HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOA - Habitat Management PlanCRITICAL AREAS REVIEW AND HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Savidge Replacement Bulktread Proj ect
Prepared for
Edward Savidge
January 2018
trGtrflVtr
ljlAH 1 4 2018
L\
JTFFERSON C{]IJI{IY
CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW AI\D HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Savidge Replacement Bulk*read Proj ect
Prepared for
Edward Savidge
485 Griffith Point Rd
Nordland, Washington 983 58
Prepared by
Bill Rehe
North Fork Environmental, Inc.
8305 Dogwood Lane NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
January 2018
Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Project Area
2. I Location............
2.2 Projectar"u o"*Jf;;;....................
Chapter 3. Critical Areas Review
3.1 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas ..
3.2 Wetlands ..........
3.3 Geologically Hazardous Areas
3.4 Frequently Flooded Areas.........
3.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Chapter 4. Project Area's Habitat......
4. I Background Research ................
4.1.1 Primary Data Source and Supporting Information
4.2 Protected Species Identification .... .. .. ... .. ..
4.3 Site Investigation ...............
4.4Habitat Narrative
4.4.1 Surrounding [and/Water Uses
4.4.2 Shoreline Vegetation and Habitat Feahues
4.4.3 Aquatic Substrate and Vegetation
4.4.4Water and Sediment Quality
Chapter 5. Project Description
5. I Final Project.......
5.2 Construction Process ..............
5.2. I Construction Schedule...............
5.3 Mitigation and Conservation Measures
Chapter 6. Impact Assessment.................
6.1 Types of Impacts.
6. l. I Direct Effects....
6.1.2 krdirect Effects
6. I .3 Interdependent and lnterrelated Actions. .. . . .
6. 1.4 Cumulative Effects ...............
6.2 Effects Determination
6.3 Essential Fish Habitat Analysis
6.4 Assessment Report Conclusion
Chapter 7. References....................,
... I
...1
...3
.J
.J
a.J
.3
.4
.4
.4
.4
.8
.9
I
1,'
1?
7
7)
i
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Site map
Documented surf smelt map.........
Shoreline modifcation map...........
Slope stability map ...........
Project site vegetation.
Site plans .......
Nautical map..
List of Tables
Table l. ESA listed species in Kilisut Harbor.
Table 2. Proposed compensatory mitigation....................
Table 3. Determination of effects on ESA listed species.
ll
I
5
Chapter 1. fntroduction
Edward Savidge is proposing to replace an approximately lO0-foot-long angular rock bulkhead
with a replacement angular rock bulkhead along the eastern shore of Kilisut Harbor in Jefferson
County, Washington. Mr. Savidge's property had a bulkhead on it when he purchased it in the
early 1990's. That bulkhead was built from fragmented marine basalt rock and was not built
properly. The original bulkhead contractor did not place geotechnical fabric to prevent erosion of
material through the bulkhead. The original bulkhead was also not embedded into the beach and
was built too vertical. All of these factors have led to premature failure of the bulkhead.
We are proposing to remove the failing bulkhead and angular rock from the beach and rebuild
the bulkhead approximately two feet landward to reduce and minimize impacts to the beach.
Relocating the bulkhead will reestablish approximately 200 square feet of upper intertidal
habitat. We are also proposing to place beach nourishment material at the toe of the replacement
bulkhead to help provide spawning substrate for surf smelt.
Jefferson County is requesting a Critical Areas Review and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as
part of the shoreline permitting process. The intent of this plan is to meet the requirements of
PRE17-00031 and Jefferson County Code Chapter (JCC) 18.22.440. This report is meant to
satis$ the requirements of the habitat management plan and biological inventory reporl This
Critical Areas Review and Habitat Management Plan includes the following:
(A) A review of critical areas (JCC 18.22), including critical aquifer areas, wetlands,
geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas and Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas.
(B) A description of the natrlre, density and intensity of the proposed use or activity in
sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon identified wildlife
habitat;
(C) An analysis of the effect of the proposed use or activity upon fish and wildlife
species and their habitats listed in this chapter;
(D) A plan which explains how the applicant will avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse
impacts to fish and/or wildlife habitats created by the proposed use or activity.
Chapter 2. Project Area
2.1 Location
The proposed project is located at 485 Griffith Point Rd. in Nordland, Jefferson County,
Washington. The subject property is situated in Township 30 North, Range 1 East, Section 32,
SW Quarter, W.M. and includes the shoreline adjacent to Jefferson County Tax Parcel
1
Figure 1. Site map indicating the locations of the Savidge replacement bulkhead project.
The yellow circle indicated the Action Area.
021324009. The project area is in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17, Quilcene-Snow
Watershed.
To access the site from Port Townsend, take WA-20 south. Continue onto WA-19 south. Turn
left onto WA-l16east/Flagler Rd. Turn left onto Griffith Point Rd. The project site is on the left.
2.2 Project Area Description
The "actiotl area" for the proposed project is defined as all areas to be affected directly and
indirectly, including the potential geographic extent of physical, biological and chemical impacts
of the project. For this project, the Action Area was estimated to be 0.1 miles (Figure l). This is
the estimated extent of potential erosion and noise.
The project site, the Savidge property, consists of a single-family residence located
approximately l0 feet from the slope, along the eastern shoreline of Kilisut Harbor, in Puget
Sound. Upland portions of the properties are comprised of a single-family residence, driveway,
parking, garage, storage areas, and landscape vegetation. The shoreline ofparcel 021324009 is
fully armored with large angular rock and has stair access to the beach.
)
'+
r'
f
":
!ll
t !
*t
O 2018 cooglo Earth
Chapter 3. Critical Areas Review
Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.22 identifies five tlpes of critical areas that may occur within
the prt-rposed project site area. These critioal areas including critical aquifer areas, wetlanrls,
geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas and Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas. Supporting information can be found in Appendix A
3.1 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
According to Jefferson County GIS (jMAP) and Jefferson County DCD stafl, the project site and
the surrounding area is within a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARAs) and high risk Seawater
lntrusion Protection Zone (SIPZ). The jMap layer identifies the CARA as "SARPA". The
proposed project should have no negative impacts on the CARA or SIPZ.
3.2 Wetlands
Jefferson County GIS map identifies potential wetlands at and adjacent to the project site. The
project was reviewed for the presence of wetland indicators. The marine shoreline is inundated
by tidal waters and contains potentially hydric soils. No vascular wetland vegetation werer
identified at or adjacent to the project area. Based on the site review, there is no intertidal
wetland present at or adjacent to the project area.
3.3 Geologically Hazardous Areas
The proposed project site and surrounding area is not listed as a landslide area. This shoreline
slope stability is listed as o'stable".
3.4 Frequently Flooded Areas
According to Jefferson Cou.nty DCD staff and the FEMA map for the project area, the project
site is outside of the FEMA mapped flood boundary.
3.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Kilisut Harbor has the potential to support numerous ESA listed species and their critical
habitats. The follow sections of this report identifies potential protected species within the
vicinity of the project, project impacts, conservation and mitigation measures and effect
determinations.
aJ
Chapter 4. Project Area's Habitat
4.1 Background Research
4.1.1 Primary Dqta Source and Supporting Information
I . Jefferson County GIS Center (http://www.co jefferson.wa.us/95 8/[.egacy-mapping-
tools-jMAP);
2. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species
(PHS) data for the property and adjacent areas;
3. Washington Natural Heritage Program $NHP) data for sensitive or State- or ESA-
listed plant species on the property and adjacent areas;
4. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Coastal Atlas data for the property and
adjacent areas (WDOE https://fortress.wa.eov/ecy/coastalatlas200l/viewer.htm);
5. Aerial photograph and topographic map of the site;
6. National Marine Fisheries Service critical habitat maps
(www.nmfs.noaa/prlspecies/criticalhabitat.htrn) ;
7. US Fish and Witdlife Service critical area maps (http://criticalhabitat.fivs.gov0
8. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventorymaps
(.www. fivs. qov/wetlands/)
9. US Fish and Wildlife Service habitat recovery plans (www.fws.gov/pacific)
10. National Marine Fisheries Service habitat recoveryplans (www.nwr.noaa.gov)
11. US Departnent of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey
maps (http ://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda. gov/app0
12. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Assessment
0vww.ecv.wa. gov/pro gramVwq/303 d/2008/index.html)
4.2 Pr otected Species ldentification
The following species list (Table l) is based on data acquired from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Washington Departuent of
4
Fish and Wildlife (WDFIV) websites and publications (Appendix B). Several species present in
Western Washington and Jefferson County are listed as federally endangered or threatened under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This section includes a discussion of listed species with the
potential to be within the Action Area and possible impacts due to the proposed project activities.
Several species listed and protected by ESA are found in Washington but are not found in or near
the vicinity of the project area and will not be addressed in the Effects Detennination section of
this assessment. The proposed project area is surrounded by developed residential areas and it is
highly unlikely that certain plants and animals will be found in the vicinity of the project area.
