HomeMy WebLinkAboutHabitat Managment Plan Parcel #'s 721162012 and 721162013Beyer Building Envelope
Habitat Management Plan
March 2. 2016
Site Address:
301 S. Beach Drive
Port Ludlow, WA
Prepared for:
Mark Beyer
13603 179th Ave NE
Redmond, WA 95052
S8ssmti
MARINE SURVEYS Et ASSESSMENTS
267 Hudson Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
(360)385-4073
marine.suNeys.inc@gmail.com
Contents
1. Introduction... ........................................................................................................................................
1
2. Project Information .........................................................................................................................
...... 1
2.1 Project Location and Site Description ...........................................................................................
1
2.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................
.................... 2
3. Regulatory Framework ..................................... ....................................................................................
3
3.1 Modest Home Provision ................................................................................................................
3
3.2 FEMA Habitat Assessment .................................................
3
4. Environmental Setting ...........................................................................................................................
3
4.1 Site Survey ....................................................................................................................................
3
4.2 Washington State Priority Habitat and Species .............................................................................
4
4.3 Surrounding Environment ..................................................................................... .......................
4
4.4 FEMA Floodplain — Federal ESA -Listed Species and Critical Habitat ........................................5
4.5 Status of Relevant Federally -listed species ...................................................................................
5
4.5.1 Puget Sound Chinook ............................................................................................................
6
5.5.2 Puget Sound Steelbead ..................................................................... ....................................
6
5.5.3 Hood Canal Summer -run Chum ......................... ..................................................................
6
5.5.4 Bull Trout ..............................................................................................................................
7
5.5.5 Rockfish .................................................................................................................................
8
5.5.6 Green Sturgeon ......................................................................................................................
8
5.5.7 Marbled Murrelet ...................................................................................................................
8
5.5.8 Humpback Whale ..................................................................................................................
9
5.5.9 Leatherback Sea Turtle ..........................................................................................................
9
5.5.10 Southern Resident Killer Whales ............... ..........................................................................
9
6 Analysis of Effects ................................................................................................................................
9
6.1 Vegetation — Wetland and Riparian Areas ....................................................................................
9
6.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................
10
6.3 Shoreline Processes .............................. ......................................................................................
10
6.4 Noise ............................................................................................................................................
10
6.5 Water Quality ............................................ .................................................................................
10
6.6 FEMA Floodplain ........................................................... ............................................................
10
7 Conservation and Protection Measures ...............................................................................................
10
I I [Abit at N I ana,,c pen 1 111,111 - Be, C! idu I B ... d"',
7.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ......................................................................................
11
7.2 Compensatory Mitigation & Planting Plan .................................................................................
11
7.2.1 Introduction ............................................................ ............................................................
11
7.2.2 Site Vegetation .......................................................................................... .........................
12
7.2.3 Mitigation Plan ....................................................................................................................
12
7.2.4 Performance Standards ........................ ...............................................................................
13
7.15 Monitoring Plan ...................................................................................................................
13
7.2.6 Maintenance and Contingency ............................................................................................
14
7.3 Compliance with Jefferson County Mitigation Requirements ....................................................
15
8 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................
15
8.1 No Net Loss .................................................................................................................................
16
8.2 FEMA Determination ..................................................................................................................
16
References...................................................................................................................................................
17
Attachment 1. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal
Sumer -rim Chum .........................................................................................................................................
27
Attachment 2. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Nearshore Habitat forjuvenile bocaccio and canary
rockfish; and Critical Deepwater Habitat for yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio .............29
List of Tables
Table 1. NMFS[USFWS Regional Critical Habitat .......................................................................................
5
Table2. Plant List .......................................................................................................................................
12
List of Figures
Figure1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................
20
Figure 2. Parcel map indicating the project is located on filled tidelands .......................................21
Figure 3. FEMA Floodplain Map showing the site location within the 100 -year floodplain .................22
Figure 4. Site map with wetland area, County setbacks, and proposed building envelope ....................23
Figure 5.2006 Department of Ecology Shoreline photo of proposed building envelope site .......
.......... 24
Figure6. Planting Plan Area ............................................................................................
25
Figure 7. Planting Plan Example .....................................................................................
26
'd •11 iii \I, in, it I 'I ji - I i idL, mIj�d kii id i,i, Lim eLyr
1. Introduction
The single-family residential proposal described herein is within the Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) Shoreline jurisdiction (200 feet from OHWM), within the 150' Fish & Wildlife Critical
Area Buffer for marine shoreline areas, within a 110' buffer of a Category III Wetland, and within a
FEMA Flood Zone. The proposal is covered under the Modest Home Provision which does provide some
exceptions to requirements for critical areas, and does not require a Critical Area Stewardship Plan
(CASP). However, it must still meet No Net Loss of ecological functions per the SMP (JCC 18.25.270).
As stated in Jefferson County Code 18.22.265, Habitat Management Plans (HMP) are required when an
applicant proposes to alter or decrease the standard buffer. This report follows requirements set forth for
Habitat Management Plans (HMP) in Jefferson County Code, Chapter 18.22 for Critical Areas, Article
VIII, Section 18.22.440 to address development impacts of the proposed project and mitigation for
impacts, using the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species
Management Recommendations as the basis. As required under Section 18.22.440, this HMP has been
prepared by qualified biologists with Marine Surveys & Assessments. This Habitat Management Plan
also includes sections needed for a FEMA Habitat Assessment, No Net Loss Evaluation, and Wetland
Rating and Delineation and includes references to the code sections (or guidance document), outlined
below:
• The FEMA flood area (Figure 3) and FEMA flood requirements (JCC 18.15), are addressed in
FEMA subsections under each section of this HMP: Regulatory Framework, Environmental
Setting, Analysis of Effects, and Conclusions. These subsections are based on the 2013
Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation - Regional Guidance for the Paget Sound Basin.
• No Net Loss Evaluation 18.25.270 Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection
• A Wetland Delineation and Rating is provided in a separate report by MSA.
A Pre -Application assessment and meeting (Beyer PRE15-00018) for the SPAAD took place with Mark
Beyer (project proponent), and Anna Banisher (Assistant Planner with Jefferson County DCE).
2. Project Information
2.1Project Location and Site Description
\,C 1 • 111"I't bl ur cenkni 11alj • lli idu r:a ill I Im Ial�clopc
The proposal is located on privately owned lands in Jefferson County located at 301 S. Beach Drive, Port
Ludlow, WA on the shoreline of Hood Canal. The site is between South Point and Nordstrom Creek
within Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory Reach V (Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory 2008).
Address: 301 S. Beach Drive, Port Ludlow, WA
County: Jefferson
Tax Parcel Ids: 721162012 and 721162013
Section: 16 OtrSection: NW U4
Township: 27N Ranee: IE
Latitude and longitude: 47°4951.5"N, 122°41'22.4"W
Water resource inventory area (WRIA): WRIA 17 South (Quilcene-Snow)
Water bodies in which work will occur: NA
Water bodies bordering or adjacent to the project location: Adjacent to marine waters of Hood Canal
The shoreline is characterized as modified slope, approved for commercial shellfish, with a Left to Right
drift cell direction when looking at shore. Existing bulkheads run along the shoreline at approximately
+10' elevation and are approximately 5-6' tall. Evidence of previous fill in the areas upland of the
bulkhead were seen during a wetland survey by MSA and noted as "Filled Tidelands" in a Property
Survey provided in Figure 2.
