Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBiological Evaluation 002341042P LA IG - nooV Zimmerman Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement Biological Evaluation August 02, 2019 For: Nikki & Eric Zimmerman 2030 Dexter Ave. N, Unit 202 Seattle, WA 98109 Site Address: 214 Nebel Dr. and 433 Bachelor Rd. Sequim, WA 98382 ti S �j- ►POPR QW44W., ESSN� MARINE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS 380 Jefferson Street Port Townsend WA 98368 360-385-4073 msa@marinesurveysandassessments.com 1>,' ueD TABLE OF CONTENTS l.Applicant Information ......... .................................................................................. ..... ...... .......................... ........ l 2.Project Information .............. .......... ......_—=---..--........... ................. .'^-^'^_....... ....... .,—''~'........ ] 2JProject Looutioo_........................... .......... ........ ........ -------^—.—.—.................... ........... '_._..l 22Project Dnxuripiion~.............................................................................. .......... --........................ ............. `.... l 2.3Construction Details ........................................................... .......... ............................................................... ....l 2.4 Action Area ...................................... ___ ... .... ... ..................................... --�.......................................... lSpecies and Habitat Information— .......... ............... ............. ........... .,............ _—........... ..... ...................... --% llHabitat lubnooutioo—.—.......... ........ ...^-................ .................................. .......... .................. ,'--.-2 3.2 State Species ............ ........ ..................... .......... ........ ....... .................................... ...... ......... 3.3 Federal ESA Species & Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... --3 4.Effects Analysis vf the Proposed Action .................... —............ _—_—......... ....... ........... —........................... ..8 4.lDirect Effects .... .......................................................... ............... .................. ....... ....................... ................... w 4.l.lAbove Water Noise Effects ....................... ........ ,..~.._...... `...... __~...................... ......... ...... 8 4Ll.lWater Quality .......................... .—..-."... ... ".................. .......... ......... ....... ............. *...... ............ ....... $ 42Indirect Effects ........................................... ....... .^....................................................... .......... _^.=_...... —y 4llHabitat alteration ........................................................ ................ ............... _-.............................. ~--mV 42.2Scouring ........... ........ .................... .......... .................................................................................................... 0. 4.3Cumulative Effects ........ _.................. ........ ....... .......................................................... ................. ............. 1U 44 Effects .............................................. .......... ....... ,,..... .......... ........ —...... ... .l0 Take &ua�n�--------^--.....~_-.'..~._-_._—.^^_--',—_—____~_____^--_. lO4.j 5.Conclusions and Determinations ................. ---..—.__--_~~__^--_~..~......... .......... "--..11 5]Determination ofEffects ......................... ..................................................................... .......... ....... .... ............... D 520oNetLoss Statement ............................... ....... ............. ------.............................. ................ ............ D References........... —......... ........ —....... ..... —............................ ............. ....... ............ —.......... —...... ------�l2 Attachment l.Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ......................................................................................... ...... ...... 24 Attachment 2. Assessment oJImpacts wCritical Habitat for Paget Sound Chinook ................................................... 26 Attachment 3.Assessment ofImpacts wCritical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whales .............. ... ......27 Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio and Yclloweye Rockfish.................... .... ........... .......... ............... ......... ................................................ ............. —................... ...... 28 Attachment 5.Assessment ofImpacts toCritical Habitat for Hood -Canal Summer -run Chum .................................. 29 Attachment 6.Assessment ofImpacts mCritical Habitat for Coastal ' Puget Sound Bull Trout ................................ 3O Appendixl:Habitat Report and Map ....................................................................... .................. ........................ ...... 32 Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement i List of Figures Figure1. Vicinity Map .............. .............. •..................... .................... ...•-•,••....... ,........ ,..,,._,.,.,..........._.........................18 . Figure 2. Action Area Map ................................................... .. . ...........19 Figure3. Critical Habitat Map............................................................................................................._... ...19 Figure4. Site Plan Overview .................... ......._....... .............. ........ ....:....................... .................. ............................... 20 Figure5. Bulkhead Overview......... ............ :......::......................................................... ....................... ............ ......... .... 20 Figure 6. Cross Section Overview ................................... ....................... ::................... .......................... ..........:..:............. 21 Figure 7. Forage Fish Map (Arrow is Project Site)..........,.........:................::.....:........................................................22 Figure 8. Dept. of Ecology 2012 Quality Assessment (303 [d]) Listings (Arrow is Project Site).......:........................22 Figure 9. FEMA Floodplain Map - ....23 Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement ii 1. Applicant Information Nikki & Eric Zimmerman 2030 Dexter Ave. N, Unit 202 Seattle, WA 98109 Email: outboxz@msn.com 2. Project Information 2.1 Project Location Section 34, Township 30N, Range 02W Site Address: 214 Nebel Dr. and 433 Bachelor Rd. Sequim, WA 98382 (Jefferson County) Parcels: 002341042 and 002341009 Latitude: 48.056763°, Longitude: -122.908425° Waterbody: Discovery Bay The project location is seen in Figures 1 — 3, 2.2 Project Description The proposed project is located at 214 Nebel Dr. and 433 Bachelor Rd. Sequim, WA 98382 (Jefferson County) (Figures 1 and 2). This proposal includes the removal of the existing damaged boat ramp, replacement of a portion of the boat ramp, replacement of the concrete bulkhead with a rock bulkhead (located above MHHW), and installation of approximately 104 feet of soft bank protection. 2.3 Construction Details The first work to be completed on the site will be the removal of the damaged concrete boat ramp. The boat ramp removal will be approximately 89' long and 8' wide. This material will be removed by using an excavator. The machine will track down the ramp and remove the ramp with the bucket as it works back landward. The tracks will not be on the beach. The concrete pieces will be hauled off site by loading the bucket of a bobcat with the material and stockpiling the material above OHW for the removal via truck to an approved dump facility. The proposed section of boat ramp to be replaced will be installed to transition from the patio to the beach. Pre -cast concrete panels, each 10' wide and 5' long, will be placed for a total footprint of 20' waterward and 10' wide. The two most waterward panels are the only work proposed in the project to extend seaward beyond MHHW with a total of 10' waterward and 10' wide (two panels will cover 100 square feet of beach below MHHW). Total square footage of removal of the boat ramp from the beach is —512. With the placement of the 20'x10' precast concrete panel boat ramp section (200 square feet), the overall net gain of upper intertidal habitat will be —512 square feet. The next step of the work will be to construct the 40' rock bulkhead behind the existing concrete bulkhead, which is above the MHHW line. The bulkhead work will be completed with a 120/200 sized excavator. The base rocks will be installed — 3' below existing grade and landward of the concrete bulkhead. The remaining rocks and spalls will be stacked on top of them. Filter fabric will be installed between the spalls and the bank. The old concrete bulkhead will then be removed from the shoreline. This method will reduce any erosion from the removal of the concrete bulkhead as the soils behind the bulkhead will not be exposed and allowed to slough from the bank. The rock bulkhead will be 5' above Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement existing grade, or approximately to the height of the existing bulkhead. No increase in the footprint is proposed. This area of the project will result in 40 square feet of habitat net gain with the rock bulkhead installation 1' landward of the existing bulkhead (to be removed). Soft shoreline stabilization (beach nourishment) will be used landward of OHW along the 104'of shoreline, starting from the east side of the 40' bulkhead, with approximately three 2 -foot diameter logs, buried partially and anchored into the ground with earth anchors. The upland area behind the logs will be re -vegetated with onsite native plants and/or additional native plants. All material delivery and removal from the site will be by land via the subject property. All equipment will be delivered to the site by land. All machinery use will be limited to above OHW except for the excavator to haul the broken concrete from the boat ramp to above OWH for disposal off site. 2.4 Action Area The "project area" is the area within the bulkhead and ramp. The project area also includes areas used for staging materials and equipment and accessing the site. The "action area" includes any areas with potential ecological effects from short-term construction activities or long-term habitat modifications and would cover approximately '/z mi from the bulkhead and ramp into Discovery Bay (Figures 1 and 2). 