The ESA-listed species not affected (No Effect) by proposed project activities include: spotted
owl; leatherback sea turtle; humpback whale; albatross; ffizzly Bear, Caribou; Lynx; Otter;
Green Sturgeon; grey wolf; Spalding's Catchfly; Checker-mellow; Desert-parsley; water
howellia, ladies' tresses; Lupine; Paintbrush and stickseed.
Table 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act and potentially found in the
of Kilisut lfarbor
Marbled Murrelet
Brachyrhampus mdrrnoralus - Threatened, listed 1992
Critical habitat designated May 1996 (50 CFR Part 17.11)
Marbled murrelets are members of the Alcidae family of seabirds. They are found from the
Aleutian lslands, Alaska to central California. Marbled murrelets may winters as far south as
southem California. In Washington, the highest densities of marbled murrelets are found along
the coastal waters of the Olympic Peninsula. Murelets nests and roosts in mature and old growth
coastal forests. Nesting may occur from April to September (WDFW 1991). They mainly feed
from 500 feet and 1.2 miles offshore in waters less than 100 feet deep. Preferred prey items
include small fish like sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), Pacific herring (Clupea harengus
pallasi), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and crustaceans. Critical habitat has been designated
5
Common Name Scientific hlarne Listing Status Critical Habitat
Designated?
Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhampus
marmoratus
Threatened Yes
Bull Trout Salve linus con/luentus Threatened Yes
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Threatened Yes
Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened Yes
Summer-run Chum
Salmon
Oncorhynchus keta Threatened Yes
Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss Endangered Yes
Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Threatened Yes
Killer Whale Orcinus orca Endangered Yes
in Oregon and California, but no critical habitat has been designated in the project area or in
marine waters of Washington.
Bull Trout
Salvelinus conJluentus - Threatened, listed 1999
Critical habitat designated October 2010 (75 FR 63898)
Bull trout occur in less than half of their historic range, with fragmented and isolated populations
occurring throughout British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout
exhibit a wide range of life history strategies including resident, fluvial, adfluvial, and
anadramous (WDFW 2000). Anadramous life history forms migrate through large rivers to
spawn in cold, clear tributaries. Spawning occurs from late August through November for
Coastal and Puget Sound populations. Fry emerge from late winter to early spring. Marine waters
and esfuaries are used for growth and maturation.
Four distinct stocks of bull trout have been identified within the north Puget Sound and the Hood
Canal. They are the North Puget Sound Stillaguamish and Snohomish stocks and Hood
Canal/Strait of Juan De Fuca, Hood Canal and Elwa/Dungeness stocks. These stocks are known
to utilize the nearshore habitat throughout their range.
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha - Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) June 2005 (70FR37160)
Critical habitat designated September 2005
Chinook salmon use the nearshore of Puget Sound for feeding, rearing and migration. Juvenile
Chinook salmon use estuary areas for feeding, rearing and osmoregulating during spring,
sumner, and fall, depending on their life history strategy. Stream-type Chinook salmon spend
limited time in estuaries, while ocean-type Chinook can spend may months feeding and growing
there. Juvenile Chinook prefer estuary and marine habitats with adequate water quality,
temperatures, food, and depth. In addition to these basic requirements, Chinook also require
cover in the form of overhanging shoreline vegetation, woody material, and marine vegetation
such as macroalgae or eelgrass.
Puget Sound Steelhead
Oncorhl'nchus mykiss - Threatened, listed May 2007
Critical habitat designated September 2005 (70FR52630)
Fifteen distinct population segments (DPS) of steelhead trout have been identified in
Washington, Oregon and California. Within these DPSs, steelhead trout exhibit two reproductive
ecotypes. Summer or winter eco[pes are based on the duration of spawning migration and state
of sexual maturity at time of river entry. Numerous Puget Sound tributaries supports populations
6
of winter steelhead trout. Populations in the Quilcene-Snow Watershed are listed as Threatened
by WDFW (wDFw 2015).
Steelhead trout, like other salmonids, heavily utilized nearshore areas to complete their life
history. After spawning in streams and rivers, juvenile steelhead migrate into estuary areas for
growth and osmoregulation. Juveniles and adults use the nearshore area throughout the year for
forage, migration and growth. It is likely that steelhead trout may utilize parts of Kilisut Harbor
when migrating or accessing Chimacum or other local creeks.
Hood Canal Summer-run Salmon
Oncorhynchus keta - Threatened, listed March 1999
Critical habitat designated September 2005 (70FR52739)
Summer-run chum salmon in the Hood Canal ESU were listed as a threatened species in 1999
(64 FR 14508; March 25, 1999). The Hood Canal ESU includes all naturally spawned
populations of sumrner-run chum salmon in Hood Canal and its tributaries as well as populations
in Olympic Peninzula rivers between Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay, Washington. This
population of chum salmon are the southemmost occurrence of the summer-run life history for
the species and it appears to be uniquely adapted to the local habitat conditions. The agency
recently conducted a review to update the ESU's status, taking into account new information and
considering the net contribution of artificial propagation efforts in the ESU. A 2005 review of
the status of Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and eight hatchery programs determined the
ESU should remain listed as threatened (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005)
Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon migration to freshwater spawning streams from late
August through late October. Most adults mature and spawn as 3- and 4-year old fish in low
gradient, lower mainstem reaches of streams. Eggs incubate in redds for five to six months and
fry emerge between January and May. After hatchi.rg fry move rapidly downstream to
subestuarine habitats.
Subestuary deltas support a diverse array of habitats (tidal channels, mudflats, marshes, and
eelgrass meadows) that provide essential rearing and transition environments for this ESU.
Juveniles rear in these habitats for days to weeks before entering the ocean and retuming adults
stage in subestuaries before ascending natal streams to spawn.
Bocaccio Rockfish
Sebastes paucispiniss - Endangered, listed July 2010
Bocaccio rockfish distribution ranges from northern British Columbia to central Baja Califomia.
Spawning (hatching) occurs from December through April. The live larval young drift over large
areas in the surface waters. Larval and juvenile Bocaccio may passively drift for several months
before settling in deeper habitats. These fish were once quite courmon on steep walls of Puget
7
Sound. However, due to declining numbers and increased rarity they were listed as endangered
on April 28,2010 (FR, 2010a).
Adults generally occupy water 50- 250 meters in depth over rocky outcroppings, boulder fields,
and sloping walls and will school with both conspecifics and other species of rock fish. Juveniles
are found in much shallower waters over rocky substrate with various understory kelps anr:Vor
sandy bottoms with eelgrass. Approximately one month after settling juveniles will start to
school. Adults and large juveniles feed on small fish and squid, whereas larvae and small
juveniles feed on copepods, krill, diatoms, dinoflagellates and various larvae (Lnve et. aL,2002).
Yelloweye Rocldish
Sebastes ruberrimus - Threatened, listed July 201 0
Yelloweye rockfish, once a common species found from the eastern portions of the Aleutian
Islands to Northern California. Like other members of the scorpion fish family, Yelloweye
rockfish are extremely longJived reaching ages of up 1 18 years. Due to declining numbers and
increased rarity they were listed as threatened on April 28,2010 (FR, 2010a).
Little is known about the larval stage of yelloweye rockfish, but it is most likely similar to the
drift larval stages of bocaccio and canary rockfish. Young juveniles migrate to vertical walls
with cloud sponges and anemones at depths greater than 15 meters. Adults and subadults occupy
rocky areas with crevices, caves, and boulder where they feed on small fish, shrimp, crab, and
lingcod eggs (Love et. al, 2002).
Killer Whale, Southern Resident
Orcinus orca - Endangered, listed November 2005
Critical habitat designated November 2006
Killer Whales are found in open oceans and coastal waters. Southern resident Killer Whales may
be found spring through fall in Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound.
Movements into the Puget Sound usually coincide with migration of salmonids into the region
(NMFS 2008). The Puget Sound contains designated habitat for southem resident Killer Whale.
4.3 Site Investigation
A site visit was performed Thursday, January 4h, 2018. Conditions were clear and sunny with
little to no wind. The site visit was performed during an approximately +2 foot (MLLW) tide and
took approximately two hours. The site was evaluated following the protocols outlined in
WDFW's Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines (Appendix A). The overall condition of the beach
and shoreline were examined, including general soil and vegetation characteization, potential
critical habitats were identified, and the presence of species of concemed were investigated.
8
The site visit was performed by Bill Rehe, a fisheries biologist with over twenty years of
experience in the Northwest. Mr. Rehe holds four-year and advanced degrees in fisheries
science. His areas of expertise include marine and nearshore ecology, salmon biology, wetland
science, and forage fish ecology. In addition to formal training at accredited universities, he has
received taining by the Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
4.4 llabitat Narrative
The proposed project is located on the southeast shoreline of Kilisut Harbor, Puget Sound. This
east side of Kilisut Harbor is a moderately developed area of vacation and year round residences.