Parcel 721162013 (to the north) is comprised of 75' of shoreline and planted lawn with a travel trailer; a
concrete bulkhead runs along the shoreline at the MHHW line. Parcel 721162012 (to the south) includes
150' of shorelines and is undeveloped land, but disturbed by brush cutting and mowing; there is a rock
bulkhead along the shoreline along the MHHW line. The total property with both parcels is 0.56 acre and
includes:
• 9,015 square feet of Category BI wetland;
• 8,946 square feet of proposed building envelope;
• 3,600 square feet of proposed development area maximum within the building envelope
(2,500 square feet building + 1,100 square feet driveway)
• 3,000 square feet is invasive plant species proposed for removal as mitigation;
• 3,738 square feel proposed for planting enhancements as mitigation.
Adjacent parcels include the property to the north which has a single family residence and bulkhead; and
the property to the south has a single family residence and bulkhead.
2.2 Project Description
The proposal is to establish a building envelope on the property that is as large as possible. Once built,
mitigation planting can be done as needed and activities can be limited in other areas. The actual building
footprint will likely be on the south end of the property (mostly on the parcel 721162012).
The development will also include a septic system (tanks) that will pump to the offsite drain field via a
drain field transport line located in the road along S. Beach Drive. The community drain field is called
Trails End Drain Field, also known as the Wally Pederson drain field or the South Point drain field.
Because the properly is located in a FEMA flood area, the septic system will be designed to meet the
flood requirements in JCC 18.15.
;1151 • II.I lil III III M C r Plan i It,.,k'Ill M I w u111 I.nn-Inpc
A road approach will also be included in the application.
3. Regulatory Framework
3.1 Modest Home Provision
Exceptions to Critical Area and Shoreline Buffers outlined in JCC 18.25.270 (5) include (a)
Nonconforming Lots which allows development without a variance through the Modest Home Provision.
The criteria for the Modest Home Provision me included in this proposal and are outlined under Section
VI of this report (under Conservation Measures). The Common Line Buffer to reduce the standard buffer
for this proposal employs the following approach:
With existing homes on both sides, a common line was drawn between the nearest corners of each
adjacent residence resulting in a 30' to 37' setback from the OHWM (Figure 4). OHWM is delineated
along the shoreline by existing bulkheads.
3.2 FEMA Habitat Assessment
The project lies within the "The Regulatory Floodplain" which is comprised of the combination of a
Zone -A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and a Protected Area, where:
• The SFHA is the area subject to flooding by the base flood (as determined and mapped for each
community by FEMA within flood insurance studies and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMs); and
• In Puget Sound the 'Protected Area' consists of those lands that lie within the outermost
boundary of the total area comprised by the floodway, and the riparian habitat zone (RBZ), and
the channel migration area (CMZ).
Development proposed within the Regulatory Floodplain requires the applicant to obtain a floodplain
development permit and complete a Habitat Assessment that describes the impact of the proposed
development on existing floodplain and habitat functions and processes. The requirements of a FEMA
Habitat Assessment are similar to those of a HMP, but with additional analysis and mitigation addressing
potential impacts to Federal ESA -listed species within the Protected Area.
4. Environmental Setting
4.1 Site Survey
A recent Wetland Rating and Delineation by MSA indicates that, although this area is highly disturbed,
the presence of hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation and signs of hydrology provide evidence of a wet area
that is still functioning as a Category III wetland.
The vegetation in the wetland area (Figure 4) is disturbed and appears to be mowed and pruned on a
regular basis. There are mostly native herbaceous species within the wet area and Facultative (FAC)
species constituted 60% of the total number of dominant species across all strata. Dominant FAC plants
include: Miners -Lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), Common Velvet Crass (Holcus lanatus), and Few -
Seeded Bitter Cress (Cardamine oligosperma). Other species observed in the "wet" plot include:
,, .1 1 zll,JcnICI l Ph [I • Rsc; , Ii I,n ti,I Rwl h, 1 1)%, p,
Henderson's Sedge (Carex hendersonii), Baldhip Rose (Rosa gymnocarpa), Bull Thistle (Cirsium
vulgare), Cleavers (Galium arpine), Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica), Trailing Blackberry (Rebus ursinus)
and Scotch Broom (Cytiaus scoparius).
Along the west side of property by the mad there are tall trees, primarily alders and maples. The entire
northern parcel outside the wetland area is covered by planted lawn species. On the southern parcel, the
area within the proposed building envelope (Figure 4) has vegetation similar to those found in the wet
area of the wetland (but does not have the characteristic wetland soils). Also on the southern parcel, a
strip approximately 5' wide of native dunegrass occurs above bulkhead running along most of the parcel's
shoreline. There is no overhanging vegetation along the riparian zone and vegetation is limited to dune
grass and lawn species. Scotch Broom is abundant on the southern edge of the property, mostly on the
neighboring property to the south.
4.2 Washington State Priority Habitat and Species
A query of the site with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and
Species (PHS) database indicates no species or habitats of concern within the terrestrial portion of the
site. Pacific Sand Lance breeding area, hardshell clam, and oyster bed presence is identified in the
intertidal area below the project footprint. Geoduck and Dungeness crab are indicated slightly further
offshore. A bald eagle breeding area is documented along the shoreline over th mile southwest of the site.
WDFW identifies priority habitats as a habitat type with unique or significant attributes to many species
and WDFW defines priority species as wildlife species requiring protective measures as described in the
WDFW management guidelines 1991. These lists were established to help protect future development in
these special areas.
The shoreline along the project site was surveyed in 1995 (by WDFW) and in 2002 and 2003 (by NOSC)
for smelt and sand lance spawning and no indicators of spawning were found (WDFW, 2014b).
4.3 Surrounding Environment
According to the Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory (2008):
Just south of the site, "Nordstrom Creek runs into Hood Canal just south of South Point; its mouth is
marked by a small salt marsh of the type favored by juvenile salmonids, and coho and steelhead spawn
upstream.... Them are few houses in this area, which appears to be a well functioning ecosystem..."
Just north of the site,' Phe long and narrow South Point Spit was formed by sediment transport from an
extensive drift cell from the south. The habitat complex historically supported fringing tidal marsh and
lagoon habitat protected behind the spit... Historically, net shore -drift continued north of here to terminate
at the head of Squarish Huber (where JE -l2 now terminates). However, dredging the entrance of the
marina at Bridgehaven and the jetty to the north of this entrance have interrupted continued net shore -drift
to the north..."
"Despite shoreline alteration in the South Point area, sand lance spawn both south of South Point and
north along the outside of the spit. Surf smelt spawn on the shore just north of the spit..."
