Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
UpperHohRiverRoadBA_postUSFWScomments_2016-07-05_stamped
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 This page intentionally left blank. Biological Assessment Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project Jefferson County, Washington Prepared for: FHWA Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 E. Fifth Street Vancouver, WA 98661 Prepared and submitted by: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 415 – 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 July 2016 This page intentionally left blank. Biological Assessment Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project Jefferson County, Washington Prepared for: FHWA Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 E. Fifth Street Vancouver, WA 98661 Contact: Steve Morrow/Kirk Loftsgaarden FHAX0000-0017 Prepared by: O. Gray Rand III Sr. Biologist, PWS Senior WSDOT BA Author David Evans and Associates, Inc. 415 – 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 July 2016 This page intentionally left blank. Q:\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment\UpperHohRiverRoadBA_postUSFWScomments_2016-07-05.docx Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page i Executive Summary The Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with Jefferson County (collectively referred to as “Project Partners”), plans to construct bank stabilization and bridge and culvert improvement projects in five locations along the Upper Hoh River Road (UHRR). The proposed project will develop and implement cost-effective, long-term bank stabilization solutions at three locations along the UHRR. The project will also replace or improve three existing bridge or culvert locations. The roadway at these sites is at risk of washing away in a large flood. The purpose of the proposed improvements is to prevent the road from washing away at these locations, and to provide safe and consistent access to residents, businesses and Park visitors via the UHRR. The project area includes the UHRR between mileposts (MP) 3.7 and 10.2 and the general area north and south of the road, including the Hoh River and its northern banks. The UHRR extends generally east-west immediately north of the Hoh River, in unincorporated western Jefferson County, Washington. The proposed are being evaluated as one project, but will likely be constructed separately, as construction funds allow. A summary of the status and effects determinations for listed species that may occur in the project area is provided in Table S-1. Table S-1. Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Action Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Effects Determination1 Coastal Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened LAA Critical Habitat Designated LAA Northern Spotted Owl Strix caurina Threatened LAA Critical Habitat Designated LAA Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened LAA Critical Habitat Designated LAA Essential Fish Habitat Adverse effect 1 NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NE = No Effect, LAA = Likely to Adversely Affect Q:\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment\UpperHohRiverRoadBA_postUSFWScomments_2016-07-05.docx Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page ii This page intentionally left blank. Q:\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment\UpperHohRiverRoadBA_postUSFWScomments_2016-07-05.docx Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site C1/C2 – Bank Stabilization .............................................................................. 4 2.2 Site 4.38 Culvert Crossing ....................................................................................... 5 2.3 Site C3 – Tower Creek Bridge ................................................................................. 6 2.4 Site C4 – Bank Stabilization .................................................................................... 8 2.5 Site C5 – Canyon Creek Bridge............................................................................... 9 2.6 Excavation and Fill .................................................................................................. 10 2.7 Construction Equipment and Duration .................................................................... 10 2.8 Work Below OHWM ............................................................................................... 12 2.9 Vegetation Clearing ................................................................................................. 12 2.10 Stormwater Management ......................................................................................... 13 2.11 Pile Driving and/or Blasting .................................................................................... 13 2.12 Best Management Practices ..................................................................................... 14 3.0 Action Area ................................................................................................................................ 16 3.1 Aquatic Zone of Impact ........................................................................................... 16 3.2 Terrestrial Action Area ............................................................................................ 16 4.0 Environmental Baseline ........................................................................................................... 21 4.1 Study Methods ......................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 21 Terrestrial Environment .............................................................................. 21 4.2.1 Aquatic Environment .................................................................................. 22 4.2.2 4.3 Matrix of Pathways and Indicators .......................................................................... 23 Water Quality ............................................................................................. 25 4.3.1 Habitat Elements......................................................................................... 25 4.3.2 Channel Condition ...................................................................................... 25 4.3.3 Flow/Hydrology.......................................................................................... 26 4.3.4 Watershed Conditions ................................................................................. 26 4.3.5 Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics .................................................. 26 4.3.6 4.4 Description of Listed Species and Critical Habitat .................................................. 26 4.5 Species Utilization ................................................................................................... 28 Bull Trout ................................................................................................... 28 4.5.1 Northern Spotted Owl ................................................................................. 29 4.5.2 Marbled Murrelet ........................................................................................ 32 4.5.3 5.0 Analysis of Effects ..................................................................................................................... 37 5.1 Habitat Effects ......................................................................................................... 37 5.2 Effects to Listed Species .......................................................................................... 39 Direct Effects .............................................................................................. 39 5.2.1 Indirect Effects ........................................................................................... 50 5.2.2 Beneficial Effects ....................................................................................... 50 5.2.3 Interdependent and Interrelated Actions or Activities ................................ 51 5.2.4 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................... 51 5.2.5 6.0 Determination of Effect ............................................................................................................ 53 7.0 References .................................................................................................................................. 55 Q:\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment\UpperHohRiverRoadBA_postUSFWScomments_2016-07-05.docx Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page iv LIST OF EXHIBITS Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Action Area Map ................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3. Estimated Extent of Mature Forest in the Action Area ......................................................... 35 LIST OF TABLES Table S-1. Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Action Area ...................................................... i Table 1. Estimated Quantities of Excavation and Fill .......................................................................... 10 Table 2. List of Construction Equipment Likely to be Used on the Project ......................................... 11 Table 3. Estimated Construction Durations .......................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Total estimated tree removal quantities and sizes for all projects. ......................................... 13 Table 5. Project-Related Best Management Practices Applicable to All Project Action(s) ................. 15 Table 6. USFWS/NMFS Checklist for Documenting the Environmental Baseline ............................. 24 Table 7. NMFS and USFWS Listed Species Potentially Present in the Action Area ........................... 27 Table 8. Bull Trout Critical Habitat PCEs within the Hoh River ......................................................... 28 Table 9. Summary of Potentially Suitable Habitat Trees for Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl Adjacent to Upper Hoh Road Project ................................................................................... 34 Table 10. Tree Size Class Distribution Sample1 ................................................................................... 34 Table 11. USFWS/NMFS Checklist for Documenting Effects to the Environmental Baseline ........... 38 Table 12. Response/Exposure Matrix of Impacts of the Proposed Project Elements ........................... 41 Table 13. Scale of the Severity (SEV) of Ill Effects Associated with Excess Suspended Sediment on Salmonids. .................................................................................................................................... 43 Table 14. Scale of Severity (SEV) of Ill Effects Associated with Excess Suspended Sediment on Salmonid Habitat. ......................................................................................................................... 44 Table 15. ESA Effect Calls for Different Bull Trout Life Stages in Relation to Duration of Effect and SEV. ............................................................................................................................................. 44 Table 16. Relationship of the Matrix Indicators to the Primary Constituent Elements of Bull Trout Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 46 Table 17. Distance Thresholds for Northern Spotted Owl Effects ....................................................... 48 Table 18. Local Jefferson County Cumulative Impact Projects Since 1996 in Action Area ................ 51 APPENDICES Appendix A: Essential Fish Habitat Analysis Appendix B: Preliminary Project Design Plans Appendix C: Noise Attenuation Calculator Appendix D: Species Lists from USFWS and NMFS Appendix E: Project Area Photographs Appendix F: Table 1. Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators Appendix G: Biology of Analyzed Listed Species Q:\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment\UpperHohRiverRoadBA_postUSFWScomments_2016-07-05.docx Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page v Acronyms and Abbreviations asl above sea level BA Biological Assessment BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice BO Biological Opinion cfs cubic feet per second dBA A-weighted decibel dbh diameter at breast height DCH Designated Critical Habitat DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc. DPS Distinct Population Segment Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EFH essential fish habitat ELJ engineered log jam/dolos ESA Endangered Species Act ESC Erosion and Sediment Control HUC hydrologic unit code IWWW In-water work window MP milepost MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NWFP Northwest Forest Plan OHWM ordinary high water mark Park Olympic National Park PCE primary constituent element PHS Priority Habitats and Species RM River Mile SOSEA Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Area SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control UHRR Upper Hoh River Road USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources WFLHD Western Federal Lands Highway Division WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Q:\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment\UpperHohRiverRoadBA_postUSFWScomments_2016-07-05.docx Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page vi This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 1 1.0 Introduction The Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with Jefferson County (collectively referred to as “Project Partners”), plans to construct bank stabilization and bridge and culvert improvement projects in five locations along the Upper Hoh River Road (UHRR). The UHRR is located in western Jefferson County, Washington, between Highway 101 and the Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center. The road is used to access the Olympic National Park (Park) and private properties along the road. The UHRR was likely built around 1938, when the Park was established, and is the primary western access to the Park. The UHRR extends in a generally east-west direction north of and in many places, adjacent to the Hoh River, an approximately 56-mile-long river originating from glaciers on Mount Olympus and flowing through the Olympic mountains, foothills, and emptying into the Pacific Ocean at the Hoh Indian Reservation. The Hoh River valley is relatively flat and broad with a complex channel migration zone that supports a braided river channel, and a wide variety of gravel bars, side channels, and backwater areas. The Hoh River is also characterized by a wide range of seasonal flow rates, with annual peak flows of more than 60,000 cubic feet per second recorded. The road varies in proximity to the Hoh River and in certain areas, is within approximately 5 feet of the river, resulting in unstable banks and slides during high water or storm events. WFLHD and the County have constructed several projects in recent years along the road, in order to prevent road closures due to unstable slopes. Without the proposed project, these emergency projects will continue to happen regularly. The proposed project will develop and implement cost-effective, long-term bank stabilization solutions at three locations along the UHRR. The project will also replace or improve three existing bridge or culvert locations. The roadway at these sites is at risk of washing away in a large flood. The purpose of the proposed improvements is to prevent the road from washing away at these locations, and to provide safe and consistent access to residents, businesses and Park visitors via the UHRR. The project area includes the UHRR between mileposts (MP) 3.7 and 10.2 and the general area north and south of the road, including the Hoh River and its northern banks. The UHRR extends generally east-west immediately north of the Hoh River, in unincorporated western Jefferson County, Washington. All six projects are located within the project area (Figure 1), a heavily forested and rural area west of the Park. Up p e r H o h R i v e r R o a d B a n k S t a b i l i z a t i o n P r o j e c t July 2016 Bi o l o g i c a l A s s e s s m e n t Page 2 Fi g u r e 1 . V i c i n i t y M a p Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 3 Legal locations for the primary projects are as follows: • Site C1/C2 – Township 27N, Range 12W, Section 25 and Township 27N, Range 11W, Section 30 • Site C3 – Township 27N, Range 11W, Section 28 • Site C4 – Township 27N, Range 11W, Section 27 • Site C5 – Township 27N, Range 11W, Section 25 All of the projects are located within sixth field hydrologic unit codes (HUC) 171001010706 (Lower Hoh River) and 171001010705 (Owl Creek), both within the Sol Duc – Hoh Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 20. Public land owners and managers in the project area include the Hoh River Trust, Jefferson County, the National Park Service (Olympic National Park), and the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Individuals, Hoh Rainforest Enterprises LLC, R.D. Merrill Company, and the Discovery Timber Company also own land in the project area. This Biological Assessment (BA) examines potential project impacts on federally threatened and endangered species listed under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This BA evaluates potential impacts based on existing information about current habitat conditions and suitability for providing the life history requirements of these species. Section 7 of the ESA of 1973 (as amended) requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if they determine that any actions they authorize, fund, and/or conduct may affect any federally proposed or listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The County applied for and received funds through the Federal Highway Bridge Program for the proposed project. An analysis of project effects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), is included in Appendix A. This BA identifies the potential project impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats, lists the conservation measures to mitigate those impacts, and makes a determination of effect for each species. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 4 2.0 Project Description Proposed improvements at each location are described below and in the preliminary project plans included with Appendix B. 2.1 Site C1/C2 – Bank Stabilization Site C1 is parallel to an outside bank of a bend in the Hoh River at approximately River Mile (RM) 18.8 to 18.9 and milepost (MP) 3.6 to 3.8. Site C2 is larger, located at MP 4.0 to 4.4 and RM 19.1 to 19.5. Within this reach, WFLHD is proposing to improve approximately 2,900 lineal feet of riverbank that is experiencing multiple types of bank failure from toe scour and undermining of the stream bank. WFLHD would use engineered log jams (ELJs) to rebuild and protect the bank. ELJs are collections of large woody debris (LWD) that, when placed in a river or other water body, redirect flow and increase stability to a bank or downstream gravel bar. Installation is patterned after stable, naturally-occurring log jams, which are usually formed by large trees with rootwads attached that stabilize and anchor other debris that accumulate against the trees. Approximately 29 ELJ/dolosse units will be installed along this same reach of the river (6 at C1 and 23 at C2). Dolosse are concrete jack-like structures with two approximately 8-foot-long octagonal and perpendicular appendages (approximately 3 feet diameter). One dolos would be chained to approximately three logs; each dolos/log bundle would be attached to one large tree; the bundles would then be combined to form an ELJ/dolosse unit. Each of these units would be approximately 75 feet long, 20 feet high, and 20 feet wide. Each unit would consist of approximately 75 logs and 20 dolosse (Appendix B). Installation of the ELJ/dolosse units would involve placing wood piles that penetrate the river bottom 10 feet in order to provide adequate resistance to buoyancy and sliding. An ELJ structure of this size, ballasted with dolosse, would be needed to resist unknown flow conditions and expected woody debris accumulation. The log and dolosse bundles and units would be chained together to keep them in place during high-flow velocities and against expected scour depths and additional LWD accumulation that could dislodge the ELJ/dolosse unit components. The individual dolos/log bundles that make up the ELJ/dolosse unit may be pre-fabricated (manufactured) and bundled off-site prior to on-site installation. Typical construction sequencing to install one ELJ/dolosse unit may include the following steps: 1. Establish project limits, clearing limits, and grade controls. One primary staging area will be established for all six sites. On-site secondary staging areas will occur along the bank at each individual site as needed for construction; 2. Install erosion control measures, such as sediment fencing, silt curtains, and temporary flow diversions; 3. Mobilize, stage, and stockpile equipment and materials at the primary staging area, including construction and servicing equipment, timber (piles, logs to attach to Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 5 dolosse, and slash material), racking material, dolosse, and chain for attaching logs to dolosse; 4. Assemble ELJ/dolosse bundles at primary staging area; 5. Locate site-specific staging and work areas for placing crane or large excavator for the purpose of placing ELJ/dolosse unit into the river; 6. Implement temporary traffic controls in the work area for delivering equipment and materials from primary staging area to on-site staging and work area;1 7. Clear and grub to remove vegetation and debris within the site-specific staging and work area and to provide access from the UHRR to the staging and work area. Vegetation removal would be limited to what is necessary to complete the construction activities; 8. Grade and excavate bank (above the OHWM) as necessary to provide a stable equipment operating platform; 9. Excavate the streambed to the depth necessary for placement of the ELJ/dolosse unit; 10. Place the crane with vibratory equipment, drive piles, and install ELJ/dolosse unit; 11. Place slash and woody material on surface and interstitial areas of the units; 12. Move to next ELJ/dolosse unit and repeat steps 10 through 13; 13. Compact bank using alluvial and topsoil fill; 14. Install riparian vegetation plantings, including willow poles and fascines, above the OHWM; 15. Repave the UHRR where needed; 16. Revegetate areas disturbed as a result of construction activities; and 17. Document after-construction conditions. Construction at each site is anticipated to require one construction season to complete, between June 1 and October 31 (to take advantage of seasonal low water conditions in the Hoh River). All in-water construction work would occur during the proposed project-specific in-water work window (IWWW) of July 15 to August 31. Traffic during construction would be maintained by keeping one lane open, with active traffic control (flaggers, pilot cars, temporary stop lights, etc.). Traffic delays of up to four hours are anticipated in the summer. 2.2 Site 4.38 Culvert Crossing WFLHD proposes to replace the culvert on the UHRR at MP 4.38 (RM 19.5) within site C2. The existing 72-inch corrugated steel culvert carries an unnamed tributary down to the Hoh 1 In more constrained work areas such as site C2, the closed lane may be used to place cranes or excavators for materials placement into river. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 6 River, and is located just upstream of the tributary’s confluence with the river. The culvert is in poor condition, has a history of plugging with debris during high flows and overtopping the roadway, and needs an upgrade to improve flow and fish passage. The existing culvert would be removed, and a new 16- by 16-foot concrete box culvert would be constructed in its place, half at a time. The culvert would be placed using the same equipment as the stream bank stabilization: a crane, excavator, bulldozer, and roller. Workers would either push sheet piling into soft soils (for cofferdam/isolation area) or use a vibratory hammer to install the pilings. Table 1 shows the amounts of excavated material and fill material in total and below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) associated with replacing the culvert at MP 4.38. Traffic would be initially moved to one side of the roadway and single-lane traffic maintained until half of the pipe is constructed. Once the constructed portion of the pipe is back filled, the same work would be completed on the other side of the pipe. Throughout the duration of the construction, traffic would be limited to a single lane with delays ranging from 30 minutes up to four hours in the summer. Construction of the pipe would be coordinated with the bank stabilization along site C2. Construction would be completed in one season, between June 1 and October 31. Approximately 30 days of the 45-day construction period would involve work below the OHWM, and would occur between July 15 and August 31. Some portion of the upland work could occur during the nighttime hours. 