Most of the eastern shoreline in the project vicinity is armored and includes other shoreline
development like beach access and/or docks. The westem shoreline of Kilisut Harbor is a
military facility and is almost entirely undeveloped. Native shoreline vegetation at the project
site has been mostly removed.
There are no salmonid spawning areas within the Action Area. It is likely the area is used for
migration corridor and foraging. Nearby rivers and streams support runs of Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss),
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and
cutthroat tront (Oncorhynchus clarki) (WDFW 2018).
According to WDFW Marine Beach Spawning Fish Ecology website (2018a), surf smelt and
herring spawning have been documented at and adjacent to the proposed project area (Figure 3).
Substrate at the project site currently does not seem to match the material preferred by surf smelt.
The area seems to lack coarse sand and pea gravel. The area is a combination of small cobble,
angular material and hardpan. We are proposing to place beach nourishment material to mitigate
temporary equipment impacts.
9
a::r:.i l
0 rum -,1 :oftent i; L€€nd
t69aod
ffwH*SEwLcmb
Sind Lmcc gDnwnFq
LJ
Frc.pi$n€r &fl,;no Hold$o /(enn
$,sDOr Cdve.nff€
il
Figure 2. Documented surf smelt and herring spawning in the vicinity the project airea,.
Project site is indicated by red star (WDFW 2018).
Kilisut Harbor provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species common to northern Puget Sound
and the Hood Canal. Benthic macrofauna include crab, oysters and clam species. Several bird
species were observed adjacent to the project area. These bird species include, but are not limited
to, Glaucous-winged Gulls (Zarus glaucescens), Northwest Crow (Cortus caurinus), Belted
Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), and Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias). No mammals were
observed. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) priority habitat and species
maps identi$ estuarine and marine habitat, Big brown bat communal roost, hardshell clam,
Pacific herring spawning, surf smelt herring spawning, and waterfowl concentarations are
located at and in the greater are of the project (WDFW 2018a).
4. 4. I Surrounding Land/Water (Jses
The eastern side of Kilisut Harbor is moderately developed with seasonal and year-round
residential development. The shoreline in the vicinity of the project site is listed as stability and
is lightly (11-30%) armored (Figure 5, Ecology 20rc). All the residences within a1/+m1\e of the
project site is protected with angular rock bulkheads.
10
+
esn
'f
ERSOT{
' 1.r'
A.ld mry d.t.
Figure 3. Washington Department of Ecology Shoreline Atlas illustrating shore
modification (armoring) at and adjacent to the project area (red star).
add map dald
Figure 4. Washington Department of Ecology Shoreline Atlas illustrating slope stability at
and adjacent to the project area (red star). Ecology lists the project area as Intermediate.
TEEil
esn
ll
I nqend:
- \hoE n'.dil,.armr ir\),
!, i.
: I _:
n;J.
tTffi]
t
aI
t
}
t,J esn
e. C,ogst l Atlas
Leqend:
-_; Sk{F {dtildy r)
F-'j.,,,'.\1, . ...r -.
Yri,rr,,:j:-4, ,V' ,', -r. '
Y, r,-i - -- .
E _..-
+
4.4.2 Shoreline Yegetation and Habitat Features
The project area is vegetated mainly with weedy and landscaping species above O[IW. Most of
native riparian vegetation has been removed and replaced with either angular rock or deck. There
are two medium Madrone tees on the nofthern property [ine. Iarge woody material (LWM) was
absent along the project site and action area shoreline.
4.4.3 Aquatic Substrate and Vegetation
The beach substrate adjacent to the existing bulkhead shoreline includes shell hash and limited
pea gravel in a foot-wide band that transitions to small and medium coble with areas of exposed
hardpan (Figure 7). There are also areas covered by dislodged bulkhead rock. No wetland
vascular plants were observed at the project site. There are patchy areas of attached and drift
green macro algae. No pickleweed (Salicornia virginfca), rockweed (Fucus spp.) or kelp was
observed at or near the project site. Ecology's Coastal Atlas (2018) shows eelgrass (Zostera
marina) at and adjacent to the project area, but none was observed. If Ecology is correct, the
eelgrass must be deeper than 0' MLLW. Additional site photos can be found in Appendix C.
Figure 5. Project site looking east. Note the Iack of aquatic vegetation present on the beach.
t2
11.-
,ct .
:".,.,*lj.€I
l\i I't'r
#-
*rlttF
r
4.4.4 Water and Sediment Quality
Kilisut Harbor does not have any locations on Ecology's 303(d) list of impaired water quality
cirterl,a @cology, 2018). The water and sediment at and directly adjacent to the project area have
not been identified as containing detrimental substances.
Chapter 5. Project Description
The proposed project includes the replacement of approximately 100 linear feet of improperly,
and potentially unpermitted angular rock bulkhead and stairs with a properly built bulkhead two
feet landward of its current location to get the structure above OHW. This section expands on the
descriptions found in Part 6-Project Description of the Washington State Joint Aquatic Resources
Permit Application (JARPA).
5.1 Final Project
The final project will look similar to the existing conditions with the major difference being the
replacement bulkhead will be approximately two feet landward and the removal of dislodged
angular rock material from the beach (Figure 8). Post-construction, the site will continue to be
used as a single-family residence. There will be no increase in traffic, stormwater runofl noise or
change in air quality. Once the project is complete, the area should recover quickly from the
short-term construction impacts (barge landing and operation of equipment within the authorized
work corridor). Long term impacts (construction of an angular rock bulkhead in the upper
intertidal zone and disturbance of riparian vegetation) will not fully recover because of the
habitat conversion (beach to angular rock bulkhead) that has already occurred. The final project
will reduce negative impacts from the marine environment by moving the structure above OHW.
13
t
fL
--***-**---*--'.,
-_; - rl-n_'F,reral rrl^flw f-
:{
l-
Figure 6. Plans depicting the proposed linal project design.
5.2 Construction Process
The shoreline protection will be installed approximately 20 feet section at a time. Approximately
2 feet of soil will be excavated in order to place the bulkhead above OHW. The replacement rock
will be placed a minimum 1.5 feet below the bed of the beach. Minimum excavation will occur
in the vicinity of the toe of the slope. Colluvial soils will be removed in order to place the large
angular rock on a stable footing. Clearing of vegetation will be minimal, as most of the
vegetation has already been removed. Suitable soil excavated for placement of the toe rock that
contains coarse sand and gravels will be placed on the beach, as allowed by WDFW. No soils
that contain clays or fine material will be placed below OHW.
Bulkhead construction will occur during the allowed federal and state fish work windows. No
work will occur when the area is tidally inundated. Materials and equipment will be brought in
by barge and equipment will operate within 25-feet of the existing bulkhead. Existing stormwater
tightlines, will be intergraded into the shoreline protection.
5.2. 1 Construction Schedule
Construction activities will occur during daylight hours. Work will take place during the low tide
period when the project area is not inundated. All work will be completed within approximately
two weeks.
t4
The following avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation techniques have been
proposed and accepted by the property owner and bulkhead contractor. Impacts to listed
salmonid species will be avoided by only working during the authorized work windows.
Minimization techniques include only performing the minimum work necessary to protect the
existing single family residence. We will also minimize impacts by working in the smallest area
necessary to perform the required work.
In addition to the above-mentioned avoidance and minimization techniques we are proposing
three types of compensatory mitigation (Table 2). The first is the reestablishment of 200 square
feet of upper intertidal habitat. We are proposing to remove the existing angular rock bulkhead
and moving it back approximately 2 feet. In addition to the reestablishment of upper intertidal
habitat, we are proposing to remove angular rock and manmade debris from around 600 square
feet of beach. Once the work is complete, approximately 15 cubic yards of beach nourishment
gravel will be placed between OHW and MHHW.
Table 2.
The following protection and conservation measures will be followed by the bulkhead
contractor. Any additional measures imposed by regulatory agencies will also be strictly
followed.
Project activities below OHW will not occur when the project area, including the work
corridor is inundated by tidal waters.
The existing rip rap will be removed from the beach and disposed at an appropriate
upland facility.
a
a
The waterward face of the rock bulkhead will be located at approximately OHW
All trenches, depressions, or holes created in the beach area will be backfilled prior to
inundation by tidal waters. Trenches excavated for base rocks may remain open during
construction. However, fish shall be prevented from entering such trenches.
All waste material such as consfruction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting
from this project will be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland
disposal site.
a
a
a
Tvpe Amount Location
Reestablishment 200 square feet Upper intertidal
Debris removal 600 square feet Upper intertidal
Beach nourishment 15 cubic yards Upper intertidal
15
5.3 Mitigation and Conservation Measures
a All manmade debris on the beach will be removed and disposed of upland such that it
does not enter waters of the state.
a All natural habitat features on the beach larger than 12 inches in diameter, including
trees, stumps, logs, and large rocks, will be retained on the beach following construction.
