /l ya <� ORDINARY �r�Il HIGH , ;� LDG I Its TAX PARCEL �— WATER �° _ryo ID:122167590044 of / J 7 r� LINE " / ) 1 ~ / l TAX PARCEL r r' l I ID:122167590034 w J LIMITS OF �ii j,ri irjrl DISTURBANCE TA�OI�A PU�LFC o o UTILITIES ESMT. _ ; ° ." - ;►'"�,S 200' SHORELINE — / BUFFER CONVERGENCE ANGLE= —W37' AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT CHANGING BY 0'10' A YEAR NOTE: OVERHEAD �— POWER LINES OMITTED F 0 60 120 240 OR CLARITY, REFERENCE #: PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ----------------- NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: 0 NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N NE LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08" W NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS COUNTY: MASON w„cASSOCIATES,~c. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 49-MhA�BE VERT: NAVD 88 STATE: WA Bob w w""'°1oi 9WOS-618 SHEET 3 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 Ph"4255-6e500 SE= TIM: SITE ACCESS PLAN—EAST \ \ TAX PARCEL ID: / \TAX PARCEL 122174400040 ID:122174400050� TACOMA PUBLIC LIMITS OF ASPHALT ` UTILITIES ESMT. DISTURBANCE ROAD ti R.O.W. / APPROACH /TAX PARCEL ID:122174360010 200' SHORELINE 18' GRAVEL GATE 1 — — BUFFER ACCESS TAX PARCEL ID: — TAX PARCEL N t ID:122174400000 ROAD 12217006000 r t :r , _ l - t .� �I t` LIMITS OF r\ /�J I t r ' { t J DISTURBANCE / EXISTING TOWERS TO BE r / N REMOVED rd \ 1 l+ / 1 tie , • ,o AREA- �. l f �� � (/ 3 POLE ' _ ► I t i� t t /JJt( m� ( ,�' r. L ——$ STRUCTURE (TYP) M I �tt ; i - "� ORDINARY a — , sod _:,, $( ",/c l/ _ l j ��t/ / /r HIGH TAX PARCEL ID ,, b h // // / I ( ( WATER 122174390040 v p TAX PARCEL I " !_N \o r /. LINE Q AX PARCEL ID: 122174400030 TACOMA Q 122205021001 / / QN WSDOT TACOMA PUBLIC PUBLIC UTILITIES R.O.W. UTILITIES ESMT. I ESMT. / TAX PARCEL / ID:122174400020 gP^( OR ��—R.O.W. N CONVERGENCE / ANGLE= -16.37' / AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT CHANGING BY 070' A YEAR NO VERHEAD _ 7 POWER LI MITTED— 0 60 120 240 / FOR CLARITY. REFERENCE #: PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ----------------- NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: IN:NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24' N LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08" W NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS COUNTY: MASON u,DASSOCIATES ime. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 40-S,A,,No0 VERT: NAVD 88 STATE: WA � BR °°°°°° STIBBT 4 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SKIRT TIM: SITE ACCESS PLAN-WEST N� 9404- / 3 � ••1 945+ 1 Eff TSTA.-- NEW 3-POLE i -_ DEADEND 950+00 ••17 tJ O tD CA 955+00IF vi WEN AM_. � I 96()+00 = o rn CUIT _X O o N I AlLjuvwyO,p 179 IV O Dio o 0 965+00 In 9/ NEW � D o V Floor t DOUBLE m m 970+00- 6 CIRCUIT u o co O O O "160 0 0 975+00 TI � EXISTING POLES 181 980+00 LEFT AND s T i _ STA.- 53 DI II 985+00 1 I H2 NEW SINGLE 990+ T POLE DEADEND I II 995+00- ��rt,r •-182 II' II II REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ---------- NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N IN: NORTH BAY LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08" W NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS COUNTY: MASON A.*ASSOC IATES-c. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 0-tMA—BE VERT; NAVD B8 STATE: WA Bmb+ WOW Om 98OW-36M SHEET 5 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 n�,.axs',esoo SHEET TITLE: C8 0 PLAN AND PROFILE 1160'-0"t Z U)o 0 a TEMPORARY LINE POLE TO z m SPREAD CONDUCTORS. SEE J m m EXISTING EXISTING m m z� w m TOWER, TYP CONDUCTORS, + S8.0 m o z ; a �r TYP a a NEW MARINE a + ~`�' FOUNDATION AND POLE + 04 a n z a'n rn SEE MF-4 ¢LD A. ¢o r � Q a cnrn cnrn �U am a a < U mckf N aU 77 3 a-Z Cl a 0 a+ z� m TEMPORARY LINE POLE TO SPREAD m CONDUCTORS. SEE S8.0 o q w a Z z NOTE: 0 Z. o BOTH EXISTING CIRCUITS MAY BE MOVED TO N a N PLAN - WORK AREA THE NORTH IN LIEU OF SPREADING THE - SCALE: NTS EXISTING CONDUCTORS AS SHOWN. s N � < z � W =� � z aZ NEW NEW POLE SEE S1.0 FARINE OUNDATION EXISTING CONDUCTORS I w EXISTING TOWER I � I U I m I m I � a I I V Q z ELEVATION -WORK AREA I p, U SCALE: NTS Z. 1d O 't YYY W U C wO 4 o z /—LONG PILE CAP wP, �pj • �I iv RIDGE,TP • • POLE.SEE E-= 2% x:-•' pro'-,•_•. _® PLAN " —CONC PILE CAP STEEL IPE PIL T9 n) to x4•-r II x • x A e fcale +�+ scwPLAN•PILE ARRANGEMENT v REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ----------- ----- NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: TACOMA PUBLIC-UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N NE NORTH BAY War LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W NE NORTH ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS COUNTY: MASON ANOA8SOCIATE8,40. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 -11 A, 81E VERT: NAVD 88 STATE: WA emll ""' io.9eGGe-30 SKEET 7 OF 14 DATE: 04 1e P110P••xssoeaoG 2012 / / SHEEP TITLE:MF-4 MARINE FOUNDATION PLANS POLE I CONC PILE CAPGROUT T.O.C. O POLE L + T.O.C. O EDGE L + 9 EL +18.39 MHHW },4, STEEL PIPE PILE, TYP MLLW+0.0 MUDLINE EL -5.0t ELEVATION - SME: 3 .,- 3/W �® _le het REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES War - NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/IANG: TACOMA PUBLICUTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24' N NE NORTH BAY LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVAN8 COUNTY: MASON AwoASSOCIATES 1N0. DATU)![: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 46-ryW A—wBE VERT: NAVO 88 STATE: WA � 3M SHEEP 8 OF 14 DATE: D4/18/2012 SHEET TITLE: MF-5 PILE CAP ELEVATION /8—1 O 6-EW, OPTIONAL G CONC PILE CAP TOP R DOT. TOP BAR FOLLOWS SLOPE OF CONC E +2 .39 3.000 CLR TYP aj EL +t 8.39 rcl PILE/PILE CAP �j CONN, T`IP SEE & �� /S nr,TrP(s EA SIDE) as v UHHW +14.22 STEEL PIPE PILE, TYP, SEE A If-7 MLLW+9.0 YUDLINE EL-5.9 !A SECTION' 2 0 2 Ms an 3/8- scale feet /8 n•O 6-EW, POLE TOP k 807. TOP BM FOLLOWS GROUT CONC PILE CAP SLOPE OF CONC OPTIONAL G T.O.C. O POLE EL +22.59 . - T.O.C. O EI,- EL +22.39 EL +18.39 /5 I-1,.,TW (4 EA SIDE) �B SECTION .