Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SDP2017-00007 Habitat Plan
M JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD Barden Living Trust Bulkhead Repair and Construction Habitat Assessment April 27, 2017 For: Sherri Barden Hunter 240 Maple Lane Port Ludlow WA, S U� MARINE SURVEYS It ASSESSMENTS 267 Hudson Street Port Townsend WA 98368 (360)385-4073 marine.surveys.inc@gmait.com Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 4 2. PROJECT INFORMATION .................... .............................................................................. I..,........... 4 A. Proponent Information......................................................................................................................4 B. Biologist Information........................................................................................................................ 4 C. Project Location................................................................................................................................ 5 D. Site Description................................................................................................................................. 5 E. Project Description............................................................................................................................ 5 F. Action Area....................................................................................................................................... 6 3. HABITAT AND SPECIES INFORMATION..........................................................................................7 A. Habitat Conditions within Action Area and 100 Year Flood Plain (Hood Canal) ............................... 7 B. Species..................................................................................................................................................7 1. State................................................................................................................................................7 2. Federal...........................................................................................................................................8 4. IMPACTS......................................................................................................,........................_...............12 A. Direct Effects.....................................................................................................................................12 B. Indirect Effects...................................................................................................................................14 C. Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................................15 D. Impacts to FEMA Floodplain.............................................................................................................15 5. CONSERVATION MEASURES ........................................... ,........................................................ ....... 15 A. Avoidance and Minimization Measures.............................................................................................15 A.1 Work Windows............................................................................................................................15 A.2 Avoidance Measures for Water Quality.......................................................................................16 A.3 Avoidance Measures for Impacts to Fish.....................................................................................16 A.4 Avoidance Measures for Impacts to Aquatic and Riparian Vegetation.......................................16 A.5 Mitigation.....................................................................................................................................16 6. Conclusions...... ... .......... ,......................................................................................................................... 16 A. No Net Loss....................................................................................................................................16 B. FEMA Determination of Effects.....................................................................................................17 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................1.7 FIGURES................. --.............................................................. ,................................................................ 20 2 Figure 1. 14 feet from deck to top of eroding bluff................................................................................ 20 Figure2. Site Location............................................................................................................................ 21 Figure3. Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................22 Figure 4. Current state of bulkhead at 240 Maple Lane.......................................................................... 23 Figure 5. Beach just south of compromised bulkhead, looking North .................................................... 24 Figure6. High Water Marks................................................................................................................... 25 Figure7. Repair Plan .............................................................................................................................. 26 Figure8. Action Area............................................................................................................................. 27 Figure9. FEMA Flood Map................................................................................................................... 28 Figure10. WDOE Flood Map................................................................................................................ 29 Figure11. WDFW Wetland Type........................................................................................................... 30 Figure 12. WDFW Priority Habitat and Species map............................................................................. 31 Figure 13. Existing vegetation on bluff south of bulkhead .................................................................... 