These habitat features may be moved during construction if necessary.
o Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed.
. Extreme care will be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh
cetnent, seditnents, sedirnent-laden water, chernicals, or any other toxic or deleterious
materials are allowed to enter or leach into the beach or water.
a Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life.
Chapter 6. Project Area's Habitat
6.1 Types of lmpacts
6.1.1 Direct Effects
Bulkheads and bank protection can have numerous direct and indirect impacts on critical fish and
wildlife habitat and species of concem (WDFW 2006). Directs effects are those impacts resulting
from the proposed action. Direct impacts include elimination of habitat and disturbance to fish
and wildlife caused by noise and water quality issues. The proposed action for this project is the
installation of a replacement angular rock bulkhead and the proposed mitigation in section 4.3.
The proposed action includes both short and long term direct effects. Short term direct impacts
include impacts from the construction activities. These impacts include removing vegetation
associated with excavating to place rock, operating the excavator within the authorized work
corridor, and the temporary grounding of the barge.
l6
Long term direct effects include the replacement of 3-man rock on the beach at approximately
OHW. This will continue the effects of the placement of angular rock in the upper intertidal
zone. The replacement of the current bulkhead in a landward position and the removal of
manmade debris from the beach will result in a gain of approximately 800 square feet of upper
intertidal habitat. The placement of WDFW approved habitat mix along the toe of the bulkhead
will provide spawning substrate for surf smelt. Together, the avoidance minimization and
mitigation should result in no-net-loss of habitat or functions over the current condition.
6.1.2 Indirect Effects
Indirect impacts include long term habitat conversion and changes to natural nearshore
processes, such as sediment recruitment and transportation. lndirect effects to nearshore
processes should be minor. The marine bluff is not listed as a feeder bluff (Ecology 2018). It
appears the majority of sediment and sediment transportation comes from feeder bluffs located
up the drift cell.
6.1. j Interdependent and Interrelated Actions
lnterdependent actions are those actions having independent utility apart from the proposed
replacement shoreline protection. There are no known interdependent actions.
Interrelated actions are those actions that are part ofa larger action and depend on the larger
action for its justification. Interrelated actions include stabilization of the post-construction site,
removal of beach debris and placement of "fish mix" material.
6. 1.4 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects include the effects of unrelated funrre activities that are reasonably certain to
occur within the project area. Future activities that are usually evaluated include residential
development, bulkhead, docks, and other structures. Fuhrre residential development adjacent to
the project site is unlikely, being that all properties are already developed and are not likely to be
subdivided further. Development across the harbor is unlikely since it is a military complex.
According to Ecology's shoreline atlas, the area to the north and south of the project site has 0-
l0% shoreline armoring. This number seems like it may be an effor since all the properties
within approximately 1500 feet to the north and 1500 feet to the south currently have bulkheads.
There are currently no docks or piers on or adjacent to the project site. There is one large dock a
few parcels to the south. Small structures, like picnic tables, gazebos or storage sheds may be
built above MHHW and would likely have little to no effect on the shoreline environment.
6.2 Effects Determination
Federally listed threatened and endangered species that may occur in the project area potentially
include Marbled Murrelet, Bull Trout, Fuget Sound Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound Steelhead,
Hood Canal Summer-run Salmon, Bocaccio Rockfish, Yelloweye Rockfish and Killer Whale.
A summary of the effect determinations for the proposed project activities on each species is
presented in Table 3. Potential direct effects include behavior disturbance fi'om construction
noise and short-term water quality irnpacts. These effects will be avoided and minimized by the
conservation measures listed in section 4.3. The direct effects are considered localized to the
immediate project area, temporary and short term in dwation, minimal in significance when
considered in the context of the existing environment condition in the action area.
t7
There are numerous tlreatened or endangered species in Washington and the Puget Sound. Two
of those species, Humpback Whales and Leatherback sea turtles are unlikely to be found in the
Puget Sound or the action area. Humpback whales, usually found in open coastal waters, do not
occur within the central Fuget Sound or the shallow waters of Kilisut Harbor. Historically,
Humpback Whales sightings have occurred four times in the Puget Sound in 1976, 1978, and
twice in 1988 (Calambokidis et al 1990). [ratherback Sea Turtles are occasionally seen along
the Washington coast, rarely further south than the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There are no known
occurrences of lratherback in Kilisut Harbor. Due to their unlikely presence, the rarity of the
species and the anticipated short and temporary impacts associated with the project, the proposed
actions will have No Effects on Humpback Whales or katherback Sea Turtles.
Table 3. Species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act
and determination of effects from ect activities.
Common Name Scientific Name Effects on Listed
Species
Effect on Designated
Critical Habitat
Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhampus
marmoratus
No Effect No Effect on
designated critical
habitat
Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Summer Chum
Salmon
Oncorhynchus keta May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberuimus May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Killer Whale Orcinus orca No Effect No Effect on
designated critical
habitat
I
l8
Marbled Murrelet
Occurrence in the Project Area
Marine observations of murrelets during the nesting season are believed to correspond to the
presence of large blocks of suitable nesting habitat inland. There are no suitable nesting areas in
close proximity to Kilisut Harbor. Similarly, no designated critical habitat (i.e. terrestrial nesting
habitat) is located in or along the shores of Puget Sound or Kilisut Harbor. Designated critical
habitat does not currently include marine foraging habitat.
Historically, sighting of Marbled murrelet are fairly common in Jefferson County
(www.soundtosage.ore). The nearest nesting areas to Kilisut Harbor and the action area are
located east in the Cascade Mountains, east of [ake Stevens and north of Sultan (approximately
34 records) and approximately 35 miles west in Olympic Mountains, west of Port Hadlock and
Port Townsend (approximately 15 records) (WDFW 2008).
Effects of the Action
Potential effects of the proposed replacement shoreline protection project on marbled murrelets
primarily include disturbance and increased turbidity during excavation of the rock wall toe
trench that may inhibit foragrng or result in temporarily reduced food availability and reduced
visibility/detectability of prey. Noise from construction equipment and tanporary increases in
turbidity during excavation will likely cause prey fish to avoid the immediate area of the
proposed project. Consequently, in the unlikely event that a marbled murrelet was present within
the immediate vicinity of the project area, they would be expected to temporarily avoid the
immediate area and forage elsewhere until construction activities are completed.
The addition of the conskuction noise in the localized area of the project area should not
appreciably add to disturbance noise for marbled murrelets. Any construction noise will be short-
term and confined to the project area. No underwater noise will be produced, since the work will
be performed in the dry at low tides. Any terrestrial noise will blend in to the ambient
background noise before it can disnrb locations outside of the action area. Marbled murrelets, in
the unlikely chance they are in the area, will stay away from the project area, and the sound
generated during construction will not cause changes in behavior of these animals as they are
likely to have become somewhat habituated to vessels and urban noise. Moving the bulkhead
above OHW and improving beach conditions by removing debris and placing spawning gravel
should increase conditions for surf smelt, an important food source.
Determination of Effect
Proposed shoreline protection activities will not result in any long-term degradation of habitat or
other significant adverse effects on marbled murrelets. Short-term effscts such as noise
disturbance and reduced prey availability will either not occur or will be very small in
magnitude, as discussed above. Temporary disturbance to foraging activities are expected to be
insignificant and discountable. The survival or reproductive success of marbled murrelets in the
t9
project vicinity would not be affected. Therefore, the proposed shoreline protection project
activities will have No Effect on marbled murrelet. The proposed project will have No Effect on
designated critical habitat for marbled murrelet since none are present in the vicinity of the
project.
Bull Trout -Puget/Hood Canal Sound Distinct Population Segments
Occurrence in the Project Area
The current distribution of bull trout within Puget Sound and Hood Canal marine waters is not
well understood. They have been documented to occur from the Canadian border to at least the
Nisqually River delta. Bull trout migrate throughout the inner bays and nearshore of Puget Sound
from Possession Sound, to the Nisqually Delta and the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan De Fuca.
Bull trout are typically found in snowmelt-dominated sffeams like the Dungeness, Elwha,
Snohomish and Stillaguamish Rivers (WDFW, 2002).
Adult or sub-adults from these population may occasionally use the shoreline near the project
area when feeding on outmigrating juvenile Chinook (Chan 2012). Although adult or juvenile
bull trout may be present in nearshore waters year-round, the likelihood of encountering bull
trout in the project area during the construction work window are low.
Effects of the Action
Proposed project activities are likely to cause temporary and localized increases in turbidity.