�. SGLE: 3/B=, o- 3/8- - 1-9- 2® xoie eet REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/IANG: Q IN: NORTH BAY TACO►AA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24' N NNE EAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W COUNTY: MASON A.o ASSOC IATES,M . DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 416-"M Aw BE VERT: NAVO 88 STATE: WA "���J°1° SHEET 9 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SHEET TITLE:61F-6 PILE CAP SECTIONS to I U) m EXISTING CONC. Iu = FOOTINGS FOR u � POWERLINE TOWERS OHWM 1 o (TYPICAL) z 1 Wi zs' I n r 0 OH F31NM 2 _ D 1 u ;0 OH OH W2( � 3JL - rl -__ off 1 off � WETLAND - —ON _ Wk ------__-�_'- OH - W7 5 - OH m 1 W 12 0OH N OHWM 3 __ N OH OH \ 1 O" OH Oh zs zs ' CD - l 2 b H zs I H � zs r OH_ _ _ _ _� � W15 � , o m ' OH WM 4 _ 7 W14'a 13 I u _ or 0 EXISTING u — — z CHAINLINK FENCED AREA Icl I i S'. tw i» rctitniwiti n i t iin v o d f>3 Its 3 ��x xf X. { tww = 0 0 EXISTING I� BUILDING JI LEGEND 0 20 40 80 — — — — WETLAND BOUNDARY SCALE IN FEET WETLAND AREA 1" = 40' WETLAND DATA PLOT W/# P WETLAND FLAG W/# u UPLAND AREA OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OH OVERHEAD WIRES NORTH SHEET TITLE: EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE— DCDLATITUDE: 47' 22' 23" N NORTH BAY CROSSING— DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE: 122' 48' 44" W REBUILD —ASSOCIATE 5 iwc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 4s-rea nv«.,ssE. NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES BeMvus'Wa**vto^98W3 COUNTY: MASON Pho 425LV,6500 STATE: WA SHEET 10 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 oh AlL PROPg§ED 0H ._ Ln Or{ ry r BUFFER ,� = I o ,/ _�AREA 6RA.IlQ O m _. 0`_ '� >at / o a— i N N O Of PROPOSED r O / WETLAND ,r= I OH z / RETIoN AREA w c WE71AM A °� � ''// � ��` CR Nosh, � Oh • %/ ioh, QL-SLE- z, — = Oy c_ RESTORATION PLANTING SCHEDULE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ONTY SIZE HT, GAL, SPACING REMARKS SHRUB ® CORNUS SERICEA RED-OSIER DOGWOOD 156 HT,1'-2', 2 GAL. 4' O.C. CONTAINER, WELL BRANCHED ® ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 55 HT,1'-2', 2 GAL. 4' O.C. CONTAINER, WELL BRANCHED GROUNDCOVER ® HYDROSEED MIX 1,517 S.F. NOTE: SEE PLANTING NOTES, DETAIL AND HYDROSEED MIX SHEET 4. IMPACT/RESTORATION SUMMARY ® WETLAND IMPACT/RESTORATION AREA = 2,158 S.F. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT/RESTORATION AREA = 765 S.F. 0 15 30 60 TEMP. WETLAND DISTURBANCE/RESTORATION AREA = 397 S.F. 0 SCALE IN FEET TEMP. WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE/RESTORATION AREA = 1,120 S.F. 1" = 30' LEGEND ZS UPLAND AREA WETLAND BOUNDARY 1l1, WETLAND AREA CRANE PAD AREA ROW RIGHT—OF—WAY STRAW WATTLE 100' SLE 100' SOUTHERN LINE EASEMENT 100' NLE 100' SOUTHERN LINE EASEMENT NORTH SHEET TITLE: RESTORATON PLANTING PLAN LONG:PROJECT LOCATION: LAT � C / HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: 0 NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE- LATITUDE: 47' 22' 23" N NORTH BAY CROSSING- DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE: 122' 48' 44" W REBUILD ANDASSOCIATES iNc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-t81hAvau SE NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES 131M .W,rtpeon aeons COUNTY: MASON 42sSAesoo STATE: WA SHEET 11 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 WOOD STAKE STRAW WATTLE /4 X / X 24 INCHES TAKE SPACING 8 TO 10 INCHES 3 TO 7 INCHES IN DIAMETER (ADJOINING FT MAXIMUM HTLY ABUT WATTLESOW 8 INCHES MINIMUM PLAN SECTION STRAW WATTLE INSERT NOT TO SCALE SHEET TITLE: DETAILS PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: �CIIf+,•,lY�r NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE— LATITUDE: 47' 22' 23" N NORTH BAY CROSSING— DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE: 122' 48' 44" W REBUILD ANo ASSOCIATES mc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-llhh Avon»SE NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Fnor» 42sSA8500 B°�°"'° 425.ptoifl80O5 COUNTY: MASON . STATE: WA SHEET 12 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 O ROOT CROWN 1"-2" ABOVE 0 PLANTING SOIL GRADE O a 00 3" BARK MULCH. HOLD BACK 4" FROM MAIN STEM 3" MEDIUM BARK MULCH _II I11=i1=1 I- FINISH GRADE hill I I-111 � PLANTING SOIL - SEE NOTES _IIHII-11' =III=ljlll j=1 ' FERTILIZER II- EXISTING SUBGRADE MIN. 2 X ROOT BALL SHRUB PLANTING HYDROSEED MIX NOT TO SCALE —KIND/VARIETY % BY WEIGHT MIN. % GERM PERENNIAL RYE 50% 90% RED FESCUE 30% 80% COLONIAL BENTGRASS 207. 85% APPLICATION RATE: 150 LBS/ACRE ERO-FIBER WOOD FIBER MULCH: 1,500 LBS/ACRE NUTRICULTURE SEED STARTER FERTILIZER (16-45-7): — 50 LBS/ACRE CANFOR ECO-TAC GUAR TACKIFIER: 60 LBS/ACRE STAY MOIST MOISTURE RETENTION AGENT: 60 LBS/ACRE NOTES: 1. CLEAR AND GRUB ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCLUDING CRANE PAD RESTORATION AREA, AS SHOWN ON SHEET 11. GRUB TO A DEPTH SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE ALL ROOTS, ROOT CROWNS, AND OTHER VEGETATIVE MATERIAL. ALL VEGETATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SITE. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT CRANE PAD RESTORATION AREA, SHALL BE AMENDED WITH 6" TOPSOIL TYPE A. TOPSOIL SHALL BE TILLED INTO THE TOP 12" OF EXISTING SOIL TO FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 3. APPLY TIME RELEASE FERTILIZER (BUFFER PLANTS ONLY) OSMOCOTE TM OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT, PER MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS. 4. HYDROSEED ALL PLANTING AREAS WITH SPECIFIED HYDROSEED MIX ABOVE. 5. ALL PLANTS IN THE PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE PLANT SCHEDULE (SHEET 11) AND DETAIL (THIS SHEET). 6. ALL PLANT PITS SHALL RECEIVE 3" MEDIUM BARK MULCH RINGS SHEET TITLE: DETAILS LONG:PROJECT LOCATION: LAT C C / HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: O NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE- LATITUDE: 47' 22' 23" N NORTH BAY CROSSING- DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE: 122' 48' 44" W REBUILD AHDASSOCIATES mc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-18M Aven,e SE NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Fh W` 5,51D.