Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix C Plants and Animals APPENDIX C PLANTS AND ANIMALS ASSESSMENT RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY 17,2004 PLANTS AND ANIMALS ASSESSMENT Draft EIS Report Kersey III Auburn, Washington May 17,2004 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. AA RCpOli To: I'vfr. .T etTrvl ann Apex Engineering 260l S. 35'" Sui le 200 TaC0ma, \VA 98409 Tille: Plants and Animals Assessment of the Kersey 1Jl Property, Auburn, \Vashingtol1 Dral1 EIS Report Project Number: 200] -(J21-00 1 Prepared by: RA.EDEl(E ASSOCIATES, INe 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Scattle, Washington, 98115 (206) 525-8122 Date: JVlay ] 7, 2004 1-) in- 1-' ,- II [ /j 1.~nES 11\](: \ /- -= __) l= (\C /- :-,7'1 I ~':;\~C1i , I ,~ / ,i il !-, ' I;.' 1 .- ,- ii' ,~', :1 - t ~ . I '..'Vii I ,. :- I .1 - 0_- AA Pri nc i p<l is K-=:11l1CLh J. R~1cdeke_ Ph.D. Certified Sel11Ol' Ecologist ES.!>' Pwiect \ldl1Jgcr Richard \\'. Lundllui"L '-!S .:\SSOC! atc/WIId j i Ie B !olll gist Current ProJ eel Pcr.~o!lnc [: Dawn Garcia. 8.S. \\'ildlife Biol,}gisi Emmett Plitc:1ard, B.S \Yelland Ecologist Ciaude McKenzie. B S.LA Landscape _~TchileCl Cad \Y. L!\"ingslone. 8.S.LA. :\alurnl Resource Planner Lisa Danielski. B.A. \\-erland BlOlogislBotanist ~_' ~: E = ::: k t /~~;~:C~ ::~ 1:-11 -:::::. _"I .","- ji ,: -- I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iv LIS T OF TABLES............................................................................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 1. 1 Statement of Purpose. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1.2 Proj ect Area...........................................................................................................l 2.0 METHODS...................................................................................................................2 2.1 Plant Community Inventories................................................................................2 2.2 Wil dlife Inventory ................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Other Priority Species ...........................3 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................5 3. 1 General Property Descri pti ons. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .5 3.2 Plant Communities................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Wil dlife . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. 10 3.4 Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Other Priority Animal Species.......... ..16 3.5 Wil dlife Habitat Networks or Corri dors . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..22 4.0 IMP ACTS................................................................................................................... .24 4. 1 1m pacts of Alternative 700 .................................................................................. 26 4.2 Impacts of Alternative 481 ................................................................................ ..32 4.3 Alternative - No Action .....................................................................................33 5.0 MITIGATION............................................................................................................. 3 5 5.1 Summary of Required and Proposed Mitigation .................................................35 5.2 Other Potential Mitigation Measures...................................................................36 6.0 SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS........................................38 7.0 LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................... .39 8.0 LITERATURE CITED.............................................................................................. .40 FIGURES AND TABLES .................................................................................................49 APPENDIX A: Common and Scientific Plant Names ................................................. A-I APPENDIX B: Wildlife Species/Habitat Matrix.......................................................... .B-l APPENDIX C: Agency Correspondence ...................................................................... .C-l 111 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional map of the project area ...............................................................................50 2. Vi cini ty map of the proj ect area ................................................................................ 51 3. Vegetation Cover Type Map for Kersey III Property .............................................. .52 4. Alternative 700 site plan.......................................................................................... ..53 5. Alternative 481 site plan.......................................................................................... ..54 6. Potential Wildlife Habitat Connection...................................................................... .55 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. List of aerial photographs used in the study.............................................................. 56 2. Key to Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale ........................................................ 57 3. Endangered, threatened, sensitive vascular plants of King County ..........................58 4. Plant species composition of representative upland areas ........................................ 59 5. Number of wildlife species possible in the cover-types present ...............................63 6. Comparison of land uses among alternatives for the Kersey III sites........................ 64 IV 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE This report documents the results of our field investigations and assessment of the plant and animal communities of the Kersey III project site in the City of Auburn, Washington (Figure 1). The primary objective of our study is to provide baseline biological information on the existing conditions of the wildlife and vegetation on the property for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the proposed development of the project site. Using the baseline information, the report will assess probable impacts of the proposed development and discuss mitigation measures to reduce identified adverse impacts. Separate reports address wetlands and streams identified on the property (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004; DBM Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000a, 1.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2000). 1.2 PROJECT AREA The project site is located in the City of Auburn, Washington (Figure 1). The study area consists of three separate tracts of land totaling approximately 170 acres in size. The Wayne Jones parcel occupies the eastern portion of the site. The Todd Duty parcel occupies the western portion of the site. The Six-W parcel is located in the middle of the site between the other two parcels. The project site is located between the terminus of Evergreen Way for the Lakeland Hills development and Kersey Way at the intersection of 53rd Street SE (Figure 2). Generally the site is located west of the Kersey Way right-of -way, from 49th Street SE (if extended) to the King County/Pierce County line. The project area includes approximately 1,950 feet of frontage on Kersey Way proximate to its intersection with 53rd Street SE. Specifically, the project area is located in the southeast quarter of Section 31 and the southwest quarter of the Section 32, Township 21, Range 5 East W.M. A Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) easement runs through the eastern portion of the site. The site is accessible via Kersey Way and 49th Street SE. The project site is adjacent to and east of the existing Lakeland Hills Divisions 8, 9, and 10. Property boundaries, topography, and wetland and stream boundaries for the project area were surveyed by DBM Consulting Engineers and determined from maps received by our office from Apex Engineering on March 9, 2001. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 2 2.0 METHODS 2.1 PLANT COMMUNITY INvENTORIES In preparation for the current investigation of the proj ect area, staff from Raedeke Associates, Inc., examined information gathered from surveys previously conducted by DBM (2000a and 2000b) and 1. S. Jones and Associates (2000). These studies identified, delineated, and assessed wetlands, evaluated wildlife habitat, and assessed on-site stream and downstream conditions on the three separate parcels that now make up the 170-acre Kersey III site. In addition, we inventoried, classified, and described plant communities through a review of existing federal, state, and local mappings, interpretation of aerial photographs, and field surveys. Historic and present land-use patterns of the site and surrounding lands were noted from available aerial photographs (see Table 1) and direct observations in the field. Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff reviewed and updated wetlands and assessed stream conditions previously described by DBM (2000a) on the Kersey III project site during four field visits in May, July and September 2002. Refer to the wetland assessment report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004) for more detailed information regarding the wetlands on-site. F or the current investigation of plants and animals, Raedeke Associates, Inc., personnel also investigated the project area on May 9 and 14 and June 19,2002 to describe the existing upland cover types and record additional observations and signs of wildlife use at the Kersey III site. We used the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale (Table 2) and a plotless sampling technique (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenburg 1974) to objectively describe plant species composition and relative abundance in homogeneous vegetation cover types. We also noted general forest conditions and the presence and character of special habitat features. Scientific nomenclature of all plant species identified follows that of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), as updated by Pojar and MacKinnon (1994) and Hickman (1993). See Appendix A for a list of scientific and common names of plants and Appendix B for scientific and common names of animals mentioned in this report. The classification of plant communities was based on both national and local systems. Wetland habitats were classified according to the U.S. Department ofInterior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) system reported by Cowardin et al. (1992). Upland communities were classified based primarily on the system used by Anderson et al. (1976), and cross-referenced with the system used by King County (1987) in their Wildlife Habitat Profile. The habitat cover classification system in the latter document is broadly applicable to the Puget Sound lowlands and encompasses the cover types found on Kersey III. The distinction between uplands and wetlands was determined by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (2004) according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 3 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as required by state law for all local jurisdictions, including the City of Auburn. 2.2 WILDLIFE INVENTORY We investigated animal use of the project area and vicinity through direct field observations, through compilation of information about the site from previous field investigations (DBM 2000b), and as provided by local agencies and published sources. Information about the project area was also extrapolated from available information on species-habitat relationships on similar sites in the vicinity, and from our research and management experience in the Puget Sound lowlands. Field observations were augmented by information on species-habitat preferences in order to evaluate the likelihood of the occurrence of additional wildlife species on the project site. A general wildlife-habitat matrix for habitat types found on the Kersey III site was developed based on King County (1987). We consulted additional information for wildlife-habitat relationships (Johnson and Q'NeiI2001) and for specific animal groups, including Hunn (1982), Penland (1984), Smith et al. (1997), Sibley (2003), and Wahl and Paulson (1994) for birds, Guenther and Kucera (1978) and Johnson and Cassidy (1997) for mammals, and Brown et al. (1995), Dvornich et al. (1997), Guenther and Kucera (1978), Leonard et al. (1993), and Nussbaum et al. (1983) for reptiles and amphibians. During our field reconnaissance, animal sign was noted along roads and trails, and while describing plant communities and habitats. Information regarding reproduction, habitat use, and activities of wildlife species observed was also recorded. Such information included concentrations of animals and special habitat features such as stands of large trees, snags (standing dead or partially dead trees), or large downed logs. 2.3 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, SENSITIVE, AND OTHER PRIORITY SPECIES We contacted the Washington Natural Heritage Program in 2001 and 2003 for any documented information on the likelihood of occurrence of endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species on the property or vicinity (see Appendix C for recent correspondence). We then consulted species accounts and descriptions of the Washington Natural Heritage Program (1981, 1994, 1997,2002), Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), and Pojar and MacKinnon (1994) for information on plant species of special concern (i.e., threatened, endangered, or sensitive) that might be found in the project area (Table 3). During our field surveys, we searched for the presence of any of these species suspected to occur on the property or vicinity. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 4 We utilized the Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and Natural Heritage Wildlife (HRTG) database kept by the WDFW (see Appendix C) from 2003 for documented information on the likelihood of occurrence of such species and habitats on the project site and vicinity. In addition, lists maintained by the USFWS (2002) and the WDFW (1999; also Rodrick and Milner 1991) were consulted for information on the occurrence and habitat relationships of wildlife or fish species of special concern that might use the site during at least some part of the year. Species accounts (e.g., Rodrick and Milner 1991) were consulted to determine habitat preferences of such species and to evaluate the likelihood of their occurrences on the property. During our field investigations, we then searched for the presence of these species, or signs thereof that may be likely to occur on the site. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 5 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS The following section presents a description of the project site, including a general discussion of site conditions and representative areas of vegetation and habitat features. Wetlands and streams are discussed in more detail in the wetland assessment report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004). The Kersey III project site is located within the Bowman Creek basin on the north slope of the Lake Tapps plateau, south of the White River. Elevations of the overall site range from approximately 220 feet above sea level at the northeastern comer of the property to about 570 feet above sea level at the southwest property comer. The site consists of moderately to steeply sloping terrain with the predominance of the steeper slopes located in the southern portion of the site and within two deep ravines located in the northwestern portion of the property. The eastern portion of the site is bisected by a 200-foot-wide, BP A powerline easement that runs generally north to south. At the time of our 2002 site investigations, the property was undeveloped and dominated by deciduous, mixed and coniferous forests. In addition to the forested areas, a small area of pasture is located in the north-central portion of the site. The BPA power-line corridor is regularly mowed to maintain low plant heights within the corridor and as a result dominated by small trees, shrubs and grasses. As with most of the western Hemlock Zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1973) that forms the Puget Sound lowlands, the majority of this property appears to have been logged during the 1930's or 1940's based on the 18-inch to 24-inch dbh of the majority of the coniferous trees currently on the site. Younger stands (approximately 25 years old) of deciduous trees exist in the southern portion of the site (Figure 3). These stands grow in a pattern from an access road to an abandoned subdivision plan. No buildings exist on the site; however, three pairs of power-line towers are located within the on-site portion of the BP A easement. In addition, several old logging roads and trails extend through the property. The Kersey III site is located in Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 10, the Puyallup basin, which includes the White River (Williams et al. 1975). Two small streams flow northward through the western portion of the proj ect site and join near the north property boundary to form one channel, identified as unnamed tributary 0043 in the WIRA. Unnamed tributary 0043 continues northward through a steeply sided ravine that extends off-site to the south side of Kersey Way. The stream passes beneath Kersey Way through a concrete pipe and flows approximately 100 feet further to the north before reaching Bowman Creek. Bowman Creek flows northwest into the White River. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 6 Five small wetlands occur on the west portion of the property, three of which are associated with the on-site stream channels. The wetlands range in size from approximately 0.5 acres to 0.06 acres. No wetlands or streams occur in the portion of the property east of the powerline. Refer to the wetland report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004) for detailed descriptions of the wetlands. 3.2 PLANT COMMUNITIES Franklin and Dyrness (1973) classify the vegetation in this area as the Western Hemlock Zone, which covers most of western Washington. In the old-growth condition, forests in this zone are typically dominated by western hemlock and Douglas-fir. However, the entire site has been altered by past logging. Based on our review of existing mappings, aerial photographic interpretation, and field reconnaissance, the properties are divided into a variety of vegetation cover types, including both wetlands and non-wetlands, based on the composition and structure of the predominant vegetation (Figure 3). The following sections describe the major vegetation cover types currently found on-site. 3.2.1 Uplands The upland (non-wetland) areas encompass most of the site, with much of the area consisting of well-developed, second-growth forest. Five general upland cover types were identified on the property: grassland, shrubland, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, and mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. An old pasture or orchard consists of unmowed grassland, the vegetation in the powerline corridor generally consists of shrubland habitat, and the remaining upland cover on the site occurs as one of the forested cover types. The distribution of these cover types on the property is shown on Figure 3. Table 4 provides plant species composition and Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance at sampling plots described in representative areas of each of the vegetation cover types. Table 2 provides a key to the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale. Brief descriptions of the cover types follow. Bare Areas (B) Small areas of bare ground are scattered across the Kersey III property and include existing logging roads and areas associated with the powerline corridor (Figure 3). Some old roads are slowly being revegetated naturally by grasses, forbs, and shrub species. Many of the roads appear to be used by pedestrians, and in one case a motor vehicle was observed driving on an internal forest road in the west side of the property. Wildlife tracks and scat were also observed on these roads. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 7 Broad-leaved Deciduous Forest (Fd and Fd-y) A broad-leaved deciduous forest of two age classes occur in distinct stands or in patches among other forest cover types across the site (Figure 3). Young (approximately 15-25 years old, F d-y) stands of red alder, black cottonwood, and bittercherry trees occur the south portion of the site west of the powerline (Table 4). A dense understory consists of a mixture of Himalayan blackberry, salmonberry and Pacific willow shrubs. Herbaceous species include bedstraw, herb-Robert, stinging nettle, sword-fern, bracken fern and Dewey's sedge. Two variants of approximately 70 year-old second-growth deciduous forests (Fd) exist primarily in the northwest portion of the property. King County (1987) identifies deciduous upland forest immediately adjacent to stream and river channels as riparian forest. This forest type occurs along the drainages and is dominated by an overstory of red alder and big-leaf maple. Understory components include vine maple, Indian plum, and salmonberry in the shrub layer and a mixture of fringe cup, sword-fern, and Siberian miner's lettuce as the dominant herbaceous layer (Table 4). The second variant of mature deciduous forest occurs adjacent to the riparian zone and is primarily dominated by red alder, big-leaf maple, or black cottonwood, or a mixture of the three in various amounts. Scattered conifers including western red cedar with diameter at breast height (dbh) to 24 inches, Pacific dogwood, and bittercherry trees are growing throughout this stand. Understory shrubs and herbaceous species vary throughout their location in the stand. Shrubs include hazelnut, vine maple, cascara, salmonberry, red elderberry, pacific blackberry, or a mixture of these species (Table 4). Dominant herbaceous species include bracken fern, sword fern, stinging nettle, Pacific bleeding-heart, and bedstraw (Table 4). Coniferous Forest (Fe) Second- or third- growth conifer stands (Fc), approximately 70 years old, are scattered throughout the site but generally occur within the central portion of the property surrounding the young deciduous forest (Figure 3). Stands of conifers also occur as patches within the mixed forest (Fm) but generally on the steeper portions of the site relative to the property. The stands are dominated by Douglas-fir trees with dbh's ranging from 12 - 24 inches. Red alder and big-leaf maple trees are scattered throughout these stands (Table 4). Dominant shrub understory species vary in composition and structure but typically include a mixture of hazelnut, salal, oceanspray, pacific blackberry, and red huckleberry. Herbs include sword-fern, bracken-fern, creeping buttercup and scattered vanilla leaf. Mixed Coniferous and Deciduous Forest (Fm) Mixed forest stands predominate on the Kersey III site (Figure 3). The mixed forests on these sites consist of a mixture of deciduous and coniferous tree species, typically red alder, big-leaf maple, grand fir and Douglas fir, interspersed with western hemlock and western red cedar, in varying amounts. Larger deciduous and coniferous trees range from Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 8 16 to 24 inches dbh. Mixed forests occur either as intermixed stands of conifers and deciduous trees, or as a mosaic of small stands of deciduous or coniferous trees. As with the other forest stands, shrub understory cover varies in composition and structure but typically includes a combination of hazelnut, salmonberry, red elderberry, snowberry, and Pacific blackberry. Dominant herbaceous species include sword-fern, with lesser amounts of stinging nettle, bedstraw, Pacific bleeding heart, and Siberian miner's lettuce, trillium and wood fern (Table 4). Shrubland (S) Shrubland habitat occurs within the powerline corridor that bisects the project dividing it into east and west partitions (Figure 3). This community was artificially created and is currently maintained in a shrubland state. Pacific willow, salal, and hazelnut are the dominant shrub components, with scattered rose, Pacific blackberry, red alder saplings, and young bittercherry trees. Sword-fern is the dominant herbaceous species (Table 4). Shrubby patches also occur in openings throughout the site and are dominated by a mixture of salmonberry, cascade Oregongrape, and vine maple in the shrub layer, with bracken-fern, stinging nettle, sword-fern and chickweed as dominate herbaceous species (Table 4). Another variant of the powerline shrub community identified by lS. Jones and Associates, Inc. (2000) was dominated by a mix of black cottonwood, red alder, Scot's broom, salal, Indian plum, Himalayan blackberry and grasses. Grassland (Gu) Grassland habitat is located primarily in the northwest portion of the Kersey III property. The area appears to have been an old pasture or orchard due to the presence of scattered cultivar trees. The upper portion of the pasture is dominated by reed canarygrass with scattered Himalayan blackberry and red alder saplings. The lower portion is dominated by a mixture of orchardgrass, tall fescue, common velvet-grass, red clover, and bracken- fern, with scattered stinging nettle, and reed canarygrass (Table 4). Red alder and Douglas fir saplings are growing throughout the grassland. Small grassy patches also occur on some old logging roads along the south property boundary. 3.2.2 Wetlands and Streams The project site contains approximately 1.1 acres of wetlands (Figure 3), based on previous delineations (DBM 2000a) as updated during 2002 investigations by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (2004) staff. As previously noted, a total of five wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, D, and 1) were identified during the verification study (Figure 3). Four of the five wetlands were identified during previous studies (DBM 2000a), although the boundaries of two of these were adjusted based on field conditions observed during our 2002 investigations. A fifth wetland, which was not identified by DBM (2000a), was delineated during our May 2002 investigations. The wetlands occur on the west portion of the property and consist of palustrine forested (PFO), scrub-shrub (PSS) and emergent Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 9 (PEM) communities. Three PFO wetlands (Wetland A, Wetland B, and Wetland 1) are associated with the Streams A and B located in the western portion of the site (Figure 3). Refer to the wetland report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004) for detailed description of each of the streams and wetlands identified and delineated to date on the site. 3.2.3 Special Habitat Features Special habitat features include biologic elements, such as edges between plant communities or successional stages, snags, and coarse woody debris that are often important to wildlife (Brown 1985, Thomas and Verner 1986). The most distinct edges on the Kersey III property are those between the canopied upland forests and low-stature areas such as the shrubland within the powerline corridor, grassland, and scrub-shrub wetland cover. These edges are probably used by forest species, as well as species that are more adapted to shrub thickets and unmowed, early successional areas. More subtle edges occurred on-site between stands of deciduous and coniferous and mixed forests and between forested wetlands and their buffers. The old logging roads throughout the site have also created edges by fragmenting the similar or adj acent cover types. Snags (dead or partly dead trees at least 4 inches dbh and 6 feet tall) are important to many wildlife species (Cross 1986, Neitro et al. 1985, Scott et al. 1977 in Ohmart and Anderson 1986), for nesting, feeding, and roosting. Low to moderate numbers of snags were widely scattered across the forested areas of the property. Most of the snags were relatively short (less than 15 feet tall), small to medium-sized (4 to 12 inches dbh), broken-topped red alder, in early to moderate states of decay. Small to medium sized Douglas-fir and western hemlock snags were observed in some of the coniferous forests. Many were hard with bark intact, although some had sloughing bark. Some larger, well- decayed snags (primarily Douglas-fir and big-leaf maple, 18 inches dbh) remain scattered throughout the mature conifer and deciduous stands and within the wetland systems. Numerous stumps were recorded throughout the site in the forest east of the powerline (J.S. Jones and Associates Inc. 2000). Foraging holes made by woodpeckers were noted in many of the snags. Older and more recent pileated woodpecker foraging activity was observed in the larger alder and Douglas-fir snags. Foraging sign of smaller woodpeckers (hairy and downy) and sap wells created by red-breasted sapsuckers were observed in a number of snags throughout the site as well. Several snags harbored older and more recent nest or roost sites of smaller woodpecker species and other small cavity nesting birds. Coarse woody debris includes downed logs and major limbs of trees lying on the ground. Downed logs provide many habitat features, including perch sites, food, nest cavities, and cover for many species, such as some amphibians (Jones 1986). Low to moderate Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 10 amounts of scattered downed logs were observed in all the forested stands, and consisted mainly of small to medium-sized red alder. Well-decayed, larger conifer logs were found widely scattered in most of the upland forest cover types. Medium to large, decayed stumps were found scattered throughout the habitats, primarily in the mixed and coniferous stands. Few downed trees with exposed root-wads were observed along the stream corridor and within Wetland C in the western portion of the site. Piles of smaller debris had also collected along the stream corridor, creating brush piles used by a variety of wildlife. 3.2.4 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plant Species Recent searches of the Washington Natural Heritage Program database have revealed no records of any Federal or State threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species known to occur on the Kersey III property (Washington Department of Natural Resources 2003), nor were any identified during our field surveys. The current list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington thought to occur in King County is given in Table 2. Based on available habitat descriptions for these species (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1976, Washington Natural Heritage Program 1981, 1997) and our field surveys and experience in the Pacific Northwest, none of these species would likely find adequate habitat conditions on the site, and are thus not likely to be present. 3.3 WILDLIFE The project site and the surrounding lands provide habitat for a wide variety of native animal species common to second-growth forests, successional shrublands, and palustrine wetlands of the Puget Sound lowlands. Human activities on the site, both past and present, including timber harvest, vegetation management within the powerline corridor, and unauthorized trail use, have determined the configuration and condition of vegetation cover types currently found on the site. Based on King County's (1987) Wildlife Habitat Profile and other sources (e.g., Dvornich et al. 1997, Johnson and Cassidy 1997, Johnson and Q'NeiI2001, Smith et al. 1997), as well as our professional experience and expertise, we assembled a list of species known to use the same types of habitats as those found on the Kersey III site (Table 5 and Appendix B, Table Rl). This list also identifies species actually detected on the site during our field studies and those identified during investigation conducted by DBM (2000a and 2000b) and 1.S. Jones and Associates (2000). A variety of species is expected to occur in the habitats found on the project site, but not all of the species regularly found in lowland habitats listed would necessarily inhabit the project area (Table 5; Appendix B). Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 11 Among the habitat types found on these sites, the fewest species are expected to occur within the river and stream freshwater habitats and the most within the upland deciduous forest and riparian forest habitats (Table 5). The following sections discuss those wildlife species, by general taxonomic groups, that may use the property. Species likely to be present on the Kersey III property would also be expected in similar habitats in the Puget Sound lowlands. The habitats on the site are typical of lowland second-growth forests and early successional habitats in the region. 3.3.1 Reptiles and Amphibians Most amphibians and reptiles are secretive and seldom observed, except during short periods in their life cycles. Consequently, distribution patterns, and specific habitat requirements for reptiles and amphibians (herptofauna) are less well known than those of the other vertebrate species in the Pacific Northwest. Amphibians are adapted to cool, moist conditions and are found in a variety of habitats in the Puget Sound basin. Almost all are carnivorous, eating mainly invertebrates and insects. In turn, they serve as prey items for fish, snakes, small mammals, and birds. The amphibian life cycle is complex, with several distinct developmental stages occurring in some species (i.e., eggs, larvae, adult larvae, metamorphosed adults). Most of the amphibians found in the Puget Sound region, including all the frogs and toads, and three of the salamanders and newts (northwestern salamander, long-toed salamander, rough- skinned newt), are dependent upon ponds and wetlands for breeding sites. The species that lay eggs on land deposit their eggs underground, in moist places in downed logs, or in forest duff (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Leonard et al. 1993). Based on field surveys and available literature, ten species of amphibians could use habitats on the Kersey III site (Table 5, Appendix B). Of the amphibians likely to inhabit the site, none were observed during our field surveys, although no formal searches were conducted. Previous surveys conducted by DBM (2000b) concluded a lack of adequate breeding habitat for amphibians requiring water dependent egg-deposition. These species include the chorus frog, red-legged frog, western toad, bullfrog (introduced), rough-skinned newt, long-toed salamander, and northwestern salamander. Although staff from Raedeke Associates, Inc. documented inundated pools in Wetland C and Wetland D (Figure 3), only Wetland D is likely to support sufficient habitat throughout the breeding season for egg deposition and development. We note that all of the habitats on-site, including the wetlands, streams, and moist forests would likely attract pond-breeding amphibians that may use the site for foraging habitat and overland migration from proximate habitats off-site. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 12 Species that lay their eggs in the forest duff such as the ensantina and western red-backed salamander are likely to be found on-site. Another species that may inhabit the overall project site, but which has not been observed or detected, is the Pacific giant salamander. Cascades frogs, which typically occur at higher elevations, and spotted frogs, which appear to have been virtually eliminated from the Puget Sound lowlands, are unlikely to inhabit the property (Leonard et al. 1993, Richter and Ostergaard 1999). A tailed frog was observed in the riparian forest area during a DBM survey (2000b). The tailed frog, a State monitor species, is discussed in further detail in Section 3.3.4. Six species of reptiles, including lizards, snakes, and turtles, are expected to occur in types of habitats found on the Kersey III site (Table 5; Appendix B). Although King County (1987) lists the potential for the painted turtle to occur in emergent wetland habitats (Table Rl), it is unlikely due to the small size of the emergent communities and the relative scarcity of open water habitat on the Kersey III property. This species is typically found in marshy ponds, small lakes, and slow-moving streams and rivers with an abundance of vegetation (Dvornich et al. 1997). No turtles were observed during our site visit. The northern alligator lizard, the only lizard species likely to be present, is common in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, but was not observed during our site visits. It is typically found under logs, rocks, and in talus slopes, and is primarily carnivorous. We observed a species of garter snake in the mixed forest during a field survey (Table B.l), and it likely inhabits all of the various cover types. These snakes are generally forest dwellers where they prey on slugs, earthworms, salamanders, toads, frogs, small mammals, and birds. Snakes are preyed upon by mammals, and birds such as herons and raptors. 3.3.2 Birds The various habitats on the Kersey III property support numerous bird species. The exact number of species occurring on-site is unknown. However, based on field surveys and available literature, nearly 126 bird species could use the habitats found on these sites (Table B.l). Of this total, 33 bird species were detected during our field visits. Several of these same species were detected during surveys conducted by DBM (2000b) and 1. S. Jones and Associates (2000; Table Rl). Not all expected species would be present during any given season, as some occur in the region only in the winter or spring, or during migration. A few species of aquatic birds (i.e., herons, rails, shorebirds) could use the wetland habitats during some time of the year. Great blue herons may forage in the emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands as well as the grassland. Herons could also use the large trees as perching or roosting habitat. The American bittern, Virginia rail, sora, and common snipe may inhabit palustrine scrub-shrub habitats on the site, although none of these species was found during our field investigations. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 13 Because of the closed canopy surrounding most of the wetlands, waterfowl are unlikely to use these habitats. The emergent portion of Wetland B and the ponded portion of Wetland D could be used by waterfowl and accessed via the open grassland habitat on their west borders. Species like Canada geese and wigeons could use the grassland habitat for foraging if they were mowed. No waterfowl species were observed during our field visits (Table Rl). A variety of hawks and owls could use the various habitats present on the property. A red-tailed hawk was detected flying over the site. Previous surveys conducted by DBM (2000b) also detected a red-tailed hawk flying over the property. Trees were scanned for potential hawks and their nests, but none were observed. Accipiters such as sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks generally nest in forests with dense canopies near more open areas where their prey is hunted, although no nests were observed during our surveys. Both species could inhabit the forest stands and edges on the Kersey III site, and prey on small birds in forest or shrub habitats. Several species of owl could use the habitats on-site, although owls were not observed during our surveys. Smaller owls, including the northern pygmy owls, Northern saw- whet and western screech owls, are common in forest habitats and prey on small mammals, birds and insects and nest in cavities in snags or tall stumps. Larger owls including great horned owls and barred owls could be found using most of the forested communities as part of a larger territory. The band-tailed pigeon, an upland game bird, is likely to be present on-site, although none were detected during our surveys. As many as five species of woodpeckers may be present on the Kersey III property and three, the pileated and hairy woodpecker and red-breasted sapsucker, were detected during our field studies. As noted above, scattered foraging sign of hairy (and likely downy) woodpeckers was observed on dead portions of red alder trees found throughout both sites. A pair of hairy woodpeckers was actively feeding their young in a 13-inch dbh red alder snag located in the deciduous forest along the easternmost stream channel. The pileated woodpecker, a State candidate species, is discussed in further detail in Section 3.3.4. As noted above, foraging sign of pileated woodpeckers were observed in some of the more decayed alder and Douglas-fir snags and stumps. Red-breasted sapsucker foraging sign (sap wells in living trees) was observed in the forest in the east portion of the property, and they likely use the forested habitats across the site. Woodpeckers glean insects and larvae from on or under the bark of trees and snags. All are forest primary cavity-nesting species that excavate their own nests (primary cavity- nesters). Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 14 Passerines, or perching birds, contain the largest number of families and have the most diverse range of species of any order. Twenty-eight passerine species (or perching birds) have been observed in the full range of habitats that occur on the Kersey III sites. The passerines are generally small birds that exhibit a wide range of feeding modes. Insectivorous passerines include aerial feeders (e.g. swifts, swallows, and flycatchers) and gleaners of insects from trees and shrubs (e.g. warblers, vireos, chickadees, and kinglets). Insect gleaners are most abundant in the forests, but many find feeding and nesting habitat in the scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands (e.g., common yellowthroat and song sparrow). Violet-green swallows, which are aerial feeders, were observed feeding over the shrub land in the powerline corridor, and likely use the open canopy over the deciduous forest stands and grasslands as foraging habitat. A number of passerines, such as chickadees and nuthatches, are secondary cavity-nesters that nest in a cavity initially created by another species (e.g. woodpeckers) or by natural events. Black-capped and chestnut-backed chickadees and red-breasted nuthatches have been observed during field surveys. Brown creepers, which were also observed in a variety of forest stands, are bark-insect gleaners that nest under loose slabs of bark on snags. Granivores and frugivores (those species that eat mainly seeds or fruits, respectively) include jays, grosbeaks, finches, blackbirds, and sparrows. Most are year-round residents in the Puget Sound region. Steller's jays were detected on the site. Many of the sparrow species expected would likely inhabit the grassland, open canopy shrubland, and forest edge habitats present, while finches may be found in all habitats on the project site. Song sparrows, pine siskins, American goldfinch, purple finches, and red crossbills were detected on the site during field investigations. American crows, which are common in a variety of habitats, were observed in the mixed forests on-site (Table Rl). 