"Behind Bridgehaven in a slough dredged for a marina, juvenile salmonids were not found, whereas they
were found immediately to the north in the relatively unaltered backshore of the spit at the origin of drift
VS.A • Al 11er_zm i. ['tall • 8L 1\,.: "II!I', J.lina I.n � 1, pk ,
cell JE -12. The southern part of drift cell JE -12, from the origin to the small point about 1.25 miles to the
north, has healthy riparian vegetation (100 percent) often with large trees growing over the intertidal
zone. This may be because this area is somewhat protected from southern fetch... In the nearshore,
eelgrass beds are continuous along the outside and the inside of the South Point Spit and patchier farther
north to the point mentioned above. The characteristics of this reach are unique. A small stream enters
Squamish Harbor near the middle of this drift cell and is presumed cutthroat trout habitat..."
Additionally, an unnamed stream 0.4 mules south of the project site is identified as having Cohn and
Winter Steelhead by WDFW's Northwest Fish Distribution (WDFW, 2012).
Soils and Wetland data are included in the MSA Wetland Report.
4.4 FEMA Floodplain — Federal ESA -Listed Species and Critical Habitat
A range of fish, marine mammal, and bird species listed Ruder the Endangered Species Act may occur, or
may have critical habitat, within the proposed action area. The designated critical habitat within the
project footprint, action area, or adjoining 100 -year floodplain is presented below in Table 1. Attachments
1 and 2 provide an assessment of impacts to critical habitat primary constituent elements (PCE's) for
critical habitat identified in Table 1.
Table 1. NMFSIUSFWS Regional Critical Habitat
NMFS/USFWS Critical Habitat
Adjoining
100 -year
Flood lain
project
Footprint
Action
Area
Chum Salmon Critical Habitat - Freshwater (NOAA, 2005)
N
N
N
Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - Freshwater (NMFS, 2005)
N
N
N
Final Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014)
Y
N
Y
Final Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014)
Y
N
Y
Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2012)
N
N
N
Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2009)
N
N
N
Marine Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (NOAA, 2005)
Y
N
Y
Marine Critical Habitat Hood Canal Summer -tun Chum Salmon (NMFS,
2005)
Y
N
Y
Sockeye Salmon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005)
N
N
N
Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2006)
N
N
N
Steelhead Trout Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005)
N
N
N
Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat (USFWS, 2015)
N
N
N
Marbled Murrelet(USFWS, 2015)
N
N
N
4.5 Status of Relevant Federally -listed species
For each listed species with the potential to be in the project action area or in the remainder of the
adjoining 100 -year floodplain, the listing status, distribution of species, and relevant life history traits of
ate presented below. For species with Critical Habitat within the action area, an Assessment of Impacts to
Critical Habitat is included with this report as an attachment (see Attachments 1-3).
• hilt.. ai [\ 1:1,1 [,vnl, I I in- It; e . r trim do nl fill li II 1l ,,lnhc
4.5.1 Puget Sound Chinook
The Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) as threatened according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Vol. 70, No. 123 /
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations). In addition, NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUS) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook
Salmon ESU. The adjacent 100 -year floodplain is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget
Sound Chinook ESU (Federal Register / Vol 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and
Regulations). An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook" is provided in
Attachment 1.
The project site is located in WRIA 17 South (Quilcene-Snow); within the Shine/Ludlow Subbasin
(which includes Nordstrom, Shine, Bones, and Ludlow creeks), only Lower Shine Creek and Lower
Ludlow Creek are only reported as having chum (WDFW, 2012).
Relevant life history: Puget Sound chinook, also called king salmon, are distinguished from all other
Pacific salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget Sound are "ocean -type" and migrate to the
marine environment during their first year (Myers, et al., 2000). They may enter estuaries immediately
after emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 ram or they may enter the estuaries as
fingerling strolls during May and June of their fust year at a length of 60-80 mm (Healey, 1982).
Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid
amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod
larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and euphausiids (Simenstad, Fresh, & Salo, 1982). These
ocean -type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on
estuaries for survival.
5.5.2 Puget Sound Steelhead
NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynehus mykiss) as a threatened species under the
ESA (Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 9I/Friday, May 11, 2007/Rules and Regulations). No critical habitat
has yet been finalized for the Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment, and the adjacent 100 -
year floodplain is not included in the proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead (Federal
Register./Vol. 78, No. 9/ Monday, January 14, 2013./ Proposed Rules).
No steelhead bearing streams were identified in the Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors for Water
Resource Inventory Area 17 Final Report (WSCC, 2002), but an unnamed stream just south of the project
site is identified as having Winter Steelhead (migration only) by WDFW's Northwest Fish Distribution
(WDFW, 2012).
Relevant life history: steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species O. mykiss. The
freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning and
migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in
freshwater before heading to the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four years before returning
to Washington streams.
5.5.3 Hood Canal Summer -run Chum
NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer run chum ESU (Oneorhynchus keta) as threatened under the
ESA (Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005). The adjacent 100 -year Floodplain is
�Iti V • I lal I t 11 "w"nm.,t Pini • Hcyu Renldantnd HuIIdi tp 1 1i e6' . _
in an area designated as critical habitat for the Hood Canal summer run chum ESU (Federal Register / Vol
70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations). An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical
Habitat for Hood Canal Summer -run Chum" is provided in Attachment 1.
Summer chum escapements in Hood Canal have generally experienced a continuous decline for the past
30 years. However, beginning in 2003, escapements began to increase. In 2004, the escapements were the
highest recorded during the period that total spawner numbers have been estimated (1974-2004) (WDFW,
2005).
The project site is located in W RIA 17 South (Quilcene-Snow); within the Shine/Ludlow Subbasin, only
Lower Shine Creek and Lower Ludlow Creek are reported as having Chum (WDFW, 2012). Northwest
Fish Distribution data also reports chum (migration only) in an unnamed stream to the south of the project
site (WDFW, 2012).
Relevant life history: In Puget Sound, chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and
lowland streams. In Hood Canal, the summer -run stocks spawn from early -September to mid-October
(WSCC, 2002). Cham (along with ocean -type Chinook) spend more time in the estuarine environment
than other species of salmon (Healey, 1982). Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days
with an average residence of 24 days (Simenstad, Fresh, & Salo, 1982). Juvenile chum consume benthic
organisms found in and around eelgrass beds (hatpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods and isopods),
but change their diet to drift insects and plankton such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and hyperiid
amphipods as their size increases to 50 - 60 mm (Simenstad, Fresh, & Salo, 1982).
5.5.4 Bull Trout
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluenrus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) in 1999 (Federal RegisterJVol. 64, No. 210./Monday, November I./ 1999/Rules and
Regulations). The project site and the adjacent 100 -year floodplain is not located on a shoreline
designated as critical habitat for Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register / Vol.75, No. 200 /
Monday, October 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations).
The project site is located in WRIA 17. No bulltrout presence or spawning and rearing streams have been
identified in the action area (WDFW, 2012; WDFW, 2014a). USFWS has not designated critical habitat
for bull trout near the action area (USFWS, 2015).