2.3 Site C3 – Tower Creek Bridge At site C3 (MP 7.5, RM 23.3), WFLHD proposes to replace the existing bridge over Tower Creek. The existing bridge is a single span steel girder bridge that is approximately 70 feet long and 30 feet wide. It is in good condition with 18 feet of clearance from the stream bed to the bottom of the support girders. The existing bridge abutments are being scoured out, to the point where there are exposed piles and exposed wingwall foundations. Also, the existing riprap scour protection is overly steep at this site. The new bridge would be located immediately north of the current location of the bridge. The new bridge would generally have the same following characteristics: • Minimum bridge length of 130 feet, which is based on the following anticipated channel characteristics: o 1.75(h):1(v) side slopes o 20-foot-wide active channel o 44-foot overall waterway width o 16 feet of clearance from channel bed to bridge low chord • New bridge would be precast, prestressed concrete decked bulb tee girders • Bridge would be supported by semi-integral abutments set on deep foundations with cantilevered wing walls Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 7 • Abutment foundations would be supported by 18-inch-diameter hollow steel pipe piles that extend below the anticipated scour depth of the stream • Bridge would include approach slabs Existing riprap scour protection under the existing bridge would be removed to allow room for stream channel widening and bank reshaping. New riprap revetments comprised of heavy- loose angular rock riprap approximately 5 feet in depth would be installed on both stream banks upstream and downstream of the new bridge. The revetments would be keyed into the channel floor. Streambed material would then be placed to cover the channel riprap protection, and shaped to form a new low flow channel. Overall, approximately 100 lineal feet of Tower Creek would have streambed improvements. Approximately 120 lineal feet of the stream (approximately 1,800 square feet) would be dewatered and isolated. If the new bridge overlaps the existing bridge, construction of the new bridge would require closure of one half of the existing bridge at a time, allowing one lane of traffic to continue on the existing alignment. A concrete barrier would be installed in the center of the existing bridge, allowing traffic diversion onto one side of the bridge. The closed portion of the existing bridge would be demolished and the new half or more of the new bridge constructed. Then traffic would be moved onto the newly constructed bridge portion, and demolition and construction would proceed on the other side of the bridge. Depending on the final location of the new bridge alignment, it may be possible to entirely construct the new bridge prior to demolition of the old bridge. Typical construction sequencing at Tower Creek Bridge may include the following steps: 1. Establish project limits, clearing limits, and grade controls; 2. Mobilize equipment, materials, and personnel to the site; 3. Implement temporary traffic controls in the work area; 4. Install erosion control measures; 5. Clear and grub to remove vegetation and debris along the chosen bridge alignment and roadway approaches (vegetation removal would be limited to what is necessary to complete the construction activities); 6. As necessary, install stream diversion to re-route water flow and conduct fish relocation; 7. Position equipment necessary for bridge construction; 8. Excavate streambanks to design conditions with appropriate slopes and depths; 9. Excavate and install shoring as appropriate to stabilize abutment locations; 10. Drive pipe piles for abutment foundations; 11. Install forms for abutments and wingwalls; 12. Pour concrete for abutments and wingwalls; Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 8 13. Perform streambed work, including grading, riprap, streambed, etc.; 14. Install girders and abutment connections; 15. Install decking, approach slabs, catchbasins, etc.; 16. Remove stream diversion; 17. Erect guardrails and signs in designated areas; 18. Revegetate disturbed areas as a result of the construction activities (see Section 2.6 for more detail); and 19. Clean up and demobilize from site. To support the bridge abutments, workers would install up to a total of twelve 18-inch- diameter hollow steel piles (six at each abutment) using vibratory equipment to the point of refusal. The piles would then be proofed for load bearing with an impact hammer. Assuming that at each of the two abutments, six steel pipe piles would be driven 50 feet deep, and that 30 strikes per foot are required for proofing, approximately 18,000 strikes of an impact pile driver would be required in a worst case scenario that only impact driving is used (Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOT] 2016). To the extent contractors are able to use vibratory equipment, the number of impact hammer strikes would be less than 18,000. Impact pile driving would occur over seven days at most, with two days for driving two test piles, one at each abutment. Replacement of Tower Creek Bridge is anticipated to require one construction season, with work being conducted between June 1 and October 31, with a possible 10 days of construction in January or February. Traffic would be maintained on at least one lane of the existing bridge. Some portion of the work may occur during the nighttime hours. 2.4 Site C4 – Bank Stabilization Site C4 is located at MP 7.5 to 7.6 (RM 23.3) and at MP 7.9 (RM 23.6) immediately upstream and downstream of an approximately 1,300-foot-long riprap revetment installed by Jefferson County in 2007 along an outside bend in the river. At this location, WFLHD would install four stream ELJ/dolosse units at the upstream (1 unit) and downstream (3 units) ends of the existing riprap revetment. The purpose of the bank stabilization in this location is to prevent scour and unraveling of the upper end of the revetment, and encourage sediment deposition in the riprap to support future volunteer vegetation. At the upstream end of the site, a single ELJ/dolosse unit would be installed to tie into the existing riprap revetment. The ELJ unit would hug the bank and extend approximately 25 feet into the river. Three ELJ/dolosse units would be installed at the downstream end of the existing revetment, between the riprap and the confluence with Tower Creek, where a large gravel bar has formed. The bank stabilization would block further development of the side channel that is threatening further erosion toward the road. Construction sequencing would be the same as described above for site C1/C2. Traffic during construction would be maintained by keeping one lane open, with active traffic control. Traffic delays of up to four hours are anticipated in the summer. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 9 2.5 Site C5 – Canyon Creek Bridge The Canyon Creek Culvert would be replaced with a new bridge. Construction would be completed in one season, June 1 through October 31. Some portion of the work may occur during the nighttime hours. The existing culvert would be demolished and a bridge constructed in its place. The bridge is expected to be approximately 160 feet to 180 feet in length, based on a 20-foot channel width, 30 feet of vertical clearance, creating 2:1 side slopes with fill, and installing riprap 5 feet thick. While maintaining traffic in the existing alignment, workers would construct the south portion of the new bridge, offset from the existing alignment. Then, the permanent bridge rail on the south bridge edge would be constructed, and a temporary concrete barrier would be installed along the north edge of the bridge. This south portion of the new bridge would be a minimum of 20 feet wide, in order to provide a one-lane 10-foot lane with 2-foot shoulders. Workers would shift traffic onto the completed south portion of the new structure, remove existing fill and the culvert (completely or partially, to yield enough space to construct the north portion of the new bridge), and construct the remaining north portion of the new bridge. The existing embankment and culvert would be utilized at Canyon Creek to grade a detour during construction. Temporary shoring may be needed for abutment construction. Stormwater runoff during construction would be directed to the road shoulder and dispersed into the vegetated roadside ditch for infiltration. Similar to the Tower Creek Bridge, workers would install six 18-inch-diameter hollow steel piles using vibratory equipment to the point of refusal, and then an impact hammer for proofing at each bridge abutment. As a worst case, approximately 18,000 strikes of an impact pile driver would be required (WSDOT 2016). To the extent contractors are able to use vibratory equipment, the number of impact hammer strikes would be possibly significantly less than 18,000. Impact pile driving would occur over seven days at most, with two days for driving two test piles, one at each abutment. Table 1 shows the anticipated amounts of excavated material, fill material, and riprap placement, in total and below the OHWM, expected to be associated with replacing Canyon Creek Culvert with a bridge. A single clear span structure does not require interior support piers, which eliminates most construction in the channel. This option also eliminates the need for dewatering, temporary cofferdams, and temporary work in the stream for bridge installation. However, dewatering and temporary work in the channel would be required to remove the old culvert. The length of the bridge (120 feet) would require a 100- to 120-foot-long bridge girder, the weight and size of which could result in transport difficulties. Two prestressed concrete girders can be shipped in two pieces and spliced together on the site using post-tensioning. The single span structure would have the deepest and heaviest superstructure, which would require larger cranes to set the girders. Semi-integral abutments, Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 10 supported on deep foundations, with cantilevered wing walls would be used. This type of construction reduces the need for any expansion joints on the bridge superstructure, reducing the potential for water leakage and requirements for long term maintenance associated with expansion joints. Additionally, this type of abutment configuration would help to decrease design complexity and the uncertainty of the structure and soil movements. The foundation type cannot be fully determined until the geotechnical investigation is advanced later in design. The measurement from centerline bearing to centerline bearing at each abutment is expected to be approximately 130 feet. This option would use prestressed bulb-tee girders. Because the abutments are integral with the superstructure, approach slabs would be constructed to ensure ride-ability across the abutments if the approach fill settles. Deck drains would not likely be needed due to the longitudinal slope, crowned deck section, and shoulders. Catch basins could be installed in the shoulder approach of the bridge to capture pavement runoff flowing toward the bridge in the long run. 2.6 Excavation and Fill Proposed excavation and fill quantities are shown below in Table 1 for each site. Table 1. Estimated Quantities of Excavation and Fill Location Total (yd³) Below OHWM (yd³) Fill Excavation Fill Excavation Riprap Site C1 8,000 3,000 850 3,000 0 Site C2 31,700 11,800 3,400 11,800 0 Site C3 - Tower Creek Bridge 3,500 6,000 1,000* 4,000 1,500 Site C4 15,000 14,000 1,600 5,600 0 Culvert at MP 4.38 4000 4500 1500 500* 2000 0 Site C5 - Canyon Creek Bridge 2,500 10,000 500* 2,000 1,000 *denotes streambed simulation material. In compliance with the 2014 WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, the contractor would be responsible for the disposal of material outside the project site. 2.7 Construction Equipment and Duration Table 2 shows a list and typical usage of the construction equipment likely to be used on the project. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 11 Most construction would be accomplished by one to two large cranes, one pile driver (vibratory and impact hammers), large track-mounted excavators (2 to 3), one medium track- mounted excavator, multiple dump trucks, and a loader. During the project there would be flaggers, pilot cars, and likely temporary stop lights. Typical delays could be 30 minutes, but during certain construction operations longer delays could be needed (up to 4 hours). During bridge construction, there is a possibility that the Park would allow a road closure for up to two weeks. Estimated duration of construction in days, including both total construction and duration of in water work, is displayed in Table 3 below. Table 2. List of Construction Equipment Likely to be Used on the Project Equipment Type Typical Uses Air Compressor Providing air power for pneumatic tools such as rock drills, jackhammers, rotary hammers, etc. Backhoe Minor excavating, digging, and backfilling trenches. Chain Saw Tree removal. Concrete Pump Truck Pumping concrete into concrete forms for structures, via 4- to 6-inch pipe. Concrete Saw Cutting concrete, masonry, brick, asphalt, and other solid materials. Crane Lifting, moving various heavy objects within a relatively small radius; drilling large holes such as drilled shafts (with drilling apparatus attached). Front-End Loader Loading trucks, filling trenches, excavating in limited areas, and miscellaneous earthworking operations. Generator Running electric powered tools. Pile driver (impact and vibratory) Installing steel H piles and sheet piles. Pneumatic tools including rock drill, jackhammer Drilling rock and breaking up pavement. Sheep’s Foot Roller Compacting subgrade – clayey soils and gravels. Track-Hoe / Excavator Excavating, digging trenches. Trucks and Trailers Hauling equipment and materials; transporting excavated or embankment (fill) material. Water Truck Compacting for dust control. Welder / Torch Joining of metals such as culverts, steel rods. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 12 Table 3. Estimated Construction Durations Location In Water Work (days) Total Construction (days) Site C1 30 45 Site C2 75 100 Culvert @ MP 4.38 30 45 Site C3 -Tower Creek Bridge 10 90 Site C4 30 45 Site C5 - Canyon Creek Bridge 10 90 2.8 Work Below OHWM Estimated quantities of excavation and fill below the OHWM of the Hoh River and its tributaries are listed in Table 1 above. Estimated duration of in water work at each site is included in Table 3. Work activities below OHWM at all locations would include the following: • Dewatering and diversion and fish relocation; • Removal of old scour countermeasures (e.g., riprap); • Removal of the existing abutments; • Excavation for the new abutments; • Installing new foundations; • Installing new riprap revetments and streambed material; • Installing H-piles and pipe piles; • Installing ELJ/dolosse units; • Installing new culverts; and • Removing stream diversions. Work below the OHWM would occur during the proposed in water work window, July 15 to August 31. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identifies the current, standard in water work window as July 15 to August 15. Actual in water work windows would be determined by consultation with the permitting agencies. 2.9 Vegetation Clearing The proposed project would limit vegetation removal to the greatest extent practical by staging construction on the existing road and adjacent road shoulders. Most impacts would be related to removal of streambank vegetation at each project site. Affected vegetation primarily consists of trees such as western hemlock, sitka spruce, and red alder; shrubs such as salmonberry, vine maple, trailing blackberry, Himalayan blackberry, and red elderberry; and Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 13 grasses and forbs such as sword fern, Kentucky bluegrass, slough sedge, soft rush, and creeping buttercup. Table 4 below displays estimated areas and quantities of vegetation to be removed across all projects. Table 4. Total estimated tree removal quantities and sizes for all projects. Site Approximate Number of Total Trees Removed Approximate Number of Large Conifer Trees to be Removed1 Area of Land to be Cleared for Site-specific Access, Staging, and Storage (square feet) C1 30 3 42,000 C2/MP 4.38 Culvert 175 3 100,000 C3 – Tower Creek 30 10 40,000 C4 West 2 0 10,000 C4 East 10 4 5,000 C5 – Canyon Creek 40 0 30,000 Total 325 20 187,000 1 Large conifer trees defined as greater than 18 inches in diameter Trees to be removed at Tower Creek and Canyon Creek would be the result of realignment and grading adjacent to the newly constructed bridges. Mitigation would be provided on site through the restoration of disturbed areas at a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio following construction. This would include replanting stream buffers with plant material salvaged from the site as well as supplemental plantings of native nursery stock. Follow up effort the following year would be to monitor for 80 percent survival and install native riparian cuttings where deposition within the bank treatment area has occurred. 2.10 Stormwater Management All runoff would disperse and infiltrate into soils on the road shoulders and vegetated ditches as it currently does. Stormwater from the new bridges would be collected and routed to the edges of the bridges where it would disperse and infiltrate. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures would be installed prior to and during construction to minimize pollutants from entering area waterbodies. The project would result in a slight increase in impervious surface in the action area due entirely to the wider bridges being proposed. The footprint of the existing road prism would remain the same. The increase in impervious surface would amount to less than 1,000 square feet. 2.11 Pile Driving and/or Blasting No blasting is anticipated on any of the proposed sites. Pile driving is anticipated on this project. A combination of vibratory and impact pile driving would be used as described below: Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 14 • Bank Stabilization MP 3.7 to 4.0 – Install 12- to 18-inch log piles (approximately 170) used to anchor the ELJ/dolosse units using a vibratory hammer. • Culvert at MP 4.38 – Install sheet piling (for cofferdam/isolation area). Can be installed by pushing the sheet pile down in soft soils, otherwise a vibratory hammer would be used. • Tower Creek Bridge – Install six (6) 18-inch-diameter hollow steel piles as foundations for each abutment. Piles would be installed by vibratory hammer to the point of refusal, then ‘proofed’ for load bearing with and impact hammer. Assuming that at each of the two abutments, the six piles would be driven 50 feet deep, and that 30 strikes per foot are required for proofing, approximately 18,000 strikes of an impact pile driver would be required, in a worst case situation. • Canyon Creek Bridge – Install six 18-inch-diameter hollow steel piles as foundations for abutments. Piles would be installed by vibratory hammer to the point of refusal, then ‘proofed’ for load bearing with and impact hammer. Assuming that at each of the two abutments, the six piles would be driven 50 feet deep, and that 30 strikes per foot are required for proofing, approximately 18,000 strikes of an impact pile driver would be required, in a worst case situation. 2.12 Best Management Practices Project-related Best Management Practices (BMPs), shown in Table 5, are typical on this type of project. Potential impacts to listed species would also be avoided and minimized by avoiding critical spawning, rearing, migration, and breeding periods. A TESC and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would include key measures to protect water quality. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 15 Table 5. Project-Related Best Management Practices Applicable to All Project Action(s) 1 A TESC Plan and a Source Control Plan will be developed and implemented for all projects requiring clearing, vegetation removal, grading, ditching, filling, embankment compaction, or excavation. The BMPs in the plans will be used to control sediments from all vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. 2 Only vegetation that is a necessity for the project to be constructed will be removed. Delineate clearing limits with orange barrier fencing wherever clearing is proposed in or adjacent to a stream/wetland or its buffer. 3 Erosion control blankets may be installed on steep slopes that are susceptible to erosion and where ground- disturbing activities have occurred. This will prevent erosion and assist with establishment of native vegetation. 4 The contractor will designate at least one employee as the Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) lead. The ESC lead will be responsible for the installation and monitoring of erosion control measures and maintaining spill containment and control equipment. The ESC lead will also be responsible for ensuring compliance with all local, state, and federal erosion and sediment control requirements. 5 Inspect all temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures on a regular basis. Maintain and repair to assure continued performance of their intended function. Inspect silt fences immediately after each rainfall, and at least daily during prolonged rainfall. Remove sediment as it collects behind the silt fences and prior to their final removal. 6 Where practicable for soil stability, native vegetation and/or a native seed mixture will be planted in areas disturbed by construction activities. 7 The contractor shall prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan prior to beginning construction. The SPCC Plan shall identify the appropriate spill containment materials, which will be available at the project site at all times. 8 All equipment to be used for construction activities shall be cleaned and inspected prior to arriving at the project site, to ensure no potentially hazardous materials are exposed, no leaks are present, and the equipment is functioning properly. 9 Construction equipment will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaks of hydraulic fluids, fuel, lubricants, or other petroleum products. Should a leak be detected on heavy equipment used for the project, the equipment shall be immediately removed from the area and not used again until adequately repaired. 10 Material that may be temporarily stored for use in project activities shall be covered with plastic or other impervious material to prevent sediments from being washed from the storage area to surface waters. 11 If necessary, a biologist shall re-evaluate the project for changes in design and potential impacts associated with those changes, as well as the status and location of listed species, every 6 months until project construction is completed. 12 Exposed soils will be hydroseeded with a native grass mix or other appropriate surface mix (e.g., rock) after construction is complete. 13 For projects involving concrete, a concrete truck chute cleanout area shall be established to properly contain wet concrete. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 16 3.0 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 project area and secondary project features are considered when defining the action area. The action area would include potential effects from visual and audible disturbance, terrestrial habitat impacts, and impacts to aquatic environments. 3.1 Aquatic Zone of Impact Potential aquatic effects would include releases of sediment during and immediately after work below the OHWM, as well as long-term hydraulic changes, such as increased or decreased water velocity, due to the new bank stabilizations sites. Locations where aquatic effects may occur include the three reaches of the Hoh River where bank stabilization is proposed (sites C1, C2, and C4), the portion upstream and downstream that would be affected by sedimentation and hydraulic changes, the portions of Tower Creek affected by streambank and channel modifications, the portions of Canyon Creek affected by streambank and channel modifications, and the portion of the unnamed tributary affected by installation of the new culvert at MP 4.38. Potential downstream effects at any of the three bridge/culvert sites could extend to the Hoh River as well, given its close proximity. During construction, aquatic effects would be limited to temporary degradation from during installation of the bank stabilization measures in the Hoh River; water diversion is not proposed. Therefore, sedimentation in the river would be unavoidable. Similarly, downstream hydraulic changes are similarly unavoidable, since they are the intended purpose of the measures. Diversions are likely to be used at Tower Creek and Canyon Creek, so the most likely downstream impact at these locations would occur after removal of the proposed diversions, when the creeks are returned to the channel and an initial plume of sediment may be released. Proposed hydraulic changes at each of the five sites would create various upstream and downstream effects, including changes to water velocity and geomorphic changes to streambanks due to those changes in water velocity. These effects cannot be predicted with any certainty, but are unlikely to extend more than approximately 1,000 feet upstream and downstream of each bank stabilization site and no more than 300 feet downstream of the bridge sites. Based on these potential project construction activities and hydraulic effects, the aquatic zones of impact at each bridge are shown on Figure 2. No wetlands are located in the aquatic zones of impact. 3.2 Terrestrial Action Area Noise is expected to be the project impact with the most far-reaching terrestrial environmental effects. Based on the types of construction equipment proposed for the project, noise levels associated with the majority of construction (typical) are not expected to exceed 110 A- weighted decibels (dBA), which is the average maximum noise level at 50 feet from an impact pile driver (WSDOT 2015). However, pile driving represents only a fraction of the typical construction activities during the project. Typically, the project will have a maximum noise Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 17 level of 89 dBA, which is the noise level produced by some of the pneumatic tools that may be required, including jackhammers. The action area would be equivalent to the distance required for construction noise to attenuate to the dominant background, or “ambient,” noise levels. In many urban areas, ambient noise is dominated by traffic and other sources of anthropogenic sources. However, the project area is generally a quiet forested setting with low levels of traffic on UHRR, and very few other regular sources of noise. No sources of measured background noise were available for this analysis; therefore, ambient noise in this area was assumed to be 40 dBA, which is consistent with the estimated ambient noise level used in the Olympia National Forest programmatic biological assessment for undisturbed forested areas (U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI] 2013). Assuming typical levels of noise attenuation in a “soft” environment (such as the diverse habitats adjacent to most of the project), noise disturbance from pile driving would be expected to attenuate to ambient noise levels typical of the project vicinity within 31,548 feet (5.9 miles) (Appendix C). However, the nature of the local topography surrounding the project would largely contain the sound within the Hoh River valley (Figure 2). As stated above, this action area would be really only applicable during pile driving, which is anticipated to be limited to seven days at each bridge site. For the remainder of construction, the action area would be approximately 4,560 feet (0.86 mile), based on noise level of 89 dBA for pneumatic tools. Potential future development patterns would not change due to the proposed project because the project would not change roadway capacity and would not affect land use zoning. All indirect effects, including audible and visual, are expected to be contained within the action area. Indirect effects are addressed in more detail in Section 5.2.2. For the reasons described above, the terrestrial action area would include those areas within 0.86 mile of proposed project limits due to noise disturbance, except during brief periods of pile-driving. Figure 2 shows the action area where extent of typical construction noise levels attenuates to ambient sound levels. The terrestrial action area encompasses all areas of aquatic impacts. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 18 This page intentionally left blank. Up p e r H o h R i v e r R o a d B a n k S t a b i l i z a t i o n P r o j e c t July 2016 Bi o l o g i c a l A s s e s s m e n t Page 19 Fi g u r e 2 . A c t i o n A r e a M a p Up p e r H o h R i v e r R o a d B a n k S t a b i l i z a t i o n P r o j e c t July 2016 Bi o l o g i c a l A s s e s s m e n t Page 20 Th i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k . Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 21 4.0 Environmental Baseline 4.1 Study Methods David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) requested an official USFWS species list for the proposed project from the IPaC system (USFWS 2016) and reviewed the NMFS website (NMFS 2016) to determine the potential presence of ESA-listed species and critical habitat within the project vicinity. Data from StreamNet (2016), WDNR (2016), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2016b) were also reviewed to determine if listed species or potential suitable habitat occur in the action area. Species lists are included in Appendix D. DEA biologists conducted site visits to the project area between February 2 and 5, 2015; on October 28, 2015; and on May 12 and 13, 2016 to document critical areas, including wildlife habitat and wetlands, note species presence, and potential fish and wildlife habitat in the action area. Wetlands and streams along the proposed project corridor were delineated and mapped. 4.2 Environmental Setting The project is located along the Upper Hoh River in the Hoh River Valley west of the Park, and east of Highway 101, in Jefferson County, Washington. The UHRR is the primary access to the northwestern side of the Park and the Hoh River Rainforest, one of the Park’s most popular destinations. UHRR is also the primary access to several small enclaves of rural residences. Most of the action area is characterized by undeveloped public and private forest land. Representative photographs of the project area are included in Appendix E. Terrestrial Environment 4.2.1 The action area consists primarily of a mix of public and private open forest land, with a few scattered rural residences located near MP 6.0. Active logging is more common on the south side of the valley, where private land is more abundant. The Hoh River has an extremely active channel migration zone and floodplain, with constantly changing meanders and side channels forming and being destroyed. The active hydraulic nature of the river has led to a wide range of seral riparian habitats along the river. Forest stands along the UHRR are generally mid seral, but several areas of old growth are present, particularly near Tower Creek. Elevation in the action area ranges from about 500 feet above sea level (asl) adjacent to the Hoh River, to about 3,200 asl at the ridgetops on the north side of the Hoh River valley. Soils in the Hoh River drainage and minor tributaries are derived primarily from glacial outwash and alluvium deposited in the valley floors and walls (NRCS 2016). The project is located in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat type, as described in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O’Neil Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 22 2000). Most of the study area is occupied by native upland and wetland forest vegetation, except for the ditches and cleared areas adjacent to the roadside, where non-native species were more common. Aquatic Environment 4.2.2 The Hoh River is the primary waterbody affected by the project, along with three tributaries— Tower Creek, Canyon Creek, and an unnamed tributary at the culvert at MP 4.38. Each of these waterbodies is described in more detail below. Hoh River The Hoh River is a large, glacially influenced river with an extensive, active floodplain associated with numerous spring-fed terrace tributaries (McHenry et al. 1996). The Park comprises 65 percent of the Hoh watershed, with the section of the Hoh River lying outside of Park boundaries extending from RM 1.5 to 29.6 (the lower 1.5 miles of the river are in the coastal unit of the Park). The headwaters lie in the Park and drain Bailey Range and the north slope of Mount Olympus (Phinney and Bucknell 1975). The Hoh River flows from east to west and outlets directly into the Pacific Ocean. Average annual precipitation varies significantly, with over 240 inches of precipitation along the ridge above Humes and Hoh Glaciers, down to 93 inches near the outlet. The entire watershed covers approximately 298 square miles in area, and a large portion of the watershed is administered within the Park and has therefore not been altered by timber harvesting practices. The South Fork Hoh is a major tributary that joins the Hoh River at RM 30. Other known salmonid-producing tributaries include Slide, Falls, Mt. Tom, Jackson, Taft, Snider, East Twin, Canyon, Spruce, Dismal, Pole, Tower, Lindner, Clear, Willoughby, Elk, Alder, Winfield, Hell Roaring, Lost, Pins, Anderson, Nolan, Braden, and Fossil Creeks. The Hoh watershed provides habitat for coho, fall chinook, spring/summer chinook, chum salmon and for winter and summer steelhead trout. Bull trout spawn in the North and South Fork Hoh Rivers, and utilize downstream areas as well. The Hoh watershed is believed to support the largest char population on the coast (WDFW 1998). The Hoh spring/summer chinook stock is the largest population of early timed chinook on the Olympic Peninsula, and this stock spawns primarily within the Park boundaries (McHenry et al. 1996). Unnamed Tributary at MP 4.38 The unnamed tributary that flows into mainstem Hoh River through the culvert at MP 4.38 is a seasonal intermittent stream that drains a watershed of approximately 300 acres. The existing culvert at the UHRR is perched several feet on the downstream end during most of the summer and fall. It is only accessible to fish during high water in the winter and spring. It is possible that some fish may be able to access the stream at that time, but it is unlikely given the high head pressures at higher water volumes. Also, several step pools immediately upstream of the culvert would deter fish passage farther upstream. Stream substrate in this stream is mostly cobble and large boulders. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 23 Tower Creek Tower Creek is a swift flowing perennial tributary to the Hoh River at RM 23.3. It is approximately 2.5 miles long and has a watershed of approximately 1,000 acres. Based on aerial photointerpretation, approximately 50 percent of the watershed has been logged historically. It is roughly 30 to 40 feet wide in the vicinity of the UHRR bridge crossing. Substrates consist of boulders and large cobble. Within the project study area the creek is confined in a very steep-sided canyon, portions of which are vegetated. The creek appears to be eroding away at the west canyon wall upstream of the bridge, leading to unvegetated slopes in places where earth and vegetation have fallen into the creek. Extensive bank erosion occurs near the confluence of Tower Creek and the Hoh River. WDFW (2016a) documents winter steelhead and bull trout occurring in Tower Creek. Bull trout are limited to the lower several hundred feet of the stream below Tower Creek Bridge by the presence of several step pools clogged with large downed woody debris. Canyon Creek Canyon Creek is a swift flowing perennial tributary to the Hoh River at RM 26.4. It is approximately three miles long and has a watershed of approximately 1,000 acres. It joins the Hoh River at a large alluvial fan. Based on aerial photointerpretation, approximately 75 percent of the watershed has been logged in the past. The actual location of the confluence likely changes seasonally with high flows in the mainstem Hoh River. It is roughly 15 feet wide (at OHWM line) on the upstream side of UHRR. A large scour hole exists on the downstream side, where the creek is roughly 35 feet wide before narrowing back down. Substrates consist of small boulders, cobbles, and gravels. The plunge pool and culvert are considered a partial fish barrier by WDFW. Within the project study area the creek is confined in a canyon with forested side slopes. WDFW (2016a) documents winter steelhead occurring in Canyon Creek. Bull trout could access the lower reach of Canyon Creek below the existing culvert but are not documented. 4.3 Matrix of Pathways and Indicators Potential risks to threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate fish species can be evaluated using methods identified in A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Group Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale (USFWS 1998) (Appendix F) and Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale (NMFS 1996). The definitions used to describe the functioning characteristics of the indicators used in this report are the same as those defined in USFWS (1998) and NMFS (1996). Table 6 illustrates the baseline conditions and the project’s effect on the conditions. The rating factors represent conditions in the reaches of the Hoh River in the action area potentially affected by the proposed project. Evaluation of aquatic habitat indicators is comprehensively based on information provided through agency reports, consultation with agency personnel, field observation, and best professional judgment. The Hoh River is a dynamic river system that is Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 24 constantly changing. This assessment represents conclusions about general trends for the river and are not indicative of site conditions at a particular project location. Table 6. USFWS/NMFS Checklist for Documenting the Environmental Baseline Population and Environmental Baseline Diagnostics/Pathways Indicators Hoh River Water Quality Temperature FAR Sediment/Substrate FAR Chemical Contamination/Nutrients PF Habitat Elements Physical Barriers FAR Substrate Embeddedness FAR Large Woody Debris FAR Pool Frequency and Quality FAR Large Pools PF Off-channel Habitat PF Refugia PF Channel Condition and Dynamics Width to Depth Ratio FAR Streambank Condition FAR Floodplain Connectivity FAR Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows FAR Drainage Network Increase FAR Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location FAR Disturbance History FAR Riparian Conservation Areas FAR Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics Subpopulation Size FAR Growth and Survival FAR Life History Diversity and Isolation PF Persistence and Genetic Integrity PF Integration of Species and Habitat FAR PF = properly functioning; FAR = functioning at risk; NPF = not properly functioning; see Appendix F for reference table of baseline conditions Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 25 Water Quality 4.3.1 Several tributaries of the Hoh River in the action area are 303(d) listed for not meeting water quality standards (Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology] 2016a). Specifically, Alder, Winfield, Elk, Willoughby, Maple, and Owl Creeks are listed, mostly for temperature exceedances. Grazing does occur in the drainage but only at low densities supported by the rangeland. The WRIA 20 Habitat Limiting Factors Report identifies cedar spalts leftover from salvage timber operations have changed water quality in many tributaries. Very little grazing occurs in the action area. Historic and ongoing logging practices have increased sedimentation in area streams and increased downcutting in the streams. The Hoh River carries large annual sediment loads from natural upstream glacial sources. Lum and Nelson (1986) found that 60 percent of the mean fluvial sediments in the Hoh River originated upstream of the Park boundary. Roads on the higher slopes of the watershed are the primary artificial contributors of sediment. Water quality monitoring data on the Hoh River has been collected by Ecology since 1994, near the Highway 101 bridge. This data has documented “poor” results for suspended solids, total phosphorous and turbidity over a number of years in that period. The latest water year results (2014) had “good” results for five out of the ten measured parameters and “moderate” results for the rest, although suspended solids and turbidity were still the worst (Ecology 2016b). Habitat Elements 4.3.2 There are no physical barriers to fish passage documented in the mainstem Hoh River (WDFW 2016). However, numerous fish passage barriers are documented on side tributaries, including both natural and anthropomorphic barriers. For example, the culvert on UHRR at Canyon Creek is listed as a partial barrier to fish passage. Logging and associated road building in the action area has produced increased sedimentation into the tributaries and mainstem, increasing substrate embeddedness (Smith 2000). Logging has also reduced LWD recruitment along the reach of the Hoh River below the Park as well as in many of the tributary streams. In many cases, large conifers are no longer present in the riparian zone to create long term LWD. However, the large relatively intact forested portions of the upper watershed still contribute large amounts of woody debris to the lower river, which in turn create diverse channel conditions, including pools and side channel and off-channel refugia. Channel Condition 4.3.3 The Hoh River is an extremely dynamic river system, with channel morphology changing constantly. Large natural debris jams form frequently, which generate side channels and migration of the thalwag. Streambanks are in fairly good condition. However, the location of several floodplain roads (including the UHRR) immediately adjacent to the river, has led to armoring of the shoreline in numerous places, which has reduced floodplain connectivity and eliminated streambank vegetation. Specifically, significant areas of streambank armoring in the project vicinity are located in the following areas: • RM 3.9 to 4.1 (west end of C2) Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 26 • RM 7.65 to 7.89 (between C4 West and C4 East) Other smaller areas of toe armoring are scattered along the river wherever minor armoring occurred historically. At C4 West, there is also an actively eroding bluff between the road and the riverbank. Also, at C2, there is only a narrow fringe of vegetation, mostly alders and other small trees, between the riverbank and the road. This fringe of vegetation has been repeatedly disturbed historically by flood events. Flow/Hydrology 4.3.4 There are relatively few artificial uses of water in the Hoh River watershed (Golder 2005). Peak and base flows have not been significantly affected by land use in the action area, but historic logging practices have influenced current conditions. Loss of old growth forest has reduced fog drip from the canopy, which has been identified as an important component to the hydrologic cycle in California and Oregon (Golder 2005). The ditch networks associated with logging roads have increased the drainage network in the action area. Watershed Conditions 4.3.5 The upper portions of the Hoh River watershed are relatively undisturbed, protected within the Park. However, past and ongoing logging practices have increased the road density in the watershed downstream of Park. Mid-slope roads have contributed to downstream water quality impacts. Riparian conservation areas have been maintained on all state lands in the action area where logging has occurred, per the Washington State Forest Practices Manual. Natural disturbances are common in the watershed, including infrequent severe wind storms, landslides, wild fires, and floods. Thus, disturbance history and riparian conservation areas are considered to be functioning at risk. Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics 4.3.6 Bull trout are distributed throughout the Hoh River watershed and neighboring watersheds (Smith 2000; Brenkman and Corbett 2005). Adults tracked by Brenkman and Corbett (2007) made multiple saltwater migrations, and juveniles used multiple nearby river systems for rearing. Data on stock status is limited, particularly recent info, so many of these criteria were listed as functioning at risk, despite the Hoh River being considered a stronghold for the bull trout in the region. 4.4 Description of Listed Species and Critical Habitat A total of five listed species, designated critical habitat (DCH) for three species, and one proposed species have been identified by the USFWS in the project area (Table 7). Listed species under NMFS jurisdiction do not occur in the Hoh River (NMFS 2016). Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 27 Table 7. NMFS and USFWS Listed Species Potentially Present in the Action Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Likely Presence in Action Area Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Yes Critical habitat Designated Yes Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened No Critical habitat Proposed No Streaked horned lark Erimophila alpestris strigata Endangered No Critical habitat Designated No Fisher Ursus arctos Proposed Threatened Yes Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened Yes Critical habitat Designated Yes Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Yes Critical habitat Designated Yes USFWS 2016, NMFS 2016 Several of these species have never been documented in or near the action area. Due to the fact that the aquatic and terrestrial action area is outside the known range of these species and/or lacks suitable habitat, the proposed project would have “no effect” on two of the six species that are listed. For the fisher, the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. If the fisher becomes listed in the near future, the project would also have no effect on that species. Yellow-billed cuckoo. The yellow-billed cuckoo is considered extirpated from Washington as a breeding population. There have been a handful of scattered observations of transient individuals over the few decades, none of which were in Jefferson County (Seattle Audubon Society [SAS] 2016). Streaked Horned Lark. The streaked horned lark is closely associated with prairie grasslands or sparsely vegetated coastal areas. It is not known to occur in Jefferson County (WDFW 2012). Fisher. The fisher was reintroduced to the Olympic Peninsula in 2009. WDFW ceased regular annual monitoring of the reintroduced population in 2011. During the monitoring efforts, individual fishers were observed making long distance movements across much of the Olympic Peninsula, including crossing the Hoh River valley. No individual fishers were documented with home ranges within the Hoh River valley. Current status of the population is unknown, but it is considered unlikely that individual fishers would occur in the action area during construction. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 28 4.5 Species Utilization This section addresses the legal status and distribution of listed species that have potential to occur in the action area. Life history details on these species are described in Appendix G. Bull Trout 4.5.1 Status: The Coastal/Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout was listed as threatened by the USFWS June 10, 1998. Final critical habitat designations for bull trout on the Olympic Peninsula included almost the entire length of the Hoh River (Federal Register 2010). A summary of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of bull trout DCH is provided in Table 8. Table 8. Bull Trout Critical Habitat PCEs within the Hoh River Primary Constituent Element Baseline Status in Aquatic Action Area PCE 1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. PCE Present. Cool hyporheic groundwater flows are important contributor to thermal refugia in mainstem Hoh River. PCE 2. Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including, but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. PCE Present. Bull trout have complete access to Hoh River, but some barriers present on tributaries. PCE 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. PCE Present. Upper watershed relatively undisturbed. Some loss of riparian habitat in middle river reaches. PCE 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. PCE Present. Diverse structure present in Hoh River. Some issues with substrate embeddedness and lack of LWD recruitment. PCE 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 degrees Celsius, with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. PCE Present. Multiple tributaries to the Hoh River are listed on the 303(d) list for temperature, but no reaches of the mainstem. PCE 6. In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. PCE Present. Bull trout use Hoh River for migration, rearing and spawning. PCE 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph. PCE Present. Historic logging has removed tree cover in the basin below the Park, contributing to changes in hydrograph, particularly in small tributaries. PCE 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited. PCE Present. Overall good water quality in the Hoh River. Naturally high levels of sediment and turbidity due to glacial sources. PCE 9. Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnative predatory, interbreeding, or competing species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. PCE Present. Nonnative species not known to be a major issue in the Hoh River drainage. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 29 Presence in the Action Area: Bull trout are documented to occur in most of the Hoh River from its headwaters to the ocean. The Hoh River Core Area (as described in the Bull Trout Recovery Plan) consists of two designated local populations – the mainstem Hoh River and the South Fork Hoh River. Bull trout are thought to use the action area primarily as migration and foraging habitat, with most spawning occurring in the high elevation streams within the ONP. Brenkman and Corbett (2005) demonstrated that bull trout in the Hoh River generally entered the river in June and July, moved upstream as far as 48 miles to spawn in September, and returned to the ocean from December to March. Some of the adult anadromous bull trout in this study were relocated in other river drainages to the south, including Cedar Creek, Kalaloch Creek, Queets River, and Quinault River. The maximum distance traveled by anadromous bull trout from the Hoh River was 106 miles (Brenkman and Corbett 2005). The authors speculated that these other coastal streams served as refugia from high winter flows in the Hoh River and important foraging areas. Bull trout may be able to access the lower reaches of Tower Creek and Canyon Creek below existing barriers. Bull trout may be able to access Canyon Creek up to the culvert. The ability of bull trout to access Tower Creek depends on ability of the fish to navigate several step pools with significant LWD downstream of the bridge. The unnamed tributary at MP 4.38 is only accessible during high water, and in those conditions, bull trout may not be able to navigate the culvert due to high head pressure. Northern Spotted Owl 4.5.2 Status: The northern spotted owl was listed as threatened on June 26, 1990 (USFWS 1990). The USFWS designated critical habitat on federal lands in Washington, Oregon, and California in 1992 (USFWS 1992). In 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) amended the 19 national forest and 7 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district land and resource management plans that guide management of individual national forests and BLM districts across the range of the spotted owl. The NWFP provides a network of reserves identified as Late-Successional Reserves to provide habitat for late-successional forest species, including the spotted owl. A formal 5-year status review of the northern spotted owl was completed in 2004 that estimated a net increase in risk to the population, but concluded the species continues to warrant protection as a threatened species (USFWS 2004). The 5-year review, based largely on a compilation of information by the Sustainable Ecosystem Institute (Courtney et al. 2004), considered all information that has become available since the original listing of the northern spotted owl. The recommendation to remain listed as “threatened” was based on the following points: 1. The rate of habitat loss on federal lands has been substantially reduced; however, habitat loss from harvest continues, especially on private lands, and uncharacteristic wildfires appear to be removing habitat at an increasing rate; 2. Demographic data collected over 15 years document declining populations across the species range with the most pronounced declines in British Columbia, Washington, and northern Oregon; Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 30 3. The continued decline of northern spotted owls in the northern portion of the range, despite the presence of a high proportion of habitat on federal lands, suggests that effects from past habitat loss and modification have not yet responded to habitat protection on federal lands; 4. The nature, magnitude, and extent of barred owl effects on northern spotted owls remain uncertain; and 5. The new threats of West Nile virus and Sudden Oak Death are potentially severe and imminent, but uncertain. Another 5-year status review was conducted in 2011. Between 2006 and 2011, northern spotted owl populations continued to decline at a rate of 2.7 percent per year, with declines associated with both habitat loss and barred owl presence (Forsman et al. 2011). Specific nest monitoring results from the Olympic Peninsula (Forsman et al. 2013) demonstrated a significant decline in northern spotted owls on the peninsula, with approximately 63 percent of historical owl territories becoming unoccupied between 1990 and 2005. That number was even higher for a subset of territories monitored on the north half of the peninsula from 2006 to 2011. Authors attributed these declines primarily to barred owl competition. It should be noted that this study did not include any nests in the Hoh River Valley. In 2008, critical habitat for the owl was revised to include 5.3 million acres. The 2008 recovery plan was revised in 2011 when the USFWS released final recovery plans, identifying habitat loss and competition from encroaching barred owls as the two main threats to the spotted owl. On November 21, 2012, the USFWS finalized critical habitat with a science- based proposal that identified lands in the Pacific Northwest that are essential to the survival and recovery of the northern spotted owl, totaling 9.6 million acres. Of these, 3 million acres were in Washington. This final rule revised the 2008 critical habitat designation. The 2012 critical habitat designation emphasized spotted owl recovery to include reducing competition from barred owls, actively managing forests to improve forest health, and protecting the best of the spotted owl’s remaining habitat (USFWS 2012). The action area is located within the Hoh-Clearwater Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Area (SOSEA). The Lower Hoh River portion of this SOSEA has a designated conservation function related primarily to dispersal support (Buchanan and Swedeen 2005). Presence in Action Area: Seven documented spotted owl activity centers overlap the terrestrial action area for pile driving. The closest to one of the proposed activities is Willoughby Ridge site, which is approximately 1.1 miles northeast of site C4 on the ridge east of Tower Creek (WDFW 2016b). Typical breeding in this area would occur from February through July. No recent surveys have been conducted in the Hoh River valley (Harke 2016). Recent research (Olympic Peninsula Demographic Study) has demonstrated that barred owls are outcompeting spotted owls on the peninsula (Forsman et al. 2013). It is possible that this trend is occurring in the Hoh River valley, but there is no data to support this conclusion. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 31 The action area is heavily forested, so most of the area provides at least foraging habitat for owls. However, mature forest is also present, albeit in smaller amounts. Figure 3 displays a map of approximate areas of mature forest in the action area, based on aerial photography interpretation. Based on this analysis, approximately 8071 acres of nesting, roosting, foraging (NRF) habitat is present in the large action area, and approximately 755 acres is present within the smaller action area. At the request of the USFWS, DEA identified all conifer trees at least 18 inches in diameter within 65 and 120 yards of the project sites. See Tables 9 and 10 in Section 4.5.3 below. An inventory of cavities was not conducted due to time constraints, but in general, few nest cavities were observed during the tree inventory. In general, cavities were only observed in the largest size class trees (>50 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]). However, numerous large snags were present in all mature forest areas that could provide nest cavities for northern spotted owls. On November 21, 2012, the USFWS revised DCH for the northern spotted owl throughout its range. Based on this latest revision, DCH is currently found in only one portion of the action area, which is on several federally owned properties east and west of Tower Creek. Site C3 – Tower Creek Bridge is immediately adjacent to this DCH. The current designation identifies four PCEs of northern spotted owl DCH: 1. Forest types that may be in early, mid or late-seral stages and that support the northern spotted owl across its geographical range. These forest types include sitka spruce, western hemlock, mixed conifer, grand fir, Pacific silver fir, Douglas-fir, white fir, Shasta red fir, and redwood/Douglas-fir. 2. Habitat that provides for nesting and roosting. Stands for nesting and roosting are generally characterized by: 1) moderate to high canopy closure [60 to over 80 percent]; 2) multi-layered, multi-species canopies with large [20 to 30 inches dbh] overstory trees; 3) high basal area [greater than 240 feet2/acre]; 4) high diversity of different diameters of trees; 5) high incidence of large live trees with various deformities; 6) large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and woody debris; and 7) sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owls to fly. 3. Habitat that provides for foraging. In the West Cascades and Coast Ranges of Washington, this includes: 1) stands of nesting and roosting habitat; 2) moderate to high canopy cover [60 to 80 percent]; 3) a diversity of tree diameters and heights; 4) increasing density of large trees [greater than 31 inches dbh] and increasing basal area; 5) large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and 6) sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owls to fly. 4. Habitat to support the transience and colonization phases of dispersal. This habitat can be nesting, roosting or foraging habitat, but can include forests of younger age and structure. Based on these descriptions, all four PCEs are present in the action area. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 32 Marbled Murrelet 4.5.3 Status: The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a small seabird of the Alcidae family. Murrelets spend most of their lives in the marine environment where they forage in near-shore areas and consume a diversity of prey species, including small fish and invertebrates. In their terrestrial environment, the presence of platforms (large branches or deformities) used for nesting is the most important characteristic of their nesting habitat. Murrelet habitat use during the breeding season is positively associated with the presence and abundance of mature and old-growth forests, large core areas of old growth, low amounts of edge habitat, reduced habitat fragmentation, proximity to the marine environment, and forests that are increasing in stand age and height. The murrelet has experienced significant declines in the last decade over most of its range, including a -6.7 percent decline on the Washington outer coast from 2000 to 2013 (Falxa et al. 2015). The species decline has been largely caused by extensive removal of late-successional and old growth coastal forest which serve as nesting habitat for murrelets. Additional factors in its decline include high nest-site predation rates and human-induced mortality in the marine environment from disturbance, gillnets, and oil spills. In addition, murrelet reproductive success is strongly correlated with the abundance of mid-trophic level prey. Effects to the marine environment that impact the availability of that prey can occur through overfishing or oceanographic variation from weather or climate events. Affects to adults in the marine environment from disturbance events like underwater detonations or pile driving can also impact their ability to forage and successfully provide for their young. The marbled murrelet was listed as threatened by the USFWS on October 1, 1992 throughout its range in Washington, Oregon, and California. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated originally on May 24, 1996. It was subsequently revised on October 5, 2011. The USFWS has identified the following PCEs for marbled murrelet: 1. Individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and 2. Forested areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and with a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height. Individual nest trees include large trees, generally more than 81 centimeters (32 inches) dbh with the presence of potential nest platforms or deformities such as large or forked limbs, broken tops, dwarf mistletoe infections, witches’ brooms, or other formations providing platforms of sufficient size to support adult murrelets. Because marbled murrelets do not build nests, moss or detritus may be important to cushion or hold the egg. Platforms should have overhead cover for protection from predators and weather, which may be provided by overhanging branches, limbs above the nest area, or branches from neighboring trees. Currently, the USFWS has DCH in the action area, mostly on the north side of the Hoh River Valley. DCH is immediately adjacent to sites C1, C2, C3 and C4. However, these stands Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 33 currently experience disturbance from a variety of sources, including noise and visual disturbance from users of the road, windthrow, nest predation, and habitat fragmentation. Presence in the Action Area: WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data documents over 100 “occupied” detections (WDFW detection status less than or equal to 3) of marbled murrelet within the larger pile-driving action area. Most of these are on the south facing slopes of the ridge that forms the northern border of the Hoh River Valley. Only two of these detections are within the smaller terrestrial action areas. The closest detection to one of the project sites is a single detection made on July 25, 2000 approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the upstream end of site C4. Similar to northern spotted owl, suitable habitat for marbled murrelet is present in the action area, including areas immediately adjacent to site C3 and site C1. Figure 3 displays mature forest stands delineated using aerial photographic interpretation for this analysis. Some of these stands are located immediately adjacent to the proposed projects, including site C3 (Tower Creek Bridge). Given the lack of current survey data for marbled murrelets in the action area, it is assumed that all suitable habitat could be occupied. On May 12 and 13, 2016, areas in the vicinity of each proposed project site were surveyed for the presence of potential marbled murrelet nest platforms. Specifically, all conifer trees equal to or greater than 18 inches in diameter were identified, and an estimate of how many potential nest platforms (limbs at least 4 inches in diameter with moss) in each tree was made. Trees were identified using a combination of total tree counts and sampling plots. Numbers of potential nest platforms were identified as ranges (e.g., 0-1, 1-2, 3-4, >5). Where sample plots were used, results were extrapolated to the rest of the sampled stand. Table 9 below summarizes the number of these trees identified within 65 and 120 yards of the project sites. Appendix H provides maps showing the survey zones around each site. Table 10 provides a sample of the tree size distribution within 120 yards of project sites where total counts were conducted. Within the 65 yard survey zone, the greatest number of potential nest trees were identified at site C2, far more than any other site. This is due primarily to the much larger size of site C2, combined with the presence of a densely stocked mature forest stand on the north side of the Upper Hoh River Road. Site C3 also has a large mature forest stand on the west side of the survey zones, which contributes to large number of mature trees in both the 65 and 120 yard survey zones. Site C5 has a similar amount of trees greater than 18 inches dbh within 65 yards as site C3; however, most of these trees are in the small size class (18-32 inches) and do not support a significant amount of potential nest platforms. Similarly, sites C2 and C3 have the most potential nest trees within the 120 yard zone as well. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 34 Table 9. Summary of Potentially Suitable Habitat Trees for Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl Adjacent to Upper Hoh Road Project Project Site # Trees Within 65 Yards # Estimated Platforms Within 65 Yards2 # Trees Within 120 Yards C1 18 61-78 55 C2 191 321-637 406 MP 4.38 Culvert1 8 1 17 C3 – Tower Creek 50 49-90 222 C4 West 4 5-8 12 C4 East 25 31-62 36 C5 – Canyon Creek 51 12-29 66 Total 393 480-905 768 1- Trees counted for MP 4.38 Culvert were also included in the count for site C2. 2- Marbled nest platforms were considered any limb estimated to be at least 4 inches in diameter that had moss for substrate. Table 10. Tree Size Class Distribution Sample1 Project Site # Trees 18-32” DBH # Trees 32-50” DBH # Trees >50” DBH C1 6 3 3 C2 20 6 2 MP 4.38 Culvert 14 3 0 C3 – Tower Creek 25 12 5 C4 West 3 6 3 C4 East 17 14 5 C5 – Canyon Creek 23 9 0 1- This table displays distribution of trees within various size classes only where total tree counts were performed within individual survey zones. Up p e r H o h R i v e r R o a d B a n k S t a b i l i z a t i o n P r o j e c t July 2016 Bi o l o g i c a l A s s e s s m e n t Page 35 Fi g u r e 3 . E s t i m a t e d E x t e n t o f M a t u r e F o r e s t i n t h e Ac t i o n A r e a Up p e r H o h R i v e r R o a d B a n k S t a b i l i z a t i o n P r o j e c t July 2016 Bi o l o g i c a l A s s e s s m e n t Page 36 Th i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k . Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 37 5.0 Analysis of Effects This section addresses the effects of the project to listed species. Direct effects are those effects caused directly by construction or operation of the proposed action. Indirect effects occur separated from the project by time or distance. These could include effects on future food resources and foraging areas. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification (Federal Register 1986). Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration (Federal Register 1986). 5.1 Habitat Effects Habitat impacts would be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. Previously disturbed areas would be used for project equipment staging whenever possible. However, impacts to riparian areas along the Hoh River are unavoidable in order to install the ELJ/dolosse units from the streambanks. As described in Table 4 above, up to 325 trees are conservatively assumed to be removed by the proposed project. The vast majority of these trees are small deciduous trees (mostly red alder). Approximately 20 large (>18 inch diameter) conifer trees may be removed by the project. Vegetation removal in general is estimated to occur over a total area of approximately 187,000 square feet (4.2 acres). Much of this area is the result of the anticipated access roads and benches that would need to be constructed on the stream bank to provide equipment access. These trees would be replaced after construction is complete at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Restoration plans have not been finalized, but exposed soil would be revegetated with native vegetation and/or a native seed mixture prior to project completion. Table 11 describes the potential effects of the proposed action on salmonid life history indicators. The proposed action is likely to maintain or improve the current levels of all pathway indicators of the Hoh River in the long term. Some short term impacts will occur to some indicators, due primarily to in-water installation of the ELJ/dolosse units. The ELJ/dolosse units would provide long term protection for UHRR without creating more hard armoring that would further degrade water quality and streambank conditions along the river. These units would also provide improved fish habitat along the river. During construction, there would be temporary and localized degradation of water quality in the Hoh River. The project would implement a variety of erosion and sediment control techniques to minimize sedimentation, including working during low water, staging equipment on dry gravel bars, use of gravel berms to keep equipment off the native streambed, etc. Work on Tower Creek, Canyon Creek, and Culvert 4.38 would likely be conducted using dewatering and diversion techniques. Combined with appropriate implementation of erosion and sediment control techniques, this would avoid and minimize stream sedimentation to keep impacts short-term and localized. Dewatering would avoid sedimentation and other in-water impacts during construction, but there may be a minor pulse of sediment downstream when the stream diversions are removed. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 38 Table 11. USFWS/NMFS Checklist for Documenting Effects to the Environmental Baseline Hoh River Diagnostics/Pathways Indicators Existing Conditions Effects of the Action Water Quality Temperature FAR Minor impact from removal of riparian vegetation; long term maintain by mitigation plantings. Sediment/Substrate FAR Significant short term impacts from construction-related suspended sediment and turbidity; long term maintain Chemical Contamination/Nutrients PF Maintain Habitat Elements Physical Barriers FAR Will improve fish passage at Canyon Creek and Culvert 4.38. Substrate Embeddedness FAR Short term impacts from construction-related suspended sediment and turbidity; long term maintain Large Woody Debris FAR Short term impacts from removal of riparian trees; long term improve by installation of ELJs. Pool Frequency and Quality FAR Improve. Anticipate eddy pools forming below ELJs. Large Pools PF Maintain Off-channel Habitat PF Maintain Refugia PF Improve. Anticipate near bank refugia created by ELJs. Channel Condition and Dynamics Width to Depth Ratio FAR Maintain in mainstem Hoh. Improve in Tower Creek and Canyon Creek at road crossings. Streambank Condition FAR Improve through repair and stabilization of failing streambanks Floodplain Connectivity FAR Improve at Canyon Creek. Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows FAR Maintain Drainage Network Increase FAR Maintain Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location FAR Maintain Disturbance History FAR Maintain Riparian Conservation Areas FAR Short term impacts from removal of riparian trees; long term maintain by riparian plantings Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics Subpopulation Size FAR Short term impacts from in-water work and potential exposure to increased sedimentation. Long term maintain/improve through bank stabilization. Growth and Survival FAR Maintain Life History Diversity and Isolation PF Maintain Persistence and Genetic Integrity PF Maintain Integration of Species and Habitat FAR Maintain Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 39 5.2 Effects to Listed Species Direct Effects 5.2.1 Bull Trout The proposed project would have direct effects to occupied bull trout habitat through in-water installation of the ELJ/dolosse units. ELJ/dolosse units would occupy approximately 48,000 square feet of substrate in the Hoh River (approximately 1,500 square feet per unit). However, it is anticipated that bull trout would be able to utilize these structures for cover and foraging. In addition to area of impacts, all of the proposed project together would have approximately 44,000 cubic yards of fill below the OHWM of the Hoh River and its tributaries, including gravel, logs and dolosse. Also, there would be approximately 28,000 cubic yards of excavation below the OHWM of the Hoh River and its tributaries. In addition to these permanent long term impacts, short term impacts would occur to several water quality indicators and habitat elements (Table 12). Of particular concern are the potential effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity, which can have a wide range of lethal, sublethal, and behavioral effects on bull trout. At high concentrations, suspended sediment and turbidity can kill fish directly by damaging and clogging gills, or burying and/or smothering eggs or alevins (Muck 2010). Indirect effects on multiple life stages of bull trout from increased sedimentation and turbidity can include reduction or changes to macroinvertebrate populations, which in turn support many bull trout prey species. Also, increased sedimentation and turbidity can reduce the feeding efficiency of bull trout and other salmonids by decreasing visibility of prey. For example, Bash et al. (2001) found that at 60 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), only 35 percent of prey items were captured by salmonids. Other sublethal effects include increased physiological stress, increased expenditure of metabolic energy to perform normal functions, and decreased immune system effectiveness. Behavioral effects are often the first effects on fish from increased sedimentation and turbidity, including avoidance of normal habitat, reduction in foraging, increased movement to avoid sediment plumes, and changes to downstream and/or upstream migration (Muck 2010). Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 40 This page intentionally left blank. Up p e r H o h R i v e r R o a d B a n k S t a b i l i z a t i o n P r o j e c t July 2016 Bi o l o g i c a l A s s e s s m e n t Page 41 Ta b l e 1 2 . R e s p o n s e / E x p o s u r e M a t r i x o f I m p a c t s o f t h e P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t E l e m e n t s EX P O S U R E AC T I O N SP E C I E S WH E R E PO T E N T I A L S T R E S S O R WH E N DU R A T I O N RE S P O N S E T O S T R E S S O R MI N I M I Z A T I O N M E A S U R E S RESULTING EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS AFFECTED Ve g e t a t i o n R e m o v a l NS O / M M / B T A l l s i t e s Re m o v a l o f u p t o 6 5 t r e e s a n d of a n u n d e t e r m i n e d a m o u n t o f ve g e t a t i o n a l o n g ap p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 0 0 l i n e a l f e e t of r i v e r b a n k . Ve g e t a t i o n r e m o v e d ea r l y i n c o n s t r u c t i o n o f ea c h p r o j e c t s i t e o v e r th e n e x t a p p r o x i m a t e l y fi v e y e a r s . Te m p o r a r y (d e c a d e s w h i l e mi t i g a t i o n pl a n t i n g s g r o w ) Po t e n t i a l a v o i d a n c e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n ar e a ; p o t e n t i a l r e d u c t i o n i n f o r a g i n g ef f i c i e n c y ; c h a n g e i n fo r a g i n g / r e a r i n g ; t e m p o r a r y di s p l a c e m e n t o f f i s h d u r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n . On l y m i n i m u m a m o u n t o f ve g e t a t i o n n e c e s s a r y w i l l b e re m o v e d ; t r e e s w i l l b e c u t a t gr o u n d l e v e l a n d n o t g r u b b e d t o av o i d g r o u n d d i s t u r b a n c e ; t r e e s wi l l b e t o p p e d w h e r e p o s s i b l e . Ma x i m u m a v o i d a n c e o f t r e e re m o v a l i n o w l a n d m u r r e l e t su i t a b l e a n d D C H . Minor reduction in shading over creek; reduction in long-term (30 to 50 years until planted trees reach sufficient size) LWD recruitment if trees in riparian zone; minor reduction in NRF habitat for owls; short term disturbance to murrelets and owls in action area. Temperature; LWD; Streambank Condition St r e a m d i v e r s i o n an d f i s h r e m o v a l BT Si t e C 3 - T o w e r Cr e e k a n d S i t e C 5 - C a n y o n C r e e k ; Cu l v e r t 4 . 3 8 Tu r b i d i t y c r e a t e d b y d i v e r s i o n in s t a l l a t i o n ; D i r e c t h a n d l i n g o f fi s h St a r t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a t ea c h s i t e ; r e m o v a l o f di v e r s i o n a t e a c h s i t e . Te m p o r a r y Po t e n t i a l c h a n g e i n f o r a g i n g / r e a r i n g do w n s t r e a m o f b r i d g e ; i n j u r y o r mo r t a l i t y d u r i n g d i r e c t f i s h h a n d l i n g (u n l i k e l y t h a t b u l l t r o u t a r e p r e s e n t a t th e s e l o c a t i o n s ) Co n d u c t a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g i n - w a t e r wo r k w i n d o w t o r e d u c e r i s k o f f i s h pr e s e n c e ; m i n i m i z e d i r e c t ha n d l i n g o f f i s h t h r o u g h h e r d i n g an d n e t t i n g ; i n s t a l l d i v e r s i o n ma n u a l l y ; a v o i d u s e o f s h e e t p i l e s Minor short term increase in sedimentation during diversion installation; potential for direct injury or mortality during fish handling Sediment/Substrate; Substrate Embeddedness Co n s t r u c t i o n o f Br i d g e A b u t m e n t s BT / N S O / M M Si t e C 3 – T o w e r Cr e e k a n d S i t e C 5 – C a n y o n C r e e k Ex c a v a t i o n a n d l a y i n g b a c k o f st r e a m b a n k s w i l l c r e a t e po t e n t i a l s e d i m e n t a t i o n d u r i n g a s t o r m e v e n t ; I n s t a l l a t i o n o f pi l e f o u n d a t i o n s f o r n e w ab u t m e n t s w i l l c r e a t e l o u d e s t no i s e s o u r c e o n p r o j e c t , po t e n t i a l l y d i s t u r b i n g o w l s a n d mu r r e l e t s Du r i n g a c t i v e co n s t r u c t i o n o f ab u t m e n t s ; l i k e l y i n la t e s u m m e r / e a r l y f a l l . Te m p o r a r y De l a y e d / r e d u c e d f o r a g i n g ; te m p o r a r y d i s p l a c e m e n t ; i n c r e a s e d em b e d d e d n e s s i n d o w n s t r e a m re a r i n g h a b i t a t Us e B M P s a n d s t r e a m d i v e r s i o n to k e e p c o n s t r u c t i o n a r e a d r y ; u s e pu m p s t o k e e p w o r k a r e a d r y a s ne c e s s a r y . U s e v i b r a t o r y p i l e dr i v e r i n s t e a d o f i m p a c t p i l e dr i v e r ; i f i m p a c t n e c e s s a r y , u s e mi n i m u m n u m b e r o f s t r i k e s ; a v o i d pi l e d r i v i n g d u r i n g c r i t i c a l n e s t i n g pe r i o d s . Minor short term impacts to daily foraging; avoidance of work area during turbidity events; avoidance of construction area by birds; Sediment; Substrate Embeddedness; Width/Depth Ratio; Streambank Condition In s t a l l E L J / d o l o s s e un i t s BT Si t e s C 1 / C 2 a n d C4 In c r e a s e d i n w a t e r t u r b i d i t y ; di r e c t i n j u r y t o f i s h . Du r i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n , li k e l y d u r i n g s u m m e r lo w w a t e r p e r i o d s . Te m p o r a r y De l a y e d / r e d u c e d f o r a g i n g ; te m p o r a r y d i s p l a c e m e n t ; i n c r e a s e d em b e d d e d n e s s i n d o w n s t r e a m re a r i n g h a b i t a t In s t a l l a t l o w w a t e r . C o n s i d e r us i n g c o f f e r d a m s i f f e a s i b l e a n d pr a c t i c a l . Temporary displacement; possible direct injury to individual fish close to installation locations. Sediment; Substrate Embeddedness Ex c a v a t i o n o f f i l l BT / N S O / M M Si t e C 5 ; C u l v e r t 4. 3 8 Po t e n t i a l s e d i m e n t a t i o n do w n s t r e a m ; n o i s e di s t u r b a n c e t o b i r d s . Li k e l y d u r i n g s u m m e r lo w w a t e r p e r i o d s , b u t co u l d b e d u r i n g w i n t e r . Te m p o r a r y T e m p o r a r y d i s p l a c e m e n t Co n s t r u c t a t l o w w a t e r . D i v e r t cr e e k s o w o r k a r e a i s d r y . Re s t o r e w a t e r t o n e w c h a n n e l i n a co n t r o l l e d m a n n e r t o m i n i m i z e se d i m e n t a t i o n . Minor risk of turbidity downstream. Physical Barriers; Sediment; Substrate In s t a l l a t i o n o f s c o u r pr o t e c t i o n m a t e r i a l BT Si t e C 3 – T o w e r Cr e e k a n d S i t e C 5 – C a n y o n C r e e k ; Cu l v e r t 4 . 3 8 Se d i m e n t p u l s e a f t e r r e m o v a l of d i v e r s i o n Af t e r n e w a b u t m e n t s ar e i n s t a l l e d Te m p o r a r y Po t e n t i a l d i s p l a c e m e n t o f f i s h i n ad j a c e n t w a t e r s ; d o w n s t r e a m se d i m e n t a t i o n o f r e a r i n g h a b i t a t fr o m i n i t i a l t u r b i d i t y p u l s e St r e a m d i v e r s i o n w i l l a l l o w pl a c e m e n t o f s t r e a m m a t e r i a l s i n dr y ; u s e c a r e w h e n m o v i n g di v e r s i o n p i p e t o a v o i d b r e a k a g e an d i n u n d a t i o n o f w o r k a r e a ; h a v e pu m p s o n h a n d i f n e c e s s a r y Minor short term impacts to daily foraging; temporary increase in downstream turbidity due to sediment pulse Sediment; Streambank Condition Up p e r H o h R i v e r R o a d B a n k S t a b i l i z a t i o n P r o j e c t July 2016 Bi o l o g i c a l A s s e s s m e n t Page 42 Th i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k . Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 43 Muck (2010) provides examples of sediment and turbidity levels from a wide variety of projects across Western Washington, including several similar to the proposed project. For example, a project was reported on the Hoh River at MP 9.2 of the Oil City Road (south of the Hoh River) where riprap and LWD was placed in the Hoh River. Monitoring for this project reported that sediment concentrations did not exceed 9.4 mg/L. A larger monitoring effort was performed for a project on the Green River in King County, Washington which involved construction of ELJs and in-stream gravel nourishment. In this study, sediment concentrations ranging from approximately 10 to 150 mg/L were recorded, with durations of up to 12 hours. In general, many of the projects reported their highest sediment concentrations for brief periods of time following removal of in-stream diversions, when water is first introduced back to a modified channel. Based on results like these, the USFWS has adopted a 15-point scale to qualitatively rank the effects of sediment on fish (Table 13; Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Table 13. Scale of the Severity (SEV) of Ill Effects Associated with Excess Suspended Sediment on Salmonids. SEV Description of Effect 0 No Behavioral Effects 1 Alarm reaction 2 Abandonment of cover 3 Avoidance response Sublethal Effects 4 Short-term reduction in feeding rates; short-term reduction in feeding success 5 Minor physiological stress; increase in rate of coughing; increased respiration rate 6 Moderate physiological stress 7 Moderate habitat degradation; impaired homing 8 Indications of major physiological stress; long reduction in feeding rate; long-term reduction in feeding success; poor condition Lethal and paralethal effects 9 Reduced growth rate; delayed hatching; reduced fish density 10 0-20% mortality; increased predation; moderate to severe habitat degradation 11 >20-40% mortality 12 >40 – 60% mortality 13 >60-80% mortality 14 >80-100% mortality This information was adapted by Anderson et al. (1996) to translate effects to salmonid habitat (Table 14). Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 44 Table 14. Scale of Severity (SEV) of Ill Effects Associated with Excess Suspended Sediment on Salmonid Habitat. SEV Description of Effect 3 Measured change in habitat preference 7 Moderate habitat degradation – measured by a change in invertebrate community 10 Moderately severe habitat degradation – defined by measurable reduction in the productivity of habitat for extended period (months) or over a large area (square kilometers) 12 Severe habitat degradation – measured by long-term (years) alterations in the ability of existing habitats to support fish or invertebrates. 14 Catastrophic or total destruction of habitat in the receiving environment. The USFWS has developed effect determinations for bull trout based on these SEV analyses (Table 15). Table 15. ESA Effect Calls for Different Bull Trout Life Stages in Relation to Duration of Effect and SEV. Life Stage/Habitat SEV ESA Effect Determination1 Egg/alevin 1 to 4 5 to 14 Not applicable – no exposure. LTAA Juvenile 1 to 4 5 to 14 NLAA LTAA Subadult and Adult 1 to 5 6 to 14 NLAA LAA Habitat 1 to 6 7 to 14 NLAA LAA (indirect effects) 1 LTAA = Likely to Adversely affect; NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect For many of the project monitoring case studies described in Muck (2010), the USFWS concluded that the SEV was less than 4. For example, in the case of the Hoh River monitoring project at MP 9.2 on Oil City Road, SEV did not exceed 2. However, for the Green River Fish Restoration Project, average SEV for monitored elevated sediment events ranged from 5.1 at 300 feet downstream to 4.6 at 2500 feet downstream. Given that the project is proposing weeks of in-water work at each bank stabilization site, it is reasonable to assume that suspended sediment concentrations and durations could meet or exceed the amounts reported in the literature (150 mg/L) at similar projects. If so, then SEV for juvenile and adult bull trout that would most likely be present in this reach of the mainstem Hoh River could include sublethal effects (Table 13), which in turn would meet the criteria for a “likely to adversely” effect determination (Table 15). In addition to the impacts to aquatic habitat pathways and indicators, stream diversion and fish removal activities have the potential to directly affect individual rearing juvenile bull trout that may occur in the tributary reaches during construction of Culvert 4.38 and sites C3 and C5. No blasting is proposed in the action area. Impact pile driving would occur at both bridge locations to install pipe supported foundations. The pile driving is not expected to have any in-water noise impacts because the adjacent stream reaches would be dewatered and the mainstem Hoh River is too far away to Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 45 be affected at each of these sites. Electrofishing may be used to remove all fish in the dewatered stream segments, after block nets and hand netting have removed as many as possible. If individual bull trout are present during fish removal, they could experience direct injury. Construction would likely be conducted during the work window approved by the regulatory agencies, which is the time of year juveniles are most likely to be absent or present in lower numbers. However, bull trout can reside in the Hoh River system year-round. Because of the improvement to streambank stability and channel dynamics using more natural stream bank protection measures (i.e., ELJs), the proposed project would support habitat recovery objectives for bull trout in the Hoh River Core Area of the Coastal Recovery Unit by reducing transportation network impacts (USFWS 2015). Bull Trout Critical Habitat Table 8 above described how the action area contains all 8 PCEs of bull trout critical habitat. Table 16 below provides a crosswalk to identify which aquatic habitat indicators are related to bull trout PCEs. This crosswalk provides an analysis tool to allow proposed impacts to those aquatic indicators to be related to impacts to certain PCEs. Based on the analysis of potential project impacts to aquatic habitat indicators (see Table 11 above), all of the bull trout PCEs may experience some short term impacts, but would return to normal shortly after construction or would experience long term improvement. The aquatic indicators that would potentially experience changes are highlighted in yellow. Specifically, PCE 1 would experience short term impacts through changes in temperature, sediment, substrate embeddedness, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, and riparian conservation areas. Groundwater hydrology should not experience significant effects. The proposed project would have short term effects to bull trout movement (PCE 2) through creation of temporary increases in suspended sediment and turbidity and increased sediment in the substrate. Daily and seasonal movements of bull trout in the mainstem Hoh River may change during in-water construction. Potential use of Tower Creek and Canyon Creek by juvenile and adult bull trout would be improved by the proposed project. Short term impacts to sediment, substrate embeddedness, LWD, pool frequency and quality, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, and riparian conservation areas may reduce the quality of substrate and riparian habitat for bull trout prey including aquatic macroinvertebrates, sculpin, and smaller fish (PCE 3). Removal of riparian trees would reduce availability of detritus in the immediate vicinity of the project. All of these impacts would be short-lived, except for LWD recruitment, which would take 30-50 years before replacement trees have matured sufficiently. Complex habitats would be temporarily affected by effects to sediment, substrate embeddedness, LWD, streambank condition, and floodplain connectivity. The project would have minor effects to LWD recruitment in the near future. Off-channel habitats, such as wetlands or side channels, would generally not be affected. ELJs would increase long term in stream habitat complexity for juvenile and adult bull trout. Up p e r H o h R i v e r R o a d B a n k S t a b i l i z a t i o n P r o j e c t July 2016 Bi o l o g i c a l A s s e s s m e n t Page 46 Ta b l e 1 6 . R e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e M a t r i x I n d i c a t o r s t o th e P r i m a r y C o n s t i t u e n t E l e m e n t s o f B u l l T r o u t C r i t ic a l H a b i t a t Pa t h w a y ( b o l d ) a n d I n d i c a t o r PC E 1 - S p r i n g s , Se e p s , Gr o u n d w a t e r PC E 2 - Mi g r a t o r y Co r r i d o r s * PC E 3 - Ab u n d a n t Fo o d B a s e PC E 4 - Co m p l e x Ha b i t a t s PC E 5 - Te m p e r a t u r e PC E 6 - Su b s t r a t e PC E - 7 Hy d r o g r a p h PCE 8 - Water Quality/ Quantity PCE 9 - Nonnative Species* Wa t e r Q u a l i t y T e m p e r a t u r e X X X X X S e d i m e n t X X X X X C h e m i c a l C o n t a m i n a t i o n / N u t r i e n t s X X X X Ha b i t a t E l e m e n t s P h y s i c a l B a r r i e r s X S u b s t r a t e E m b e d d e d n e s s X X X X X L a r g e W o o d y D e b r i s X X P o o l F r e q u e n c y a n d Q u a l i t y X X L a r g e P o o l s X X O f f - C h a n n e l H a b i t a t X X X X R e f u g i a X X X X X X X X X Ch a n n e l C o n d i t i o n s a n d D y n a m i c s W i d t h t o D e p t h R a t i o X X X X S t r e a m b a n k C o n d i t i o n X X X X X X X F l o o d p l a i n C o n n e c t i v i t y X X X X X X X Fl o w / H y d r o l o g y C h a n g e s i n P e a k / B a s e F l o w s X X X X X D r a i n a g e N e t w o r k I n c r e a s e X X X X X Wa t e r s h e d C o n d i t i o n s R o a d D e n s i t y a n d L o c a t i o n X X X X X X D i s t u r b a n c e H i s t o r y X X X R i p a r i a n C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a s X X X X X X X * = P C E i s a l s o r e l a t e d t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n p a t h w a y , pe r s i s t e n c e a n d g e n e t i c i n t e g r i t y i n d i c a t o r Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 47 Water temperature (PCE 5), would be affected by short term changes to streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, and riparian conservation areas. Removal of riparian trees would reduce shade in the project vicinity in a minor way, but the proposed project is not likely to affect temperature in the Hoh River overall. Substrate (PCE 6) would be affected by short term impacts to sediment, substrate embeddedness, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, and riparian conservation areas. Increased turbidity during construction, particularly during in-water installation of ELJ/dolosse units, would temporarily increase the percent of fines in substrate potentially used by bull trout for foraging and rearing. Proposed project impacts are not likely to change the natural hydrograph of the Hoh River (PCE 7) directly. However, changes to riparian vegetation and streambanks could have minor effects on the amount of water stored in vegetation and floodplain connectivity. Short term impacts to water quality (PCE 8) would occur due to construction-related sediment inputs to the surface water column and substrate. Also, removal of riparian vegetation could have minor impacts to shading and thus temperature. The proposed project would have no effects on PCE 9. Effects to temperature would not be significant enough to influence distribution of non-native species. Overall, the proposed project would have short-term negative impacts to bull trout critical habitat, but long-term improvement. Northern Spotted Owl The proposed projects are located within multiple mapped spotted owl nest management circles. Although most of these nest territories were last monitored in the late 90s or early 2000s, suitable NRF habitat for the owl is present in the action area and within close proximity to some of the projects (Figure 3). The proposed project would remove up to 325 trees across all the proposed sites, but these trees consist almost entirely of small deciduous trees that do not provide habitat for owls. Approximately 20 large conifers greater than 18 inches in diameter would be removed by the project, but only three of these trees (one at site C3 and two at site C4 East) are in the largest size class that has potential for cavities large enough to support owls. Given the presence of documented nest centers in the action area, it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that spotted owls could occur in the action area. Noise generated by the proposed project during construction would be the primary disturbance to individual owls occurring in the action area and adjacent areas. As discussed earlier and shown in Figure 2, typical construction noise disturbance would be expected to attenuate to ambient noise levels typical of the project vicinity within 4,560 feet (0.88 mile). Therefore, project noise levels would be above ambient noise levels within suitable habitat. In particular, during the short periods of pile driving, it is likely that noise levels in adjacent suitable habitat could disrupt nesting activities if they occur between March and July. Spotted owl noise harassment/injury threshold has been previously established to occur at 92 dBA (WSDOT 2014). As proposed, typical project construction noise levels would not Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 48 exceed the noise harassment/injury threshold. However, pile driving could create injury to owls within 262 feet of construction. This distance includes suitable habitat in at least one location – site C3 (Tower Creek Bridge). Similarly, spotted owl behavior disturbance threshold (defined as when the owl shows noise avoidance by hiding, defending itself, moving the wings or body, or postponing a feeding) has been previously established to occur at 70 dBA (WSDOT 2014). Typical construction noise would attenuate to the behavior disturbance threshold at 288 feet (0.06 mile). Pile driving would attenuate to the behavior disturbance at 1,991 feet (0.38 mile). This preceding analysis was based on a 2003 Biological Opinion (BO) done by the USFWS for federal activities on the Olympic National Forest. However, in a more recent 2013 BO, the USFWS established new distance standards for disturbance, disruption and injury to spotted owls during the nesting season (March 1 to September 30) (Table 17). These distances include the following: Table 17. Distance Thresholds for Northern Spotted Owl Effects Activity May Affect Disturbance Distance Likely to Affect Disruption Distance (March 1 – July 15) Direct Injury Distance (March 1 – Sept 30) Road construction, repairs, bridge construction, culvert replacements, etc. 66 yards to 0.25 mile ≤65 yards NA Pile-driving 120 yards to 0.25 mile ≤120 yards ≤5 yards (injury) USDI 2013 Based on this analysis, the project as a whole would meet the likely to adversely affect standard in at least three sites – C1, C2, andC3 where potentially suitable habitat is adjacent to the project activities. However, while this analysis conservatively assumes the presence of spotted owls in suitable habitat in the action area, based on recent evidence of the extreme competition from barred owls in the lowland forests of the Olympic Peninsula, it is possible that most of the potentially suitable habitat in the action area is unoccupied at this time. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any recovery criteria for this species (USFWS 2011). Spotted Owl Critical Habitat It is possible that the proposed project would directly affect designated northern spotted owl critical habitat at site C3. At this location, a few trees may be removed within the boundary of DCH, although the precise location of impacts is difficult to assess at preliminary design. All vegetation that would be removed is adjacent to the existing road and subject to recurring disturbance. Nevertheless, this habitat likely functions (at a minimum) as PCEs 1, 3, and 4 of spotted owl DCH. Marbled Murrelet Effects to marbled murrelet would be similar to northern spotted owl. Several of the proposed project sites are adjacent to potentially suitable marbled murrelet habitat with potential nest platforms. Given the significant number of occupied murrelet sightings in the action area, this Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 49 analysis assumes that the suitable habitat is occupied. In at least three locations cases—sites C1, C,2 and C3, the suitable habitat is within 120 yards of the construction activity, which is within the distance threshold considered by USDI (2013) to represent a likelihood of disruption and harassment to nesting murrelets. It is unlikely that any of the construction activities would be close enough (within 5 yards) to reach the level of injury. At this time, it is assumed that these construction activities could occur during the nesting season (April 1 to September 23) (USFWS 2012). If construction activities are conducted outside the nesting season, then there would be no impacts to nesting murrelets. Another potential restriction to reduce impacts on nesting murrelets during the nesting season would be to implement limited operating periods that allowed the proponent to only construct from 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset. However, given the potential need for total road closure at sites C3 and C5, this restriction may not be realistic. In fact, it is anticipated that night work may be required at these locations to minimize the duration of total road closure. If round the clock construction occurs during the murrelet nesting season, it could disturb adult birds on their daily foraging trips to and from marine waters, which is typically concentrated during the dawn and dusk periods. However, feeding has been documented to occur throughout the day in some areas (USFWS 2012). The aspects of the proposed projects with the highest likelihood of disturbing marbled murrelets include the following: • Impact pile driving for sheet pile or bridge foundation piles; • Demolition of the existing bridges; • Excavation at any of the proposed projects; • Removal of large size class conifers; • Installing and placing new bank stabilization, culvert, and bridge components; • General site preparation (TESC measures, traffic detours, stream bypasses, etc.); and • Site restoration activities. Based on the results of the project tree inventory (Tables 9 and 10), there are hundreds of potential murrelet nest platforms within 65 yards of the project sites. However, many of these platforms are not likely to be used by murrelets because they are isolated, do not have suitable crown cover nearby, and are too close to existing sources of disturbance such as UHRR. One caveat to this analysis is that almost all of the “occupied” detections of murrelets occurred outside the smaller action area for typical construction activities, but within the action area for pile driving (Figure 2). It is possible that the suitable habitat mapped near the proposed projects has a lower likelihood of being occupied than the stands farther up the side slopes of the valley. As shown in Table 4, approximately 20 large conifer trees would be removed by the proposed project across all sites. However, most of these trees are of a smaller size class (18 to 32 inches) and do not provide significant platforms for marbled murrelets. Approximately three Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 50 conifers in the largest size class (greater than 50 inches dbh) would be removed by the project, including one 72+-inch spruce located close to the northwest corner of the existing Tower Creek bridge, and two large spruce located along the top of the existing streambank at site C4 East. At least one of these trees at site C4 are being actively undermined by the river, and will not likely survive many more winter high water events. All three of these largest trees provide potential marbled murrelet nesting platforms. Overall, response of marbled murrelets to these activities could have a wide range of negative effects, including delayed nest establishment, increased predation risk, aborted or delayed feeding of juveniles, increased agitation at the nest, reduced nestling growth rates, and increased habitat fragmentation. Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Similar to spotted owls, there is DCH for murrelets immediately adjacent to several of the proposed projects. It is likely that some of the trees removed for the proposed activities would fall within DCH. As such, there would likely be direct impacts to at least one of the PCEs of murrelet DCH. Indirect Effects 5.2.2 Indirect effects are effects caused by the action(s), or that will result from the action(s), but will occur later in time, generally after the construction period. Indirect effects guidance for transportation projects was developed from discussions between the USFWS, NMFS, FHWA, Office of Community Development, and WSDOT, with input from local agencies and stakeholder groups, in 1999 and 2000. It was updated in 2003 and 2009 as a result of additional coordination. The guidance provides general recommendations for the consideration of indirect effects in BAs prepared for ESA Section 7 consultations on transportation projects. The proposed project would not create a new facility (e.g., new road or interchange) or increase the capacity of UHRR, nor will it change local land use patterns. No new intersections will be constructed. No development in the action area is caused by or dependent on the project. No changes to project stormwater treatment are proposed. Installation of in-stream bank stabilization structures would create long term changes to local river hydraulics at these locations. It is the purpose of these structures to reduce near shore water velocities, create eddies and other backwater effects, and provide cover for bull trout and other fish species. Beneficial Effects 5.2.3 The proposed project would have long term beneficial effects to the Hoh River by minimizing ongoing impacts related to maintenance of the UHRR, by utilizing more natural bank stabilization techniques such as ELJs to both protect the road and provide fish habitat. Reducing the amount of emergency road maintenance actions would likely reduce the rate of hard armoring occurring along the river. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 51 Interdependent and Interrelated Actions or Activities 5.2.4 No interdependent or interrelated actions or activities associated with the project are known at this preliminary design phase. Cumulative Effects 5.2.5 Under the ESA, the cumulative effects of future state, tribal, local, and/or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the project action area must be considered as part of the analysis of effects. No such specific activities have been identified in the action area. However, it is reasonable to assume that the following categories of actions would continue to occur occasionally on an as-needed basis: • Restoration activities on conservation lands being managed by the Hoh River Trust and the Hoh Tribe; • Minor logging on WDNR lands; and • Ongoing recreational activities such as fishing and rafting. Ongoing activities on WDNR lands are already managed under an existing habitat conservation plan for potential impacts to listed species. Potential habitat on private lands in the action area has been sufficiently degraded by past activities, especially logging, that habitat for northern spotted owl and particularly marbled murrelet, is not likely to exist, or at least to be severely limited in these areas. It is anticipated that any lands under management of conservation organizations such as the Hoh River Trust are likely to continue to be managed for the benefit of species like the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and bull trout. The proposed project is specifically purposed to minimize the need for future emergency bank stabilization actions by Jefferson County, which should maintain or reduce the past cumulative impact of hard armoring on bull trout habitat in the mainstem Hoh River. Table 18 below lists the actions conducted by Jefferson County in the action area since 1996 that have contributed to cumulative impacts. Some of these projects were actually mitigation for other projects (see notes). Table 18. Local Jefferson County Cumulative Impact Projects Since 1996 in Action Area No. Owner/Agency Project Name Mile Post Year Description of Repair/Project 1 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road Emergency - MP 12 12.0 1996 Road relocated to north, ~7,000 CY of heavy loose riprap installed to rebuild road; repair included riprap "barbs". LWD was incorporated into structure as required by permits for mitigation. 2 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road Washout MP 6.7 6.7 1998 Constructed 600 lineal feet of heavy loose riprap bank armor. 3 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road Washout MP 6.7 - Mitigation ELJ's 6.7 2003 As mitigation for 1998 repair project at MP 6.7, 4 very large ELJs were constructed just upstream from riprap; ELJs were up to 5 feet diameter by 60 feet long. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 52 No. Owner/Agency Project Name Mile Post Year Description of Repair/Project 4 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road MP 7.7 7.7 2004 Reconstructed EB lane using approximately 3,500 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap and armor stone. 5 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road MP 4.0 Emergency Restoration 4.0 2006 Reconstructed EB lane using ~3,500 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap and armor stone; upper 10 feet of embankment reconstructed with "bioengineered" bank protection methods using natural erosion mats and willow cuttings. 6 Jefferson County Tower Creek Bridge No 7W 7.5 2006 Sheet pile wall installed to shore up the bridge approach on the west end; riprap bank armor replaced under the bridge to protect foundation from scour and approaches from erosion and failure. 7 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road MP 7.8 7.8 2007 Reconstructed EB using approximately 7,500 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap and armor stone. 8 Jefferson County Willoughby Creek Bridge Repair 3.4 2011 Installed tied-back sheet pile wall to shore up bridge approach embankment on west end; replaced riprap embankment protection; installed LWD upstream to protect outside of creek bend above road and as project mitigation. 9 Jefferson County Spruce Creek Culvert Replacement 9.7 2012 Replaced damaged culverts with 24-foot concrete bridge; project was self-mitigating as it replaced an existing partial fish passage barrier. 10 Jefferson County/Hoh River Trust Pole Creek Culvert Replacement 8.3 2010 Replaced 5-foot-diameter steel culvert (barrier) with 35-foot concrete bridge; temporary road bypass installed with signals during construction. 11 Jefferson County Dismal Creek Culvert (Mitigation) 9.2 2011 Remove barrier culvert and replace with bridge. 12 Jefferson County Alder Creek Trib. Culvert (Mitigation) 2.1 2013 Remove barrier culvert and replace with bridge. 13 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road MP 3.9 ER 3.9 2014 Reconstructed eastbound lane using approximately 2,500 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap and armor stone. 14 Jefferson County MP 3.338 Access Preservation: Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park 3.338 2015 Replacement of substandard failing culvert. 15 Jefferson County MP 6.95 Access Preservation: Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park 6.95 2016 Replacement of substandard failing culvert. 16 Jefferson County Emergency riprap placement MP 9.7 at Spruce Creek 9.7 2016 Placed 350 lf (3,500 tons) of riprap to stabilize bank. It is possible that the project could have a negligible negative cumulative effect on the availability of marbled murrelet suitable nest platforms in the action area by removal of several large conifers, but these trees are not located in areas of high documented murrelet use, such as the valley walls. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 53 6.0 Determination of Effect This BA provides an analysis of the project effects on listed species. Information from site visits and species information obtained from available literature, and state and federal agencies, was used to establish the following finding of effects. Bull Trout: The proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect bull trout for the following reasons: • Bull trout are documented to occur throughout the Hoh River, potentially year round as juveniles; • The proposed project would have direct impacts through fill and excavation to the Hoh River; • The proposed project features would occupy more than one acre of substrate in the Hoh River; • The project is likely to create short-term increases in downstream suspended sediment and turbidity sufficient to create SEV levels greater than 4 (Table 13); and • The project is proposing in-water work and fish removal activities which could involve direct handling of fish. Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat: The proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect bull trout DCH for the following reasons: • DCH for bull trout includes the entire Hoh River within the action area; • The project would have short term direct impacts to most PCEs of bull trout DCH; and • ELJ/dolosse units would permanently occupy portions of DCH. Northern Spotted Owl: The proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl for the following reasons: • The action area includes portions of seven documented northern spotted owl nest circles; • Potentially suitable habitat (mature forest) occurs immediately adjacent to several proposed construction activities; • Potential NRF habitat (trees larger than 18 inches in diameter with cavities) is present adjacent to most of the sites; • Potentially suitable habitat is assumed to be occupied, but recent surveys are lacking; • The project would remove up to 20 large conifer trees, at least some of which would be from potentially suitable owl habitat; and • Project pile-driving would create noise levels high enough to create disturbance within mapped owl circles. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 54 Northern Spotted Owl Designated Critical Habitat: The proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl DCH for the following reasons: • DCH for the owl exists immediately adjacent to site C3; • The project is likely to remove a small amount of trees from DCH; and • Project pile driving is likely to directly affect adjacent DCH Marbled Murrelet: The proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet for the following reasons: • The action area includes multiple sections with occupied murrelet detections; • The project would have direct effects to potential suitable habitat immediately adjacent to several project sites (conifers greater than 18 inches with potential nest platforms); • Trees would be removed from suitable habitat; and • Night time construction would create noise levels high enough to create disturbance or disruption within occupied murrelet habitat. Marbled Murrelet Designated Critical Habitat: The proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet DCH for the following reasons: • DCH for the murrelet exists immediately adjacent to most of the project sites; • The project is likely to remove a small amount of trees from DCH; and • Project pile driving is likely to directly affect adjacent DCH. Determination of effect for EFH is described in Appendix A. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 55 7.0 References Anderson, P. G., B. R. Taylor, and G. C. Balch. 1996. Quantifying the effects of sediment release on fish and their habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2346. Bash, J., C. Berman, and S. Bolton. 2001. Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Solids on Salmonids. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC); study conducted in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. November. Brenkman, S.J., and S. C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of Anadromy in Bull Trout and Implications for Conservation of a Threatened Species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1073-1081. Buchanan, J.B., and P. Swedeen. 2005. Final Briefing Report to the Washington State Forest Practices Board Regarding Spotted Owl Status and Forest Practices Rules. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. August 2005. Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: Sustainable Ecosystem Institute. 348 p. + appendixes. Falxa, G.A., and M.G. Raphael, technical editors. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan—The first 20 years (1994-2013): status and trend of marbled murrelet populations and nesting habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Federal Register. 1986. Volume 51. No 106. Interagency cooperation – Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Final Rule. pp. 19957-19963. ———. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. In 50 CFR, Part 17, Vol. 75, No. 200. USFWS Final Rule. Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, K.M. Dugger, E.M. Glenn, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, K.P. Burnham, D.R. Anderson, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, J.B. Lint, R.J. Davis, S.H. Ackers, L.S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, S.A. Gremel, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, J.A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J. Schaberel, T.J. Snetsinger, and S.G. Sovern. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls.. Studies in Avian Biology No. 40. 106 pp. Forsman, E.D., B.L. Biswell, D. Kelso, and K. Williamson. 2013. Demographic characteristics of northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) on the Olympic Peninsula Study Area, Washington 1987-2012. Golder and Associates. 2005. WRIA 20 Phase II Technical Assessment Report – Final Draft. Prepared for Clallam County and the WRIA 20 Planning Unit. Harke, V. 2016. Personal communication from Gray Rand, DEA Biologist, with Vince Harke, USFWS Biologist, on February 12, 2016. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 56 Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil. 2000. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon St0, ate University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. Lum, W.E., and L.M. Nelson. 1986. Reconnaissance of the water resources of the Hoh Indian Reservation and the Hoh River Basin, Washington. US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4018. McHenry, M., J. Lichatowich, and R. Kowalski-Hagaman. 1996. Status of pacific salmon and their habitats on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Report to the Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, Washington. Muck, J. 2010. Biological Effects of Sediment on Bull Trout and Their Habitat – Guidance for Evaluating Effects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. NMFS, Habitat Conservation Branch. 20pp. ———. 2016. Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead. ESA Listing dated October 31, 2012. Retrieved February 3, 2016. Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2016. Web Soil Survey. Soil characteristics queried by G. Rand on January 28, 2016 . http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Newcombe, C. P. and J. O. T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16(4): 693-727. Phinney, D., and Bucknell. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Vol. 2 Coastal Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. 2016. Birdweb Entry for Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. Available at http://www.birdweb.org/Birdweb/bird/yellow-billed_cuckoo. Accessed February 10, 2016. Smith, C., 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors in the North Washington Coastal Streams of WRIA 20. Prepared for the Washington Conservation Commission, Olympia, WA. StreamNet. 2016. Data Query on Fish Distribution in Hoh River and tributaries. Accessed February 3, 2016: http://www.streamnet.org. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 2013. Biological Opinion for Effects to Northern Spotted Owls, Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, Critical Habitat for Marbled Murrelets, Bull Trout, and Critical Habitat for Bull Trout from Selected Programmatic Forest Management Activities March 25,2013 to December 31,2023 on the Olympic National Forest Washington. (USFWS Reference: 13410-2009-F- 0388). Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 57 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 55: 26114–26194. ———. 1992. Determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; Final Rule. Federal Register 57: 1796-1838. ———. 1996. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. Fed. Reg. 61(102):26256-26320. ———. 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Group Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Waterfoshed Scale – Draft. February. ———. 2004. Northern spotted owl: Five Year Review Summary and Evaluation. USFWS, Portland, OR. ———. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. 277 p. ———. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat Designation for the Northern Spotted Owl. 77 FR 27010. ———. 2015. Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). September 2015. ———. 2016. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Species List for project area. Received January 25, 2016. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2016a. 2012 Section 303(d) list – WRIA 20. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html. Retrieved February 10, 2016. ———. 2016b. Ecology River and Stream Monitoring Results for Hoh River. Available at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eap/riverwq/station.asp?sta=20B070. Accessed February 10, 2016. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Salmonid Stock Inventory. Appendix Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. Olympia, Washington 437 pp. ———. 2012. WDFW Streaked Horned Lark Annual Report. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/streaked_horned_lark.pdf. Viewed February 10, 2016. ———. 2016a. WDFW Salmonscape Interactive webpage. Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Accessed on February 3, 2016. ———. 2016b. WDFW PHS on the Web. Interactive website http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Retrieved February 3, 2016. Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2016. Natural Heritage Program GIS Data Layer. Dataset dated February 2015. Viewed February 2016. Available at http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/gis/wnhpgis.html Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Page 58 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2014. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Project – Advanced Training Manual. ———.2015. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Project – Advanced Training Manual. Available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/default.htm#TrainingManual. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2016. WSDOT Bridge Design Manual 12/2016. Available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M23- 50/BDM.pdf. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix A APPENDIX A ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ANALYSIS Essential Fish Habitat This analysis documents consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1996. Public Law 104-267, the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) to (1) establish new requirements for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) descriptions in Federal Fishery Management Plans, and (2) to require federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The MSFCMA requires consultation with the NMFS on activities that may affect EFH, defined as “those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” EFH includes marine waters, intertidal habitats, and freshwater streams accessible to anadromous fish. Pacific salmon EFH for the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently and historically utilized by Pacific salmon within Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The MSFCMA promotes the protection of these habitats through review, assessment, and mitigation of activities that may adversely affect these habitats. This analysis satisfies the consultation requirements by providing a description and assessment of EFH in the action area, a description of the project and its potential impacts to these habitats, and a description of the mitigation measures that would be implemented to protect these habitats, if necessary. Identification of Essential Fish Habitat The action area does not include marine waters. Therefore, the analysis addresses the Pacific Salmon Fishery, including Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. The EFH designation for the Pacific Salmon Fishery includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above impassible barriers identified by Pacific Fishery Management Council2. Site-Specific Effects to Essential Fish Habitat The Hoh River is documented to support migration, rearing and spawning by spring and summer Chinook salmon and coho salmon throughout the action area. Bank stabilization will likely improve habitat functions for these salmonids in the long term. However, the proposed project will have short term and long term direct effects to EFH from fill and excavation in the mainstem Hoh River as well as in water work in Tower and Canyon Creeks. Construction will create short term increases in turbidity in the Hoh River and selected tributaries. 2 Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: description and identification of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon. Portland, Oregon. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix A Determination of Effect In-water work on this project will create short term and long term impacts to fish habitat and water quality. Although the project will result in permanent net benefits to Pacific salmon EFH, because of temporary and long term changes to existing fish habitat, the proposed project will adversely affect EFH. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix B APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY 30% PROJECT DESIGN PLANS Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix B This page intentionally left blank. Si t e s C 1 a n d C 2 OHW OHW gravel-cobble, per plan Placed conserved 1 1 ' - 0 " min. Geotextile, Class 1C TYPICAL DETAILS STREAMBARBS 7'-6" H.12 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 8 6 \ H . 1 2 - v 5 - T y p i c a l _ s t r e a m b a r b _ B S _ S u r _ f t 2 D . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 3 0 P M 2 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 8 '-0 " 15'-0"74'-0" 4 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 2 7 ' - 0 " key, buried Streambarb crest base, per plan Streambarb riprap, per plans proposed Existing or 1 .5 :1 8 ' - 0 " 50-year WS 28' to 53' 8 ' t o 1 8 ' 20' streambarb height gravel-cobble up to 1/2 Place conserved If needed, placed conserved gravel footprint can be increased. Streambarb key Class 5 riprap. Streambarb Class 8 riprap. 3. 2. 1. Key DS end Key US end 3 0 ° NO SCALE NOTES: Key crest, elev per plan Flow Fill to existing grade 5 ' - 0 " 4 ' m i n . Fill to existing grade 1 1 1 1.5 1 5 '8'-0" Streambarb bottom Stream bottom Stream bottom Streambarb crest 1 4'-0"96'-0" SECTION A SECTION B Streambarb tip, elev per plan Set hingeline at OHW 4' 2' min. (per plan) Placed gravel-cobble Existing riprap Existing bank plantings Pole Existing embankment 7' min. Streambarb crest, elev per plan Key crest, elev per plan Streambarb key Key toe, elev per plan Placed mitigation log with rootwad, 4 per barb 90'-0" A A B B 20' min. length, 4 per barb Placed mitigation log with rootwad, PLAN Streambarb crest Streambarb CL tip, per plan Streambarb Streambarb limit Set hingeline at OHW Placed gravel-cobble, per plan and riprap only, above OHW Pole planting, placed gravel-cobble Existing channel edge Streambarb bottom, elev per plan 9 72'-0" 1 1.5 1 Placed mitigation log with rootwad, 4 per barb 1/2 streambarb height gravel-cobble up to Place conserved OHW 50-yr W.S. Pole plantings TYPICAL DETAILS BANK STABILIZATION GRAVEL-COBBLE H.13 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 : 1 8 P M 7 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 5 ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 8 6 \ H . 1 3 - v 5 - T y p i c a l _ b a n k _ s t a b i l i z a t i o n _ l o g s _ B S _ S u r _ f t 2 D . d g n - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Alder plantings Cedar plantings Alder plantings Cedar plantings NO SCALE Flow PLAN SECTION A A A Placed gravel-cobble crest Placed gravel-cobble toe Stream bank toe Set hingeline at OHW Set hingeline at OHW Placed gravel-cobble crest Placed gravel-cobble toe Stream bottom Pole plantings Existing embankment Placed gravel-cobble OHW 8'-4" DETAILS WOOD BUFFER w/ DOLOSSE BANK STABILIZATION Dolos Place deflector logs to min. design elev, per plan, repeat Layer B as needed H.14 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 8 6 \ H . 1 4 - v 6 u n i - j u m b l e _ T y p i c a l _ d o l o s s e _ B S _ S u r _ f t 2 D . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 3 4 P M 2 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Dolos, center in log bundle Deflector log bundle Deflector log bundle Notes: 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Deflector log-dolos bundle 6 defector rootwads. Layer B; 15 randomly placed deflector log-dolos bundles and space between fill logs and deflector logs. vegetation, 1-inch to 8-inch diameter, tightly pack into void Coarse woody debris; even mixture of branches, limbs, trunks, attached rootwad, 6 per log jam unit. Log pile; 30-foot min. trunk, 12-inch to 18-inch diameter without weight. Deflector log bundle; 105 to 140 ft3 total log volume, 16,000 lbs dolos attached rootwad. Deflector rootwad; 20-foot min. trunk, 18 to 36-inch diameter with attached rootwad. Deflector log; 20-foot min. trunk, 18 to 36-inch diameter without Existing bank toe Existing bank toe Existing bank top Existing bank top Log pile, 6 Log pile, 6 Defector rootwad, 7 Deflector rootwad, random, 7 ELJ unit limits ELJ unit limits Deflector log bundle, random, 15 Deflector log bundle, 10 12' (typ.) Layer A elements 5' min. Match existing grade NO SCALE Flow Wrap each log bundle and dolos trunk with chain Wrap each log bundle and dolos trunk with chain 75'-0" 2 0 ' - 0 " Flow 6 ' - 7 " 4 5 ° 1 8 ' t o 2 2 ' 50-year W.S. 3 ' - 0 " Existing embankment pavement edge Existing road 8 ' - 4 " 1 ' - 8 " 3'-0" Fluke Trunk Per plan DOLOS DETAIL TYPICAL SECTION LAYER A PLAN LAYER B PLAN Existing channel bottom L a y e r B Existing road CL over deflector logs Placed coarse woody debris, min. 1' 6 ' m i n . DETAIL TYPICAL DEFLECTOR LOG-DOLOS BUNDLE Log pile, 5, 11' O.C. Layer A Geotextile, class 1C A A A A excavate as needed for min. ELJ height Set trunk base on channel bottom, 1 0 1 5 CP 14102 CP 14101 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 263.7150 E 814516.2410 N 318084.6340 CP 14101 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 258.5120 E 815044.1020 N 318075.5500 CP 14102 1 0 1 5 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 245 2 4 5245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 245 245 245245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 250 250 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 2 5 5 260 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 2 6 5 2 6 5 265 2 6 5 265 265 265 2 6 5 265 265 2 6 5 275 CP 14102 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 258.5120 E 815044.1020 N 318075.5500 CP 14102 2 0 0 + 0 0 CP 14101 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 263.7150 E 814516.2410 N 318084.6340 CP 14101 CP 14102 CP 14101 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 263.7150 E 814516.2410 N 318084.6340 CP 14101 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 258.5120 E 815044.1020 N 318075.5500 CP 14102 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 17+0016+0014+0013+0011+0010+00 12+00 15+00 245 265 235 225 230 245 265 235 225 255 N 1 2 3 Existing road Existing pavement edge LC Existing river bed contour Flow 270 R.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 g a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 2 : 0 8 P M 3 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 240 250 260 270 230 240 250 255 260 Barb Bottom Elev. 234.0' Barb Crest Elev. 252.0' Key Crest Elev. 256.0' Place conserved gravel cobble 50 year water surface profile Stream bank toe Existing road surface 3 0 3 5 250 250 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 265 2 6 5 265 270 270 2 7 0 270 2 7 0 2 7 0 275275 2 7 5 2 7 5 275 275275 275 280 280 2 8 0 280 285 285 290 290 295 300300 305 JH 41934 JH 41934 JH 42519 JH 42519 JH 41791 JH 41791 JH 41932 JH 41935 JH 41935 JH 41933 JH 41933 2 4 " C O N C R E T E P I P E 214+00 321 4 JH 41462 JH 41462 T 247050T 247050 JH 40001 JH 40001 RP 2 2 2 + 0 0 JH 40005 JH 40005 RP 2 1 6 + 0 0 JH 40004 JH 40004 UP 303780 RP 2 2 0 + 0 0 JH 40003 JH 40003 JH 41650 JH 41650 UP [WATCH FOR ROCK] JH 41790 N A Z 2 9 4 1 3 1 . 4 9 F T RP 2 1 8 + 0 0 TT CP 14105 CP 14105 JH 40002 JH 40002 15" H EM LO C K N A Z 068 82.84FT TJH 1251 T CP 14105 RP 15" H EM LO C K N A Z 068 82.84FT N A Z 2 9 4 1 3 1 . 4 9 F T RP UP 303780 T 247050 T T RP UP RP 14105 321 4 T 247050 T T [WATCH FOR ROCK] E L E V 2 6 5 . 4 2 2 4 " C O N C R E T E P I P E E L E V 2 6 0 . 2 2 3 0 3 5 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 235 245 255 265 275 35+0030+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 235 245 255 265 275 N 4 5 6 7 8 Existing road Existing pavement edge LC Flow Existing river bed contour 240 250 260 270 280 240 250 260 270 280 Barb Bottom Elev. 240.0' Barb Crest Elev. 258.0' Key Crest Elev. 262.0' R.3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 g b . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 : 5 5 P M 3 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Stream bank toe Existing road surface surface profile 50 Year water Place conserved gravel cobble 4 0 4 5 250 2 5 0 250 255 255 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255255 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 2 6 0 260 260 2 6 0 260 265 265 265 265 2 6 5 265 265 270 270 270 270 270 2 7 5 275 275 280 280 280 285 2 8 5 285 2 9 0 2 9 0 290 295 295 295 300 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 5 305 3 0 5 305 305305 3 1 0 3 10 310 310315 320 325 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 5 335 340 3 4 5 350 3 5 5 3 6 0 360 3 6 5 375 LOG DEBRIS LOG DEBRIS LOG DEBRIS LOG DEBRISJH 41280JH 41280 3 6 " C M P LY ING DOWN LOG 32"D IA2 4 " C M P 36" PLASTIC PIPE 2 4 " C M P 2 4 " M A P L E N A Z 0 8 3 7 7 .6 3 F T 72"X48"X60" 60"X42"X28" T 300950RP 2 2 8 + 0 0 T 300950 T259951 T 300951T300951JH 40301JH 40301 1 8 " C M P RP 2 3 0 + 0 0 JH 40300JH 40300T259950 JH 40382JH 40382 JH 40381JH 40381 RP 2 2 6 + 0 0 JH 40299JH 40299 1 3 " M A P L E N A Z 0 3 1 5 2 .0 2 F T JH 40298JH 40298 JH 40297JH 40297 UP CP 1410714107RP 2 2 4 + 0 0 JH 40294JH 40294 CP 14106 CP 14106 5/8"IR W /FHW A ALUM CAP1 4 " A L D E R N A Z 1 8 0 1 7 . 6 6 F T 1 2 " S P R U C E N A Z 2 4 4 2 7 . 5 0 F T CP 14106 CP 14107 1 2 " S P R U C E N A Z 2 4 4 2 7 . 5 0 F T 1 4 " A L D E R N A Z 1 8 0 1 7 . 6 6 F T RP T 259950 UP RP T 300950T300951RP 1 3 " M A P L E N A Z 0 3 1 5 2 .0 2 F T 2 4 " M A P L E N A Z 0 8 3 7 7 .6 3 F T RP 14107 CP 14106 5/8"IR W /FHW A ALUM CAP T259951 T 300950T300951 ELEV 261.74ELEV 258.47 LY ING DOWN LOG 32"D IA LOG DEBRIS E L E V 2 5 9 . 5 4 E L E V 2 5 8 . 4 5 72"X48"X60" 60"X42"X28" E L E V 2 5 9 . 5 8 E L E V 2 5 7 . 1 4 LOG DEBRIS LOG DEBRIS LOG DEBRIS E L E V 2 6 1 . 9 3 E L E V 2 5 6 . 9 9 E L E V 2 6 5 . 9 1 E L E V 2 5 8 . 7 5 2 4 " C M P 1 8 " C M P 3 6 " C M P 2 4 " C M P 36" PLASTIC PIPE 4 0 4 5 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 235 245 255 265 275 43+0039+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 235 245 255 265 275 N Existing roadLC 9 10 11 12 13 47+00 Existing river bed contour Flow 240 250 260 270 280 240 250 260 270 280 Barb Bottom Elev. 242.0' Barb Crest Elev. 260.0' Key Crest Elev. 264.0' R.4 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 g c . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 : 5 7 P M 3 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : surface profile 50 Year water Existing road surface Stream bank toe Place conserved gravel cobble 5 0 255 2 5 5 255255 255255255 255 255255 2552552 6 0 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0260260260260260260 260 260260260260 265 265 265265 2 6 5265270 270 270 275 2 7 5 275275 280 2 8 0 2 8 0 2 8 5 285 285 290 290 295 300 300 300 305 305 310 3 1 0 3 1 5 315 320 320 325 325 3 3 0 330 3 3 5 3 3 5 340 3 4 5 355 JH42210JH 42210 6 0 " C M P 3 2 " C M P RP 2 3 6 + 0 0 RP 2 3 8 + 0 0 RP 2 3 4 + 0 0 JH40388JH 40388JH40386JH 40386T301850 1 3 " M A P L E N A Z 0 3 1 5 2 .0 2 F T N A Z 1 2 3 1 9 . 0 1 F TT301850JH40387JH 40387T301851CP1410814108T301851JH40384JH 40384JH40385JH 40385T300850T300850 N A Z 2 5 6 6 3 . 8 1 F TRP 2 3 2 + 0 0 UPJH40383JH 40383UP CP14108 1 3 " M A P L E N A Z 0 3 1 5 2 .0 2 F T UPRPT300850T301850T301851RPRP N A Z 1 2 3 1 9 . 0 1 F T N A Z 2 5 6 6 3 . 8 1 F TUPRP14108 E L E V 2 6 1 . 7 5 E L E V 2 5 9 . 8 9 T300850T301850T301851E L E V 2 5 6 . 8 6 E L E V 2 5 3 . 3 3 3 2 " C M P 6 0 " C M P 5 0 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 245 265 275 51+0047+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 235 245 255 265 275 235 Existing road Existing pavement edge LC 14 15 16 17 18 255 55+00 Proposed 18' Ø AOP culvert Proposed 18' Ø AOP culvert Flow Existing river bed contour 280 270 260 250 240 280 260 250 240 270 N Barb Bottom Elev. 242.0' Barb Crest Elev. 261.0' Key Crest Elev. 264.0' R.5 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 g d . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 2 : 0 7 P M 3 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : surface profile 50 Year water Stream bank toe Placed conserved gravel cobble CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 17+0016+0014+0013+0011+0010+00 12+00 15+00 255 275 245 235 265 255 275 245 235 265 N Existing road Existing pavement edge LC Stream bank toe Wood buffer Existing road surface Start wood buffer Sta. 11+58.52, RT 145.04' End wood buffer Sta. 15+39.03, RT 45.76' 50 year water surface profile Flow Existing river bed contour 240 250 260 270 280 240 250 260 270 280 R.6 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 g f . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 3 : 5 3 P M 3 0 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : A A A A A A A A A A A A 1 0 1 5 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 245 2 4 5245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 245 245 245245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 250 250 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255 260 2 6 0 260 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 2 6 5 2 6 5 265 2 6 5 265 265 265 2 6 5 2 6 5 265 265 2 6 5 275 1 5 " A L D E R N A Z 3 0 7 5 9 . 4 1 F T CP 14102 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 258.5120 E 815044.1020 N 318075.5500 CP 14102 RP 2 0 0 + 0 0 1 4 " A L D E R N A Z 0 4 5 6 9 . 8 0 F T 8" HEMLOCK NAZ 315 52.83FT CP 14101 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 263.7150 E 814516.2410 N 318084.6340 CP 14101 NAZ 040 47.64FT CP 14102 CP 14101 NAZ 040 47.64FT 8" HEMLOCK NAZ 315 52.83FT 1 4 " A L D E R N A Z 0 4 5 6 9 . 8 0 F T 1 5 " A L D E R N A Z 3 0 7 5 9 . 