32 Figure 14. Tree fallen from bluff at south end of bulkhead.................................................................... 33 Figure15. WDFW PHS Species Map..................................................................................................... 34 Figure 16. NMFS Critical Habitat Map: Nearshore Rockfish................................................................ 35 Figure 17. NMFS Critical Habitat Map: Summer Run Chum................................................................ 36 Figure 18. NMFS Critical Habitat Map: ................................................................................................. 37 Figure 19. NMFS Critical Habitat Map: Puget Sound Chinook............................................................. 38 Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 39 Appendix1..................................................................,...........................................................................39 A. Mitigation Plan ............................ ...................................................................................... ............. 39 B. Performance Standards................................................................................................................... 40 C. Monitoring Plan.............................................................................................................................. 40 D. Maintenance and Contingency....................................................................................................... 41 3 1. INTRODUCTION During the winter of 2016, an exceptionally high stone -driven tide damaged the rockery bulkhead on the proponent's property. Subsequent overtopping and stone damage has scoured away much of the backfill in places and exposed the slope above the bulkhead to shoreline erosion processes. Currently, the property owned by the proponent is at risk of increased erosion and subsequent possible degradation; as of December, 2016, the residence's foundation was within 20 feet of the top of the bluff, and the decks within 14 feet (Figure 1). This setback has likely been further reduced in early 2017. Approximately 25 feet of the southern end of the residence extends beyond the southern end of the existing bulkhead, so that portion has no protection from bluff retreat. If the bulkhead is not repaired and extended to the south, erosion of the bluff will continue and ultimately safe egress, and support for decks and house foundations will be compromised, then lost. The section of bulkhead to be repaired is 113 linear feet by approximately 5 feet, resulting in a total footprint of 565 square feet. The proponent states that the original bulkhead was built prior to 1971 and therefore predates any regulation that currently governs shoreline armoring. The section of new bulkhead to be constructed is approximately 45 linear feet by approximately 5 feet, resulting in a total footage of 225 square feet. The bulkhead repair project is being proposed as guided by Shoreline Master Program 173-26-231: (2.a): Allow structural shoreline modifications only where they are demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage. Because the project is located within an area classified by FEMA as an "area of 100 -year flood" and by Washington Department of Ecology flood hazard maps as a "Flood Hazard Area," this FEMA Habitat Assessment includes additional analysis and mitigation addressing potential impacts to Federal ESA -listed species within the "Protected Area" and evaluates potential impacts to habitat functions and protected species and habitats in the remainder of the adjoining 100 -year floodplain. 2. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Proponent Information Name: Barden Living Trust, c/o Sherri Barden Hunter Mailing Address: 240 Maple Lane, Port Ludlow, WA, 98365 Contact person: Sherri Barden Hunter, (360)821-9684 B. Biologist Information Name: Amy Leitman, Marine Surveys & Assessments Credentials: M.Sc. Marine Biology and 20 years of experience Phone: (360) 385-4073 Email: marine. surveys.inc@gmail.com Contact Address: 267 Hudson St, Port Townsend, WA 98368 4 C. Project Location Site Address: 240 Maple Lane, Port Ludlow WA, 98365 Legal Description: Section: 4, Township: 28 N, Range: 01 E Parcel Number(s): 976500002, 976500013 County: Jefferson County Latitude & Longitude: 47.942959° N, -122.685913°W Waterbody: Puget Sound, between Mats Mats Bay and Port Ludlow (Figure 1) D. Site Description The Site is located at 240 Maple Lane, in Jefferson County, Washington, about 1'/ miles north of Port Ludlow, on the west side of Admiralty Inlet. The Site comprises two rectangular parcels, 976500002 and 976500013, elongated east to west about 450 feet, with a combined width of about 180 feet from north to south (Figure 2, Figure 3). The site generally consists of a gently sloping upland, a short but steep bluff, and the beach. The uplands portion of the Site slopes gently eastward from approximate Elevation 80 (feet NAVD 88) at the western edge of the parcels to Elevation 20 at the top of the bluff that descends to the beach. The bluff occupies a band about 10 to 15 feet wide near the eastern edge of the parcels (the portions that lie above the ordinary high water line). The bluff slope descends steeply at about 45 -degrees average to the beach and/or the existing rockery. The high beach lies at approximately Elevation 10. An angular basalt rockery bulkhead extends from the northern property line to about 113 feet to the south. The upper and mid beach slopes about 8 degrees eastward into the tidelands of Puget Sound (Figure 4, Figure 5) The beach consists of an approximately 8 -degree sand and gravel surface. The median beach substrate ranged from sand near the toe of the rockery and bluff to coarse gravel and cobbles in the middle of the beach, about 50 feet from the slope toe. Scattered boulders are present throughout the beach substrate. Towards the low tide line, the beach grades back to predominately sand. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) occurs at the abrupt transition from the upper beach to the toe of the rockery bulkhead, or where no bulkhead exists, at the toe of the bluff. In areas where the existing bulkhead has been degraded, no re-establishment of the OHWM has yet occurred. The OWHM and mean higher high water line (MHHW) were surveyed by Marine Surveys & Assessments (Marine Surveys & Assessments, 2016) in fall and winter of 2016: the MHHW was found to lie about two to five feet seaward of the toe of the rockery bulkhead and OHWM (Figure 6). E. Project Description The proposal is to rebuild 113 feet of a rockery bulkhead (protecting a single family use private residence) that was damaged and partially destroyed in a high-water event in the winter of 2016, and construct approximately 45 feet of new bulkhead to the south, where there is currently none. The current footprint of the existing rockery bulkhead is approximately 565 square feet (113 ft. by 5 ft.) (Figure 7); the expected new footprint of the rebuild, as estimated by the geotechnical consultant Aspect Consulting, is the at most the same, and likely less. This would be due to eliminating areas of space shoreward of the current bulkhead, between the bulkhead and toe of the bluff, that have resulted from bulkhead slumping and degradation over the years. In effect, this section of bulkhead will be tightened and narrowed, likely resulting in a slightly smaller overall footprint. The expected footprint of the newly constructed bulkhead will be approximately 225 square feet (45 ft. by 5 ft.) (Figure 7). The scope of the work is as follows: storage of materials and equipment in two approximately 1503 ftz sites (both on previously paved/gravel pads on the clients property, located outside the Critical Area marine buffer of 150 feet from the OHWM stipulated in the Jefferson County Master Program, Article 6, Section 1) (Figure 7); temporary beach access via existing county right-of-way, with the surface protected and public access maintained throughout; repair 113 linear feet of existing rockery bulkhead and construct 45 linear feet of new rockery bulkhead, with a resulting total footprint of approximately 225 square feet larger than the current 565 square feet; restoration of site and county right-of-way to pre -construction conditions and in accordance with permit conditions. No materials, construction of any kind, or equipment shall be left on the beach, within the intertidal zone, or within the 150' marine Critical Area buffer measured from the OHWM; all impact within the intertidal zone and the marine Critical Area will be temporary and short term. Because of the utilization of previously existing access, as well as the location of the bulkhead (at the seaward toe of the existing bluff), it is predicted that no riparian vegetation will be damaged or inadvertently removed during the bulkhead restoration process. However, should this occur, it will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. All necessary and prescribed work windows, regarding the intertidal, shall be observed (see below, Section 5: Conservation Measures). As noted by the contracted Geotechnical consultant, repair and materials shall be in accordance with American Rockery Construction (ARC) Guidelines (2013). Rock size will be between one man and three man, with larger rocks to be placed at the bottom and smaller rocks to be placed at the top; existing rocks that have fallen to the beach during sustained damage may be incorporated into the repair, provided that they conform to these specifications. The repaired bulkhead backfill will consist of 2 -inch to 6 -inch shot rock spalls for walls (as defined in section 9-13.7(2) of the 2014 Washington Department of Transit standard specifications for road, bridge, and municipal construction) and will contain less than 5 percent material finer passing a #200 sieve. The area between the repaired bulkhead and the bluff will be permeable to water, and soils retained by the bulkhead will be protected against "piping" (subsurface water -borne erosion of finer sediments) by installing a specially designed non -woven geotextile filter fabric both between the bulkhead armor rocks and the backfill, and between the backfill and the native bluff soil. The thickness of the backfill between the natural bank and the rockery bulkhead shall be a minimum of 12 inches, in keeping with the current bulkhead footprint (Figure 7) F. Action Area The project area would be considered the area within the actual project footprint and would also include the areas used for staging materials and equipment and accessing the site. The action area would include any areas with potential ecological effects from short-term construction activities or long-term habitat modifications and would extend beyond shore approximately 1,200 feet in -water to the north, east, and south of this area of the Admiralty Inlet (Figure 8). The action area over land is expected to cover a much smaller area. However, for the purposes of the FEMA Habitat Assessment, impacts are considered beyond the immediate action are and into Admiralty Inlet and northern Hood Canal. 3. HABITAT AND SPECIES INFORMATION A. Habitat Conditions within Action Area and 100 Year Flood Plain (Hood Canal) The project site in Admiralty Inlet, southeast of Port Hadlock by approximately 7.25 miles, between Mats Mats Bay and Port Ludlow. This area is located within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 Quilcene-Snow basin. FEMA flood maps classify the project area as an "area of 100 year flood" (Figure 9); Washington Department of Ecology flood hazard maps classify this area as a "Flood Hazard Area" (Figure 10). The requirements of a FEMA Habitat Assessment include additional analysis and mitigation addressing potential impacts to Federal ESA -listed species within the "Protected Area" as defined above. Because the Habitat Assessment must describe impacts to habitat functions in the remainder of the adjoining 100 - year floodplain, impacts to protected species and habitats are evaluated beyond the action area and into Admiralty Inlet and northern Hood Canal. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority classifies the shoreline, intertidal, and subtidal areas of the project site as an estuarine and marine wetland (Figure 11), and WDOE Coastal Atlas maps indicate the next nearest wetland is a freshwater emergent approximate 1800 feet away, to the northwest of the project site (Figure 12). Based on a July 20th, 2016 site visit by Marine Surveys and Assessments, vegetation on the site is typically mature conifer trees upslope and south of the residence with grass and ornamental shrubs to the north and east of the house. The critical area between the residence and the bluff is mainly vegetated, with grass on the uplands and on the bluff where the slope angle is less than about 45 -degrees. Ornamental shrubs were observed growing sporadically at the upper edge of the bluff, and two, decomposing, large tree stumps were located at the top. The steepest portions of the bluff are un -vegetated due to recent damage. Several dead trees were present on the upper beach, near the center of the parcel; these trees were oriented at various angles to the bluff. The homeowner stated that these trees derived from the bluff at the site. (Figure 13, Figure 14). B. Species 1. State The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife identifies the site's shoreline and action area to be potential breeding ground for surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), while offshore there is mapped geoduck (Panopea generosa) presence (Figure 15). PHS maps also classify this shoreline as an estuarine and marine wetland (WDFW 2016). None of the species mentioned above have status on any federal or state lists, are listed as a species of concern at the federal level, or a sensitive species at the state level. Below is a table of the Priority Habitat and Species mapped by WDFW in the vicinity of the project site. The Northern Hood Canal includes areas known to support Dungeness crab and additional geoduck (WDFW, 2015). Table 1. WDFW PHS within or immediately adjacent to proicct /uotprint Species or Habitat Priority Area Effect within Footprint Various Alcids Breeding Habitat None Surf Smelt Breeding Habitat None Pacific Sand Lance Breeding Habitat None Estuarine and Marine Wetland Aquatic Habitat None 2. Federal A range of fish, marine mammal, and bird species listed under 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, and/or adjoining 100 -year floodplain is presented below in Table 1. Table 1. NMFS/USFWS Regional Critical Habitat NMFS/USFW Critical Habitat Adjoining 100 -year Floodplain Action Area Project Footprint 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)Figure 16 Y Y Y Final Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) Y N N Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2012) N N N Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2009) N N N Marine Critical Habitat Hood Canal Summer -run Chum Salmon NMFS, 2005 Figure 17 Y Y Y Sockeye Salmon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N N N Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2006) Figure 18 Y Y 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 Marine Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon NOAA, 2005 Figure 19 Y Y Y 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 are presented below. 2.1 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 portion of the project footprint below the line of extreme high water and the adjacent 100 -year floodplain are in an area designated as 8 critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Federal Register / Vol 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations). No Chinook -bearing streams are identified in the vicinity of the project (WDFW, Northwest Fish Distribution (StreamNet), 2012). Chinook in Hood Canal are enhanced with hatchery programs and naturally spawning occurs primarily in the southeastern portion of Hood Canal, far from the project location (WSCC, 2003). 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 mm or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first 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. 2.2 Steelhead NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA (Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 91 /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). The project is located in WRIA 17 in the Quilcene-Snow sub -basin. Upland areas surrounding the project site are considered accessible for winter and summer steelhead DPS (WDFW, 2016). Dewatto, Tahuya, and Union Rivers are the main production areas in this WRIA for winter steelhead (WSCC, 2003) and no steelhead bearing streams were identified by WDFW's Northwest Fish Distribution (WDFW, Northwest Fish Distribution (StreamNet), 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. 2.3 Hood Canal Summer -Run Chum NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer run chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened under the ESA (Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005). The portion of the project footprint below the line of extreme high water and the adjacent 100 -year floodplain are 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). The project is located in WRIA 17 in the Quilcene-Snow sub -basin. Upland areas in the project location are considered accessible ESU's for Summer Chum in SalmonScape (WDFW 2016). However, no chum bearing streams were identified by WDFW's Northwest Fish Distribution (WDFW, Northwest Fish Distribution (StreamNet), 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, Salmon And Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 17 Quilcene-Snow Basin, 2002). Chum (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). 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). 2.4 Bull Trout Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1999 (Federal Register./Vol. 64, No. 210./Monday, November 1./ 1999/Rules and Regulations). The project site and the adjacent 100 -year floodplain are not located on a shoreline designated as critical habitat for Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register / Vo1.75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations). Bull trout is identified by USFWS as a species that may occur or could potentially be affected by activities in this location (USFWS, 2016). The project is located in WRIA 17 in the Quilcene-Snow sub -basin. No bulltrout presence or spawning and rearing streams have been identified in the action area and there are no current or historic records of presence in WRIA 17 (WDFW, 2012; WDFW, 2014a; WSCC, 2003). USFWS has not designated critical habitat for bull trout near the action area (USFWS, USFWS Final Critical Habitat, 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). 