Relevant life history: coastal Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California
(at present they are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the
Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon
family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea
(for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water
for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution
(Rieman & McIntyre, 1993). They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers
(fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others
(resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation,
dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal Puget Sound population
(Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999).
•Fidhwl,%1 .cru'nl f'',, -B,%- ri11Ihi ,I,!,q,
5.5.5 Rockfish
NOAA has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as
endangered (Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / April 28, 2010, Final Rule). The Georgia Basin refers to
all of Puget Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia north to the
mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from
east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The adjacent 100 -year floodplain falls
within the recently designated Nearshore Critical Habitat for Canary Rockfish and Bocaccio (Federal
Register Nol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations).
The project is located in a terrestrial area but within the 100 -year floodplain adjoining Hood Canal which
includes critical habitat for rockfish, both nearshore and deepwater (NMFS, 2014; NMFS, 2014a). An
"Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Rockfish" is provided in Attachment 2.
Relevant life history: bocaccio, canary, and yelloweye rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and
pelagic juveniles. As juveniles they settle to henthic environment. They prefer to settle in rocky reefs,
kelp beds, low rock and cobble areas (Love, Yoklavich, & Thorsteinson, 2002). As the three species grow
larger they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats. Adult
yelloweye, canary and bocaccio rockfish generally inhabit depths from approximately 90' to 1400' (Love,
Yoklavich, & Thorsteinson, 2002). All three species are opportunistic feeders, with their prey dependent
on their life stage.
5.5.6 Green Sturgeon
On April 7, 2006, NMFS determined that the Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American
green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris; hereafter, "Southern DPS") is at risk of extinction in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and listed the species as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (71 FR 17757). Southern DPS green sturgeon occupy coastal
bays and estuaries from Monterey Bay, CA, to Puget Sound, WA and observations of green sturgeon in
Puget Sound are much less common compared to the other estuaries in Washington. In 2006, two
Southern DPS green sturgeon tagged in San Pablo Bay were detected near Scatchet Head, south of
Whidbey Island. Activities of concern for green sturgeon occurring in Puget Sound include dredging and
capping that could affect benthic habitats and alter water flow and water quality. However, the project
action area and adjoining floodplain are well outside Southern DPS green sturgeon critical habitat and
likelihood of this species in the action area is very low.
5.5.7 Marbled Murrelet
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) have been listed as threatened by the USFWS since
1992. There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the
project site (WDFW, 1993; USFWS, 2015).
Relevant life history: marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of
their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and
loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDF W,
1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance,
sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other small schooling fish and invertebrates.
NIti:A • H, t it 1lan • kc, I6 10k,ii, I I IJi 111, J1 pv
5.5.8 Humpback Whale
NMFS has listed the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) as an endangered species that may
occur in Puget Sound. There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales in Washington at this
time. Humpback whales were spotted in Hood Canal in January 2012, but this was cited as a highly
unusual occurrence (Orta Network, 2015).
Relevant life history: Due to excessive whaling practices, southern British Columbia and northern
Washington State humpback whale population s significantly declined and were rarely seen in Puget
Sound in the recent past (Angell & Balcomb III, 1982). However, sightings of humpback whales in Puget
Sound have been rising over the past few years, particularly May — June (Ores Network, 2015).
5.5.9 Leatherback Sea Turtle
NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as an endangered species that may
occur in Puget Sound. There is designated critical habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles along the outer
coast of Washington State, but there is no critical habitat within Puget Sound at this time.
Relevant life history: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington, even though they
are occasionally seen along the coast (Bowlby, Green, & Bonnel, 1994). They are rarely seen in Puget
Sound and it is highly unlikely that these turtles would be found near the project site or in the adjoining
100-yearfloodplain.
5.5.10 Southern Resident Killer Whales
On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcins orca) as endangered
under ESA (Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations). NOAA
Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20'
relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (Federal Register / Vol.
71, No. 229 / November 29, 2006 / Final Rule).
The proposed project and action area is not within Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat which
begins at waters of 20' depth relative to the extreme high water line. Southern Resident killer whale
critical habitat (area 2) does begin 3.5 miles north within the adjoining 100 -year floodplain.
Since 2003, all killer whale sightings in Hood Canal appear to be of transient killer whales (Orea
Network, 2015).
6 Analysis of Effects
6.1 Vegetation — Wetland and Riparian Areas
The proposed building envelope cover approximately 8,946 square feet of disturbed upland areas that
consist of planted lawn species, scotch broom, and some small native herbaceous plants (Henderson's
Sedge, Baldhip Rose, Bull Thistle, Cleavers, Stinging Nettle, and Trailing Blackberry). Potential direct
impacts within the building envelope would be limited by the maximum allowed 2,500 square feet
building area and the 1,100 square feet maximum for the driveway.
l�ti? 4:;hli. ii I=�•niri n • Iicri "k �dial Rotl d I Fmrinnc _ __.
The wetland area on this property is not included in the proposed building envelope and a 5 foot buffer is
proposed around that area. (Signs of hydric soil at northern end of site indicate that this wetland area
probably extended into neighboring site but has been built over).
6.2 Wildlife
Wildlife barriers or loss of connectivity me not expected to occur from proposed building envelope and
the conditional maximum 2500 square foot building area. Open space will be maintained between the
proposed residence and developments on neighboring properties that can easily be traversed by wildlife.
Increased erosion could adversely affect spawning habitats for beach spawning forage fish (Pacific
herring, sand lance, and surf smelt) which are fundamental components of the marine food web. Erosion
potential is addressed in the further detail in the following section.
6.3 Shoreline Processes
Development along shorelines can alter the composition and distribution of substrates and their
contribution to physical processes. This in tum can adversely affect spawning habitats for beach spawning
forage fish (pacific herring, sand lance, and surf smelt) which are fundamental components of the marine
food web. Increased runoff from the building area or any increase in impervious surfaces can increase
the potential for erosion; however, development will be to the furthest landward extent of the property
and the planting plan will incorporate stabilizing riparian plant species that also serve to trap sediment,
prevent excess nutrients from reaching the aquatic environment, and slow runoff, preventing erosion.
Additionally, overhanging riparian vegetation can also provide shade to protect upper -intertidal forage
fish spawning areas.
6.4 Noise
Some temporary increases in ambient noise will be generated during development of the property. Noise
generated during construction is not expected to impact wildlife in the long term.
6.5 Water Quality
Increased run-off from the building area or other impervious surfaces could occur with development
within the building envelope. Recommendations for low -impact design and maintenance of the property
are presented in the following section outlining conservation measures.
6.6 FEMA Floodplain
This habitat assessment describes impacts to habitat functions associated with the proposed building
envelope within the Protected Area and in the remainder of the 100 -year floodplain (the marine waters of
Hood Canal). With the exceptions of impacts described previously in Section V, this assessment
demonstrates that there will be no short- or long-term adverse effects due to establishment of the building
envelope within the Protected Area. Avoidance and minimization measures along with the compensatory
mitigation presented in Section VI will prevent impacts to ESA species and their designated critical
habitat within the adjoining floodplain.
