HANCOCK CREEK AND CALLIGAN REEK ALD EAGLE OSPREY AND PEREGRINE FALCON SURVEY RESULTS · 2017-04-07 · Hancock and Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Projects, FERC No. 13994 and 13948

Hancock and Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Projects FERC No. 13994 and 13948

HANCOCK CREEK AND CALLIGAN CREEK

BALD EAGLE, OSPREY AND PEREGRINE FALCON SURVEY RESULTS

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

Prepared for:

Everett, WA

Prepared by:

. P.O. Box 2561,

Mount Vernon, WA, 98273 www.HamerEnvironmental.com

February 2014

Final – This document has been prepared for the District. It has been peer-reviewed by the District for accuracy and formatting based on information known at the time of its preparation and with that understanding is considered complete by the District. The document may be cited as: Hamer Environmental. 2014. Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Final Technical Report for the Hancock and Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Projects FERC No. 13994 and 13948. Prepared for Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County. February 2014.

Hancock and Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Projects, FERC No. 13994 and 13948

Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Technical Report ii February 2014

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1

2. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 1

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 1

4. STUDY METHODS ............................................................................................................... 5

Survey Team ............................................................................................................................... 5 Nest Searches .............................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 6 Schedule ...................................................................................................................................... 6

5. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 7

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 7

7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 11

Appendix A: Photos ....................................................................................................................... A

Appendix B: Consultation Documentation ..................................................................................... B

Appendix C: Response to Comments on Draft Report ................................................................... C

List of Tables Table 1.Target raptor species and their nesting phenology. ........................................................... 7 List of Figures Figure 1. Hancock Hydro Project Area showing the 660 foot and 0.5-mile survey buffer zones. 3 Figure 2. Calligan Hydro Project Area showing the 660 foot and 0.5-mile survey buffer zones. . 4 Figure 3. Tracklog of aerial survey conducted June 14, 2013, Hancock Creek. ........................... 9 Figure 4. Tracklog of aerial survey conducted June 14, 2013, Calligan Creek. .......................... 10 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations District Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FLA Final License Application Projects Hancock and Calligan Creek Projects HTRG Hancock Timber Resource Group PHS Priority Habitats and Species USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDI, BLM U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife


Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Technical Report 1 February 2014

1. EXECUTIVESUMMARYA helicopter survey for nesting bald eagles, ospreys and peregrine falcons on the proposed Hancock Creek Hydroelectric Project and proposed Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Project (Hancock and Calligan projects, or Projects) study areas was conducted on June 14, 2013, by two wildlife biologists and a pilot. No nests or birds of the target species were seen, nor any other raptor nests or raptors. All forested habitat was surveyed within both study areas. There were no cliffs to support nesting peregrine falcons and forest conditions (tree and stand ages), with the exception of limited riparian buffers, were generally unsuitable for bald eagles and ospreys nesting at both study sites, indicating the likelihood of detecting these species in this area would be very low.

2. STUDYOBJECTIVESANDDESCRIPTION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) requested that Public Utility District No.

1 of Snohomish County (the District) conduct further evaluation of the presence or absence of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) in habitat with trees over 50 years of age within 660 feet of the Project footprints, and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) within one-half mile of the Project footprints (March 14, 2013 letter and follow-up meeting April 16, 2013).

The District requested Hamer Environmental conduct Helicopter surveys at Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek projects to determine nesting activity of bald eagles, ospreys, and peregrine falcons within the two Projects’ study areas. Other raptors present within the Project area were also to be noted. If active and/or inactive nests were found in the Project areas, locations and nest type were to be recorded. For active nests, adult activity and number of eggs or young present were to be documented. If eagle- or osprey-sized inactive nests were located from the helicopter, they were to be inspected from the ground for fledglings or evidence of failed nesting (e.g., prey remains, feathers and other evidence below the nest).

3. BACKGROUNDINFORMATIONThe Hancock and Calligan projects are described in detail in the District’s Final License Applications (FLAs) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by the District on August 1, 2013 (District 2013a and 2013b). The Projects are located approximately 30 miles east of the City of Seattle, Washington, and 7 miles northeast of the City of North Bend, in King County. Hancock Creek Project is approximately two miles south of the Calligan Creek Project. Most of the land surrounding the Project is owned by Hancock Timber Resource Group (HTRG) and is managed for commercial timber. Bald eagle and peregrine falcon are not listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identifies them as species of concern (USFWS 2013). Both are WDFW sensitive species and are therefore considered by the state to be a priority species for conservation and management within their Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program. Osprey are not listed at the federal or state level and are not considered a state priority species. All three species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.



WDFW was concerned that construction and operation of the Hancock and Calligan projects might have an effect on nesting bald eagles, ospreys or peregrine falcons. While it was unlikely that a nest would be removed within the footprint of either one of the Projects, based on existing habitat and other studies conducted in the area, WDFW requested protocol level surveys be conducted to assure that no nests will be removed, and to identify any nests within 660 feet (for bald eagle or osprey) or one-half mile (for peregrine falcons) of the Project footprints where noise disturbance might occur. Herrera biologists (Herrera 2012a and 2012b) reviewed WDFW PHS data for the Project vicinity to determine if any occurrences of bald eagle, osprey and peregrine falcon had been documented within the study area. None of these species were documented by WDFW to occur in the study area. Before Hamer Environmental initiated nest surveys for these species, biologists at HTRG were also consulted to obtain potential additional information on these raptors. No known nests of any of these three species were known to be present in the Project areas by HTRG biologists. The habitat to be surveyed within the study areas included trees over 50 years of age within a 660-foot buffer surrounding the Project footprints for bald eagle and osprey nesting activity and a one-half mile buffer area for peregrine falcon nesting activities (Figures 1 and 2). The two Project areas may have suitable nest sites in trees for bald eagles, ospreys and peregrine falcons. Bald eagles typically nest below the crown of a tree, usually at the highest point where large branches join the tree bole (Buehler 2000). Ospreys typically nest at the tops of trees, live or dead; trees with broken or dead tops are often chosen (Palmer 1988). Both species typically select the largest trees for nesting in an area (Palmer 1988). Peregrine falcons nest on cliffs and, occasionally, in trees (White et al. 2002). There are no known cliffs within the 0.5-mile buffer zone of either Project area.



Figure 1. Hancock Creek Hydro Project area showing the 660-foot and 0.5-mile survey buffer zones.



Figure 2. Calligan Creek Hydro Project area showing the 660-foot and 0.5-mile survey buffer zones.



The Projects’ study areas lie primarily within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) zone, with transition above 2,000 feet to the Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) zone (Herrera 2012). The western hemlock zone is dominated by western hemlock, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Hardwoods, particularly red alder (Alnus rubra), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) characterize riparian sites. These hardwood species are also represented in canopy gaps and other recently disturbed sites. Dominant tree species in the Pacific silver fir zone include Pacific silver fir, western hemlock, Douglas fir, and noble fir (Abies procera). Both Projects are within the HTRG Snoqualmie Tree Farm and are actively managed for timber. Most of the forests of the Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek drainages have been logged at least once since 1950. They have been replaced by second and third growth forests managed for Douglas fir (Herrera 2012a, b). Vegetation cover types were defined by the District within the Projects’ study areas. These cover types included Early Successional Growth, Open Canopy Sapling/Pole Coniferous Forest, Closed Canopy Sapling/Pole Coniferous Forest, Small Sawtimber, Mixed Forest, and Riparian Forest (Figures 1 and 2). The only cover types with the potential for trees over 50 years of age in the study areas were small sawtimber, mixed forest and riparian forest.

4. STUDYMETHODSNest searches for bald eagles, ospreys and peregrine falcon were conducted by helicopter using a McDonald-Douglas 530 F helicopter. Detailed study methods are described below.

SurveyTeam

The survey team consisted of a helicopter pilot, Pat Whaley of NW Helicopter, and two experienced observers working with Hamer Environmental, Tracy Fleming and Jamie Granger. Tracy Fleming has more than 40 years of experience locating raptor nests and Jamie Granger more than 5 years.

NestSearches

Aerial survey accuracy for raptor nests decreases with increasing transect width, altitude and flight speed (Caughley 1974, Fuller and Mosher 1987). Airspeed may vary depending on topography, vegetation, structures (e.g., power lines) and bird or nest site visibility (Fuller and Mosher 1987). Nest searches were conducted by helicopter flown 90-150 feet above ground level with airspeeds averaging 20 miles per hour (mph). As per the recommendations of White and Sherrod (1973) and Kochert (1986), one observer was responsible for surveying to the front and side of the aircraft (opposite the pilot) and the other was responsible for covering the opposite side and the back. On-board maps and GPS were used as references in order to monitor progress along survey transects and to record nest site locations. One hour total of aerial survey time was spent at both sites. The pre-survey plan was for the helicopter to travel four parallel transects spaced 660 feet apart along the long axis of each Project area. All potential nesting areas – trees, existing transmission towers, other vertical structures, and rock formations – were to be examined with the helicopter veering off line center as necessary to confirm the identification of nests or raptors too distant for clear identification. Once on-site, after viewing the lack of suitable habitat, the lead field



biologist made the decision to fly only over timbered stands with potentially suitable habitat, rather than run transects over large blocks of unforested land where there was no chance of detecting a raptor nest.

DataCollection

Survey protocols required observers to identify all raptor nests in the survey area, both active and inactive. Nest locations were to be recorded with a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit recording in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid NAD 83. In addition, a continuous track line of the helicopter survey route was recorded using GPS to document the areas covered by the transect surveys. All spatial data collected in the field was submitted to the District on DVD/CD ROM as projected ESRI shape files or geodatabases. In addition, spatial data would include all tabular information describing any raptor nests found. Inactive nests located might be the result of nest failure or young fledging prior to the helicopter survey. To determine if nesting activity was missed, any eagle/osprey-sized inactive nests were to be inspected from the ground 1-2 days following the helicopter survey, looking for signs of nesting: fledged young, feathers, prey remains and bird feces below the nest. Observers were to record the nest substrate (e.g., tree) and, at any active nests identified, the species and behavior of adult birds (e.g., incubating; perching) at the site. Observers were to count the number of eggs and/or young at each active site. If young were present their age was to be estimated. All active and inactive eagle/osprey-sized nests located were to be digitally photographed. Eagle/osprey-sized active and inactive nests were to be classified by condition as follows: good (structurally sound with identifiable bowl), fair (structurally sound but with nest bowl broken down), and poor (structurally unsound, unsuitable for nesting). As per the recommendations of Kochert (1986), the helicopter surveys occurred on a clear day with little to no precipitation and with wind speeds < 20 mph (32 km/hr). These weather conditions ensured that the visibility of observers was not impaired.