10 2. S 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 portion of the project footprint below the line of extreme high water and the adjacent 100 -year floodplain are in an area designated Nearshore Critical Habitat for Canary Rockfish and Bocaccio. The adjoining floodplain also includes Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat (Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations). Relevant life history: bocaccio, canary, and yelloweye rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles. As juveniles, they settle to benthic 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. 2,6 Green xStur�geon 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. 2.7 Marbled Murrelet Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) have been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992. The nearest designated critical habitat for Marbled Murrelets is over 15 miles away and there are no nests close to the project site (WDFW, 1993; USFWS, USFWS Final Critical Habitat, 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 (WDFW, 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. 11 2.8 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 (Orca 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 (Orca Network, 2015). 2.9 Leatherback Sea Tnrtle 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 -year floodplain. 2.10 Southern Resident Killer Whales On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus 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 action area includes Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat which begins at waters of 20' depth. Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat also occurs within the adjoining 100 -year floodplain in Hood Canal. Since 2003, all killer whale sightings in Hood Canal appear to be of transient killer whales (Orca Network, 2015). 4. IMPACTS A. Direct Effects Water Quality Excavation and re -grading of fine-grained sediments characteristic of the intertidal zone at this site have the potential to cause minor and temporary increases in turbidity during construction. Any siltation or increased turbidity has the potential to impact migrating salmonids in the nearshore area. Conservation Measures are included in Section 5 to prevent degradation of water quality during construction; in addition, siltation during construction will be avoided by adhering to the implementation of the Best Management Practices (BMP) regarding stormwater drainage, erosion, and sediment control. 12 Alteration of Shoreline Function Data regarding the long-term effects of shore protection structures within Puget Sound supports the hypothesis that shoreline armoring has an overall detrimental effect on natural coastal processes. Adverse effects of shoreline armoring may contribute to lowering and hardening of the beach profile seaward of the structure as a result of scouring, and subsequent loss of fine-grained beach materials in front of hard surface structures. There may also be a loss of low energy depositional environments where littoral sediments can accumulate, and a reduction of sediment input along shoreline areas where mass wasting processes have been reduced or temporarily stopped, resulting in the impoundment of source sediment shoreward of the structure. Additionally, structures built seaward of the original OHWM impede the flow of littoral sediment within a drift sector resulting in impoundment updrift and end -scour downdrift of the structure. Alternatives such as soft bulkhead techniques include the combined use of beach nourishment (placement of sediment on the beach), construction of gravel and cobble berms, and engineered and restrained large woody debris (logs) to dissipate wave energy and trap sediment. Logs on the beach are restrained using cables and/or an earth retention system such as dead -man anchors or tie -back style anchors or by strategically arranged logs with significant portions of the logs buried well below the depth of winter storm scour. The logs are arranged to impede wave energy acting on the toe of the slope. In an ideal setting, logs promote the accumulation of natural beach sediment that is actively recruited by the natural coastal processes acting on the shoreline. Regulatory/permitting agencies generally prefer soft bulkheads over hard bulkheads, as they believe that they result in less long-term shoreline habitat degradation than hard bulkheads. The long-term effectiveness and maintenance requirements for soft bank protection systems are not well documented in Puget Sound, but soft shoreline protection is generally believed to provide less effective protection and shorter service life and require more frequent maintenance or replacement. While the site shoreline is not typically a high wave -energy environment, the combination of high tides and storm waves has been intense enough to overtop the existing bulkhead and erode into the unprotected portions of the bluff slope. The existing bulkhead serves to protect upland soils from erosion and protect the residence foundations from being undermined. Due to the proximity of the bluff slope to the residence and associated risk of undermining the residence foundations along with the typically shorter service life and greater maintenance requirements of a soft shoreline protection system, it is likely that such a system will not provide the certainty and level of protection needed for long-term shoreline protection at this site. The total new footprint is calculated to be approximately 225 square feet (565 square feet of existing bulkhead to be rebuilt; 225 square feet of new construction). An accompanying 5:1 ratio mitigation plan has been prepared that produces