Although bull trout are unlikely to be in the project area, potential foraging habitat may be
temporarily unavailable because of turbidity. Prey items important to bull trout are not likely to
be affected by project activities. Like bull trout, their prey items, such as Chinook salmon, will
temporarily avoid the project area. In-water noise will not be increased by project activities.
Noises produced by construction equipment will be terrestrial and similar to surround urban
noise levels.
Conservation measures described in section 4.3, particularly avoidance of the juvenile salmon
migration period, are expected to prevent adverse short-term effects to bull trout during shoreline
protection activities. The temporary loss of the benthic organisms during the construction of the
shoreline protection is expected to have a negligible effect on long-term habitat quality within
the project area. Overall, the effects of the proposed action would be insignificant and
discountable due to the temporary duration of the proposed project actions and the
implementation of the proposed conservation measures to minimize the potential for bull trout to
be within the project area.
Critical Habitat
The following primary constituent elements (PCEs) were given for bull trout in the Federal
Register (October 18, 2010) in the re-designation of critical habitat.
20
(1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to
contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia.
Spnngs, seeps, and groundwater sources are not located within or near the project area.
(2) Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between
spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not
limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.
The proposed actions may have a temporary effect on migrating adult salmonids, primarily tn
the form of temporary elevation of turbidity and noise levels, which are considered to be
insignificant. Because the bulkhead is being built at or above OFIW, no perrnanent barriers to
migration would result from shoreline protection activities.
(3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic
macroinvefiebrates, and forage fish.
Other than temporary disruption of benthic and epibenthicfood sources, the shoreline protection
project would have an insigniJicant effbct on the food base in Kilisut Harbor. Long-term,
placement of habitat mix and reestablishment of upper intertidal habitat should benefit surJ'smelt
spawning.
(4) Complex river, stream, lake, reseroir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and
processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, wiflr features such as large
wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of
depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.
The shoreline protection project is occuning in a marine shoreline aquatic envirorunent that has
been previously disturbed by a rock bulkhead. The proposed project will re-establish upper
intertidal habitat and provide improved surf smelt spawning at'ees.
(5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 oC (36 to 59 oF), with adequate thermal refugia
available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within
this range will depend on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and
seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streamflow; and local
groundwater influence.
The project area is located within an area that is moderatell, stratified compared to most other
Puget Sound basins because no major river systems /low into Kilisut Harbor. Although surface
temperatures in Kilisut Harbor can reach 14-15"C in summer, the temperatures of subsurface
waters generally rdnge from 10-13"C in summer and 8-lPC in winter (WDOE 1999). The
shoreline protection project will not alter or increase water temperature beyond the cutent
average temperatures.
2l
(6) In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure
success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and
juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size fi'om silt to
coarse sand, embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and
amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system.
Kilisut Harbor and the project area are not utilized $, bull trout for spawning or rearing; this
PCE would not be affected by the proposed project.
(7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal
ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph.
The proposed shoreline proleclinn projecl would nol aller the hydrograph or lidal excltunge.
This PCE would not be affected by the proposed project.
(8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are
not inhibited.
The proposed shoreline protection project would not alter the quantity of water in Kilisut Harbor
or the project area. The proposed project would have a temporary, insignificant effect on
turbidity.
(9) Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye,
northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.9., brook trout); or competing (e.9., brown
trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout.
The presence of such predatory, interbreeding, or competing species would not occur in the
project area. Predation b1, teruestrial or marine aquatic species would not be affected by the
proposed shoreline protection proj ect.
ln summary, the action area and project site may serves as migratory or feeding habitat for bull
trout heading for the Dungeness or Elwha Rivers. As in most of the Puget Sound nearshore
locations, the PCEs in the project areahave been altered and are not likely to be use by bull trout.
Shoreline protection activities may result in temporary impacts to substrates, water quality and
noise. As discussed in previous paragraphs, these impacts are minor, temporary, and
discountable, and do not interfere with tnovernents or feeding of bull trout.
Determination of Effect
For the reasons described above, no significant cumulative, interrelated or interdependent effects
on bull trout are expected from the proposed replacement shoreline protection project or
activities. Overall, due to the low likelihood of an individual bull trout being within the project
area, the effects of the proposed action on Coastal/Puget Sound and Hood Canal bull trout would
be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, the proposed shoreline protection activities May
22
Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Coastal/Puget Sound and Hood Canal bull trout
or its designated critical habitat.
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
Occurrence in Project Area
Chinook salmon in the central Puget Sound Rivers are of "mixed" hatchery and native stocks
(WDFW 2012). Adults enter to the area river from mid-June through the fall. Chinook salmon
may be present or migrating through the Puget Sound and the marine waters adjacent to the
project area from mid-May through October. Out-migrating juvenile Chinook salmon could
potentially use the waters in and around the project area from March until mid-July.
As with much of the Puget Sound nearshore, the habitat in and adjacent to the project area has
been previously altered. Spawning opportunities for Chinook salmon do not occur on or near the
project area. No rivers or streams with the potential to support Chinook spawning ocsur within or
near the project area. Dungeness, Elwha rivers and Morse and Ennis Creeks contain documented
Chinook Habitat.
Kilisut Harbor and the action area likely serves as feeding and migratory habitat for Puget Sound
Chinook. Ocean-type Chinook utilize esmaries and coastal areas more extensively for rearing
than stream-type juveniles (Healey 1991). Both life history strategies ofjuveniles Chinook could
move into marine waters in and around the project area to feed on drifting insects and small
nektonic organisms (calanoid copepods, crab larvae, larval and juvenile fish, and euphausiids)
(Simenstad et al. 1982; Healey 1 99 1).
Effects of the Action
This project will not result in long-term, pennanent impacts to Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
Scheduling constnrction to occur during approved work windows will minimize impacts to
salmon. Construction activities that will occur below OHWM will likely have short-term impacts
on salmonids that may be present in the project area during that time. However, project impacts
are likely to be insignificant because of their localized and temporary nature and the existing
impacted environmental conditions of the site (i.e., lack of aquatic vegetation and habitat
complexity). These impacts will be minimized by conservation measures included in the
construction section 4.3.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat, as defined in the ESA, identifies specific areas that have the physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of a listed species, and that may require
special management consideration or protection (50 CFR Part 17). Designated critical habitat for
Puget Sound Chinook salmon includes all naturally spawned populations from rivers and streams
flowing into Puget Sound (50 CFR Part 226). Critical habitat is designated for areas containing
23
the physical and biological habitat features, or primary constituent elements (PCEs) essential for
the conservation of the species or that require special management consideration. PCEs include
sites that are essential to supporting one or more life stages of the evolutionarily significant unit
(ESU) and that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the ESU.
Specific sites and features designated for Puget Sound Chinook salmon include:
1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity, water quality, and substrate conditions
that support spawning incubation and larval development.
The project area does not containfreshwater spawning sites capable of supporting
Chinook; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project.
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, natural cover, and forage that support juvenile development.
The project area does not containfreshwater rearing sites; this PCE would not be
affected by the proposed project.
3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality,
and natural cover conditions that support juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
The project area does not conlainfreshwater migration corridors; this PCE would not be
affected by the proposed project.
4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, and salinity
conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and salt
water, as well as natural cover and forage supporting juvenile and adult survival and
growth.
The project area does not contain estuarine areds; this PCE would not be affected by the
proposed project.
5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, natural
cover, and forage supporting survival and growth.
The proposed replacement slope protection project will not alter water quantity, quality
or forage of water in Kilisut Harbor or the project area permanently. The proposed
project will re-establish upper intertidol habitat that supports surf smelt, a potential food
source.
6. Offshore marine areas with water-quality conditions and forage supporting survival
and growth.
24
The proposed shoreline protection project will not alter offshore marine areas with
water-quality conditions andforage supporting survival and growth; this PCE would not
be affected by the proposed project.
Determination of Effect
Adult, sub-adult, and juvenile Chinook salmon utilize the nearshore of the Fuget Sound for at
least some stage of their life history. The proposed slope stabilization project may affect the
threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon, however, any Chinook salmon present would
experience negligible effects from the proposed shoreline protection.
Conservation measures including avoiding construction activities during the migration period of
juvenile Chinook salmon and other salmonids will reduce and prevent adverse short-term effects
to Chinook salmon during construction of the slope stabilization project. Work along the
shoreline could result in temporary degradation of the water quality; these effects would be
limited to the immediate project area. The conskuction work will occur during prescribed Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and WDFW "work windows" when Chinook salmon are likely not
present in the project area. The temporary loss of the benthic communities in the project areas
would have only a negligible effect on Chinook salmon habitat.
For the reasons described above, no significant cumulative, interrelated or interdependent effects
on Puget Sound Chinook salmon are expected from the proposed slope stabilization project
Overall, the effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound Chinook salmon would be
insignificant and discountable. Therefore, the proposed shoreline protection activities May
Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Similarly, the
proposed slope stabilization activities May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect
designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
Puget Sound Steelhead
Occurrence in the project area
Winter populations of steelhead trout have been documented throughout north Puget Sound in
the Dungeness and Elwha River systems. No streams in Kilisut Harbor support Steelhead.
