Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Biological Evaluation - PLN General - 4/30/2012
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Potlatch Transmission Lines North Bay Crossing - Rebuild Project Mason County, Washington U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Reference Number: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Project Number:EPSY0000-0002 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 DAVID EVANS AW) ASSOCIATES INC. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Potlatch Transmission Lines North Bay Crossing - Rebuild Project Mason County, Washington U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reference Number: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Project Number: EPSY0000-0002 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 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Potlatch Transmission Lines North Bay Crossing - Rebuild Project Mason County, Washington U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reference Nrrrnber: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Project Nurrrber: EPSY0000-0002 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 v� Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 Plione: 425.519.6593 Fax: 425.519.5361 April 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared for the City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities — Potlatch Transmission Lines — North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project. The purpose of this project is to replace transmission line towers originally constructed in 1925. One of the marine towers is leaning and all show signs of deterioration and fatigue. The project will remove four existing lattice towers in North Bay and replace them with one new taller tubular 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. The project site is located in Mason County, Washington. North Bay is located at the northern tip of Case Inlet. The project area is a one-mile-long section of the Potlatch transmission line that includes crossing 0.6 miles of North Bay. The project will result in a reduction of marine structures, thereby improving aquatic habitat conditions in North Bay. The construction process includes the removal of existing structures, which will result in elevated turbidity in the immediate project area. The project will include installation of 4 permanent piles and up to 12 temporary piles. Potential impacts will be short- term and localized. All in-water work will occur during the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) approved in-water work window. Conservation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Based on a review of the action area; project actions and timing; and federally-listed species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat that could occur in the action area, the following determinations have been proposed. Table S1: Determination Summary Common Name Scientific Name Determination Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus No effect Bull trout critical habitat NA No effect Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus May affect but not likely to adversely affect Marbled murrelet critical habitat NA No effect Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina No effect Northern spotted owl critical habitat NA No effect Puget Sound Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha May affect but not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon critical habitat NA May affect but not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss May affect but not likely to adversely affect Steelhead trout critical habitat NA Provisional:May affect but not likely to adversely affect Southern Resident killer whale Orcinus orca May affect but not likely to adversely affect Killer whale critical habitat NA No effect Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae No effect Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus No effect Steller sea lion critical habitat NA No effect Bocaccio rockfish Sebastes paucispinis No effect Canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger No effect Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus No effect EFH Pacific Salmon NA No adverse affect EFH Federally-Managed Groundfish NA No adverse affect P:\e\EPSYOOOOo002\0600INFO\EP\Biologiwl Evaluation\Final Biological Eeolumimdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................i 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................5 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................6 3.1 Project Overview.......................................................................................................6 3.2 Construction Equipment............................................................................................9 3.3 Construction Schedule and Design Year................................................................. 10 4.0 PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA....................................................................... 11 4.1 Project Area............................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Action Area............................................................................................................. 11 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE................................................................................... 16 5.1 Uplands Overview................................................................................................... 16 5.2 Wetlands.................................................................................................................. 16 5.3 North Bay................................................................................................................ 17 5.4 Streams.................................................................................................................... 17 5.5 Marine Nearshore Pathways and Indicators............................................................ 18 5.6 Fish Resources in Case Inlet....................................................................................20 6.0 SPECIES ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................21 6.1 Bull Trout................................................................................................................21 6.2 Marbled Murrelet.....................................................................................................21 6.3 Northern Spotted Owl..............................................................................................22 6.4 Puget Sound Chinook..............................................................................................22 6.5 Steelhead Trout........................................................................................................24 6.6 Southern Resident Killer Whale..............................................................................24 6.7 Humpback Whale....................................................................................................25 6.8 Steller Sea Lion.......................................................................................................26 6.9 Rockfish...................................................................................................................27 7.0 IMPACT MINIMIZATION MEASURES......................................................................29 8.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS......................................................................................................30 8.1 Salmonid Direct Effects...........................................................................................30 8.2 Salmonid Indirect Effects........................................................................................33 8.3 Effects to Salmonid Baseline Habitat Conditions...................................................34 8.4 Salmonid Critical Habitat........................................................................................35 8.5 Marbled Murrelet.....................................................................................................35 8.6 Northern Spotted Owl..............................................................................................36 8.7 Southern Resident Killer Whale..............................................................................36 8.8 Humpback Whale....................................................................................................36 8.9 Steller Sea Lion.......................................................................................................36 8.10 Rockfish...............................................:...................................................................36 8.11 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions..................................................................37 9.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT.........................................................................................38 9.1 Background..............................................................................................................38 9.2 Description of EFH..................................................................................................38 9.3 Potential Effects.......................................................................................................38 P.\e\EPSYOO000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Ecaluation.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page ii 10.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS................................................................................39 10.1 Bull Trout................................................................................................................39 10.2 Bull Trout Critical Habitat.......................................................................................39 10.3 Marbled Murrelet.....................................................................................................39 10.4 Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat...........................................................................40 10.5 Northern Spotted Owl..............................................................................................40 10.6 Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat....................................................................40 10.7 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon.................................................................................40 10.8 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat.......................................................41 10.9 Puget Sound Steelhead Trout..................................................................................42 10.10 Puget Sound Steelhead Trout Critical Habitat.........................................................43 10.11 Southern Resident Killer Whale..............................................................................43 10.12 Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat....................................................44 10.13 Humpback Whale....................................................................................................44 10.14 Steller Sea Lion.......................................................................................................44 10.15 Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat..............................................................................44 10.16 Bocaccio..................................................................................................................45 10.17 Canary Rockfish......................................................................................................45 10.18 Yelloweye Rockfish................................................................................................45 10.19 Essential Fish Habitat..............................................................................................45 11.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................46 LIST OF TABLES Table SI: Determination Summary.............................................................................................i Table 1: USFWS and NMFS Listed Species and Critical Habitat in Mason County................ 1 Table 2: Construction Equipment List, Use, and Reference Maximum Noise Levels.............. 9 Table 3: Proposed Construction Schedule............................................................................... 10 Table 4: Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Table........................................................................... 12 Table 5: Marine Nearshore Pathways and Indicators Summary.............................................. 19 Table 6: Habitat Project Effects Matrix................................................................................... 34 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Vicinity Map...............................................................................................................2 Figure2: Site Map......................................................................................................................3 Figure3: Site Layout Map.........................................................................................................4 Figure 4: Terrestrial Action Area Map .................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Aquatic Action Area Map ........................................................................................ 15 APPENDICES Appendix A: USFWS Species List Appendix B: NMFS Species List Appendix C: Design Drawings Appendix D: Site Photographs Appendix E: NMFS Pile Driver Calculator P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\E%Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evalualioadoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page iii Acronyms and Abbreviations BE Biological Evaluation BMP Best Management Practice CM conservation measure Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dBA A-weighted decibel DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc. Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act HUC Hydrologic Unit Code LWD large woody debris MP mile post NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service OHWM ordinary high water mark PCE Primary Constituent Element PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council PHS Priority Habitats and Species RMS root-mean-square ROW right-of-way SEL sound exposure level SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure SR State Route SRKW Southern Resident Killer Whale TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control TPU Tacoma Public Utilities USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation 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) prepared this Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Potlatch Transmission Lines — North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project. The purpose of this project is to replace transmission line towers originally constructed in 1925. One of the marine towers is leaning and all show signs of deterioration and fatigue. The project will remove four existing towers in North Bay and replace them with one new 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. The project site is located in Mason County, Washington (Sections 16 and 17, Township 22 north, Range 01 west, W.M.). North Bay is located at the northern tip of Case Inlet (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). North Bay is split by Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 14 (Kennedy-Goldborough Basin) to the west and WRIA 15 (Kitsap East Basin) to the east. North Bay is also referred to as U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 17110019 (Puget Sound Watershed). The project area is a one-mile-long section of the Potlatch transmission line that includes crossing 0.6 miles of North Bay. The purpose of this BE is to identify the potential presence of any Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species, critical habitat, or Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that could be affected by the project. Table 1 provides a summary of the USFWS Mason County list and species listed by NMFS that could occur in North Bay. Appendix A includes the Mason County USFWS species list; Appendix B includes the NMFS salmonid species list, marine mammal list, and other fish list. Table 1: USFWS and NMFS Listed Species and Critical Habitat in Mason County Federal Service with # Common Name Scientific Name Status Jurisdiction 1. Bull trout SaNelinus confluentus Threatened USFWS 2. Bull trout critical habitat NA Designated USFWS 3. Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened USFWS 4. Marbled murrelet critical habitat NA Designated USFWS 5. Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened USFWS 6. Northern spotted owl critical habitat NA Designated USFWS 7. Puget Sound Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened NMFS 8. Chinook salmon critical habitat NA Designated NMFS 9. 1 Puget Sound Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NMFS 10. Steelhead trout critical habitat NA Under Review NMFS 11. Southern Resident killer whale Orcinus orca Endangered NMFS 12. Killer whale critical habitat NA Designated NMFS 13. Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered NMFS 14. Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus Threatened NMFS 15. Steller sea lion critical habitat NA Designated NMFS 16. Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Endangered NMFS 17. Canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger Threatened NMFS 18. 1 Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Threatened NMFS P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600MFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Find Biological Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 1 A i � � •t ..yo., �2 ( ( +. �«:, rant J' ,� u Map= 1u 1. � Bar eac ki hl .P ILl� - v tya Pr+t. .S- t•� Nam rlk 1' S air ' 3 <=�a , i 4na n '• ---- _i_ a lk •a , O l Y Al P I•r�tf * i! Th, n / . A anarw 1 g I� Fr '. of L pl ' MsiJ na MI Ciariooa;•, - � _ 'L- � A 1b,. Mo �# I O N p Mr Cm a,.,p•I (�' _ ice — 1' rJ� pch •M,U."If MI Andanw .r yyy"N A T-•4-f� L M.i rc, ,1a ! =sI PO rE w .1c.ro�0 L w M Crrh.bolnsna erom.,�r DuckA n J y as wry 'r'.. K F , p-..TtM Mrn I u� F� ORE rIT SII erA le 'p R K WIT .,t g6ad ua �y��J in y1 E M•J:Sca � ��'' i � - ,or'BREMER P} "` s. r!