Schedule

The aerial survey for bald eagle, osprey and peregrine falcon nests by helicopter was conducted on one day. The helicopter flight was timed to coincide with the nestling periods for target species (Table 1). The flight was to occur between June 04 and June 20, 2013. If inactive nests were found, up to two days of field time was to be added to the schedule to look from the ground at these sites for fledged young and/or signs of nesting failure earlier in the nesting season.



Table 1. Target raptor species and their nesting phenology. a Marshall et al. 2006, b Ehrlich et al. 1988

Species Nesting Phenologya (based on Marshall et al. 2006)

Days to Hatchingb

Days to Fledgingb

Estimated Fledging

Osprey

Mean egg laying April 30 (range April 23-May 8)

32-43 48-59 Late July

Bald Eagle

Egg laying mid-Feb to late April; hatching late March to late May

34-36 70-98 Late June

Peregrine Falcon

Clutches typically complete mid-March to mid-April

29-32 35-42 Early June

5. RESULTSAn aerial survey for nesting bald eagles, osprey and peregrine falcons on the Hancock and Calligan project sites was conducted on June 14, 2013. Weather was 100% overcast, wind 10-15 mph, temperature in the mid 60s ºF. The helicopter arrived on-site at Hancock Creek at 10:57, then surveyed Hancock and Calligan sites until 11:47, at which point the survey was ended. A GPS tracklog of the flight was recorded (Figures 3 and 4) and photographs of the habitat taken (Appendix A). All suitable habitat was surveyed. No nests or raptors of any type were observed.

6. DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONSMuch of the forest land on both sites had been recently clearcut or consisted of forest stands less than 50 years of old (Figures 1 and 2; Appendix A: photo 1). Additionally, there were no observed power poles or other structures in either study area to provide potential nesting habitat. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, transects were flown over the remaining trees in the study area rather than run transects through large blocks of unforested land where there was no chance of detecting a raptor nest. Visibility was excellent and cloud cover eliminated most helicopter canopy glare. No bald eagle or osprey nests, active or inactive, were observed at either site. With the exception of a few large remnant trees and snags along the North Fork Snoqualmie River and near each lake (Appendix A: photos 2, 3), there appeared to be very little in the way of suitable structures capable of supporting these types of large raptor nests. There were no cliffs on either study area to support nesting peregrine falcons. Tree-nesting by peregrines has been an exceptionally rare event anywhere in North America (White et al. 2002). The only two peregrine falcon tree nests ever recorded in Washington were both found in unused bald eagle nests (Joe Buchanan, WDFW, pers. comm.). Given that no bald eagle nests were found on either study site and that there is excellent peregrine habitat on huge cliffs a few miles south near Mt. Si, it was almost certain that peregrine falcons would not be observed nesting at Hancock or Calligan project study areas. There was one small “semi-cliff” (very steep, rocky, treed bluff) located approximately 3/4 mile northwest of the Calligan Creek buffer (Appendix A: photo 4). This cliff was surveyed by helicopter at the end of the survey, but no peregrine falcons or other raptors were observed.



In summation, we observed no nest structures or birds of any of the 3 target species: bald eagle, osprey or peregrine falcon. Additionally, no nests or birds of any other raptor species were observed.



Figure 3. Tracklog of aerial survey conducted June 14, 2013, Hancock Creek.



Figure 4. Tracklog of aerial survey conducted June 14, 2013, Calligan Creek.



7. REFERENCESBuehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In: The Birds of North America, No. 06 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Caughley, G. 1974. Bias in aerial surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 38: 921-933. District. 2013a. Hancock Creek Hydroelelctrict Project FERC No. 13994, Final License Application for Major Unconstructed Project, 18 CFR, Part 4, Volume 2: Exhibit E. August 1, 2013. District. 2013b. Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 13948, Final License Application for Major Unconstructed Project, 18 CFR, Part 4, Volume 2: Exhibit E. August 1, 2013. Ehrlich, Paul R., David S. Dobkin, and Darryl Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook. Simon and Schuster/ Fireside Books. New York, New York. Fuller, M.R., and J. Mosher. 1987. Raptor survey techniques. Pages 37-76 in: B.A. Giron Pendleton, B.A. Millsap, K.W. Cline and D.M. Bird [Eds], Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC USA. Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2012a. Preliminary Critical Areas Report and Vegetation Assessment. Hancock Creek Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Snohomish County. Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2012b. Preliminary Critical Areas Report and Vegetation Assessment. Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Snohomish County. Kochert, M.N. 1986. Raptors. Pages 313-349 in: A.L. Cooperrider, R.J. Boyd and H.R. Stuart [Eds]. Inventory and monitoring wildlife habitat. USDI, BLM Service Center, Denver, CO. Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003, 2006. Birds of Oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR 768 pp. Palmer, R.S. (Ed.). 1988. Handbook of North American Birds, Volume 4. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 433 pages. Poole, A.F., R.O. Bierregaard, and M.S. Martell. 2002. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). In: The Birds of North America, No. 683 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.



USFWS (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat; candidate species; and species of concern in King County as prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Revised April 24, 2013. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/SnohomishCounty042413.pdf . Accessed June 3 White, C.M. and S.K. Sherrod. 1973. Advantages and disadvantages of the use of rotor-winged aircraft in raptor surveys. Raptor Research 7:97-104. White, C.M., N.J. Club, T.J. Cade, and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 660 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.


Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Technical Report A-1 February 2014

AppendixA:Photos

Photo 1: Typical remnant habitat near Hancock Creek.



Photo 2: Riparian buffer along N. Fork Snoqualmie River near Hancock Creek.



Photo 3: Riparian buffer, Calligan Lake outlet.



Photo 4: Forested “semi-cliff” northwest of Calligan Creek site.


Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Technical Report B-1 February 2014

AppendixB:ConsultationDocumentation

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Presler, DawnSent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:06 PMTo: 'Applegate, Brock A (DFW)'Subject: RE: Terrestrial Comments for Hancock/Calligan Draft License Application

Cool. Thanks again! Dawn

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:06 PM To: Presler, Dawn Subject: RE: Terrestrial Comments for Hancock/Calligan Draft License Application Hi Dawn, I asked for 1:30‐3:30. I will let you know when I hear back. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

From: Presler, Dawn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:05 PM To: Binkley, Keith; Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: RE: Terrestrial Comments for Hancock/Calligan Draft License Application Hi Brock, I had to get the FERC notice in today so I said 1:00 at the Mill Creek office. Hopefully you can reserve us a room at your facility from 1:00-3:00. Let me know. Thanks! Dawn

From: Binkley, Keith Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 1:57 PM To: 'Applegate, Brock A (DFW)'; Presler, Dawn Cc: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: RE: Terrestrial Comments for Hancock/Calligan Draft License Application Brock – that would have been ideal but Karen will be in Hawaii on the 26th. Thanks for accommodating and the meeting on the 16th will be focused solely on “terrestrial” issues and held locally at Mill Creek. We will still have the aquatics meeting on the 26th. Keith

2

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 1:50 PM To: Presler, Dawn Cc: Binkley, Keith Subject: Terrestrial Comments for Hancock/Calligan Draft License Application HI Dawn, April 16 is fine. I was under the impression that Keith wanted to get all the comments done in one time and I thought that one time was April 26 in Olympia. Either way, they are both on the calendar. Let me know location when you know it. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Presler, DawnSent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:08 PMTo: '[email protected]' ([email protected]); 'Maynard, Chris (ECY)'

([email protected]); Matthew Baerwalde ([email protected]); Bedrossian, Karen; Binkley, Keith; '[email protected]' ([email protected]); LouEllyn Jones ([email protected]); Daryl Williams ([email protected])

Cc: Moore, KimSubject: Hancock and Calligan hydro projects - meeting on April 16 - terrestrial resourcesAttachments: 20130401FERCNotice re mtg.pdf

Hello, A meeting will be held on April 16 at 1:30pm between the District and WDFW to discuss WDFW’s terrestrial resources related comments on the Draft License Applications for the Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek hydro projects. Since you have similar interest in terrestrial resources, you may want to attend this meeting as well. See attached. Please let me know if you plan on attending so I can bring enough handouts, and we can verify enough space in the conference room for people wanting to attend. Thanks! (I am currently putting together the fisheries/water quality resource meeting agenda and that will get e-filed with FERC and routed to you soon.) Dawn Presler Sr. Environmental Coordinator Generation Resources (425) 783-1709 ****************************** PUD No. 1 of Snohomish County PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Presler, DawnSent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:49 PMTo: 'Maynard, Chris (ECY)'Subject: RE: Hancock and Calligan hydro projects - meeting on April 16 - terrestrial resources

OK, thanks for the heads-up Dawn

From: Maynard, Chris (ECY) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:49 PM To: Presler, Dawn Subject: RE: Hancock and Calligan hydro projects - meeting on April 16 - terrestrial resources Hi Dawn, I won’t attend the terrestrial focused meeting. Chris

From: Presler, Dawn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:08 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW); Maynard, Chris (ECY); Matthew Baerwalde ([email protected]); Bedrossian, Karen; Binkley, Keith; '[email protected]' ([email protected]); LouEllyn Jones ([email protected]); Daryl Williams ([email protected]) Cc: Moore, Kim Subject: Hancock and Calligan hydro projects - meeting on April 16 - terrestrial resources Hello, A meeting will be held on April 16 at 1:30pm between the District and WDFW to discuss WDFW’s terrestrial resources related comments on the Draft License Applications for the Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek hydro projects. Since you have similar interest in terrestrial resources, you may want to attend this meeting as well. See attached. Please let me know if you plan on attending so I can bring enough handouts, and we can verify enough space in the conference room for people wanting to attend. Thanks! (I am currently putting together the fisheries/water quality resource meeting agenda and that will get e-filed with FERC and routed to you soon.) Dawn Presler Sr. Environmental Coordinator Generation Resources (425) 783-1709 ****************************** PUD No. 1 of Snohomish County PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Matthew Baerwalde <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:11 AMTo: Presler, DawnSubject: RE: Hancock and Calligan hydro projects - meeting on April 16 - terrestrial resources