Winter Steelhead are found in nearby Chimacum Creek and other creeks and rivers (WDFW
2018). Steelhead typically enter freshwater from December through mid-March and spawn from
early February to early April (Washington State Conservation Commission, 2002). Juveniles
outmigrate from mid-March through mid-July.
Winter steelhead in WRIA 17 are listed as Threatened by the Salmon Conservation and
Reporting Engine (SCoRE: WDFW, 2018). Adults and juvenile steelhead trout most likely use
the area in the vicinity of the project area for migration and feeding.
25
Effects of Action
Potential direct and indirect effects to Puget Sound steelhead from the project are similar to
Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Although the impacts of terrestrial noise and temporary turbidity
would be short-term and localized, there is still the potential to affect steelhead trout. Potential
impacts of the project action include physiological responses such as elevated sffess levels due to
noise, gill injury due to temporary exposure to increased turbidity levels, and behavioral
responses, such as reduced feeding opportunities and avoiding the work area. The substrate in the
project area contain gravel and cobble substrate and therefore is expected to settle out quickly.
The proposed timing of the work, from mid-July through October, was chosen because it is the
driest time of year (less chance of runoff) and steelhead trout arc less likely to be in the project
area. Since steelhead typically utilize deeper marine water habitats they would likely be present
in low numbers or would not be present at the project area. This project will not result in long-
term, permanent impacts to Puget Sound steelhead. These temporary impacts will be minimized
by following all conservation measures and working when juvenile steelhead trout are less likely
to be in the area. Therefore impacts are expected to be minimal and discountable.
Critical Habitat
The following primary constituent elements (PCEs) were given for steelhead trout in the Federal
Register (September 5, 2005) in the designation of critical habitat:
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate
supporting spawning, incubation and larval development;
The project area does not containfreshwater spawning sites; this PCE would not be
affected by the proposed project.
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form
and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii)
Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover such as
shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
The project area does not containfreshwater rearing sites; this PCE would not be
affected by the proposed project.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water
quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanglng
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut
banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival;
The project area does not containfreshwater migration corridors; this PCE would not be
affected by the proposed project.
26
(4) Esruarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water quality,
water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological
tuansitions between fresh- and saltwater; (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels; and
(iii) Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation.
The project area does not contain estuarine at'eas; this PCE would not be affected by the
proposed project.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water
quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,
supporting growth and maturation; and (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels.
The proposed shoreline protection project will not alter water quantity, quality or forage
of water in Kilisut Harbor or the project area. The project area currently has litnited
natural cover. V[hat natural cover that remains will be protected to the greatest extent
possible.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic
invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
The project area does not contain offshore marine areas and will not degrade water
quality conditions orforage; this PCE would not be a/fected by the proposed project.
Determination of Effect
Due to the reduced presence of steelhead trout, the timing of the proposed project actions, the
localized and temporary nature of the turbidity, the proposed project actions May Affect, but is
Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound steelhead or steelhead Critical Habitat.
Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon
Occurrence in the project area
Hood Canal summer-mn chum salmon have been documented throughout marine area of the
Hood Canal and north Puget Sound, including the Kitsap and Dungeness-Elwha subbasins.
Nearshore habitat, defined as extreme highwater to 30 meters, like those areas found from the
southern terminus of the Hood Canal to Dungeness Bay warrant a high conservation value to the
ESU.
No streams in Kilisut Harbor support Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon. The nearest
spawning populations can be found in nearby Chimacum Creek (WDFW 2018). It is likely that
27
adults and juvenile suflrmer-mn chum salmon use the area in the vicinity of the project area for
migration and feeding.
Effects of Action
Potential direct and indirect effects to Hood Canal stunmer-run chum salmon from the project are
similar to other salmon populations. Although the impacts of terrestrial noise and temporary
turbidity would be short-term and localized, there is still the potential to affect chum salmon.
Potential impacts of the project action include physiological responses such as elevated stress
levels due to noise, gill injury due to temporary exposure to increased turbidity levels, and
behavioral responses, such as reduced feeding opportunities and avoiding the work area. The
substrate in the project area contain gravel and cobble substrate and therefore is expected to
settle out quickly.
The proposed timing of the work, from mid-July through October, was chosen because it is the
driest time of year (less chance of runoff and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon are less
likely to be in the project area. Since summer chum salmon typically enter freshwater habitat
from August to October they would likely not be present in the project area. This project will not
result in long-term, pemranent impacts to Hood Canal suflrmer-run chum salmon. These
temporary impacts will be minimized by following all conservation measures and wotting when
Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon are less likely to be in the area. Therefore impacts are
expected to be minimal and discountable.
Critical Habitat
The following primary constituent elements (PCEs) were given for Hood Canal summer-nrn
chum salmon in the Federal Register (September 5,2005) in the designation of critical habitat:
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate
supporting spawning, incubation and larval development;
The project area does not containfreshwater spawning sites; this PCE would not be
affected by the proposed project.
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form
and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii)
Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover such as
shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
The project area does not containfreshwater rearing sites; this PCE would not be
affecled by lhe proposed projecl.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obshuction and excessive predation with water
quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging
28
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut
banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival;
The project area does not containfreshwater migration corridars; this PCE would not be
affected by the proposed project.
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water quality,
water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological
transitions between fresh- and saltwater; (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels; and
(iii) Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation.
The project area does not contain estuarine areas; this PCE would not be affected by the
proposed project.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water
quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,
supporting growth and maturation; and (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic
invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
The project area does not contain ffihore marine dreas and will not degrade water
quality conditions orforage; this PCE would not be alfected by the proposed project.
Determination of Effect
Due to the reduced presents of Hood Canal sunmer-nrn chum salmon, the timing of the
proposed project actions, the localized and temporary nature of the turbidity, the proposed
project actions May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Hood Canal summer-run
chum salmon or Critical Habitat.
Bocaccio Rockfish
Effects of Action
29
The proposed shoreline protection project will not alter water quantiSt, quality orforage
of water in Kilisut Harbor or the project area. The project area curuently has limited
natural cover. Wat natural cover that remains will be protected to the greatest extent
possible.
It is very unlikely that any adult bocaccio rockfish would occur in project area as they tend to
inhabit deeper water with rocky subskate. Bocaccios have not been documented in the Puget
Sound since 2001 OIMFS 2008). The substrate in Kilisut Harbor is soft sediment (mud, sand,
and mixed fines) and does not support essential rock fish habitat (NOAA 2013). Based on the
shallow nature of Kilisut Harbor (Figure 10) near the project area and the lack of suitable habitat
it is extrernely unlikely that adult Bocaccio rockfish would be present.
,j
E y got.A.
rOfW (8, rD6)
Y30,t l.rve(k
'8s h*
: /.,I \:e"'a<
6;i
ilil
r1
k,?
pe-'' %
MARX€R Qbsnf;\h Hacn
(auth mn s
frrl
t+. 1. j .I2 ,-e\c'r 9ftG
Ro,I
Ce lir,l 7
H
i;
8a
;
o
@&,
\
T.{E
a\t,
tt,
I
1
t
4B
9 ,t )rl
a-,B 25t 4M l,c,
x,4 Mo(,o
lL
Ml'ios :,
.n ;r -t
t
f'v
z.
l
,,t !t
2 a
o I
4
rn
l/.,\t.lrtl. -- -l.C+.\iIt :,u
\,
i
Sborr
ttty
)
7
&,B \
ry.E ;-\\
Figure 10. Nautical map of Kilisut Harbor, north Puget Sound near the project site (red
star).
Although juveniles are present in shallower water, they are also associated with rocky areas with
kelp cover and sandy areas with eelgrass beds. According to Ecology's Shoreline Atlas, eelgrass
beds are present in Kilisut Harbor. These areas will not be disturbed by the project.
30
:'
c
a
II
r
t
t
'l
o3
I
t:
1.1.
Determination of Effect
Due to the limited rockfish habitat and the distance from deeper waters habitats, the presence of
bocaccios in the proposed area is unlikely. The proposed project May Affect, but is Not Likely
to Adversely Affect this species or its critical habitat.
Yelloweye Rockfish
Effects of Action
Yelloweye rockfish are encountered more frequently in the north Puget Sound and Hood Canal
(Miller and Borton 1980) that other areas of their range. It is very unlikely that adult yelloweye
rockfish will be present in the project area as they inhabit deep water with rocky substrate that
provides refuge space and feeding opportunities. This type of habitat is not present within the
project area. Juvenile yelloweye rock fish are also not likely to be found near the project area as
they prefer shallow areas with rocky substrate (NMFS 2008). The soft sediment near the project
site does not contain rock crevices or kelp beds. Drift larval is also not expected to be found
within project area.