•, a.e b -.,4`t � as Uaan Navy Yar Cdv Mt Yes ni(t,n i ! K �faYMyw J y 5 PROJECT AREA w i` U/ a•� K kWi(a1r. iJlkCaaYp �! r J�,. 2,l kStlihuff!- u b ['wrT t •'�^ � shoo .<II I I T t O N P�L FOR E 5 T. No i. ' our r aw ° 1 �y t t Lk •DRa, �...� ez .a M Bur Zan+T i •pJp� a -.'�- _. _ �• yy��,, _ /•. i LF. _ �- 4hieNan Neeo _ —. � -j+-. 1 (lJ i 2 � /•lakO1J`•� (,IM�� r 1, 1. .s..rrn tom-'`- f ',:.��n �R aa� �-✓ e "=gist E , M A N e�fiDn ''y/ y `� Co ±� ore rlW Y Y Y -per -Fir poll"_ � r 77��vv�'� `�' '� _ •.x_.• •� � pup kin CA t 4 i 0LY uth 6a S^ C c MCCle z rS4 E 7 LE11; �' ? f- ('�• Mar a fE trvAT .ham , i(ri1aNN Still J- tsowea Sr ATE E EST r , - - I lof ` z , OhuD �1 Will nin '4 .iNat we ..r s «VNW .r -•r.. J C-1.4MTn• Vag sai;. �/ � - —plan., _ Ge 'PL .rend Wan 15 E4Dohlyn' .�� LIB Source.TOPOI National Geographic Vicinity Map N Potlatch Transmission Lines- North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project 0 5 10 EPSY00000002 Figure 1 DAVID EVANS Scale in Miles February 2012 n ASSOCIATES vv ✓�a!=.��,, J� ... fir' Y � t N1 ? _ Source:TOPO!National Geographic USGS Site Map ,•_ Potlatch Transmission North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project =04= OR i•�i���� • r H+ 1 41, Ilk it �447[ �_-'s jra i -3/ Stringing Site 1 / NW 1 . EX 1 .3 m 302 EX-2 NW-2 EX-3 e F F� J EX-4 NW-3 Wetland A Stringing Site 2 ' Z W c Q + •�� pEp m C `1 o 5 a " U� - d n> m o O 4'u g? Road Wetland A Depth Contour(meters) ® Remove Structure Site Layout Map W p N 0 a e. • Sounding(meters) O Set New Structure Potlatch Transmission Lines- g e North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project Coast Line Stringing Location e EPSY0000-0002Mr t a 0 250 500 750 1,000 Figure 3 DAVIO VAN• E ...,wssomAT[s�.� Feet ol February 2012 This map was created Dy David Evans and Assocates.Inc(DEA)for Electrical Power Systems Inc Accuracy and currency depend upon the source data at the time d 5 acquired DEA makes no representatan or warranty as to the conectness el the mfornabon depicted on this map It is intended for limited planning purposes as agreed to between DEA and as client and s not su Gab le for tlesig,.s rvey.constructron_or other uses or for other projects It�s strictly forbidder,to modify,sell.distribute or reproduce this map for any reason without the wr,tten consent of IDEA 2.0 METHODOLOGY DEA reviewed existing literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, habitat requirements, and other pertinent biological parameters specific to the project area. DEA also reviewed published information on local critical areas for evidence of wetlands, streams, and potential wildlife habitat.DEA prepared this report following the review of project plans,review of public domain resource data, and multiple site visits. DEA reviewed the following primary resources: • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)—Salmonscape: http://wdfw.wa. og v/mgpping/salmonscape/index.html • WDFW—Priority Habitats and Species(PHS)data: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ • Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington(WDFW 2000).Available at: http://wdfW.wa.gov/publications/00427/wdfwOO427,pdf • Report of Marine Bird and Marine Mammal Component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, For July 1992 to December 1999 Period(WDFW 2005).Available at: http://wdfw.wa.goy/publications/01135/wdfw01135.pdf • A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries(Williams et al. 1975) • Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors—Water Resource Inventory Area 14, Kennedy- Goldborough Basin(Kuttel 2002) • Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors—Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (East)(Haring 2000) • Breeding Birds of Washington State: Location Data and Predicted Distributions(Smith et al. 1997) • Terrestrial Mammals of Washington State: Location Data and Predicted Distributions (Johnson and Cassidy 1997) • Amphibians and Reptiles of Washington State: Location Data and Predicted Distributions (Dvornich, McAllister, and Aubry 1997) • Orca Network web page:http://www.orcanetwork.ora/ • Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Data—Appendix C: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/di gl ib/washington-seabir&88-06-Appendix-C-P494- 506 pdf • NUTS Technical Memo 27: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publ ications/techmemos/tm27/tm27.htm • Geographic Distribution of Puget Sound Fishes: Maps and Data Source Sheets. Volumes 1 —3: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/4282 P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluyion\Final Biological Evalumioadoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 5 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 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.A complete set of design drawings is contained in Appendix C. 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 existing 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 upslope, 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. No critical areas exist where the new upland structures are proposed to be constructed or along the existing access roads. Most of the construction would occur within the existing Potlatch transmission line right-of-way (ROW). A small amount of construction work would occur outside the existing ROW in order to provide suitable site access. Work outside the ROW is associated with improving site access for the upland structures by widening existing roads so larger trucks can safely turn off the highway and reach the project area. 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 P:b\EPSY00000002\0600INF0\EP\Biological Evaluntion\Final Biological Evduationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 6 • Erection of new mid-bay tower • Installation of new first circuit conductors • 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 (EX-1 to EX4) and proposed (NW-1 to NW-3) structures, and the two stringing sites, is depicted in Figure 3. The three primary construction tasks are described below. 3.1.1 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 ROW. 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. Aquatic Structures Construction of the new structure in North Bay will be performed from a barge. The barge will be large enough to include a crane; deck space for storage; and assembly of structure P:XeIEPSY00000002\O600INFO\EP1Biological EvaluationTinal Biological Evaluationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 7 components, generators, and miscellaneous project equipment. The typical dimension of a large barge is 175 feet by 35 feet by 11 feet. This is the largest potential size of a barge that could be used for this project, and the actual size may be smaller. By design, barges are shallow-draft vessels. The barge would be situated and the work timed to avoid grounding. The new aquatic 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 8 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 or steel poles 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(actual pile size may be smaller). 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 a single pile, but several hours are required for set-up. A bubble curtain and pile cushion will be used to attenuate noise generated during installation of the piles. 3.1.2 String New Transmission Conductor Wire setups will be required on each side of the ba a few hundred feet upland from p q y, pthe 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. Suitable clearings already exist at both proposed stringing sites. 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 circuit, it will take approximately ten days to establish wire setups, remove the old conductors and sag,and dead-end and clip the new conductors. P:\ekEPSY00000002106001NFOTPIBiolomeal EvaluWionTmal Biological EvaluMiondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 8 3.1.3 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 a barge. 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. 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. 3.2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Installation of new marine and upland structures, demolition of existing marine and upland structures, and stringing activities will require several different types of construction equipment. Table 2 includes a list of project equipment, as well as the expected use and the typical maximum noise level as measured from 50 feet away. Maximum noise levels during construction could reach 110 A-weighted decibels (dBA) when pile driving occurs as required for installing the foundations. This level of noise would be above existing background levels. Table 2:Construction Equipment List,Use,and Reference Maximum Noise Levels Equipment Expected Use Lmax(dBA) Excavator Foundation excavation 81 Backhoe Secondary excavation and transport 78 Crane Materials handling,tower installation and removal 81 Pile Driver Install piles 110 Concrete Mixer Truck Foundation construction 79 Dump Truck Material delivery and removal 76 Down-hole Auger Pole installation 84 Dozer Earthwork and clearing 82 Pickup Trucks General project work 75 Man Lift Tower construction 75 Equipment Trailers Storage NA Flatbed Trucks Transport of supplies and equipment 74 Barge with Crane Installing marine piles and work platform 81 Barge for Supplies Equipment storage NA Tug Boat Movement of barges unknown P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatioadoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 9 Equipment Expected Use Lmax(dBA) Skiffs Work around marine foundations unknown Generators Power for hand tools and small equipment 81 Spool trucks Stringing new wire unknown Helicopter Attaching spools and wire attachment to towers 70 3.3 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 ordinary high water mark (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 3 outlines the proposed construction schedule. Table 3: 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 1/10114 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 Foundation 5/28/14 5/29/14 2 days 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 Upland and Marine Line 2 Towers(4 Total) 6/16/14 6/20/14 5 days String/Sag Line 2 Conductors 6/23/14 6/30/14 6 days Energize Line 2 7/1/14 7/2/14 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 Upland and Marine Line 1 Towers(4 Total) 7/15/14 7122/14 6 days 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 Temporary Structures 8/4/14 1 8/29/14 1 20 days P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evalmtiondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 10 4.0 PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA 4.1 PROJECT AREA The project area is defined as the immediate vicinity of the proposed action. The project area includes approximately one mile of transmission line corridor where project-related activities are proposed. This includes the area where new structures will be constructed, the area where the old structures will be removed, and the staging and stringing sites. Site photographs are contained in Appendix D. 4.2 ACTION AREA The action area includes all areas that could be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action, and is not limited to the actual work area(project area). The action area represents the geographic extent of the physical, biological, and chemical impacts of the project. The project area and secondary project features are considered when defining the action area. The action area will include potential effects from visual and audible disturbance, terrestrial habitat impacts, and impacts to aquatic environments. Second project features include P � P q az'Y P J staging or stringing areas. Impact pile driving is proposed in North Bay, but no blasting is required. The proposed project is a maintenance action that will construct and dismantle transmission line towers along an existing transmission line corridor. Work below the OHWM in North Bay will occur. Upland sites will be accessed via existing roads, although minor roadway improvements are proposed. The project will not provide additional capacity or facilitate additional development in the action area. The terrestrial action area includes the northern portion of Allyn, a golf course, single family homes, open space, and infrastructure(see Figure 4). Infrastructure in the action area includes State Route (SR)302, SR 3, and E. North Bay Road. These roads pass very close to the existing and proposed upland towers. The extent of the terrestrial action area is based on background or existing noise levels (ambient noise) and project-related activities. Ambient noise of roadway infrastructure can be quantified by accessing average daily traffic volumes. The 2010 average daily traffic volume of SR 302 near mile post(MP) 1.26 is 3,700 (west side of bay); at MP 7.69 (east side of bay), the average daily traffic volume is 4,900 (WSDOT 2010). Based on a vehicle speed of 55 miles per hour and volume of vehicles per hour ranging from 155 to 204, the sound level (dBA Ley [hour]) at 50 feet is estimated at 64.9 (WSDOT 2011).Another method to determine background noise levels irrespective of traffic volumes is by using population density. The population density per square mile near Allyn in 2010 was estimated at 236.6. According to the 2011 WSDOT 'Biological Assessment Manual, a population density of 236 will result in an estimated daytime noise level of 40 dBA. Noise levels generated during construction are based on the type of equipment used and methods of construction. Table 2 included a list of project equipment, as well as the expected use and the typical maximum noise level as measured from 50 feet away. Based on the information in Table 2, pile driving will be the loudest construction-related activity, which is anticipated to reach 110 dBA. However, noise will typically be below 110 dBA and is anticipated to average 84 dB. Table 4 summarizes construction noise attenuation based on anticipated ambient noise levels,type of construction equipment,and construction methods. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFOTP\BiologieW EvaWWion\Final Biological Ecaluaziondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 11 Table 4: Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Table Construction Noise Pile Driving Noise Ambient Distance (Point source+soft site) (Point source+soft site) Noise without Ambient Noise (feet) (attenuation=-7.5 dB) (attenuation=-7.5 dB) Traffic with Traffic 50 84 110 40 64.9 100 76.5 102.5 40 64.9 200 69 95 40 64.9 400 61.5 87.5 40 64.9 800 54 80 40 64.9 1,600 46.5 72.5 40 64.9 3,200 39 65 40 64.9 6,400 57.5 40 64.9 12,800 50 40 64.9 25,600 42.5 40 64.9 51,200 - 35 40 64.9 Based on the data in Table 4, pile driving would reach ambient noise levels without traffic within approximately 7.3 miles (38,400 feet) of the project site. However, when traffic noise is included as ambient noise, the distance noise from pile driving will travel from the project area is estimated to be approximately 0.61 miles (3,200 feet). Another method used to estimate the extent of the terrestrial action area is to use the formula D = Do * 10((consvuction Noise—Traffic Noise in dBAy«) with project-specific data,the equation becomes D= 50 * 10(84-64.9/10) Therefore, D =4,064 feet or 0.77 miles. Based on the close proximity of two highways to the project site, data in Table 4, and results of the aforementioned formula, the terrestrial action area will extend 0.8 miles from the project area. The terrestrial action area is depicted in Figure 4. P:b\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\FmW Biological Evaluationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 12 X, a *w �# s e' .. t; Y.Y 4} ♦f Terrestrial Action Area 0 8 ml H 4. i ? L ) t r30 �` ,f�•� :! ? Stringing;Site 1 NW EX2 EX-3 EX-4 EX-1 t ` ; N W-2 NW-3 ' rn Stringing Site 2 • j 4 i.7m i , /n o m rn 0 Z j W OL 1 _ E y o a �r U c t m n> m o �am =WN ® Remove Structure Terrestrial Action Area Terrestrial Action Area C U 8 .. o O Set New Structure Road Centerline U To Z a a Stringing Location - Depth Contour(meters) Potlatch Transmission Lines- T is North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project g , • Sounding(meters) e o EPSY0000-0002 �� - N L Q ® Ap"O IATZ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Figure 4 _u.o A•SOCiAT[.-c. Miles 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 d a acquired.DEA makes no representation or warranty as to the correctness of the information depicted on this map. It is Intended for limited planning purposes as agreed to between DEA and is caent and a not suitable for design.survey,constructor,or other uses or for other projects.It is strictly forbidden to modify,tall,distribute or reproduce this map for any reason without the written consent of DEA. The extent of the aquatic action area was determined by use of the NMFS pile-driver spreadsheet (last updated January 26, 2009). This model estimates the peak and root-mean- square (RMS) pressure, as well as the accumulated sound exposure level (SEL) received by fishes. Inputs are based on pile type and pile diameter. The diameter of the largest marine piles is 30 inches. The installation of a 30-inch-diameter steel pile will create a sound level from a single strike of 212 dBpeak, 186 dBRms, and 195 dB SEL (WSDOT 2008a). The estimated number of daily strikes is ). This information is inserted into the NMFS spreadsheet, which then generates different distance thresholds, including onset of .physical injury based on fish size, and a behavioral threshold (see Appendix E). The behavioral threshold is the overall extent or maximum distance of the aquatic action area, while the cumulative SEL dB based on fish size is where physical injury could occur. These distances and areas of potential impact are depicted in Figure 5. In summary, the distances to the various thresholds are as follows: • Onset of Physical Injury: 25 meters(82 feet); • Onset of Physical Injury for fish>2 grams: 803 meters(2,634.5 feet); • Onset of Physical Injury for fish<2 grams: 1,483 meters(4,865.5 feet); • Behavior Modification: 2,512 meters(1.6 mile). It is important to note that these distances do not factor in the use of a bubble curtain or pile cushion, both of which are proposed. Some studies have concluded effects to salmonids will be limited to within a 1,000-foot radius around each pile (Feist 1991). This distance is currently used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)to define the aquatic action area in their Programmatic Biological Evaluation for 10 Activities in the State of Washington (Corps 2008). P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Pinal Biological Evaluation.