Thank you for the heads-up, Dawn. ________________________________________ From: Presler, Dawn [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:07 PM To: '[email protected]' ([email protected]); 'Maynard, Chris (ECY)' ([email protected]); Matthew Baerwalde; Bedrossian, Karen; Binkley, Keith; '[email protected]' ([email protected]); LouEllyn Jones ([email protected]); Daryl Williams ([email protected]) Cc: Moore, Kim Subject: Hancock and Calligan hydro projects - meeting on April 16 - terrestrial resources Hello, A meeting will be held on April 16 at 1:30pm between the District and WDFW to discuss WDFW’s terrestrial resources related comments on the Draft License Applications for the Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek hydro projects. Since you have similar interest in terrestrial resources, you may want to attend this meeting as well. See attached. Please let me know if you plan on attending so I can bring enough handouts, and we can verify enough space in the conference room for people wanting to attend. Thanks! (I am currently putting together the fisheries/water quality resource meeting agenda and that will get e-filed with FERC and routed to you soon.) Dawn Presler Sr. Environmental Coordinator Generation Resources (425) 783-1709 ****************************** PUD No. 1 of Snohomish County PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107

AGENDA

Hancock Creek (P-13994) and Calligan Creek (P-13948) Hydro Projects

Review WDFW Comments on Draft License Application

Date: Tuesday April 16, 2013 Time1: 1:00pm - 3:00pm Location1: WDFW Mill Creek Office

16018 Mill Creek Boulevard

Agenda Topics for Terrestrial Resources Only:

1. General comments review 2. Amphibians and reptiles 3. Riparian vegetation 4. Priority species 5. Adaptive management plans

1 Time and location subject to final WDFW confirmation.

Meeting Summary Page 1

Hancock Creek (P-13994) and Calligan Creek (P-13948) Hydroelectric Projects

Meeting Summary

Date: April 16, 2013

Attendees: PUD – Karen Bedrossian, Keith Binkley WDFW – Brock Applegate

Invited, not present: WDOE - Chris Maynard, Snoqualmie Tribe –

Matthew Baerwalde, Tulalip Tribes – Daryl Williams, USFWS – Tim Romanski & Lou Ellyn Jones.

Purpose: Respond to WDFW comment letter submitted on March 14, 2013 regarding Draft License Applications for Hancock and Calligan

Projects – Terrestrial Component. Meeting addressed specific terrestrial related comments in WDFW letter. Karen directed Brock to portions of

Draft License Application (DLA), Critical Areas Study, and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for relevant information. A summary of the discussion is provided in the matrix below.

Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes

Calligan Creek Project

1 A.6.9. Lighting. Please minimize and direct light downward as much as possible without compromising safety. Lighting can attract and confuse migrating passerines, which can collide with the projects structures and power lines.

Response in DLA Section E.9.3.1.2, page E-158 addresses this issue. Agreement: District will add additional language in Final License Application (FLA) that lighting will be directed downward.

2 A.6.12. Switchyard. Please use the latest Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines for construction of your facility to minimize impacts to avian species from electrocution and collision.

Agreement: District will use the latest Avian Power Line Interaction Committee guidelines.

3 E.4.1.3.3. Amphibians and Reptiles. WDFW does not think the 20-25 year-old amphibian surveys can tell us the current species in these

The District did not conduct an amphibian and reptile study because an updated study was not requested in previous correspondence or in

1 This table includes WDFW comments and District responses and meeting discussion notes regarding

terrestrial issues only. Aquatic resources will be addressed during a meeting on April 26, 2013.


Comment Number1


habitats now because habitat change and populations emigrate over time. WDFW recommends implementing an Amphibian and Reptile Adaptive Management Plan that conducts pre-construction and post-construction monitoring and collaboratively formulates any PM&E measures that result from the monitoring. WDFW would like to further consider Washington Priority Species such as western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli), and Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the project area.

response to the PAD. The potential occurrence of amphibian and reptile species in the Project area is addressed in Section E.4.1.3.3 and special status species are addressed in Section E.4.1.4 and Table E.4-4, which shows special status wildlife species known to occur in King County and their likelihood of occurrence in the Project Area (2-mile radius around the Project footprint). It is unlikely that Larch Mountain salamander or Oregon spotted frog occur in the Project area. WDFW stated that protocol surveys are required to conclude absence of a species, if suitable habitat is available. Agreement: District will conduct amphibian and reptile surveys in 2013. In response to WDFW DLA comments the District has contracted with Stephen Nyman, PhD (HDR) to conduct amphibian surveys. Dr. Nyman conducted past surveys at Hancock and Calligan. Results will update and supplement existing information. Dr. Nyman will conduct four surveys over the course of the spring and summer (beginning April 11, 2013). Scope of work will be shared with WDFW. This survey information will inform the need for amphibian mitigation, which could become part of a final wetland and riparian habitat mitigation plan, currently in conceptual form.

Surveys shall include still-water/back-water along channel margins near intake and project footprint and still water wetlands potentially affected by the projects, for spotted frogs and western toad.

The District has submitted a conceptual mitigation plan to King County and plans to meet with appropriate Project stakeholders to determine final PM&Es and develop a final mitigation plan for wetlands and riparian areas that will


Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes become part of the Terrestrial Resources Mitigation Plan (TRMP). Agreement: The amphibian and reptile survey will not hold up filing of FLA and draft TRMP, but will inform final TRMP.

4 E.4.1.4. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species. All Washington Priority Species will need monitoring and consideration in the project footprint. SnoPUD should consider project effects on the lake and common loons (Gavia immer), particularly on the known nest on Calligan Lake. A Washington Priority Species Management Plan would look at the results of the vegetation study, consider the possibility of a population due to habitat, consider the habitat or species impacted by direct or indirect effects, and then direct stakeholders to determine collectively any PM&E measures, which could include species-specific monitoring, disturbance buffers, or construction timing restrictions.

All Washington priority species potentially in the Project area were addressed in Table E.4-4. The Project footprint is relatively small and it is within a large area that is highly disturbed and actively managed for timber. Table E.4-1 of the DLA on page E-67 and Figure E.4-1 on page E-69 illustrate this point. According to WDFW PHS data, no Washington Priority Species have been identified or documented in the Project boundary. None of the species identified for protection by King County associated with wildlife habitat conservation areas were observed within the study area during field surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 for the Critical Areas Report and Vegetation Assessment. Those species include bald eagle, great blue heron, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, osprey, peregrine falcon, spotted owl, red-tailed hawk, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. None of those species have documented nesting sites within 1 mile of the Project area. PHS data indicate an individual goshawk vocalization documented about 2/3 of a mile south of the proposed Hancock powerhouse in 2008. Also a breeding pair was documented in 1998 and an individual was observed in 1999 about a mile and a half northwest of the Calligan powerhouse. Agreement: In addition to amphibians, only northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, osprey and bald eagle will need further evaluation. Given that the project footprint is small, focus will be


Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes on habitat characteristics within ½ mile of the project footprint. Habitat has been evaluated through past efforts and efforts in 2011 and 2012, including those presented in the DLA and in the recent Critical Areas Study.

Regarding Johnson’s hairstreak and Valley Silverspot butterfly habitat, the District will review critical areas surveys and see if mistletoe plants and western blue violet were observed in surveys. If not, no further investigation is required. If the PUD finds mistletoe plants or western blue violet (Johnson’s hairstreak or Valley Silverspot butterfly habitat), they will consult with WDFW.

Common loons are documented on Calligan Lake. There will be no Project effects on the Lake. Agreement: As described in Section 4.2.1.2 of the DLA, loons will be protected from noise disturbance during construction by distance, topography and vegetation.

5 E.4.3. Proposed Environmental Measures. Please include three PM&E’s: Amphibian, Raptor, and Washington Priority Species.

Agreement: An amphibian and reptile study will be conducted in 2013. Potential impacts and PM&Es, based on that study, will be discussed. Any PM&Es for amphibians will be included in the mitigation plan for wetlands and riparian areas, which will become part of the TRMP. WDFW has some concern over level of coverage captured under existing studies and protocols with regards to WDFW Priority Species. Species of specific interest include nesting northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, osprey, and bald eagle. WDFW requested further evaluation for nesting habitat within ½ mile of project footprint for goshawk and peregrine and 660 feet for osprey and eagle. Following that, the need for initiating


Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes full survey protocols will be discussed. Concern is over potential disturbance effects, and construction timing. WDFW stated that concern could be avoided by construction timing to avoid the nesting season. No raptors or Washington Priority Species have been documented in the Project boundary according to 2012 WDFW PHS data or by PUD biologists or consultants conducting critical areas or other studies. The transmission line will be buried, significantly reducing potential impacts to raptors. The small project foot print and active timber management regime in the area makes it unlikely that raptors or priority species would be significantly impacted by the Project, if they were present. WDFW stated that the absence of a species cannot be concluded, unless there is no suitable habitat, without conducting protocol surveys. Agreement: In addition to amphibians, only northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, osprey and bald eagle will need further evaluation. District biologists will identify and look at habitat within ½ mile of the Project footprint, where trees are over 50 years of age. Karen will provide WDFW with map of project footprint and ½ mile radius (for northern goshawk and peregrine falcon) and 660-foot radius (for osprey and bald eagle) around the Project footprint, and a brief discussion of potential habitat for the above mentioned species. This further evaluation will not hold up filing of FLA and draft TRMP, but will inform final TRMP.

Agreement: Brock will send survey protocols for goshawk.


Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes WDFW stated that they can be flexible on management plans depending on conditions and existing information. On other District projects, the Terrestrial Resources Management Plan (TRMP) has an adaptive component which is consistent with the desires for Hancock and Calligan. WDFW will be consulted during the development of the TRMP.

Agreement: District will develop “an umbrella TRMP” including mechanism for stakeholder input and adaptive input similar to program in place for Youngs Creek and Jackson Project Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (WHMP) and TRMP. Umbrella will include wetlands as a section of the overall TRMP. Noxious weeds, pipeline planting will be included as components. Goals and objectives will be established. Plans will be adaptive in that they will integrate future information and techniques over time.

Hancock Creek Project

6 E.2.2.1.3. Penstock. WDFW recommends investigating horizontal directional drilling for the penstock, particularly under the wetlands or other ecologically sensitive areas.

Geotechnical conditions have been evaluated in the past and present, and consistently indicated that trenchless techniques (including horizontal directional drilling) are not advisable for the Project. WDFW understands that to the extent practicable the District has re-aligned the penstock alignment to avoid wetlands and buffers and is planning mitigation where impacts are not avoidable.