3. Species and Habitat Information 3.1 Habitat Information As observed during the Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) Habitat Survey and Map (Appendices 1 and 2), the area of the survey ranged in elevation from MHHW along the shoreline to -2.5' MLLW and was characterized by cobble, pebble, and some areas with sand. The following macroalgae was observed in the area of the boat ramp survey: Ulva 20-80%, Fucus 5-10%, Sargassum 5%, Saccharina 5-10%, Chondracanthus 5%, and foliose red algae 5-15%. Foliose reds include Gracilaria, Sarcodiotheca, Prionitis. No other macroalgae was observed at the boat ramp location. No eelgrass was observed at the site. The project area in Discovery Bay, which is within WM 17 was shaped by the Vashon Glaciation, like much of western Washington. In the rainshadow of the Olympic Mountains, WRIA 17 has precipitation ranges from 15 to 20 inches/year in Port Townsend and northern Miller Peninsula (Correa 2002). Much of the rainfall (— 85%) occurs between November and May so many WRIA 17 streams become dry and flow -limited during the summer (Correa 2002). This stream flow information is crucial to understand as an investigation into protected species is conducted. FEMA flood maps indicate the waters at this site lie in a Special Flood Hazard Area Zone AE (EL 12 Feet) and Zone VE (EL 21 Feet) (Figure 9). 3.2 State Species The WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) mapper indicates sand lace and herring spawning (Figure 7), and estuarine and marine wetland at the project site. Pacific herring and hard-shell clam are mapped within the action area; as well as a shorebird and waterfowl concentration area of "regular concentration". According to queries of the Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) data, also known as SalmonScape (WDFW), the following had documented presence and/or known spawning in streams located outside the action area, around Discovery Bay: • Coho salmon Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement Chum salmon Steelhead trout Cutthroat trout All these streams are located outside of the action area unless otherwise noted. 3.3 Federal ESA Species & Critical Habitat For each listed species with the potential to be in the project action area, the listing status, distribution of species, and relevant life history traits are presented below. Salmon species that utilize streams located in Discovery Bay will be included as they may migrate past the project site. For species with Critical Habitat within the action area, a detailed Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat is included with this report as an attachment (see Attachments 2 - 6). Table 1. NMFS/USFWS Critical Habitat NMFS/USFWS Critical Habitat Action Area Project Footprint Discovery Bay Final Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) Y Y Y Final Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) N N Y Chum Salmon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N N N Marine Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (NWS,2005) Y Y Y Freshwater Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N N N Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Steelhead (NOAH, 2016) N N Y Marine Critical Habitat Hood Canal Summer -run Chum Salmon (NMFS, 2005 Y Y Y Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2006) Y N Y Steelhead Trout Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N N N Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat (USFWS, 2015) Y Y Y Marbled Murrelet (USFWS, 2015) N N Y Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2012) N N N Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2009) N N N Southern Eulachon (NMFS, 2011) N N N A. Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), also called the king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most Chinook in the Puget Sound are "ocean -type" and migrate to the marine environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean -type Chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival. The Puget Sound Chinook is listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations). In addition, NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The portion of Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement the project footprint below the line of extreme high water is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Federal Register / Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations). It is also stated by the Washington State Conservation Commission (2002): 1. Chinook salmon, also known as king salmon, are not found in WRIA 17 in abundant numbers as spawners and, when found, are either the result of hatchery production or straying. 2. Old records maintained by hatchery personnel document sporadic numbers of naturally spawning Chinook, probably fall Chinook due to the low summer flows, but again, those have not sustained a natural population (Larry Telles, personal communication, March 2002). Habitat impacts can be a large issue as such habitats are more vulnerable to increased water temperatures, channel de -watering due to anthropogenic impacts like removal of riparian vegetation and water extraction (Correa 2002). Even though many streams experience a dry period during the year, their importance as habitat is not negligible (Correa 2002). Seasonal river flows from many streams provide crucial spawning habitat for salmonids like coho and fall chum (Correa 2002). According to queries of the SaSI data, also known as SalmonScape (WDFW), fall, summer and spring Chinook nearest presence is more than 10 mi away in the Dungeness River. No Chinook presence has been documented in Snow Creek or Salmon Creek, which drain into south Discovery Bay. The "project site" and "action area" have documented Puget Sound Chinook presence (WDFW SaSI). An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook" is provided in Attachment 2. B. Puget Sound Steelhead: Steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species Onchorhynchus mykiss. The freshwater residents are called rainbow trout. Steethead can return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington streams. NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (O. myldss) as a threatened species under the ESA (Federal Register Not. 72, No. 91/Friday, May 11, 2007/Rules and Regulations). Critical habitat has been finalized for the Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment (Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations). Short-term declines in spawning escapements indexed by counts at the Snow Creek Research Station, can be attributed, in part, to factors outside the freshwater basins because the decline is a coast wide phenomenon (Cooper and Johnson 1992). According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2002), steelhead populations in Discovery Bay have been designated depressed by proposed SaSI. However, WDFW stocks various lakes in WRIA 17 with rainbow trout, with escapees from a farm on Jimmycomelately Creek accounting for the rainbow trout found in Discovery Bay (Correa 2002). According to SaSI data, steelhead populations are not found within the project or action areas; however, they may pass by or through the areas. According to queries of the SaSI data, also known as SalmonScape (WDFW), winter steelhead have been documented in Jimmycomelately Creek and Contractor's Creek south of the project area, outside of the action area, adjoining Discovery Bay. C. Hood Canal Summer -run Chum: NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer run chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened under the ESA (Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005). The project site is in an area Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 4 designated as critical habitat for the Hood Canal summer run chum ESU (Federal Register / Vol 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations). Summer chum are documented in many WRIA 17 streams: Big Quilcene River, Little Quilcene River, Chimacum Creek, Snow Creek, Salmon Creek and Jimmycomelately Creek. Because of the close proximity of Salmon and Snow Creek (Snow Creek flowed into Salmon Creek until the early 1900s) and the absence of an indicated difference from the genetic sampling results, the Snow Creek and Salmon Creek populations are a single native stock with composite production (Ames et al 2000). They enter freshwater and spawn from the beginning of September to mid-October (WDFW and WWTribes 1994) Snow/Salmon Creek summer chum have experienced increased escapements since 1995, in part because of a successful cooperative hatchery supplementation program. Stock restoration efforts initiated and implemented by a local volunteer salmon restoration group, Olympic Salmon, began 1992 using local brood stock and have successfully increased number of adult spawners returning to Salmon Creek. In brood year 2001, over 2500 adults returned to spawn. Otolith recovery records indicate the local facility contribute significantly to escapement. This improvement has moved the stock out of Critical status, but the stock is rated Depressed in 2002 because of continuing chronically low escapements (Thom Johnson, SaSI contribution in review, 2002). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Jefferson Land Trust have received funding to purchase and protect much of the lower river and estuarine habitats of Salmon and Snow Creeks. The Jefferson County Conservation District has received funding from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, North Olympic Salmon Coalition and Jefferson County to conduct substantial habitat restoration in the lower 0.5 miles of Salmon Creek. The creek, which had been channelized for agricultural use, will be returned to its historic channel with meanders and structure (large woody debris) to provide bed stability. This should provide the habitat improvements necessary to ensure sustainable stock recovery. An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Hood Canal Summer -run Chum" is provided in Attachment 5. D. Bull Trout: Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California (at present they are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman & McIntyre, 1993). They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal Puget Sound population (Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1999 (Federal Register./Vol. 64, No. 210./Monday, November 1./ 1999/Rules and Regulations). USFWS has designated critical habitat for bull trout around the action area (the shoreline of Discovery Bay) (USFWS Final Critical Habitat, 2015). The bull trout work window is July 16"to February 15' fore Tidal Reference Area 10 (Port Townsend) which includes Discovery Bay. An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Bull Trout" is provided in Attachment 6. However, based on SaSI data, bull trout is not found in streams draining into Discovery Bay. The nearest areas with documented populations of bull trout is Bell Creek within Sequim Bay and the Dungeness River which are to the west of Discovery Bay, outside the action area. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Bull Trout" is provided in Attachment 6. E. Southern Resident Killer Whales: The Southern Resident population consists of three pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004), "While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro Strait, Boundary Passage, the Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait." During early autumn, these pods, especially J pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and chinook salmon runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less than 5 meters deep (Baird 2001). On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as endangered under ESA (Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations). NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20' relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 229 / November 29, 2006 / Final Rule). According to the Southern Resident Killer Whale Sighting 1990-2013 map (Olson 2014), all of the following sightings in quad 4418 are as follows for the July -January work window: • July - 0 • August - 1 ■ September - 0 + October - 0 • November - 0 + December - 0 + January - 0 • February - 0 An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whales" is provided in Attachment 3. F. Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are small marine birds in the Alcidae family. Marbled murrelets have been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992. They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other small schooling fish and invertebrates. There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site (WDFW, USFWS). Results from the Puget Sound Seabird Survey (PSSS) (managed by Seattle Audubon) group that monitors sites at Sequim, Port Townsend and Discovery Bays (the closest sites to the project site) have shown marbled murrelet sightings since surveys began (Seattle Audobon Society 2008-2010). The most recent PSSS sighting occurred at the northwestern shoreline of Discovery Bay, specifically Diamond Point. The last sighting occurred on 04/07/2018, with a high count of 4, average count of 1, and a frequency of 34.4%. Based on eBird, a citizen science website, birdwatchers recorded marbled murrelet sightings in Discovery Bay. The Gardiner Beach shoreline of Discovery Bay, with sightings approximately in the action area (Sullivan et al. 2009). The last sighting being April 12, 2019 at Gardiner Beach. Nevertheless, the proposed project would not deal with removal of Marbled Murrelet habitat. The project would also remove part of the existing ramp footprint, allowing for a partial reestablishment of natural shoreline, providing more habitat for Marbled Murrelet to forage for food. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement G. Rockfish: Bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles. As juveniles they settle to benthic environment. They prefer to settle in rocky reefs, kelp beds, low rock and cobble areas (Love et at. 2002). As the three species grow larger, they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats. Adult yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish generally inhabit depths from approximately 90' to 1400' (Love et at. 2002). All three species are opportunistic feeders, with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of adult rockfish include marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod and sharks. Adult rockfish are commonly found in deep water that exists at the action area. Shallow, intertidal, nearshore waters in rocky, cobble and sand substrates (with or without kelp) can provide suitable substrate for juvenile (3- 6 month old) bocaccio rockfish. However, the highest densities of juvenile rockfish are found in areas with floating or submerged kelp species. NOAA has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis) as endangered (Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 81, April 28, 2010, Final Rule). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia, north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and includes Discovery Bay. An Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish can be found Attachment 4. Drake et al. 2010 reported counts in-between 0 — 10 from years 1987 to 2008, with approximately 21- 40 fathoms being the deepest counts (depth limited since it is a bay). Adult rockfish are commonly found in deeper water than exists at the project site. Shallow, intertidal, nearshore waters in rocky, cobble and sand substrates (with or without kelp) can provide suitable substrate for juvenile (3-6 month old) bocaccio rockfish. However, the highest densities of juvenile rockfish are found in areas with floating or submerged kelp species. Although these species have the potential to be present within the action area, the effects of this project are expected to be mimmal, if at all. An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Rockfish" is provided in Attachment 4. H. Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) as prey resources. These forage fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles. According to WDFW (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/research/projects/marine_beach_spawning/index.html), there is documented spawning activity at the site for Pacific herring and sand lance (Figure 11). The work windows established for forage fish in Tidal Reference Area 10 (Port Townsend) are as follows: • Pacific Herring: May 1—January 14 a Pacific Sand Lance: March 2 — October 4 To avoid impacts to Pacific herring and sand lance, it is recommended that a forage fish survey be completed by an approved biologist prior to any construction in the Upper Shore Zone (USZ) after October 14 to confirm presence or absence of surf smelt spawning to allow construction up until January 14", provided the work is completed within the approved 2 week work window after the completion of the forage fish survey. Any work after the 2 -week work window will require an additional forage fish survey before work can continue. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 4. Effects Analysis of the Proposed Action The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The project has been described and the action area defined. When reviewing all the data, the direct and indirect effects of the project on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered. 4.1 Direct Effects When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project will immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to construction on the shoreline. require adequate flow and water quality, ample spawning gravels, instream structure in the form of large woody debris and/or large boulders, pools, and a functional riparian zone while inhabiting the riverine system. 4.1.1 Impacts to FEMA concerns The proposed dock will extend into an area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a protected area (100 -year floodplain). Because of this, the impacts on the following issues need to be addressed. a. Does the project involve the removal of native vegetation? No- b. Does the project include channel straightening'? No. c. Does the project result in habitat isolation? No. d. Does the project include bank armoring? Yes. Replacement in the same footprint. e. Does the project reduce flood storage capacity'? No. f Does the project result in degradation of water quality'? Yes, briefly. See item 4.1.3 below. g. Will there be construction effects (noise or turbidity)? Yes, see items 4.1.3 and 4.1.2 below. 4.1.2 Above Water Noise Effects Noise levels will be minimized due to work occurring "in the dry" i.e., when tidal waters are not inundating the direct work area. Some noise effects will be present due to demolition. However, it is still possible that loud noise will mask the approach of predators; even though the probability is minimal since severe noise, like pile driving will not occur. 4.1.3 Water Quality The removal of structures causes temporary and localized increases in turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS). This could impact migrating salmonids and forage fish by reducing feeding rates and causing physiological stress. The impact level depends on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity, the life stage during the increased exposure, and the options available for the fish to avoid the plumes (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 200 la and Simenstad, editor, 1988). For this project, turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement Variations in suspended sediment concentration can negatively impact species composition, biomass, algal growth and can affect secondary production as well (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Filter feeders can have blockages in feeding structures and effect their feeding efficiency, in turn reducing growth rates, increasing stress or in some cases can result in death (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Suspended sediments can also impact salmonid fishes by increasing mortality rate, reducing growth rate and/or reducing resistance to disease, modifying natural movements, interfering with development, reducing prey abundance and fish catch methods (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Nevertheless, the permanent removal of — 500 square feet of boat ramp would have positive long-term impacts to the shoreline. 4.2 Indirect Effects When considering the indirect effects of the proposed project on the listed species and their habitat, one must determine the effects that might occur later in time, after completion of the project. Nevertheless, the boat ramp replacement would not introduce new impacts but minimize and extend current impacts. 4.2.1 Habitat alteration All salmonid species are known to use estuarine and nearshore environments at some time during their life cycle. In addition, critical food fish for salmonids, such as surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and herring (Clupeaharangus) depend on quiet embayments, sandy, undisturbed, shaded beaches, and eelgrass beds for spawning (Shaffer 2001). Ecosystem links between upland and nearshore habitats are extremely important (Shaffer 2001). The boat ramp replacement would extend the time coastline habitat would continue to stay modified. A properly grated intertidal and supratidal zone are crucial habitat elements for biota (Dethier 1990; Heerhartz et al. 2015; Heerhartz & Toft 2015), which the boat ramp would somewhat alter the natural intertidal and supratidal zone. Furthermore, fish spawning occurs high on the shoreline, which is impeded by structures which cut off part of the intertidal zone (Quinn et al. 2012). Disturbances, both anthropogenic and natural, affect the vegetation cover; with fire and timber harvesting affecting the watershed significantly (Correa 2002). Land use in WRIA 17 varies, including: forestry, agriculture, urban development, rural residential, light industry, and recreation; however, only — 11% of Jefferson County is privately owned (Correa 2002). 4.2.2 Scouring Wave regime and local geology are the primary drivers of modern beach geomorphology. In the action area, a drift cell is going from right to left, in an area considered to have a stable slope (WECY 2015). The property is also listed in the Ecology Coastal Atlas as a modified shoreline with part of the parcels' shoreline and the north and south region next to the parcels listed as a "transport zone" (WECY, 2015). A structure like the boat ramp replacement would continue to act like a groin. Groins change coastal dynamics and sediment transport by blocking movement of sediment; which leads to sediment accumulation on the updrift side and erosion on the downdrift from the lack of new sediment addition (Guimanes et al. 2016). Physical changes in beach structure, specifically beach narrowing and lowering, are also linked to biological effects (Herrara Environmental Consultants 2005). Most directly, forage fish spawning habitat in the upper intertidal zone may be degraded in both extent and quality (Pentilla 2007). Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 4.3 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects from future state, local, or private activities without a federal nexus that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area are anticipated for this project. The action area includes shoreline properties within 0.5 mile to the north and south of the project site. Future activities include continued fishing, swimming, boating, and any other water dependent recreational activity. The influence of these activities cannot be quantified in this assessment, but with appropriate regulations in place, these activities are not anticipated to have an adverse effect on ESA listed species or critical habitat. While the area may appear rural and remote, habitat loss has been identified as the most serious threat to marine ecosystems of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea. Several human activities along the Straits and Hood Canal, in a cumulative context, have significant ecosystem effects on their respective nearshore environments (Shaffer 2001). 4.4 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects Completion of this project is not anticipated to promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species regulated under ESA are anticipated to occur because of this project. 4.5 Take Analysis The ESA (Section 3) defines "take" as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering." It is likely that no "take" will result from this proj ect. 4.6 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 1. Forage fish spawning habitat will be enhanced by removing concrete and adding sand and gravel (beach nourishment). Forage fish spawning habitat will also be protected by following forage fish spawning habitat work windows. 2. Beach nourishment is intended to offset the negative impacts on sediment supply to the beach by the removal of the concrete ramp. Nourishment fills the voids left by the removed boat ramp and debris removal while assisting in erosion control and enhancing forage fish spawning substrate. 3. The existing bulkhead will be moved 1' upland. 4. The boat ramp footprint will be reduced by —512 square feet. The applicant complied with the following additional Conservation Measures (CMs) • Use of equipment on the beach shall be held to a minimum, confined to a single access point, and limited to a 12' work corridor on either side of the proposed work. Equipment shall be operated fiom the top of the bank, on a temporary work platform, barge, or similar out -of -water location. • Equipment shall be operated in a way that minimizes turbidity. ■ Work will be done at low tides in -the -dry, from upland and atop the boat ramp. • Existing habitat features (e.g., vegetation and woody debris) shall not be removed. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 10 5. Conclusions and Determinations ESA species and critical habitats in the action area are evaluated below based on the following assessments: No effect (absolutely no effect whatsoever, either positive or negative); May affect, not likely to adversely affect (insignificant effects that never reach the level where take occurs, or effects are discountable and extremely unlikely to occur; or there would be an entirely beneficial effect); or, May affect, likely to adversely affect (measurable or significant effects are likely and the project will require formal consultation). Because designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal summer -run chum, bull trout, rockfish, and Southern Resident killer whale occurs within the project footprint and/or action area, detailed assessments of PBF's for these species are presented in Attachments 2 - 6. 