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 14 J� Onset of Physical Injury for fish less than 2 g = 4,865 ft `,tea""► 1 ~.^t �',� - J NW-2 EX-2 Onset of Physical Injury for fish more than 2 g = 2,634 ft / EX-3 f Physical Injury (Peak dB) = 87 ft JEW Behavioral Modification Area -16 � c E �I g t « _ 5 a 5 O Aquatic Physical Injury(Peak dB) ® Remove Structure Aquatic Action Area Map Behavioral Modification Area �� Set New Structure o Aquatic Physical Injury(Fish>=2g) Depth Contour(meters) Potlatch Transmission Lines- g E Aquatic Physical Injury(Fish<2g) North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project EPSY0000-0002 uuu Q e DAViO 6VAN1111 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Figure 5 ,�°-'°�°�^*�'�•° 9 Miles N March 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 t—A 6 acquired DEA makes no representation or warranty as to the correctness of the Information depicted on this map II is intended for limited planning purposes as agreed to between DEA and ds client and is not suitable for design,survey,construction,or other uses or for other projects It a strictly forbade,to modify,sell,distribute or reproduce this map for any reason without the wiitlen consent of DEA. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 5.1 UPLANDS OVERVIEW 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 vicinity of Allyn. Allyn is 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, SR 3, and E. North Bay Road. SR 302 parallels the eastern shoreline and northern tip of North Bay, while SR 3 and E. North Bay Road are the primary thoroughfares 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 farther to the west and east of the bay. The lower bench or flatter area between North Bay and the slope is generally dominated by deciduous species, but some conifers are present. Red alder (Alnus rubra) and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are the most prevalent species. The slope is dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), but the lower portions contain some madrone (Arbutus menziesii) trees. Other species of trees such as black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and introduced ornamental species are also present. Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) is prevalent directly under the transmission line, primarily along the east side of North Bay. Other upland species present in the project vicinity include Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon), red huckleberry (Vaccinum parvifolium), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Site photographs are contained in Appendix D. 5.2 WETLANDS One wetland (Wetland A) was identified as occurring within the immediate project footprint during the site investigation. Wetland A is located at the set of structures near the eastern shoreline of North Bay, between SR 302 and the bay(see Figure 3).The structures are on fill material, which likely includes soils excavated during construction. Wetland A was rated as a Category III wetland based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised(Hruby 2004). Wetland A consists of palustrine emergent and palustrine forest classes (Cowardin et al. 1979). The vegetation in Wetland A is variable due to different levels of disturbance. Vegetation under the transmission line is maintained and trees are occasionally cut down under the wires due to height restrictions. Numerous recently-cut red alder trees were in the wetland. 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, poplar, giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), soft rush (Juncus effusus), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), and sword fern. Several non-native species are also present including Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Himalayan blackberry(Rubus armeniacus),and reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea). P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Eval=iondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 16 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. 5.3 NORTH BAY North Bay is a generally shallow estuary with extensive tide flats that are exposed during periods of low tide, primarily to the north of the transmission line. Site photographs are contained in Appendix D. 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 silt and sand. Aquatic vegetation along the upper tide line consisted primarily of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), Lyngbye's sedge (Carex lyngbyei), 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 nuttallii), 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 saccharina) 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. Documented water quality issues in North Bay are associated with elevated levels of fecal coliform. The 2008 303(d)-5 list for North Bay in WRIA 14 and 15 (excluding Case Inlet) includes seven sites that exceed water quality criteria for fecal coliform. 5.4 STREAMS 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), and rainbow trout 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. P.\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evalmfiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 17 Coulter Creek enters the northern tip of North Bay approximately one mile north of the project area. All anadromous 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 million chum fry (Haring 2000). These hatchery fish are not from or released into Coulter Creek, but are rather from eggs supplied by other hatcheries that, once large enough, 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 (LWD), and riparian width. According to WDFW (Scott Moore, pers. comm. 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, WDFW, pers. comm. 2012). Steelhead trout have occasionally been observed in Coulter Creek, but their use of the creek is apparently limited and sporadic (Larry Phillips, WDFW, pers. comm. 2012). The steelhead trout in this area are winter-run fish. In general, winter-run steelhead return as adults to tributaries in Puget Sound from December to April, and spawn from January to mid- June, with peak spawning occurring from mid-April through May (NMFS 2005). Smoltification and seaward migration occurs from April to mid-May (NMFS 2005). Data specific to "South Sound Inlets" indicates entry to freshwater occurs from mid-October through mid-March, with spawning occurring from February through April. 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 through December. Both resident and anadromous cutthroat trout utilize Coulter Creek. 5.5 MARINE NEARSHORE PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS Existing marine nearshore and watershed conditions were quantified by assessing important pathways and indicators.Table 5 summarizes the baseline conditions for North Bay. P:\e\EPSYOOO00002\0600INF0\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Ecaluationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 18 Table 5: Marine Nearshore Pathways and Indicators Summary BASELINE CONDITIONS— PATHWAY INDICATORS NORTH BAY COMMENTS Water Quality Temperature Properly Functioning No data or obvious reason to downgrade temperature. Turbidity Properly Functioning No data or obvious reason to downgrade temperature. The bay becomes highly turbid when windy,but this is to be expected in a shallow bay with a muddy substrate. Fecal Coliform Not Properly Functioning Seven listings on 2008 303(d)-5 list. Dissolved Oxygen(DO) Functioning At Risk Case Inlet immediately south of North Bay has 303(d)- 5 listings for dissolved oxygen. Chemical Contamination& Functioning At Risk Since there are multiple listings for fecal coliform it can Nutrients be assumed nutrient levels are high. Sediment Sediment Quality Properly Functioning Assumed to be properly functioning. Habitat Elements Depth Properly Functioning Where present,fill is typically limited to the uppermost beach zone.Depth is slightly degraded in the uppermost beach zone along portions of the bay where development is present.Not yet functioning at risk,but close. Substrate Not Property Functioning Commercial shellfish operations have altered the substrate. Slope Properly Functioning Presence of deep fill or bulkheads very limited. Shoreline Modification Functioning At Risk Some level of modification is present along a large percentage of the shoreline. Large Woody Debris Functioning At Risk Historic logging and development has reduced the amount of large woody debris along the shoreline. Overwater Structures Functioning At Risk Docks are generally limited to the shoreline in Alynn. Aquatic Vegetation Not Property Functioning Commercial shellfish operations have altered aquatic vegetation.High nutrient levels potentially increased abundance of ulva. Biota Epibenthic and Pelagic Properly Functioning No data but general assumption is epibenthic Zooplankton crustaceans are abundant. Benthic Infauna Properly Functioning No data but general assumption is annelids and bivalves,larval insects,phoronids,amphipod crustaceans.anthozoans,brittle stars,etc.,are abundant. Forage Fish Not Properly Functioning Surf smelt spawning has been documented in the project area.Habitat has been degraded due to shoreline modification/armoring and commercial shellfish operations. Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Functioning At Risk Roads are located within 200 feet of the shoreline along most of North Bay.Density increases where residential development has occurred. Disturbance History Functioning At Risk This indicator is variable in that some areas are Not Properly Functioning while others are Properly Functioning.Disturbance comes in many forms. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biolo,-ical Ecaluarion\Final Biological Ecal=ion.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 19 5.6 FISH RESOURCES IN CASE INLET The following summary of fish resources includes reported use in Case Inlet and is not specific to the project or action areas. Project or action area specific data is not available. Fish use in the action area is assumed to be a subset of the following species, some of which are common, while others are very rare. Fish resources in Case Inlet may include Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), big skate (Raja binoculata), Pacific electric ray (Torpedo californica), longnose skate (Raja rhina), ratfish (Hydrolagus collier), Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallast), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), chum salmon, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), longfin smelt(Spirinchus 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 jlavidus), 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 jordani), crested blenny (Anoplarchus purpurescens), snake prickleback (Lumpenus sagitta), crescent gunnel (Pholis laeta), blackeye goby (Coryphopterus nicholsi), bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus), brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus), copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongates), quillback rockbass (Sebastes maliger), sablefish (Anoplopoma 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 (Rhamphocottus richardsoni), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), northern spearnose poacher (Agonopsis emmelane), sturgeon poacher (Agonus acipenserinus), pygmy poacher (Odontopyxis trispinosa), blacktip poacher (Xeneretmus lations), bluespotted poacher (Xeneretmus triacanthus), Pacific spiny lumpsucker(Eumicrotremus orbis), marbled snailfish (Liparis dennyr), showy snailfish (Liparis pulchellus), Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus), arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias), rex sole(Glyptocephalus 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 (Platichthys melanostictus) (Miller and Borton 1980). Other species not mentioned above may be present either throughout the year, seasonally, or periodically. P:\c\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Biological Evaluafion\Final Biological Evalualiondoe Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 20 6.0 SPECIES ANALYSIS 6.1 BULL TROUT Federal Status Bull trout are listed as a threatened species in Washington under the ESA. The USFWS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Critical Habitat Critical habitat was designated on October 26, 2005, and then revised on October 18, 2010. Based on a review of Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat in Washington State (USFWS 2010), no designated critical habitat occurs in the action area. Occurrence Bull trout have not been documented in any streams entering North Bay or Case Inlet. Tributaries that drain to North Bay are generally small, not supported by snow runoff, and emanate from low-elevation headwaters. These types of streams typically do not provide suitable bull trout spawning habitat. Therefore, bull trout are not likely to be present in either local streams or adjacent nearshore marine waters. 6.2 MARBLED MURRELET Federal Status The marbled murrelet is listed as a threatened species in Washington under the ESA. The USFWS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Critical Habitat Critical habitat was designated in 1996. Final designation for the marbled murrelet is described and mapped in Federal Register 61:26256-26320 (1996). Critical habitat has been designated in Mason County, but is limited to the extreme northwest corner of the county on the west side of the Hood Canal—over 20 miles west/northwest of the project area. No designated critical habitat occurs in the action area. Occurrence No suitable nesting habitat occurs in the action area.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 action area was one to two animals observed near Rocky Bay during July 1992 through 1999 aerial surveys (Nysewander et al. 2005). Rocky Bay is approximately two miles south of the project area and is outside the action area. The abundance of marbled murrelets in marine waters during the nesting season may be related to the availability of nesting habitat in the surrounding area. Based on existing habitat conditions, it appears unlikely that marbled murrelets utilize the action area associated with North Bay, but a few do utilize Case Inlet for foraging during the breeding season. Based on P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Ecalwtiondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 21 the available data and multiple site visits, marbled murrelets do not nest in the action area and are likely to only infrequently forage in the action area. 6.3 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL Federal Status The northern spotted owl is listed as a threatened species in Washington under the ESA. The USFWS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Critical Habitat The revised designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl became effective on September 12, 2008. Critical habitat occurs in Mason County, but it is limited to the extreme northwest corner of the county in the vicinity of the Olympic National Forest. This area is defined as belonging to Sub-unit 26: Olympic Peninsula, but is located approximately 20 miles northwest of the action area. Therefore, no designated critical habitat occurs in the action area. Occurrence Spotted owls require large forested areas containing a relatively high proportion of mature or old growth coniferous forest. No suitable habitat is present in the action area. The PHS data obtained for this project did not contain any documented spotted owl nest sites in the project vicinity(WDFW 2012). Given the absence of suitable habitat, spotted owls are not present in the action area. 6.4 PUGET SOUND CHINOOK Federal Status The Puget Sound Chinook salmon is listed as a threatened species in Washington under the ESA.The NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Critical Habitat Designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon includes Nearshore Marine Areas (Unit 19). This unit includes most nearshore zones from the extreme high water out to a depth of 30 meters.The action area contains designated critical habitat. Based on a review of the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, August 2005 (NOAA 2005b), critical habitat includes North Bay, but not any of the streams flowing into it. Primary Constituent Elements in estuarine/marine critical habitat include: • Estuarine areas free of obstructions and excessive predation with: (i) Water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; P:\e\EPSYO0000002\0600INFOTP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 22 (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and (iii) Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. • Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation;and (h) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. • Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Occurrence Williams et al. (1975)reported that only two of the eleven large salmon-producing streams in WRIA 14 contain consistent small runs of fall Chinook. They are Deer and Sherwood creeks. Use of these streams by Chinook salmon is minimal due to very low flows during migration and spawning periods. Spawning migration starts in mid-September and is usually completed by early November, while juvenile outmigration occurs from mid-February through mid-July (Williams et al. 1975). Kuttel (2002) stated that the independent tributaries to south Puget Sound are not typical Chinook habitat because of small stream size and low flows during the late summer/early fall spawning season. The current low escapements are likely the result of past hatchery plants or Chinook straying from either current production at south Puget Sound hatcheries or viable South Sound natural populations, and would have little chance of perpetuating themselves through natural production.The action area was not included as an area with historic Chinook salmon use(Miller and Borten 1980). Coulter Creek is documented as being utilized by Chinook salmon and is located to the north of the transmission line crossing North Bay. Therefore, Chinook salmon must pass through the action area as returning adults and outmigrating juveniles. According to WDFW (Scott Moore, pers. comm. 2012), Chinook salmon that enter Coulter Creek 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 (Scott Moore, pers. comm. 2012). Based on the available data, both juvenile and adult Chinook salmon will migrate through the action area during the spring (outmigrating juveniles)and fall(returning adults). P:k\EPSV00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological B aluation\Final Biological EvW=iondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 23 6.5 STEELHEAD TROUT Federal Status Puget Sound steelhead trout is listed as a threatened species in Washington under the ESA. The NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Critical Habitat Critical habitat has yet to be designated for steelhead trout, but is currently under review. Occurrence Winter-run steelhead trout have been reported to utilize Coulter, Sherwood, and Rocky creeks (Haring 2000). No summer steelhead stocks are identified in East WRIA 15. Coulter Creek is located to the north of the transmission line crossing North Bay. Therefore, steelhead trout must pass through the action area as returning adults and outmigrating juveniles. According to Kuttel (2002), adult winter steelhead trout typically enter freshwater from November through March. The majority of juveniles move downstream during the spring and summer. Data specific to outmigrating juvenile steelhead trout in North Bay streams was not available, but winter steelhead typically enter estuarine habitats between March and April in other Puget Sound systems. Steelhead trout have not been observed by personnel at the Coulter Creek hatchery (Scott Moore, pers. comm. 2012). Steelhead trout have occasionally been reported in Coulter Creek, but their use of the creek is apparently limited and sporadic (Larry Phillips, WDFW, pers. comm. 2012). Steelhead trout in this area are winter-run fish. In general, winter-run steelhead return as adults to tributaries in Puget Sound from December to April and spawn from January to mid-June, with peak spawning occurring from mid-April through May (NMFS 2005). Smoltification and seaward migration occurs from April to mid- May (NMFS 2005). Data specific to "South Sound Inlets" indicates that entry to freshwater occurs from mid-October through mid-March, with spawning occurring from February through April. The action area was not included as an area with historic steelhead trout use (Miller and Borton 1980). Based on the available data, use of the action area by steelhead trout is rare and sporadic, and likely does not occur on an annual basis. In the unlikely event that steelhead trout were to be present in the action area during construction,timing would be as outlined above for returning adult entering freshwater and outmigrating juveniles. 