7 E.4.1.1.8. Wetlands, Littoral Zones, and Floodplains. SnoPUD should address the effects of wetlands in the riparian zone as the project reduces flows in the bypass reach.

The effects of the Project on wetlands in the riparian zone are discussed in Section E.4.2.1.1, pages E-89 through E- 94, and in the Critical Areas Report. Karen presented a conceptual mitigation plan, which King County is


Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes currently reviewing. Once their review is complete, appropriate stakeholders will be consulted with on a final mitigation plan which will become part of the TRMP. WDFW suggested considering that wetlands mitigation include areas around lakes. Calligan Lake may be more attractive for mitigation options because there is less potential disturbance to loons from human activity.

8 E.4.1.3.3. Amphibians and reptiles. WDFW does not think 20-25 year-old amphibian surveys can tell us the current species residing in the wetlands, because habitats change and populations emigrate over time. WDFW recommends implementing an Amphibian and Reptile Adaptive Management Plan by completing pre-construction and post-construction monitoring and collaboratively formulating any PM&E measures that result from the monitoring. WDFW would like to further consider Washington Priority Species such as western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli), and Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the project area.

The District did not conduct an amphibian and reptile study because an updated study was not requested in previous correspondence or in response to the PAD. The potential occurrence of amphibian and reptile species in the Project area is addressed in Section E.4.1.3.3 and special status species are addressed in Section E.4.1.4 and Table E.4-4, which shows special status wildlife species known to occur in King County and their likelihood of occurrence in the Project Area (2-mile radius around the Project footprint). It is unlikely that Larch Mountain salamander or Oregon spotted frog occur in the Project area. WDFW stated that protocol surveys are required to conclude absence of a species, if suitable habitat is available. Agreement: District will conduct an amphibian and reptile survey in 2013. In response to WDFW DLA comments the District has contracted with Stephen Nyman, PhD (HDR) to conduct updated amphibian surveys. Dr. Nyman conducted past surveys at Hancock and Calligan. Results will update and supplement existing information. Dr. Nyman will conduct four surveys over the course of the spring and summer (beginning April 11, 2013). Scope of work will be shared with WDFW. This


Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes survey information will inform the need for amphibian mitigation, which could become part of a final wetland and riparian habitat mitigation plan, currently in conceptual form.

Surveys shall include still-water/back-water along channel margins near intake and project footprint and still water wetlands potentially affected by the projects, for spotted frogs and western toad.

The District has submitted a conceptual mitigation plan to King County and plans to meet with appropriate Project stakeholders to determine final PM&Es and develop a final mitigation plan for wetlands and riparian areas that will become part of the Terrestrial Resources Mitigation Plan (TRMP). Agreement: The amphibian and reptile survey will not hold up filing of FLA and draft TRMP, but will inform final TRMP.

9 E.4.2.2.1. Vegetation. Third paragraph. Last sentence. Trees take years to grow. The adjustment to reduced flows could highly impact a mature riparian forest that has taken a long time to establish itself.

The gradient of Hancock Creek is very steep and the channel is very confined. Riparian forest at Hancock is designated as such, mostly because upland forest was excluded from timber harvest as part of a required riparian buffer, not because it is dependent on the water regime. See Section E.4.1.1.7.

Brock requested assurance that impacts to riverine wetlands near intake and project powerhouse are addressed in mitigation plan. Riparian forest that does include vegetation that is influenced by the aquatic ecosystem was included in the Critical Areas Study and impacts are addressed. PM&Es have been proposed in a conceptual mitigation plan that will be presented to appropriate stakeholders for review.

10 E.4.3. Proposed Environmental Measures. Please include three

Agreement: An amphibian and reptile study will be conducted in 2013.


Comment Number1


adaptive management plans as PM&E’s: Amphibian, Raptor, and Washington Priority Species.

Potential impacts and PM&Es, based on that study, will be discussed. PM&Es for amphibians will be included in the mitigation plan for wetlands and riparian areas, which will become part of the TRMP. WDFW has some concern over level of coverage captured under existing studies and protocols with regards to WDFW Priority Species. Species of specific interest include nesting northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, osprey, and bald eagle. WDFW requested further evaluation for nesting habitat within ½ mile of project footprint for goshawk and peregrine and 660 feet for osprey and eagle. Following that, the need for initiating full survey protocols will be discussed. Concern is over potential disturbance effects, and construction timing. WDFW stated that concern could be avoided by construction timing to avoid the nesting season. According to WDFW PHS data, no Washington Priority Species have been identified or documented in the Project boundary. None of the species identified for protection by King County associated with wildlife habitat conservation areas were observed within the study area during field surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 for the Critical Areas Report and Vegetation Assessment. Those species include bald eagle, great blue heron, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, osprey, peregrine falcon, spotted owl, red-tailed hawk, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. None of those species have documented nesting sites within 1 mile of the Project area. PHS data indicate an individual goshawk vocalization documented about 2/3 of a mile south of the proposed Hancock powerhouse in 2008. Also a breeding pair was


Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes documented in 1998 and an individual was observed in 1999 about a mile and a half northwest of the Calligan powerhouse. Agreement: In addition to amphibians, only northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, osprey and bald eagle will need further evaluation. District biologists will identify and look at habitat within ½ mile of the Project footprint, where trees are over 50 years of age. Karen will provide WDFW with map of project footprint and ½ mile radius (for northern goshawk and peregrine falcon) and 660-foot radius (for osprey and bald eagle) around the Project footprint, and a brief discussion of potential habitat for the above mentioned species. This further evaluation will not hold up filing of FLA and draft TRMP, but will inform final TRMP.

Agreement: Brock will send survey protocols for goshawk.

Regarding Johnson’s hairstreak and Valley Silverspot butterfly habitat, the District will review critical areas surveys and see if mistletoe plants and western blue violet were observed in surveys. If not, no further investigation is required. If the PUD finds mistletoe plants or western blue violet (Johnson’s hairstreak or Valley Silverspot butterfly habitat), they will consult with WDFW.

WDFW stated that they can be flexible on management plans depending on conditions and existing information. On other District projects, the Terrestrial Resources Management Plan (TRMP) has an adaptive component which is consistent with the desires for Hancock and Calligan. WDFW will be consulted during the development of the TRMP.

Agreement: District will develop “an


Comment Number1

WDFW DLA Comments Snohomish PUD Response and Meeting Discussion Notes umbrella TRMP” including mechanism for stakeholder input and adaptive input similar to program in place for Youngs Creek and Jackson Project WHMP and TRMP. Umbrella will include wetlands as a section of the overall TRMP. Noxious weeds, pipeline planting will be included as components. Goals and objectives will be established. Plans will be adaptive in that they will integrate future information and techniques over time.

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Binkley, KeithSent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:42 PMTo: ''[email protected]' ([email protected])'Cc: Bedrossian, Karen; Presler, DawnSubject: Hancock and Calligan - resolution of DLA commentsAttachments: Hancock Calligan 041713 meeting with WDFW regarding DLA comments TERRESTRIAL

.docx

Hi Brock – Here are the minutes / points we agreed upon during our recent meeting regarding WDFW comments on the Draft License Applications for the Hancock and Calligan projects. We appreciate you taking the time to collaboratively work through these issues with us. We will look forward to a similarly productive meeting next week to address comments on aquatic resources. Thanks and have an enjoyable weekend, Keith Keith Binkley Manager ‐ Natural Resources Department Generation Division Snohomish County PUD 425 783 1769 (office) 425 293 6201 (mobile)

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 6:18 PMTo: Binkley, KeithCc: Bedrossian, Karen; Presler, Dawn; Anderson, Christopher D (DFW)Subject: RE: Hancock and Calligan - resolution of DLA commentsAttachments: Draft license Application Terrestrial Meeting Comments Hancock Calligan 041713 with

WDFW.docx

Hi Keith, Thanks for taking notes. We will probably need additional conversation over protocol surveys and collaboration on modification of surveys. Please see attached comments/edits to the meeting notes. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

From: Binkley, Keith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:42 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Bedrossian, Karen; Presler, Dawn Subject: Hancock and Calligan - resolution of DLA comments Hi Brock – Here are the minutes / points we agreed upon during our recent meeting regarding WDFW comments on the Draft License Applications for the Hancock and Calligan projects. We appreciate you taking the time to collaboratively work through these issues with us. We will look forward to a similarly productive meeting next week to address comments on aquatic resources. Thanks and have an enjoyable weekend, Keith Keith Binkley Manager ‐ Natural Resources Department Generation Division Snohomish County PUD 425 783 1769 (office) 425 293 6201 (mobile)

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Presler, DawnSent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:58 AMTo: 'Matthew Baerwalde'Cc: Spahr, Scott; Bedrossian, Karen; Binkley, KeithSubject: RE: Hancock and Calligan Creek hydro projects - Draft License Applications comments -

Minutes of April 26 MeetingAttachments: Hancock Calligan 041713 meeting with WDFW regarding DLA comments TERREST....docx

Here you go. Dawn

From: Matthew Baerwalde [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:45 AM To: Spahr, Scott; Presler, Dawn Subject: RE: Hancock and Calligan Creek hydro projects - Draft License Applications comments - Minutes of April 26 Meeting Hello, Can you please send me the "Terrestrial 4/16 meeting comments" that are referred to these notes? Thanks, Matt Baerwalde

From: Spahr, Scott [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 3:48 PM To: ''Maynard, Chris (ECY)' ([email protected])'; 'Kannadaguli, Monika (ECY) ([email protected])'; '[email protected]'; ''[email protected]' ([email protected])'; Reinbold, Stewart G (DFW) ([email protected]); '[email protected]'; Moore, Kim; Binkley, Keith; Beecher, Hal (DFW); [email protected] Cc: 'Daryl Williams ([email protected])'; Matthew Baerwalde; ''[email protected]' ([email protected])'; 'LouEllyn Jones ([email protected])'; ''Steven Fransen' ([email protected])'; Presler, Dawn Subject: Hancock and Calligan Creek hydro projects - Draft License Applications comments - Minutes of April 26 Meeting