3.3.3 Mammals The temperate forests and wetlands of the Puget Sound lowlands support a wide variety of mammals. They are less frequently observed than birds because of their often secretive and nocturnal habits. Forty-three species of mammals inhabit the types of habitats found on the Kersey III property during some part of the year (Table Rl). Of these, five species or their sign were detected during current or previous field studies. The forest floor, with its relatively dense, low ground cover and scattered coarse woody debris, provides habitat for small mammals such as shrews, voles, mice, and predators such as bobcats, skunks, and weasels. The most common and abundant are small mammals, including shrews, moles, rabbits, and small rodents. Shrews and moles are generally insectivores, while rabbits and rodents are herbivores. Small mammals are an important food source for the carnivores and predatory birds. The systematic small Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 15 mammal trapping effort conducted by lS. Jones and Associates, Inc. (2000) in the mixed forest east of the powerline did not result in any captures of small mammals. The common opossum is the only marsupial found in the United States. The opossum is not native to the Pacific Coast, but has been widely introduced, and is now distributed throughout western and parts of eastern Washington. As omnivorous foragers, they make their dens in burrows, hollow tree cavities, or rock piles. Opossums would be expected to use most of the habitats present. Bat distribution and abundance in western Washington are relatively poorly known and require specialized techniques to inventory. Several species of bats are expected to be found in the forest habitats and to feed in open areas above the regenerating forests and wetlands on-site, although no species of bats were observed. Most species are migratory and return to this region in the spring when insect populations are abundant. Bats are aerial foragers that feed on insects in the twilight periods and at night. Larger snags with cavities are important roost sites. As noted above, we observed several large snags (~18" dbh) scattered in the more mature stands and wetland systems. No bats were observed, although we did not specifically survey for bats during our field surveys. Several of the larger rodents, including Douglas squirrels, and mountain beavers, or their sign, are often the most conspicuous mammals present, and they have been observed on- site. Squirrels and chipmunks are common in various forest communities, where they feed on fir seeds and other plant material. The mountain beaver, while seldom seen, constructs numerous burrows in forested areas and leaves distinctive evidence of browsing on shrubs and conifers. Numerous mountain beaver burrows were noted throughout mixed and deciduous forest habitats in various portions of the property. Carnivores are known to occur on the project site primarily from tracks or fecal droppings, as well as reported sightings by local observers. Smaller carnivores, such as skunks, weasels, and raccoons are likely present, as they are widespread and common in the lowlands of western Washington. These species are most common in wetland habitats and around lakes, streams, and rivers where they feed on small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and prey on ground- and shrub-nesting birds. Numerous coyote scats and tracks were noted in various parts of the site, particularly along the old logging roads. This species is likely to use nearly all cover types present. They have become well adapted to more urbanized areas and are found within many suburban residential areas. The bobcat inhabits all habitats throughout Washington, feeding mostly on small mammals, and could use the property, although no sign was evident. The territories of the larger carnivores, particularly black bears and cougars, encompass many square miles of habitat and would not be limited solely to the property (e.g., Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 16 Lindzey and Meslow 1977; Poelker and Hartwell 1973). In western Washington, these species are found more typically in the Cascades and foothills, where there are larger blocks of contiguous habitat. Bears, which are omnivorous, are common in the Puget Sound lowlands, but they are usually eliminated by the habitat loss associated with extensive urban development. The continued suitability of the project site for carnivores, especially the larger species, has probably been diminished by development of the existing residential communities in the vicinity. No bear sign was evident. We specifically searched for elk or their sign (browse, pellets, tracks, and trails) as portions of the White River are known corridors for migrating herds. Elk are mobile animals that may travel long distances into areas where they area unlikely to have a breeding populations (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). No observations of elk or their sign were documented during our field visits. The property, being surrounded on all sides by development, roads, and a quarry, is an unlikely habitat for elk as it is virtually a dead end habitat. The WDFW (2003a and 2003b) does not document elk usage of the site in the PHS database. Columbian black-tailed deer sign (pellets and tracks) was noted on-site on the logging roads and in the mixed forest. No "regular" or "regular large" concentrations, as defined by WDFW (1999), are known for either site or vicinity (WDFW 2003a and 2003b). Deer are herbivores browsing mainly on shrubs and trees in the forests, clearcuts, and wetlands. 3.4 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, SENSITIVE, AND OTHER PRIORITY ANIMAL SPECIES We received maps and tabular data from the WDFW (2003a and 2003b) on known occurrences of endangered, threatened, sensitive and other Priority species and habitats from their PHS and HRTG database. State priority species are defined as those fish and wildlife species "requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation" (WDFW 1999). State priority habitats are defined as "a habitat type with unique or significant value to many species" (WDFW 1999). The maps show current documented locations and listings of Priority species and habitats from the WDFW (2001 and 2002) database. 3.4.1 Priority Habitats There are no priority habitats mapped on the Kersey III property. The nearest priority habitat polygons are depicted off-site and associated with the White River. At its nearest point, the White River is mapped approximately one-half mile north of the Kersey III site and is classified as a Type 1 stream by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR 2001). Several polygons identified as "White River wetlands" and "riparian zones" described as "habitat vital for fish resource protection," are mapped along the White River, approximately 2.5 miles northeast and east of the property. Numerous small scattered wetlands mapped off-site (based on USFWS [1988] NWI data) and are Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 17 described in the PHS database as lower White River agricultural wetlands consisting of a variety of natural and agricultural wetland habitats. Other Priority habitats mapped off-site are identified as small waterfowl concentration areas, non-agricultural (WDFW 2003a and 2003b). The nearest of these wetland habitats are approximately one-half mile north, east, and south of the project site. Bowman Creek, a tributary to the White River, is depicted off-site along a portion of the northeast property boundary, North of Kersey Way. Bowman Creek is a Type 3 stream (WDNR 2001) with its headwaters at Bowman Lake, approximately 0.75 miles southeast of the property. Both Bowman Creek and the White River have priority anadromous and resident fish presence and "other fish presence" as documented by the WDFW (2003a). The northern tip of Lake Tapps is situated approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the property. Lake Tapps, mapped as a priority habitat, "provides resting and nesting habitat for hundreds of waterfowl" (WDFW 2003b). Priority fish species documented to occur within Bowman Creek include Coho salmon, and resident cutthroat trout (WDFW 2003a and 2003b). Priority fish species known to occur within the White River in the vicinity of the project site include Spring Chinook Salmon, chum salmon, pink salmon, Coho salmon, summer steel head, winter steelhead, Bull trout, and resident cutthroat trout (WDFW 2003a and 2003b, USFWS 2001; see Appendix C for agency correspondence). There is no direct fish access to the Kersey III project site. A fish impassible culvert is located in unnamed tributary 0043 beneath Kersey Way. An approximately 36-inch high fall at the culvert outlet prevents access from Bowman Creek by anadromous salmonids to portions of the unnamed tributary 0043 that are located south of Kersey Way including the Kersey III project site. However, on-site streams and wetlands contribute water to Bowman Creek and the White River. Although fish surveys were not conducted during our field surveys, no fish were observed or have been documented (WDFW 2003a) on the Kersey III property. 3.4.2 Endangered, threatened, and sensitive animal species The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (2003a and 2003b) had no records of the occurrence of any wildlife or fish species listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive by federal or state agencies on the Kersey III project site or immediate vicinity. Bald Eagle The bald eagle is currently designated as threatened on both state and federal lists. Because of a significant increase in bald eagle populations in Washington, the State has proposed to reclassify the bald eagle as a Sensitive species (Stinson et al. 2001) concurrent with the federal proposal for deli sting of the eagle (Ms. Harriet Allen, Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 18 USFWS, pers. comm. March 18, 2002). The bald eagle was not observed during our field studies, or during previous studies of the site (DBM 2000b, lS. Jones and Associates 2000). The nearest known nest is more than 2.5 miles northeast of the site along the Green River, and another is over 5 miles southeast of the site east of Lake Tapps. Occasional sightings of bald eagles in the vicinity would be expected because of the proximity of large river and lake foraging areas and scattered waterfowl concentration areas. No nests are known to occur on the Kersey III property, nor would any be expected, because of a lack of suitable nesting sites (i.e., large snags of suitable condition or species, or old-growth trees) or foraging habitat (i.e., fish-bearing waters or waterfowl concentrations). No potential nest trees were observed during our field visits. Eagles can range several miles during foraging flights, and could occasionally use the project sites for perching. The USFWS has determined that wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project (USFWS 2001, see Appendix C for agency correspondence). Wintering activities typically occur from October 31 through March 31. Communal night roosts are an important component of bald eagle wintering habitat. Use ofa roost site is primarily related to prey abundance and distribution and secondarily related to features including tree structure and microclimate (Stinson et al. 2001). Roost trees are typically the largest, tallest and more decadent within stands of trees. Although the site is approximately 0.5 miles south of the White River, a likely foraging area for eagles, we did not detect suitable trees for roosting bald eagles on the site. The WDFW (2003a and 2003b) PHS database does not show winter concentration areas or occurrence of wintering bald eagles within the vicinity of the project site. Bull trout On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a final rule announcing the listing of bull trout throughout the coterminous United States as a threatened species under ESA (Federal Register 1999a: 58910-58933). Bull trout were once widely distributed throughout the Pacific Northwest, but have been reduced to approximately 44 percent of historical range (Quigley et al. 1997). Bull trout are thought to have more specific habitat requirements in comparison to other salmonids, and are most often associated with undisturbed stream habitat with diverse cover and structure. High quality bull trout habitat is typically characterized by cold water temperatures, abundant cover in the form of large wood, undercut banks, large boulders, etc., clean substrate for spawning, interstitial spaces large enough to conceal juveniles, and stable channels. Therefore, negatively impacted watersheds are not thought to provide optimal bull trout habitat. The (WDFW 2003a) PHS database documents the presence of Dolly Varden char/bull trout in the White River. Although undocumented, bull trout may migrate from the Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 19 White River to the lowermost reach of Bowman Creek for foraging. However, usage of Bowman Creek for spawning or rearing is unlikely due to an absence of low water temperatures that are typically found in higher elevation streams and which are necessary for bull trout spawning. Cold water temperature is a critical factor for bull trout; many studies show that temperature must drop below 9 or 10 degrees Celsius before spawning occurs (McPhail and Murray 1979, Craig 1997). Areas where water temperature exceeds 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) are thought to limit distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). In addition, fish access to streams within the Kersey III project site from Bowman Creek is blocked by a culvert beneath Kersey Way, as described above. Chinook Salmon On March 24, 1999, NOAA Fisheries (formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound basin as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Federal Register 1999b: 14308-15328). The abundance of Chinook salmon within the Puget Sound basin has decreased significantly from historical levels. Decline of this species is attributed to habitat degradation consisting of stream blockages, forest practices, urbanization, and agriculture (Myers et al. 1998). Habitat degradation includes stream bank degradation, sedimentation, and widespread removal oflarge woody debris and riparian vegetation, resulting in loss of stream shade. Other effects include changes in flow, and rerouting of streams, loss of estuarine areas, harvesting, and negative genetic effects of hatchery releases of Chinook salmon (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound Chinook salmon consist largely of summer and fall run stocks, with juveniles that typically migrate to the marine environment during their first year of life (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound Chinook return to spawn in the fall and spring. Spawning typically occurs in the mainstem of rivers in gravel and cobbles (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound Chinook rear in freshwater for a few months or less, with most of their rearing occurring in the nearshore marine environment (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound Chinook salmon have been documented off-site in the White River (WDFW 2003a). Although undocumented, juvenile Chinook salmon may use the lowermost reaches of Bowman Creek as refuge from winter high flows within the White River during out migration from the White River to salt water. Usage of Bowman Creek for spawning or rearing is unlikely due to an absence suitably sized spawning gravels and relatively low water volumes within the creek during the fall and spring. In addition, fish access to streams within the Kersey III project site from Bowman Creek is blocked by a culvert beneath Kersey Way, as described above. Species Proposed for Federal Listing Status On July 25, 1995, NOAA Fisheries printed a proposed rule adding the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU for Coho salmon to the candidate species list (F ederal Register Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 20 1995:38011-38030). Although population levels have not declined from historical abundance levels, several risk factors may necessitate the listing of this species under the federal ESA in the future. Risks to this population involve artificial propagation, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, dramatic decline in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions (Busby et al. 1996). Habitat degradation can occur because of activities such as logging, agriculture, development, and dams that can cause high mortality from egg to age-one smolt. The distribution and abundance of Coho salmon is most likely influenced by water temperature, stream size, flow, channel morphology, vegetation type and abundance, and channel substrate size and quality. Coho salmon prefer to spawn and rear in stream reaches with less than 4 to 5 percent gradient. Coho salmon generally return from the ocean to spawn from early fall to late spring, spawn in mid-winter and then die. Spawning occurs in substrates ranging from silt to large gravel of tributary streams (Johnson et al. 1991). Coho eggs incubate from four to six weeks depending on water temperature and hatched larvae generally remain within the gravel substrate for an additional three to four weeks before emerging in early March to mid-May (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). After emergence, Coho fry typically congregate in schools within pools, while juveniles aggressively defend territory in riffle habitat. Juveniles generally rear in natal streams for one to two years before migrating to the ocean (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Coho salmon have been documented in the White River and the lower reaches of Bowman Creek upstream to the confluence of Bowman Creek with the unnamed tributary 0043, which flows from the western portion of the Kersey III project site (WDFW 2003a). Although undocumented, juvenile Coho salmon may migrate upstream within Bowman Creek up to a 2.5-foot falls created by a small man-made dam within the creek located just west of the intersection of Kersey Way with 53rd Street SE. In addition, fish access to streams within the Kersey III project site from Bowman Creek is blocked by a culvert beneath Kersey Way, as described above. Other Priority Animal Species The WDFW (1999) lists species as "Priority" for management and conservation other than those legally designated as endangered, threatened, and sensitive (WAC 232-12- 011, -014). State designations include candidate, monitor, and game species. Several of these species could be found on-site (Table B.l) and are discussed below. State candidate. State candidate species are those fish and wildlife species that "will be reviewed by the WDFW (POL-M-600l) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive according to the process and criteria defined in W AC-232-12-297" (WDFW 1999). As noted above, pileated woodpecker foraging sign was evident on primarily Douglas fir snags in the conifer stands east of the powerline and the mixed forest stands. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 21 This species typically occupies large home ranges (one square mile or more) and may forage a great distance from the nest. Large snags potentially suitable as nest sites (greater than 16 inches dbh and relatively hard) were only widely scattered throughout the site; most snags on-site were too small and more decayed than generally used by this species for nesting. Larger snags (18 inches dbh) were observed in the conifer stands within the mixed forest east of the powerline; however, no active pileated woodpecker nesting cavities were observed during recent or previous field surveys (DBM 2000b, lS. Jones and Associates 2000). A pileated woodpecker nest was documented southeast of Bowman Lake, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. The nest was reported to be active in years 1984, 1988 and 1989 (WDFW 2003a). The Vaux's swift may forage aerially over portions of the project site, including over the tree canopy and wetland habitats. Vaux's swifts are typically associated with old-growth forests, where cavities for nesting in tall snags are more abundant (Lundquist and Mariani 1991, ManuwaI1991). Swifts were not detected on the Kersey III site and they would not be expected to find suitable breeding sites on the project site. State nwnitor. The tailed frog, a State monitor species, was identified in the "riparian areas" on the Kersey III site (DBM 2000b). No other information was given regarding this observation. Tailed frogs typically inhabit rocky, fast-flowing cold, and permanent streams from sea level to 5000 feet on both sides of the Cascades (Dvornich 1997). Eggs are attached under rocks in streams and the tadpoles cling to rocks with suction-like mouths. Tadpoles develop very slowly and may take 2 to 5 years to metamorphose (Corkran 1996). The small seasonal tributaries on the Kersey III site and the downstream off-site channel do not provide the necessary breeding habitat as described above for tailed frogs. Additionally the range of the spotted frog is typically shown to occur further east (Dvornich et al. 1997). Tailed frogs have not been identified in Bowman Creek or in the White River (WDFW 2003a and 2003b). It is likely that the observation of a tailed frog was a misidentification of a more common amphibian such as the chorus frog. No amphibians were observed during our field surveys. Great blue herons are of concern because they nest in colonies, and are vulnerable to nest disturbance and failures. Great blue herons could use the large trees on-site for perching and grassland and wetland habitats for foraging, however herons were not observed on the property. The nearest known active nesting colony is located approximately 3 miles west of the project site west of State Route 167, with another colony approximately 5 miles southeast of the project site along the White River. Green herons are uncommon in wetlands in western Washington. A "probable" green heron nest with young was identified approximately 2 miles northeast of the site on a steep slope below Auburn Academy (WDFW 2003a). Green herons nest in trees, usually near water (Smith 1997) and could nest in the deciduous forests on the Kersey III site. Green herons were not observed during our 2003 field surveys. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 22 Breeding areas of the osprey, a fish-eating hawk, are considered by the WDFW (1999) as a priority habitat. The nearest osprey nest identified by WDFW (2003a) is located approximately 3.5 miles east of the property along the Green River on the Muckleshoot Reservation. Numerous other nest sites are mapped in Lake Tapps several miles southeast of the property. No osprey nests are documented on the White River in the vicinity of the Kersey III site (WDFW 2003a). Ospreys likely forage in the fish-bearing waters of the Green and White River near the site however, suitable sites for nesting, larger snags or live trees with broken tops or suitable branches with views of the foraging area, were not observed on the Kersey III property. No osprey nests were located on the project site during our recent or any previous surveys (DBM 2000b, 1. S. Jones and Associates 2000). State game. Game species are those native species managed for game hunting. Four state game species of concern are expected to use habitats found on the project site or vicinity (King County 1987, WDFW 1999; see Table Rl). These include the wood duck, band-tailed pigeon, mink, and Columbian black-tailed deer. One of these species, the black-tailed deer, was detected during our 2002 field investigation of the site; however, "regular concentrations," as defined by WDFW (1999), are not known on the Kersey III site. 3.5 WILDLIFE HABITAT NETWORKS OR CORRIDORS Wildlife habitat networks or corridors can take different forms, depending on the landscape. For example, corridors can be in the form of hedgerows or fencerows connecting woodlots in an agricultural landscape. In a fragmented forested landscape, corridors are linear patches of forest or forested riparian zones connecting larger patches offorest. They can also be non-forested linear patches, such as utility easements, or wetland and stream systems, in a landscape that is forested. In an urbanizing environment such as this portion of the City of Auburn, open space or native forestland can act as corridors connecting otherwise disjunct habitat for wildlife species. Corridors can provide: (1) habitat for certain species; (2) movement pathways; (3) extensions of foraging ranges for large, wide-ranging species; and (4) escape from predators (Harris 1984, Levenson 1981, Noss 1987, Noss and Harris 1986, Simberloff and Cox 1987). Corridors may also have disadvantages, such as: (1) providing conduits for disease, fire, pests, and exotic species; (2) increasing exposure to predation; and (3) potentially having negative genetic impacts on a population (Noss 1987, Simberloff and Cox 1987). Definable migration corridors existing on the property include avenues of movement such as the wetland/stream complex on the western portion of the site for water- Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 23 associated species, and roads and trails with surrounding forest cover for certain large mammals like deer, coyote, and bobcat. These large mammals using the property as a portion of their territory would have to cross main roads or developments, or use the powerline corridor to enter and exit the site. The BP A power transmission right-of-way, which is periodically maintained to keep them in low, shrubby cover, provides a corridor of shrub-dominated or edge habitat, within the surrounding forest. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 24 4.0 IMPACTS This discussion of probable wetland impacts is based on Raedeke Associates, Inc. field surveys, review of available literature, as well as information provided by the applicant and project consultants. Our analysis of impacts was based on the proposed site plans for the 481 and 700 development alternatives (DBM 2004a and 2004b) that were provided to Raedeke Associates, Inc. by Apex Engineering, Inc. on February 27,2004. Implementation of the proposed Kersey III Preliminary Plat would develop a range of urban residential housing densities (no fewer than 481 and no more than 700 residential units) and a recreational park complex, as well as native open space including sensitive area tracts. Roads, utilities, and storm water facilities will be included in the site development. The project will use the City of Auburn zoning and subdivision ordinances and open space and sensitive areas would be set apart as required by the City of Auburn sensitive area regulations. The plat may utilize the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance in order to accommodate for multi family units. On-site storm facilities will include wet ponds for detention and water quality treatment. The proposal also requires the dedication of land for use as a public park. Three alternatives, Alternative 700, Alternative 481, and Alternative No Action, are to be analyzed in the EIS. A brief summary of alternatives follows: . Alternative 700: This alternative assumes the development of 700 single-family homes including 72 four-plex units on the 170-acre parcel (Figure 4). The project will use the City of Auburn PUD ordinance to achieve the higher densities and for preservation of open spaces. Sensitive areas would be retained according to the City of Auburn sensitive area regulations. Approximately 31.4 acres of the site including wetlands and buffers, and steep slopes will be contained within sensitive areas tracts and set aside as native open space. Approximately 15.9 acres ofland will be dedicated for use as a public park. Approximately 11.1 acres would be retained within the existing powerline corridor. The project would consist of three divisions developed within six phases. The proposal will require on-site and off-site installation of new public facilities to serve the development to include water, stormwater, and sanitary sewer lines. Two stormwater detention and treatment facilities would be constructed, totaling approximately 15.0 acres. The proposal requires the dedication and construction of approximately four miles of new public right of ways to access the development and provide internal circulation. These roads include internal streets and a new arterial connection from Evergreen Way SE to Kersey Way. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 25 . Alternative 481 - This alternative assumes 481 single-family homes including 72 four-plex units on the 170-acre property (Figure 5). The project will use the City of Auburn zoning and subdivision ordinances and open space and sensitive areas would be set apart as required by the City of Auburn sensitive area regulations. Approximately 31.4 acres of the site including wetlands and buffers, and steep slopes will be set aside as native open space. Approximately 7.6 acres ofland will be dedicated for use as a public park. Approximately 11.1 acres would be retained within the existing powerline corridor. The project's proposed construction will consist of three divisions developed within six phases. The proposal will require on-site installation of new public facilities to serve the development to include water, stormwater, and sanitary sewer lines. Two stormwater detention and treatment facilities would be constructed totaling approximately 15.0 acres. The proposal requires the dedication and construction of approximately four miles of new public right of ways to access the development and provide internal circulation. These roads include internal streets and a new arterial connection from Evergreen Way SE to Kersey Way. . No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would assume that each of the three parcels of the 170-acre Kersey III site would be developed separately utilizing on-site water and septic systems. While the site is currently zoned R-l, allowing 8,000 square-foot minimum lots, the use of on-site wells would require a minimum of 5-acre lots. The No Action Alternative would allow for the subdivision of each of the parcels that make up the Kersey III project. Based upon zoning only the parcels could still yield the 481 lots; however, the challenge would be the provision of utilities and road access that is currently being coordinated between the three properties. Assuming that the provision of utilities for the separate subdivisions would be prohibitive, the No Action Alternative will assume that a lower density would result based on the utilization of on-site wells and drainfield systems. For purposes of the No action Alternative, it will be assumed that a 5-acre minimum will be required to provide for on-site wells. The No Action Alternative will assume a possible yield of approximately 34 lots. Sensitive areas would continue to be protected in accordance with the City's sensitive areas regulations. Detailed descriptions of each alternative may be found in the DEIS. The probable impacts of each of these alternatives on the wetlands on the project sites are discussed in the following sections. All alternatives considered in the DEIS involve urbanization. The process of urbanization will affect the existing plant and animal communities in three ways: (1) direct changes in and loss of the habitats available; (2) increase in human use and Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 26 disturbance associated with development; and (3) changes in the hydrologic characteristics of the site, with potential for impact to wetland communities (both plants and animals). Urbanization is a process of habitat alteration that changes the characteristics of the plant communities and the habitat available for wildlife. The major features of urbanization include loss of vegetation, isolation or fragmentation of remaining vegetation patches, replacement of native vegetation with ornamental species, removal of snags and downed logs, an increase in the use of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides, the presence of "super" predators (domestic dogs and cats), increased influence of non-native invasive or otherwise urban-adapted animal species, and increased noise and other disturbance factors (Thomas et al. 1974, Penland 1984, Adams et al. 1985). 4.1 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 700 Alternative 700 would result in high-density residential housing lots totaling up to 700 single family dwelling units (Figure 4) and encompassing approximately 122 acres (72 percent of the site) including collector and internal roads, utilities, and stormwater tracts (Table 6). Public facilities would include 15 acres (9 percent) of developed parks, as required by the City of Auburn. Natural open space within the project sites (as indicated on Table 6) would be retained primarily to encompass the approximately 31 acres (18 percent) of wetlands, streams, buffers, and steep slopes. "Native" or "natural" open space, as termed in this report, is that which is retained in (or allowed to develop into) a relatively natural state or is composed of native plant species. This contrasts with the "developed" open space of public parks. Natural open space, in the context of this development, typically includes sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, steep slopes) and their buffers, which primarily consist of closed-canopy forest and shrub habitats. The BP A right of way consists of approximately 11.1 acres (7 percent) of undeveloped but managed upland shrub habitat. 4.1.1 Impacts on Vegetation A majority of the native habitat on the Kersey III site would be eliminated and converted to urban uses, high-density residential units and associated roads and facilities, and a park complex. Existing vegetation would be replaced by buildings, roads, and other impervious surfaces, as well as non-native plantings. Because most of the property currently occurs as relatively mature closed-canopy forest, most of the vegetation eliminated in each of the development phases would consist of upland coniferous or mixed forest. The designated open space retained in a natural state would, at a minimum, include the existing sensitive areas that carry development restrictions, such as wetlands, streams, and steep slopes and their buffers, as required under the City of Auburn (1997) Zoning Code regulations. Portions of the development area and associated roads and Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 27 other facilities would be cleared and converted to a combination of impervious surfaces and landscaped areas that include ornamental plantings. Development of the site would increase the degree of fragmentation of existing natural habitats on-site. Much of the retained native forest, particularly along the retained stream course, would become mainly edge habitat, with limited interior habitat occurring on the steep slopes along the northern property boundary that are contiguous with undeveloped off-site habitat. The artificial edges created between the areas of native forest habitat and the development areas would likely increase the spread of invasive or weedy plant species common in urban areas, such as English ivy, English laurel, Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom. Portions of the existing native vegetation may be retained in the areas designated for proposed public parks, although it would become highly fragmented. Residential development areas may eliminate virtually all the native vegetation within each development parcel. Portions of the developed areas would likely be landscaped with a majority of ornamental species. "Developed" open space would be created in the form of the proposed parks (Table 6). These park areas, or portions thereof, would be cleared, graded where necessary and appropriate, and converted to highly managed mixtures of grasses. Some of the designated park areas may retain some native trees and shrubs, but others would be more highly "developed" and converted to non-native vegetation. Development of these parks would occur in areas that represent the range of conditions of native habitat on the site, mostly relatively mature coniferous and mixed forest. All these areas would thus be converted to more open, managed habitats of lesser value to wildlife than existing native habitats. Alternative 700 would avoid direct alteration to the approximately 31acres of wetlands, stream habitat and their buffers (Table 6). However, impacts to wetland and riparian vegetation communities could occur from hydrologic impacts of the proposed development under this alternative. Development of the site, with the clearing of existing vegetation, and construction of impervious surfaces, has the potential to alter wetland vegetation communities due to changes in the volume and timing of surface water runoff that can affect seasonal water levels and fluctuations within the wetlands. Based on hydrologic modeling and analysis conducted by Apex Engineering (2003) and GeoEngineers (2004) for the Kersey III project, all on-site wetlands would receive reduced volumes of groundwater interflow and runoff after development and likely be negatively impacted (see Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004). Without mitigation, the wetlands could decrease in size and change in vegetative composition. The current development proposal would mitigate reductions in water volumes reaching the wetlands by routing clean rooftop runoff and runoff from native vegetation areas to the wetlands in Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 28 order to maintain wetland hydrology at or near existing levels (DBM 2004). See the wetland report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004) for further discussion of wetland impacts. 4.1.2 Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Conversion of the property from native forest to residential areas and associated roads and other facilities would result in a substantial change in habitats available. Urban development, such as on Kersey III, creates structures, road systems, and areas landscaped by ornamental species, which alters the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat, patch dynamics, and disturbance regimes (Martin and Finch 1995, Marzluff et al. 1998). By fragmenting natural habitats into smaller, more isolated units, development removes the habitat of many species, modifies habitats of others, and creates new habitat for some species (Adams and Dove 1989, Penland 1984). In general and over the long term, impacts to wildlife include direct loss and alteration of existing native habitat and increased levels of human activity. Impacts also include short-term disturbance associated with clearing, grading, and construction activities that can kill burrowing mammals, nestling birds, and amphibians, and displace the more mobile wildlife. Alternative 700 would reduce the habitat available for native wildlife across the site. This would reduce the local populations of most native species, and cause a number of changes in the species composition because of the urban level of development. For example, changes in bird communities include increased abundance of non-native and habitat generalist species, and decreased species richness, sometimes accompanied by an increase in overall bird density (Clergeau et al. 1998, Hennings and Edge 2003, Marzluff et al. 1998, Bessinger and Osborne 1982, Bollinger and Linder 1994, Dowd 1992, Herkert 1994, Martin- Yanny 1992). Habitats in urban environments are structurally simplified, which favors non-native species, whereas native species tend to be associated with more structurally complex native forests (e.g., Case 1996, Mills et al. 1991). Densities of omnivores and seed-eaters may increase, while insectivores may decrease (Bessinger and Osborne 1982). The species typically favored in urban or urbanizing environments are habitat generalists, some of which are invasive exotic species. A limited number of native species, including the barn swallow and house finch, and introduced exotics such as rock dove, European starling, and house sparrow, can utilize the limited crevices and ledges found in buildings, as well as landscaped habitats. Species that dwell primarily in forested habitats, but can persist in partly urbanized environments, such as chickadees, squirrels, shrews, garter snakes, and some species of amphibians, may persist in the open-space areas in the northern part of the site, but in lower numbers. Other native species adapted to a wide range of habitats, or urban environments, such as American robin, American crow, hummingbirds, violet-green swallow, bushtit, dark-eyed junco, song sparrow, raccoon, and coyote may increase in abundance on the site (Robbins 1979, Penland 1984, Tilghman 1987). Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 29 Animals that are least tolerant of human disturbance, such as ground- and shrub-nesting birds, small, ground-dwelling mammals, carnivores, and amphibians, would be most affected by the proposed development. Examples include spotted towhee, ruffed grouse, mountain beaver, deer mouse and weasels. Because of the density of proposed residential lots, the diversity and abundance of bird species that breed locally and migrate to the tropics ("Neotropical migrants"), such as vireos, warblers, thrushes, and tanagers would likely decrease on the Kersey III site. Even for those that remain, studies have shown that some species may not be able to consistently produce young due to competition from urban-adapted species, habitat fragmentation, or increased exposure to edges (e.g., Donovan et al. 1995, Friesen et al. 1995). Populations of reptiles and amphibians, which rely on forest duff, downed logs, snags, and wetlands, would be substantially reduced. Other special habitat features and a large portion oflocal dispersal habitat (that is, areas to which young move from where they are born or reared) would be eliminated (e.g., Richter 1997). In addition, native species can be adversely impacted by domestic cats and dogs, which can act as "super-predators," that would undoubtedly increase in abundance after development (Penland 1984). With elimination of the majority of native upland forest habitats, some native species would likely be eliminated from the site. Created detention ponds could increase the occurrence of certain species such as native mallard ducks and non-native amphibians such as the bullfrog. The species most vulnerable to development would be restricted to the larger undeveloped tracts on-site. Impacts to Migration Corridors and Wildlife Movement The Kersey III site is a relatively large "patch" of undeveloped habitat in largely developed area. The property is bounded to the north, east and south by paved roads. The Lakeland Hill Development is adjacent to the west property boundary. Contiguous habitat (no main roads or large development) lies only to the northwest. The majority of this habitat is forested and extends north to the White River. Other forested habitats are currently accessible, although terrestrial wildlife would have to cross roads to access them. Another large area of undeveloped habitat is south of the site, south of a low- density residential area, northwest of Lake Tapps. Wildlife movements among available habitat patches would be affected by development of the Kersey III property. Under current conditions, animals can move between habitat patches relatively freely on-site and to other contiguous forest patches, except as influenced by disturbance from existing human activities (e.g., logging road and powerline corridor use). Under the Alternative 700, movements of many wildlife species would be funneled through remaining natural habitat contiguous with off-site open space areas. After development, these areas would thus act as post-development "corridors" of Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 30 native habitat. For example, the stream and wetland complex on the western portion of the site is contiguous with the off-site forested parcel to the east, and with the exception of Kersey Way, the buffered corridor created by Bowman Creek to the north. BPA powerline corridor will continue to be a major movement route for species such as coyotes and black-tailed deer, terrestrial species that likely use the site as part of their home range. Impacts to Stream Habitat The creation of impervious surface within the Kersey III project site would likely cause an increase in stormwater flow volumes leaving the site, which could cause downstream channel and bank erosion within unnamed tributary 0043 and Bowman Creek (GeoEngineers 2004). Ifun-mitigated, this could result in adverse impacts to stream habitat such as loss of existing pool and riffle habitat, loss of stream bank vegetation, and loss of spawning areas. Stream habitat loss could result in a reduction in usage by cutthroat trout and Coho salmon, which currently use portions of Bowman Creek. Potential impacts to downstream habitat would be mitigated through design of on-site stormwater facilities to meet 50 percent of the peak flow rate of the 2-year storm event and match (100 percent) the peak flow rates for the 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year storm under existing conditions (DBM 2003). The restricted discharge rates would reduce the potential for downstream channel and bank erosion, and no significant adverse changes to the channel will be likely to occur (GeoEngineers 2004). 4.1.3 Impacts on Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Other Priority Species Development of the Kersey III site is not expected to affect endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species, as none have been documented on the site, and potential habitat is either absent or very limited. The USFWS states that bald eagles, a state and federal threatened species, may winter in the area. As noted above, the Kersey III site does not likely provide roosting habitat for this species. Even under current site conditions, bald eagles are more likely to use sites closer to larger, fish-bearing waters. Eagles that might currently use the site for perching would likely no longer use the property due to the proximity to human activity and disturbance. No bald eagles were observed on the property or in the area during our field visits. Bull trout and Puget Sound Chinook salmon, listed as federally threatened and state candidate species, are documented to be present within the White River; however, these species are not documented to occur within Bowman Creek (WDFW 2003a). Because no significant changes to the channel of tributary streams are expected from the proposed development (GeoEngineers 2004) and due to the distance upstream from the White Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 31 River of the Kersey III site, it is unlikely that these species would be affected by development of the Kersey III site. The loss or alteration of native forest on-site upon build-out under Alternative 700 would further reduce the amount of suitable habitat available on-site for pileated woodpeckers (a State candidate species). The upland forests contain widely scattered snags with foraging evidence by pileated woodpeckers. However, no nest sites have been found. Most snags observed on-site were too small to provide nesting habitat for pileated woodpeckers. As noted above, a pileated woodpecker nest was documented southeast of Bowman Lake, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the property. Some snags for pileated woodpeckers would be retained in the sensitive area tracts particularly within the stream buffers. Pileated woodpeckers would likely continue to forage within remaining forested portions of the site during or after development, but would have to do so over a larger range to compensate for the habitat loss. Development of this property would add incrementally to habitat loss over the long term for this species in the area. Ongoing urban and rural development the area would increase the potential that pileated woodpeckers eventually could be eliminated (for purposes of breeding) from the immediate vicinity. State Monitor species such as the osprey would likely be unaffected by the proposed development, as no nesting or foraging habitat has been documented on-site. Great blue herons, another Monitor species, could lose potential perching habitat due to the human disturbance around the remaining wetlands. Perching habitat would be retained in the sensitive areas tracts. As noted above the nearest known breeding colonies were located three and five miles from the Kersey III site (WDFW 2003b). Nesting habitat would be retained for green herons along the stream corridor; however, proximity to humans may discourage potential nesting activity. Green herons were not observed during our 2003 field surveys. As noted above, the tailed frog, a State monitor species, was identified in the "riparian areas" on the Kersey III site (DBM 2000b). The observation is likely a misidentification, as typical tailed frog habitat does not occur on-site. Streams, wetlands and buffers where other frogs would likely be found will be retained in sensitive areas tracts. However, Alternative 700 could potentially affect the hydrologic regime of these systems, which could affect frogs downstream. Game species that have been documented on-site include the black tailed deer. Alternative 700 would eliminate much of the forests habitat used by this species, although they may still use the habitat within the sensitive area tracts. Black-tailed deer could continue to use the powerline corridor to move on and off-site to contiguous habitats. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 32 4.2 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 481 Alternative 481 would result in low to medium density residential housing and encompass approximately 131 acres (77 percent of the site), including collector and internal roads, utilities, and stormwater tracts (Table 6). Public facilities include 7.6 (5 percent) of developed parks, as required by the City of Auburn. The residential development area in Alternative 481 is approximately 8 acres (4 percent) larger than under Alternative 700, and the developed parks are reduced by approximately 8 acres under Alternative 481 as compared to Alternative 700. Natural open space within the project sites would be retained primarily to encompass the wetlands, streams, buffers, and steep slopes. These areas would total about 31 acres of the site (about 18 percent), the same as under Alternative 700 (Table 6). The BPA right of way consists of approximately 11.1 acres (7 percent) of undeveloped but managed upland shrub habitat. 4.2.1 Impacts to Plant Communities Under this alternative, native forest would still be removed across the site, and habitat that would be retained within individual lots would be fragmented. However, the larger lot sizes under Alternative 481 have greater potential for retention of native vegetation within the lots than under the Alternative 700. Developed parks would be reduced by 8 acres under this Alternative, generally replaced by lots, resulting in largely the same impact to native vegetation as under Alternative 700. This alternative includes the same overall area retained in sensitive area as under the Alternative 700. Overall, impacts of this alternative on plant communities, including the wetlands, would be similar to those described for the previous alternative. The wetlands and streams would be provided with the same buffers. 4.2.2 Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Communities Development of the property under Alternative 481 would result in similar kinds of negative impacts to wildlife occupying the site as with the Alternative 700. Wildlife populations would be generally reduced, with reductions in the same kinds of species as for the Alternative 700. Many kinds of forest-dwelling birds, mammals, and reptiles and amphibians would be reduced in numbers and distribution. Species better adapted to urban environments would increase; however, the magnitude of reduction in wildlife populations could slightly be less than under the Alternative 700 because of the lower density of residential lots and the potential for a greater area of retained native vegetation within individual larger lots. This alternative includes essentially the same overall area contained in sensitive area tracts as under the Alternative 700. A similar network of habitat corridors (the powerline Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 33 and sensitive areas tracts) would be provided under this alternative, compared with Alternative 700. However, with potentially less clearing, grading, and lower human density, impacts to movement patterns of some wildlife species (particularly birds and small mammals) between habitats on-site and those off site could slightly be less than under Alternative 700. Alternative 481 would provide the same level of stormwater detention as proposed under Alternative 700. Thus, Alternative 481 is not likely to create significant adverse changes to the channel of downstream portions of unnamed tributary 0043 or to Bowman Creek, and therefore would not be likely to cause adverse impacts to aquatic communities present within these streams. 4.2.3 Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species As noted above, no federal or state endangered, threatened, or sensitive species were observed, or are known to occupy the Kersey III property. As with the Alternative 700, habitat for State Monitor or Candidate species such as the pileated woodpecker would be reduced, as compared to current conditions. However, with potentially less vegetation clearing under Alternative 481, more native forest habitat might be retained within individual lots, as compared to Alternative 700, leaving potentially more habitat for the pileated woodpecker and other species. 4.3 ALTERNATIVE -No ACTION The No Action Alternative would allow development under existing zoning regulations and the Comprehensive plan for the City of Auburn. The site is currently zoned R-l, allowing 8,000 square foot lots. This Alternative would allow for the subdivision of each of the individual parcels that make up the Kersey III project. Although the No Action Alternative would allow the development of the same number of building lots as under Alternative 481, physical limitations on the ability to provide utilities and road access would limit the number of lots that could be provided. The No Action Alternative assumes that the project site would be developed according to densities that would be based on the utilization of on-site wells and drain field systems. Therefore, the No Action Alternative will assume 5-acre minimum lot size for a possible yield of approximately 34 lots. Sensitive areas would continue to be protected in accordance with the City's sensitive area regulations. Each property would be developed individually, rather than under an overall coordinated site plan. Thus, the amount or configuration of retained open space cannot be determined, except that the primary wetland, stream, and other sensitive areas and their buffers would generally be protected as required under City regulations, and would likely be similar to the general configuration under Alternative 481 and Alternative 700. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 34 4.3.1 Impacts to Plant Communities This rural development scenario would, over time, likely eliminate much of the existing relatively mature coniferous and mixed closed-canopy forest. The amount of habitat cleared and converted to residential lots would depend on how individual landowners manage each parcel. Clearing on individual lots could range from the minimum required to clear a house pad and driveway, to clearing of most of the parcel. Far fewer buildings and less impervious surface would be constructed on-site. Undeveloped portions of each lot may be cleared and managed as lawns or left unmanaged, retaining reltively more unvegetated area than either of the other two alternatives. It is assumed that the primary native habitats retained would be the steep slopes, streams, wetlands and their associated buffers as with other alternatives. Thus, the amount of existing native habitat lost may be somewhat less than the other alternatives, but could vary greatly, depending on management of the individual parcels. Hydrologic changes in the on-site wetlands would be ultimately related to the amount of impervious surfaces created in the areas that are developed around the wetlands, and how the runoff from these areas is managed. Without an overall stormwater management plan, it is difficult to predict how on-site wetlands may be impacted. Impacts to wetlands would likely to vary from wetland to wetland, depending on volumes and timing of water that may be routed to the wetlands. 4.3.2 Impacts to Animal Communities Reduction in local populations of forest-dwelling wildlife under this alternative could be less than the other alternatives if less total area is cleared. Effects on wildlife populations from habitat fragmentation and increases in species adapted to rural residential environments, including domestic pets and other invasive species, would still occur over most of the property. The shift in wildlife species composition would favor species adapted to a wide range of rural residential areas interspersed with native habitats. As under the Alternative 481 and Alternative 700, species requiring or inhabiting primarily larger blocks of native forest would be adversely affected, and some could be eliminated from the site. Alternatively, if more native habitat is retained, a greater number of movement corridors could exist on-site, acting as a throughway to contiguous off-site habitats. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 35 5.0 MITIGATION Mitigation has been defined by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) (WAC 197- 11-768; cf. Cooper 1987), and more recently in a Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Memorandum 1989). In order of desirability, mitigation may include: 1. Avoidance - avoiding impacts by not taking action or parts of an action; 2. Minimization - minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3. Compensatory Mitigation - which may involve: a) repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; b) replacing or creating substitute resources or environments; The development alternatives incorporate one or more mitigating measures that would avoid or reduce impacts to wetlands on-site. 5.1 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED AND PROPOSED MITIGATION The City of Auburn (1997) ordinances require that the development of the site under any of the alternatives avoid or minimize impacts to the regulated sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, and steep slopes), and to attempt to limit impacts to these native habitats by retaining them within open space tracts that include native vegetation buffers. 5.1.1 Avoidance of impacts As noted above, direct impacts to wetlands and streams would be avoided under the proposed development alternatives. Buffers that meet or exceed the recommended minimum buffer of 50 feet for wetlands and streams would be established. Because of the configuration of wetlands and proximity of some steep slope areas, the native forest buffers provided in open space tracts encompassing the wetlands and stream would greatly exceed recommended minimum wetland buffer widths in some areas. Under the development alternatives, open space tracts of native forest would also encompass identified steep slopes. These would generally be contiguous with retained wetlands, streams, and buffers, as well as the BP A corridor, to form a complex of native habitats for wildlife that is also contiguous with native forest habitat off-site to the north, east, and south. These areas would provide nesting, feeding, and resting areas for a variety of wildlife species, as well as avenues of movement to off-site habitats. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 36 5.1.2 Minimization of Impacts Hydrologic changes to wetland have the potential to affect vegetation communities and wildlife use of these habitats. Hydrologic impacts to Wetlands A, B, C, D, and 1 will be minimized by infiltration of rooftops and other treated runoff. The stormwater management system would be designed such that volume of water entering the wetlands during the spring and early summer would remain within 10 percent of the existing conditions, thus minimizing impacts to the plant communities in the wetlands. Measurements of hydrologic conditions in the wetlands after development would provide information necessary to determine if additional mitigation would be feasible and if it is necessary to adequately protect wetland hydrology. Under the development alternatives, the open space tracts, including the BP A easement, remain contiguous with forested areas to the north, east, and south, which would allow species to pass from east to west and north to south through native habitat The site development plans would include provisions to discourage the use of pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides so as minimize impacts on native wildlife and vegetation, as well as water quality of downstream receiving waters. The site development plans would include provisions to minimize impervious surface coverage by leaving as much natural vegetation as feasible within development areas, or by use of vegetated swales or filter strips, where feasible. Together with the stormwater management system, this will help keep excess stormwater flow to a minimum and help prevent erosion and sediment deposition in downstream water courses, thus protecting their habitat functions. 5.2 OTHER POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES Landscaping in common areas and residential lots could utilize native plant species. Landscaping with native plant species, where feasible, especially trees and shrubs that provide ground cover for nesting birds, cover for small mammals, and feeding sites (such as where landscaped areas abut native growth areas), would help increase habitat values of otherwise altered landscapes. In addition, landscape and irrigation design concepts could include encouraging the use of water-conserving, low-volume irrigation, and discouraging the use of exotic ornamental plantings. Natural open space on the Kersey III site should include retention of snags or other defective live trees, in addition to those within sensitive areas, where feasible and in consideration of safety concerns, to provide potential habitat for pileated woodpeckers, Vaux's swifts, and other cavity nesters. Downed logs and other woody debris and forest duff should be retained in uncleared portions of the Kersey III site, where feasible, given safety or logistical considerations, to retain potential habitat for amphibians. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 37 Additional stands of native forest habitat (e.g., 50 to 100 feet wide) could be provided in the proposed park tract alongside the BP A corridor to provide some forested cover for animal movements to off-site habitats to the south; in addition, open space tracts encompassing steep slope areas in the western part of the site could be extended to the south boundary to connect with existing forested stands off site to the south. See Figure 6. The roads that are proposed across areas of native forest habitat (including the BP A corridor) could include bottomless (e.g., arch) culverts, where feasible, to allow passage of small, ground-dwelling animals. See Figure 6. Interpretive or educational materials could be developed or made available in order to foster an understanding and appreciation of the primary natural features of the property (e.g., functioning of wetlands and streams, stormwater management to minimize impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat) and vicinity by future residents and visitors. Such an appreciation can help to limit unnecessary disturbance or destruction of native vegetation or wildlife. Materials could include signs or materials available from public agencies or local conservation groups. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 38 6.0 SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMP ACTS Development of the site under any of the alternatives discussed above would result in the following unavoidable adverse impacts: . Loss of much of the existing native vegetation and soils and replacement by urban areas that include impervious surfaces. . Retained native habitats would be fragmented and/or isolated from other native habitat areas, thus reducing the value to wildlife. . A substantial reduction in the local populations of most native wildlife species on the site over time due to a loss of native forest habitat, and a shift in species composition to favor species more adapted to residential and urban areas. Many of the individual animals that are displaced from the site to adjacent off-site habitats would likely perish. . Some species of wildlife (e.g., large mammals that require large blocks of habitat) would likely be eliminated from the site. . An increase in the disturbance of the patches of native habitats retained on-site as a result of increased human activity. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 39 7.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of The City of Auburn and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from The City of Auburn. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 40 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Adams, L., L. Dove, and T. Franklin. 1985. Mallard pair and brood use of urban stormwater-control impoundments. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 46-51. Anderson, 1., E. Hardy, 1. Roach, and R. Witmer. 1976. A landuse and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. 28 pp. Apex Engineering. 2003. Kersey III, Average Monthly Volume Calculations. Report dated June 27,2003. Auburn, City of. 1997. Chapter 9 of Comprehensive Plan. Received by Raedeke Associates, Inc. on December 18, 1998. Beissinger, S. and D. Osborne. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84:75-83. Bollinger, E., and E. Linder. 1994. Reproductive success of neotropical migrants in a fragmented Illinois forest. Wilson Bulletin 106(1): 46-54. Brown, R. (tech. ed.). 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. Publ. No. R6-F&WL--192-1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland. 332 pp. Brown, H., R. Bury, D. Darda, L. Diller, C. Peterson, and R. Storm. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. R. Storm and W. Leonard, coord. eds. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 176 pp. Busby, P., T. Wainwright, G. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R. Waples, F. Waknitz, and I. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 261 pp. Case, T. 1996. Global patterns in the establishment and distribution of exotic birds. Biological Conservation 78: 69-96. Clergeau, P., L. Savard, G. Mennechez, and G. Falardeau. 1998. Bird abundance and diversity along an urban-rural gradient: a comparative study between two cities on different continents. Condor 100: 413-425. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 41 Cooper,1. 1987. An overview of estuarine habitat mitigation projects in Washington State. Northwest Environmental Journal 3(1): 112-127. Corkran, C., and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia, a field identification guide. Lone Pine Publishing. 175 pp. Cowardin L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1992. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Publication. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. Craig, S. 1997. Habitat conditions affecting bull trout spawning areas within the Yakima River Basin, Washington. Central Washington University. Ellensburg, Washington. Master's Thesis. 74 pp. Cross, S. 1986. Bats. Pages 497 -517 in A. Cooperrider, R. Boyd, and H. Stuart, eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. DBM Consulting Engineers. 2000a. Wetland Delineation Functional Values Assessment and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the Kersey Three Project. August 21,2000. DBM Consulting Engineers 2000b. Wildlife and habitat evaluation stream assessment development impacts and proposed mitigation goals for the Kersey Three project. August 21,2000. DBM Consulting Engineers. 2003. Kersey III stormwater calculations, provided to the City of Auburn on February 20, 2003. DBM Consulting Engineers. 2004a. Alternative 481 Site Plan for the Kersey III, Auburn, W A, drawings dated February 25, 2004. DBM Consulting Engineers. 2004b. Alternative 700 Site Plan for the Kersey III, Auburn, W A, drawings dated February 25, 2004. DBM Consulting Engineers. 2004c. Preliminary Wetland Hydration Plan for the Kersey III, Auburn, W A, drawings dated February 25,2004. Donovan, T., F. Thompson, III, 1. Faaborg, and 1. Probst. 1995. Reproductive success of migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology 9: 1380-1395. Dowd, C. 1992. Effect of development on bird species composition of two urban forested wetlands in Staten Island, New York. 1. Field Ornithology 63(4): 455- 461. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 42 Dvornich, K.., K. McAllister, and K. Aubry, 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of Washington State: Location data and predicted distributions. Volume 2 In Washington State Gap Analysis-Final Report (K. Cassidy, C. Grue, M. Smith, and K. Dvornich eds.). Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 146 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Federal Register. 1995. 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened species: Proposed threatened status for three contiguous ESU's of Coho salmon ranging from Oregon through central California. Vol. 60, Number 142. pp. 38011-38030. US. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. July 25, 1995.. Federal Register. 1999a. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for bull trout in the coterminous United States. Vol. 64, Number 210. pp. 58910-58933. US. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. November 1, 1999. Federal Register. 1999b. Endangered and threatened species: Threatened status for three evolutionary significant units (ESU' s) in Washington and Oregon and endangered status for on spring Chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Vol. 64, Number 56. pp. 14308-15328. US. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. March 24, 1999. Franklin, 1., and C. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8. 417 pp. Friesen, L., P. Eagles, and R. Mackay. 1995. Effects of residential development on Neotropical migrant songbirds. Conservation Biology 9: 1408-1414. GeoEngineers. 2004. Geologic, Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Kersey III Subdivision, Auburn, Washington. Report dated February 2004. Guenther, K., and T. Kucera. 1978. Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest: Occurrence by habitat, BLM district, and national forest. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 128 pp. Harris, L. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeographic theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. 210 pp. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 43 Hennings, L., and W. Edge. 2003. Riparian bird community structure in Portland, Oregon: habitat, urbanization, and spatial scale patterns. Condor 105: 288-302. Herkert, J. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4(3): 461-471. Hickman, J. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. of Cal. Press, 1400 pp. Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 1981. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp. Hunn, E. 1982. Birding in Seattle and King County. Seattle Audubon Society, Trailside Series. 160 pp. Johnson, D. and T. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. 736 pp. Johnson, 0., T. Flagg, D. Maynard, G. Milner, and F. Waknitz. 1991. Status review for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon. US. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, W A. 95 pp. Johnson, R. and K Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial mammals of Washington State: Location data and predicted distributions. Volume 3 In Washington State Gap Analysis- Final Report (KM. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and KM. Dvornich eds.). Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 304 pp. Jones, K 1986. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 267-290 in Cooperrider, A., R. Boyd, and H. Stuart. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. US. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Jones, L., and M. Raphael. 1993. Inexpensive camera systems for detecting martens, fishers, and other animals: guidelines for use and standardization. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-306. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 22 pp. J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 2000. Wildlife habitat study of the Michael Diede Property. Prepared for Lakeridge Development, Inc. April 3, 2000 King County. 1981. Wetland Plants of King County and the Puget Sound Lowland. King County Planning Division, Seattle, Washington. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 44 King County. 1987. Wildlife habitat profile. King County Open Space Program. Parks, Planning, and Resource Development, Seattle, Washington. 111 pp. Leonard, W., H. Brown, L. Jones, K McAllister, and R. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 168 pp. Levenson, J. 1981. Woodlots as biogeographic islands in southeastern Wisconsin. In: Burgess, R.L., and D.M. Sharpe, eds. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. Lindzey, F., and E. Meslow. 1977. Home range and habitat use by black bears in southwestern Washington. J. Wildlife Management 41: 413-425. Lundquist, R., and J. Mariani. 1991. Nesting habitat and abundance of snag-dependent birds in the Southern Washington Cascade range. Pages 221-240 In: Wildlife and vegetation of unman aged Douglas-fir Forests. L.F. Ruggiero, KB. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff (tech. coords.). USDA Forest Service PNW Res. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-285. 533 pp. Manuwal, D. 1991. Spring bird communities in the southern Washington Cascade Range. Pages 161-174 in: L. Ruggiero, K Aubry, A. Carey, and M. Huff, tech. coords. Wildlife and Vegetation of Unman aged Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR 285. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Martin, T., and D. Finch. 1995. Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory birds, a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford University Press, New York. Martin-Yanny, E. 1992. The impacts of urbanization on wetland bird communities. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 109 pp. Marzluff, J., F. Gehlbach, D. Manuwal. 1998. Urban environments: influences on avifauna and challenges for the avian conservationist. Pp. 283-299 In J.M. Marzluff and R. Sallabanks (eds.). Avian conservation: research and management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. McPhail, J., and C. McMurry. 1979. The early life history and ecology of Dolly-Varden in the Upper Arrow Lakes. A report submitted to the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and Kootenay Region Fish and Wildlife Branch, Helena Montana. Memorandum. 1989. Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 B 1 Guidelines. Effective 7 November 1989. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 45 Myers, 1., R. Kope, G. Bryant, D. Teel, L. Lierheimer, T. Wainwright, W. Grant, F. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. Lindley, and R. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp. Mills, G., 1. Dunning, Jr., and 1. Bates. 1991. The relationship between breeding bird density and vegetation volume. Wilson Bulletin 103: 468-479. Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 547 pp. Neitro, W., V. Binkley, S. Cline, R. Mannan, B. Marcot, D.Taylor, and F. Wagner. Snags (wildlife trees). Pages 129-169 In Brown, E. (ed.). 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forest of western Oregon and Washington. Pub. No. R6-F&WL--192-1985. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 332 pp. Noss, R. 1987. Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conservati on Biology 1: 159-164. Noss, R., and L. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Management 10:299-309. Nussbaum, R., E. Brodie, Jr., and R. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. The University ofIdaho Press, Moscow, Idaho. 332 pp. Ohm art, R., and B. Anderson. 1986. Riparian habitat. Pages 169-199 in A. Cooperrider, R. Boyd, and H. Stuart, editors. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Penland, S. 1984. Avian responses to a gradient of urbanization in Seattle, Washington. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 407 pp. Poelker, R., and H. Hartwell. 1973. Black bear of Washington. Washington State Game Department BioI. Bull. No. 18. 180 pp. Pojar, 1., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests, B.C. Forest Service, Lone Pine Publishers, Redmond, Washington. Quigley, T., and S. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 46 Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 1,057 - 1,713 pp. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004. Wetland assessment of the Kersey III Property, Auburn, Washington. Draft EIS. May 17,2004 report to the City of Auburn, Washington. Richter, K. 1997. Criteria for the restoration and creation of wetland habitats oflentic- breeding amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Pages 72-92 In MacDonald, K.B., and F. Weinman (eds.). Wetland and riparian restoration: taking a broader view. Contributed papers and selected abstracts. Society of Ecological Restoration International Conference, September 14-16, 1995, University of Washington, Seattle. Published by US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. Richter, K., and E. Ostergaard. 1999. King County wetland-breeding amphibian monitoring program: 1993-1997 Summary Report. King County Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. 42 pp. Rieman, Bruce E., 1. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout. In: US. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report INT-302. 43 pp. Robbins, C. 1979. Effect of forest fragmentation on bird populations. Pages 198-213 in USDA, Forest Service. Management of north central and northeastern forests for nongame birds. Workshop Proceedings, US. Dept. Agric. Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-51. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. Rodrick, E., and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat Management Divisions, Olympia, Washington. Scott, v., K. Evans, D. Patton, and C. Stone. 1977. Cavity-nesting birds of North American forests. US. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 511, Washington, DC. Sibley, D. 2003. The Sibley guide to the birds of western North America. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, New York. 472pp. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 47 Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1(1):63-71. Smith, M., P. Mattocks, and K. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding Birds of Washington State Location Data and Predicted Distributions. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 538 pp. Stinson, D., J. Watson and K. McAllister. 2001. Washington State Status Report for the Bald Eagle. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. Olympia. 92pp. Thomas, J., R. deGraff, and J. Mawson. 1974. A technique for evaluating bird habitat. pp. 159-162 In Noyes, J.H., and D.R. Prouglbke (eds.). Wildlife in an urbanizing environment. Univ. Mass., Boston. 182 pp. Thomas, J., and J. Verner. 1986. Forests. Pages 73-91 in A. Cooperrider, R. Boyd, and H. Stuart, eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. US. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Tilghman, N. 1987. Characteristics of urban woodlands affecting breeding bird diversity and abundance. Landscape and Urban Planning 14 :481-495. US. fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. United States Fish and Wildlife Service species list request letter for TI9N, R03E, S12. FWS REF: 1-3-01-TA-1435. May 31, 2001. US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS) listings by State and Territory as of 08/29/2002: Washington. http://ecos.fws.gov/servlet/TESSWebpageUsaLists?state=WA. Vale, T. and G. Vale. 1976. Suburban bird populations in west-central California. Journal of Biogeography 3:157-165. Wahl, T., and D. Paulson. 1994. A guide to bird finding in Washington. 1991 edition, revised 1994. T. Wahl, Bellingham, Washington. 139 pp. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 1999. Priority habitats and species list. Habitat Program. July 1999, Olympia, Washington. 32 pp. http:www.wa. gov /wdfw /hab/phsli st. htm. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2003a. Habitats and Species Map, Auburn Quadrangle and accompanying data. May 23, 2003. Habitat Program, Olympia, Washington. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 48 Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2003b. Habitats and Species Map, Sumner Quadrangle and accompanying data. February 21, 2003. Habitat Program, Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Letter from WDNR in response to a request for search of the Washington Natural Heritage Program database for priority plant species for the Kersey III site. May 12,2003. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Forest practice resource map, stream typing. April 24, 2001 Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1981. An illustrated guide to the endangered, threatened and sensitive vascular plants of Washington. Olympia, Washington. 334 pp. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants of Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants of Washington -- with working lists ofrare non-vascular plants. Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 62 pp. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Field Guide to Selected Rare Vascular Plants of Washington. http://www.wa. gov/ dnr/htdocs/fr/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fsfgcntv .htm. Last updated March 2002. Williams, R., R. Laramie, and 1. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fisheries: Olympia, W A. 704 pp. Wydiski, R. and R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fisheries of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle, W A. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 FIGURES AND TABLES --.., \ I ~ ' ~ '---- CANADA \ "\ '\. -\ I, --' -- - - -=....:.:-..--------- - - --- l\ ~'" " \_" UNITED 5T A TES " ~ ("-- '-,<,,, .~) , ~ . \ '-,,'. \ ( '\ ~ \. l.-'_, ~) ~~.. ~"~ f. '\, '--",---\ S '\ ~')"~l I -------., - '. I '_', .. r' , ',--, I \. J~ I \ l'l '\ ~J \.~'i'---"~ \ i Bellingham \ \ ....J Sail ..Juan Co ....,--- ,; ,; \ F') \ ~Vhatcom CV, ~~I \ "--~-- SA. {;yil Co, - - \ ( ( 9~ I ) \.-\~ ./ v 1 ~ ) Skagit Co. - -snoiwmish Co. - - - ~ Cla/I.9m Co. .,..--! - ~r;f)n Co. Snohomish Co. - King Co. Jefferson Cu. 'Q" /- Mason 6). '? '.r, I II I vi SI I <: <1: j <>:l .r-1 it ~ I UJ, l ~ ~I ai I VI NORTH ~ I C; I Q c" a I a '---T- a (\I ... ri~lIre I. R' '-'.11'1 IW'!' \Ill)\\irll' {'enl'r~li localioil of lhe pwjl>CL l'~ Il.,) ~~_ -. - -~, t- - I ' -- ,- ~ 30 ,.,.,. ,',. ?~ ,{ . .' I -- k!".../~~ r,<V,!:' - Y _, /.,~ ,~ .!o.;;. ::- ,l-Ah.J..' ~-~:t;::~.~( ..... i-;'~~ ~-- 'e ,_' .r)rl~':HN"_:.-:.... '-!-, -,:.- ~ - '~ &',' ..c-,.. ~ .. - I - . _ _ --;- _.r- .' I ^- L, ~ i :;,:}~".,2~'; ~,- . _~ - -::1",1> -. -' h /1 "c .' . '~ I , .4- , " ;')::0'; ~ \ AUBURN . /,( fi)ii%;f:'-_c. \ If' .of "'APJiI, - -- --- ~-~---~ -"! ~- - \'~:" - - ---- ~ - I' ~ \"'- ....'f... '-c' 1..-_.... ..l)i.~"-- .' '-I ,: \ -c.',,,,,,, _ SITE \ 't,;i,,'::. . }] '\i ' - ~.... ," ,P' \: ....,,\- .t-: ~. -~' ,.' -''':-;-.. -- ,'- y- '- ~ ... " I:. r ..::: - t'-'"I' , ,,'. .:.._ ~~ ;,' ~'. . _" .. =. ~- ..;>, 32 -0 '_ ~ ~- ==- -, ...-.",. - -" - ,,-,.--'n A~'J ~. ,- <c' -.- . .~ -F-~---:',,~:-fr;,~,,~~;i -- ; ~ ~ . -- ~'- >:,:. :;~- <_ (F:~~;'::_~ ~ ,~- ~'. AI-~~ - ~. ;c, _ _, r- ,__ < _ . ~ I .' ~ .~..~~..,'~ u-~'L"'.;, ;"';,;'-:'/:, ~"~;;;~~: ~ .. __-':::,~~'t~ __,_~~~_ t~ -,' . -~ -:.:..: ~~ -- :;- . .:..- ,=- - --- ~ . .~ ' " -, - . .;::.-"- ---- ... -=,.~--- ...--- - ... ~:-: ,-- - ~.t' - -.-"> -< .. Q C J' -- ~ -,0', ' ~. PIERCE --,.. -, ~ ',1-'..' _ _ _ .' ' ;- .- ..'. ~" ,c .', ::': i b' . ,. ~~"rOUNTY.' u < . ~. -~" -- ".,~" '/ "<-,~ Q (" ',' ~ _, ___!_ ~;~, _ __ _ _ 7\ ____ i. ~ _ '" 0 ~ :... <1l , ", ~ ~ _. ~ """' ./'f~F" :;:_ -< :::: 8 I ~ ,;'. '_ -- _ Oco" _ , .,..... 1-"' :'" __.::.s-_" ; ~SUMN i(~ ..... - '.... ...r: I r" i ' . , FIgure .::::. ViCInity 1Ti2.p for the sUJdy area. "Reproduc:ed with pefill1SSJOn granLcD by Thomas Bros. !\1aps. Thi., map is copyrighi.ed by' 'fhonl<is Bros. tvLlps, and It is unlawful to copy or reproduce dIi ur any pan: thereOf. '^ hethcr for fK'r:scmal use or resale, wit~l(lllt pcnnissipn." ..., z - - >< - >< r- - r- L..I r- L..I en :J :J>- .... w r::a C VI U W _0 W 0 W 0 ene> enw enw C Can C LL W <('" rJ) ..., I-:!: C ... C ... :JO:: :J> :J> en :J w'" rJ) W 0. wo. <c -N w Z <c :r:~ o !:!2r::a ...JW ...J<c ...J<c 0 O. ~ 0:: 0:: f-<Xl <( 0:: >< C <c 0. <co. <c> <cw <cw 0:: w wan 0 :I: a:,), ll. W_ o::~ o::~ ll.W ll....J ll....J e> C C=. :!: 0 en 0'" w ZLD :::,::: ;;;- w >1 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ '" W ~: '.' ~ A ~ U) 0 ['-..~ <( ~ LD 0:::: I .'. I \ W U) LL ~'O'O EuU) D.. D.. D.. C)LLLL LL LL lVI1N3C1S3~ A1ISN30 MOl I ------------------------ I I I I 4. I , ~~ I I I I t-/ , , I I 12 , I ~ I I , , I I I I I I I I I , I , , I ~---1----------- I , I , , I r------ "" " ----- I I I I I I 3: 0 ...J IIi ~ we we a.. C ~ 2tS ""') ~ co.. co.. w w w~ (j) 0_ we.. we.. w <C I;;; -<( 0::: >< <C<c <C<c I- 0::: ~ I a.. w 0:::- 0:::- en o~ w ZLD :::,::: I ~ w >- ~. 41 ^ .,~'~, :::: ~ 8 w . . . 1\ ['-.. ~ -<( ~ . I , LD 0:::: I. I \ I,' " " ,,~~I lVI1N3C1S3~ A1ISN30 MOl /7/1" ~ 1--------------------------------- "~ -- ~ .......... ~ ~ .......... : tJ; ) ;i{0?~d~:; jTWtd:i0Jiiti ! ! ~ ~ ~y~/~j ~#~;~' i~'~~~r/I ! ! ~~ 'E~~!""'" .:;t.~>~<:/74;::Y,~ I> I ~f.. / il; /.... ~ x~)f}f:Z". ........ !\;:::: /; ,.y \. ,.,.....; ,/ ~ '. ! .',. :""J ... ~ 'c ... .../\ i j I I ~ ,/ / '),i " " , I I ~:~ It . ,< ....,~~/~;/..... ,Ii,~! + ! ! ~);/ II ~.' $/7/ -~: : ' · ! .!h7~' 0 I I /117/ . '. ' ;- ~,' ",%, , Vm I I /~. " .' .' .~ \./70(1 ,mn I ~~:/!!!I/// 1/ ' ;, .' .~.... '~!~7 i\! (Vf1~ ,/, / ,1' II :;; 'i/; , ,..."" ~'" ")//0//! ^ . / i// ~ ,..-,-: /(( . ./ i Vi/f7(V(7: r' "&~.\,\'/,.//...... I /~ wf/ 'r'/J' (~' /,1 ,... I : 0/1, I( 1<.( ~ ~ ~ ~~ \, Vii i ). f.-- '/ I : I( ./" \ ~ ',' JI..1. '::di~\-"', ./ / -------'I i0' '\;:' ..,'. .~.( o : ". '~,~ci~l<<<:~l!f!l: r, " -c I I I'V''YftZ,,/; ",nJ o Oi~~.;.:<<~~'~~1 . . V II, !I,>/'/"" '% : l Ij' 'i/) JII ",'1/1,,:, \\'. : I 'I \' -!--,i -,- I :J'" I / ...:< \.',. \ \:: I : : " \ ,;~ IiI -\'. . \ \ : l" ,I, , w../ ! I . /~! tv~<~\\~~\ i ~~1\:~\ i~'~ . ~ T~~, ,j ~ r----------:'}"~';~C'~~~ · .\... I \/\ \ \'K\ ~ \ \ ',f:\~'~n ! n\t\ i i /",/! ~ : /;/' ~\ ~~ W~ i~'SS :+n nm:' "'~l ~ I , / / ' I f :mmm 1 '. nn\ mn! i I J i i \'" W : /;/ ~ ' ~...n...~ j'nnmnn:., ,_ y.., v 0::: I ,; /' . \ \ '~'uml-i j mnjV~! il /' i/ Y/J~ >- :,/',/ ~ ~~ '/i2n ,'. I(~ ~ty~y ~ .A ' :---; n' V;J 1!lV:" v'., ", Z /. . ~~~ . ;~~ ~\\\\~ :r"!~r~~~r: ditt2t ~ ~l~rjt!~~??~~ ~ .~~~\ ;\~;\~~ :\f'\~~~~~~rf~tJ~-4~\: g "r:~d~1[]~1~~\\\\~\""R1 \\\ \;\\~\\\~ \~~~ ~~~1jt~~\li c ~...- ~ )({ ~~~ \\\ ,~~ ~~ ~ CZtf: ~,. I~ \~.'.. '~~~~, ~\ \\/'~; :.' . ~;'" . i. :~,\j ;__ ~ ~ . '~Lf"-' =-?( ~. ,~, - ~~~.. "':" ''-1.'\'.\1\\1' \ \ '~~ , .~. )Ji\m en '.' /// ',,~ .'. ' .-, ,~\\.\: .... :' ,\ '/; n ~ ~ '\,\'. '\' W 11\ V ''..-,' ..... '~, __ __~ ". (~,,\ tl i ::\\ \\\. ~ n,\ Inn" 0::: ..... . . . i~ U/ .. ,y' ~ . . '~" d \\\\<\ . - " m~ ' :m n ~ ,;~,~~,~j~~, \ ...... I!...::<,\i~~~~ -ii' ~ - \~~\~,S.,i.:., \~J~\nn~ j~En. C ...... ~ ~ l.'.,7/\!'/:=- -=--~ 0'- '/' ~R~~f~Q"" ; ,~\10-" --" 11\ r~"l' l ~ ~ :--yX~. - ..~ \ ~'--....~~ "~, .\:\~~' :i ': 'R I\\.\~' 'Kn\m'J' nm" W '-- ~~ ~~, : .. : ~ . \ "~--: '~].'. :'. I\i\' ,n.. [nn. a.. ~~~ '~~"~~-Yi ~ ..",'~. \ J; ;\~:.~~,..\i~ ,~mm'l~nn o ~~ ~ <?_, V~. ,', //Js ~ <,'- ~"-; .nn"hi' m uj ~ '7, .' I,i ~A--W-Ja~~\. '-'~-:/:#/.4~' ~~~~( \ ~ ,~,I~~:" > ~ . / \ Yf,,);,'W~..' : ~-~ IAiR,\.',;;:'''', 1~ ~----....:~,~ IIi ~ we we a.. C ~ 2tS ""') ~ co.. co.. w w w~ (j) 0_ we.. we.. w <C I;;; -<( 0::: >< <C<c <C<c I- 0::: ~ I a.. w 0:::- 0:::- en o~ w ZLD :::,::: ~ w >- I ~. 41 ^ .,~'~, :::: ~ 8 w . . . 1\ ['-.. ~ -<( ~ . I , LD 0:::: I. I \ I,' " " ,,~~I lVI1N3C1S3~ A1ISN30 MOl !-In_n_n_n_n_n_n_n_n_n_ #I r / i~jJ:j;-::(F>/ ./ ! : ~ ~Ii;}~ fl(J~I~~?~" -,Z~ ;/j I I ~~ ';:=; ,'. \ l: J I I / / / ~ /,. i:t:], I' I' t- / 1//1. /,'~ _ , r"'S"\, ~ ~:!:J " .~., ~~ I I ~ I "" /, \ I I '____ I I .& '1i- '/, .;7, .~, '". , ' Iii '__n ~- ~ " 1./ I I ~iJ "'1 /j',--: ,.i/;' 0~ , .----'j , " ~' ~/ 7/1 'I '" $'/#' .~~' , ,I ' ~'\V*' rz~ , , /, ~, " I] J ~ (/ ,-/ , I I ./Jtf7/,' ','ff/', 1 , . '. ~_ /,/7/ ~ , _n_ I ! 15~/!!!///' ~ "+ / !~/. .. /> :~' ~r~~~' : ':~~~0(-- (n_-f I /-; M ,,, ~' .. ~t t fA ~ ' .Jl IX:: ~ ( \ / /" ,~/ I I I I I I ~ ------ ,,/) I I I I I ( ~ I , ~I<"( I,.,,' \y I 1 'II: /' ~ " " ...." :,~ .'7., / I : 1\ , ' ", '!A " - , '~j::" 4,.'= --i' ~ \, ,1, f/ ' ,.,' '. - - -f.-) . ~ " : ! ... .~'€/~<~.. / i /V7Y)0/;V'. / ifl,yml I \J \if\\'W\'(: m... : w(b1//i / : . \1 fnL_n_n_n \"( 0))))J;!IJj;f~I\3~~'c,ul'JL~7:(.~--\' \~'-! : / J Jill' 'i/) IV! _ i .i ,r; . ,\', i1--+'~;+::: i--:-- I \ ,/~ / ( , '( / Ai ,J. ~ 'l ' ' : ~ \ v 1-1 ' i : ~__n I: \ /I~I if- - ~,I~' _'_nnJI~~ \~. \ ~\-; . (!'II~' "1\- -\T~\J):n.-i ....I I _n_ ~~' V.:\-Ic'~, \{ A\ \~u_ I ' . <C I '/ T : ~ \ ',~ I , I - I ____ I I I, ____ ~ +__ __I r - I-- ~__________ / 0 ....... d~ \ ~ r- -\-i\\-3+'-\- -, ~ 111_ 1\- ,\ )/ i z I /" ".~"~ ~~~ ~I- I-~ I- " \i\\~~\ ' 1\\_ -.' r\-\-. I : . w I "" I" ,~n_ C II "/;" / i ,--' ',- - - en : "/;;/ ~ ~\\ ~~. ~~'l-n'J "-U-i :!/)I-); 0__:~,~~n;+u.y ~ I " " / -) ) 1\ ~ "I ' ! r- 1((;- ., , i/-~ ~- ,-'- - V """/ CI>.\ ,---11: '/! : , : J :/ >- I "/ ' I, ,( "'/' ~v I- /.;x. . f~ . ~ S,\ ~ \,~<I~/~~~t;q~"-I;J"~~r:{1(/?f:~j ~ , \~~ ~ \ \\\\~\\ \' -J V/ ,~/\~ j !E/~ ~_ u. ~ co ~\ \ \ \ \ ~ ,/ .... / ,\\\ ~. --. r;;;-\--" . ~ I!-! 0 . ~\tl \ \ \ \ \ ' , )\I"i. '\. ~r=or ~_~ ....I , CI> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~\'o \,"' ~.' "", : ~~: 1 ~ : ~~ ~\ )~; ~~ \\\\\ \"'\1+ ~ '\(".~' \, ,~~: ~ · ~ ~ \ \\\ \\\ . ~ '. . -- ' ! ~;c "~ . ~~,,~. ,'~ X\ "~~~~~'.~'- ~~:~1'~--"'1 1: .. . . ~~~, ~ ,'; \ ~"" fit-l-- , , c J\~~""..~~;;/t~"~'- .<~'~~\~ \\\~*,~ .~., ,:~ ~~/~,. ~ IJI . . y' :x ~. ,~, " 'o' < '-:_, \ \ 1\' >>'\1 ~ ,~ . )JA ,^ . . ,~." - ",\; . . I' -.' ., '\ _ v, v. ". . " ,~'\ .. I ~ I' I' --.. W l~, ''-.-.tI ..... '~, ~_ --~'" . o. (~ ,\1 I: / \ \ / I ! ~ v( . . [-i U/ .. '</ ~ .' \ . ~ \: I :./ - I I \ ,'~ -- --1_ _-..I I_ V" ~.. c=-: ~~ ---," IJ'0"\... "-"" ----..:... \', --', . -, '~ ,--\- . ~ \ ' I' ~ c ~C'j ,~ ,_ - " , ~,-",,~lo..\ '" ,-, 'Y' J~.\'~' W '; \i! ~/~ \ \ \ l- ,,--.... ~--..... \\ I I I \ \ \ \ \ \- - - -, __ ~ \ ---/ \ _"1 \_. .... . I I \ , \ . a.. ~~~ ::i::::;:::::)L/~ y~' '. "",__,' ~ '.'-- ___ I ~ - ~ -<- z::='l ~~-~ I 1- ,~, \ /t ~~~\:;(,:! ___ ~ !j;'{:&~~.3:'~~~*".'.. ...... \.~ti0'~~'" ::~j~ . it..;i~. ~~~~ > ~~~'" J "'->.,\?:'~. .' ,"'l ~ \u,\:",^,.',0,-r~ .;,.'*~ ,~ ...J - "'" we we ~ z- o V) u W - ""') I- 0'" 0'" ~ w3: w -<C '" Ul 3: w'" Ul o ~ wc.. wc.. I- 1-0::: <C :r:: ~ -<C 0::: >< <C c.. <C c.. <C 0 0 0::: r- OJ ...J o:::~ o:::~ Z Il.LL fr::J, <( 11. W 0'" W ZLD y:: W I- ; ~~ AIX <0 0 ~ 0 z >- ~ '" w W W r---~ -<C I- ~ LD 0:::: 0 a. lVll.N3C1S3}J Al.ISN3C MOl i'~'_U_U_U_u_u_u---r:)i:1 ~"~;;\.\!jfr .UJi~f{/, : : . :>,v~~~ I ~'" 1/ " ! ! ~ A'.. ~ ~l J//Y~~~\,,, ~ i i $' ,:.; ~~~itf\< /. . ' / ~/~/, I'.~ "n~ , , ~ ~/ f< C/ ~/ ,./'7, ~ ' I (<} (".f. . ..., ',1/', ~ ,"" . : /~.. I I I ~/4 51 ...".$'/,;;"",,""// / , ' ! ./.,~ ,'.~ : "i(://7'~ f, ! . I~~Y:: , ;Z I ,'",' ,',' ' n./~~ r ,:'; ..' . ..' / · · T! . . '" .,"".... i /~,' ~/~1j%i~ \ II . . vv'l'1f' ~~ '. : !" v" ~ ; ; i ; (, ~ ~;j ! i ~~ ~.~.~~~iJ/piL !)J)'/ ':JW0'// .". I ~ ~.. '" ....... : :0': . I t.:0. . ... ~. /: i \~ .... ~ ~ ~ ,: ./A :\ :\:\s : : ~ ~ '11 ~~. v s~ ~ ~__--1___________ _ ~ ~.," ~ ~ ~ l'.' '~~ a LJ~li~I~9~,,,a~~d~~~,\ I fd Wi',:;! " ~,' . _' . . k" \ ' / f'g ~.. ]X-. . , \' I ~ /// I tl; "~(' ^' hi i · ~'" ',..;,' r, i '~ ' , ,I;,';': \[M i ;i , ~ /,~c# ~ . , I It - :c-i \;/ -0! ,...., l- I ' I' ,\ 1 I Iqrz:. 'I · /);>~\I,: ~ x 0: S '(0 J IV/I/!' /-#' ~ " ~~ ',. ~ ,\~\\ \\\; !~/', t~~4~'~\' \;r?j ~ ,/ Co. ~~ \\\ \\\ ~. '\, !I~ V~~. 3: ,;\r~ /... ~\\' ,\ ~<~~~ \ \ ; \ \ I ~ ~i' ~r}K~~ii fil I ilf~\ \ '?j. \ \ c..:~ ,\~" \ II \ ~ C\ ~ ~ J!1~\G':i3~r'\' "'1 ll. fil - , ?: . ~= '.' '" ~~i,'C '.~ ~ '(\: \ :\1:1 ~ ~ - '''I ",,-. S "~~ ~ '~~''0' \ \ \1__ ~:\ ~~ ~ ~'1(>> ~ ?~~~'~\Y(( ~.~, , ~ ~ ,Kt<"" '> .,.0,." :: '<II\~~\:\'}\:\&F~ o r ~ y, ..~~:. II II :/\\ \ \~'\ Un l\~ Z "- "'.,,:;2" \;, '. . " \",' , ~\" ,. ~ ~ U ~~%: - -- I ." 1_ '~~.: i,'\.I\\. ,:~"': nn I,........ "C ~ ", ,~" , . , - "- .;10+' . ~ '\' C' u..~ I ~ ~~lrj (;~Jj~:,~ . \\~t~. '~~q, ~~~~j '~'~~ " ,,/.,%/\ ~'" ""'1:&\',, F '~'~' ~~ I 3: ~ ,~;; ~& .... /\ \~..~ I~" )~k\\ 'I s~ , .... ~'~ .,~~ yr'. ..... .' n~' ~~ ~, ,.::- ,\ :y~ ,/ /~: _"".:.: _ :..-.