°9B00S COUNTY: MASON Plwne' 425SA.8500 11 STATE: WA SHEET 13OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 MATCH EXISTING NO WORK WEST f 18' GRADE OF STAGING. WETLANDS 12" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE PER WSDOT EXISTING STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ASPHALT 9-03.9(1). CONCRETE PAVEMENT —I I El a ' IIIEll III—III I I=1 I I.I (— NOTE: GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (MIRAFI 14—N COMPACTED SUITABLE NATIVE MATERIAL. OR APPROVED EQUAL) SHALL BE UNSUITABLE NATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED BELOW CRUSHED SURFACING OVEREXCAVATED AND REPLACED WITH BASE COURSE FOR SEPARATION. STRUCTURAL FILL. SUBGRADE SHALL BE WRAP AROUND CSBC. COMPACTED TO 95% MAX. DRY DENSITY. CRANE PAD NOT TO SCALE NO`M& CRANE PAD RESTORA TION GENERAL 1. REMOVE ALL STRUCTURAL FILL, GEOTEXTILE LINER AND CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE MATERIALS FROM DISTURBED WETLAND AND BUFFER AREAS AND DISPOSE OFF—SITE. 2. SCARIFY COMPACTED SUBGRADE MIN. 4" DEPTH, 3. BACKFILL DISTURBED WETLAND AND BUFFER AREAS WITH 18" (MIN.) MIX OF 50% NATIVE SOIL AND 50% COARSE COMPOST MULCH. MULCH SHALL COMPLY WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION, 2009, SECTION 8-02.3(11). SIZE RANGE OF MULCH SHALL BE FROM 1/2 INCH TO 1-1/4 INCHES WITH A MAXIMUM OF 100 PERCENT PASSING A 1 INCH SCREEN. 4. HYDROSEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS, WITH HYDROSEED MIX AS SPECIFIED ON SHEET 13. 5. PLANT WETLAND AND BUFFER PLANTING AREAS AS SPECIFIED ON SHEET 11. SHEET TITLE: DETAILS PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE— R LATITUDE: 47' 22' 23" N NORTH BAY CROSSING— DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE: 122' 48. 44" W REBUILD AND ASSOCIATES inc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-18th A-9E NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Raney 4zss>B.es00 Bea.—,w'*"gm" COUNTY: MASON STATE: WA SHEET 14 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 APPENDIX B: WETLAND A RATING AND DATA PLOT FORMS P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Critical Areas Reoort\Final Critical Areas Report 2012-0419 doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Appendix B This page intentionally left blank. P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INF0\EP\Critical Areas Report\FirW Critical Areas Report_2012.0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Appendix B Wetland name or number A WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2—Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct.2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland(if known): A Date of site visit:January 5.2012 Rated by: Scott Swarts Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 11/15/06 SEC: 16 TWNSHP: 22N RNGE: 01 W Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II III X IV Category I= Score>70 Score for Water Quality Functions 16 Category II= Score 51 -69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 6 Category III= Score 30—50 Score for Habitat Functions 18 Category IV= Score<30 TOTAL Score for Functions 40 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland 1 II Does not apply X Final Category(choose the"highest"category from above") III Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics _ used for Rating Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Sloe X Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection YES NO in addition to the protection recommended for its category) SP1. Has the ivetland unit been documented as a habirral for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species(TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system,"documented"means the wetland is on the appropriate X state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system,"documented"means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species X are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW or the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example,the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program,the Critical Areas Ordinance,or X in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdrogeomotvhic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeonarpiw classification groups wetands in to those that font Lion in similar ways.This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland fiuEdons.The Hydmgeomorphic Class of a wetland can be demniined using the key below.Seep.24 for nim detailed mstrtrdior>s on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 1 of 8 Wetland name or number A Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated,you probably have a unit with >, multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply,and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides(i.e. except during floods)? ®O—go to 2 YES—the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt(parts per thousand)? YES—Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO—Saltwater Tidal Fringe(Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions,and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions,the term"Estuarine"wetland is kept. Please note,however,that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed(see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source(>90%)of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO—go to 3 YES—The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a"Flats"wetland,use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water(without any vegetation on the surface)where at least 20 acres(8ha)in size; At least 30%of the open water area is deeper than 6.6(2 m)? NO—go to 4 YES—The wetland class is Lake-fringe(Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? X The wetland is on a slope(slope can be very gradual). X The water flows through the wetland in one direction(unidirectional)and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface,as sheetflow,or in a swale without distinct banks. X The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks(depressions are usually<3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO—go to 5 0—The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO—go to 6 YES—The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds,or is saturated to the surface,at