5.1 Determination of Effects This determination of effects for protected species is contingent upon implementation of the conservation and minimization measures in Section 4.6. In general, potential direct negative effects to the ESA listed species (avoidance, behavior modification) would be short-term, but would not result in take, and would not contribute to an increased risk of extinction. After reviewing the appropriate data, the determination of effect to each listed species and designated critical habitat within the action area is: « Rockfish - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" • Puget Sound Chinook - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" ■ Steelhead - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" ■ Southern Resident Killer Whale - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" • Chum salmon - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" • Bull trout -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" • Marbled Murrelet -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 5.2 No Net Loss Statement Because this is a bulkhead and boat ramp replacement as opposed to a new bulkhead and boat ramp, the project will perpetuate a permanent but reduced loss of intertidal habitat. The bulkhead and boat ramp replacement will continue to isolate sediment from the nearshore but will not result in additional habitat or functional loss. Short-term impacts from demolition and construction will be minimized. Overall, new net loss to ecological function is not anticipated to occur. A net improvement of ecological function is expected with a removal of —512 square feet of concrete boat ramp in the intertidal and supratidal zones. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 11 References Ames, J., G. Graves, and C. Weller, editors. 2000. Summer chum salmon conservation initiative: an implementation plan to recovery summer chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point -No -Point Treaty Tribes. Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. (Anchor). 2006. Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Area 9 for Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration. Prepared for WRIA 9. Prepared by Anchor Environmental, Seattle, Washington. May 2006. Angell, T. and K. C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 146 pp. Baird, R. W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field -Naturalist 115:676- 701. Berge, H. and B. Mavros. 2001. King County Bull Trout Program 2000 Bull Trout Surveys. King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. 42 pp. Bernatchez, P. & Fraser, C. (2012). Evolution of coastal defense structures and consequences for beach width trends, Quebec, Canada. J. Coast. Res., 28, 1550-1566. Bozek, C.M. & Burdick, D.M. (2005). Impacts of seawalls on saltmarsh plant communities in the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire USA. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 13, 553-568. Brennan, J. S., K.F. Higgins, J.R. Cordell, and V.A. Stamatiou. 2004. Juvenile Salmon Composition, Timing, Distribution, and Diet in Marine Nearshore Waters of Central Puget Sound, 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. 164 pp. Busby, P.J., Wainwright, T.C., Bryant, G.J., Lierheimer, L.J., Waples, RS., Waknitz, F.W. and Lagomarsino, I.V., 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Cardwell R.D., S.J. Olsen, M.I. Carr and E.W. Sanborn. 1980. Biotic, water quality and hydrologic characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. TechRep. 54, Washington Dept. of Fisheries. Chapman, M.G. & Underwood, A. J. (2011). Evaluation of ecological engineering of "armoured" shorelines to improve their value as habitat. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 400, 302-313 Chumra, G. L. and N. W. Ross. 1978. The environmental impacts of marinas and their boats. A literature review with management implications, Marine Advisory Service, University of Rhode Island. Narragansett, RI. Cooper, R, and T. H. Johnson. 1992. Trends in steelhead abundance in Washington and along the Pacific coast of North America. Wash. Dep. Wildlife, Fish. Manage. Div., Report 92-20, 90 p. (Available from Washington Department of Wildlife, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091.) Correa, G., 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 17, Quilcene/Snow Basin. Washigton State Conservation Commission. Crawford, B. A. 2012. Methods and quality of VSP monitoring of ESA listed Puget Sound salmon and steelhead with identified critical gaps. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Olympia, WA. Dethier, M.N., 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Dept. Natural Resources. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 12 Dethier, M.N., Raymond, W.W., McBride, A.N., Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R., Ogston, A.S., Heerhartz, S.M. and Berry, H.D., 2016. Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 175, pp. 106-117. Dethier, M.N., Toft, J.D. and Shipman, H., 2017. Shoreline armoring in an inland sea: Science -based recommendations for policy implementation. Conservation Letters, 10(5), pp.626-633. Dorcey, A. H. J., T. G. Northcote and D. V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser River marshes essential to salmon? Westwater Research Center, Lecture 1, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Drake, J.S., Berntson, E.A., Gustafson, R.G., Holmes, E.E., Levin, P.S., Tolimieri, N., Waples, R.S., Sogard, S.M., Williams, G.D. and Cope, J.M., 2010. Status review of five rockfish species in Puget Sound, Washington: bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (S. pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus), and redstripe rockfish (S. proriger). Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 56 and 57 / March 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 222 / November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 229 / November 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Resister / Vol 79, No 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Final Rule. Federal Resister / Vol 81, No 36 / Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2016 / Final Rule Federal Resister / Vol 82, No 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Final Rule. FishPro, 1993. Pope Resources Fisheries Resource Assessment for the Port Ludlow Development Program. FishPro, Port Orchard, Washington. Gittman, R.K., Fodrie, F.J., Popowich, A.M. et al. (2015). Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the US. Front. Ecol. Environ., 13, 301-307. Gittman, R.K., Scyphers, S.B., Smith, C.S., Neylan, I.P. lir. Grabowski, J.H. (2016a). Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: a meta-analysis. Bioscience, 66, 763-773. Goetz. F. A. and E. Jeanes. 2004. Bull Trout in the Nearshore, Preliminary Draft. Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle Washington. Grant, A.K.C.D. and Environmental, A., 2005. WRIA 9 Conservation Hypotheses Functional Linkages Phase 2. Prepared for: WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Groot, C. and L. Margolis (eds.). 1991. Life history of Pacific salmon, UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Guimaraes, A., Lima, M., Coelho, C., Silva, R. and Veloso-Gomes, E 2016. Groin impacts on updrift morphology: Physical and numerical study. Coastal Engineering, 109, pp. 63-75. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 13 Hayman, R., E. Beamer, and R. McClure. 1996. FY 1995 Skagit River chinook restoration research. Skagit System Cooperative Chinook Restoration Research Progress Report No. 1. Final Project Performance Report in Compliance with NWIFC Contract 3311 for FY 95. La Conner, WA. Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries - the life support system, p. 315 - 341. In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY. Heerhartz, S.M., Dethier, M.N., Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R. & Ogston, A.S. (2014). Effects of shoreline armoring on beach wrack subsidies to the nearshore ecotone in an estuarine fjord. Estuar. Coasts, 37, 1256-1268. Heerhartz, S.M., Toft, J.D., Cordell, J.R., Ogston, A. S. & Dethier, M.N. (2015) Shoreline armoring in an estuary constrains wrack -associated invertebrate communities. Estuar. Coasts, 39, 171-188. Heerhartz, S.M. & Toft, J.D. (2015) Movement patterns and feeding behavior of juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) along armored and unarmored estuarine shorelines. Environ. Biol. Fishes, 98, 1501-1511. DOI 10.1007/s10641-015-0377-5 Kerwin, J. and Nelson (Eds.). 2000. Habitat limiting factors and reconnaissance assessment report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. King County, WRIA 9 Watershed Coordination Services and WRIA 9 Technical Committee, 2004. WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment Report: Scientific Foundation for Salmonid Habitat Conservation. King County Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Kraus, N.C. and McDougal, W.G., 1996. The effects of seawalls on the beach: Part I, an updated literature review. Journal ofcoastal research, pp. 691-701. Langler, K. F., A. S. Hazzard, W. E. Hazen and W. A. Tompkins. 