--~_ "'\~ :, I~L_ u__ 56 Table 1. List of aerial photographs used in previous and current studies of the proj ect site. Agency Date Type 1 Scale Wash. Dept. Natural Resources (NW-95) 1995 B&W 1" = 1,000' Wash. Dept. of Natural Resources (NW-C-200l) 2001 Color 1" = 1,000' 1 B&W = black and white photograph Color = color photograph Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 57 Table 2. Key to Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale. Braun- Blanquet Cover Class Cover Class Code Definition Range (percent) Mid-Point (percent) 5 Any number, with cover 75-100 87.5 more than 3/4 of the reference area 4 Any number, with cover 50-75 62.5 between 1/2 and 3/4 of the reference area 3 Any number, with cover 25-50 37.5 between 1/4 and 1/2 of the reference area 2 Any number, with cover 5-25 15.0 between 1/20 and 1/4 of the reference area 1 Numerous, but less than <5 2.5 1/20 cover, or scattered, with cover up to 1/20 + Few, with little cover <5 2.5 r Solitary, with little cover <5 2.5 Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 58 Table 3. Endangered, threatened and sensitive vascular plants of King County, Washington, as of March 2002. (Source: http://www.wa.gov/ dnr/htdocs/fr/nhp/refdesk/fgui de/htm/fsfgcntv .htm). Status Scientific Name Common Name State Federal WIS Aster curtus White-top aster S SC UPL Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum's sedge S - OBL Carex comosa Bristly sedge S - OBL Castilleja levisecta Golden paintbrush E T UPL* Cimicifuga elata Tall bugbane T SC UPL* Cyperus bipartitus Shining flatsedge S - OBL (rivularis) Hypericum majus Canadian St. John's- S - FACW Wort Lycopodium Treelike c1ubmoss S - FACU dendroideum Platanthera obtusata Small northern bog- S - FACW orchid Utricularia intermedia Flat-leaved S - OBL bladderwort Status Codes: State: E = Endangered Federal (USFWS): SC = Species of Concern T= Threatened T = Threatened S = Sensitive Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) Ratings (Reed 1988, 1993): OBL = Obligate Wetland F ACU = Facultative upland F ACW = Facultative wetland UPL = Upland F AC = Facultative UPL * = Plant species not mentioned on the WIS list were rated upland by default. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 = ...,. M M 0 ,..., 0'\ ''''1- <..la If) ....:l J:;a Vl > ....... .""l ~ t---..' C:l"" 00- 1,0 ....... ....... M + <n 't) ~ C'-l "0 S; ~~ 0 ~ M M M ~ 0 JJ C'-l ~ bJ) "0 c.J <n ~ <lJ ::: C:l .C c::: ;::l "0 .c <n ....... '"d ~ '"d (!) "0 '"d ~ ~ ...,. M M M M M \-; 0 >. u (!) I 011 ....... <n ....... ....... M \-; "0 rJ) ~ cd >. (!)~ I lrl M M M ...,. M M "0 .-;:: ~ rJ) >. ...... I t- ...,. M M M + M u "0 (!) ~ .0' e \-; -= ...,. M ....... M ....... M ....... ....... 0... ~ ...... ...... e ...... Q) M ...,. M ....... M ....... :>-. ~ (!) rJ) e \-; "0 ...,. M M (!) ~ ~ (!) e ,..., ..s:: M ....... M M M ...... ~ ,..., ::: 0 e 0 M ...,. M ....... ....... M M M rJ) ~ ,..., ...... cd ...... e ~ 0\ M ...,. M ....... M ...,. .... ..s:: '"d e ...,. M M ...,. ...,. M ::: .... cd p., c.J ;::l ~ .... M ...,. M M (!) > ....... c.J + + ...... ~ 00 ....... ...,. <n M cd ...... ::: (!) c.J + + ...,. M M + rJ) ~ ("'l ....... ....... <n (!) \-; ..... 0... ....Q) 0 (!) Q..- \-; >.~ 4-< 0 E-- Q) "'- ::: :. Q..Q) '"0 8 ~ ::: Q) '"0 0 "Ei <lJ 0 e e '"0 u 1:: > 0 0 ~ Co) 0 ....... 0 Co) 0 ~ ::: b r::s .-;:: u ~ ~ ]. ~ ~ u S C) e rJ) VlZ ::: 2 '"0 "0 <lJ 0 OJ) g l-< Co) Co) N 0 ~ r::s e c;:::: .~ Co) ]. cd 0... ::: l-< 0 l-< -= l-< 0 -= ~ Q) l-< Co) '"0 0 Co) I Co) -= l-< a 0 c;:::: c....., -= rJ) ~ E E .c Q.. ..s:: ..::::.: u cd '"0 U cd l-< e '"0 '"0 rJ) e u u Co) rJ) 0 ::: '"0 ~ c;j c;:::: ~ l-< bb cd "'5 Co) Co) ~ Co) rJ) ~ ....... C:l u e ~ ..... ..... ~ ..... bh 1:: cd I '[j u Co) = u rJ) rJ) Co) ~ rJ) OJ) '"0 cd :t:::l rJ) 0 ~ ~ ::: '"0 0 Co) .;:: rJ) 0 0 cd ~ U ~ Q) .~ ~ Co) cd ~ ~ u > Co) Co) u ....... cd U d ~ ~ Cl U VJ ~ o::l VJ Vl 0 ~ u ::: "C:l (!) ::: ::: .- C:l ~o ~ '(;; tJ ...... u "" '=> ... ::: (!) ;::: ~ T:i ::::: ~ ::::: a ::: "'- ~ C:l "- cd \-; .21 '=> ::::: '=> '=> ~ '" a -- __ Cl Q) ;:s ::::::: a c..., ~ ~ ]. .- ;::: ::::: "" ~ ::::: ;::: ~ (.) e .- 'B ;::: '=> ~ ~ 'S:: '=> ;::: -- '=> i:: .2! ;:s '" I c::: ~ '" -- 'S:: ~ ~ ...s:: ~ .~ Z ~ ~ ~ ...::::; ~ ~ a '=> ~ '" ~[q "1'" ~ "'- '=> '=> "" '=> ... ~ ;g ::::: ... ;:s ;::: -- ~ ::::: a a '=> '" ?-.k1 (!) c.J '=> (.) ..-C) ..-C) ;:s ;:s (.) Vl '(3 ..-C) (.) (.) 'S:: ;:s ~ ::::: '" tJ '" a ~ "" '" (.) <lJq:; ~ 00- ~ '=> ;:s '" ;:s ...s:: ~ ... ;:s '" "" '" ~ ~ C:l ~ ;::: ... '" ;:s '" .g ::::: (.) ~ '(3 ... ;:s '" -;::: ~ ..... ;:s l ;:s '" ~ ;:s ~Q r-- ::: '" '" ;::: .g, '" ~ '=> ~ "" ... ;:s ~ ::::: ;:s .~ ~ ... ;:s '" -- a Q) '=> ~ ;:s "0 ~ :z "" J:: ;:s "" ~ ;:s ;:s =: "" J:: ... ~ ~ (.) a a "- '" ...s:: g::; &::; (.) a c3 "" 00- E-- ~ ~ ~ U Q., Q., Q., 0::: Vl ~ ~ U ;:::::: = ...,. M M 0 ,..., 0 ''''1- 'D <..la ....:l J:;a 'JJ. > M M + + M .""l ~ t---..' 00- 1,0 - - C:l"" M 't) ~ "0 ....:l ~~ ~ > M M ~ JJ "0 c.J M <n M ~ ~ <lJ C:l "0 c::: ~ .c - - M "0 ~ - M M ~ >. "0 011 ~ >. "0 lrl M - ...,. M M ~ >. "0 t- ...,. M M ~ e -= M ~ e 0) M M - ~ e "0 M - M ~ e ,..., M ...,. M ~ ,..., e 0 M M M M ...,. M + ~ ,..., e 0\ M ...,. M M ~ e ...,. M M + M + ~ c.J .... - - M ~ c.J 00 - + + + - ~ c.J ("'l - - - M + - + ~ ....0) ..... 0 Q..- Co) ~ E' >.~ ~ C E-- 0) !:: Co) E' Q..O) '"0 ~ E' l-< l-< :. OJ) 0 = Co) ~ cd 0) ~ Co) cd .c u '"0 > e e 0 u ~ .c 0 Co) E' ~ ~ 0 Co) 0 ~ ~ OJ) ~ OJ) ~ E' .c ~ S u U 'JJ.Z ~ ~ .S ::0 ~ E' ~ ~ '0, 0 "'- e .c E' l-< ~ Co) ~ '"0 E' 0 = 0 ~ l-< 8 ::0 Co) .e rn rn Co) ~ ::: ~ = U :t::l Co) .c Co) ::0 .~ ~ -= <lJ p., 0 Co) I ~ .c Co) ~ 1:: 0 Co) rn ~ 4-< Co) ~ a a e Co) ""g rn U -= cd ~ 0 cd ::0 ~ u u '"0 0 r::s .c 8 - ~ 2 bb ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ C) -= e Co) Co) <lJ e ~ u ';> Co) u Co) e e "E e ..... ..... r::s ~ = e I '[j '[j rn rn .~ rn ~ :t::l rn '"0 rn ..... :E '"0 -= ~ ~ 0 cd Co) ~ ~ 0 cd ~ ~ t:B = ~ cd cd ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ u r-< u ~ Cl Cl U u r-< 00- ~ ~ U ..::::.: ..... C:l 1:: .;:: .-.. ~ '"d rn "C:l (!) .-.. -- .-.. ::: rn .- ;::l '" -- .-.. rn '" .-.. C:l .s .~ rn '(;; -- ;:s rn ~ -- tl -- tJ '" "" tl ..-C) ..... ~ .2! T:i '" -- ~ ::: "'- ::: '?: ~ i::: ;::: ;::: a .- tl C:l ... 0 0) tl 'S:: tl i::: tl '" .~ .;:; ;::: OS; ~ .-.. __ Cl '" ;::: i::: "" ~ ;:s ~ -- '" rn c..., ~ u e a '" ... .~ ;::: "" ... ;g :z .-.. "" tl ~ ~ -- ( ~ a tl '" i::: ~ '" rn (.) ~ I c::: ~ ~ ...s:: ...::::; ... ~ ... .~ tl .2! ;:s -- ~ ... a .2! ~[q Z '" '" tl ;:s a .~ .;:; ~ ;:s tl ... "1'" i::: '-.l ~ tl ;::: ~ '-.l '(3 ( (.) ~ .g (.) ~ tl (!) c.J tl ..-C) ;:s i::: ~ '" 2. ~ '" '(3 '" 'S:: (.) ?-.k1 ~ tl tl i::: "" tJ '" ~ ~ ... ;:s "" ~ <lJq:; ~ ... .~ 'S:: ~ '" .g ;:s tl '" ;:s ;:s (.) tl a ...s:: ~ C:l "" .21 '" i::: '" ;:s '" ..... '" ;:s rn '" '" '" '" '" -- '" ~ ~ ~ (.) a ~ ~ ;::: '" ;:s ;:s ;:s ;:s ;:s ..-C) ;:s tl .g, ~Q r-- .~ ...s:: a i::: ;:s "" tl .~ ..-C) 0) ]. ;:s "" tl '" ..-C) ..-C) ..-C) ..-C) ..-C) ;::: ... ... .~ ;:s ;:s "0 ~ ..-C) ~ ~ a '" a ... '" ...s:: C< a ;:s ;:s ;:s ;:s ;:s ~ ~ ~ ~ 00- >-..:i () () Q., Q., Q., ::c: ::c: ::c: ::c: ::c: ::c: ::c: '/J V:l ......... = ...,. ''''1- 'D 0 ,..., M M M ....... <..la J:;a .""l 'JJ. ....:l + + M ~ t---..' > C:l"" 't) ~ 00- 1,0 M ~~ ~ "0 ....:l ....... M ....... ....... ....... M JJ ~ > ~ "0 m <lJ c.J C:l ~ c::: "0 .c ...,. ~ "0 ~ M ...,. ~ >. "0 011 ...,. M ~ >. "0 lrl M M M M M ~ >. "0 t- ....... ....... ...,. ....... ~ e -= M ...,. ~ e Q) <n ~ e "0 ....... M ...,. ~ e ,..., M + ....... + M M ....... ...,. ~ ,..., e 0 M M M M M ~ ,..., e 0\ ....... ....... M M ~ e ...,. + M ~ c.J .... M <n ~ c.J 00 ....... M ~ c.J ("'l ....... ....... M ~ ....Q) ..... 0 Q) >. Q.. is: u 1::: rn >. B rn ~ rn ~ Q) cd cd ~ Q) ~ Q) I-< :. Q..Q) -= OJ) :> rn rn C rn Q) I Q) rn I I 0 rn e e rn gf ...... ..... Q) :> I-< Q) -I-< ;:::: rn Q) -B e ~ "'- 0 ~ ~ Q) OJ) Q) ~ Q.. cd ~ :> OJ) ::: U 'JJ.z .c '"0 ~ rn 1::: -= C) ~ '"0 <lJ rn Q.. gp ~ ~ '1a Q) 's ~ Q) E Q) rn Q) U :> 0 Q) E 1:: ~ ~ E rn Q) = .c ~ I ~ r::s 0 u Q) E rn ~ OJ) :0 ~ u ~ ~ OJ) ~ 3' 'E ~ ~ <lJ e = ~ ~ ~ >. "E rn ~ rn 0 I r::s -= u I ~ .l:i '0, e Q) e u '"0 Q) '1:: cd ~ '"0 I rn Q) ~ e '"0 ~ >. I-< ~ -= 0 rn i: Q) rn e Q) '"0 '"0 I-< '"0 Q) Q) 2 '[j ~ ........ '"0 ........ ~ rn 'S Q) 0 ..::::.: ~ .c ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ 0 cd Q) Q) cd Q) ~ I-< 0 ~ U ....:l Cl Cl Vl 0 ~ o::l U ~ d u ~ C:l ~ ~ 00- 1:: ;::: .;:: ;::: ;::: ~ '"d '=> ~ '=> ;::: "C:l ;:s '=> ;:s ~ ::: (!) .- ::::: "" ::::: '=> "" ~ C:l ;::l --- ~ '=> (.) <g 'ig "'- '" (.) .~ "" ~ '=> tJ .s ::::: '=> '=> '=> ::::: '=> "'- (.) ::::: .~ Q) ~ '=> (.) '" ::::: ... ~ ~ ::: "'- ..... e ~ ~ '=> :s ... ~ ~ ~ ;:s C:l ... ::: I '-.l ::::: "" a ~ "" '" ;::: __ Cl 0 ~ 2. ~ ~ .~ ~ ;::: ;::: ..-C) ~ ~ ~ ;::: ::::: c..., ~ ~ ..-C) ~ ::::: a U Z ...s:: '(;; a ... "" ;:s ~ "" ~ '=> ;:s i:: ;::: I c::: .e. '" ~ ... "" ;::: ;::: ;s: ~ '" ... ...s:: ::::: ~ '=> ;:s c.J ;::: '=> 'S:: '=> ;::: "" '=> ~ ~[q ~ ;:s -i::: ;::: ~ ~ '=> "" ...s:: "1'" 'JJ. ;:s .~ '" ;:s '=> "" ~ '" .~ ;:s ~ "" '=> ;::: ;::: 'S:: ::::: '" 'S:: .~ ?-.k1 (!) ..... ~ '" .~ ::::: -8 ~ (.) .~ 'ig '" ::::: $ <lJq:; ~ '(3 ~ ~ ...s:: ~ ::::: ~ .;:: a "" ;:s '(3 ~ ~ Q) '-.l '" ~ "" ~ ~ (.) ~ (.) '=> ~ C:l (.) ...s:: ... (.) ~ ~ ;g ~ '" '=> "C ~ ~ '" (.) '" "" ~ ~Q ~ =: (.) ~ '=> u 8 is ~ ~ "" C3 C3 2f ~ r-- 00- ~ ~ ~ C.J C.J ''''1- C'-l <..la 'D MI J:;a = .""l ...,. M ~ t---..' 0 ,..., C:l"" 'JJ. ....:l M M M 't) ~ > ~~ ~ 00- 1,0 ....... JJ ~ "0 ....:l <lJ ~ > M C:l c::: "0 c.J ~ "0 ,.Q ...,. M ~ "0 <:'d M ~ >. "0 011 ...,. ~ >. "0 lrl M M ~ >. "0 t- ....... ....... ~ ~ "d S -= ....... <3 ~ <J.i S I-; 0) M M :>-. ~ If) S C'-l "0 M I ~ If) ......... '-" S ,..., + ....... bJ) ~ ,..., ::: ;::l S 0 M M 0 ....... :>-. ~ ,..., I "d S ...... (!) 0\ M rJ) ~ ~ (!) 0 I-; S ...,. M r.8 8 ::: ~ rJ) ;::l ;::l c.J 0 "d ~ ..... M ;::l"d ::: "d ::: cd c.J .u ~ r;J ~ 00 M (!).D rJ) Q 2 ~ c.J ..s::O ~ ("'l ....... II Vl II ....0) ..... -811 ;::l 0 ~VlO Q......... >. ~ ~ 0) "'- :. -a Q.. ::: = <lJ 0) S 1:: :> 0) 2 0 <:'d S Co) Co) r::s u 00- :t:::l 'E rJ) <lJ <:'d a rJ) r::s z = ;::l ;::l ~ ~ '"0 Q.. l-< Co) 8 o"d ~ = Co) = Co) = ..::::.: I OJ) Co) :> <2.g(!) 0 = = ~ U 0 OJ) C:l S Co) '0, Co) u = .~.~ ~ 1:: ~ ~ OJ) '50 ::: u....... S U Co) U o (!) 8 .;:: cd ~ :E = '"0 .S 0 '1:: ~ u"d ~ cO ..... ~ ~"d~ U U U ~ Vl "C:l "d "d"d(!) ::: (!) (!) ...... C:l (!) rJ) ~ ~ ~ ;::l (!) (!) (!) I-; tJ .S ;::: 0...1-;1-;0 ::: "'- C:l ... ...... ;:s '" ~ :>-.0 o~ __ Cl ::: "" ......~~ c..., ~ 0 .;:: ::::: Cl '" ~ II II II U 0) -- ~ ~ ::::: I c::: S .~ "" '\:s ~ >u"d8 ~[q <:'d ... ~ ::::: \:l \:l o~~~ "1'" Z \:l '" \:l ~ (.) U ?-.k1 ;:s ~ '0 <lJq:; (!) c.J ;::: -- '" ;::: ~ C:l ::0 :-s ;:s \:l ~ ;:s (.) 'S:: \:l .;:: rJ) ......... ~Q cd ..... ~ ::::: .~ \:l (!) r-- = 'S:: ;:s ~ ;g .~ ...... 0) ::::: -- -- ~ 0 'C "" "" ~ Z 'JJ. i5:: ~ c>J ~ 63 Table 5. Number of wildlife species possible in the cover-types present, Snoqualmie Ridge II Property, based on King County (1987). Number of Species Habitat Cover Type Amphibians Habitat Codel Code2 and Reptiles Birds Mammals Total Shrub wetland 11 PSS 4 15 3 22 Freshwater marsh 12 PEM 10 28 4 42 Forested wetland 15 PFO 6 39 9 54 River and stream 16 1 2 1 4 Riparian forest 17 --- 12 62 22 96 Lowland mountain 19B Gu 3 37 9 49 grass/forb, unmowed Lowland shrub/sapling 21 S 11 30 20 61 Coniferous Forest 24A Fc 14 48 24 86 Deciduous Forest 24B Fd 14 54 24 92 Mixed Forest 24C Fm 14 56 24 94 Notes: 1. Habitat land use codes listed are from the King County (1987) Wildlife Habitat Profile 2. Cover type codes are based on Cowardin et al. (1992) for wetlands and Anderson et al. (1976) for uplands Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 64 Table 6. Comparison ofland uses among development alternatives for the Kersey III sites. (All areas in acres; Source: DBM Consulting Engineers, August 2003). Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Development Area Residential (urban) 78.95 (46%) 70.67 (42%) Road RO.W./Access 26.01 (15%) 26.01 (15%) Utility, powerline 11.09 (7%) 11.09 (7%) easement Storm water Drainage area 15.00 (9%) 15.00 (9%) Total Developed 131.05 (77%) 122.77 (72%) Open Space Parks/Recreation 7.60 (5%) 15.88 (9 %) Sensitive Areas Tracts 1 31.40(18%) 31.40 (18 %) Total Open Space 39.00 (23 %) 47.28 (28 %) TOTAL AREA 170.05 170.05 Notes: 1. Includes wetlands, streams, steep slopes & buffers, and other natural open space. Kersey 111 -- Plants and Animals Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Draft ElS Report May 17, 2004 APPENDIX A Common and Scientific Names of Plants A-2 Table A. I. Scientific and common names of plants with assigned Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) (Reed 1988, 1993). Scientific names from Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), Hickman (1993), and Cooke (1997). Scientific Name1 Common Name WIS1,2 TREES Abies grand is Grand fir F ACU- Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf maple FACU Alnus rubra Red alder FAC Cornus nuttallii Pacific dogwood UPL Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood FAC Prunus emarginata Bittercherry FACU Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir FACU Rhamnus purshiana Cascara FAC- Salix lucid a Pacific willow F ACW+ Salix scouleriana Scouler willow FAC S r EEl Willow FACWEEl a IX spp. Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock F ACU- SHRUBS Acer circinatum (s) Vine maple FAC- Acer macrophyllum (s) Big-leaf maple FACU Corylus cornuta (s) Hazelnut FACU Gaultheria shallon Salal FACU H olodiscus discolor Oceanspray UPL flex aquifolium English holly UPL L' EEl Honeysuckle F AC/F ACUEEl om cera spp. Mahonia nervosa Cascade Oregongrape UPL Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum FACU A-3 Table A.l. Continued. Scientific Name1 Common Name WIS1,2 Oplopanax horrid us Devil's club FAC+ Populus balsamifera (s) Black cottonwood FAC Prunus emarginata (s) Bittercherry FACU Pseudotsuga menziesii (s) Douglas-fir FACU Rhamnus purshiana (s) Cascara FAC- Ribes sanguineum Red-flowering currant UPL Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry FACU Rubus laciniatus Evergreen blackberry FACU+ Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry FAC- Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+ Rubus ursinus Pacific blackberry FACU Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU Sorbus aucuparia (s) European mountain ash UPL Spiraea douglasii Hardhack spirea FACW Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry FACU Thuja plicata (s) Western red cedar FAC Tsuga heterophylla (s) Western hemlock F ACU- HERBS Achyls triphylla Vanillaleaf UPL A lope curus pratensis Meadow foxtail FACW Athyrium filix-femina Lady - fern FAC Blechnum spicant Deer-fern FAC+ Carex deweyana Dewey's sedge FACU Carex obnupta Slough sedge OBL Claytonia sibirica Siberian miner's-lettuce F AC Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass FACU Dicentra formosa Pacific bleeding*heart FACU A-4 Table AI. Continued. Scientific Name1 Common Name WIS1,2 Dryopteris expansa Wood-fern FACW Epilobium spp. EEl Willow-herb F ACW /OBL EEl E . EEl Horsetail F ACWEEl qUlsetum spp. F estuca arundinacea Tall fescue FAC- Galium spp. # Bedstraw -- Geranium robertianum Herb Robert UPL Geum macrophyllum Largeleaved avens F ACW+ Glecoma hederacea Ground ivy FACU+ Glyceria elata Tall mannagrass F ACW+ Gramineae# Undifferentiated grasses -- H oicus lanatus Common velvet-grass FAC Juncus effusus Soft rush FACW Lysichiton americanum Skunk cabbage OBL Maianthemum dilatatum False lily-of-the-valley FAC Musci# Undifferentiated mosses -- Polystichum munitum Sword-fern FACU Pteridium aquilinum Bracken-fern FACU Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW Scirpus microcarpus Small-fruited bulrush OBL Stachys cooleyae Cooley's hedge nettle FACW Stellaria crispa Crisped starwort FAC+ Tellima grandiflora Fringe cup UPL Tolmiea menziesii Pig-a-back-plant FAC Trifolium pratense Red clover FACU Trillium spp. # Trillium -- Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC+ Veronica beccabunga American brooklime OBL A-5 Table A.l. Continued. 1 = The following codes are used: EEl = Genera with species having a narrow range ofWIS ratings that were averaged and were then included in our vegetation plot calculations. # = Genera with species having a wide range ofWIS ratings, not included in our vegetation plot calculations. (s) = Sapling APPENDIX B Wildlife Species/Habitat Matrix for Kersey In B-2 Table B.l. Wildlife species/habitat matrix for habitats found on the Kersey III property. FRESHWATER RIP. UPLAND SIAl Status2 11 12 15 16 17 19B 21 24A 24B 24C PSS PEM PFO Gu S Fc Fd Fm AMPHIBIANS Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile E E E E E E E Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum E E E E E E E Pacific Giant Salamander Dicamptodon tenebrosus E E E E E Roughskin Newt Taricha granulosa E E E E E E Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii E E E E Western Redback Salamander Plethodon vehiculum E E E E Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei FCo/Sm 0 Western Toad Bufo boreas FCo/Sc E E E E E Pacific Treefrog Pseudacris regilla E E E E E E E E Red-legged Frog Rana aurora FCo E E E E E E E E Bullfrog (I) Rana catesbeiana E REPTILES Northern Alligator Lizard EIgaria coerulea E E E E Rubber Boa Charina bottae E E E E Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis E E E E E E E E D Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans E E E E E E E E E Northwestern Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides E E E E E E Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta E BIRDS Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps R/C E American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus S/U E Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias R/C Sm E E Green Heron (Green-backed heron Butorides virescens R!U Sm E E E Canada Goose Branta canadensis R/C E E Wood Duck Aix sponsa SIC Sg E E E Green-winged Teal Anas crecca W/C E Mallard Anas platyrhynchos R/C E E E Northern Pintail Anas acuta W/C E Blue-winged Teal Anas discors SIC E E Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera SIC E E Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata W/C E Gadwall Anas strepera W/C E E Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope W/U E E American Wigeon Anas americana W/C E E Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus R!U E Osprey Pandion haliaetus SIC Sm E E B-3 Table B.l. Wildlife species/habitat matrix for habitats found on the Kersey III property. FRESHWATER RIP. UPLAND SIAl Status2 11 12 15 16 17 19B 21 24A 24B 24C PSS PEM PFO Gu S Fc Fd Fm Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus R/C Ft/St E Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus R!U E E Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus R!U E E E E Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii R!U E E E E Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis R!U E E E E E D Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus W/C E American Kestrel Falco sparverius R/C E Merlin Falco columbarius W/U Sc/Sg E E E E Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus W/R FCo/Ss E Ring-necked Pheasant (I) Phasianus colchicus R/C Sg E Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbel/us R/C E E E E E E California Quail (I) Cal/ipepla californica R!U E E Virginia Rail Ral/us limicola R/C E E Sora Porzana carolina SIC E American Coot Fulica americana R/C E E Greater Yellow legs Tringa melanoleuca M/C E Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes M/C E Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria E Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla M/C E Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos E Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus M/C E Common Snipe Gal/inago gal/in ago W/U E Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor M/C E Mew Gull Larus canus W/C E Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis W/C E Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens R/C E Rock Dove (I) Columba livia R/C E Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata R!U Sg E E Common Barn-Owl Tyto alba R!U E E E E Western Screech-Owl Otus kennicottii R!U E E E E Great Homed Owl Bubo virginianus R/C E E E E E Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma R/C E Barred Owl Strix varia R!U E E E E Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus R!U E Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus R/C E E E E E Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus SIC E E E D D Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber SIC E E E D B-4 Table B.l. Wildlife species/habitat matrix for habitats found on the Kersey III property. FRESHWATER RIP. UPLAND SIAl Status2 11 12 15 16 17 19B 21 24A 24B 24C PSS PEM PFO Gu S Fc Fd Fm Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens R/C E E E E E E Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus R/C 0 D D Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus R/C E E E E Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus R!U Sc E D E D Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi SIC FCo E E Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus S/U E E E E Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii SIC FCo E D E E D D Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii S/U E E E E Pacific Slope Flycatcher Empidonax difJicilis SIC E E E D Tree Swallow" Tachycineta bicolor SIC E E E E E E Violet-green Swallow" Tachycineta thalassina E E D D E Northern Rough-winged Swallow" Stelgidopteryx serripennis SIC Bank Swallow 4 Riparia riparia SIC Cliff Swallow" Petrochelidon pyrrhonota SIC Barn Swallow" Hirundo rustica SIC Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri R/C 0 E E 0 D American/Northwestern Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos R/C E E E E E D Common Raven Corvus corax R/C E Black -capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus R/C E E E D E Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens R/C E E 0 Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus R/C E E D E Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis R/C 0 D D Brown Creeper Certhia americana R/C E D E D Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii R/C 0 E D E D Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes R/C E D E Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris R/C E E Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa R/C E E E E Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula WIC E E E E E D Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi W/U E E Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus SIC E E D D D Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus MIC E E American Robin Turdus migratorius R/C E E D E D D Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius WIC E E E E E Water Pipit Anthus rubescens WIC E Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus W/U E E Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum SIC E E E D D B-5 Table B.l. Wildlife species/habitat matrix for habitats found on the Kersey III property. FRESHWATER RIP. UPLAND SIAl Status2 11 12 15 16 17 19B 21 24A 24B 24C PSS PEM PFO Gu S Fc Fd Fm Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor W/U E European Starling (I) Sturnus vulgaris R/U E E E E E Solitary Vireo Vireo cassini SIC E E E Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni R/C E E E E Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus S/U E E E E Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus SIC E E E Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata SIC E E E E E D Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia SIC E E E E Yellow-romped Warbler Dendroica coronata MIC E E E E E Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens SIC E E E D D Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi SIC E D MacGillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei SIC E E E E E E E Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas SIC E E Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla SIC E D D E D Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana SIC E E D Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus SIC E E D Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus R/C E E E D Spotted Towhee (Rufous-sided) Pipilo maculatus R/C E 0 E E D Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis R/C E Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca R/C E E E E Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia R/C D E E E D D D Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii MIC E E E E E E Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla WIC E White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys R/C E Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis R/C E E D E E D Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus R/C E E E Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta R/C E Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus R/C E Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater SIC E E E E D D D Bullcok's Oriole Icterus bullockii SIC E Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus R/C E E E D D Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus R/C E 0 E E D American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis SIC E E E E E D House Sparrow (I) Passer domesticus R/C E E MAMMALS Common Opossum (I) Didelphis Virginiana E E E Trowbridge Shrew Sorex trowbridgii E B-6 Table B.l. Wildlife species/habitat matrix for habitats found on the Kersey III property. FRESHWATER RIP. UPLAND SIAl Status2 11 12 15 16 17 19B 21 24A 24B 24C PSS PEM PFO Gu S Fc Fd Fm Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans E E E Dusky Shrew Sorex monticolus E E E E Water Shrew Sorex palustris E Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirii E E Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsii E E E E E Townsend's Mole Scapanus townsendii E E E Coast Mole Scapanus orarius E E E E E Little Brown My otis " Myotis lucifugus Yuma Myotis" Myotis yumanensis FCo Long-eared Myotis" Myotis evotis FCo/Sm California Myotis" Myotis califomicus Silver-haired Bat4 Lasionycteris noctivagans Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Hoary Bat Lasiurus cine reus Townsend's Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii FCo/Sc Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus E E E E E E Eastern Cottontail (I) Sylvilagus floridanus E E D Aplodontia (Mountain Beaver) Aplodontia rufa E D D Townsend's Chipmunk Tamias townsendii E E E Douglas' Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii E D Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus E E E E Beaver Castor canadensis E Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus E E E E E E Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea E E E Western Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys califomicus R/C E Townsend's Vole Microtus townsendii E E Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus E E Creeping Vole (Oregon) Microtuus oregoni E E E E E Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus E E Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus E E E Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum E E E Nutria (I) Myocastor coypus E Black Bear Ursus americanus E E E E E Raccoon Procyon lotor E E E E E E Ermine (short-tailed weasel) Mustela erminea E E E E Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata E E E E E B-7 Table B.l. Wildlife species/habitat matrix for habitats found on the Kersey III property. FRESHWATER RIP. UPLAND SIAl Status2 11 12 15 16 17 19B 21 24A 24B 24C PSS PEM PFO Gu S Fc Fd Fm Mink Mustela vison Sg E E E E Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis E E E Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis E E E E E E Coyote Canis latrans E E D E E 0 Red Fox Vulpes vulpes E E E E E Bobcat Lynx rufus E E E E E Elk Cervus elaphus Sg E E E E E E Black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus E E E E E D D D TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 37 52 64 9 106 64 71 96 102 104 0= Observed by DBM Consulting Engineers during site visits D= species detected by Raedeke Associates, Inc. during site visits E = species expected to occur in the habitat indicated, during part or all of annual cycle. I = species introduced to the State of Washington. , S/A = Seasonality/Abundance. Seasonality: F = fall; M = migrating; R = resident; S = summer; W = winter. Abundance: C = common; R = rare; U = uncommon. ~ Status: Feo = Federal species of concern; Fc = Federal candidate; Fe = Federal endangered; Fm = Federal monitor; Ft = Federal threatened; Sc = State candidate; Se = State endangered; Sg = State game; Sm = State monitor; J Habitats: 11 = shrub wetland; 12 = freshwater marsh; 15 = forested wetland; 16 = river and stream; 17 = riparian forest; 19B = lowland and mountain grass/forb, unmowed, stable; 21 = lowland shrub; 24A = second-growth lowland forest - coniferous; 24B = second-growth lowland forest - deciduous; 24C = second-growth lowland forest - mixed ~ Forages aerially over many habitats. J Excludes aerial foragers indicated by (4). APPENDIX C Agency Correspondence ~~ 1/v'.L\SI~ I !\!GTOI\J STATE DEPt\rnr'v1ENT or DC::Ur.:j SUTHER;~/.:.,,\'l;~: Natural Resources C'")n:.rr-:;y;;"c..;.r1r;-..- oi" Public L'1nc\ ~'--~ -~-~-- y" ---- [VIa:,> 9,2003 RECEIVED Da \vn Clare iCl ~. 3, ,I., \. ~ ',f I.Ulrj L I ~. . j (" Racdeke i'\s~ociak~ Inc RAEDEKE ASSQC. 5711 Northeasl 6yd St 5eanle ''0/;\ 98] ]:; SUBJECT: Ker"sey 3 EIS ~ Project No. 2001-021-001 (T21~ ROSE S31,32) \Ve\e searched the Natural ]'1eritage Information System for information on significant natural features ill your project area. Currently, \ve have no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the viciniry of your proiect. The int0rmationpro\'ided by the V/ash.ingtoll Natura] Heritage Program is based solely 011 existing information in the database In the absence offield inventories, we Call1lot state whether or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare plant species: there may be significant natural features in your study area ofv,'hich we are not aware. The \Vashington Natural Flcritage Program is responsible for infonmltion on the slate's rare plants as v.iel] as high quality ecosyste,ms. For information on animal species of concenl, please contact Priority Habitats and Species. Washington Depanment ofFish and V/ildlife. 600 Capitol Way N. 01}'mpi8 \\'A 9R501-)091. or by phone (3(0) 902-2543, Please visit our internet websire at hrrp://wv./\\i,dnr.wa.,2.0V/llhr for more infonnation. LislS of rare plants and their status, as well as rare plant fact sheets, are available for dowllload hum tile site. Please feel free to call me at (360) 902-] 667 'if YOll have any questions. or bye-mail at sandri.l.moody~i "adm.go\'. ~~1i l&tL -~ Sandy S\\-(-"pe l\.f('ody. Em'lronmc.'ntal Revie\\ Coordinator WashingtlHl NClllll"al Heritage Program Assel Manag:':lllelll 8: Pr(lkCtll)n [)i vis JOIl. PO Be'x cliO l..t, () Iympla \\i\ 98504.1(1 I:j FAX 360-902-I"'H9 11 i 1 vV;:-.)HltJG,'(Jt..: ~,1 "E I PC' rKiX IF DOc' I C;L''fl.;I,'',A I,Vi. SSSC;1i '000 rIel (36D) 90} lOOC, I r-/.~.x-, :'361.,IJ 9Cl-;77.~ J if-r-' /360,! 90i i )~-:'; - EqL.;ai 1:]pp0r1~Jr-lrtv.i..6.tti~'r'nalIV(:. /-(tIOtl [r"~lplo'~~-er 1':L'_',_c~ I.,.,'," ",t ~,-"~:~'~; r ~"- ~;- , STATE OF' W.C._,~.!HINGTON DEPAH'T~1ENT OF NATURAL ]::;.ESOURCES FED TD: 91-6012771 * INVOICE * Paqe 1 Agre-emel1L 1d: 39 C03627 Invoi,::'e Date: 05/09/03 J n '.J 0 i c ~N ;:) 1B14C)02 Due Date : Cl6/0e/03 RF_EDEKE ASSOCIATES INC 5711 NORTHEAST 63RD STREET .SEA TTLE WA. J8l15 LHE:: niTllN'T'T "'v PO !V; L;~.JI T l:JR..I CE v- r -r-' ....:..........,~';---- F';....!....Ju..!::.. 001 NATUR.AL HERI'l'AGE D}l..T.n. RETRIEVAL 1.0000 S 30.0QOOO $ 30.00 KERSEY 3 EIS ~ PROJECT NO. 2001-021--00] (T21N ROSE 531,32) REQUESTED BY: DAWN GARCIA TOTAL - PLEASE PAY THIS AMOLTNT r< 30.00 ;1' THE DEPARTMENT ASSESSES INTEREST ON PAST DUE _D"CCOUNTS If you have any questions, call SAADY MOODY (360) S'02-1667 Keel: this portion for your records ------------------------------------------------------------"--------------------- Agreement Ia: 89 003627 Acct Mg~t-: FR Invoice No : 1814002 Group : NHDS Customer 10 : DNE, 0 (I CJ 024 480 Due Date: 06/08/03 N Alv1E : FJl..EDEKE AS:30C'I f\.TES INC RD-1IT CHECKS TO; TOTAL - Please pay t tL~L s aTTIC)I)?} c DEPARTMENT OF NATUR.z,L RESOURCES S 30.00 FINJl.J\JCI,ZI.L, !-.ilGt'1T DIVISION PO BOX 47041 OLY!V!P lA, W,,,," 9 ~~ =, C <1 - '7 I) 4 1 RETT.mN THI. S P()F!.TION FOR PROPER CREDIT TOYCUR ACCOTJNT. RECEIVED ~1/ \,1 "'.,--;. i State of Washln9ton MEDEKE r\))OC DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE r'/'i'>I!:n,~: j.,.jjr.::-s~ 600 C2Pi~;J1 'l/a'~- /'~ . =:,j\'n~ p12. '.,t~A 98501- !DP 1 .. 1:3.;;.::, 9C2 -2~~:Q!J. TOD i-:360) S){:2-:2~-',-.I-' f....~~~T 1~)lliJ::e LC,C;:dl:)n: !\l2i~~rd- F:e.s.o;Jrc~-=--s l~ud~jin~l. 111 ~ I/'Jasll~r"~JJ~.i S~rf'-?::t s!~. ()jyrnpl2> \f/b. Date: r~i", ~ ;: ([1[(. Dear Habitats and Species Requester: Enclosed are lhe habitats and species products you requested from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This package may also contain documentation to help you understand and use these products These products only include Information that WDFW maintains in a coniputer database. They are not an attempt to provide you with an ofiicial agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. nor are they designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting this information and determining how to proceed in consideration of fish and wildlife. These products only document the location of important fish and wildlife resources to the best of olJr knowledge. It is important to note that habitats or species may occur on the ground in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site-specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of priority habitats or species. Your project may require further field inspection or you may need to contact our field biologists or othel's in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying this Information. Generally, for assistance on a specific project you should contact the WDFW Habitat Program Manager for your county and ask for the area habitat biologist for your project area, Refer to the enclosed directory for those contacts. Please note that sections potentially impacted by spotted owl management concerns are displayed on the 1 :24,000 scale standard map products. If specific details on spotted owl site centers are req uired they must be req uested separately. These products are designed for users external to the forest practice permit process and as such. does not reflect all the information pertinent to forest practice review. The Forest Practice Rules adopted August 22. 1997 by the Forest Practice Board and administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources require forest practice applications to be screened against marbled murrelel detection areas and detection sections. Marbled murrelet detection locations are included in the standard priority habitats and species products, but the detection areas and detection sections are not included. If your project IS affected by Forest Practlc€~ RegulaUons. you should specially request murrelet detection areas. WDFW up,jates thiS mformation as addilional data become available. Because fish and wildlife species 81'E-' mobile and because habitats and species information changes. project reviews ror fist, and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped informatIon. Inslead, they should also consider 118V',' inforrnation gathered fram current field investigations. Remember. habitats and species inforrnalion can only show that a species or habitat type IS present, they cannot show that a species or llabita! type is not present. These products should not be used for future projects. Please obtain updates rather than use outdated Inforrnation Because of the high volume of requests for informatioll that WDFW ,~ceives, we need to charge for these products to recover some of OLlr costs. Encloserj is an invoice itemizing the costs for your request and instructions for submitting payment. Please note tl1at sensitive information (e.g., threatened and/or endangered species) may be included in this request These species are vulnerable to disturbances and harassment. In order to protect the viability of these species we request that you not disseminate the information as to their whereabouts. Please refer to these species presence in general terms. For example: "A Peregrine Falcon is located within two rniles of the project area", If your request required a SenSitive Fish and Wildlife Information Release Agreement and you or your organization has one on file, please refer to that document for conditions regarding release of this information. For more information on WDFW you may visit our web site at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw or visit the Priority Habitats and Species site at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm, For information on ttle state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as tligh quality wetland and terrestrial ecosystems, please contact the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program at PO Box 47014, Olympia Washington 98504-7014, by phone (360) 902-1667 or visit the web site at http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocsffr/nhp/wanhp.html. If you have any questions or problems with the information you received please call me at (360) 902-2543 or fax (360) 902..2946. Sincerely. :). ~ (LStA.-/ ~' df/1V1'V\.# Lori Guggenmos, GIS Programmer Priority Habitats and Species Enclosures WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE REGIONAL HABITAT PROGRAM MANAGER CONTACTS For assistance with Priority Habitats and Species Information contact a regional habitat program manger and they will direct your questions to a biologist. County project is in... Contact... Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield Lincoln, Kevin Robinette Pend Greifle, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, 8702 North Division Street Whitman Spokane, WA 99218-1199 Phone: (509) 456-4082 Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Okanogan Tracy Lloyd 1550 Alder Street NW Ephrata, W A 98823-9699 Phone: (509) 754-4624 Benton, Franklin, Kittitas. Yakima Ted Clausing 1701 24th Avenue Yakima, WA 98902-5720 Phone: (509) 575-2740 Island, King, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Deborah Cornett Whatcom 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 Phone: (425) 775-1311 Clark, Cowlitz. Klickitat, Lewis, Skamania, Steve Manlow Wahkiakum 2108 Grand Blvd. Vancouver, WA 98661 Phone: (360) 696-6211 Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Steve Kalinowski Pacific, Pierce, Thurston 48 Devonshire Road Montesano, WA 98563-9618 Phone: (360) 249-4628 .,~~. Unitecl States Depann1cnt of the Interiur (~~ I~' -=;r ~' '" -" QI \_. , '- ~ \. ~.' .'-'~;X:/ F! SI-I ,,'\\D \VrLDLIIT SERVICE ~/ -'1:'('101 -,,:_A,_" \\'t'~tcrn WaShtnglon OjTic~~ ~, ~ ~ I Ci Ocsrn one! Dri \c sr. S \.Iil,' i U2 L2!ccy. \\'a:-,hingtoll 985CI~ 1>Ih1lll" I J()i) I 753-l)440 j:LlX: 13(0) 5_~-4-(J~~ I MAY 3 1 2001 0;.'(11 Specie'S List RCl[UCSlcT Enci()~,ed i~ it list of! isted and proposed thremcncd and endal1~ercd specie,,_ c(mdidate specks_ d11Li sjkcies 01 cnlle-ern (AnacJmlt'nt A} \\111CI1 may be' present \.vitlllll the arc:a of \"U1 proposed JXUICC( \\ C Lire pr,:,\'iding lhjs in i<Jrl11J.tio!l V1 yr 'u (C1 assisl in determining possi ble impacts to speci es ofF c'c1cral l~!mC"T!l. S!wuld lhtTe he fUUlre Federal agencyinvulvemem with LI11S l'iU,icC[ ILhrough J1U1dil1g, pellniltin;:. I.i(','nsin~. or other authorization!, then the involved Federal agtllC'Y \\'ili be: required h) assure thm its r~.,pu);":tbi1itie::; under sccli ,'n 71 d)(:?) i1 f the Endangered Speclcs ,-\Ci c'I )i) 73. JS amended (Acti. are mCL \\ e are ab,) enclosing an outline of t]-l()c;l' responsibilities for \our lnform:niclll (Anachn1l:.'nl B) Sl'ccies of concern are those speues \\hose conscrvatjol1 stalldlllg is (J f concern to tbe SeJ'\ ice, but for \'\'l1.i(h (urlher status il1JCln11,lti0!1 15 stili Ilt;'cded. COllsernl( ion measures kJ!' species nfconcern mc \ -olmnary b:]lreCI)mmendeJ. Pwteclion !Jt'ovided to these species nO\\111ll) prec'iudc possible listing in T~l(' Jlmjr~'. [11 addiTlIJ!1. please be ild'l'isecl thm FeJt'f3l and state regulatIOns ill,t\ require permits in area'; \\'l\crt' \\C'llancls are identified. Y OL1 slll'uld contact the StaHle District oflhe l.'.':;" .'\ml\ COlVS ofEngil1C'C'!s T'(l!' Fc-dc:raj permit requirements and Lilt' \\'ashinglOl1 Stene Depanmem nr L::nlugy f0r Stak p;:'cmil rc-q LIJ!\,'rncnts. \\IUl' lntc'fe:st in endangered specie:> is appreciated. If you ho\'t: ddditi,'nal questiuns rega.rding \(lur re~p(lnslbili[jcs under the Act, piea:,t cont~ll'l Yvonne Ddllaff I:; Ail I --:5 ';-9582 SlIll'erc l\'. r I J.: ILiA 't-lc..... y/iv. (L l? ,.,,/ , 1{~ Ken S Bert'. \lanager \\ .:Skrn Wa:~hlT1gtol1 OtJi..:e Enc!usure(., I - ""---._L~ - i ,'1' " , ;', I I I ~ , i , , , --~--_J /..: ..-\(~r~ AT 1 AU-I \IENT A I\In.\ 29, 2 (I II! LISTED AND j)l{OPOSED E"\DA\GEHED ;\:'-;D THRL-\ IT.'\'ED SPECIES, CA!\DID.\ TF"iPECIES AND SPECIES OF CO"\CERN THAT 1\1..\ Y OCClH J:\ THE VICINITY Of TilE PROPOSED T,,:\COi\lA F\l)E\TLOrI:D COMMERCL\L SITE PRO.JECT IN PILRCE COlNTY, WASIII"\CTO:'\ (T19N R03f<: S12l 1-3-01-1'A-1435 LI S TF D \\-jnL'rtn; bait! e8gle~ (/-failu<,liIlS iC!!L'u,cphahls) ma) occur in dle Vll'lllil~\ ()flbc' project. \Yimc'ring :lc:ti\ illc:,; occur !i'l1Tll October 31 ihn1uf:'h tvbrch 3 j. Bni'llTulH r.Soh'c!iilIlS L'Onth!c'ilru~1 may lh.:cur in the v](:inil> (lC the pru'lc'l:l. \hi or concerns that should be addressed m your biologiczd assessmem nf-the project impaCT'; tc ] iSled speCIes n]'c 1 Le\'el of use llf the proj eel area by listed spel'ie'o. '1 EffeC1 of the provet Ol1lisred speCIes' primal': fOex! stucks, prey species. and fi'rd~in~ ~ mCdS in all areas ini1uenced bv the project - Impacts fmm lirl1ject ((Instruction (i.e.. habitat loss. increased noise levels. illcrcased , human 3ctr\'ity' \vhich may result i [1 disturb811CE 10 lisrcd spc'cics i:U1dor their mojeL-mce of the project ar;:;a. PROPOSED '\')il('. C.-\-,DlD.-\ TE , .\<'.11,,::. SPLCIE.s OF CONCER'\' L on~-(';Ir{;d m)otis (Jll'ori,~ Cl'O!!) I IOlli:'~l('!:,!,!['d myuti.s {Ai~VU[]S l'o!un,) Olivt-o.;ided 11\ c<deller (( '0 I!! op iiS ((lOpLr; I P:ICdlC !aml'T'c'\ (Lamp['/I'o !ri(il'ilrwDI !<li\::r lamprc\ Umnpr!fi'i.l 01/",'.':'1 \\ estern l\kh,J iBufo hOi'c'O\J A,'fTACH\JE'iT B FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPO~SIBILITIES LJ:\DEH SECTIO!'\S 7(31 A]\iD !(Cl or THE ENnAI\CfHED SPfCIES ACT OF 11)73. AS _\.1\tE~DFD SECTlO:\ 71 ,'11 - COllsultalion\Ocl11Jerc:ncc- R('quire:-: I redcral agencies \(l utillH tlkir authurities lU cClrry uut rru!:'L1l1b t',1 const)'\'e encl,JI1~ered and l1l1t2llencJ species: , (l.1!hu1tatillil with F\\'C; \yhcn n l~deral actlPll m,!\ affc(! d lisvd endangered ell' llmc'cllened Sl~ecies to l'lbLl!e LIlal :illY action authorized. funded. or l'Clrried ,llll bY:J federal clgcJh':y \\ Jl(l\ likely loicopardize the Cllllll11ucd t'xislence urthlcd <;]iCcies ur I'e'-Ull i 11 lhc destruction ()f ;:td\C'rsc modifJc<1liun or crilicallul,iwl The process j" iniri,m:cl hy the federal agency aher it h% determined if its <1cuon lllay affect (adversely Clr bene]jcialJ:) a iisted specie'S: and , Cunference \\-itb F \\S \\ hen a federal action i~ likely tu .kopardiLl' the continued existence of~! propnseJ species or j't'suli in desUl.lc!ion or an alil'erse !11C1c!ificCiti on nfproposed critical habitaT. SECT]Cf\ /1,: 1- Biolocica,l .Assessment rl:1)- Construction Proie'cb e' Requi.res feuc'r::ti :igencies or their de~ignecs [l) prepme a Biological.'\ssessmem 18,,\) for COl1structlOll proiecls only. The purpose' ui ibe 13.\ is to idemit\ ilI1\ proposed 2Inc.i'Or listed spec-ie:s \vhi('ji iSJre likely to be at1tcted b: Zl construction proiecT. The process is iJ]il!at~'d by 3 federal agency in requesting a li:,1 of proposed ulld listed threatened a.nd endcm;ered species (list attached) Tile B\ shuuld be completed \\ithin ] SU da:,s aner its initiallon (ur \\ irhin sllch a lime period as is mutually agrecabk'l ffl]W BA is 1101 initiated \\'jthin Q(I Lllt}"- c1frcceipt of1he sp\."cies lisT. please \'crify the accura(~ o(lhe lis1 \\1111 tl1(' Scr\'icc. No int\ers,ibic commitment o(resuurc\:'s is to be rmllle during the BA process wlw:-b \\nuld resu 11 in violation o]'t11<.:- requirements under Sectiun -:-13.) nftl1e .~ci Planning, de:-:ign. and adm In.i str:1t i ,(' acticins met\' be taken: hu\'.e\er. no construction m a\ be!..' I 1]. . . - To compj('k the: BA. your agency or its designee should. rl ) conduct <monsilt' ir!s]X'ction ufthe art'a to be affeCTed by the prop, '"al. \\hich may include a d('I;Jlkd sLiney of the area lel determine tfthe c;pccies is presenT and \\hethcr suitable hahLit ('xislS for either expd.l1ding the exis[ing population or pntemiai reimroc!uc! ion of the srecit's: (:::) re\'ie\\ Ii tent1Jfe and sc i.:nl i fie data to dderm!nC'~rC'cies distribution. habitat needs, and C1Ther hiolo gi cal req uiremellts: I ~ , imenlc\\ t'\ r';:Tb incltkling those \\-jlhEl the rws. \' mionall\.r(arine Fisheries Sen'ice. Slate conSt'rv2uiun dc'pi:JnrncnL U!1i'\tTSllies. a;1c1 (llll('!"S \\'110 rnJ: have data not yel published in scienllfic literature: 1':+ ,I r.:\'i<::,\\ and anal:;>,e the dfect,; nfthe )11'\')1"',,211 (In the spenes In terms e,1' inLJi \'i,JLlals and populations. mc:ludillg (,)csideratioll U CClll1lubll \ c' effects [h(' pWpUSJ] on Ille species clJ1d its babiuL 1:)1 :llulyze a!ternati ve actions lhell m:l\ pn,\ide conscn:nie\n measure,: and I (i) pcpar<:.' c! repl1ri ducLlmenting th:: result:-;, i!1l'iuding a discussion ,.,fst\.ldy method" used. any prohlems eIK(lU;lL'red. and I)ther n::il'\CUll inJ(\nml1ion. Cpr"11 cnmplC'ii(\l1. the repol1 should be forwarded 'ee' our Ll1(L111~Crcd Spc:cles Di \']Sll)!l. ~JO IJ(':;JP,nd Dme S1. SUIte 1(1.2. Lace.. \\.~ 98503-1273. '3 'ConSlrtlL'llun pn)iect" means allY maj\)r f:,denl aL'liclfl \\'lnch signiticantly a!1cCIS rh;:- C]uztlir\ 0 r (he hUll1Cl.l1 emi.nllll11('Jll Ircqlli ['in:; ~lj'] E is,I. designed primariJ: I c. re'sult III tbe hUl1dll1g or crectio!1I:,f hUi nan-md.d~' 51fllCl lire'S such <:IS JlIll1'_ huildinss. rn,i<:b. )'lpe1ines.. chrU1!lels, :me! the lil;:e, 111is i.l1dudc-s lederal acticln such :1:-' pt:'rmit:::,. Slants li'2c'n"es.,)r olhc'r j":llll1S of f.."'.lcra! Cluthorizmi(ln I.lr apprl-",al \\ hich may rt'sult inl'ollSlruct:l)i'!