some time of the year. This means that any outlet,if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO—go to 7 YES—The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be-ditched,but has no obvious natural outlet. _ No—go to 8 YES—The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example,seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain,or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT(make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10%or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10%of the unit,classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90%of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use 717MRIM Slope+Riverine Riverine Slope+Depressional Depression I Slope+Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional+Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional+Lake-fringe- Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland I characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland,or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary,classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 2 of 8 Wetland name or number A WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS—Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only I score S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? per box) see .64 S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1%or less(a 1%slope has a 1 j!vertical cb-op in elevationfor every 100ft horizontal distance)......... oints=3 • Slope is 1/0 2/o = ° - ° omts 2 • Slope is 2%-5%.................................................................................................................points 1 • Sloe is greater than 5%......................................................................................................points=0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface(or duff layer)is cla ,organic(Use NRCS definitions). 0 YES =3 points =0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you Figure_ have trouble seeing the soil surface(>7S%cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense,uncut,herbaceous vegetation>90%of the wetland area........................................... omts=61 • Dense,uncut,herbaceous vegetation> 1/2 of area...............................................................points=3 • Dense,woody,vegetation> 1/2 of area................................................................................points=2 6 • Dense,uncut,herbaceous vegetation> 1/4 of area................. .............................................points= 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation...................... . points=0 . ................................. Aerial hoto or ma with ve etation polygons Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 1 8 S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams,lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft X Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Multiplier Tilled fields, logging,or orchards within 150 ft.of wetland p Residential,urban areas,or golf courses are within 150 ft.upslope of wetland Other 2 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 ♦ TOTAL—Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Sl by S2;then add score to table on P. 1 16 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS—Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.68) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland(stems of plants should be thick enough(usually> 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). 6 • Dense,uncut,rigid vegetation covers>90%of the area of the wetland............................... omts= • Dense,uncut,rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland.............................................................points=3 • Dense,uncut,rigid vegetation> 1/4 area.............................................................................points= 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed,mowed tilled or vegetation is not rigid.............................points=0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10%of its area. 0 YES =2 points INO =0 pointsi Add the points in the boxes above,, S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problemsOther Multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir(e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) I YES multiplier is 2 O multi lier is 1 ♦ TOTAL—H droloaic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4;then add score to table on p. 1 6 Comments:Wetland A is adjacent to estuarine wetland but separate in that Wetland A is not influenced by salt water. Freshwater flows through Wetland A in one direction and enters North Bay. Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 3 u l'8 Wetland name or number A score HABITAT FUNCTIONS—Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. (only I per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure(see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present(as defined by Cowardin)—Size threshold for each class is Figure 114 acre or more than 10%of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed X Emergent plants Scrub/shrub(areas where shrubs have>30%cover) • Forested(areas where trees have>30%cover) If the unit has a forested class check if 2 X The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata(canopy,sub-canopy,shrubs,herbaceous, moss/ground- cover)that each cover 20%within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. Ifyou have: Mae of Cowardin ve etation classes 4 structures or more.......points=4 structures................... omts= 2 structures....................points= I 1 structure....................points=0 H 1.2 Hydro periods(see p.73): Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water regime has to Figure_ cover more than 10%of the wetland or 114 acre to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points=3 x Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present......points=2 x Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present...................points= 1 x Saturated only I type present....................points=0 2 Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland Lake-fringe wetland.................