approximately 900 square feet of native 13 woody plantings (Appendix 1). With this mitigation, it is likely that the cumulative adverse impacts would result in no net loss of ecological function. Entrainment or impingement of Benthic Invertebrates and Fish Epibenthic and infaunal benthic invertebrates may be smothered or crushed during mobilization, bulkhead construction, or demobilization from the site. Highly mobile invertebrate species or fish would likely move away from the disturbances and turbidity in the project area. Regardless, fish could become trapped in standing pools that could result from construction. Additionally, as the action area is characterized by Pacific sand lance and surf smelt spawing habitat, work windows around those time frames would be adhered to. Conservation Measures are included in Section 5 to prevent such effects, and impacts to fish and invertebrates are expected to be minor and temporary. Damage or Destruction of Vegetation As previously noted, the critical area between the residence and the bluff are mainly vegetated, with grass on the uplands and on the bluff where the slope angle was less than about 45 -degrees. The steepest portions of the bluff are un -vegetated due to recent damage, and several dead trees were present on the upper beach, near the center of the parcel, which the proponent stated were derived from the bluff. Mobilization to the action area, bulkhead construction, and demobilization from the site could result in damage or destruction to vegetation. However, the area likely to be impacted consists of planted suburban lawn, and is therefore not of special concern. Additionally, the bluff and associated extant native vegetation would benefit from stabilization, as erosion/slumping is currently the greatest cause of vegetation destruction. Conservation Measures are included in Section 5 to salvage and transplant any native riparian vegetation that could experience direct impact within the project footprint. Construction Noise There will be some construction noise associated the project, which may have temporary impacts on wildlife, such as disturbance of nesting/perching for song birds. However, increased in -water noise levels will not occur because all work will occur doing low tide. B. Indirect Effects The indirect effects of shoreline armoring in Puget Sound have been well documented and include reduced riparian vegetation that leads to reduced input of logs, insects, terrestrial detritus, less high -shore shade, and ultimately results in reductions in prey resources for fishes, lower survival of forage fish eggs, and fewer refuges for juvenile fish (Coyle & Dethier, 2009). Shoreline armoring also alters sediment movement by impounding sediment and preventing it from entering the drift -cell and sometimes accelerates erosion due to wave reflection (Coyle & Dethier, 2009). Currently, the area at the top of the bluff is characterized as mainly vegetated with grass, with a few ornamental shrubs growing sporadically at the edge of the bluff. The steepest portions of the bluff are un -vegetated due to recent damage. The attached mitigation plan is attached that 14 produces approximately 900 square feet of native woody, overhanging plants along the top of the bluff (Appendix 1). It is possible that these native, overhanging riparian plantings would result in an increased input of logs, insects, terrestrial detritus, high -shore shade, and potential increase in prey resources for fishes. With this mitigation, it is likely that the indirect adverse impacts would result in no indirect net loss of ecological function. C. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects from future state, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area are not anticipated for this project. D. Impacts to FEMA Floodplain This habitat assessment describes impacts to habitat functions associated with shoreline stabilization within the Protected Area and in the remainder of the 100 -year floodplain (the marine waters of Northern Hood Canal). With the exceptions of impacts described previously in this section, this assessment demonstrates that there will be no short- or long-term adverse effects due to shoreline stabilization within the Protected Area. Avoidance and minimization measures will prevent impacts to ESA species and their designated critical habitat within the adjoining floodplain. 5. CONSERVATION MEASURES A. Avoidance and Minimization Measures A.1 Work Windows Any active site work (such as equipment mobilization, re -grading, excavation, demobilization, etc.) could result in increased turbidity or impingement of fish and will occur only with the agency -approved work windows for salmon. Salmon Work Window: July 16 — January 15 (WAC 220-660-330 Authorized work times in saltwater areas) Because the adjoining floodplain, as well as the immediate action area, includes forage fish spawning areas, agencies may also require that work windows for herring and sand lance be observed, as well as forage fish surveys completed to assure non -presence of target species: Surf Smelt: April 1— July 31 Pacific Sand Lance: March 2 — October 14 (USACE Tidal Reference Area 1— Port Townsend; WAC 220-660-330 Authorized work times in saltwater areas) The cumulative work window that should be adhered to is: July 16 — July 31 However, should there be necessity to work outside of the Sand Lance and Surf Smelt window, a forage fish survey may be performed on site, before construction; if no eggs are present, a one week work window is granted. 