7 Conservation and Protection Measures
Conservation Measures presented here include Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMM) and
Compensatory Mitigation that are intended to address both Jefferson County criteria and FEMA
%1Sd • I t.l b y "?:u...... n PP.m • Bc K ideml, l Is.i la I
requirements. The FEMA requirements pertain to marine critical habitat and ESA-listed species within
the adjoining floodplain; the compensatory mitigation measures described below are designed to enhance
the habitat function of the adjacent riparian zone and shoreline, and protect ESA-species and critical
habitat in the marine environment.
7.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
As required under JCC 18.25.270 to meet the criteria for Nonconforming Lots under the Modest Home
Provision, the following measures will be employed:
• The building area lying landward of the shoreline buffer and interior to required sideyard setbacks
is not more than 2,500 square feet and the driveway is not more than I, 100 square feet. The
building area means the entire area that will be disturbed to construct the home, normal
appurtenances (except drainf9elds), and landscaping;
• The building envelope shall not extend waterward of the common-line buffer;
• Appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate all adverse impacts (in this case, compensatory
mitigation in the form of riparian plantings);
• The residence (or building envelope, in this case) is located in the least environmentally
damaging location relative to the shoreline and any critical areas;
• The lot is not subject to geologic hazards;
• All structures will be as far landward as possible and not closer than 30 feet from the ordinary
high water mark;
• At least 80 percent of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area
will be maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.
Additional avoidance and minimization measures recommended for the applicant as part of this HMP
include:
• Barrier fence will be placed during construction along building envelope boundaries to prevent
machinery and other equipment from disturbing the 30' setback and delineated wetland area and
buffer.
In addition, a planting plan has been developed as compensatory mitigation and is described in detail in
the following sections.
7.2 Compensatory Mitigation & Planting Plan
7.2.1 Introduction
A Category III wetland was delineated by Marine Surveys & Assessments, Inc on 30 October 2015 to
determine the feasibility of one building envelope on two adjacent parcels (721162012 and 013) located
on the western shoreline of Hood Canal, south of Squamish Harbor in the NW 1/4 of Sec 16, T27N, ROIE
(Figure 1). Since the entireity of the parcels are within a wetland or wetland buffer as well as the
shoreline buffer, a mitigation plan was developed. There are no feasible options for a homesite outside of
these buffers, therefore the wetland buffer will need to be reduced from 110 feet to 5 feet. There will be
no impacts to the wetland if the mitigation and revegetation plan is conducted as outlined in this report.
V1< 1 - Ham !c 1 AI aincn n • licca, �ldrvital h' d 1, I ',,1npc I I
7.2.2 Site Vegetation
The vegetation on this property is disturbed (mowed and pruned on a regular basis). Native vegetation
consists of Baldhip Rose (Rosa gymnocarpa), Trailing Blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Miner's -Lettuce
(Claytonia perfoliata), Few -Seeded Bitter Cress (Cardamine oligosperma), Henderson's Sedge (Carex
hendersonii), Cleavers (Galium arpine) and Stinging Nettle (Unica dioica). Dune Grass (Leymus mollis)
was also found in the area of the rocky bulkhead continuing south on to the adjacent parcel. Invasives
found on the property include: Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius), Common Velvet Grass (Holcus
lanatus) and Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare). There is approximately 3,000 square feet of Scotch Broom
scattered on the south parcel continuing onto the neighboring parcel to the south.
7.2.3 Mitigation Plan
Mitigation is required for this site as the proposed structure will be built on a shoreline of statewide
significance and will impact a critical area. New native plants will be positioned along the shoreline and
established on the remainder of the property via organized plantings after a building site is chosen.
Existing native species will remain and strengthened with new compatible native plantings. Invasive
plants such as Scotch Broom and Bull Thistle will be removed. The best control method is hand removal.
Pulling is best done in winter to reduce the impacts to native plants and animals.
The planting plan area can be seen in Figure 6. It is divided up into 3 planting areas. Planting Zone 1 is
within the riparian area. Planting Zones 2 and 3 make up the remainder of the lot, some of which is
within 30' of the shoreline, the riparian area. Planting Zone 1 will be planted as seen in Figure 7. The
exact location of the larger plants (e.g. Shore Pine, Hooker's Willow) within Planting Zone 1 will be
decided after a building site is chosen. They may shift one way or the other, to the north or to the south.
The balance of the plantings will be within Planting Zones 2 and/or 3, depending on the building site.
Example locations can be seen in Figure 7.
The plants selected for this site are all native plants that can tolerate salt spray from the marine
environment. They were selected to improve the overall value of the functions in this critical area buffer.
Soil stability, nutrient input, and wildlife habitat were all important factors. Following is a table showing
the plant species and numbers for the planting area. Plants will be selected from a regional native plant
nursery.
Table 2. Plant List
VIS • I -I: heal M1Lu1a;a�m rat PPdil • Ii1', K ,dcJltlal IA111dInp b;m clops I'
♦wl wealem'1
Purchase
Numbv Pry
Mature
Awta rt
ande Plnl
INumblIMPlaiw+ Planldedna
ieW [ranee a.)
fammm Plait wme
Soaaw4 wen,
11.
o1PIanU Ne%na(Rl
enable,
General M3)
V101 Pilot Canonical tell N,7anan/eI
(ndumdby G,adw,)
and 11—c"'Wmn1
Plbetnnpulnaum
Gel
13
7
5
196
336
0
336
Crean Spray
k,WWvsaUco1or
S..l
3
12
13
113.1
336
]
113
TMnbvry
.,—..Inc.L
SR.l
d
10
6
383
113
l
a5
Wax M/rtle
M"..'Goncle
2Gel
3
IB
35
1767
530
0
530
Shore one
Wn. I.ro
SGal
S
15
30
7069
tall
0
1410
Xootrh Willow
5oli+M1oobivno
SGal
3
663
0
462
See ThtlR
Nmnb..".a
35'P.
W1
1n
16
nnnWnniok
A o4vpM1wwo wni
1Gal
13
GAG
8
503
.1
4
4@
alone wme
aone-sono
2Gal
8
8
5
396
]P
157
Aepreen NucWebmry
waeelnlum own=
2Ga1
4
8
6
28.3
113
0
1l3
GaaMa l Saawbem
1—re N...
"I Poi
0.5
6
28.3
396
6
326
80
4268
3738
VIS • I -I: heal M1Lu1a;a�m rat PPdil • Ii1', K ,dcJltlal IA111dInp b;m clops I'
Plants should be installed in late fall or early spring following the construction work. During these times,
plants are semi -dormant and soils are easier to work. Plants will be laid out by hand generally following
the spacing specified on the planting plan map (Figure 6). The plants will be installed by digging a one to
two foot hole, loosening the soil, and placing the plant in the ground after loosening soil around the root
ball. The hole must be deep enough to ensure the roots are straight, but not so deep as to bury plants too
far above the root collar. Once the plant is in place, the hole will be backfilled and tamped lightly. Mulch
should be applied 3" deep around plants, being careful not to touch the stem of the plant. No
extraordinary measures are proposed at this time to protect installed plants other than mulching, weeding
and watering. Twinberry planted along the bulkhead tolerates pruning well. Substitutions might be
necessary for species or individuals that cannot be found at local nurseries. All plant substitutions will be
approved by the project biologist prior to installation to ensure their suitability for the site.