1950. Outboard motors in relation to fish behavior, fish production and angling success. Transactions of the 15th Annual North American Wildlife Conference. pp. 280 - 303. Love, M.S., Yoklavich, M. and Thorsteinson, L.K., 2002. The rockfishes of the northeast Pacific. Univ of California Press. Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W S. Grand, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-35, 443 pp. Neave, F. 1961. Pacific salmon: ocean stocks and fishery developments. Pac. Sci. Congr. Proc. 1957(10); pp. 59-62. Newcombe, C.P. and MacDonald, D.D., 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American journal of fisheries management, 11(1), pp. 72-82. Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA. Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, pp. 177. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 14 Olson, J., 2014. Southern Resident Killer Whale Sighting Compilation 1948-2013. Web. http://www.westcoast. fisheries.noaa. gov/publications/protected_species/marine_mammals/killer_wha les/occurrencemap.pdf Palsson, W.A., Tsou, T.S., Bargmann, G.G., Buckley, RM., West, J.E., Mills, M.L., Cheng, Y.W. and Pacunski, R.E., 2009. The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Division, Olympia, Washington, USA. Pentilla, Dan and D. Dory. 1990. Results of 1989 eelgrass shading studies in Puget Sound, Progress Report Draft. WDFW Marine Fish Habitat Investigations Division Penttila, D. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-03. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Water Quality Action (WQA) Team. 2002. Puget Sound update 2002. Eighth report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Olympia, WA. Quinn, T., Krueger, K., Pierce, K., Penttila, D., Perry, K., Hicks, T. and Lowry, D., 2012. Patterns of surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus, intertidal spawning habitat use in Puget Sound, Washington State. Estuaries and Coasts, 35(5), pp. 1214-1228. Ratte, L.D. and E.0, Salo. 1985. Under -pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. in Commencement Bay, Washington. FRI - UW -8508, Fish. Res. Inst. UW. Rice, C.A., 2007. Evaluating the biological condition of Puget Sound (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 pp. Ruggiero, P. 2010. Impacts of shoreline armoring on sediment dynamics. Pages 179-186 in H. Shipman, M.N. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, K.L. Fresh, R.S. Dinicola, editors. Puget Sound shorelines and the impacts of armoring—proceedings of a state of the science workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5254. Salo, E. O. and R. E. Noble. 1953. Chum salmon upstream migration. Minter Creek Biological Station Frog. Rep. (Sept. - Oct. 1953). Wash. Dept. Fish., Olympia, WA. Salo, E. O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). In: C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). Pacific Salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Colombia. Seattle Audubon Society. 2010. Puget Sound Seabird Survey site locations. Retrieved from Science Manager Adam Sedgley on April 20, 2010. Seattle Audubon Society. 2009. Puget Sound Seabird Survey Protocol. Retrieved from http: //www. seattleaudubon. org/sas[Portals/0/Science/Puget_Sound_Seabird_Survey/P S S S Protocol_09-10.pdf Seattle Audubon Society. 2008. Bird Web. Retrieved Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Shaffer, J.A., 2001. Macroalgae blooms and nearshore habitat and resources of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In Proceeding, Puget Sound Research. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 15 ,Shipman, H. 2010. The geomorphic setting of Puget Sound: implications for shoreline erosion and the impacts of erosion control structures. Pages 19-34 in H. Shipman, M.N. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, K.L. Fresh, R.S. Dinicola, editors. Puget Sound shorelines and the impacts of armoring—proceedings of a state of the science workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5254. Shipman, H., MacLennan, A. & Johannessen, J. 2014. Puget Sound feeder bluffs: coastal erosion as a sediment source and its implications for shoreline management. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Publ. 414-06-016. Simenstad, Charles A., 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad, Charles A., Coordinator. 1998. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Sullivan, B.L., C.L. Wood, M.J. Iliff, R.E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S. Kelling. 2009. eBird: a citizen -based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation 142: 2282-2292. Taylor, W. S. and W. S. Willey. 1997. Port of Seattle fish mitigation study: Pier 64/65 short -stay moorage facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beak Consultants. Wallace, JR_ 2007. Update to the status of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) off the U.S. West Coast in 2007, Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. Warrington, P. D. 1999. Impacts of outboard motors on the aquatic environment. www.nalins,oj-p,tbclss/ii-nl)acLsreematiotiboat.htm Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory, Appendix One, Puget Sound Stocks, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Volume, Olympia Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2018. Priority Habitats and Species report. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2018. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fishenes/sasi/ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC). February 10, 2005. Memorandum report: 2004 Progress report on Hood Canal summer chum salmon. 15 p. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Tribes. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock hiventory, Appendix One Puget Sound Stocks, South Puget Sound Volume. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Washington State Conservation Commission. 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors. Water Resources Inventory Area 6, Island County. Watson, G. and Toth, S., 1994. Limiting factors analysis for salmonid fish stocks in the Plum Creek habitat conservation plan (HCP) area. December, 14, p.1994. WECY (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. Coastal Atlas map reports. Available at: littps://fortress.wa.gov/ccy/coastalatlas/tools/Ma ).apx .Olympia, Washington. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 16 Weinheimer, J., 2016. Duckabush Summer and Fall Chum Salmon 5 Year Review: Brood Year 2010- 2014. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. FPA, pp. 16-03.Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, WA. Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, WA. Wiles, G. J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp. Williams, G.D., Levin, P.S. and Palsson, W.A., 2010. Rockfish in Puget Sound: An ecological history of exploitation. Marine Policy, 34(5), pp. 1010-1020. Williams, G.D., R.M. Thom, J.E. Starkes, J. S. Brennan (Ed.), and others. 2001. Reconnaissance assessment of the state of the nearshore ecosystem: Eastern shore of central Puget Sound, including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA Williams, G. D., R M. Thom, D. K. Shreffier, J. A. Southard, L. K. O'Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V 1. Cullman, R Moursund, and M. Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure - Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon: Field Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 17 Figure 1. Vicinity Map Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 18 Site address: 214 Nebel Dr. Se uim, WA 98382 Project: Replace boat ramp and bulkhead Applicant: Nikki & Eric Zimmerman Coordinates: N 48.3195930, Page 1 of 3 Mailing: 214 Nebel Dr. W 122.54313310 Sequim, WA 98382 County: Jefferson Date: 7/23/2019 Water bod : Discover Bay Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 18 Figure 2. Action Area Map Figure 3. Critical Habitat Map Legend Action Area (0.5 mi) U., Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat M Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat 1=1 Parcels EIII Nearshore Rockrish Critical Habitat — Puget Sound Steelhead Bull Trout Critical Habitat Puget Sound Chinook Nearshore Critical Habitat © Chum Salmon WA State Nit— a�1. sVryt. A GooJe lmagerl 02016 Diural Globeu S N (MUgiwl 'Suivv7 'k r Oitical Habitat Nap 214 Nchcl Dr. and 433 Bachelor Rd. Sequin, lla 98382 Q1 v NJ:F.iRYrw Lunm.mun figum Ltmeh ginvahV2 oral rr�`41uw Dia, it: u723R0 Iv r7 D,—,,ac 1BJ Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 19 Figure 4. Site Plan Overview Figure 5. Bulkhead Overview Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 20 Figure 6. Cross Section Overview -91, 'NpII W OW.. lural...... Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 21 1�• ++jl Vii• . . i — — L; •-. e. l{ +,J.-.� =�1.1. .a_. d�_........ r.. — L��r f• `.i j .. e ' f.•+. _ 13y, 1G . _. li� ers- ._ _M - ALE ' r, ,._: ,4� - �t1 A")N u, --- l,i[A a, 0. W..111. �. 1, �n N. I� 0,-atn ► w�- �.,,:: 'di -91, 'NpII W OW.. lural...... Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 21 Figure 7. Forage Fish Map (Arrow is Project Site) —P ., V..y� �a — —1 ii. cii ly apawiy eie , eii iiy VI—P-1— uuiu n_y aye , nu uie I—ye n— 31114 spawning sed n)ey beaches in Washington State. Washington Department of Natuial Resources Aquatics Division f Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife I These data were collected by>.YDFW staff with contributions From the North Olympic Salmon Coalition and the Fnends of the San loans. I USDA FSA, DigltalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics Figure 8. Dept. of Ecology 2012 Quality Assessment (303[d]) Listings (Arrow is Project Site) I- xvs xreva. cem.kI- —I, mcn MI �t —v— av Assessed Waters7Sediment Water V Category 5 - 303d V Category 4C ililjoli Category 4B 4W Category 4A Category 2 y Category 2 Seciment OM Category 5 - 303d M Category 4C �Z4 Category 4B Category 4A �,- Category 2 ® Ca!eyory 1 t WQ Standards Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 22 Figure 9. FEMA Floodplain Map National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette *FEMA Legelta ��mue IMu .wwe 1 R.nr, IIMI � I1SA90AMN �e•¢••IwMe. 0 250 500 l.UUO 1.500 2,000 0.d!'.L Anneal Chanm Flepd Naeerd, Arta¢ M SM mMrel Glnrce flood MN MY.Yn6e dpplh lec6tren p,e mwdr rdtn artlrc�e Rb¢ w Cuban wit10,61% A—i fnurwe I— Nesll Nee h Redurwd L_;., clueW e I'ASM _. LAer:. Sea Naw. �.+• O NAiAdlil �y�NbrwiN fbpA RNh Cue [p Lmser •-n. ®Arm al MMlnlal fkdd N6tard +�_. Q wrw !. LRMRe IERAFWf AmadICMN IMM FWdHMldr.ed dENERAL '—__ Chhmel, Cu%mS or 9lerm Bewes rrdCxl:Rs_ti •I frill V -[e Ohe c•fNW.ni CrvfaS w.withl%ArmletCh— ,� Neftel Treiber¢ UFHi- ._. EY¢e FhrC fleretlen Lirc(8Fp rnr t!'.Ner FEAT91Rd IydM�lWdp knwm UdW W10 Awlbhle rill. nei l,Nn e,rWr _{ Ao-prwnc uenhpped ""� xrom�er_ro.rdm r.a.u,d nppmamere pulnuelm¢d q rhe urn andd ,,:. np[ reprwem hls MapmWl whh Fv . elenderde rer N,e use ur I9 W flood mepi R It la n..M es meehlred hebr hehseMepe h whhplfe h IEMA'e he_Wd «vrrysteMbdr M RACE heard MIOA,blidn d M,iwd O Olh hf Nle �Md.—I NFIB_raha '.. Drb hY' FFMIr lhl a Map m T.E eapared- V.1.dd9 m W—and dma rcL elks c�N,ge1I afneh6h— suafequenl m IN, —ehd me me NFlland ellxtlra rAdrmetbn meTdhenge or «nme aaperretled q rcw Celnery li,ae, ^b Cd nu: wv.rr. erMmm umte�f furl rt�aww _gegd,orale br. dale,1p�Idandhm IM peN WGn, nHIM MBEVS MO. MdNe{r 101 ,mapped arc r�nmdebd,ar emd6 ewMat de ¢fled a b flulabry puryuxa Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 23 Attachment 1. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment A. Background The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the relevant species. According to the MSA, EFH means "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For the Pacific West Coast, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) has designated EFH for federally managed groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC 1998b) and Pacific salmon fisheries (PFMC 1999). The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize of otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH. B. Identification of EFH The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high-water line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California, seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border PFMC, 1999). C. Proposed Action The details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the BE. The project consists of removing failing boat ramp and replacing it with a smaller footprint; as well as replacing a bulkhead above MHHW. D. Effects of the Proposed Action The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects Analysis section of the attached BE. The project may have minor temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for Pacific coast salmon and groundfish due to turbidity impacts resulting from ramp removal and replacement. E. EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures contained in the BE will be implemented to minimize any possible adverse effects to EFH. F. Conclusion The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish, Pacific salmonids in the form of refuge and prey inputs. Due to the boat ramp being a replacement within the intertidal zone, no new permanent adverse effects on EFH will occur. The project will have positive impacts on EFH by: • Removal of derelict boat ramp • Replacement boat ramp in a smaller footprint Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 24 The site is in PSNERP shoreline process unit 1013, which has a recommendation of "Protect High" for the project area. "Protect High" is defined as "high potential sites that are minimally degraded and indicate substantial opportunities to protect large complex systems". The boat ramp replacement extends the lifetime of the boat ramp present on the beach; however, as stated previously, approximately 512 square feet of intertidal zone will be returned to pre -construction state. G. Additional References Ccreghino, P., Toft, J., Simenstad, C., Iverson, E., Campbell, S., Behrens, C., Burke, J., 2012. Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound (Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project No. Technical Report 2012-01). Lestelle, L., 2015. Guidance for Prioritizing Salmonid Stocks, Issues, and Actions for the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Biostream Environmental. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999). PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998). PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998). Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 25 Attachment 2. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: Boat ramp replacement Applicant: Nikki and Eric Zimmerman COE reference: NMFS reference: unknown at this time The Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) determined essential to the conservation of salmon are: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Does not apply, project is in the marine environment. Effects to PBF: None (2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, logjams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Does not apply, project is in the marine environment. Effects to PBF: None (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Existing Conditions: Does not apply, project is in the marine environment. Effects to PBF: None (4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh -and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: As noted in the Habitat Survey, the intertidal area includes macroalgae that occurs on already -modified intertidal habitat. There is documented forage fish breeding in the project area. Effects to PBF: The project will create minor, temporary impacts during construction that may include localized increased turbidity and noise, which may cause short-term avoidance of the area by the listed fish species. (5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: See 3 and 4 above. Effects to PBF: The project occurs within the current footprint. The project will not additionally obstruct the nearshore marine habitat. (6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the site is in a nearshore marine environment Effects to PBF: None Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect critical habitat" Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 26 Attachment 3. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whales The Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) determined essential to the conservation of Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) are: (1) Water quality to support growth and development; Existing Conditions: In the action area, Category 2 water quality for sediment (benzoic acid), and Category 1 for sediments (Figure 8) exists according to the Department of Ecology. Effects to PBF: Localized impacts associated with demolition on site will cause localized, short term increased turbidity. (2) Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth, reproduction, and development as well as overall population growth; Existing Conditions: The boat ramp replacement is within a smaller footprint than the existing boat ramp, with — 100 square feet being reintroduced as species habitat. No new effects to prey species would occur except for potential short-term impacts associated with demolition and construction, which will occur in the dry to minimize impacts. Effects to PBF: None (3) Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging. NMFS is gathering data to assist it in evaluating sound as a potential PBF. Existing Conditions: SRKW sightings in Discovery Bay are more rare than Puget Sound; however, the species have access to the water body. The current boat ramp does not impede SRKW movement and foraging, neither will the new ramp with its reduced footprint and nearshore location. Effects to PBF: None, work will occur at low tide in the dry to minimize impacts. Determination of Effect: May affect, not likely to adversely affect critical habitat Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 27 Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish The Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) determined essential to the conservation of Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish are: (1) Water quality to support growth and development; Existing Conditions: The project site is located in Discovery Bay. In the action area, Department of Ecology's 303(d) list lists Category 2 water quality for sediment (benzoic acid), and Category I for sediments (Figure 8). Effects of the Action: The proposed project will have a brief and localized impact on water quality due to turbidity impacts