6.6 SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE Federal Status The southern resident killer whale (SRKW) is listed as a threatened species in Washington under the ESA.The NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Critical Habitat Critical habitat was designated on November 29, 2006 (50 CFR Part 226). Puget Sound is designated as critical habitat, excluding areas less than 20 feet deep. This exclusion would P:b\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 24 negate the entire project area from being critical habitat. Areas that would be considered critical habitat would include the southern portion of North Bay and all of Case Inlet. Therefore, critical habitat is within the southern portion of the action area. Primary constituent elements(PCEs) include water quality,prey, and passage. Occurrence The three pods (J, K, and L) associated with the SRKWs are regularly present in the inland waters of Puget Sound, Northwest Straits, and Georgia Strait from April through September. From October through June, K and L pods tend to disappear, but J pod remains. During the winter months, they are often observed along the outer coast of Washington State and Vancouver Island, but K and L have also been seen in Puget Sound at this time. During the early autumn, some pods search out returning salmonids in Puget Sound, with Chinook salmon being the primary prey,followed by chum salmon. Based on occurrence data from 1980 through 2004 for Puget Sound, use of Puget Sound by killer whales "typically" extends from October through April, with the peak months being October and November. Presence in Puget Sound (excluding Northwest Straits and Georgia Strait) during the months of June, July, and August is limited, which is likely due to the limited abundance of Chinook and chum salmon during this time period.The SRKW has been sighted in parts of Puget Sound in all seasons, but presence is intermittent. The smallest number of sightings has been during the months of May and June. South of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge,there have been only a small number of sightings. A review of on-line data from the Orca Conservancy and other sources revealed sightings of orcas in Case Inlet on October 24, 2001; March 4, 2006; and September 26, 2009. The closest sighting was between Harstine Island and Herron Island, which is approximately 8 miles south of the project area. No sightings have been reported for the action area. Based on the available data, it appears highly unlikely that SRKWs will utilize the action area. If present, they would be restricted to the southernmost portion of the action area nearer to Case Inlet versus the shallower waters in North Bay. 6.7 HUMPBACK WHALE Federal Status The humpback whale is listed as endangered under the ESA.The NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this species. Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Occurrence Humpback whales are wide-ranging baleen whales that can be found almost worldwide. They feed on krill, small shrimp-like crustaceans, and various kinds of small fish. Current estimates indicate that the total abundance is just over 18,000 individuals (Calambokidis et al. 2008). The abundance estimate for Washington and Southern British Columbia is less than 500. Surveys in Washington waters between 1995 and 2000 estimated around 100 individuals. P:k\EPSYo0000002\06001NFOTP\Biological Evalua ion\Final Biological Ei aluationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 25 Humpback whales were historically common in the inland waters of Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands (Calambokidis et al. 2002). In the early part of this century, there was a productive commercial hunt for humpbacks in Georgia Strait that was probably responsible for their disappearance from local waters (Osborne et al. 1988). Few humpback whales have been seen in Puget Sound, but more frequent sightings occur in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and near the San Juan Islands. Most sightings are in the spring and summer. Individual humpback whales are rarely seen south of Admiralty Inlet. Approximately six individuals were seen between 1996 and 2001 (Calambokidis et al. 2002). Between January 2005 and August 2008, there were a total of 34 observations in Puget Sound south of Admiralty Inlet. The majority of these sightings were of two individuals observed for several days in May, June, and July 2008 (Orca Network 2008). The Orca Network has not recorded sightings of humpback whales in Puget Sound during the winter months in the last three years (2010). Recent sighting information indicates that humpback whales are occurring more frequently in Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands than in previous years, but still occur in low numbers.Based on the available data, humpback whales do not utilize the action area. 6.8 STELLER SEA LION Federal Status The Steller sea lion is listed as threatened under the ESA. The NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this species. Critical Habitat On August 27, 1993 the NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for Steller sea lions (NMFS 1993). No critical habitat has been designated in Washington. Critical habitat is associated with breeding and haulout areas in Alaska, California, and Oregon. No critical habitat occurs in Puget Sound. Occurrence Steller sea lions primarily use haulout sites on the outer coast of Washington and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca along Vancouver Island in British Columbia. Only sub-adults or non- breeding adults may be found in Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands (Pitcher et al. 2007). Recent estimates are that 1,000 to 2,000 individuals enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca during the fall and winter months.There are no known rookeries in Washington(Jefferies et al.2000). A few Steller sea lions can be observed year-round in Puget Sound, although most of the breeding-age adults return to the rookeries off Oregon and British Columbia during the spring and summer months. Adult males and juveniles disperse widely and travel great distances outside of the breeding season. These are typically the animals observed in Puget Sound. They are usually observed in small groups of one to four individuals. Steller sea lion abundance is variable, with a minimal seasonal estimate of 1,000 to 2,000 individuals present or passing through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the fall and winter months. Haulout sites have increased in recent years and include most navigation buoys. Haulout sites in Puget Sound include Port Gardner near Everett, Shilshole Bay adjacent to Seattle, Toliva Shoals buoy south of Steilacoom,and buoys off of McNeil and Eagle Islands. P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\E!P\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluaziondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 26 No haulouts occur in the action area. The closest documented haulout site on Map IOD: Gig Harbor to Olympia is Site ID 322, which is located on McMicken Island and described as beach and intertidal areas around island, located approximately nine miles south of the project site(WDFW 2000).According to WDFW(2000),use of this haulout is limited to harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardst). One haulout on Map IOD is documented as being used by Steller sea lions. This site (ID 344) is the Toliva Shoals buoy, which is near the southern tip of Fox Island over 15 miles southeast of the project site, and separated from the project area by a large peninsula that divides Case Inlet from Carr Inlet. Based on the available data, Steller sea lions do not utilize the action area. 6.9 ROCKFISH In 2010, NOAA Fisheries (2010a) listed three species of Puget Sound rockfish under the ESA. These species were historically harvested at high levels. Rockfish are long-lived and mature slowly,which makes them vulnerable to overfishing. Other factors of decline for these species include habitat degradation, pollution, and lost fishing gear. Each species is described in greater detail in the following sections. 6.9.1 Bocaccio Federal Status Bocaccio is listed as an endangered species in Puget Sound under the ESA. The NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Critical Habitat According to the Federal Register (2010) Vol. 75,No. 81, April 28, 2010 (50 CFR Parts 223 and 224),critical habitat is not determinable at this time. Occurrence Bocaccio is a deepwater species typically found along steep slopes consisting of sand or rock substrates. Within South Sound,this habitat type occurs near the Tacoma Narrows. Adults are found in waters ranging from 12 to 478 meters deep, but are most frequently found at depths ranging from 50 to 250 meters. Larvae and pelagic juveniles are found near the surface; juveniles in shallow algae-covered rocks or eelgrass, and then move to deeper waters as they mature. Based on 110 observations from historical records, no occurrence of bocaccio was documented in South Sound (Miller and Borton 1980). Most observations (n = 104) were recorded in the Central Sound.Based on catch composition data from commercial fisheries in South Sound from 1993 to 2003, bocaccio represented 11.2 percent of the total catch(WDFW 2009). Furthermore, bocaccio represented 0.00 percent from 1965 to 1967, 0.02 percent from 1980 to 1989, and 0.01 percent from 1996 to 2007 of the recreational harvest in South Puget Sound. Based on the available data, bocaccio do not utilize the action area. 6.9.2 Canary Rockfish Federal Status Canary rockfish is listed as a threatened species in Puget Sound under the ESA. The NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biologiwl Evaluation\Final Biological Ecaluationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 27 Critical Habitat According to the Federal Register (2010) Vol. 75,No. 81, April 28, 2010 (50 CFR Parts 223 and 224), critical habitat is not determinable at this time. Occurrence Canary rockfish is a deepwater species associated with rocky and coarse habitats. Adults are typically found in waters ranging from 80 to 200 meters,but have been documented to a depth of 439 meters (Love et al. 2002). Based on 114 observations from historical records, only one occurrence of canary rockfish was documented in South Sound (Miller and Borton 1980). Most observations (n = 56) were recorded in the Central Sound. Based on catch composition data from commercial fisheries in South Sound from 1993 to 2003, no canary rockfish were captured by any method (WDFW 2009). However, canary rockfish represented 6.46 percent of the recreational harvest in South Puget Sound from 1965 to 1967, 1.43 percent from 1980 to 1989, and 0.61 percent from 1996 to 2007. Based on the available data, canary rockfish do not utilize the action area. 6.9.3 Yelloweye Rockfish Federal Status Yelloweye rockfish is listed as a threatened species in Puget Sound under the ESA. The NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing under the ESA. Critical Habitat According to the Federal Register (2010) Vol. 75,No. 81, April 28, 2010 (50 CFR Parts 223 and 224), critical habitat is not determinable at this time. Occurrence Yelloweye rockfish is a deep-water species associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, artificial structures, and rocky bottoms,often near steep slopes(WDFW 2009).They are more common in North Puget Sound than South Puget Sound. South Puget Sound is generally shallow, with a mean depth of 37 meters and the deepest point being 190 meters just east of McNeil Island.This species occurs in deeper waters ranging from 80 to 1,560 feet,but is most common between 300 to 590 feet. Juveniles and subadults use shallower waters, while the adults tend to use deeper waters.The distribution of yelloweye rockfish in South Sound based on trawl, video, and scuba surveys indicates they do not typically occur south of Maury Island near Tacoma. Based on 113 observations from historical records, only one occurrence of Yelloweye rockfish was documented in South Sound(Miller and Borton 1980 as described in WDFW 2009). Most observations (n = 71) were recorded in the San Juan Islands. Based on catch composition data from commercial fisheries in South Sound from 1993 to 2003, no Yelloweye rockfish were captured by any method (WDFW 2009). However, Yelloweye rockfish represented 4.43 percent from 1965 to 1967, 0.31 percent from 1980 to 1989, and 1.56 percent from 1996 to 2007 of the recreational harvest in South Puget Sound. Based on the available data, yelloweye rockfish do not utilize the action area. P:k\EPSY00000002\06007NFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Eialuatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 28 7.0 IMPACT MINIMIZATION MEASURES In order to reduce and contain sediment suspended during the removal of existing marine structures and installation of the new structure, and reduce potential impacts to fish, wildlife, or their habitats, the following impact minimization measures(IMMs)will be implemented: IMM 1: An aquatic silt curtain will be installed around each structure during construction. IMM 2: All in-water work must comply with the appropriate work windows as agreed upon by the USFWS, NMFS, and WDFW. IMM 3: A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan and Stormwater Site Plan will be developed and implemented. The Best Management Practices in the plans will be used to control sediments generated from all vegetation removal or ground- disturbing activities. IMM 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 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. IMM 5: A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan will be developed to ensure that all pollutants and products will be controlled and contained. IMM 6: Fully stocked spill kits will be present on the barge and upland sites. IMM 7: A containment basin will be used on the barge for temporary storage of piles extracted or removed during the demolition process. IMM 8: All debris accumulated on the deck of the barge during construction will be contained and restricted from entering marine waters. IMM 9: Lead paint on the existing towers will not be allowed to enter marine waters. IMM 10: Existing piles/legs will be fully extracted or, if they break, will be cut at least 2 feet below the mud line. IMM 11: Hydraulic water jets will not be used to clear mud from around the existing piles/legs. IMM 12: Temporary marine piles/structures will not be treated with creosote or pentachlorophenol. IMM 13: A wood or micarta hammer cushion (or equivalent)will be placed on top of each pile to reduce sound attenuation during installation. IMM 14: A confined air bubble curtain system will be used during the installation of all aquatic piles to reduce underwater sound attenuation during installation. Additional IMMs will be stipulated by the regulatory agencies. TPU will assign an inspector to ensure that all IMMs outlined above, and those stipulated by the regulatory authorities, are implemented. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0(OOINFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatimdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 29 8.