=2 points Freshwater tidal wetland.........=2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species(see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2(different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species......................points=2 s ecies...................points= 1 List species below if you want to: <5 species........................points=0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats(seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation(described in HLI),or the classes and unvegetated areas(can include open water or mudflats)is high,medium,low,or none. O Note: If you have 4 or more classes Figure_ CD ( (*) (4) or 3 vegetation classes and open water,the rating is None=0poiras Low=I point %lod.ratc 'points always"high" Use map of Cowardin classes. .< 1 [riparian braided channels] points H 1.5 Special Habitat Features(seep. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of point you put into the next column. X Large:downed,woody debris within the wetland(>4 in.diameter and 6 ft.long) _ Standing snags(diameter at the bottom>4 inches)in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft.(2m)and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft.(I in)over a stream(or ditch)in,or contiguous with the unit,for at least 33 ft. (I Om) I _ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown _ At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated(structures for egg-laying by amphibians) _ Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20%stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score—potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above 7 Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 4 of 8 Wetland name or number A H 2 Does the wetland have the oouortunity to provide habitat for many species? (only t scor er box H 2.1 Buffers(see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring Figure criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of"undisturbed". 100m(330 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water >95%of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing,no landscaping,no daily human use)............. points=5 _ 100m(330 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water >50%circumference.................................................................................................... points=4 _ 50m(170 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water >95%circumference.................................................................................................... points=4 X 100m(330 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water >25%circumference.................................................................................................... points=3 3 50m(170 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water for>50%circumference.............................................................................................. points=3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas(except paved trails)or buildings within 25m(80 ft)of wetland> 95%circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK..................................points=2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for>50%circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK................................................................... points=2 Heavygrazing in buffer................................................................................................ points=1 _ Vegetated buffers are<2m wide(6.6 ft)for more than 95%circumference (e.g.tilled fields,paving,basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland)............................. points=0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above.............................................................. points=1 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections(see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor(either riparian or upland)that is at least 150 ft. wide,has at least a 30%cover of shrubs,forest or native undisturbed prairie,that connects to estuaries,other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads,paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). ES=4 point (go to H 2.3) NO=go to H 2.2.2 H.2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor(either riparian 4 or upland)that is at least 50 ft.wide,has at least 30%cover of shrubs or forest,and connects to estuaries,other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland,if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES=2 points(go to H 2.3) NO=go to H 2.2.3 H.2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi(8km)of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture(>40 acres)OR YES= 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO=0 points Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 5 of 8 Wetland name or number A H 2.3 Near or adiacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW(see p.82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,and the counties in which they can be found in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gav/hab/ohslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft.(100m)of the wetland unit? NOTE:the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands:Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha(1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors:Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.152). Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. _Old-growth/Mature forests:(Old-growth west of Cascade crest)Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 20 trees/ha(8 trees/acre)>81 cm(32 in) dbh or>200 years of age.(Mature forests)Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm(21 in)dbh;crown cover may be less that 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak:Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian:The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). 1 Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. X Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore.(full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report:pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves:A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,ice,or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs:Greater than 7.6 in(25 ft)high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15-2.0 in(0.5-6.5 ft),composed of basalt, andesite,and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of>51 cm(20 in)in western Washington and are>2 in(6.5 ft)in height.Priority logs are>30 cm(12 in)in diameter at the largest end,and>6 in(20 ft)long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats=4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats=3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat=1 point No habitats=0 points Note:All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list.Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits(see p. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile,and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed(light grazing between wetlands OK,as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads,fill,fields,or other development..........points=5 • The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile.....................................................................................................points=5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile,BUT the connections between them are 3 disturbed............................................................................................................................ oints=3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within1/2 mile....................................................................................................................points=3 • There is at least I wetland within 1/2 mile...........................................................................points=2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile.................................................................................. oints=0 H 2 TOTAL Score—opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3,H2.4 1 1 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 7 ♦ Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H I and H 2;then record the result on p. 1 18 J Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 6 of 8 Wetland name or number A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type—Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1 Estuarine wetlands?(see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated,and _ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES =Go to SC 1.1 NO SC IA Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge,National Park,National Estuary Reserve,Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational,Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC Cat. 1 332-30-151? YES =Category I NO=go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES =Category I NO=Category II Cat.I The wetland is relatively undisturbed(has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing,and has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,.are only sppecies that cover more than 10%of the wetland,then the wetland should be given a dual rating(1 1). Cat.II The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not,however,exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. Dual At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft.buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed Rating or un-mowed grassland I/II The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels,depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Vv'etlands(seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened,Endangered,or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR(see p.79)and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? Cat I YES =Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland SC3 Bogs(see p. 87) Does the wetland(or any part of the unit)meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its junction. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons(i.e.layers of organic soil),either peats or mucks,that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES=go to question 3 NO=go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils,either peats or mucks that,are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES=go to question 3 NO=is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND other plants,if present, consist of the"bog"species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation(more than 30%of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES=Is a bog for purpose of rating NO=go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16"deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the"bog"plant species in Table 3 are present,the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested(>30%cover)with sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar,western hemlock,lodgepole pine,quaking aspen,Englemann's spruce,or western white pine.WITH any of the species(or combination of species)on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(>30%coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? Cat.I YES=Category I NO=Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 7 of 8 Wetland name or number A C4 Forested Wetlands(seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/acre(20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 inches(81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and"OR"so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80—200 years old OR have an average diameters(dbh)exceeding 21 inches(53 cm);crown cover may be less than 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Cat.I YES=Category I NO= not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons(seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or,less frequently,rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish(>0.5 ppt)during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon(needs to be measured near the bottom) YES=Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed(has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing)and has less than 20%cover of invasive plant species(see list of