7.2.4 Performance Standards
Performance standards are measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives of the
mitigation project are being achieved. If the proposed benchmarks are not achieved by comparing the
surveys to the mitigation goals, then contingency plans will need to be implemented.
Performance Standard #1 (survival rate): Immediately after planting, all plants will be counted and
documented. At the end of each growing season (late Aug -early Sept) plots will be visited and a count of
surviving plants will be documented. The percent survival for the plots will be calculated by dividing the
total number of surviving plants at the end of the season by the total number of plants after planting.
Photo stations for the replanting site will be determined and a photograph of each transplant location will
be taken on an annual basis. Individual plants that die must be replaced with native species in order to
meet the survival performance standards.
Performance Standard #2 (percent cover): The percent cover standard will be monitored by looking at
each monitoring unit of the enhanced areas from above and estimating the area covered by the individual
species. The percent cover within an area can be quantifled as a total greater than 100% because plants (in
tree, high/low shrub and herbaceous layers) overlap in cover.
Performance Standard #3 (invasive removal): All areas where invasive plants were removed will be
surveyed visually and categorized with photo stations. This is to ensue that 0% (none) of the targeted
Invasive species (Scotch Broom and Bull Thistle) will he present and have not reestablished within each
monitoring year.
7.2.5 Monitoring Plan
An as -built drawing and report will be submitted as documentation of the planting plan within one month
of installation. The plan will include vegetation description and photo documentation from established
photo stations. A panoramic photo of the entire mitigation site will also be provided. Photos should be
taken June - August, during the growing season. Monitoring will take place over a period of five years at
the end of the growing season (late August or early September) of each monitoring year. The performance
standards will be monitored by measuring plots in zones within the planting area that will be established
'I� A • H.:hi0n VIau, .i nai P -m • Rc% [.mrlopr I
and mapped after planting occurs, on the as -built plan. There will be photo points for each plot and they
will be referenced on the as -built plan. Each year, the photo points established at each site will be used for
comparison. Photos will be taken at all points for all years as visual documentation of the performance
standard's progress, or lack thereof. In addition to photos at designated points, photo documentation must
include a panoramic view of the entire planting area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8
1/2" by I I" paper, dated with the date the photo was taken and clearly labeled with the direction from
which the photo was taken. The photo location points must be identified on an appropriate drawing.
Collected data and photos will be compiled into an annual Riparian Planting Report each year and
submitted by November 30 of each monitoring year for five years. Each annual monitoring report shall
include written and photographic documentation on plant mortality and replanting efforts and must
document whether the performance standards are being met. Monitoring results will determine whether or
not contingency measures will be needed.
Performance Standards #1 & 2
Year l: Achieve 100% survival success of replanted natives into mitigation areas.
Year 2: Achieve 100% survival success at end of second year into mitigation areas.
Year 3: Achieve 80% survival success at end of third year into mitigation areas.
Yen 4: Achieve 80% survival success at end of fourth year into mitigation areas.
Year 5: Achieve 80% survival success at end of fifth year into mitigation areas.
Performance Standard #3
Year L Achieve 100% removal of targeted invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 2: Achieve 100% removal of targeted invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 3: Achieve 100% removal of targeted invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 4: Achieve 100% removal of targeted invasive species from mitigation areas
Yew 5: Achieve 100% removal of targeted invasive species from mitigation areas
7.2.6 Maintenance and Contingency
Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the survival of all native
species within the mitigation area, including volunteer natives. Watering by hand or sprinkler may be
necessary during year number one until the plants are established. Water requirements will depend on the
timing of planting with the seasons and weather conditions. Once plants are established, extra watering
may not be necessary. Hand weeding will be necessary around all plants that are being monitored to
ensure survival and coverage. If the required rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, plants lost
to mortality will be replaced to achieve the percentage cover called for in the performance standard
described above. Prior to replacement, an appropriate assessment will be performed to determine if the
survival was affected by species/site selection, animal damage, or some other factor. Subsequent
contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to the stressor(s), which are increasing mortality
of planted native species. If a particular species is shown not to endure site conditions then another, more
appropriate species will be selected. If excessive damage is observed, protective measures will be
introduced. Monitoring years may be added if significant replanting becomes necessary. Monitoring on an
annual basis for five years will occur with photographs to determine the survival rate of the transplanted
area. If target survival success is achieved at the end of each year, monitoring will continue without extra
X15 \ H:J Iii Al ❑'avci d Pkw • B, I I. yd, niiel B, II I-:mel, p,
replanting efforts. Within the five year time period, transplanting will occur on an annual basis to replace
any plants that are lost until success target is achieved.
7.3 Compliance with Jefferson County Mitigation Requirements
Requirements for compensatory mitigation measures are clearly outlined in Jefferson County SMP
18.25.270 (Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection). This mitigation proposal satisfies
these requirements n outlined below:
The quality and quantity of the replaced, enhanced, or substituted resources shall be the same or
better than the affected resources: To compensate for the maximum 3,600 square feet of building
area within the proposed building envelope, 5,800 square feet of area will be improved; 3,678
square feet (primarily in the riparian zone) will be planted with native plants that provide higher
functioning ecological value, and Scotch Broom covering approximately 3,000 square feet of the
southern parcel will be removed.
The mitigation site and associated vegetative planting shall be nurtured and maintained such that
healthy native plant communities can grow and mature over time, and to ensure that intended
functions and values are achieved: The planting plan includes maintenance, monitoring, and
contingency plans. The monitoring timeframes shall be consistent with ICC 18.22.350(3)(h).
The mitigation shall be informed by pertinent scientific and technical studies, including but not
limited to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (Final — Revised November
2008), the Shoreline Restoration Plan (Final October 2008) and other background studies
prepared in support of this program: The planting plan is based on site characterizations
performed by MSA wetland biologists and is designed to enhance well-documented riparian
functions. Riparian enhancements can help trap sediment, prevent excess nutrients from reaching
the aquatic environment, and slow run-off, preventing erosion. Overhanging riparian vegetation
can also provide shade to protect upper -intertidal forage fish spawning areas.
The mitigation shall replace the functions as quickly as possible following the impacts to ensure
no net loss: The mitigation proposed here improves and enhances conditions along the riparian
zone within the 30' shoreline buffer. Development of a mature plant community can take several
years, but benefits to shoreline functioning along this disturbed area will last for the foreseeable
future. Trees will take the longest to establish and to improve ecological function along the
shoreline, but will be a significant improvement in shoreline stabilization and habitat
improvement for birds and fish. Planfing is planned for the soonest appropriate planting season
following construction within the building envelope.