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS 8.1 SALMONID DIRECT EFFECTS The primary potential project-related impacts to listed salmonids are from the construction of one new marine structure and the demolition of four existing marine structures, and to a lesser degree the demolition of two structures along the east side of North Bay that are located within Wetland A. The remainder of the upland construction activities will occur over 200 feet from North Bay within existing ROW that is generally void of native vegetation, waterways, or pathways that could result in direct effects to salmonids or degrade salmonid baseline habitat conditions. Pile driving is the primary potential impact to listed salmonids, as underwater sound pressure waves can injure or even kill fish if they are close to the source. The sound pressure generated during pile driving is highly variable in that it is dependent on the size of the pile, pile type, size of the hammer,water depth, and geotechnical conditions that determine how difficult it is to the drive the pile. Salmonids are particularly sensitive to underwater impulsive sounds with a sharp sound pressure peak occurring in a short interval of time. These pressure waves cause the swim bladder to rapidly contract and expand, which can result in damage to the internal organs, tissues, and auditory system. Direct take can occur instantaneously, shortly after exposure, or within a few days of exposure. Indirect take can occur due to the reduced fitness of a fish, making it susceptible to predation, disease, starvation, or the inability to complete its life cycle. In order to define the area or extent of potential impacts associated with pile driving, the NMFS pile driver calculator was used to determine the distance to various thresholds. Based on the results, physical injury could occur within 25 meters (82 feet) of the pile driving, while the onset of physical injury could occur in fish greater than 2 grams within 803 meters (2,634 feet) or within 1,483 meters (4,865 feet) in fish less than 2 grams. Behavioral effects have been calculated to extend up to 2,512 meters(1.6 miles)from pile driving.These distances are conservative, as they do not factor in the impact minimization measures (IMM 13: pile cap cushion and IMM 14: bubble curtain) or ambient noise levels. Furthermore, one prominent study concluded that effects to salmonids were limited to within an approximately 1,000-foot radius around each pile(Feist 1991), and this distance is currently used by the Corps to define the aquatic action in their Programmatic Biological Evaluation for 10 Activities in the State of Washington (Corps 2008). In the study conducted by Feist (1991), pile driving operations affected the general behavior and distribution of schools of juvenile salmonids, but this effect was temporary. Additional potential impacts are associated with a reduction in water quality when sediments are suspended during removal of the existing piles, installation of the new permanent piles, and/or installation and removal of temporary piles. The predominance of the degradation of water quality would be elevated turbidity, which would be composed of fine sediment/sand particles. The existing piles were not treated with creosote, so no increase or release of pollutants associated with creosote is anticipated. The contractor will attempt to fully extract P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Bioloaical EveluMion\Pinal Biological EvaluMiondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 30 the piles, but if they break or are too deteriorated to be fully extracted, they will be cut off a few feet below the substrate. Potential impacts from noise or degradation of water quality during construction will be short- term and generally localized.These potential impacts will also be minimized by implementing the proposed impact minimization measures. Furthermore, in-water work will be limited to the WDFW-approved in-water work window. In-water work may occur from June 15 through March 14. This in-water work window has been designed to protect juvenile salmonids in that they will not be present when in-water work will occur. 8.1.1 Bull Trout Bull trout have not been documented in any streams flowing into North Bay or Case Inlet. Suitable spawning habitat is not present in any of the streams entering North Bay or Case Inlet, as they are all low-elevation streams that do not meet the criteria for this species. No critical habitat occurs in the action area. The closest critical habitat and occupied habitat is along the Nisqually River delta,which is approximately 20 miles southeast of the project area. Anadromous bull trout from the Nisqually River are not anticipated to migrate to North Bay. Pile driving would occur when their potential prey source (juvenile salmonids) will not be in the action area. Coulter Creek does not likely produce an abundant source of potential prey items sufficient enough to attract anadromous bull trout to the action area. 8.1.2 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Chinook salmon have been documented in the action area and will be present during the spring and fall. The timing of the marine-related construction activities from Table 3 that could potentially impact Puget Sound Chinook salmon are as follows. •- Installing temporary bay structures between 1/3/14 and 1/10/14 (6 days). This action would involve installing a maximum of 12 temporary piles. It would occur after adult Chinook salmon enter the action area and before juveniles outmigrate through the action area. This action would have no effect on Chinook salmon because they would not be in the action area. • Constructing marine foundations between 1/21/14 and 3/14/14 (39 days). This action would involve installing four 30-inch-diameter steel piles. It would occur after adult Chinook salmon enter the action area and before juveniles outmigrate through the action area. This action would have no effect on Chinook salmon because they would not be in the action area. • Erecting pre-assembled bay towers between 6/2/14 and 6/6/14 (5 days). This action would not require in-water work (no pile driving), and all work would occur from a barge. The barge would not use spuds or anchors, but would stay stationary by tying up to the previously-installed temporary piles. It has been determined that spuds cannot be used for this project due to clearance issues under the existing transmission line, and use of anchors is problematic due to the soft substrate (they do not hold well). Erection of the towers would occur after/before adult Chinook salmon enter the action area, but near the tail-end of the juvenile outmigration period. The effect of this action on juvenile Chinook salmon would be minor and temporary. P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 31 • Demolishing upland and marine Line 2 towers between 6/16/14 and 6/20/14 (5 days).This action would not require in-water work(no pile driving), and all work would occur from a barge. Work is limited to the above-water towers and not their foundations. It would occur after/before adult Chinook salmon enter the action area, but near the tail-end of the juvenile outmigration period. The effect of this action on juvenile Chinook salmon would be minor and temporary. • Demolishing upland and marine Line 1 towers between 7/15/14 and 7/22/14 (6 days). This action would not require in-water work(no pile driving), and all work would occur from a barge. Work is limited to the above-water towers and not their foundations. It would occur before adult Chinook salmon enter the action area, and after juvenile Chinook salmon have migrated through the action area. This action would have no effect on Chinook salmon because they would not be in the action area. • Demolishing old marine foundations and temporary structures between 8/4/14 and 8/29/14 20 da s . There are a total of four existing foundations to be removed, plus the extraction of up to 12 temporary piles. Each foundation consists of a concrete base that supports the tower. Each base is supported by four legs. Each leg is composed of three wood piles encased in concrete. Therefore, a total of 48 existing foundation wood piles will be removed, as well as the concrete surrounding each leg and base. This action does not require pile driving, but will require the use of a barge with a crane and excavator. This action is not anticipated to generate underwater noise high enough to adversely impact fish, but would likely degrade water quality. It would occur after juvenile Chinook salmon have outmigrated through the action area, but during the time period when the first (or early)returning adult Chinook salmon may start entering the action area.The effect of this action on returning adult Chinook salmon would be minor and temporary. 8.1.3 Puget Sound Steelhead Trout Steelhead trout have been reported to use the action area, but use is apparently infrequent and sporadic. The timing of the marine-related construction activities from Table 3 that could potentially impact Puget Sound steelhead trout are as follows. • Installing temporary bay structures between 1/3/14 and 1/10/14 (6 days). This action would involve installing a maximum of 12 temporary piles. It would occur when returning adult steelhead trout could be entering the action area as they migrate to Coulter Creek, but before juveniles outmigrate through the action area. • Constructing marine foundations between 1/21/14 and 3/14/14 (39 days). This action would involve installing four 30-inch-diameter steel piles. It would occur when returning adult steelhead trout could be entering the action area as they migrate to Coulter Creek, but before juveniles outmigrate through the action area. • Erecting pre-assembled bay towers between 6/2/14 and 6/6/14 (5 days). This action would not require in-water work (no pile driving), and all work would occur from a barge. It would occur after/before adult steelhead enter the action area, and after the juvenile outmigration period. P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological EvaluWionTinal Biological Evaluaiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 32 • Demolishing upland and marine Line 2 towers between 6/16/14 and 6/20/14(5 days).This action would not require in-water work(no pile driving), and all work would occur from a barge. Work is limited to the above-water towers and not their foundations. It would occur after/before adult steelhead enter the action area, and after the juvenile outmigration period. • Demolishing upland and marine Line 1 towers between 7/15/14 and 7/22/14 (6 days). This action would not require in-water work(no pile driving), and all work would occur from a barge. Work is limited to the above-water towers and not their foundations. It would occur after/before adult steelhead enter the action area, and after the juvenile outmigration period. • Demolishing old marine foundations and temporary structures between 8/4/14 and 8/29/14 20 days). There are a total of four existing foundations to be removed, plus the extraction of up to 12 temporary piles. Each foundation consists of a concrete base that supports the tower. Each base is supported by four legs. Each leg is composed of three wood piles encased in concrete. Therefore, a total of 48 existing foundation wood piles will be removed, as well as the concrete surrounding each leg and base. This action does not require pile driving, but will require the use of a barge with a crane and excavator. This action is not anticipated to generate underwater noise high enough to adversely impact fish, but would likely degrade water quality. It would occur after/before adult steelhead enter the action area, and after the juvenile outmigration period. Based on a review of project actions overlaid with steelhead adult and juvenile presence data specific to south sound inlets, adult steelhead trout could be present in the action area during pile driving. None of the project-related actions outlined above would occur when juvenile steelhead trout are potentially in the action area. Should adult steelhead be present during pile driving,the impacts would be short-term and likely result in displacement rather than injury. 8.2 SALMONID INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects are those effects occurring later in time, usually following project construction. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) indirect effect guidance includes the following questions to analyze potential project-specific indirect effects: 1. Does the project create a new facility (e.g., new road, interchange, or building) or increase the capacity of the existing system? No. 2. Is new development in the vicinity contingent on the project? No. ' 3. Is any development in the vicinity caused by or dependent on the project? No. 4. Reevaluate the size and location of the action area. No change warranted. 5. Are proposed or listed species or designated critical habitat present within the action area? Yes. 6. If development is contingent or dependent on the project, what potential impacts on the species and habitat will result from the development? Not applicable. P:k\EPSYOOO00002\060OMFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Finol Biological Evalumiondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 33 7. What rules or measures are incorporated into the project to help minimize these potential effects? Project timing and conservation measures. 8. If development is contingent or dependent on the project, how will this development affect the environmental baseline conditions? Not applicable. 9. If development is contingent or dependent on the project, will the development have potential effects on the species? Not applicable. 10. If development is contingent or dependent on the project, is this development likely to adversely affect the species or critical habitat? Not applicable. The proposed action is maintenance of an existing crossing on an existing transmission line. Maintenance is required due to deterioration of the existing marine structures that were originally constructed in 1925. Maintenance activities will not facilitate future growth or development. Based on this assessment, there will be no indirect effects to listed salmonids, bottom fish, or marine mammals. 8.3 EFFECTS TO SALMONID BASELINE HABITAT CONDITIONS Based on this analysis, most baseline conditions will be maintained. Two (turbidity and disturbance history) will be degraded during construction, but will shift back to maintain once construction is completed. Five of the baseline conditions will be improved due to a 75 percent reduction in the marine structures. This reduction is due to four existing structures being replaced by one structure, which will reduce the area covered by overwater structures and increase the amount of substrate available to marine organisms. The following salmonid effects matrix (Table 6) has been developed to summarize potential project-related direct and indirect effects to baseline conditions. Table 6: Habitat Project Effects Matrix PATHWAY INDICATORS PROJECT EFFECTS TO BASELINE CONDITIONS North Bay Water Quality Temperature Maintain.No shrubs or trees along the shoreline will be removed. Turbidity Degrade 4 Maintain.Turbidity will increase during installation and removal of piles.However,this indicator will return to the maintain condition after construction.Increases in turbidity will be temporary and localized.IMM 1 includes the use of an aquatic sift curtain,which is designed to contain elevated turbidity levels.The increase in turbidity will likely not exceed natural levels in the bay that occur during windy days. Fecal Coliform Maintain.No change to this indicator is anticipated. Dissolved Oxygen(DO) Maintain.No change to this indicator is anticipated. Chemical Contamination& Maintain.No change to this indicator is anticipated. Nutrients Sediment Sediment Quality Maintain.No change to this indicator is anticipated. Habitat Elements Depth Maintain.No change to this indicator is anticipated. Substrate Improve.The project will result in a measureable increase in the amount of substrate in North Bay. Slope Maintain.No change to this indicator is anticipated.No fill or excavation will J occur along the shoreline. Shoreline Modification Maintain.No change to this indicator is anticipated.No work is proposed along the shoreline. P:\e\EPSYGOOO0002\06GOtNFO\EP\BiologicaI Evaluation\Final Biological EA aluation doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 34 PATHWAY INDICATORS PROJECT EFFECTS TO BASELINE CONDITIONS North Bay Large Woody Debris Maintain.No change to the large woody debris(LWD)indicator is anticipated since the project will not remove any LWD or any trees that could contribute future LWD to the shoreline. Overwater Structures Improve.The project will reduce the area covered by overwater structures by approximately 82 percent Aquatic Vegetation Improve.This indicator will improve since the amount of substrate available for colonization will increase after project completion. Biota Epibenthic and Pelagic Improve.This indicator will improve since the amount of substrate available for Zooplankton colonization will increase after project completion. Benthic Infauna Improve.This indicator will improve since the amount of substrate available for colonization will increase after project completion. Forage Fish Maintain.No spawning habitat will be impacted by the project.Although individual forage fish could be impacted if they are within the immediate vicinity of the new structure when piles are being driven,the implementation of impact minimization measures,including the use of a bubble curtain,would reduce the level of impact. Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location Maintain.The project will utilize existing roads. Disturbance History Degrade->Maintain.This indicator will be degraded during construction but will return to maintain once the project is completed. 8.4 SALMONID CRITICAL HABITAT Critical habitat for bull trout does not occur in the action area, nor has critical habitat been designated for Puget Sound steelhead trout. However, critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon does occur in the action area. The project includes permanently removing four existing marine structures and constructing one new marine structure. These actions will result in an increase of approximately 10.4 yards of substrate compared to existing conditions, or an increase of approximate 82 percent. 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. After construction, the area disturbed will be similar to the surrounding substrate. Therefore,this localized impact will be temporary. Based on this analysis, the project will result in a net gain in available substrate and a net gain in Chinook salmon critical habitat. Although the project will result in temporary impacts during construction, these impacts will be short-term and localized. The implementation of the proposed impact minimization measures will further limit or reduce potential impacts to critical habitat resulting from construction. ' 8.5 MARBLED MURRELET Potential effects to marbled murrelets are limited to noise-related disturbance to individuals foraging in Case Inlet during pile driving activities. If marbled murrelets were within the action area during pile driving, it could result in temporary displacement during construction due to noise and visual disturbance. Pile driving is proposed to occur during two time periods, from 1/3/14 to 1/10 (6 days) and 1/21/14 to 3/14/14 (39 days). The action area extends into the northern portion of Case Inlet. Case Inlet is not a major concentration site. The USFWS P.