All, Attached are draft meeting minutes developed to document areas of agreement, areas of further discussion, and unresolved issues, related to fisheries and aquatics comments received on the Hancock Project (FERC Project No. 13994) and Calligan Project (FERC Project No. 13948) Draft License Applications. Please review and provide any comments or edits to these minutes within seven days, after which we will finalize the minutes. Thanks for your participation and interest in these projects. Regards, ‐Scott Spahr Scott Spahr, P.E. Manager Generation Engineering Snohomish County PUD No. 1 2320 California Street Everett, Wa 98206-1107 (425) 783-1746

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Bedrossian, KarenSent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:50 AMTo: Applegate, Brock A (DFW)Cc: Binkley, KeithSubject: Hancock and Calligan DLA Comments - WDFW requested amphibian and raptor studiesAttachments: CCH Covertype and raptor survey 05302013.pdf; HCH Covertype and raptor survey

05302013.pdf

Hi Brock, Attached are cover type maps showing the survey boundaries for the raptor studies. There will be two studies, one for goshawks and one for bald eagles, osprey and peregrine falcon. I am hoping to have the raptor and amphibian study plans to you later this week or early next week. As agreed, surveys will be conducted in stands with trees over 50 years of age. That means that Small Saw (SS), Mixed Forest (MF) and Riparian Buffer (RP) will be surveyed. You can find the cover type definitions in the Critical Areas reports or the DLAs. We are following your requested protocols and using well respected consultants (Dr. Stephen Nyman, HDR and Tom Hamer and Dr. Dan Varland, Hamer Environmental). We are moving as rapidly as we can on contracts and study plans so that we do not miss the 2013 season. As agreed, I have reviewed the critical areas surveys and did not find any mention of mistletoe plants (Arceuthobium) or western blue violet (Viola adunca), so no further investigation is required. Both Mike Schutt and I have conducted some research on Johnson’s hairstreak and valley silverspot and agree that it is very unlikely that these species would occur in the habitat surrounding either project. As agreed, the District will consult with WDFW if these species are found within the project boundaries. I left you a phone message. If you have any questions or would like to set up a meeting to discuss the maps and study plans please call me (425 783‐1774). Karen

Karen Bedrossian Senior Environmental Coordinator Snohomish County PUD 425 783-1774

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Bedrossian, KarenSent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:30 AMTo: 'Applegate, Brock A (DFW)'Cc: Desimone, Steven M (DFW); Anderson, Christopher D (DFW); Binkley, KeithSubject: RE: Goshawk Study Plan for Hancock and CalliganAttachments: Daniel Varland Hamer Environmental Resume.pdf; Resume Tracy Fleming-Hamer

Environmental _Raptors.pdf; Resume David Ness-Hamer Environmental.pdf; Resume Thomas Hamer-Hamer Environmental.pdf

Hi Brock, Section 1.5 does not discuss management measures. It is simply describing the nexus/ connection to the Project. Section 1.6 and 1.8 – Hamer Environmental will be using three biologists to conduct the surveys. The three transects will be 20 meters apart as they traverse the stand. The biologist on the center transect will be conducting the broadcast calls while the biologists on each side of the center transect person will be looking for goshawk sign and for the presence of adult or young. The stands of suitable habitat at the site are mostly small and narrow, so this will truly be an intensive survey. Resumes for personnel guiding and/or conducting the goshawk surveys are attached. The goshawk surveys are scheduled for next week depending on the weather conditions. We have already flown the protocol survey for bald eagles, osprey and peregrine falcon. No nests were found. As I have mentioned before, the habitat conditions in the study areas for these four species are marginal at best. This area has been intensely harvested over the past several years. If any of you have any questions please feel free to contact me. We need to get these surveys completed this year and as weather permits, we are moving forward. Enjoy your vacation Brock. Karen


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:33 AM To: Bedrossian, Karen Cc: Desimone, Steven M (DFW); Anderson, Christopher D (DFW) Subject: RE: Goshawk Study Plan for Hancock and Calligan Hi Karen, Sorry. Wanted to get back to you earlier, but I just found an internet connection in Florida. I reviewed these on the plan ride over. Here are my initial comments. I am having others review, but I wanted to get to you my initial reaction, so that it may create some ideas on things to come. Sections

2

1.5 We are not just concerned with only the nest tree itself, but the home territory. If you take away all of the other habitat besides the nest tree, the goshawk will most likely abandon its territory. Hopefully, we have better management planned than just sparing the nest tree. 1.6 Survey Protocol- You will need multiple surveyors to conduct the intensive search surveys. I conducted them with 3 surveyors, but I am not sure what protocol says (2 or 3). You would like to have someone looking behind the surveyor operating the call blaster to look for goshawks that come up from behind besides also looking for all the obvious sign (feathers, whitewash, etc). We would also like to look over your list of "qualified surveyors." 1.8 first sentence- Intensive Search Surveys will require multiple surveyors. I will pass on any other comments I receive, but this is all for now. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

From: Bedrossian, Karen [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:25 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Binkley, Keith Subject: Goshawk Study Plan for Hancock and Calligan

Brock, Here is the study plan for northern goshawk. The study plan for the other three raptors is different and I will send that next.

Karen Bedrossian Senior Environmental Coordinator Snohomish County PUD

425 783-1774

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Bedrossian, KarenSent: Monday, June 10, 2013 2:25 PMTo: 'Applegate, Brock A (DFW)'Cc: Binkley, Keith; Anderson, Christopher D (DFW)Subject: RE: Hancock and Calligan DLA Comments - WDFW requested amphibian and raptor studiesAttachments: HCH Vegetation Cover 06032013.pdf; CCH Vegetation Cover 06032013.pdf

Hi Brock, Are you leaving for a couple of weeks starting on June 13? As mentioned in the phone calls and emails, I would like to discuss study plans with you as soon as possible. We are moving forward with the studies as described in my dated May 23, 2013. Also, were you able to assist us with a collection permit as requested by Keith on May 13? We have not identified any cliffs within ½ mile of the project footprints, but will look for them during the aerial survey. The vegetation assessment covered the entire study area as described in the reports. You will find them on our web page: http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro/calligan/calligandocs.ashx?p=1916. Note that the full title of the two full critical areas reports includes “and vegetation assessment” even though the pdfs were labeled as critical areas reports. They also include an assessment of wildlife habitat conservation areas and of wildlife habitat networks in the project study areas. Johnson’s hairstreak and valley silverspot butterfly are not an issue regarding these projects. I have attached cover type maps that show the vegetation cover types in the legend per your request. Our GIS person has not had time to add those to the raptor study maps yet. You will find full descriptions of the cover types in the Critical Areas Report and Vegetation Assessments (dated February 2012) on our web page as mentioned in the previous paragraph. Small saw, mixed forest and riparian forest will be the only forest stands in the study areas that may have trees over 50 years of age. ES 2012 stands are stands that were harvested last year after the aerials were flown. I will send you the detailed written study plans today. Please call if you have questions. Karen


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:51 PM To: Bedrossian, Karen Cc: Binkley, Keith; Anderson, Christopher D (DFW) Subject: RE: Hancock and Calligan DLA Comments - WDFW requested amphibian and raptor studies Hi Karen, I got your phone call and do apologize for not getting back with you a couple of weeks ago. I was out all week when you e‐mailed and still have not caught up with my e‐mail from that week. Will look at the cover types on the map when I get a chance.

2

Other than the possible cliffs in the creek canyon, did you come up with any surrounding cliffs within the ½ mile buffer that may contain a possible peregrine eyries? I am not sure that you will only find mistletoe or western blue violet in the critical areas. Have any other vegetation study been done besides the ones in the critical areas. Perhaps the survey was to identify critical areas? Anyway, I would like more details on the critical area vegetation study. Looking forward to see your amphibian study plans. I will be out starting on next Thurs for a couple of weeks of vacation. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:50 AM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Binkley, Keith Subject: Hancock and Calligan DLA Comments - WDFW requested amphibian and raptor studies Hi Brock, Attached are cover type maps showing the survey boundaries for the raptor studies. There will be two studies, one for goshawks and one for bald eagles, osprey and peregrine falcon. I am hoping to have the raptor and amphibian study plans to you later this week or early next week. As agreed, surveys will be conducted in stands with trees over 50 years of age. That means that Small Saw (SS), Mixed Forest (MF) and Riparian Buffer (RP) will be surveyed. You can find the cover type definitions in the Critical Areas reports or the DLAs. We are following your requested protocols and using well respected consultants (Dr. Stephen Nyman, HDR and Tom Hamer and Dr. Dan Varland, Hamer Environmental). We are moving as rapidly as we can on contracts and study plans so that we do not miss the 2013 season. As agreed, I have reviewed the critical areas surveys and did not find any mention of mistletoe plants (Arceuthobium) or western blue violet (Viola adunca), so no further investigation is required. Both Mike Schutt and I have conducted some research on Johnson’s hairstreak and valley silverspot and agree that it is very unlikely that these species would occur in the habitat surrounding either project. As agreed, the District will consult with WDFW if these species are found within the project boundaries. I left you a phone message. If you have any questions or would like to set up a meeting to discuss the maps and study plans please call me (425 783‐1774). Karen


1

Presler, Dawn

From: Bedrossian, KarenSent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:47 PMTo: Applegate, Brock A (DFW)Cc: Binkley, KeithSubject: Hancock & Calligan Creek Hydro Projects - Draft License Applications comments, Terrestrial

Meeting April 16, 2013 summaryAttachments: DLA 20130416Terrestrial Mtg Final Sum Hancock Calligan.pdf