15 A.2 Avoidance Measures for Water Quality Construction will be limited to only the necessary area and the bottom of excavations shall be level, firm, undisturbed earth, clean and free from loose material, debris, and foreign matter. The contractor shall adhere to the lines and grades indicated on the project plans. All construction extending into the intertidal area must be performed during lower tide conditions. Excavation and fill placement shall occur in the dry whenever possible. A.3 Avoidance Measures for Impacts to Fish At the end of each shift, prior to the tide coming in, any excavation must remain free -draining without low areas that could potentially strand fish when the tide retreats. Should any low pools remain at low tide, the contractor shall coordinate fish removal with the proponent's representative at the contractor's expense. A.4 Avoidance Measures for Impacts to Aquatic and Riparian Vegetation Any live, native aquatic or riparian vegetation within the project footprint shall be salvaged and transplanted within the appropriate zone (intertidal or riparian). Any disturbance/mortality to native vegetation shall be mitigated for by a 1:1 replacement ratio. However, no loss of existing vegetation is expected. A.5 Mitigation To offset the 225 square feet of new construction footprint, we recommend the following: • Removal of 7-9 large boulders (approximately 3.5 feet by 5 feet, resulting in 122.5-157.5 square feet) which have fallen from the existing bulkhead on to the beach, resulting in a hardening of the intertidal zone and a net reduction in forage fish spawning habitat. • A 5:1 ratio mitigation plan produces approximately 900 square feet of native woody plantings (Appendix 1). 6. Conclusions A. 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 repairing an existing bulkhead to current footprint size or smaller, adhering to the marine Critical Area buffer of 150 feet for any permanent or short term impact, working with established Best Management Practices to reduce stormwater drainage and erosion, increase sediment control, and working within prescribed work windows to avoid unnecessary impact to relevant listed species. 16 Based on our review of the proposed Barden Living Trust Bulkhead Repair proposal, 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. B. FEMA Determination of Effects 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. After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the determination of effect is: Puget Sound chinook - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" Hood Canal Summer -run Chum Salmon - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" Bocaccio, yelloweye and canary rockfish - "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" Bull trout - "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" Puget Sound steelhead - "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" Sockeye Salmon - "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" Marbled murrelet "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" Humpback whale - "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" Leatherback sea turtle - "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" Southern Resident killer whale - "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" The project and the adjoining floodplain occur within Critical Habitat for ESA listed species including Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal Summer -run chum, adult and juvenile rockfish, and Southern Resident Killer Whale. Conservation measures are recommended in this report to avoid and minimize direct impacts to these species and their habitat from repair to a damaged bulkhead and eroding bluff. These repairs occur in an area that has been considerably developed, and that is not immediately near important intertidal mudflats, salt marshes, lagoons, and shallow bays that provide habitat for juvenile and adults salmonids (WSCC, 2003). The proponent's property is currently largely lacking riparian vegetation due to previously existing development. Therefore, this bulkhead repair is not expected to result in an overall detrimental effect to ESA listed species and their critical habitat. REFERENCES Angell, T. and K. C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 146 pp. 17 Bowlby, D. E., G. A. Green and M. L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 56 / March 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 123 / June 28, 2005/ Rules and Regulations Federal Register / Vol 70, No. 170 / September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 222 / November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 229 / November 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations. Federal RegisterNol. 78, No. 151/ August 6, 2013/ Proposed Rules. Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 - 341. In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY. Hruby, T., 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. Jeffries, Steven J., Patrick J. Gearin, Harriet R. Huber, Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA, 150 pp. Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC- 35, 443 pp. Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp. Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2016. Environmental Response Management Application map reports for Eld Inlet. Available at: littp://response.restoration.noaa. o� v/jnaps-and-spitial- datalenvirvnmental-re ponce martap-eriicnt-apniicat an-ermalpacific-northwest-erma.htmi . Washington D.C. Osborne, R., J. Calambokidis and E. M. Dorsey. 1988. A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers, Anacortes, WA, 191 pp. 18 Peterson, Charles H., Darren HM Hickerson, and Gina Grissom Johnson. "Short-term consequences of nourishment and bulldozing on the dominant large invertebrates of a sandy beach." Journal of Coastal Research (2000): 368-378. Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 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., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh and E.O. Salo. 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.). Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY. Tait, James F. and Gary B. Griggs. 1991. Beach response to the presence of a seawall, comparison of field observations. Contact Report CERC-91-1, U. S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. WDOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2012. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN, Olympia, Washington. WDOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2016. Coastal Atlas map reports for Eld Inlet. Available at: haps://fortress.wa.,gov/ecy/coastalatias/too[gMap.ast)x .Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Priority Habitats and Species report for Eld Inlet. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia, Washington. Wiles, G. J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp. WSDE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. Olympia, WA. 1035 pp. httli://www.ecy.wa.gov/L)rogram%-,/M/stormwater/iiiatival. lit m l , WSDE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2016. Water Quality Atlas. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. Olympia, WA. littt)s://fortress.w_a_�ov/ecvlwatercivali tvatlas/mai).asox ?Custom.Man--v&RT=Q&Lavers=23,29&F ilters=n,n,n,n WSCC 2002. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors for Water Resource Inventory Area 14 Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin Final Report by Washington State Conservation Commission by Michael Kuttel, Jr. November 2002. 19 FIGURES Figure 1. 14 feet from deck to top of eroding bluff 20 lei-ure 2, Site Location PAI Figure 3. Site Plan 22 Y74;„ • ' '1 : SO :,t 19K looking Nortli 24 Figure 6. High Water Marks ttten UVIng Trust Parcel Numbers Habitat Assessment . sfi., n Id—w'. IWO.. 976500002, 976500013 Total meat 1--I.-of .-III-1 Rebuild 105 1 Maple Lane, fort Ludlow WR, 98365 S4, T A N. noir IW aad Mhfl'N, Determined by Menne5ums and Mte—nta 25 Figure 7. repair Plan CT m m z 0 m In i I -� a s i Irk8 n y � g• f � O g 7T0 ryn x m� s �m -, C D m N a a. I• 1 1 Me i Irk8 n y � g• f bpiwnwo.(Maca.+n I.PI fklh9 yfn M Project Inset and - RYlJlheed ROAnh 6a4ei1 ®Ct — 4, w eLvovnlm-y hd µpu..: Nqr [DfI1VLf ING FC WpW Lam .-. PPllaicF.W.Mmpen - ... _...v. .._.. 26 � 7T0 ryn x m� zv �o �m -, C D m N M I• 1 1 3 L �S bpiwnwo.(Maca.+n I.PI fklh9 yfn M Project Inset and - RYlJlheed ROAnh 6a4ei1 ®Ct — 4, w eLvovnlm-y hd µpu..: Nqr [DfI1VLf ING FC WpW Lam .-. PPllaicF.W.Mmpen - ... _...v. .._.. 26 Fi-�ury S. Action AreA Figure 9. FEMA Flood Map Ilia71 1 7 8 Y o 6�F���$ W o � s '.• .s � � s � y � "s his15. >- y i a •. t 3 3 a F�10" 4 { �- r 29 Figure !t WDFW Wetland Type MCI 30 31 0 Figure 15. WDFW PHS Sr:, " 34 j e g -0 a) _ 2 $ E cnM - �\> 7 \ \ « z 4--J / CLLL = m / } a ai \ S E z7: f, z oz = , _ z f Lr) m a % - \ � § 0 � \ c I ¢ / ,� m\ 2CDcn & � a § � CD �m �C-�4 34 Figure !R &MFS C£!!!£a Hamm! Map: Neanh r Hoc ash Wa 35 _ �- k � 2 'a ! IOR �ƒkn I o �$ - .%% $ . ._ pa k@k m�P ,u Wim»` % � $ _ § b )\MM. �.m ®�D < © » �j g pwAce y0 ` !! Pa0AIII, ) 2 Pa Pr ƒ a ~ Wa 35 Figure 17. NMFS Critical Habitat Map: Summer Run Chum W Figure 18. NMFS Critical Habitat Map: M a] 37 Figure 19. NMFS Critical Habitat Map: Puget Sound Chinook Is 9 b C O WC 0 E E 0 U E LU 0031 38 Appendices Appendix 1. Barden Living Trust Mitigation and Monitoring Plan A. Mitigation Plan Mitigation is required for this site, as the proposed structure will be built on a shoreline of statewide significance and is located within a FEMA flood hazard area. The mitigation plan for this bulkhead extension/repair is a native planting plan (Figures 1-3). The plants selected for this site are all native plants that, once established will improve the overall value of the functions in this critical area buffer. Soil stability at the top of the bluff was the most important focus of this planting plan but nutrient input and wildlife habitat were important factors as well. Following is a table showing the plant species and numbers for the planting areas. Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. Plant List Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Size 3 Holodiscus Ocean Spray 2 Gal on 5 discolor foot centers 1 Pinus contorta Shore Pine 3 Gal contorta 10 Polystichum Sword Fern 1 Gal munitum 4 Ribes sanguineum Red Flowering 2 Gal Currant 10 Symphoricarpos Common 2 Gal albus Snowberry 70 Symphoricarpos Common Live Stakes alsbus Snowberry on 3 foot centers 4 Vaccimum Evergreen 2 Gal ovatum Huckleberry 39 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 1). The plants will be installed by digging a one to two foot hole, loosening the soil, placing plant in ground after loosening soil around root ball. The hole must be deep enough to ensure that 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 stem of plant. No extraordinary measures are proposed at this time to protect the installed plants other than mulching, weeding and watering. 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. B. 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 plants after planting by the total number of surviving plants at the end of the season. Photo stations for each planting 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 quantified as a total greater than 100% because plants (in tree, high/low shrub and herbaceous layers) overlap in cover. C. Monitoring Plan An as -built drawing and report will be submitted as documentation of the implementation of the approved 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 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 that are 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 standards progress, or lack of. In addition to photos at designated points, photo documentation must include a 40 panoramic view of the entire planting area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8 1/2 " by 11" 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 1: 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 Year 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 D. 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 for survival and coverage. If the required survival rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, plants lost to mortality will be replaced to achieve the percentage cover 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 re -planting becomes necessary. Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs to determine the survival rate of the transplanted area. If 100% success is achieved before reaching the five-year mark, monitoring will continue without extra replanting efforts. Figure 1. Planting Plan Mali 41 ME v 2 Q CL ae a W 5 I w Figure 2. Aerial Photo Showing Planting Area Locations 42 a, Z .., y o V T V Z 3 � ^ NW V1 f1 W11 1! 0 (D It li II 11 Ore 42 N• ITIrl v I- w F� la p11 '/ ; r � M All w y �� _ ..--J ��� �A` J4 f A �y '++�➢f� �I i! E. f� ` ''tel fY,f .. ,yer' • .�i.- it r � �„ . r 4 .„ KIM S