\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Ecalualion\Final Biological Ecalualiondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 35 Sound Exposure Level Calculator for Marbled Murrelet and Bull Trout (Version 2/27/2012) was used to review and confirm previous calculations. The diameter of the largest marine piles is 30 inches. The installation of a 30-inch-diameter steel pile will create a sound level from a single strike of 212 dBpe,,k, 186 dBRms, and 195 dB SEL (WSDOT 2008a). The estimated number of total strikes per pile is 114 (WSDOT 2008b). Based on this data, the marbled murrelet non-injurious threshold is 320 meters (0.20 miles), the auditory injury threshold is 17 meters (56 feet), and the barotraumas threshold is 7 meters (23 feet). Based on these distances, the project location within a shallow bay, and the lack of suitable foraging habitat in the action area, the proposed project could result in the temporary displacement of foraging adult murrelets due to visual disturbance, but would not result in mortality or sub- lethal effects because it is highly unlikely they would actively forage within 0.20 miles of the project area.North Bay is shallow and the predominance of the project area is exposed during periods of extreme low tide,which makes it unsuitable for foraging. 8.6 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL The project will not impact spotted owls or suitable spotted owl habitat because neither occur in the action area. 8.7 SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE Pile driving is the only project-related activity that could potentially impact killer whales. If they are present in the action area during pile driving, construction noise and activity could result in confusion, disruption of social cohesion, separation, alteration of travel, and/or stranding. Pile driving is proposed to occur during the months of January, February, and March, which coincides with the general time period SRKWs have been documented in Puget . Sound and Case Inlet, but is outside the peak period. It is remotely possible SRKWs could occur in the action area during construction, but their presence is unlikely due to the absence of abundant prey, and shallow waters in North Bay. Should they be present in the action area during construction, construction would likely result in avoidance or dispersal from North Bay. 8.8 HUMPBACK WHALE Humpback whales are not known to use the action area, suitable habitat does not occur in the action area, and pile driving will occur when they are least likely to utilize Puget Sound. Therefore,the project will not impact humpback whales. 8.9 STELLER SEA LION Since Steller sea lions do not utilize the action area, the proposed project will not impact this species of marine mammal. 8.10 ROCKFISH Since bocaccio, Canary Rockfish, and Yelloweye Rockfish do not utilize the action area, the proposed project will have no impact on these species of rockfish. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600[NFO\EP\]3iological EcaluationTinal Biological Evaluation&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 36 II 8.11 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS An interrelated action is part of a larger action and depends on the larger action for its justification. An interdependent action has no utility apart from the project. This project has no interrelated or interdependent actions associated with it. P:\e\EPSY00000002\06OOtNFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Pinal Biological Ecaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 37 9.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 9.1 BACKGROUND The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific Salmon Fishery, federally-managed groundfish, and coastal pelagic fisheries (NOAA 1999; PFMC 1999). Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all activities authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The action area includes all of North Bay and the northern-most portion of Case Inlet. Project-related activities will occur below the OHWM of North Bay.No coastal pelagic species will occur in the action area due to its location. Therefore, this analysis addresses the Pacific Salmon Fishery, including Chinook, coho, and pink salmon, as well as federally- managed groundfish, but not coastal pelagic fisheries. 9.2 DESCRIPTION OF EFH The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all of those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above the impassible barriers identified by PFMC. The EFH designation for federally-managed groundfish includes estuarine habitat. In the estuarine and marine areas, designated EFH for salmon extends from nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception (PFMC 1999). 9.3 POTENTIAL EFFECTS The action area is used for rearing and foraging by juvenile Chinook, coho, and pink salmon, and as a migration corridor for returning adults that utilize Coulter Creek. Potential impacts to salmonids from the project are addressed in Section 8.0. The same impacts identified in the ESA analysis are anticipated to apply to the designated EFH for Pacific salmon and federally- managed groundfish. Case Inlet is utilized by numerous species of federally-managed groundfish, including spiny dogfish, big skate, longnose skate, ratfish, northern anchovy, Pacific cod, Pacific hake, brown rockfish, copper rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, quillback rockfish, cabezon, Pacific sanddab, arrowtooth flounder, rex sole, flathead sole, rock sole, dover sole, English sole, starry flounder,and sand sole. Many of these species are typically associated with deeper waters, but r. some move to shallower waters in the summer to feed (NMFS 2005). Spawning season and preferred spawning habitat is also highly variable. Potential impacts to individuals are primarily associated with pile driving, while impacts to habitat will occur during demolition of the existing structures and construction of the new tower. However, as with pile driving, these impacts will be temporary. The proposed project would result in a net gain in available habitat by replacing four old structures with one new structure. Therefore, although there will be temporary and localized impacts to EFH, the project will result in a net increase in the amount of available substrate in North Bay. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Pinal Biological Evaluetiondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 38 10.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS Review of existing literature and data, and results from the field investigations indicate that Puget Sound Chinook salmon and steelhead trout could be present in the action area during construction. Marbled murrelets and SRKW have the potential to utilize the action area, but presence is unlikely. If present, use would be restricted to the outermost southern edge of the action area. Bull trout critical habitat does not occur in the action area, and this species has not been documented in Case Inlet or any of its tributaries. Steller sea lions, humpback whales, bocaccio, canary rockfish, and yelloweye rock fish do not utilize the action area. North Bay is included as critical habitat for Chinook salmon but is too shallow to be critical habitat for SRKW. No suitable habitat or critical habitat for the northern spotted owl exists in the action area. EFH for Pacific salmon and federally-managed groundfish exists in the action area. 10.1 BULL TROUT The project will have no effect on bull trout because: • Bull trout have not been documented in the action area. • Suitable habitat does not occur in the action area. • The project will not result in a reduction of potential prey resources. • Pile driving will occur when bull trout prey (juvenile salmonids) are not in the action area. • Impacts to Wetland A will be minor, temporary, and mitigated. 10.2 BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT The project will have no effect on bull trout critical habitat because: • Bull trout critical habitat does not occur in the action area. 10.3 MARBLED MURRELET The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets. The project may affect marbled murrelets because: • Marbled murrelets have been documented in Case Inlet. • Pile driving will occur during the winter months when marbled murrelets were observed in Case Inlet. • Marbled murrelets could fly through the action area to suitable foraging habitat south of the project area. The project is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets because: • Marbled murrelets have not been documented in the action area. • Suitable nesting habitat does not occur in the action area. • The action area does not include a major concentration area. P.\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 39 • The closest major concentration site is near or north of the Nisqually River delta, which is approximately 20 miles southeast of the project area. • Documented recordings of marbled mun elets in Case Inlet have been limited to one or two individuals observed during multi-year aerial surveys. • The closest marbled murrelet observations were approximately two miles southeast of the project area at Rocky Point. • Impact minimization measures will be implemented that will reduce construction noise. . 10.4 MARBLED MURRELET CRITICAL HABITAT The project will have no effect on marbled murrelet critical habitat because: • Marbled murrelet critical habitat does not occur in the action area. • The closest critical habitat is over 20 miles west/northwest of the project area. 10.5 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL The project will have no effect on northern spotted owls because: • Northern spotted owls do not occur in the action area. • Suitable spotted owl habitat does not occur in the action area. • The project will not remove any mature trees or snags. 10.6 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT The project will have no effect on northern spotted owl critical habitat because: • Northern spotted owl critical habitat does not occur in the action area. • The closest critical habitat is approximately 20 miles northwest of the project area. 10.7 PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The project may affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon because: • Chinook salmon have been documented in Coulter Creek. • The project includes in-water work in North Bay. • Chinook salmon must pass through the action area in North Bay to enter or exit Coulter Creek. • Adult Chinook salmon could potentially be present in the project area when existing foundations are removed,and may be exposed to elevated levels of turbidity. • The water quality pathway turbidity indictor will be degraded during construction. • The watershed conditions pathway disturbance indicator will be degraded during construction. P:\e\EPSYOOOO0002kO6OOlNFO\EP\BiologicaI Evaluatioffinal Biological Evaluation.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 40 • The project will disturb 2,555 square feet of degraded palustrine emergent wetland near the shore of North Bay. The project is not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon because: • Coulter Creek does not contain a self-sustaining population of Chinook salmon. • Juvenile Chinook salmon will not be in the action area when in-water work is proposed. • Adult Chinook salmon will not be within the action area when pile driving is proposed. • Elevated turbidity levels that could result from the removal of the existing marine foundations will be temporary and localized. • Elevated turbidity levels will be contained by use of a floating aquatic silt curtain. • All in-water work will occur during the designated WDFW in-water work window. • The water quality pathway turbidity indictor will revert to maintain once construction is completed. • The watershed conditions pathway disturbance indicator will revert to maintain once construction is completed. • Impacts to Wetland A will be minor,temporary, and mitigated. 10.8 PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON CRITICAL HABITAT The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat.The project may affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat because: • North Bay is included as designated critical habitat. • The project includes in-water work in North Bay. • The water quality pathway turbidity indictor will be degraded during construction. • The watershed conditions pathway disturbance indicator will be degraded during construction. • The project will disturb 2,555 square feet of degraded palustrine emergent wetland near the shore of North Bay. The project is not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon critical habitat because: • The project will result in a net gain in substrate in North Bay. • The project will result in a reduction in overwater structures in North Bay. • All habitat impacts will be temporary and localized. + Impact minimization measures will be implemented to reduce potential habitat impacts. • The water quality pathway turbidity indictor will revert to maintain once construction is completed. P:\e\EPSY00000002\06001NFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Pinal Biological EVWUWioRdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 41 • The watershed conditions pathway disturbance indicator will revert to maintain once construction is completed. • PCEs will not be degraded. • Impacts to Wetland A will be minor,temporary, and mitigated. 10.9 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD TROUT The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead trout. The project may affect Puget Sound steelhead trout because: • Steelhead trout have been reported to utilize Coulter Creek. • The project includes in-water work in North Bay. • Steelhead must pass through the action area in North Bay to enter or exit Coulter Creek. • Adult steelhead trout could be present in the action area when pile driving occurs. • Adult steelhead trout could be present in the action area when existing foundations are removed from North Bay. • Adult steelhead trout could potentially be present in the project area when existing foundations are removed, and may be exposed to elevated levels of turbidity. • The water quality pathway turbidity indictor will be degraded during construction. • The watershed conditions pathway disturbance indicator will be degraded during construction. • The project will disturb 2,555 square feet of degraded palustrine emergent wetland near the shore of North Bay. The project is not likely to adversely affect steelhead trout because: • Coulter Creek does not contain a self-sustaining population of steelhead trout. • Use of Coulter Creek by steelhead trout appears to be extremely limited and sporadic. • Juvenile steelhead trout will not be within the action area when pile driving is proposed. • Elevated turbidity levels that could result from the removal of the existing marine foundations will be temporary and localized. • Elevated turbidity levels will be contained by use of a floating aquatic silt curtain. • All in-water work will occur during the designated WDFW in-water work window. • The water quality pathway turbidity indictor will revert to maintain once construction is completed. • The watershed conditions pathway disturbance indicator will revert to maintain once construction is completed. • Impacts to Wetland A will be minor,temporary,and mitigated. P:\e\EPSY0000o002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Pinal Biologicd Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 42 10.10 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT Should critical habitat be designated for Puget Sound steelhead trout prior to completion of the project and be designated within the action area, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead trout critical habitat. The project may affect Puget Sound steelhead critical habitat because: • The project includes in-water work in North Bay. • The water quality pathway turbidity indictor will be degraded during construction. • The watershed conditions pathway disturbance indicator will be degraded during construction. • The project will disturb 2,555 square feet of degraded palustrine emergent wetland near the shore of North Bay. The project is not likely to adversely affect steelhead trout critical habitat because: • The project will result in a net gain in substrate in North Bay. • The project will result in a reduction in overwater structures in North Bay. • All habitat impacts will be temporary and localized. • Impact minimization measures will be implemented to reduce potential habitat impacts. • The water quality pathway turbidity indictor will revert to maintain once construction is completed. • The watershed conditions pathway disturbance indicator will revert to maintain once construction is completed. • Impacts to Wetland A will be minor, temporary, and mitigated. 10.11 SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect SRKW. The project may affect SRWK because: • SRKW have been documented in Case Inlet. • The project includes in-water work. • The project includes installing in-water piles. • The action area includes North Bay,which is located at the northern tip of Case Inlet. The project is not likely to adversely affect SRKW because: • Use of Case Inlet by SRKW is limited to three observations. • The closest observation was eight miles south of the project area. • No observations have occurred in the action area. • Use of the action area by SRKW appears unlikely due to the relatively shallow water levels in North Bay. P:k\EPSV00000002\06OOINFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatimdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2O12 Biological Evaluation Page 43 • A bubble curtain and pile cushion will be used to attenuate noise levels during pile driving. • Elevated turbidity levels that could result from the removal of the existing marine foundations will be temporary and localized. • The project will not permanently degrade any primary PCEs (water quality, prey, and passage). 