4 1 F T RP 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 263.7150 E 814516.2410 N 318084.6340 CP 14101 5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap EL 258.5120 E 815044.1020 N 318075.5500 CP 14102 1 0 1 5 4 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 257.0' A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 3 0 3 5 250 250 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 265 2 6 5 265 270 270 2 7 0 270 2 7 0 2 7 0 275275 2 7 5 2 7 5 275 275275 275 280 280 2 8 0 280 285 285 290 290 295 300300 305 32 1 TT UP UP TT CP 14105 CP 14105 TT 2 4 0 240 2 4 5 245 245 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 250 2 5 0 250 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 255 255 255 2 5 5 260 2 6 0 260 265 265 265 270 270 270 270 270 CP 14105 UP T T T UP 14105 32 1 T T T 3 0 3 5 2 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 262.0'3 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 262.6'2 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 263.3' CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 235 245 255 265 275 35+0030+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 235 245 255 265 275 Existing ground N Existing road Existing pavement edge LC 50 Year water surface profile Stream bank toe Wood buffer Existing river bed contour Flow 280 270 260 250 240 280 260 250 240 270 Start wood buffer RT 48.04' Sta. 30+93.41, R.7 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 g g . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 2 : 4 5 P M 3 0 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : RT 78.43' Sta. 38+21.38, A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 4 0 4 5 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 255 255 2 5 5 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255255 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 2552 5 5 255 255 255 2 6 0 260 260 2 6 0 265 265 265 265 2 6 5 265 265 270 270 270 270 2 7 0 270 2 7 5 275 275 275 280 280 280 280 285 2 8 5 285 285 2 9 0 2 9 0 290 295 295 295 300 300 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 5 305 3 0 5 305 305305 3 1 0 310 310 310315 320 325 3 3 0 3 3 5 340 3 4 5 350 3 5 5 3 6 0 3 6 5 375 TT T TT T UP CP 14106 CP 14106 CP 14106 T UP T T CP 14106 T T T 4 0 4 5 3 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 263.6'4 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 264.5' CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 235 245 255 265 275 43+0038+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 235 245 255 265 275 Existing ground N Existing road Existing pavement edge LC 50 Year water surface profile Stream bank toe Wood buffer Existing river bed contour Flow 280 270 260 250 240 280 260 250 240 270 R.8 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 g h . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 3 : 5 2 P M 3 0 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Sta. 38+52.31, RT 75.17' Sta. 45+85.33, RT 65.54' 29.1' A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 5 0 255 2 5 5 255255255 255255255 255 255255 2552552 6 0 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0260260260260260260 260 2602 6 0 260260260 265 265265 2 6 5 265 2 6 5 2 6 5265265270 270 270 2 7 0 275 2 7 5 2752 7 5 275 280 2 8 0 2 8 0280 2 8 5 285 285 285 290 290 290 295 295 300 300 300 305 305 305 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 3 1 5 315 320 320 325 325 325 3 3 0 330 3 3 5 3 3 5 340 3 4 5 3 5 5 355360 365 TTT CP1410814108TTTUPCP1410714107UPCP14107CP14108UPTTTUP1410714108TTT5 0 4 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 265.8'3 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 265.1' CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 51+0046+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 235 235 Existing road Existing pavement edge LC 50 Year water surface profile Stream bank toe 255 265 245 275 275 265 255 245 End wood buffer Sta. 53+50.46, RT 75.27' Existing road surface Proposed 18' Ø AOP culvert 10' Proposed 18' Ø AOP culvert Existing river bed contour Flow 280 270 260 250 240 280 260 250 240 270 R.9 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 g i . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 3 : 5 2 P M 3 0 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 10' Sta. 46+19.67, RT 64.59' Wood buffer N Si t e C 4 OHW OHW gravel-cobble, per plan Placed conserved 1 1 ' - 0 " min. Geotextile, Class 1C TYPICAL DETAILS STREAMBARBS 7'-6" H.12 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 8 6 \ H . 1 2 - v 5 - T y p i c a l _ s t r e a m b a r b _ B S _ S u r _ f t 2 D . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 3 0 P M 2 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 8 '-0 " 15'-0"74'-0" 4 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 2 7 ' - 0 " key, buried Streambarb crest base, per plan Streambarb riprap, per plans proposed Existing or 1 .5 :1 8 ' - 0 " 50-year WS 28' to 53' 8 ' t o 1 8 ' 20' streambarb height gravel-cobble up to 1/2 Place conserved If needed, placed conserved gravel footprint can be increased. Streambarb key Class 5 riprap. Streambarb Class 8 riprap. 3. 2. 1. Key DS end Key US end 3 0 ° NO SCALE NOTES: Key crest, elev per plan Flow Fill to existing grade 5 ' - 0 " 4 ' m i n . Fill to existing grade 1 1 1 1.5 1 5 '8'-0" Streambarb bottom Stream bottom Stream bottom Streambarb crest 1 4'-0"96'-0" SECTION A SECTION B Streambarb tip, elev per plan Set hingeline at OHW 4' 2' min. (per plan) Placed gravel-cobble Existing riprap Existing bank plantings Pole Existing embankment 7' min. Streambarb crest, elev per plan Key crest, elev per plan Streambarb key Key toe, elev per plan Placed mitigation log with rootwad, 4 per barb 90'-0" A A B B 20' min. length, 4 per barb Placed mitigation log with rootwad, PLAN Streambarb crest Streambarb CL tip, per plan Streambarb Streambarb limit Set hingeline at OHW Placed gravel-cobble, per plan and riprap only, above OHW Pole planting, placed gravel-cobble Existing channel edge Streambarb bottom, elev per plan 9 72'-0" 1 1.5 1 Placed mitigation log with rootwad, 4 per barb 1/2 streambarb height gravel-cobble up to Place conserved OHW 50-yr W.S. TYPICAL DETAILS BANK STABILIZATION GRAVEL-COBBLE Alder plantings Cedar plantings Alder plantings Cedar plantings H.13 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET WA JEFF 91420(1) 3 : 5 1 P M 7 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 8 6 \ H . 1 3 - v 5 - T y p i c a l _ b a n k _ s t a b i l i z a t i o n _ l o g s _ B S _ S u r _ f t 2 D . d g n - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : OHW 50-yr W.S. Alder plantings Cedar plantings 50-yr W.S. single Pole plantings, NO SCALE Flow Flow 2' to 3' 2' to 3' 3 5 ° t o 5 0 ° PLAN SECTION A A A Placed gravel-cobble crest Placed gravel-cobble toe Stream bank toe Set hingeline at OHW Set hingeline at OHW Placed gravel-cobble crest Placed gravel-cobble toe Stream bottom Existing embankment Placed gravel-cobble Set hingeline at OHW Placed gravel-cobble crest Placed gravel-cobble toe Stream bottom Existing embankment Placed gravel-cobble Set hingeline at OHW Placed gravel-cobble crest Existing embankment Placed gravel-cobble trench Pole plantings, trench Pole plantings, B B single Pole plantings,SECTION B trench Pole plantings, Stream bottom crest Placed gravel-cobble C C SECTION C OHW 8'-4" DETAILS WOOD BUFFER w/ DOLOSSE BANK STABILIZATION Dolos Place deflector logs to min. design elev, per plan, repeat Layer B as needed H.14 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 8 6 \ H . 1 4 - v 6 u n i - j u m b l e _ T y p i c a l _ d o l o s s e _ B S _ S u r _ f t 2 D . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 3 4 P M 2 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Dolos, center in log bundle Deflector log bundle Deflector log bundle Notes: 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Deflector log-dolos bundle 6 defector rootwads. Layer B; 15 randomly placed deflector log-dolos bundles and space between fill logs and deflector logs. vegetation, 1-inch to 8-inch diameter, tightly pack into void Coarse woody debris; even mixture of branches, limbs, trunks, attached rootwad, 6 per log jam unit. Log pile; 30-foot min. trunk, 12-inch to 18-inch diameter without weight. Deflector log bundle; 105 to 140 ft3 total log volume, 16,000 lbs dolos attached rootwad. Deflector rootwad; 20-foot min. trunk, 18 to 36-inch diameter with attached rootwad. Deflector log; 20-foot min. trunk, 18 to 36-inch diameter without Existing bank toe Existing bank toe Existing bank top Existing bank top Log pile, 6 Log pile, 6 Defector rootwad, 7 Deflector rootwad, random, 7 ELJ unit limits ELJ unit limits Deflector log bundle, random, 15 Deflector log bundle, 10 12' (typ.) Layer A elements 5' min. Match existing grade NO SCALE Flow Wrap each log bundle and dolos trunk with chain Wrap each log bundle and dolos trunk with chain 75'-0" 2 0 ' - 0 " Flow 6 ' - 7 " 4 5 ° 1 8 ' t o 2 2 ' 50-year W.S. 3 ' - 0 " Existing embankment pavement edge Existing road 8 ' - 4 " 1 ' - 8 " 3'-0" Fluke Trunk Per plan DOLOS DETAIL TYPICAL SECTION LAYER A PLAN LAYER B PLAN Existing channel bottom L a y e r B Existing road CL over deflector logs Placed coarse woody debris, min. 1' 6 ' m i n . DETAIL TYPICAL DEFLECTOR LOG-DOLOS BUNDLE Log pile, 5, 11' O.C. Layer A Geotextile, class 1C A A A A excavate as needed for min. ELJ height Set trunk base on channel bottom, CP 14204 C P 14205 T 310 310 3 10310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 320 320 320 320 330 330 330 3 3 0 3 3 0 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 3 4 0 340 3 4 0 340 3403 5 0 3 5 0 350 350 360 360 360 3603 7 0 5 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 5+004+003+002+001+000+00 S.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 s 1 . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 9 : 0 5 A M 1 8 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 6+00 7+00 8+00 N Flow 380 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 380 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 F l o w Existing road Existing pavement edge LC Existing river bed contour Barb Bottom Elev. 300.0' Barb Crest Elev. 318.0' Key Crest Elev. 324.0' Stream bank toe Existing road surface surface profile 50 Year water Place conserved gravel cobble 1 2 3 CP 14206 JH 30001 JH 30002 JH 30003 JH 30170 JH 30200 3 1 0 310 3 2 0 3 2 0 320 330 330 340 3 4 0 340 340 340340 340 340 340 340340 340 340 340 350 2 0 + 0 0 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 21+0016+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 S.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 s 2 . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 9 : 0 5 A M 1 8 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : N Fl o w 380 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 380 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 Existing road Existing pavement edge LC Existing river bed contour Barb Bottom Elev. 313.0' Barb Crest Elev. 321.0' Key Crest Elev. 327.0' Stream bank toe Existing road surface surface profile 50 Year water 4 gravel cobble Place conserved CP 14204 C P 14205 T 310 310 3 10310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 320 320 320 320 330 330 330 3 3 0 3 3 0 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 3 4 0 340 3 4 0 340 3403 5 0 3 5 0 350 350 360 360 360 3603 7 0 5 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 5+004+003+002+001+000+00 S.3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 s 3 . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 0 5 P M 1 7 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 6+00 7+00 8+00 N Flow 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 F l o w A A A A A A A A A Existing road Existing pavement edge LC Existing river bed contour Stream bank toe Existing road surface surface profile 50 Year water Wood buffer End wood buffer Sta. 5+85.14, RT 59.83' 3 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 325.0' Start wood buffer Sta. 2+43.29, RT 82.31' CP 14206 JH 30001 JH 30002 JH 30003 JH 30170 JH 30200 3 1 0 310 3 2 0 3 2 0 320 330 330 340 3 4 0 340 340 340340 340 340 340 340340 340 340 340 350 2 0 + 0 0 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 21+0016+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 S.4 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 7 0 8 8 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 s 4 . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 0 4 P M 1 7 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : N Fl o w 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 A A A Existing road Existing pavement edge LC Existing river bed contour Stream bank toe Existing road surface surface profile 50 Year water Start wood buffer Sta. 19+90.62, RT 75.33' End wood buffer Sta. 20+77.63, RT 94.17' Wood buffer 1 Unit, Deflector Log Top Elev. 328.0' Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix C APPENDIX C NOISE ATTENUATION CALCULATOR Noise Attenuation Calculations for Typical Construction Actions to Determine the Action Area Noise Calculations for Typical Construction Equipment Noise Calculations for Pile Driving Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix C This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix D APPENDIX D SPECIES LISTS FROM USFWS AND NMFS Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix D This page intentionally left blank. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 DESMOND DRIVE SE, SUITE 102 LACEY, WA 98503 PHONE: (360)753-9440 FAX: (360)753-9405 URL: www.fws.gov/wafwo/ Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2016-SLI-0366 January 25, 2016 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2016-E-00285 Project Name: Upper Hoh River Road Project Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated and proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website: or at our office website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ . Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of thehttp://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether or not the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). You may visit our website at information on disturbance or take of the species andhttp://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/for information on how to get a permit and what current guidelines and regulations are. Some projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan: ( ). Additionally, wind energy projectshttp://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html should follow the wind energy guidelines () for minimizinghttp://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ impacts to migratory birds and bats. Also be aware that all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. The importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. is also prohibited. More information can be found on the MMPA website: .http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/ We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Related website: National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html Attachment 2 http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/25/2016 06:40 PM 1 Official Species List Provided by: Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 DESMOND DRIVE SE, SUITE 102 LACEY, WA 98503 (360) 753-9440 http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/ Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2016-SLI-0366 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2016-E-00285 Project Type: TRANSPORTATION Project Name: Upper Hoh River Road Project Project Description: Conduct bank stabilization and fish passage improvement at multiple locations along Hoh River east of Highway 101 and west of Olympic National Park. Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns. United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Upper Hoh River Road Project http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/25/2016 06:40 PM 2 Project Location Map: Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-124.21194076538086 47.82352861645662, - 124.1843032836914 47.82779292253968, -124.13778305053711 47.82375912844477, - 124.09847259521483 47.819840285432754, -124.06448364257814 47.814307297550975, - 124.06396865844727 47.80473844805739, -124.10207748413086 47.79735885423179, - 124.2176055908203 47.80969602390851, -124.21194076538086 47.82352861645662))) Project Counties: Jefferson, WA United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Upper Hoh River Road Project http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/25/2016 06:40 PM 3 Endangered Species Act Species List There are a total of 7 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Population: CA, OR, WA Threatened Final designated Northern Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Population: Entire Threatened Final designated Streaked Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Threatened Final designated Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Population: Western U.S. DPS Threatened Proposed Fishes Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states Threatened Final designated Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma)Proposed Similarity of Appearance (Threatened) United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Upper Hoh River Road Project http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/25/2016 06:40 PM 4 Mammals fisher (Martes pennanti) Population: West coast DPS Proposed Threatened United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Upper Hoh River Road Project http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/25/2016 06:40 PM 5 Critical habitats that lie within your project area The following critical habitats lie fully or partially within your project area. Birds Critical Habitat Type Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Population: CA, OR, WA Final designated Northern Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Population: Entire Final designated Fishes Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states Final designated United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Upper Hoh River Road Project Status of ESA Listings & Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon & Steelhead PUGET SOUND DOMAIN • Puget Sound Chinook (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Hood Canal Summer Chum (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Ozette Lake Sockeye (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Puget Sound Steelhead (T) [CH under dev.; ANPR 1/10/11] INTERIOR COLUMBIA DOMAIN • Snake River Sockeye (E) [FCH 12/28/93] • Snake River Fall Chinook (T) [FCH 12/28/93] • Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook (T) [FCH 12/28/93; 10/25/99] • Snake River Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook (E) [FCH 9/2/05] • Upper Columbia River Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Middle Columbia River Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] OREGON COAST DOMAIN • Oregon Coast Coho (T) [FCH 2/11/08] SOUTHERN OREGON/NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COAST DOMAIN • Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho (T) [FCH 5/5/99] CENTRAL VALLEY DOMAIN • Sacramento River Winter Chinook (E) [FCH 6/16/93] • Central Valley Spring Chinook (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Central Valley Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] NORTH-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST DOMAIN • Central California Coast Coho (E) [FCH 5/5/99] • California Coastal Chinook (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Northern California Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Central California Coast Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] WILLAMETTE/LOWER COLUMBIA DOMAIN • Columbia River Chum (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Lower Columbia River Coho (T) [CH Under dev.; ANPR 1/10/11] • Lower Columbia River Chinook (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Lower Columbia River Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Upper Willamette River Chinook (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Upper Willamette River Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] SOUTH-CENTRAL/SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COAST DOMAIN • South-Central California Coast Steelhead (T) [FCH 9/2/05] • Southern California Coast Steelhead (E) [FCH 9/2/05] CRITICAL HABITAT RULES CITED • 6/16/93 (58 FR 33212) Final CHD for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook • 12/28/93 (58 FR 68543) Final CHD for Snake River Chinook and Sockeye • 5/5/99 (64 FR 24049) Final CHD for Central CA Coast and SONCC Coho • 10/25/99 (64FR57399) Revised CHD for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook • 9/2/05 (70 FR 52630) Final CHD for 12 ESUs of Salmon and Steelhead • 2/11/08 (73 FR 7816) Final CHD for Oregon Coast Coho • 1/10/11 (76 FR 1392) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; CHDs for Lower Columbia Coho and Puget Sound Steelhead LEGEND (E) Endangered (T) Threatened (FCH) Final Critical Habitat Designated Updated 10-31-12 Domain Overlap Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix E APPENDIX E PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix E This page intentionally left blank. FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E 2 View looking at natural logjam near MP 4.1 on Upper Hoh Road. Site C2 begins just upstream of this area. 1 View looking downstream at Site C1. PHOTO 1 PHOTO 2 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E 4 View looking upstream at Site C2. 3 Informal boat access at MP 4.3. PHOTO 3 PHOTO 4 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E 6 View looking at Culvert 4.38 under Upper Hoh River Road. Culvert will be replaced with much larger pipe. 5 View looking upstream at unnamed tributary that flows through Culvert 4.38. PHOTO 5 PHOTO 6 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E 8 View looking upstream from upper end of Site C2. 7 View looking downstream at Site C2. PHOTO 7 PHOTO 8 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E 10 View looking downstream below Tower Creek Bridge Site C3. 9 View looking upstream at Tower Creek above Site C3. PHOTO 9 PHOTO 10 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E12View looking west along Upper Hoh River Road at Tower Creek Bridge. 11 View looking at confuence of Tower Creek and Hoh River. The downstream end of Site C4 will be located on the left side of this photograph. PHOTO 11 PHOTO 12 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E14View looking downstream at Canyon Creek at Site C5. 13 View looking upstream at riprap revetment located at Site C4. Proposed work is upstream and down- stream of this revetment. PHOTO 13 PHOTO 14 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E 16 View looking at engineered log jams on the Lower Hoh River that are similar to what will be installed for the proposed project. 15 View looking upstream at Canyon Creek at Site C5. PHOTO 15 PHOTO 16 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E 18 View looking at typical wash out damage on the Upper Hoh River Road caused by high flows on the Hoh River. 17 View of marbled murrelet potential nest platforms along the Upper Hoh River Road. PHOTO 17 PHOTO 18 FHAX00000217\0600INFO\0670Reports\Biological Assessment... Project Area Photographs Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project – Biological Assessment FHAX0000-0217 March 2016 Appendix E 19 View of typical past emergency bank stabilization along the Hoh River. Proposed project is designed to avoid need for this type of work. PHOTO 19 PHOTO 20 20 View looking upstream at outlet of Canyon Creek culvert under the Upper Hoh River Road. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix F APPENDIX F TABLE 1. MATRIX OF DIAGNOSTICS/PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS Source: A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Group Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale (USFWS 1998) Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix F This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-1 APPENDIX G BIOLOGY OF ANALYZED LISTED SPECIES Birds Northern Spotted Owl The current range of the spotted owl extends from southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains, coastal ranges, and intervening forested lands in Washington, Oregon, and California, as far south as Marin County (USFWS 2012a). In Washington, the spotted owl is found on the Olympic Peninsula, both sides of the Cascade Range and rarely, in remnant lowland areas. As of July 1, 1994, there were 5,431 known site-centers of spotted owl pairs or resident singles: 851 sites (16 percent) in Washington, 2,893 sites (53 percent) in Oregon, and 1,687 sites (31 percent) in California (USFWS 1995). Between 1976 and 2011, the number of territorial spotted owl sites occupied in Washington was 1,070. The actual number of currently occupied spotted owl locations across the range is unknown because not all areas have been or can be surveyed routinely. In addition, many historical sites are no longer occupied because spotted owls have been displaced by barred owls, timber harvest, or severe fires (WDFW 2011). It is possible that some new sites have been established due to recruitment of new areas into suitable habitat. Forests used by spotted owls in the lower and mid-slopes of the eastern Cascade Range tend to be younger than forests used elsewhere in Washington. Olson et al. (2004) concluded that while mid-seral and late-seral forests are important to spotted owls, a mixture of these forest types with younger forest and non-forest may be best for spotted owl survival and reproduction in that study area. WDFW identifies the two most important limiting factors affecting spotted owls in Washington as habitat loss and negative competitive effects resulting from interactions with barred owls (WDFW 2011). Forsman et al. (2013) documented that 63 percent of the historical owl territories in their Olympic Peninsula demographic study area became unoccupied between 1990 and 2005, indicating extreme competition from barred owls. Davis et al. (2015) documented a 3.7 percent reduction in available nesting and roosting habitat for northern spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula between 1993 and 2012, compared to an overall rangewide reduction of 1.5 percent. The five-year status review suggests managing the threat of habitat loss due to wildfire should be a management priority as fires can have significant impacts on owl habitat, particularly the East Cascade Province, where large portions of late successional reserves (LSRs), or multiple LSRs could be lost (Bigley and Franklin 2004). Risk reduction treatments in and around LSRs designed to reduce catastrophic effects could adversely affect owls by indirectly affecting Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-2 their prey (Carey et al. 1992, Zabel et al. 1995, North et al. 1999), though Bond et al. (2002) found no short-term affects. Risk of habitat loss will continue until uncharacteristic fuel accumulations are reduced, but long-term risk of habitat loss due to uncharacteristic fuel accumulations must be balanced with short-term impacts of risk reduction activities (USDA and USDI 1994, Bigley and Franklin 2004, USFWS 2004). Davis et al. (2015) documented that large wildfires continue to be the leading cause for loss of northern spotted owl habitat on federal lands. Spotted owls are territorial and usually monogamous. Home-range sizes vary geographically, generally increasing from south to north (USFWS 1990). Estimates of median size of their annual home range vary from 2,955 acres in the Oregon Cascades (Thomas et al. 1990) to 14,211 acres on the Olympic Peninsula (USFWS 2008). Estimated home range size of spotted owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington is 6,514 acres, with a radius of 1.8 miles (USFWS 2008). Zabel et al. (1995) showed that spotted owl home ranges are larger where flying squirrels are the predominant prey and smaller where woodrats are the predominant prey. Home ranges of adjacent pairs overlap (Forsman et al. 1984; Solis and Gutiérrez 1990), suggesting that the defended area is smaller than the area used for foraging. The USFWS uses a circle of 0.7 mile radius (984 acres) from the activity center to delineate the most heavily used area during the nesting season. The portion of the home range used during the breeding season is smaller than that used in the remainder of the year (Forsman et al. 1984; Sisco 1990). Courtship behavior usually begins in February or March, and females typically lay eggs in late March or April. The timing of nesting and fledging varies with latitude and elevation (Forsman et al. 1984). After they leave the nest in late May or June, juvenile spotted owls depend on their parents until they are able to fly. Parental care continues after fledging into September (USFWS 1990; Forsman et al. 1984). Site-specific monitoring on the Wenatchee National Forest has shown that within the Eastern Washington Cascades Province, after July 31, spotted owl young are mobile and generally considered to be able to move from disturbance. Spotted owls are mostly nocturnal, although they also forage opportunistically during the day (Forsman et al. 1984; Sovern et al. 1994). The composition of the spotted owl’s diet varies geographically and by forest type. Generally, flying squirrels are the most prominent prey for spotted owls in Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests (Forsman et al. 1984) in Washington and Oregon, while dusky-footed woodrats are a major part of the diet in the Oregon Klamath, California Klamath, and California Coastal Provinces (Forsman et al. 1984, 2001, 2004; Ward et al. 1998; Hamer et al. 2001). Depending on location, other important prey include deer mice, tree voles, red-backed voles, gophers, snowshoe hare, bushy-tailed woodrats, birds, and insects, although these species comprise a small portion of the spotted owl diet (Forsman et al. 1984, 2004; Ward et al. 1998; Hamer et al. 2001). Richards (1989) and Forsman et al. (2001) studied the food habits of spotted owls in the Eastern Washington Cascades. The primary prey species that were identified in these studies include the northern flying squirrel, Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-3 bushy-tailed woodrat, deer mouse, and voles. Woodrat and flying squirrel densities in local dry and mesic forests are among the highest measured within the range of the northern spotted owl (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006a, 2006b). Spotted owls generally rely on older forested habitats (Carroll and Johnson 2008) because such forests contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Features that support nesting and roosting typically include a moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 90 percent); a multi-layered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees (with diameter at breast height [dbh] of greater than 30 inches); a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); large snags; large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990). Forested stands with high canopy closure also provide thermal cover (Weathers et al. 2001) and protection from predators. Several studies have characterized nest sites of spotted owls. Buchanan et al. (1995) compared random sites with spotted owl nest sites and found that nest sites had more Douglas-fir trees 35 to 60 cm dbh, greater basal area of Douglas-fir trees, more large ponderosa pine trees (61 to 84 cm dbh), greater live tree basal area, and greater basal area of Class IV snags. In addition, nest sites had less basal area of Class I and II snags; however, volume of coarse woody debris and canopy closure did not differ between sites. Snag classes are from Buchanan (1991). Everett et al. (1997) found that spotted owl nest stands had multi- layered canopies and that the presence of shade-tolerant tree species have increased as a result of reduced fire effects. While spotted owls will nest in a wide variety of habitats within the east Cascades Physiographic Province (Buchanan and Irwin 1998), a general definition of their habitat includes multi-layered forests with closed-canopies (>70 percent), with a component of Douglas-fir, and some “old forest” structural attributes (eg; large trees, Class IV snags). Suitable habitat was defined as having >60 percent canopy closure for this project (USDI Fish and Wildlife 1990). Most nests occur in mistletoe platforms and/or abandoned goshawk nests in Douglas-fir. About 10 percent of the nests are in cavities of large trees (Buchanan 1991). Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to those of nesting and roosting habitat, but such habitat may not always support successfully nesting pairs (USFWS 1992). Dispersal habitat, at a minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities (USFWS 1992). Forsman et al. (2002) found that spotted owls could disperse through highly fragmented forest landscapes, yet the stand-level and landscape-level attributes of forests needed to facilitate successful dispersal have not been thoroughly evaluated (Buchanan 2004). There is little evidence that small openings in forest habitat influence the dispersal of spotted owls, but large, non-forested valleys such as the Willamette Valley apparently are barriers to both natal and breeding dispersal (Forsman et al. 2002). Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-4 Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet is an ESA and state Threatened species in Washington. These small marine birds have a unique life history that combines foraging in marine waters and flying inland to nest in large conifer trees. Although marbled murrelets have been detected up to 60 miles inland from marine waters (Burns et al. 1994), in Washington, actual nest sites have been found only as far inland as 39 miles from marine waters and the farthest documented "occupied" site was only 52 miles from marine waters (Hamer 1995; USFWS 1996). Marbled murrelets typically use mature and old-growth conifer forests but also occasionally younger forests that are characterized by suitable structures for nesting and roosting (Hamer and Cummins 1990, 1991; Ralph and Nelson 1992; USFWS 1996). This species tends to nest in old-growth or mature forests comprised of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar, among other species (Ralph and Nelson 1992). Suitable habitat is found primarily within the western hemlock series, although it has also been found at higher elevations in the Pacific silver fir series where western hemlock, Douglas-fir, and western red cedar trees of appropriate size and nesting structure are available. Suitable nesting habitat typically consists of large trees (greater than 32 inches dbh), a multi-storied stand, and moderate to high canopy closure. Nest trees are characterized by suitable nesting platforms consisting of large branches or deformities. Murrelets prefer high and broad platforms for landing and take-off, and surfaces which will support a nest cup (Hamer and Nelson 1995). Removal of this nesting habitat is the primary threat to the marbled murrelet. Adult nesting murrelets take turns flying from marine foraging areas to the nest site, usually flying during pre-dawn and dusk times, although midday flights have been documented (WDFW 2012; USFWS 2012b). Marbled murrelets prey primarily on forage fish such as Pacific herring, northern anchovy, Pacific sand lance, and capelin (WDFW 2012). Birds often follow major river corridors to and from foraging areas. The marbled murrelet was listed as federally threatened by the USFWS in 1992. The USFWS designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet in 1996 (USFWS 1996). The USFWS based the determination of critical habitat for this species on the Northwest Forest Plan. Designated critical habitat for this species includes all LSRs, and other lands on which harvest of old-growth is prohibited. In addition, some state, county, city, and private lands were also designated as critical habitat (USFWS 1996). The final rule for marbled murrelet critical habitat identified 32 critical habitat units encompassing approximately 3,887,800 acres of federal and non-federal lands in California, Oregon, and Washington (USFWS 1996). Bloxton and Raphael (2009) reported that between 2004 and 2008, they captured and banded 162 murrelets from Puget Sound and the outer coast of Washington, placed radio transmitters on 157 adult murrelets, and monitored 20 nests. Of these nests, only three were documented to be successful, indicating that murrelets on the outer coast of Washington may have low reproductive success. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-5 Bull Trout Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family (salmonids), which also includes the Dolly Varden, lake trout, and Arctic char. Bull trout living in streams grow to about 4 pounds, while those in lake or large river environments can weigh more than 20 pounds. Bull trout currently occur in the Columbia River and Snake River basins in Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, and Nevada; Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula watersheds in Washington; the Saint Mary basin in Montana; and the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon. Biologists distinguish char from other salmonids such as trout and salmon by the absence of teeth in the roof of the mouth, the presence of light-colored spots on a dark background (trout and salmon have dark spots on a lighter background), the absence of spots on the dorsal fin, their smaller scales, and differences in skeletal structure. Char species such as bull trout live farther north than any other group of freshwater fish except Alaskan blackfish, and are well adapted for life in very cold water. Bull trout and Dolly Varden look very similar, and once were considered the same species. However, taxonomic research has identified them as different species. Both have small pale yellow to crimson spots on a darker background, which ranges from olive green to brown above, fading to white on the belly. Spawning adults develop varying amounts of red on the belly. Both species also exhibit differences in size, body characteristics, coloration, and behavior across their range. Bull trout are larger than Dolly Varden, with a relatively longer and broader head. Bull trout are mainly an inland species, while Dolly Varden are more common in coastal areas. Bull trout exhibit resident and migratory life history strategies through much of the current range. Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary (or nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from 1 to 4 years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial), or in certain coastal areas to saltwater (anadromous), where maturity is reached in one of the three habitats (USDI 1998). Bull trout are found primarily in colder streams, although individual fish are found in larger river systems throughout the Columbia River Basin (USDI 1998). Strict cold-water temperature requirements make bull trout vulnerable to activities that warm spawning and rearing waters. Small bull trout eat terrestrial and aquatic insects, but shift to preying on other fish as they grow larger. Large bull trout primarily prey on fish such as whitefish, sculpins, and other trout. Bull trout spawn in the fall after water temperatures drop below 48° Fahrenheit, in streams with cold, unpolluted water, clean gravel and cobble substrate, and gentle stream slopes. Many spawning areas are associated with cold water springs or areas where stream flow is influenced by groundwater. Bull trout eggs require a long incubation period compared to other salmon and trout (4 to 5 months), hatching in late winter or early spring. Fry remain Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-6 in the stream bed for up to 3 weeks before emerging. Juvenile fish retain their fondness for the stream bottom and are often found at or near there. Some bull trout (resident fish) spend their entire lives near areas where they were hatched. Others migrate from streams to lakes (adfluvial) or rivers (fluvial) or, in the case of coastal populations, salt water, to forage. Because migratory bull trout have more extensive ranges and, consequently, access to more resources, they tend to be larger than resident individuals. Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life histories. For example, anadromous bull trout on the Olympic Peninsula migrate extensively between the ocean and riverine habitat in multiple coastal watersheds (Brenkman and Corbett 2005). Migrations facilitate gene flow among local populations, and allow bull trout to take advantage of seasonal availability of resources in different areas as well as survive catastrophic events. Bull trout are vulnerable to many of the same threats that have reduced salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest. They are more sensitive to increased water temperatures, poor water quality, and low flow conditions than many other salmonids. Past and continuing land management activities such as forest practices and livestock grazing have degraded stream habitat, especially along larger river systems and stream areas located in valley bottoms, to the point that bull trout can no longer survive or reproduce successfully. In many watersheds, remaining bull trout are small, resident fish isolated in headwater streams. Brook trout, introduced as a sport fish throughout much of the bull trout’s range, often interbreed with bull trout, producing mostly sterile offspring. Nonnative brook trout also reproduce earlier and at a higher rate than bull trout, often supplanting bull trout populations. Dams and other in-stream structures also affect bull trout by blocking migration routes, altering water temperatures, and killing fish as they pass through and over dams or are trapped in irrigation and other diversion structures. In June 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River basins as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. An endangered species is considered in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is considered likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. In April 1999, bull trout in the Jarbidge River Basin were listed as threatened and, in November 1999, they were listed as threatened in the coastal-Puget Sound area of Washington State and the St. Mary-Belly River areas of Montana. REFERENCES Bigley, R.E. and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Habitat Trends. In: Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon. September 2004. Chapter 6. Available online at http://www.sei.org/owl/finalreport/finalreport.htm (December 13, 2004). Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-7 Bloxton, T.D., and M.G. Raphael. 2009. Breeding ecology of the marbled murrelet in Washington State: five year project summary (2004-2008). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, Washington. Bond, M.L., R.J. Gutiérrez, A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, C.A. May, and M.E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:1022–1028. Brenkman, S.J., and S.C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromy in bull trout and implications for conservation of a threatened species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1073-1081. Buchanan, J.B. 1991. Spotted owl nest site characteristics in mixed conifer forests of the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. ———. 2004. Managing habitat for dispersing northern spotted owls – are the current management strategies adequate? Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1333–1345. Buchanan, J.B., and L.L. Irwin. 1998. Variation in spotted owl nest site characteristics within the eastern Cascade Mountains Province in Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 79:33-40. Buchanan, J.B., L.L. Irwin, and E.L. McCutchen. 1995. Within-stand nest site selection by spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:301–310. Burns, R.A., L.M. Pretash, and K.J. Kuletz. 1994. Pilot Study on The Capture And Radio Tagging Of Murrelets In Prince William Soind, Alaska, July And August, 1993. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska. Carey, A.B., S.P. Horton, and B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base and landscape character. Ecological Monographs, 62( 2): 223- 250. Carroll, C. and D.S. Johnson. 2008. The importance of being spatial (and reserved): assessing northern spotted owl habitat relationships with hierarchical Bayesian models. Conservation Biology 22(3). Davis, Raymond J., Bruce Hollen, Jeremy Hobson, Julia E. Gower, and David Keenum. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 20 years (1994–2013): status and trends of northern spotted owl habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-xxx. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. xx p. Everett, R., D. Schellhaas, D. Spurbeck [and others]. 1997. Structure of northern spotted owl nest stands and their historical conditions on the eastern slope of the Pacific Northwest Cascades, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 94: 1-14. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-8 Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1–64. Forsman, E.D., I.A. Otto, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor, D.W. Hays, H. Allen, S.L. Roberts, and D.E. Seaman. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation in diets of spotted owls in Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 35:141–150. Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor, B.L. Biswell, A. Ellingson, E.C. Meslow, G.S. Miller, K.A. Swindle, J.A. Thrailkill, F.F. Wagner, and D. E. Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 149:1–35. Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow, and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38:214–230. Forsman, E.D., B.L. Biswell, D. Kelso, and K. Williamson. 2013. Demographic characteristics of northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) on the Olympic Peninsula Study Area, Washington 1987-2012. Hamer, T.E. 1995. Inland Habitat Associations of Marbled Murrelets in Western Washington. In: C.J. Ralph Et al. (Eds.), Pp 163-176. Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelets. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, California. Hamer, T.E. and E.B. Cummings. 1990. Forest Habitat Relationships of Marbled Murrelets In Northwestern Washington. Report On File . Washington Department of Wildlife. Nongame Program. Olympia, Washington. 51 pp. ———. 1991 Relationships Between Forest Characteristics And Use Of Island Sites By Marbled Murrelets In Northern Washington. Report On File. Washington Department of Wildlife, Nongame Program. Olympia, Wa. 47. Pp. Hamer T.E., and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting stands. Pages 69-82 In C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds.). Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report. PSW- GTW-152. Pacific Southwest Experimental Station, U.S. Forest Service, Albany, California. 420 pp. Hamer, T.E., D.L. Hays, C.M. Senger, and E.D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35:221– 227. Lehmkuhl, J.F., K.D. Kistler, J.S. Begley, and J. Boulanger. 2006a. Demography of northern flying squirrels informs ecosystem management of western interior forests. Ecological Applications 16(2): 584-600. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-9 Lehmkuhl, J.F., K.D. Kistler, and J.S. Begley. 2006b. Bushy-tailed woodrat abundance in dry forests of Eastern Washington. Journal of Mammology 87(2):371-379. North, M.P., J.F. Franklin, A.B. Carey, E.D. Forsman, and T. Hamer. 1999. Forest Stand Structure of the Northern Spotted Owl’s Foraging Habitat. Forest Science 45(4): 520- 527. Olson, G.S., E.M. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:1039–1053. Ralph, C.J., and S.K. Nelson, compilers. 1992. Methods Of Surveying Marbled Murrelets At Inland Forest Sites. Report on file. Pacific Seabird Group, Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University. Corvalis, Oregon. 21 pp. Richards, J.E. 1989. Spotted Owl food habits and prey availability on the east slope of the Washington Cascades. Ft. Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University. 45 p. M.S. thesis. Sisco, C.L. 1990. Seasonal home range and habitat ecology of spotted owls in northwestern California. M.S. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. Solis, D.M., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in northwestern California. Condor 92:739–748. Sovern, S.G., E.D. Forsman, B.L. Biswell, D.N. Rolph, and M. Taylor. 1994. Diurnal behavior of the spotted owl in Washington. Condor 96:200–202. Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDI National Park Service. Portland, Oregon. 458 pp. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), and USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late- successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 1990. Federal Register, Part VI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register, Part VI. Vol. 55, No. 123. Tuesday, June 26, 1990. ———. 1998. Determination of threatened status for the Klamath River and Columbia River distinct population segments of bull trout (63 FR 31647). Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix G-10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. The 1990 status review: northern spotted owl: Strix occidentalis caurina. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 95 pp. ———. 1992. Draft final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. ———. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed special rule for the conservation of the northern spotted owl on non-federal lands. Federal Register 60:9483– 9527. ———. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelets: Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 102. pp. 26256-26320. ———. 2004. Northern Spotted Owl Five-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. November, 2004. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc743.pdf. ———. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp. ———. 2012a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl .Federal Register 60:9483–9527. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. Final Rule. ———. 2012b. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Season and Analytical Framework for Section 7 Consultation in Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. Ward, J.W. Jr., R.J. Gutiérrez, and B.R. Noon. 1998. Habitat selection by northern spotted owls: the consequences of prey selection and distribution. Condor 100:79–92. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in Washington: 2011 Annual Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Section, Olympia, Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01385/wdfw01385.pdf. Retrieved December 11, 2012. ———. 2012. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in Washington: 2012 Annual Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Section, Olympia, Washington. Weathers, W.W., P.J. Hodum, and J.A. Blakesley. 2001. Thermal ecology and ecological energetics of the California spotted owl. Condor 103:678–690. Zabel, C.J., K.M. McKelvey, and J.P. Ward, Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:433–439. Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix H APPENDIX H Tree Inventory Survey Maps Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization Project July 2016 Biological Assessment Appendix H This page intentionally left blank. Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy ofUSGS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2016Microsoft Corporation Upper Hoh River Road Project - Large Conifer Tree Inventory Data Sources: ESRI BingMapsAerial, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Jefferson County. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Tree Inventory\Maps1and4_Tree Inventory_Sites C1 and C5.mxd Project Location Total Tree Count Mature Forest 65 yd Site Buffer 120 yd Site Buffer Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (Upper Hoh River Road) Rivermile (Hoh River)³ 0 150 300Feet Map 1Site C1 Bank StabilizationDisclaimer: Mature forest stands delineated based on aerial photography. No ground-truthing conducted.Stands within Olympic National Park not delineated. Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy ofUSGS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2016Microsoft Corporation Upper Hoh River Road Project - Large Conifer Tree Inventory Data Sources: ESRI BingMapsAerial, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Jefferson County. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Tree Inventory\Maps2and3_Tree Inventory_Sites C2_C3_C4.mxd Map 2Site C2 Bank Stabilization andMP 4.38 Culvert Replacement Project Location Site Plot Total Tree Count Mature Forest 65 yd Site Buffer 120 yd Site Buffer Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (Upper Hoh River Road) Rivermile (Hoh River)³ 0 275 550Feet Disclaim er: Mature forest stands were delineated basedon aerial photography. No ground-truthing was conducted.Stands within Olympic National Park were not delineated. Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy ofUSGS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2016Microsoft Corporation Upper Hoh River Road Project - Large Conifer Tree Inventory Data Sources: ESRI BingMapsAerial, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Jefferson County. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Tree Inventory\Maps2and3_Tree Inventory_Sites C2_C3_C4.mxd Project Location Site Plot Total Tree Count Mature Forest 65 yd Site Buffer 120 yd Site Buffer Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (Upper Hoh River Road) Rivermile (Hoh River)³ 0 250 500Feet Map 3Site C3 Tower Creek Bridge Replacement;Sites C4 Bank Stabilization Disclaim er: Mature forest stands were delineated basedon aerial photography. No ground-truthing was conducted.Stands within Olympic National Park were not delineated. Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy ofUSGS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2016Microsoft Corporation Upper Hoh River Road Project - Large Conifer Tree Inventory Data Sources: ESRI BingMapsAerial, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Jefferson County. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000217\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Tree Inventory\Maps1and4_Tree Inventory_Sites C1 and C5.mxd Project Location Site Plot Total Tree Count Mature Forest 65 yd Site Buffer 120 yd Site Buffer Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (Upper Hoh River Road) Rivermile (Hoh River)³ 0 150 300Feet Map 4Site C5 Canyon Creek CulvertDisclaimer: Mature forest stands delineated based on aerial photography. No ground-truthing conducted.Stands within Olympic National Park not delineated.