Brock,

The attached file contains the final notes from our meeting on April 16, 2013. I incorporated your comments in the meeting minutes if they were part of the discussion on the 16th. Comments submitted by email after the meeting are addressed below. Regarding Amphibian Surveys: Per your recent request and where applicable, the District will conduct protocol surveys for larch mountain salamander, Oregon spotted frog, and western toad. In the absence of species specific protocols for western toad, the District will follow appropriate general amphibian survey protocols. For all surveys, the District will identify suitable habitat prior to survey initiation. Given the late timing of requests and in order to preserve our ability to survey during the 2013 season, the District is forced to commence our surveys prior to WDFW’s formal review of a study plan. We will send a study plan to you soon. The District’s highly qualified consultant has indicated that the surveys are being conducted at the required times this spring, following protocols recognized by the scientific community. Regarding Raptor Surveys: Per your request, the District will conduct nesting surveys following the appropriate protocols for northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and osprey. These surveys will be in areas where trees are over 50 years of age and there is suitable habitat. For northern goshawk and peregrine falcon, the surveys will be conducted within ½ mile of the project footprint. For bald eagle and osprey the surveys will be conducted within 660 feet of the project footprint. Due to past timber harvesting practices, there is no mature forest or old growth forest near these projects. Much of the small saw timber that was previously mapped near the projects was harvested in 2012. If suitable habitat does exist, it is very fragmented. As discussed at the meeting on April 16th, conducting the surveys described above will not hold up preparing the FLA or Terrestrial Resource Mitigation Plan (TRMP). We will consult with WDFW on TRMP measures, as we have done in the past on the District’s other projects. If suitable habitat does not exist in the study area or protocol surveys indicate a species is absent, no specific mitigation measures will be proposed for that species. If surveys indicate the presence of amphibians in the study area, appropriate mitigation measures will be included or added to the TRMP. We think that either outcome ‘presence’ or ‘absence’ and associated mitigation can be agreed to in the TRMP so as to not delay completion of the TRMP until all survey results are known. The District is confident that the currently proposed conceptual wetland mitigation under review by King County, or minor modifications to that conceptual plan, will provide sound mitigation for these species. As you know, the District has a positive history of environmental stewardship and cooperation with WDFW. This recent experience, however, has been frustrating because the above study requests that we are now racing to pull together should have been made in comments to the PAD in October 2011. Nevertheless, we look forward to working with WDFW regarding these studies and the development of a reasonable and effective Terrestrial Resource Management Plan. Karen

Karen Bedrossian Senior Environmental Coordinator

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Bedrossian, KarenSent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:20 PMTo: 'Desimone, Steven M (DFW)'Cc: Applegate, Brock A (DFW); Anderson, Christopher D (DFW); Binkley, Keith; Tom Hamer;

Tracy Flemming ([email protected]); 'Dan Varland' ([email protected])Subject: RE: Goshawk Study Plan for Hancock and Calligan

Hi Steve, Thank you very much for your response. I have complete confidence that the Hamer Environmental team will do an excellent job following protocol and they are certainly welcome to contact you during our survey process. If a nest or nests are found within the study area, the PUD will contact WDFW/Brock to discuss a management strategy. Let me know if you have any additional comments or questions. Thanks, Karen


From: Desimone, Steven M (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:50 PM To: Bedrossian, Karen Cc: Applegate, Brock A (DFW); Anderson, Christopher D (DFW) Subject: RE: Goshawk Study Plan for Hancock and Calligan Hello Karen‐ Thank you for the well‐written survey plan and for the surveyor resumes. I know Dan, Tracy and Tom, and have collaborated with them in the past. Please have them contact me If they have any questions on goshawk ecology or sign or vocalizations, as I have an extensive goshawk feather archive and considerable survey experience with goshawks. The Woodbridge and Hargis document should have an audio CD that has feather photographs and accipiter and other forest raptor vocals that should be reviewed. I agree with Brock’s comments, and I think the survey plan as you have outlined here, should be adequate as long as protocol is followed. That is, following up with additional surveys if a response or sign is found in the survey area as you have outlined. What would need to be fleshed out in your post‐survey report are next steps in case a nest or nests are found (active or inactive) during surveys and how the PUD would implement a strategy for management purposes. Thank you, and we appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely,

2

Steve Desimone, Wildlife Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program, 5th Floor NRB 1111 Washington St. Olympia, WA 98501-1091 360.902.2507 [email protected]

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:30 AM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Desimone, Steven M (DFW); Anderson, Christopher D (DFW); Binkley, Keith Subject: RE: Goshawk Study Plan for Hancock and Calligan Hi Brock, Section 1.5 does not discuss management measures. It is simply describing the nexus/ connection to the Project. Section 1.6 and 1.8 – Hamer Environmental will be using three biologists to conduct the surveys. The three transects will be 20 meters apart as they traverse the stand. The biologist on the center transect will be conducting the broadcast calls while the biologists on each side of the center transect person will be looking for goshawk sign and for the presence of adult or young. The stands of suitable habitat at the site are mostly small and narrow, so this will truly be an intensive survey. Resumes for personnel guiding and/or conducting the goshawk surveys are attached. The goshawk surveys are scheduled for next week depending on the weather conditions. We have already flown the protocol survey for bald eagles, osprey and peregrine falcon. No nests were found. As I have mentioned before, the habitat conditions in the study areas for these four species are marginal at best. This area has been intensely harvested over the past several years. If any of you have any questions please feel free to contact me. We need to get these surveys completed this year and as weather permits, we are moving forward. Enjoy your vacation Brock. Karen


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:33 AM To: Bedrossian, Karen Cc: Desimone, Steven M (DFW); Anderson, Christopher D (DFW) Subject: RE: Goshawk Study Plan for Hancock and Calligan Hi Karen, Sorry. Wanted to get back to you earlier, but I just found an internet connection in Florida. I reviewed these on the plan ride over. Here are my initial comments. I am having others review, but I wanted to get to you my initial reaction, so that it may create some ideas on things to come.

3

Sections 1.5 We are not just concerned with only the nest tree itself, but the home territory. If you take away all of the other habitat besides the nest tree, the goshawk will most likely abandon its territory. Hopefully, we have better management planned than just sparing the nest tree. 1.6 Survey Protocol- You will need multiple surveyors to conduct the intensive search surveys. I conducted them with 3 surveyors, but I am not sure what protocol says (2 or 3). You would like to have someone looking behind the surveyor operating the call blaster to look for goshawks that come up from behind besides also looking for all the obvious sign (feathers, whitewash, etc). We would also like to look over your list of "qualified surveyors." 1.8 first sentence- Intensive Search Surveys will require multiple surveyors. I will pass on any other comments I receive, but this is all for now. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

From: Bedrossian, Karen [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:25 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Binkley, Keith Subject: Goshawk Study Plan for Hancock and Calligan

Brock, Here is the study plan for northern goshawk. The study plan for the other three raptors is different and I will send that next.


425 783-1774

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Bedrossian, KarenSent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 4:06 PMTo: 'Applegate, Brock A (DFW)'Cc: Binkley, KeithSubject: RE: Aerial Raptor Survey Report for Hancock/CalliganAttachments: H & C Aerial Raptor Survey Draft Sept 26, 2013.doc

Here is the Aerial Raptor Survey Report for Hancock and Calligan.


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:51 AM To: Desimone, Steven M (DFW) Cc: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Steve, Apparently the results are in draft form, but unavailable. My concerns lies with the use of broadcast surveys and determining “no goshawks” in one survey season. That approach does not meet protocol. Also, I hear they have little habitat, yet we have nests up and down the North Fork of the Snoqualmie. Is the habitat truly that different between the Hancock managed forest at Hancock and Calligan creeks and the Hancock managed forest along the North Fork? Anyway, just gaging your comfort level with the surveys. Appreciate your help. Sincerely, Brock

From: Desimone, Steven M (DFW) Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:35 AM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Bedrossian, Karen ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Brock‐ Can you forward the raptor survey report/results to me; I have not seen it. Last communication was with Tracy Fleming; we talked at length about techniques before the surveys at Hancock/Calligan on 26 June, but I don’t know what was found or if it is conclusive. The survey plan seemed adequate to me at the time.

Steve Desimone, Wildlife Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program, 5th Floor NRB 1111 Washington St. Olympia, WA 98501-1091 360.902.2507

2

[email protected]

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:24 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan They used the intensive survey method (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006) for Hancock and switched to broadcast for Calligan (Bosakowski and Vaughn 1996). See methodology write‐up below. They were in contact with Steve Desimone during the study.


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:57 AM To: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Karen, Thanks for your reply. So there are three protocol method outlined in the goshawk survey protocol: dawn acoustical, broadcast, or intensive surveys. Which one did the contractor choose? Sincerely, Brock

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:52 AM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Binkley, Keith Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Brock, I was hoping to get the study plans out to you prior to you making comments on the FLA, but it does not look like that will happen. All surveys are done except for finishing the Oregon spotted frog survey. As you know, we followed all the requested protocols. There is very little, and marginal at best habitat for goshawks. No further studies are needed on goshawks, peregrines, bald eagles or osprey. The habitat just is not there. Protocols were followed for Larch Mountain salamander and Oregon spotted frog. None were found. The Oregon spotted frog survey will finish up in the spring, but habitat for them is very marginal also. I do not see the need for any more surveys. Construction will permanently affect <0.85 acres at Calligan and 1.13 at Hancock. We are now targeting the week of October 7 for sending out the study reports and the draft TRMPs. Let me know if you have any other questions. Karen


3

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:08 AM To: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: FW: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Karen, Any update on type of goshawk study conducted? Did the contractors follow the Larch Mountain Salamander Protocol I sent you? How about the Oregon Spotted Frog Protocol? Raptor season surveys before construction? Anyway, I am presently writing up additional study requests, so any info would help out. Thanks, Brock

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:08 AM To: 'Bedrossian, Karen' Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Karen, Thanks. Did Hamer do a dawn acoustical, broadcast, or intensive surveys for goshawks? How many survey seasons will you be conducting for goshawk and amphibians? Will you be doing raptor surveys the season before construction? I am available October 10, 11, 18, 21‐25, 28, 30,31, Nov 1. Thanks for the reply. Sincerely, Brock

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:01 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Brock, I just got the reports in from Hamer yesterday. Haven’t had a chance to look at them, but will get them to you soon along with the draft TRMP and amphibian surveys. No raptors of interest, as we expected. They did a thorough search. What does your schedule look like for getting to the Projects beginning the week of October 7 and beyond?


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:20 AM To: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Karen, Just curious on what type of goshawk surveys you ended up doing this year? I heard you didn’t find anything. Thanks for conducting the surveys.

4

Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Bedrossian, KarenSent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:53 PMTo: 'Applegate, Brock A (DFW)'Cc: Binkley, KeithSubject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/CalliganAttachments: H C Goshawk Survey Draft Sept 26 2013.doc

Hi Brock, Here is the Goshawk Study Report – I am sending it to you early so that you can finish your review.


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:51 AM To: Desimone, Steven M (DFW) Cc: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Steve, Apparently the results are in draft form, but unavailable. My concerns lies with the use of broadcast surveys and determining “no goshawks” in one survey season. That approach does not meet protocol. Also, I hear they have little habitat, yet we have nests up and down the North Fork of the Snoqualmie. Is the habitat truly that different between the Hancock managed forest at Hancock and Calligan creeks and the Hancock managed forest along the North Fork? Anyway, just gaging your comfort level with the surveys. Appreciate your help. Sincerely, Brock

From: Desimone, Steven M (DFW) Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:35 AM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Bedrossian, Karen ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Brock‐ Can you forward the raptor survey report/results to me; I have not seen it. Last communication was with Tracy Fleming; we talked at length about techniques before the surveys at Hancock/Calligan on 26 June, but I don’t know what was found or if it is conclusive. The survey plan seemed adequate to me at the time.