The county shall require the applicaminroponent to post a bond or provide other financial surety
equal to the estimated cost of the mitigation in order to ensure the mitigation is carried out
successfully. The bond/surety shall be refunded to the applicami proponent upon completion of
the mitigation activity and any required monitoring.
8 Conclusions
VIS.a • Hnhit it M.un_em nt Han • I3COC1 Rra d,III [<i It id,I t." Enrrlope - I�
8.1 No Net Loss
No Net Loss and Mitigation Regulations under Jefferson County's SMP (18.25.270) requires that all
shoreline use and development be located, designed, constructed, conducted, and maintained in a manner
that maintains shoreline ecological processes and functions. Uses and developments that cause a net loss
of ecological functions and processes are prohibited but can be offset by employing measures to mitigate
adverse impacts on shoreline functions and processes.
Avoidance measures in this project include locating the building envelope outside the delineated wetland
area and maintaining a 5 foot buffer from the edge of hydric soils. As described in the previous section,
the quality and quantity of enhancements will be better than the affected resources: 3,678 square feet of
the site, primarily in the riparian area, will be enhanced with native plantings and 3,000 square feet of
invasive Scotch Broom will be removed to compensate for potential impacts to 3,600 square feet of
critical area impacts from development within the proposed building envelope.
Based on our review of the proposed Beyer Residential Building Envelope, the existing conditions on
site, and the mitigation measures, MSA concludes that there will be No Net Loss in habitat function or
value above current baseline conditions, assuming recommendations put forth in this Habitat
Management Plan are implemented.
8.2 FEMA Determination
The proposed building envelope may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect ESA listed species or
critical habitat for listed species. Negative impacts to the ESA listed species and their designated critical
habitat within the adjoining 100 -year floodplain would occur only in the case of a flood within the
building envelope and affects would be short-term. These potential but unlikely affects would not
contribute to an increased risk of extinction or reduce the value of their designated critical habitat, and
would not result in take. Because designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal
Summer Run Chum, and Rockfish occurs within the adjoining floodplain, detailed assessments of PCE's
for these species are presented in Attachments 1 and 2.
�IS� L AI : u .•l r'I'm • hey,1 k, Id, Iih'I k u 1 i,a I:;ry 1 Ih
References
Angell, T., & Balcomb III, K. (1982). Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Seattle, WA: Puget
Sound Books, University of Washington Press.
Bowlby, C. E., Green, G. A., & Runnel, M. L. (1994). Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of
Washington and Oregon. 75:33-35.
Healey, M. C. (1982). Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 - 341. In: V.S.
Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons.
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Comprehensive Update. February 7, 2014
Jefferson County Code. Article VIR. Special Reports; Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas. JCC 18.22.440. [Ord.
3-08§1]
Jefferson County 2008. Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory & Characterization — Revised
November 2008
Love, M., Yoklavich, M., & Thorsteinson, L. (2002). The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University
of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Myers, J. M., Kope, R. G., Bryant, G. L, Teel, D., Lierheimer, L. J., Wainwright, T. C., ... Waples, R.
(2000). Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, NONA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
NMFS. (2002). Status Review for North American Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris.
NMFS. (2006). Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
bttps://em .nom.gov/norLhwestlerma
NMFS. (2009). Designation of Critical Habitat for the threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment
of North American Green Sturgeon Final Biological Report. National Marine Fisheries Service
Southwest Region Protected Resources Division .
NMFS. (2009). Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
bttps:/Ierma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma
NMFS. (2011). Critical Habitat for the Southern Eulachon Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Retrieved
October 12, 2015, from https:/Ierma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma
NMFS. (2012). Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
https://er .noaa.gov/northwest/erma
NMFS. (2014). Final Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
haps://erma.nom.gov/northwest/cr
NMFS. (2014a). Final Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
https://erma.non.gov/northwestlerma
VISA H::hi Ctl Al �.ialc nmm 1'lun • liayc CCr„nna! Buil lui” Ll!, cIopc 17
NOAA. (2005). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66 Updated Status of Federally Listed
ESUS of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead.
NOAH. (2005). Northwest Regional Office Critical Habitat Mapper. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from
http://trap.streamnet.org/website/Critica]HabitaL/viewer.htm
NOAA. (2006). Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI). Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
https://erma.noaa.gov/northwestlerma
NOAA. (2006). Pacific Coast Grounditsh Fishery Management Plan.
NOAA. (2013). Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Yelloweye
Rockfish, Canary Rockfish and Bocaccio of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. NOAA.
NOAA. (2013). Fisheries Data: Critical Habitat Retrieved November 15, 2014, from NOAA Fisheries:
http://www.nmfs.noaagov/gis/data/crifical.htm
Orca Network. (2015). Retrieved October 12, 2015, from http://www.oremetwork.org/sigbtings/
Rieman, B. E., & McIntyre, J. (1993). Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull
Trout Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 pp.
Simenstad, C. A., Fresh, K., & Salo, E. (1982). The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries
in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S. Kennedy,
(ed J. Estuarine comparisons.
USFWS. (1998). Endangered Species Act Consultation Handook; Procedures for Conducting Section 7
Consultations and Conferences. USFWS and NMFS, Much 1998 Final.
USFWS. (2015). USFWS Final Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest(erma
WDFW. (1993). Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Olympia,
WA.
WDFW. (1993). Status of the marbled murelet Brachyramphus marmomtus in Washington. Olympia,
WA.
WDFW. (2005). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point No Point Treaty Tribes. 2005.
2004 progress report on Hood Canal summer chum salmon. Olympia, WA.
WDFW. (2009).2008 Washington State Herring Stock Status Report.
WDFW. (2012). Northwest Fish Distribution (StreamNet). Retrieved 12 2015, October, from
https://erma.noaa.gov/northwestlerma
WDFW. (2014). Forage Fish Spawning Map - Washington State. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from
http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.htA
VI,ti.-q •
11:0 ,11,11 SI ,qx . Il Pl.m • H, "dentI'll I �,I it liu;: I j p,r K
WDFW. (2014a). Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) . Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
https://erma.non.gov/northwest(erma
WDFW. (2014b). Forage Fish Spawning Data. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
https://erma.non.gov/northwestlerma
WDFW. (2015). Generalized Kelp Locations. WDFW Fish Program, WA Dept of Natural Resources,
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP). Retrieved 12 2015, October,
from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/
WDFW. (2015a). Invertebrates: Natural Resources, Habitats, & Managed Areas, Coastal Resources &
Habitats, Shellfish/htvertebrates (Layer Name: Shellfish - Puget Sound and Straits). Data
accessed through NOAA's Environmental Response Management Application October 12, 20.
WDFW. (2015a). Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) on the Web. Retrieved from
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsondieweb/
WDNR. (2015). Eelgrass Distribution in Puget Sound. Retrieved from https://eana.noaa.gov/northwest/
WDOH. (2013). Commercial Shellfish Growing Areas. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma
WDOH. (2014). Vibriosis Advisory Areas. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from
https://erma.nom.gov/northwest(erma
WSCC. (2000). Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (Fast) Final
Report. Washington State Conservation Connnission.