10.12 SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE CRITICAL HABITAT The project will have no effect on SRKW critical habitat because: • SRKW critical habitat does not occur in the project area. • The presence of SRKW critical habitat in the action area is limited to the extreme southern portion, closer to Case Inlet. • The project will result in a net gain in substrate in North Bay. • The project will result in a reduction in overwater structures in North Bay. • All habitat impacts will be temporary and localized. • Impact minimization measures will be implemented to reduce potential habitat impacts. 10.13 HUMPBACK WHALE The project will have no effect on humpback whales because: • Humpback whales have not been documented in Case Inlet. • Humpback whales have not been documented in the action area. • The Orca Network has not recorded sightings of humpback whales in southern Puget Sound during the winter months when pile driving is proposed. • The project will not degrade forage fish spawning habitat. 10.14 STELLER SEA LION The project will have no effect on Steller sea lions because: • Steller sea lions have not been documented in Case Inlet. • Steller sea lions have not been documented in the action area. • No haulouts occur in the action area. • No haulouts with documented use by Steller sea lions exist in Case Inlet. Y 10.15 STELLER SEA LION CRITICAL HABITAT t The project will have no effect on Steller sea lion critical habitat because: • No critical habitat for Steller sea lions has been designated in Washington State. P:\e\EPSYOOO00002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluation.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 44 10.16 BOCACCIO The project will have no effect on bocaccio because: • Bocaccio have not been documented in Case Inlet. • Bocaccio have not been documented in the action area. • Suitable habitat for this species is not present in the action area. • Suitable habitat for this species is not present in Case Inlet. 10.17 CANARY ROCKFISH The project will have no effect on canary rockfish because: • Canary rockfish have not been documented in Case Inlet. • Canary rockfish have not been documented in the action area. • Suitable habitat for this species is not present in the action area. • Suitable habitat for this species is not present in Case Inlet. 10.18 YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH The project will have no effect on yelloweye rockfish because: • Yelloweye rockfish have not been documented in Case Inlet. • Yelloweye rockfish have not been documented in the action area. • Suitable habitat for this species is not present in the action area. • Suitable habitat for this species is not present in Case Inlet. 10.19 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT The project will have no adverse affect on Pacific salmon or federally-managed groundfish EFH because: • The project will increase the amount of EFH by reducing the overall number of structures in North Bay. • Impacts from construction-related activities will be localized and short-term. • Impact minimization measures are proposed to reduce or eliminate potential impacts during construction. P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Eialuation.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 45 11.0 REFERENCES Calambokidis,J.,J.D. Darling, V. Deecke,P. Gearin,M.Gosho, W. Megill,C.M.Tombach, D. Goley, C.Toropova, and B.Gisborne.2002.Abundance, range and movements of a feeding aggregation of gray whales (Eschrichtus robutus) from California to southeastern Alaska in 1998.J. Cetacean Res.Manage. 4(3):267-276. , J., G.H. Steiger, J.M. Straley,T.J.Quinn, II, L.M.Herman, S.Cerchio, D.R. Salden, M.Yamaguchi, F. Sato, J. Urban, R.,J.Jacobsen, O.von Ziegesar,K.C.Balcomb,C.M. Gabriele,M.E. Dahlheim,N. Higashi, S. Uchida,J.K.B. Ford,Y. Miyamura,P. Ladron de Guevara,P., S.A.Mizroch, L. Schlender, and K.Rasmussen. 1997.Abundance and population structure of humpback whales in the North Pacific Basin. Final Contract Report 50ABNF500113 to Southwest Fisheries Science Center, P.O.Box 271, La Jolla, California 92038. 72p. Cowardin, L.M.,V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services,USFWS, FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register(50 CFR Parts 223 and 224).2010.Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segments of Yelloweye and Canary Rockfish and Endangered Status for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Bocaccio Rockfish. April 28, 2010. (71 FR 69054). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical r Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whale.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.November. (70 52629).2005.Endangered and Threatened Species;Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho;Final Rule.National Marine Fisheries Service,Portland, Oregon. September. (61:26256-26320). 1996. Final designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Feist,B.E. 1991.Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Juvenile Pink(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)and Chum(O. keta) Salmon Behavior and Distribution.MS Thesis,University of Washington. 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. P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evalualion\Final Biological Eval=iondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 46 l Jeffries, S.J.,P.J.Gearin,H.R.Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. 2000.Atlas of seal and sea lion haulout sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, 600 Capitol Way North,Olympia, Washington. 150 p. Kuttel,M.2002.Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors— Water Resource Inventory Area 14, Kennedy-Goldborough Basin. Love, M.S.,M.M.Yoklavich,and L. Thorsteinson. 2002.The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Miller, B. S., and S. F. Borton, 1980. Geographic Distribution of Puget Sound Fishes: Maps and Data Sources.Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle,Washington 98195. 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. NMFS. 2005. Life History, Geographic Distribution,and Habitat Associations of 82 West Coast Groundfish Species: A Literature Review. Appendix I of Pacific Coast Groundfish EFH FEIS. December 2005.Northwest Fisheries Science Center,National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.Available at: ftp://ftp.streamnet.org/pub/marinehabitat/FinalEFHEISNolume%205/FM P%2OApp°/o20B 2.udf NOAA. 2012.NOAA Office of Coast Survey—Chart 18440, Edition 30.Edition date October 2010.Viewed on the www at: http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/I8440.shtml NOAA Fisheries.2010.NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington. Dated August 2005.Available on the www at: hllp://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/upload/WA-CH- mappdf . 2010a.Status Review offive Roush Species in Puget Sound, Washington.NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-108. December 2010.Available on the www at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/7671 03072011_122127 RockfishSRTM108WebF inal.pdf . 2005 a.Status Review Update for Puget Sound Steelhead.26 July 2005.2005 Puget Sound Steelhead Biological Review Team.National Marine Fisheries Service.Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. . 2005b.NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region Critical Habitat Designation for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington—August 2005.Map available at: hU://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/upload/WA-CH-map.pdf P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Ecaluatiom&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 47 1993. Federal Register,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 50 CFR Part 226.202. Critical Habitat for Steller Sea Lions. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C. Nysewander,D.R.,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. Prepared for Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound Action Team.January 31,2005 Final Version. Olympia, Washington. O'Donnel, B.P.,N.L.Naslund, and C.J.Ralph. 1995.Patterns of Seasonal Variation of Activity of Marbled Murrelets in Forest Stands. In Ralph, C.J.Hunt,G.L. Jr.,Raphael, M.G.Piatt,J.F.Technical Editors. 1995.Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet.Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR_152.Albany,California: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Orca Network. 2008.Recent whale sightings in the Salish Sea(Puget Sound,Northwest Straits,Gulf Islands and Georgia Strait) Sightings Archives.Available at: http://www.orcanetwork.orgJsightin sg /mgp.html. Osborne, R.,J. Calambokidis, and E.M.Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. 191 p. Island Publishers,Anacortes, Washington. Pacific Fisheries Management Council(PFMC). 1999.Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan.Appendix A. Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts,and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon.Portland, Oregon. Phillips, Larry.2012.Personal Communication. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.Discussion via phone call about salmonid use of Coulter Creek. Pitcher, K.W.,P.F.Olesiuk,R.F.Brown, M.S. Lowry, S.J. Sease, W.L.Perryman, C.E. Stinchcomb,and L.F. Lowry. 2007.Abundance and distribution of eastern North Pacific Steller sea lion(Eumetopias jubatus)population.Fish.Bull. 107:102-115. Rodrick E. and R.Milner(Tech eds.). 1991.Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia, Washington. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps). 2008. Programmatic Biological Evaluation for 10 Activities in the State of Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 2010.Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat in Washington State.Map dated 10/27/2010 and available on the www at: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/WaBTfCH2O1010 33x44pdf . 1989.Catalog of Washington Seabird Colonies.Biological Report 88(6).August 1989.Available at: hqp://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/lpub/diglib/Washington seabird.htm P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\rinal Biological Exaluation.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 48 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012. Priority Habitats and Species data in the vicinity of T22N RO 1 W Section 16. Report date: January 23, 2012. . 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division, Fish Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. September 2009. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00926/wdfWO0926.pdf . 2000. Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Wildlife Science Division. February 2000. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00427/wdfivOO427.pd f Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT). 2011. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training Manual. WSDOT Environmental Services, Olympia, Washington. February 2011. 2010. 2010 Annual Traffic Report. Washington State Department of Transportation. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa. og v/mapsdata/travel/pdf/Annual Traffic Report 2010.pdf . 2008a. Washington State Department of Transportation Pile Type and Sound Level Table. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlvres/A3B6FF43-DC7B-4D98- 9228-C8764635587A/O/BA PileDiameterNoiseLevels.pdf . 2008b. Washington State Department of Transportation Pile Strike Table. Available at: httg:Hww-w.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlvres/42F72E68-C26D-4C61-8741- 121050313200/0BA_PileStrikeSummaryTable.pdf 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. http://www.cascadiaresearch.orp,/reports/rep-USGS-SHIPS.pd P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Ecaluation\Final Biological Ecalwiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 49 This page intentionally left blank. P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Pinal Biological Evaludiom&c Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Page 50 APPENDIX A: USFWS SPECIES LIST P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Appendix A This page intentionally left blank P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evalumion.doc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Appendix A LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN N MASON COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised August 1, 2011) LISTED Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) — Coastal-Puget Sound DPS Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED None CANDIDATE Fisher (Martes pennanti) — West Coast DPS (Shelton) Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp. couchi) Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) [southwest Washington DPS] Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus coopen) Olympic torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton olympicus) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendil) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog (Ascaphus trues) Van Dyke's salamander (Plethodon vandykei) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Botrychium ascendens (triangular-lobed moonwort) 1 APPENDIX B: NMFS SPECIES LIST P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600[NFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\FM Biological Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Appendix B This page intentionally left blank P:\e\EPSY00000002\O6OOINFO\EP\Biob¢ieal Evaluwion\Final Biological Evaluationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2O12 Biological Evaluation Appendix B Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead j Current Species' Endangered ESA Listing Actions } Species Act Under Review Listing Statusz 1 Snake River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus 2 ( Ozette Lake nerka) 3 I Baker River I Not Warranted 4 Okanogan River I Not Warranted 5 I Lake Wenatchee I Not Warranted 6 I Quinalt Lake Not Warranted 7 Lake Pleasant Not Warranted 8 Sacramento River Winter-run 9 Upper Columbia River Spring-run i Chinook Salmon (O.tshawytscha) 10 Snake River Spring/Summer-run l 1 Snake River Fall-run Threatened 12 Puget Sound Threatened 13 Lower Columbia River Threatened 14 Upper Willamette River Threatened 15 Central Valley Spring-run Threatened 16 California Coastal Threatened 17 Central Valley Fall and Late Fall-run .Species of Concern 18 Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers or Warranted 19 Oregon Coast Not Warranted 20 Washington Coast Not Warranted 21 Middle Columbia River spring-run Not Warranted 22 Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run Not Warranted 23 Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast Not Warranted 24 Deschutes River summer/fall-run N"Warranted 25 Central California Coast Cohn Salmon 26 Southern Oregon/Northem California (O.kisutch) 27 Lower Columbia River Critical habitat 28 Oregon Coast 29 Southwest Washington I Undetermined t � 30 Puget Sound Strait of Georgia Species of Concern 31 Olympic Peninsula Not Warranted Chum Salmon 32 Hood Canal Summer-run r[ufe►F (O.keta) 33 Columbia River 34 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia I Not Warranted 35 Pacific Coast Not Warranted 36 Southern California Steelhead 37 Upper Columbia River r (O.mykiss) 38 Central California Coast Threatened 39 South Central California Coast Threatened 40 Snake River Basin Threatened 41 Lower Columbia River Threatened 42 California Central Valley Threatened 43 Upper Willamette River Threatened 44 Middle Columbia River Threatened 45 Northern California 6 Threatened 46 Oregon Coast Species of(on,ern 47 Southwest Washington Not P,,o, a,a 48 Olympic Peninsula I Not Warranted 49 Puget Sound Critical habitat 50 Klamath Mountains Province Not Warranted Pink Salmon 51 Even-year Not Warranted (O.gorbuscha) 52 Odd-year Not Warranted L The ESA defines a"species"to include any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife.For Pacific salmon,NOAA Fisheries Service considers an evolutionarily significant unit,or"ESU,"a"species"under the ESA.For Pacific steelhead,NOAA Fisheries Service has delineated distinct population segments(DPSs)for consideration as"species"under the ESA. ESA MM List Page 1 of 1 Northwest Regional Office NOANs National Marine Fisheries Service ESA Salmon Listings ESA Regulations & Permits Salmon Habitat Salmon Harvest &Hatcheries Marine Mammals Salmon & Hydropower Salmon Recovery Planning Groundfish &Halibut Permits&Other Marine Species Home >Marine Mammals >ESA MM List Search ESA-Listed Marine Mammals Under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries that may occur: Search NOAA Fisheries off Washington&Oregon Print Version • Southern Resident killer whale(Orcinus orca)(E); critical habitat What's New • humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae) (E) • blue whale(Balaenoptera musculus) (E) About the NVVR • fin whale(Balaenoptera physalus)(E) • sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) (E) About this Website • sperm whale(Physeter macrocephalus)(E) • Steller sea lion(Eumetopias jubatus) (T); critical habitat A-Z Index in Puget Sound Species Lists Publications • Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) (E); critical habitat humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (E) Biological Opinions . Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (T); critical habitat Public Consultation (E) = Endangered Tracking System (T) = Threatened P� CTS] Site Map 7600 Sand Point Way NE,Seattle,WA 98115-0070 Regional Receptionist:503-230-5400 Email:Content Manaoer Privacy Policy I Disclaimer I About Us Important Policies&Links Page last updated:November 1,2011 httn-//Annuur nwr nnaa anv/Marine-Mnmmal-/RSA-MM-T.ist cfm 12/9/201 1 ESA Other List Page 1 of 1 ORA Northwest Regional Office NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service ESA Salmon Listings ESA Regulations & Permits Salmon Habitat Salmon Harvest &Hatcheries Marine Mammals Salmon & Hydropower Salmon Recovery Planning Groundfish&Halibut Permits&Other Marine Species Home >Other Marine Species >ESA Other List Search 1 Other ESA-Listed Species Under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries that may occur off Washington &Oregon: Search NOAA Fisheries . distinct population segment, or DPS, of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) (E) in Print Version Puget Sound o distinct population segment, or DPS, of canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) (T) What's New in Puget Sound . distinct population segment, or DPS, of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes About the NWR ruberrimus) (T) in Puget Sound • southern distinct population segment,or DPS,of eulachon (Columbia River smelt) About this Website (Thaleichthys pacificus)(T) • southern distinct population segment,or DPS,of north American green sturgeon(Acipenser A-Z Index medirostris) (T), listed in the f,lOAA Fisheries Southwest Region Species Lists (E) = Endangered (T) =Threatened Publications Biological Opinions Public Consultation Trackina System PI CTS1 Site Map 7600 Sand Point Way NE,Seattle,WA 98115-0070 Regional Receptionist:503-230-5400 Email:Content Manager Privacy Policy I Disclaimer I About U Important Policies&Links Page last updated.November 1,2011 httn•/hrnuw mxrr nnnn onv/Other-Marine-RnPries/FRA-nthPr-T.ict rfm APPENDIX C: DESIGN DRAWINGS P:k\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Finw Biological Evalumiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Appendix C This page intentionally left blank P:\e\EPSYo0000002\06001NFO\EP\BiologkW Evaluation\Pinal Biological Eval=iondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Appendix C 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 's N PIERCE COUNTY DEVEREAUX 5 � ALLYN UGA LiMITIGATION LIMITS PROJECT SITE SITE TACOM A POWER R.O.W. R R O W Q -VICTOR 144TH ST KP ZP�OMP ?0 I coRD KP t7 MI TO PURDY LNDERSON o ZIZ ELGIN CIIFTON RD KP —� z 0 0 my U U 302 —— Q I w 3 CL oIN Y I 0 cr 0 cn cn V AijGHN BAY TREASURE ISLAND VICINITY MAP 0 1/2 MI 1 MI 2 MI CONVERGENCE ANGLE= -16'37' AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT CHANGING BY 010' A j YEAR RgFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ------------ NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/IANG: War IN: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08" W NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS COUNTY: MASON —o ASSOC IATES,.c. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 STATE: WA 46_01hAwwoee VERT: NAVD 88 A'wowi0m^omm- ° SHEET I OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 Ma 42190AM 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 NRr e\ ;� SR3 qY SEE SITE ACCESS PLAN-WEST. Rp OLD TOWERS ORDINARY HIGH TO BE WATER LINE DEMOLISHED SEE MARINE SEE PLAN AND FOUNDATION PROFILE SHEETS. PLANS. �'ORT„r BAY OLD TOWERS 1 TO BE SEE PLAN AND DEMOLISHED PROFILE SHEETS. SEE SITE MITIGATION SITE ACCESS PLAN-EAST. ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE DECLINATION:—1637' ACCESS ROAD CHANGING BY 0*10' 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 NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: IAT �NG' IN: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W COUNTY:NUR/AT A SON, WA ^.oASSOCIATESi.o. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 COUNTY: MASON a6-tlti�...�sE VERT: NAVD 88 STATE: WA B'' Ph"425-MO SHSEP 2 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SHEET TITLE: PROJECT PLAN VIEW I / TAX PARCEL ID: 18' GRAVEL — 122167590041 ACCESS ROAD TAX PARCEL ID:122167590031 _ SDO R.O.W II — — TAX PARCEL �181 _ LIMITS OF TACOMA ( ID:122167590042 — PUBLIC WETL ND I /—J DISTURBANCE UTILITIES R/IMP I��� !i J , �•' TAX PARCEL ESMT. RE TORA ONID:122167590032 A iEA t 1 TAX PARCEL z , �s ID-122167590043 I— TAX PARCEL ID: I TACOMA PUBLIC IC s� 12216436003 IIr, STAGING AREA "s Y UTILITIES ESMT. .,' TAX PARCEL I 1 I r (/ ID:122167590033 ,J ,� r ` ;E)gj N , I�`411r c SINGLE POLE I r STRUCTURE (TYP� IRS 1 irk -�l ► 4 f 1 lt' '� I 7 Coe D / ,I �►� j LZ 21 ;- j-.r- i i1/Nf 0' ORDINARY 1 < �11J / f z 1L/ � tt�a t l f f _ HIGH / �°� G I I�� TAX PARCEL 0� / 1 J WATER �0 �> — I ID:122167590044 C LINE A TAX PARCEL 1or % ' 1 I -ID:12216 7590034 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE u J �TAeOkk PAL i "'' UELITIES ESMT. „ 200" SHORELINE BUFFER CONVERGENCE ANGLE= —16'37' AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT / CHANGING BY 010' A YEAR NOTE: OVERHEAD POWER LINES OMITTED o so 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 NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID[VANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08" W COUNTY: MASON Y,O ASSOCIATES one. DATM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 STATE: WA VERT: NAVD 88 SHERT 3 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 nt�t.,ms.ee00 SHEET TITLE:SITE ACCESS PLAN—EAST I I \\\ \\ // / \ TAX PARCEL ID: \TAX PARCEL 122174400040 ID:122174400050\ TACOMA PUBLIC LIMITS OF ASPHALT ` UTILITIES ESMT. DISTURBANCE ROAD � R.O.W. TAX PARCEL APPROACH : ID:122174360010 _ , - o 200' SHORELINE / 18' GRAVEL GATE m — — BUFFER \ _ TAX PARCEL ACCESS TAX PARCEL ID: � ID:122174400000 ROAD cn 12217006000 r , , _ I , r LIMITS OF r\ ' �= -,)DISTURBANCE EXISTING tl r r t TOWERSTO E REMOVED /ri ST ING- 00 AREA- / �� ?f y J��r�J < 4 l 3 POLE ' 4 I i f r /fJlr mQ f o r l STRUCTURE (TYP) - `� / r r ORDINARY HIGH TAX PARCEL ID ` e by 77 %! / I ( l r_ � � WATER 122174390040 V p TAX PARCEL I " /_N \''o r LINE Q AX PARCEL ID: 122174400030 — — ~r Q 122205021001 r TACOMA �QN WSDOT TACOMA PUBLIC PUBLIC UTILITIES R.O.W. UTILITIES ESMT. ESMT. I TAX PARCEL / ID:122174400020 gp�( R.O.W. CONVERGENCE ANGLE= -16'37' AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT CHANGING BY 010' A YEAR NOTE: VERHEAD — — — — — — — 7 POWER U MITTED 0 60 120 240 / FOR CLARITY. RSFSRENCE #: PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ----------------- NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD TV APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: IN:NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24' N NEAR/AT: ALLYN. WA DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W COUNTY: MASON ANDA8SOCIATE8 iND. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 46-Uh AvwwN VERT: NAVD 88 STATE: WA 40" SHEET 4 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SEW TITLE: SITE ACCESS PLAN-WEST L �SSBo���Bo�oS�o 714• -_ D I;HGHT 931+06 940+00 EW 3- - ADEND D RIGHT 3 TA. 941+� EXISTING POLES 175 945+00 Y FT:AND RIGHT 9944+60 NEW 3-POLE i DEADEND 950+00 ••178 Ln _ J 955+00 If 960+00- = 0 rn IT � 0 M y0,Q 179 01`14 - D o > 0 965+00 _ B r N - EXISTING P xis 18D 9j NEW n 0 D 0 — LEFT T T DOUBLE rri - ST CIRCUIT m 970+00 II' - 0- II - -co co 0 0o filu 0) ••180 0 0 °' 975+00 O 074 - 74 1 EXISTING POLES 181 980+00 LEFT AJ W SINGLE POLE DEADEND LEFT AND RI - STA. 982 985+00' 1 I NEW SINGLE 9 POLE DEADEND 90+ A. � I 995+00 182 � � I - II I REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ----------------- LATITUDE 47' 23� 24" N j�g NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES NE NORTH BAY Ajj/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08" W COUNTY: MASON AND ASSOC IATES,mc. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 46_IEwA—BE VERT: NAVO 88 STATE: WA aww' w.r.vIn98m5-3 D SHEEP 5 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SHEET' TITLE: C8.0 PLAN AND PROFILE 1 1160'-0"t U)o z m TEMPORARY LINE POLE TO _z a EXISTING SPREAD CONDUCTORS. SEE �m w EXISTING a z w o a TOWER, TYP CONDUCTORS, + S8.0 a o TYP Q m NEW MARINE Q� N FOUNDATION AND POLE + 04 N a z a r 00 un SEE MF-4 a¢ r a a —(n O) V)Oi > m 3 3 a U m ~ N - - - - - w <m z� o O o 0 (� M1ai d Z U V] 0 z O Q QI a TEMPORARY LINE POLE TO SPREAD00 CONDUCTORS. SEE S8.0 o q z z� < x z =� NOTE: O o r BOTH EXISTING CIRCUITS MAY BE MOVED TO N a o< PLAN - WORK AREA THE NORTH IN LIEU OF SPREADING THE - SCALE: NTS EXISTING CONDUCTORS AS SHOWN. U < z � W = � m �oo NEW NEW POLE SEE S1.0 MARINE EXISTING FOUNDATION CONDUCTORS EXISTING TOWER I � I � I � � I U I 2 ELEVATION - WORK AREA SCALE: NTS a U I � r N g ZW Wd >0 CAME PILE CM RIDGE.WP • • POLL SEE E-- i 31L _ _ 7fE j ail Sro 1'-•' RM la. PLAN 3•ELPI COMC PILE CAP PIE PIPE PILE,M i •12 n) ie u "- 1 nl 7N'-Y fcd• INI 1 PLAN•PILE ARRANGEMENT REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES Q ----------- ----- NCNORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: O TACOMA PUBLIC-UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N E NORTH BAY LONGITUDE 122' 49 08 W NR/AT: ALLYN, WA AS8OCIATE81Mo. COUNTY: MASON AMo DATUI[: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 m_"WA.a GE VERT: NAVD 88 STATE: WA BWWAW ' Qbm 9ems- 1° SHEET 7 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 P1-425s1•e= SHEET TITLE:MF-4 MARINE FOUNDATION PLANS POLE I CONC PILE CAP �GROUT T.O.C. O POLE L + 9 T.O.C. O EOGE L + 9 EL +i8.39 MHHW +14. STEEL PIPE PILE, TYP MLLW+0.0 MUDLINE EL -5.0t ELEVATION SME:s •V-Cr 3/8• 1'-0• Z® ecde feet 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 LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W NE NORTH ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS COUNTY: MASON ^■o ASSOCIATES ime. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 STATE: WA N8-,en Avwm BE VERT: NAVD 88 A"'"P,",��3= SHEET 8 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SHEET Tr=: MF-5 PILE CAP ELEVATION /8—1 O 6-EW, OPTIONAL CJ CONC PILE CAP TOP O BOT. TOP BAR FOLLOWS SLOPE OF CONC El +22.39 3.00 CLtRy. . . . . . . TfTv T.O.C. 0 EDGE TYP m .�. . �' EL +18.39 CONN. ILE TYP SEE S u CONK. /5 nn TYP(4 EA SIDE) m i MHHW +14,22 STEEL PIPE PILE. TYP, SEE A If-7 MLLW +0.0 MUDLINE EL -5.0 A SECTION _ 3�B- _ ,•_0. 2a2 VF-� SCALE:! -1'-0 xote feet O 6'IEW ]�:POLE TOP k BOT. TBAR FOLLOWS CROUT CONIC PILE CAP SLOPE OF CON —OPTIONAL CJ T.O.C. O POLE EL +22.59 . T.O.C. O EDGE EL +22 39 EL +1&39 /5 n„TYP(4 EA SIDE) e SECTION salt: !/6 -1-O— 2 0 2 4 xae legit REFERENCE PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES ----------------- NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: LAT/LONG: IN: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC— LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08" W COUNTY: MASON ANc ASSOCIATES 1No. DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 s,I,A.� WA p6-�A�BE VERT: NAVD 88 0i'""`WkO.OOD05-356 SHEET 9 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 M— 4265411A60O SHEET TIM:MF-6 PILE CAP SECTIONS 'u I V): s � I m EXISTING CONC. Izs = FOOTINGS FOR o �OHWM 1 POWERLINE TOWERS lus ' I o z (TYPICAL) o_ _ 1 W1 u I I = 0 - OH RWM 2 D 1 lu I � - / OH °H o VVErLA1�D A OA W4. H_--_ -- off � W 7 5 � - 0 12 OH / 0 s OH WM 3� -- �,�y o n C,�, _ o OH ` N 0 o All W10 z OH / �r u - CO AZ OH - -W16 �_ ti 12 W15 D2 OF m OHWM 4_ u z W140 13 p EXISTING z CHAINLINK FENCED AREA ------ ----- 1= 0 - I. I� o EXISTING V I� BUILDING LEGEND 0 20 40 80 — — — — WETLAND BOUNDARY SCALE IN FEET WETLAND AREA 1" = 40' WETLAND DATA PLOT W/# P WETLAND FLAG W/# zs UPLAND AREA OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OH OVERHEAD WIRES NORTH GV� SHEET TITLE: EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: HORIT PROPOSED PROJECT: 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 mc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-Mth Arenas SE NORTH BAY AT NEAR : Bdews WuMp1on98W5 / TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Q5,M.5500 COUNTY: MASON STATE: WA SHEET 10 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 OH Q 1 PROP SED Ln OH BUFFER - o m R E S�9F�AIIQIV. OH 'I` I0 N AREA I: N Oy = � '� � PROPOSED r zz / WETLAND ,iL <}.� 1 Ou z / RESTORATION m AREA / u c_ U N POSE ND c / WETLA A CR ' ; , I �111� u -_sLE_ CD z s T- 7 cI o 7- 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 y__y UPLAND AREA — — — — WETLAND BOUNDARY �_L 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: RESTORATION PLANTING PLAN PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE— N LATITUDE: 47. 22' 23" N NORTH BAY CROSSING— DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE: 122. 48' 44" W REBUILD AHoASSOCIATES imc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-Im A—SE NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Beft" ,wa*`ip°oiiflBom R_ 4us1esoo COUNTY: MASON STATE: WA SHEET 11 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 WOOD STAKE STRAW WATTLE a X a X 24 INCHES TAKE SPACING 8 TO 10 INCHES 3 TO 7 INCHES IN DIAMETER (ADJOINING FT MAXIMUM HTLY ABUT WATTLESOVN \/ %\�//� 8 INCHES MINIMUM PLAN SECTION STRAW WATTLE INSERT NOT TO SCALE SHEET TITLE: DETAILS PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: 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 ANDASSOCIATES mc. WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-t%lh A—SE NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Ph' 4 -%,65°°°5 COUNTY: MASON R,«,� azss>oesoo STATE: WA SHEET 12 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 II� 0 o ROOT CROWN 1"-2" ABOVE 0 PLANTING SOIL GRADE 0 0 00 3" BARK MULCH. HOLD 0 BACK 4" FROM MAIN STEM 3" MEDIUM BARK MULCH II III—Ii- FINISH GRADE IIIII SFr I-III PLANTING SOIL - SEE NOTES I " I_I11-III-11' -Ali=iil�l I =11' FERTILIZER - EXISTING SUBGRADE MIN. 2 X ROOT BALL SHRUB PLANTING HMROSEED MIX NOT TO SCALE —KIND/VARIETY % BY WEIGHT MIN. % GERM PERENNIAL RYE 50% 90% RED FESCUE 30% 80% COLONIAL BENTGRASS 20% 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 PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE— O LATITUDE:: 47' 22' 23" N NORTH BAY CROSSING— DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE: 122' 48' 44" W REBUILD AHDASSOCIATE5 imc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-t6mAve SE NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES 13*5�,wuttv`oiW005 Pt— Q5695500 COUNTY: MASON STATE: WA SHEET 13 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 MATCH EXISTING NO WORK WEST 18' GRADE OF STAGING, WETLANDS 12" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE PER WSDOT EXISTING STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ASPHALT 9-03.9(1). CONCRETE PAVEMENT -III I II=III -.11�II II III=1 �I-1 I I-1 1(- 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. �v SHEET TITLE: DETAILS PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: 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 AHoASSOCIATES iNc. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 415-�A-SE NEAR AT: NORTH BAY B.M W.d+ymmteaos / TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES P,,,,,� 42ssm.esoo COUNTY: MASON STATE: WA SHEET 14OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 l APPENDIX D: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS P:\e\EPSY00000002\0600INFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evalm iondoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Appendix D This page intentionally left blank P:k\EPSY00000002\06OOINFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatioadoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Appendix D i • Y e r � l Overview of project area looking west across Site Photographs North Bay. Potlatch Transmission Lines- North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project EPSY00000002 0 Appendix D DAVID EVANS February 2012 ASSOCIATES -. Osprey Nest Heron Nests i 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 0 Appendix D AV EVANS .wo ASSOCIATES wc. February 2012 P H O T O 4 - r tI► � � • x P H O T O !I �,/ice ._�►� ONorth Bay during . .- Site Photographs Potlatch Close-up . - . . - �ort : II Transmission. .Lines. - North Bay. ,000000 Appendix - " -� �+� wr yQ 4_ +11 -Op — I t' � I i ' I 4 , F A f f.I_` i : 1 . .S 1 +`+� �a`r` 9 t[ •�. � '�'� 1, "+ ( %.�F�l 1. .. © Substrate near structures. site Photographs Potlatch Transmission Lines- O Wetland A. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project EPSY00000002 O Appendix D DAVID EVANS February2012 —ASSOCIATES—, f l t � J, ! �F Vv. � F��. �r}F� ��"�. �� .,a€ .^'„ fir' 3�♦t.,,�-i r i sA,,.. "���a �, y� - � -s. ,,3w.es � ,. h1y of•e. �7,."► '..+',� �d ��. �' .. ' �j.-� fi �' �1 4. r'�.r'T�z ter• '*#- `j. � !` F ,43 41, .f �r V yF • .aF �,ki sr v S- 8 wetland a at DP 2. Site Photographs O Potlatch Transmission Lines- OClose-up of DP 2. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project WE EPSY00000002 Appendix D DAVID EVANS February2012 oASSOCIATES—. 7 f � r 10 y : _ •,_I gt. n e y} a: Edge of Wetland A and structures along SR 302. Site Photographs Potlatch Transmission Lines- ODView of Wetland A and structures from North Bay. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project EPSY00000002 Appendix D DAVID EVANS February 2012 ASSOCIATES I _ 4t . i r Jr �ltiC/ � SR3, f } a 10 ow r+s. @View looking east from west side of North Bay. Site Photographs Structures in background to be removed. Potlatch Transmission Lines- View looking west from west side of North Bay. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project o ` Existing structures in background to remain. New EPSY00000002 upland structures to be constructed in this area. Appendix D DAVID EVANS February2012 •—ASSOCIATES ��. is s Al 1 _ F f 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 ProjectWo North Bay. EPSY00000002 Appendix D DAVID EVANS February 2012 .No ASSOCIATES- • e, F r IF 24 I Al • R 'A' V it f 1 f } .r e s y 16 View looking west from east side of North Bay. Site Photographs Potlatch Transmission Lines- 17 General area of new structures on east side of North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project North Bay. EPSY00000002 Appendix D DAVID EVAN5 February2012 —ASSOCIATES • • , L �. a Orca whales in Case Inlet at Dutcher Cove in 2006. Site Photographs Potlatch Transmission Lines- 9 Harbor porpoises in Case Inlet near Dutcher Cove North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project on April 11,2009. wo EPSY00000002 Appendix D DAVID EVANS Photos courtesy of Case Inlet Shoreline Association. February 2012 .•.ASSOCIATES-. APPENDIX E: NMFS PILE DRIVER CALCULATOR P:\e\EPSY00000002\06OOINFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluatiomdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2012 Biological Evaluation Appendix E This page intentionally left blank. P:k\EPSY00000002\OGOOINFO\EP\Biological Evaluation\Final Biological Evaluationdoc Potlatch Transmission Lines-North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project April 2O12 Biological Evaluation Appendix E Model last updated January 26, 2009 Project Title Pile information (size, type, number, pile strikes, etc.) Fill in green cells: estimated sound levels and distances at which they were measured, estimated number of pile strikes per day, and transmision loss constant. Acoustic Metric Peak SEL RMS Effective Quiet Measured single strike level (dB) 212 195 1 66 150 Distance (m) 10 10 10 Estimated number of strikes 114 Cumulative SEL at measured distance 216 Distance (m) to threshold Onset of Physical Injury Behavior Peak Cumulative SEL dB— RMS dB Fish >_ 2 g Fish < 2 g dB Transmission loss constant(15 if unknown) 206 187 183 150 15 25 803 1483 2512 '*This calculation assumes that single strike SELs < 150 dB do not accumulate to cause injury (Effective Quiet) Notes (source for estimates, etc.) (This model was last updated January 26, 2009)