Steve Desimone, Wildlife Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program, 5th Floor NRB 1111 Washington St.

2

Olympia, WA 98501-1091 360.902.2507 [email protected]

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:24 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan They used the intensive survey method (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006) for Hancock and switched to broadcast for Calligan (Bosakowski and Vaughn 1996). See methodology write‐up below. They were in contact with Steve Desimone during the study.


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:57 AM To: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Karen, Thanks for your reply. So there are three protocol method outlined in the goshawk survey protocol: dawn acoustical, broadcast, or intensive surveys. Which one did the contractor choose? Sincerely, Brock

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:52 AM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Binkley, Keith Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Brock, I was hoping to get the study plans out to you prior to you making comments on the FLA, but it does not look like that will happen. All surveys are done except for finishing the Oregon spotted frog survey. As you know, we followed all the requested protocols. There is very little, and marginal at best habitat for goshawks. No further studies are needed on goshawks, peregrines, bald eagles or osprey. The habitat just is not there. Protocols were followed for Larch Mountain salamander and Oregon spotted frog. None were found. The Oregon spotted frog survey will finish up in the spring, but habitat for them is very marginal also. I do not see the need for any more surveys. Construction will permanently affect <0.85 acres at Calligan and 1.13 at Hancock. We are now targeting the week of October 7 for sending out the study reports and the draft TRMPs. Let me know if you have any other questions. Karen


3

425 783-1774

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:08 AM To: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: FW: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Karen, Any update on type of goshawk study conducted? Did the contractors follow the Larch Mountain Salamander Protocol I sent you? How about the Oregon Spotted Frog Protocol? Raptor season surveys before construction? Anyway, I am presently writing up additional study requests, so any info would help out. Thanks, Brock

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:08 AM To: 'Bedrossian, Karen' Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Karen, Thanks. Did Hamer do a dawn acoustical, broadcast, or intensive surveys for goshawks? How many survey seasons will you be conducting for goshawk and amphibians? Will you be doing raptor surveys the season before construction? I am available October 10, 11, 18, 21‐25, 28, 30,31, Nov 1. Thanks for the reply. Sincerely, Brock

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:01 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Subject: RE: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Brock, I just got the reports in from Hamer yesterday. Haven’t had a chance to look at them, but will get them to you soon along with the draft TRMP and amphibian surveys. No raptors of interest, as we expected. They did a thorough search. What does your schedule look like for getting to the Projects beginning the week of October 7 and beyond?


From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:20 AM To: Bedrossian, Karen Subject: Goshawk Surveys for Hancock/Calligan Hi Karen, Just curious on what type of goshawk surveys you ended up doing this year? I heard you didn’t find anything.

4

Thanks for conducting the surveys. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Presler, DawnSent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:47 PMTo: [email protected]; '[email protected]' ([email protected]);

'[email protected]' ([email protected]); LouEllyn Jones ([email protected]); [email protected]; Matthew Baerwalde ([email protected])

Cc: Bedrossian, Karen; Binkley, KeithSubject: Hancock Creek (P13994) and Calligan Creek (P13948) - draft terrestrial reports for your

review

Hello: Attached are links to the draft reports for terrestrial studies completed this summer for the Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek hydro projects. Please take the next 30 days to review and provide comments, if any, back to us via email by November 15, 2013. Due to the size of the reports, I had to put them on the projects’ web site as to not clog email boxes. If you have any questions on the reports, please contact Karen Bedrossian (Sr. Environmental Coordinator, wildlife biologist) at 425-783-1774. Thanks. Calligan – Amphibian and Reptile Pre-Construction Surveys and Priority Species Evaluation Draft Technical Report: http://www.snopud.com/Site/Content/Documents/calligan/HCH%20Reports/C_DraftAmphib.pdf Hancock - Amphibian and Reptile Pre-Construction Surveys and Priority Species Evaluation Draft Technical Report: http://www.snopud.com/Site/Content/Documents/calligan/HCH%20Reports/H_DraftAmphib.pdf Hancock and Calligan – Northern Goshawk Survey Results Draft Technical Report: http://www.snopud.com/Site/Content/Documents/calligan/HCH%20Reports/DraftGoshawk.pdf Hancock and Calligan – Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Draft Technical Report: http://www.snopud.com/Site/Content/Documents/calligan/HCH%20Reports/DraftRaptor.pdf Sincerely, Dawn Presler Sr. Environmental Coordinator Generation Resources (425) 783-1709 ****************************** PUD No. 1 of Snohomish County PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:40 AMTo: Presler, Dawn; [email protected]; '[email protected]'

([email protected]); LouEllyn Jones ([email protected]); [email protected]; Matthew Baerwalde ([email protected])

Cc: Bedrossian, Karen; Binkley, Keith; Anderson, Christopher D (DFW); Desimone, Steven M (DFW); Allegro, Justin K (DFW)

Subject: RE:Comments for Proposed Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek Hydros- draft Goshawk and Raptor Technical Reports

Hi Dawn, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends another season of goshawk surveys in 2014 because of your switching of survey protocol to a less reviewed and less vetted survey method than the intensive survey protocol. WDFW also has concerns on your new “survey method” coverage, especially on the Hancock Creek project area where SnoPUD set up less stations per area. As always, please consult with us on your survey protocol or method and coverage of those surveys so that we feel comfortable in supporting the conclusions of your studies. WDFW also recommends another general raptor survey the season before construction. Ospreys and bald eagles can establish late season nests and alternate nests late in the nesting season and may use the nest the following year. The project footprint and the ½‐mile buffer contains at least few trees and snags large enough to act as a nest platform. WDFW also noted you picked up a bald eagle call during your other surveys, so eagles have presence in the project area. Northern Goshawk Survey Results Technical Report Specific Comments 3. Background Information, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: Please specify the size of “large saw timber” by including a diameter at breast height (dbh) here. Broadcast Acoustical Surveys, 1st paragraph; 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence; 6th paragraph, 1st sentence and last sentence: Please change the Bosakowski and Vaughn survey protocol to survey method. Protocol infers that the survey method authors have vetted the method with the proper number of samples and survey effort, including analyzing intensity and timing during the season. Only one journal, the forestry industry journal that published the survey method, accepted the Bosakowski and Vaughn survey method. Additionally, the authors of the survey method, Bosakowski and Vaughn, do not call the survey method a protocol. In the end, the Bosakowski and Vaughn Survey Method corresponds with the updated Woodbridge and Hargis (2006) broadcast surveys. Broadcast surveys require two seasons of surveys, with two surveys each season, to conclude a high probability of absence of nesting goshawks. Bald Eagle, Osprey, and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Technical Report Specific Comments 3. Background Information, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: WDFW has listed ospreys as a State Monitored Species. Thanks for sending for our review. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell)

2

(425) 338-1066 (fax)

From: Presler, Dawn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:47 PM To: [email protected]; Applegate, Brock A (DFW); '[email protected]' ([email protected]); LouEllyn Jones ([email protected]); [email protected]; Matthew Baerwalde ([email protected]) Cc: Bedrossian, Karen; Binkley, Keith Subject: Hancock Creek (P13994) and Calligan Creek (P13948) - draft terrestrial reports for your review Hello: Attached are links to the draft reports for terrestrial studies completed this summer for the Hancock Creek and Calligan Creek hydro projects. Please take the next 30 days to review and provide comments, if any, back to us via email by November 15, 2013. Due to the size of the reports, I had to put them on the projects’ web site as to not clog email boxes. If you have any questions on the reports, please contact Karen Bedrossian (Sr. Environmental Coordinator, wildlife biologist) at 425-783-1774. Thanks. Calligan – Amphibian and Reptile Pre-Construction Surveys and Priority Species Evaluation Draft Technical Report: http://www.snopud.com/Site/Content/Documents/calligan/HCH%20Reports/C_DraftAmphib.pdf Hancock - Amphibian and Reptile Pre-Construction Surveys and Priority Species Evaluation Draft Technical Report: http://www.snopud.com/Site/Content/Documents/calligan/HCH%20Reports/H_DraftAmphib.pdf Hancock and Calligan – Northern Goshawk Survey Results Draft Technical Report: http://www.snopud.com/Site/Content/Documents/calligan/HCH%20Reports/DraftGoshawk.pdf Hancock and Calligan – Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Draft Technical Report: http://www.snopud.com/Site/Content/Documents/calligan/HCH%20Reports/DraftRaptor.pdf Sincerely, Dawn Presler Sr. Environmental Coordinator Generation Resources (425) 783-1709 ****************************** PUD No. 1 of Snohomish County PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107


Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Technical Report C-1 February 2014

AppendixC:ResponsetoCommentsonDraftReport

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Bedrossian, KarenSent: Monday, December 16, 2013 1:09 PMTo: Applegate, Brock A (DFW); Allegro, Justin K (DFW)Cc: Binkley, Keith; Spahr, Scott; Moore, KimSubject: Responses to WDFW comments on Hancock and Calligan Amphibian, Goshawk and Raptor

Draft Technical ReportsAttachments: Response Memo to WDFW Comments on Goshawk Surveys_12_13_2013.pdf; Response to

WDFW comments on amphibian reports.pdf

Hi Brock and Justin, Attached are our consultant’s responses to Brock’s comments on the Hancock and Calligan draft technical reports for amphibians, goshawks and raptors. Karen


1 | P a g e

MEMORANDUM

Date: 13 December 2013

To: Brock Applegate, WDFW, Olympia, Washington

From: Thomas Hamer and Tracy Fleming, Hamer Environmental L.P.

Re: Response to WDFW comments on the draft goshawk survey report for Calligan and

Hancock Creek hydroelectric projects.