Determination of Effect
Due to the lack of presence of Yelloweye rockfish and Yelloweye rockfish habitat in the project
area the proposed action May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect on this species or
critical habitat.
Southern Resident Killer Whales
Effects of the Action
It is highly unlikely that a Southem Resident Killer Whales would enter Kilisut Harbor because
the shallow depth would likely limit their movement. Killer Whales require open water with no
restrictions (NOAA, 2006). Also, during the proposed project window Southern Resident Killer
Whales are typically not present in the Puget Sound as they tend to open water habitats with
feeding opportunities during the summer months.
Critical Habitat
The PCEs for Southern Residents include the following: (1) Water quality to support growth and
development; (2) Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality and availability to support
individual growth, reproduction and development, as well as overall population growth; and (3)
Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging.
The action area includes limited critical habitat for southern resident killer whale (shoreline of
Puget Sound). However, the construction actitities addressed in this repoft does not directly
affect the critical habitat, as the shoreline protection project occurs in the upper intertidal zone.
3l
As discussed in previous paragraphs, impacts to water quality, prey base, and passage for other
species are discountable. Effects to killer whale critical habitat are not anticipated.
Determination of Effect
Due to the lack of suitable and critical habitat within the project area and the absence of Southern
Resident Killer Whales during the project construction window, the proposed action is expected
to have No Effect on southem resident killer whales and their designated critical habitat.
6.3 Essential Fish Habitat Analysis
The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) amended the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to require Federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on
projects that may adversely affect "Essential Fish Habitat" (EFH). The Pacific States Fishery
Management Council amended the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan and the Coastal
Pelagic Species Management Plan (1998a, 1998b) to designate waters and substrate necessary
for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of commercially important fish species (50 CFR
600.905-930). The objective of this EFH assessment is to notifli NOAA Fisheries of the project
and potential effects and determine whether the proposed actions "may adversely affect"
designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally managed fish species within the proposed
project area. The analysis also includes conseryation measures proposed to avoid, minim2e, and
offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH.
The marine extent of salmon, groundfish, and coastal pelagic EFH includes those waters from
the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within Washington, Oregon, and California
state territorial waters out to the exclusive economic zone (370.4 lcrn) offshore between the
Canadian border to the north and the Mexican border to the south. There are seven composite
EFHs: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, continental shelf/basin, neritic and
oceanic habitats. Relevant assessment of EFH at the proposed project area includes
intertidal/nearshore and associated riparian areas.
The proposed shoreline protection project includes the replacement of 100 feet of angular rock
shoreline protection structure, reestablishment of 200 square feet of upper intertidal habitat and
the placement of habitat mix. The proposed shoreline protection will protect the toe of the
shoreline bluff from wind and wave action, while preventing erosion that could lead to slope
failure and an existing home from being deposited in the marine waters. Placement of the large
angular rock should prevent future erosion of the shoreline.
The shoreline protection project may temporarily reduce the populations of benthic organisms in
a small area adjacent to the project that are prey species for various groundfish and juvenile
pelagic fishes that utilize intertidal/nearshore EFH. Benthic and epibenthic prey species that are
temporarily displaced are expected to recover quickly after conskuction activities are completed.
Since new invertebrate communities will quickly reestablished in the project areas, no long-term
loss of biological productivity is expected as a result of the replacement of shoreline protection
32
project. Similarly, forage species such as surf smelt, Pacific herring, sand lance, and squid could
also be temporarily impacted by elevated temporary turbidity. However, the impacts are
expected to be minor because the species are not expected to be in the project area during
construction,
In order to conserve intertidal/nearshore EFH and reduce potential effects on associated species,
the proposed shoreline protection project would incorporate the following conservation
measures:
Project activities will be limited to the placement of the minimum shoreline protection
required and the replacement structure will be move at or above OHW.
Project activities below OHW will not occur when the project area, including the work
corridor is inundated by tidal waters.
Rock for the bulkhead will be composed of clean, angular material of a sufficient
durability and size to prevent its being broken up or washed away by high water or wave
action.
Use of equipment on the beach will be held to a minimum, confined to a single access
point, and limited to a 25-foot work corridor waterward of the existing bulkhead.
All trenches, depressions, or holes created in the beach area will be backfilled prior to
inundation by tidal waters. If trenches excavated for base rocks need to remain open
during construction, fish will be prevented from entering such trenches.
a All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting
from this project will be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland
disposal site.
a All manmade debris on the beach will be removed and disposed of upland such that it
does not enter waters of the state. This includes the pre-existing pieces of rip rap, quarq/
spalls and anthropomorphic debris.
a lntertidal wetland vascular plants will not be adversely impacted due to project activities
(e.g., barge shall not ground, equipment shall not operate, and other activities shall not
occur in intertidal wetland vascular plants).
a Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed. The
project shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life.
The combination of the mitigation, conservation measures detailed above and in section 4.3, and
the temporary and localized affect of project activities reduces the effects on Essential Fish
Habitat to the point that the effects will be insignificant and discountable, and thus the proposed
o
a
a
o
a
JJ
shoreline protection project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Essential Fish
Habitat.
6.4 Report Conclusion
The purpose of the preceding Habitat Management Plan is to consider measures to preserve and
protect the fish and wildlife habitat and identiff how the impacts from the proposed shoreline
protection project will be avoided and/or mitigated through habitat mitigation. This Habitat
Management Plan concludes, that with minimization, conservation measurements and
compensatory mitigation, the following:
o No Affect or May AtTect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Endangered Species. May Afl'ect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat
7.0 References
Boehlert, G.W. 1980. Size composition, age composition, and growth of canary rockfish,
Sebastes pinniger, and splitnose rockfish, S. diploproa, from the 1977 rockfish survey. Mar.
Fish. Rev. 42:5743.
Calambokidis, J. and G. Steiger. (1990). Sightings and Movement of Humpback Whales in Puget
Sound, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 7 I :45 -49. Autumn I 990.
Gearin, P.J., and J.J. Jeffiies. 1996- Steller sea lion research in Washington State. In house
publication.
Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pp. 311-294.
Jeffries, S.J., P.J. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Seal and Sea
Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife
Science Division, 600 Capital Way North, Olympia, Washington.
Love, M.S., Yoklavick, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Pockfishes of the Northeast Pacific
University of Califomia Press 405.
Miller, B.S. and S.F. Borton. 1980. Geographic Distribution of Puget Sound Fishes: Maps and
Data Source Sheets. Volume 2. Family Percichthldae (Temperate Basses) 32.1through Family
Hexigrammidae (Greenlings) 54.6.
34
National Oceananic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Draft Steller sea lion
recovery plan: eastern and western distinct population segments. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008a. Preliminary scientific conclusion of the
review status of 5 species of rockfish: bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (Sebastes
pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), greensffiped rockfish (Sebastes elongatus),
and redstriped rockfish (Sebastes proriger) in Puget Sound, Washington. NMFS Northwest
Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. December 2008.
National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). 2008b. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer
Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle,
Washington.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Coastal Pelagic
Species. Modified from Coastal Pelagics Species Fisheries Management Plan. Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Portland, Oregon.
Palsson, W.A., T. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W. Cheng, and
R.E. Pacunski. 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington
Department f Fish and Wildlife. September 2009.
Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, E.O. Salo. 1982. The Role of Puget Sound and Washington Coastal
Estuaries in the Life History of Pacific Salmon: an Unappreciated Function. In V.S. Kennedy
(ed.). Estuarine Comparisons. Pp. 343-364. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Seattle Audubon. Sound To Sage: Breeding Bird Atlas of Island, King, Kitsap, and Kittitas
Counti es, Washington Data accessed from website :www. soundtosaqe. orq
Sampson, D.B. 1996. Stock status of canary rockfish off Oregon and Washington in 1996.
Appendix C. In: Shnrs of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery through 1996 and recommended
biological catches for 1997: stock assessment and fishery evaluation. Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Portland, OR.
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1999. Data from Marine Water Quality
Monitoring Program.
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2018. Coastal Atlas. Data accessed from website:
https ://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/coastalatlas/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1991. Management Recommendations
for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. May 1991.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington State salmon stock
inventory, Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. Olympia, Washington.
35
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2002. Salmonid stock inventory 2002.
http ://wdfir.wa. gov/fish/sasi/
Washington State Deparfinent of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). March 19, 2008. Habitat and
Species Map and PHS Polygon Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Management Program, Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2018a. Data accessed from website:
www.wdfw.wa. sov/mappinq/salmonscape/index. html
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).2018b. Priority Habitat and Species
List. Olynpia, Washington.lTT pp.