invasive species on p. 74). _ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft.buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre(4350 square ft.) YES=Category I NO =Category II Cat. 11 C6 Interdunal Wetlands(seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES=Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its junctions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula--lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport--lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis—lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES=Category II NO =go to SC 6.2 Cat. 11 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and I acre,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES=Category III Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics ♦ Choose the "highest"rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter"Not Applicable"on p. I Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 8 of 8 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site:North Bay-east side existing tower. City/County:Mason Sampling Date:1/5/12 Applicant/Owner:Tacoma Power Utilities State:WA Sampling Point:DP 1 Investigator(s):Scott Swarts Section,Township,Range:16,22N.01 W Landform(hilislope,terrace,etc.):Base of hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none):none Slope(%):2 percent Subregion(LRR):A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:Everett gravely sandy loam NWI classification:Not Mapped as Wetland Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes® No❑ (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes® No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes® No❑ within a Wetland? Yes® No❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes® No❑ Remarks:Both of these towers are on fill material,some of which have wetland indicators.The fill is elevated above the less impacted wetland to the west toward North Bay.The fill is not level or flat.Higher areas with thicker fill not included as wetland.Soil indicator on fill was variable.Water is subsurface flow and runoff from SR 302,plus a ditch.Assumed water present long enough.Alder trees under transmission line recently cleared. DP1 not on fill but in less distrubed wetland.Edge of right-of-way(row).DP2 on fill in wetland under tower.DP3 on fill in uplands next to tower. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:10'radius) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1.Red alder(Alnus rubra)-on edge or row. 80 yes FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:5') =Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1.sapling red alder 10 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2.red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) 5 no FACW Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size:5) UPL species x 5= 1.slough sedge(Carex obnupta) 100 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6, ® Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10 ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must =Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1.Himalayan blackberry(Rubus armeniacus) <5 no FACU 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes® No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:DP 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % TvDe' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 silty muck soil turned to soup. 12-16+ Gley 1 5/10Y 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M sandy loam sandy with some pea gravel matrix color not a perfect match. 'Type: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(Al0) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ® Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes® No❑ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(69)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ® High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 413) ® Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(66) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches):5 inches Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches):to surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes® No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site:North Bay-east side existing tower. City/County:Mason Sampling Date:1/5/12 Applicant/Owner:Tacoma Power Utilities State:WA Sampling Point:DP 2 Investigator(s):Scott Swarts Section,Township,Range:16,22N.01 W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.):Base of hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none):none Slope(%):2 percent Subregion(LRR):A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:Everett gravely sandy loam NWI classification:Not Mapped as Wetland Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes E No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil X,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes❑ No E Are Vegetation Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes E No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes E No❑ within a Wetland? Yes E No❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes E No❑ Remarks:DP 2 is on fill material from 1925. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:10'radius %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species =Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size:5') UPL species x 5= 1.soft rush(Juncus effusus) 40 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2.creeping buttercup(ranunculus repens) 20 yes FACW 3.giant horsetail(Eguisetum telmateia) 10 no FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 4.unidentified weed 5 no ???? Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5.moss 25 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. E Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must �Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: , be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes E No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:DP 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/2 100 sandy silt gravel present. 5-16+ Gley 1 4/10Y 100 sandy loam sandy with gravel matrix color not a perfect match. 