WSCC. (2002). Salmon And Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 17
Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission.
NISa •I-lahil.nM i, c,I,IIlI m•Rrcc idavrdli m;-,cn', alupa �0
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Beyer BuiMing Envelope
301 S. Beach Drive �-
Port Ludim, WA
ViunRy Map
El
6ealtle
r.
O
�O
r
r,
N
6rt xEPE.O�L>un. Rl p(y rMUR OgnSe 0.Yp wrtDu a. a• `-..- _ -_ --'.
Lulea
0 05 1 2 _
Figure 2. Parcel map indicating the project is located on filled tidelands.
C' �
MSA • Rihil.0 Monnecmcm Plan • Lcyc- Residential Ruldlne Emelope - --1
Figure 3. FEMA Floodplain Map shoving the site location within the 100 -year Floodplain.
MSS • 11nh Iat M[umiemcnt Plan • Bcou Re4denlial RuiIdIll e I tI'Clope _
Figure 4. Site map with wetland area, County setbacks, and proposed building envelope.
VISA • ._„i.iru Niana-ciffici,L i Rcnidcntial Building Emelopc
Figure 5. 2006 Department of Emlogy Oblique Shoreline photo.
Figum 6. Planting Plan Am
Planting Plan Zones
-�- - aarcel:'ll162'�3
P l a i t i n g Z c r e 2
0 eP' 05 tV et la ad
Nina pg Zone 1
"r Planiing lone 1
E• st'ne "Du a/Be
If Gr
® Maer. nr4rvrn.lr
LyW.Inr :p;i5'
1Se. ane NcSe• i,rebr me flagirl•J
<.1
•
rLl.ne rrxr,...n.l..r ....
M�+'��VlNveen ps
® Maer. nr4rvrn.lr
LyW.Inr :p;i5'
1Se. ane NcSe• i,rebr me flagirl•J
iMS 1 - I ,hil:u AN n' «menl I rdn • li : RuWcnGel But I difl! Gm_Iope 25
•w. vat'F'3 r,.
M�+'��VlNveen ps
[mu.p!uvLvry Rry �
.
M.!vrpayp!)NM�;ti
6 A
iMS 1 - I ,hil:u AN n' «menl I rdn • li : RuWcnGel But I difl! Gm_Iope 25
Figure 7. Planting Plan Example
Example planting plan
P aot'rg
Ex,zti ng
Plant list
i lna... Noter rebs- aze zlaggir�i
n g 2 c r a 2
0ap,a Js,oa Watland
UbV Ila I .iM1.�JI I_:•li ..�_� JIu I.II � �(
Attachment 1. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound
Chinook and Hood Canal Sumer -run Chum
Proje t description: Building Envelope adjoining the 100 -year Hood Canal floodplain, Jefferson County
WA.
Applicant: Mark Beyer
COE reference: Unknown at this time
NMFS reference: Unknown at this time
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon are:
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting
spawning, incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is adjoining a marine floodplain area
Effects to PCE: None
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical
habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile
development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, logjams and
beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is adjoining a marine floodplain area
Effects to PCE: None
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and
natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and
boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is adjoining a marine Floodplain area
Effects to PCE: None
VISA •Habitat N1ana�emem Him -Heyer Rcvdrntud Building Emclope ._,
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh -and saltwater, natural cover such as
submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels,
and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and
maturation.
Existing Conditions: As noted in the Site Description in the BE and the MSA Wetland Report, the
riparian area is devoid of overhanging vegetation and the filled tidelands where the building envelope is
proposed me highly disturbed.
Effects to PCE: The project may improve natural cover for fish with recommendations to plant native
riparian vegetation along the entire shoreline to provide cover and invertebrate prey for juvenile and adult
salmonids. The project will not have negative impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions, or water
temperature.
5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as
submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: Some water quality impacts could occur in the event of flooding. See Effects Analysis
section of the attached BE.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and
fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the site is adjoining a nearshore marine floodplain area.
Effects to PCE: None
Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect'
1lA V • 11x1 i I Alao.tec': 'l Plan • li.�.i (2 rid�mi.i 6 u me l.m clq ,
Attachment 2. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Nearshore Habitat for
juvenile bocaccio and canary rockfish; and Critical Deepwater Habitat
for yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio
Project description: Building Envelope adjoining the 100 -year Hood Canal floodplain, Jefferson County
WA.
Applicant: Mark Beyer
COE reference: Unknown at this time
NNIFS reference: Unknown at this time
The project is located on Hood Canal, and is adjoining a 100 -year floodplain that contains Nearshore
Critical Habitat (CH) for juvenile bocaccio and canary rockfish and Deepwater Critical Habitat for
yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio (NOAA, Fisheries Data: Critical Habitat, 2014). The
project footprint is on filled tidelands.
Primary Constituent Elements
The primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are as follows:
1. Quantity, quality and availability species to support growth, survival, reproduction, and
feeding opportunities.
Existing Conditions: The project area is within filled tidelands but adjoining a 100 -year floodplain that
includes shallow, intertidal, nearshore subtidal waters in rocky, cobble and sand substrates (with or
without kelp) can provide suitable substrate for juvenile (3-6 month old) bocaccio and canary rockfish.
However, the highest densities of juvenile rockfish are found in areas with floating or submerged kelp
species. No kelp was identified near the project area using the Coastal Atlas data.
Effects to PCE: Kelp habitat that supports high numbers of these species of juvenile rockfish does not
occur in the floodplain near the project area and therefore would likely not be impacted in the case of a
flood. Adults of all three listed rockfish species are found in deeper waters and are strongly associated
with complex habitat that includes rocky substrate and moderate to steep slopes. The seabed near the
project area lacks complexity and is primarily sand and gavel with a moderate slope. Little or no adverse
impacts to the quantity, quality and availability of species to support growth, survival, reproduction, and
feeding opportunities are anticipated from this project or from subsequent floods that may occur within
the project footprint within the filled tideland. Vertical structure and substrate complexity in deepwater
critical habitat will not be negatively impacted by this project.
2. Water quality, quantity and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival,
reproduction and feeding opportunities.
Existing Conditions: The Washington Department of Ecology Marine Water Quality Assessment Data
(accessed online 1/19/16) indicated 1 site near the proposed project (directly across Hood Canal on the
AIS V • Hahlnn M:mn«Cmew Plan • Beyer Re,idential Buying Emclope _,
east side of the canal) that was listed as a Category 5 impacted by low levels of Dissolved Oxygen
(Ecology, 2012).
Effects to PCE: Impacts to water quality within the adjoining floodplain are possible if a flood were to
occur.
Determination of Effect
"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" for Nearshore Critical Habitat (CH) for juvenile bocaccio and
canary rockfish and Deepwater Critical Habitat for yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio"
VIS -A • I I: I I I 11 I I A 1anir_ru la I I 1'1111 • Iia I vIi�lcnII 11 1 i L I I[ IIn_ I.n,ulupr 2ii