36
{
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington Fish And Wildlife Offi ce
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
Phone: (360)753-9M0 Fax: (360) 753-9405
http ://www. fivs. gov/wafiro/
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 0IEWFW00-20 1 8-SLI-0540
Event Code: 0 I EWFW00-20 1 8-E-00980
Project Name: Savidge replacement bulkhead project
January 27,2018
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated and
proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered SpeciesAct (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is
currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the Washington
Departrnent of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website: http://wdfin.wa.gov/
mappindphs/ or at our office website: http://www.fivs.gov/wafivo/species-new.html. Please note
that under 50 CFR 402.1,2(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act the accwacy
of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally
or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the
ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation forupdates
to spe:cies lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC
system by completing the same pnocess used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserrred. Under sections 7(a)(l) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
desi gnated critical habitat.
1
01t27t2A18 Event Code: 01 EWFW00-201 8-E-00980
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether or not the
project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat.
Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402.|n addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http: //www. fws. gov/endanqered/esa-library/pdf/ToC -GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
ProtectionAct (16 U"S.C. 668 et seq.). You may visit ourwebsite at http://wwwfivs.gov/pacific/
eagle/for information on disturbance or take of the species and information on how to get a
permit and what current guidelines and regulations are. Some projects affecting these species
may require development of an eagle conservation plan:
eagleJuidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.firs.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratorybirds and
bats.
Also be aware that all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal PmtectionAct
(MMPA). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S-
waters andby U.S. citizens on the high seas. The importation of marine mammals andmarine
mammal products into the U.S. is also prohibited. More information canbe foundon the MMPA
website: http ://www.nmfs.noaa. gov/pr/laws/mmpa/.
We appreciate your ooncern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encour4ges
Federal agencies to include conservation ofthreatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our offrce.
Related website:
National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected-specieVspocies-list/
species_lists.html
Attachmen(s):
. Official Species List
2
01t2112018 Event Code: 01 EWFW00-201 8-E-00980
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Washington Fish And Wildtife Office
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
(360) 7s3-e440
1
01t27tzUA Event Code: 01 EWFW00-201 8-E-00980 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 0lEWFW00-2018-SLI-0540
Event Code: 0lEWFW00-2018-E-00980
Project Name: Savidge replacement bulkhead project
Project Type: SHORELINE / BEACH PROTECTION i RENOURISHMENT
Project Description: A rock bulkhead was built on the property sometime around 1989. The
bulkhead was not built properly. The rock used is fragmented marine
basalt that easily fractures, no geotechnical fabric was used, the angle of
the bulkhead is too stecp and the bulkhead footing was not properly
embedded into the beach. We are proposing to move the replacement
approximately two feet landward above OHW.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
wwwgoogle.com/maps/place/48.043301 27059 I 03N1 22.70 I 55 I 30246948W
Counties: Jefferson, WA
Event Code; 01 EWFWO0-201 8-E-00980
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on
this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that
exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because
a project could affect downsfream species. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those
critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this oftice's
jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
Birds
a
NAME
Marbled Murelet Brachyramphus marmorahs
Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profi le: https://ecos.fu s. gov/ecp/species/4467
Sheaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata
There is flnal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profi le: https://ecos.firys. gov/ecp/species/7268
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Populatiou Western U.S. DPS
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical hahitat.
Specics profile: htFs://ecos.firs.gov/ecp/specieV39l I
Fishes
NAME
Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus
Population: U.S.A., conterrrinous, lower 48 states
There is ftnrt critical habitat for this spccies. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https ://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/82 1 2
Flowering Plants
NAME
Golden Paintbrush Castillej a levisecta
No critical habimt has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https ://ecos.fivs. gov/ecp/specieV7706
STATUS
Threatened
Threatened
Tlu'eatened
STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
Threatened
Gritical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECTAREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
CIl12712018
ESA listed fish species for Washington State
q
d
e
DPS i ESU .'\r of
r@
a
E0IJ
a.3
E
U
a
o
I
xxGrcet Stutgeor,lctpwrtulu Thrctuaed
Srrcis of wcra l5-Aor-04
XI
Northcm DPS
Sotthm DPS x
xPacilic HeringCluperidao
NotweMEd
Not wanuted
l-Ju-05
1-Jun{sB6in DPS
subpopu.latiu
x
x
xGadidac
24-Nov-00
2,1-Nov-00
24-Nov.00
Pacilic Cod
Pcitic Hakc
PoUrck
Prcilic CodDPS
Lower Borcd Pacitic DPS
Bsin DPS
No! wareEd
NorwMbd
of cmem
x
Sotthcti DPS(hd.tidie Eulochon ThredPnEd II xxxxxxxxxxxxPeromyzontidae
Nots'rutld
Not u'arsEd
Notwmtsd
2'l-D.c44
27-Dcc44
27-Dec-04
Paci6o lamprcy
WcEr@ Brook Limpr€y
fu\,s leprey
xxxxx
x
xx xx
x
x
x
x
x xx
x
I
{
x
x
xI x
xI .rx
x
xxxIx
Coltabit River DPS Thrcsleacd lLJaL9E X xBrll Irotl Sovri / Cmtzl DPS Thrcauaed 1-Dct-99 X x
Srud i Sedr DPS Notwmurcd
CuBhrcar Troua (Cosul)Pcninsula DPS Not waruEd x
SW / Lovd Colebiu Rivcr DPS No! E'uuEd -Us-Fc|}l0
CuttirMt Troul Not ivaroEd
Lowr Colyuhit Rit* ESU Thrcatqed )*M*99 X X
Middls Colmbia River Spdng.m ESU Not wrmtd 9-Mr-9tt
Puget Soral ESU ThueEned 21-lht-99 X x
Chit&l Sdlroa Sna*c Rio* Fcll-nn ESU Thrcakd.d 22-.1pt92 X x
Stakc ftivcr Spiltg/Stmwcr-run ESU Thruataed 22-,1p*92 X x
Colutbia liw Spring-.an ESA Ealengcted 22-lpr99 X x
Upper Coluftbia Riy6 Smmer/Fell-run ESU Not rananred 9-Mar+8 x
Co{st ESU Nor waflutcd 9.Mu-98
Colvabia kiter ESU Threehaed 25-Mer99 X x
Chum ga/'e,E tod Ctnal Surtdctrun ESU Thwelaaed 2lMb99 X x
Picilic Coast ESU Nor wsraed l0-Mu-9t
S@rd / SEAit ESU Not s'almtld l0-M{r-98
Lowt Coltabia River ESU Thrcat ncd 2tJu45 I X x
Salntanido(Peninsula ESU Not w*nmrcd 25-Jul-g5Coho Salilon
Sound / Shit ESU of cMccm
Soudrwest ESU Undctemined xx
Kokaucc lakcSmiehllPS Cmdidst.
Pink Sahnm Evu-y@ESU Nottr@td 4-Oct-gS
ESU Not n'ilsEd 4-O(ts95
Bats fuvo' ESU Nor wureEd 25-Ms-99
take Plcunt ESU Nd Errmcd l0-Md-98
ii.kr Wcutchcc ESU Not s{retud x
Sockqtc S4lilod Rivr ESIJ Not wamnrd l0-Mar.98
Ouac Lakc ESU Thrcocntd 25-M.ts99 X X
Iakc ESU NdwffimEd l0.Md-98
Slaftc ntuq ESLI 20-No*91 X
la*er Coltabia River DPS Threalened )9-Art-98 X x
llddla Colunhia RtPt DPS Thteat ad l$-Mcnlt X .x
PoniacuL DPS NorwruEd 9-Aug-96
Sl.elhcdd .DPS fhHalaBcd ll-Jtni? I
Sda*r lir"r Sdsia DPS Threateud ll-.1u9-97 X x
Sdthw6t DPS Nor $,Mantad 9-Aug-96
Cotvnbia nir.t DPS Thwuncd
x
x(x
xx
x
I
Scorpoefilee
China Rakfish
2 1 -Jun-99
2l-Ju-99
2 I -Jun-g,
2l-Ju-99
2l-Ju-99
21-Ju-99
Bleck Rocktish
Brown R@kfirh
Bluc Rocf,lish
Eocteio
Greenslripe Rockfirh
fellowelv Rochfuh
Quilbcck Rcklish
Widw Rocllish
Redstripe Rockfish
Tigc Rakfish
Not *rmnrcd
Not *.anocd
Not warutcd
NotweruEd
fircataed
Thtdalcued
Not u'arocd
Not qllJrotEd
Not warrord
No( wMuEd
Ncualmrd
Not wanmtcd
Notwa0cd
Sourd
G.orvia Basir DPS
Sound population
Basin DPS
Pugo Sond populatiu
Pugct Soud populatioo
Sound DPs
Puget Soud poplation
Sound DPS
Pugct Soud population
DPS
27J$LI0 I
27&l-10 I I (x
Eqrsi
!
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.r
x
x
x
x
x
27Jal-10 I I X