Comment 1 from WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends another season of goshawk surveys in 2014 because of your switching of survey protocol to a less reviewed and less vetted survey method than the intensive survey protocol. Broadcast surveys require two seasons of surveys, with two surveys each season, to conclude a high probability of absence of nesting goshawks. WDFW also has concerns on your new “survey method” coverage, especially on the Hancock Creek project area where SnoPUD set up less stations per area. For each of the small hydro projects, Snohomish PUD is not removing suitable habitat

(stands >= 50 years old), only causing potential disturbance through construction

activities during the nesting season (spring/summer). Therefore, any non-nesting,

subadult/non-territorial goshawks could easily move out of the local area with no impact

to them as temporary disturbance occurs. Thus, since no habitat is being removed, we

should be only concerned with disturbances to nesting goshawks, which would by

necessity be tied to a specific nest site. Thus, the focus of this project was to detect

nesting birds. If no goshawks are detected, the disturbance of a nest site essentially

becomes a non-issue.

With the Broadcast Acoustical Survey method used in this study, there would be a 90%

chance of detecting nesting goshawks with one survey visit at either site (Woodbridge

and Hargis 2006; Table 3-2, page 3-11). For sites with very poor habitat suitability for

goshawks such as Hancock and Calligan Creeks (see habitat discussion below), this is a

perfectly adequate probability of detection. A second survey visit for nesting goshawks

using the Broadcast Acoustical Survey method only increases the probability of detecting

birds by 4% (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006); not an efficient use of time or funds given

no birds were detected on a first visit.

As for setting up “less stations per area” at Hancock Creek, as stated in our draft report,

the “best” (oldest; 60-80 year) habitat at the site was surveyed using the intensive survey

2 | P a g e

method. Therefore, this site would have a greater than 90% probability of detecting

nesting birds and likely closer to a 97% detection rate of nesting goshawks after 1 visit

(Woodbridge and Hargis 2006; Table 3-2, page 3-11). Once again, for a site with very

poor habitat suitability, this is a perfectly adequate probability of detection. All other

remaining potential habitat, some of which was <50 years in age, was surveyed with call

stations, even small patches and younger stands that could potentially contain a hunting

bird, but would never suffice as nesting habitat. The B.C. “Inventory Methods for

Raptors” (2001) section on goshawk surveys states that “Emphasis should be on quality

of the call stations, not quantity to achieve accurate detection results.”

Comment 2 from WDFW: Broadcast Acoustical Surveys, 1st paragraph; 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence; 6th paragraph, 1st sentence and last sentence: Please change the Bosakowski and Vaughn survey protocol to survey method. Protocol infers that the survey method authors have vetted the method with the proper number of samples and survey effort, including analyzing intensity and timing during the season. Only one journal, the forestry industry journal that published the survey method, accepted the Bosakowski and Vaughn survey method. Additionally, the authors of the survey method, Bosakowski and Vaughn, do not call the survey method a protocol. In the end, the Bosakowski and Vaughn Survey Method corresponds with the updated Woodbridge and Hargis (2006) broadcast surveys.

The WDFW comment suggests that Bosakowski and Vaughn (1995) (B/V) isn’t a

“protocol”, but then later indicates that B/V is equivalent to the updated Woodbridge and

Hargis (2006) broadcast surveys. The B/V survey method was peer-reviewed by Dick

Reynolds and other well-known goshawk experts and published in a peer reviewed

journal. Dick Reynolds was a design team member on the USFS (Woodbridge and Hargis

2006) technical guide and is considered perhaps the “guru” of goshawk research in North

America. Bosakowski also did extensive goshawk research resulting in a Ph.D.

dissertation. The WDFW comment states that “only one journal, the forestry industry

journal that published the survey method, accepted the Bosakowski and Vaughn survey

method”. In the scientific community, it is only possible to publish an original

professional article in a single journal.

The B/V survey method has been cited and referenced in the “Inventory Methods for

Raptors. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 11” (2001).

The B.C. Standards cite both Bosakowski /Vaughn and Kennedy/Stahlecker. British

Columbia and Canada are generally acknowledged as having excellent raptor survey

standards; indeed, B.C. has listed several populations of goshawks. Similarly, Watson et

al.’s WDFW published test of Kennedy/Stahlecker also cites Bosakowski /Vaughn. The

Bosakowski /Vaughn method uses the same number of calls as the Woodbridge and

Hargis/Kennedy-Stahlecker protocol, but time spent at survey stations is approximately 3

3 | P a g e

times longer (10 minutes). As we noted in the report, a comparison of the two survey

approaches (Kennedy-Stahlecker and Bosakowski-Vaughn) showed similarity in

effectiveness with the Bosakowski and Vaughn goshawk detection rate actually slightly

higher than the Kennedy-Stahlecker Protocol. While not generally well known outside

the Pacific Northwest, the B/V method has been used, cited, and it is not “new” since it

was published 18 years ago (1995).

In summary, the Woodbridge/Hargis, Kennedy/Stahlecker and Bosakowski/Vaugh

methodologies are all variations on the same technique. The survey efforts and results

used at these two sites fulfills the intent of the USFS technical guide.

Habitat Conditions

The WDFW database contains two records of Northern Goshawks in the vicinity, only

one of which is a breeding record. The breeding record is 15 years old and 1.5 miles off-

site (Calligan Creek). The second is of a 5-year-old “documented Northern Goshawk

call”, no other details provided, and 0.75 miles off-site (Hancock Creek). There has been

extensive timber harvest in the immediate area in the 15 years since the breeding

observation. This is plainly evident from stand-age maps, aerial surveys, ground

observations and stand condition photos provided in the draft report. Both Calligan and

Hancock sites fail most published descriptions of suitable goshawk habitat. Both sites

were highly managed, fragmented, and were composed primarily of tree stands 60 years

old or less, with the majority of habitat <40 years in age. The little habitat that remains

mainly exists as long thin riparian buffers. For Hancock Creek, including the ½ mile

survey buffer area, only 11.8% of the survey area meets the definition of suitable habitat.

The average stand size and average stand age of these few remaining stands are only 7.9

acres and 64.6 years respectively. For Calligan Creek, including the ½ mile survey buffer

area, only 18.0% of the survey area meets the definition of suitable habitat. The average

stand size and average stand age of these few remaining stands are only 10.8 acres and

66.2 years respectively. In summary, most, if not all, of the stands with the most suitable

habitat failed to make average published nest stand descriptions for size (39 ha [96 ac]),

average stand age (147 years) and/or average late seral composition (64-75%). The

landscape and forest conditions at both study sites were primarily unsuitable goshawk

habitat. No goshawk detections of any sort (birds, nests, feathers, etc.) were observed and

present habitat conditions would suggest the likelihood of this species occurring in this

area is extremely low. Given current habitat conditions and on-going timber harvest and

road construction, additional surveys are extremely unlikely to detect goshawks.

As stated, the best habitat exists as riparian zones at both sites which are 61-80+ years.

However, the riparian buffers along the North Fork Snoqualmie River were very narrow

(≤200’ or so in places) and had been subject to significant post-harvest blowdown. The

canopy has been opened up enough so that understory vegetation (both shrubs and trees)

had proliferated into a very deep (often 20’ or more) dense shrub layer in many locations

4 | P a g e

(see report discussion for the negative effects of shrub layer depth on goshawk presence).

Walking along survey transects through many stands was extremely difficult and unsafe

in most places (Draft Report Appendix A: photos 4, 5, 6) and made the detection of

goshawk sign (feathers, prey remains, birds, plucking logs, nests, whitewash) impossible

and the Intensive Survey method unusable.

WDFW also recommends another general raptor survey the season before construction. Ospreys and bald eagles can establish late season nests and alternate nests late in the nesting season and may use the nest the following year. The project footprint and the ½-mile buffer contains at least few trees and snags large enough to act as a nest platform. WDFW also noted you picked up a bald eagle call during your other surveys, so eagles have presence in the project area.

Field biologists noted that a bald eagle was heard off-area near Calligan Creek. Bald

eagles in western Washington are almost ubiquitous near large bodies of water and many

pairs are year-round territorial residents. As such, they can construct, or more likely,

refurbish nests at any time of the year. Additionally, Bald Eagle nests are very hard to

overlook given their size and placement in prominent locations. As WDFW notes, there

are a few trees and snags large enough to act as a nest platform within the project

footprint and 1/2–mile buffer. However, aerial surveys, many days of ground surveys and

a review of the state database failed to identify any old or new nests in or near the project

areas. Therefore, the likelihood of locating a new bald eagle nest with an additional aerial

survey is extremely low.

Similarly, ospreys build prominent nests in conspicuous locations and most of the

comments above regarding bald eagles applies to ospreys. However, osprey are

migratory and most migrate out of the area by August/September. In our experience of

banding many hundreds of osprey, they seldom use an alternate nest or re-nest unless

there is an early attempt (for instance, a nest taken over by Canada Geese, etc.).

Therefore, similar to bald eagles, the likelihood of locating a new osprey nest with an

additional aerial survey is extremely low.

Sincerely,

Thomas Hamer

Project Manager

1

Presler, Dawn

From: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:28 AMTo: Bedrossian, KarenCc: Presler, Dawn; Allegro, Justin K (DFW)Subject: RE: Hancock and Calligan Creek Projects Amphibian and Reptile Study, Goshawk, and

Aerial Raptor Surveys

Hi Karen, Yes, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has consulted with Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (SnoPUD) on the Northern goshawk and amphibian surveys, since the dispersal of the respective reports. SnoPUD is proceeding in a good direction with their Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement (PM&E) Measures for goshawks and amphibians and their associated habitat. SnoPUD has conducted consultation with WDFW on these species. We have no further comments or recommendations with the current information provided to us. WDFW appreciates your willingness to collaborate on these projects and future ones. Thanks Karen. Sincerely, Brock Brock Applegate Major Projects Mitigation Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1541 (425) 775-1311 x310 (360) 789-0578 (cell) (425) 338-1066 (fax)

From: Bedrossian, Karen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 4:41 PM To: Applegate, Brock A (DFW) Cc: Presler, Dawn Subject: Hancock and Calligan Creek Projects Amphibian and Reptile Study, Goshawk, and Aerial Raptor Surveys Hi Brock, On December 16, 2013 we sent you our consultants’ responses to your comments on our draft Hancock and Calligan Creek projects Amphibian and Reptile Studies, Goshawk Survey and Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Survey Results Final Technical Reports. Since that time we have had several discussions regarding these reports and the study results, and we have incorporated your suggestions into the study area maps for the amphibian studies final reports. Given the progress we have made, it would be good you have your acceptance of these reports in the consultation documentation record included with the final technical reports. We will be filing these reports with FERC tomorrow. Thanks. Karen