'Type: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(At) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(Al0) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(171)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ® Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes® No❑ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(69)(MLRA 1,2, ® High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 413) ® Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(611) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches):6 inches Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches):to surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes® No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site:North Bay-east side existing tower. City/County:Mason Sampling Date:1/5/12 Applicant/Owner:Tacoma Power Utilities State:WA Sampling Point:DP 3 Investigator(s):Scott Swarts Section,Township,Range:16,22N,01 W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.):Base of hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none):none Slope(%):2 percent Subregion(LRR):A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:Everett gravely sandy loam NWI classification:Not Mapped as Wetland Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes® No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil X,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes❑ No Are Vegetation Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No® within a Wetland? Yes❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No Remarks:DP 3 is on fill material from 1925. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum Species? Status Plot size:10'radius %Cover S ( ) p Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species =Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:5') Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: UPL species x 5= 1.Himalayan blackberry(Rubus armeniacus) 40 Yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2.Cleavers bedstraw(Galium aparine) 35 yes FACU 3.unitentied grass(redtoo?) 15 no ???? Prevalence Index =B/A= 4.reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea) 5 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5.giant horsetail(Eguisetum telmateia) 5 no FACW ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑ Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10 ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:5') be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes❑ No %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:DP 3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16+ 10YR 212 100 sandy loam gravel present. 'Type: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al 2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required:check all that aooly) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(69)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(69)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 4B) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns(610) ❑ Water Marks(B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS P:k\EPSY00000002\0600MO\EP1Critical Areas Reporffirtal Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Appendix C This page intentionally left blank P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Cntical Areas Report\FuW Critical Areas Report 2012-0419.doc , Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Critical Areas Report Appendix C P H O T O 1 A a i •fir� ��. • OOverview of project area l•• • west across North Potlatch Transmission North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project EPSY00000002 Appendix Osprey Nest • Heron Nests -p! ,ii. t ONorth Bay crossing during Phase 1 - Site Photographs Geotechnical Boring. Potlatch Transmission Lines- O Close-up of Photo 2. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project EPSY00000002 Appendix C ...oDAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES iwc. February 2012 w P H O T O 4 P H O T O I 1, �/,�i -•,:� ONorthg low tide. Site Photographs _ Potlatch^ © . . . - . - - . --. -rth Bay Y EPSY00000002 OM Appendix R r -• " .: rwi i. v_• �_ ..;, '4w �, �,. _ _� '. '. i. ..,,.13 ems, i L r ya. y Fg' .e r!t.'• .i� tC 1 s � •'+. •�,� '~ �' .�" �'�� mot. *�� "�` ' � ,.ft :�; � 1`I r,rr � r �r i(.Q si/'i '�`'��1•!` P+ �E'S•� �.�:�.! ,�t� +' .-�- <. <�E © Substrate near structures. Site Photographs Potlatch Transmission Lines- O Wetland A North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project EPSY0000O002 Appendix C DAVID EVANS February 2012 —ASSOCIATES d 4 r w dl •g •t f+ 1 r•. :r'S' r, F ` ��. ` _ �rl i' - .•, °ems' i y .. tf n :4 AV _ ® Wetland A at DP 2. site Photographs Potlatch Transmission Lines- O Close-up of DP 2. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project ro�� EPSY00000002 0 Appendix C DAV ID ATES February2012 -�oASSOCIATES . a e 'l''0. 4 y �. a W. 14 f r {� _�� .,,-- Icy ,d i►,!'iJ`>, •. 0?" i ' • 11 .. + , •- ' L� 4`x` "obi _ 1 0 Edge of Wetland A and structures along SR 302. Site Photographs Potlatch Transmission Lines- 11 View of Wetland A and structures from North Bay. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project EPSY00000002 Appendix C GAVID SVANS February 2012 1 •..ASSOCIATES fall • 12 i K i ti 12 View looking east from west side of North Bay. Site Photographs Structures in background to be removed. Potlatch Transmission Lines- 13 View looking west from west side of North Bay. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project Existing structures in background to remain. New EPSY00000002 upland structures to be constructed in this area. Appendix C DAVID EVANS February2012 +oASSOCIATES 1 \. 4 , T k F r r ,�• 4- ya..,; ors.. � ... • t S: � l.C� esl a ! • h .. IN P H i .1,-It c r 'r, 'a •L- J - 14 Structures to be removed on west side of Site Photographs North Bay. Potlatch Transmission Lines- 15 Structures to be removed on west side of North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project North Bay. O EPSY00000002 Appendix C DAVID EVANS February 2012 .—ASSOCIATES— L w } - H O T O i 44, View looking west from •- of • Photographs Potlatch Transmission General area of new structur- Northebuild Project EPSY00000002 WO AppendixFebruary 2012 AVID EVANS