caused by removal of the existing boat ramp and installation of the new boat ramp. (2) Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth, reproduction, and development as well as overall population growth; Existing Conditions: There is documented sand lance and Pacific herring spawning at the site. There is no woody debris on the beach. Benthic habitats or sites deeper than 30m (98ft) are present (further from the shoreline) and adjacent to areas of complex bathymetry. These areas consist of rock and or highly rugose habitat are essential to conservation because these features support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities by providing the structure for rockfish to avoid predation, seek food and persist for decades. Several attributes of these sites determine the quality of the habitat and are useful in considering the conservation value of the associated feature, and whether the feature may require special management considerations or protection. These attributes are also relevant in the evaluation of the effects of a proposed action in a section 7 consultation if the specific area containing the site is designated as critical habitat. Effects to PBF: The project could have brief and temporary negative impacts on rockfish (prey species for the population) due to brief turbidity and noise resulting from debris removal. (3) Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging. Existing Conditions: See 2 above. Effects to PBF: Due to work being done "in the dry", it is not likely that rockfish will be impacted by boat ramp removal. Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" Conservation Measures: Out of water work shall take place so rockfish are less likely to be in the area. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 28 Attachment 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Hood -Canal Summer -run Chum The Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) determined essential to the conservation of salmon are: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is in the marine environment Effects to PBF: None (2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, logjams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is in the marine environment Effects to PBF: None (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Existing Conditions: Does not apply —the project is in the marine environment Effects to PBF: None (4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh -and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: There is documented surf smelt and herring spawning at the site. There is little to no woody debris on the beach. A boat ramp is present on the project site along with a bulkhead up shore. Waterways are free of obstruction. Effects to PBF: The project will have positive impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions, or water temperature by the removal of debris from the beach and beach nourishment. Water flow will improve, which can cause improvements in water quantity, salinity conditions, or water temperature. (5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: With the exception of the existing boat ramp, nearshore marine areas are free of obstruction, with good water quality and conditions basted on WECY 2015. Effects to PBF: See 4 above (6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the site is in a nearshore marine environment Effects to PBF: None Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect critical habitat" Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 29 Attachment 6. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound Bull Trout The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout (Salvelinus con, fluentus) are: (1) Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 OF (0 to 22 °C) but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 OF (2 to 15 °C). These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence. Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from designation. Existing Conditions: The project is in a marine environment — Discovery Bay. Streams populated with bull trout are not present near the action area. Department of Ecology's 303(d) list data does not include temperature data near the action area. Effects to PBF: Not applicable (2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in -stream structures. Existing Conditions: Does not apply — the project is in the marine environment Effects to PRF: See 1 above (3) Substrates of sufficient size and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young -of -the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter. Existing Conditions: Some fine sand is found at the project site, however the most abundant sediment type is gravel. Effects to PBF: See 1 above (4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout, or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation: This rule finds that reservoirs currently operating under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides management for PCEs as currently operated. Existing Conditions: See 1 above Effects to PBF: See 1 above. (5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity as a cold -water source. Existing Conditions: See 1 above Effects to PBF: The project will have no impacts on springs, seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface water at the site. (6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows. Existing Conditions: There has been documented surf smelt spawning at the site. There is no submerged large wood at the site. There is no woody debris on the beach. Effects to PBF: The project has been designed to minimize impacts on foraging and migratory habitat. Approximately 100 square feet will be reintroduced as intertidal habitat by the partial removal of a failing boat ramp. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 30 (7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macro invertebrates, and forage fish. Existing Conditions: See 6 above. Effects to PBF: See 6 above. (8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited. Existing Conditions: See 1 above Effects to PBF: See 1 above Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 31 Appendix 1: Habitat Report and Map � art 1' 5 OR lr � s 360-385-4073 380 Jefferson Street msa@marinesurveysandassessments.com Port Townsend WA 98368 "m 's- [� 5 S'� Zimmerman Habitat Report — Boat Ramp A SCUBA survey was performed on August 9, 2018 (partly cloudy, sunny) from approximately 10:50 am to 1:10 pm at the project site located at 214 Nebel Dr. and 433 Bachelor Rd. Sequim, WA 98382. Bryan De Caterina and Griffin Hoins from Marine Surveys & Assessments used SCUBA to run transects in the area of a proposed boat ramp replacement to identify flora, fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information relative to the proposed project. Water visibility was approximately 15 feet. Boat ramp transects were approximately 200 feet long, perpendicular to shore, and surveyed from the baseline along the MHHW line. Spacing between transects was variable. Transect locations can be seen on the Habitat Survey Map. The area of the survey ranged in elevation from MHHW along the shoreline to -2.5' MLLW and was characterized by cobble, pebble, and some areas with sand. The following macroalgae was observed in the area of the boat ramp survey: Ulva 20-80%, Fucus 5-10%, Sargassum 5%, Saccharina 5-10%, Chondracanthus 5%, and foliose red algae 5-15%. Foliose reds include Gracilaria, Sarcodiotheca, Prionitis. No other macroalgae was observed at the boat ramp location. No eelgrass was observed at the site. Please note the depths in this report are for reference only can have an error of +/- 1 ft and should not be used for engineering purposes. Transect 1 Distance (Ft) Tldai itlong, Elevation Substrate and Macrnalgac transect (Corrected to Other Featuresfrom Noted (estimated % cover) ha.seline Ft MLLW} 0 Cobble, pebble --- 55 Cobble, pebble Ulva 80%; foliose red algae 15%. 110 Cobble, pebble Ulva 80%; foliose red algae 15%. 142 2.0 Cobble, pebble Ulva 80%; foliose red algae 15%. 166 1.0 Cobble, pebble Ulva 50%. 185 0.0 Cobble, pebble Ulva 50%. 203 -1.0 Cobble, pebble Ulva 20%. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 32 Transect 2 Distance (Ft) Tidal Tidal along Elevation Substrate and Macroalgae transect (Corrected to Other Features (estimated %cover) from Ft MLLR� Noted (estimated %cover) baseline Ft MLLE Noted 0 Cobble, pebble --- 58 Cobble, pebble Ulva 80%; foliose red algae 10%. 95 Cobble, pebble, sand Ulva 80%; foliose red algae 10%. 116 2.0 Cobble, pebble, sand Ulva 80%. 145 1.0 Cobble, pebble, sand Ulva 50%; Chondracanthus 5%. 168 0.0 Cobble, pebble, sand Ulva 50%; Satgassum 5%; Saccharina 5%. 204 -1.0 Cobble, pebble, sand Ulva 20%. Transect 3 Distance (Ft) Tidal along Elevation Substrate and Macroalgae transect (Corrected to Other Features (estimated %cover) from Ft MLLE Noted baseline 0 Cobble, pebble - - 20 Cobble, pebble Ulva 50%. 44 Cobble, pebble Ulva 60%. 46 Cobble, pebble Ulva 60%; Chondracanthus 5%; foliose red algae 10%. 70 Cobble, pebble Ulva 60%; foliose red algae 10%. 108 1.9 Cobble, pebble Ulva 50%; Chondracanthus 5%; foliose red algae 10%. 143 0.9 Cobble, pebble Ulva 20%; Sargasoum 5%; Saccharina 5%; Chondracanthus 5%, foliose red algae 10%. 170 -0.1 Cobble, pebble Ulva 20%; Sargasoum 5%, Saccharina 5%; Chondracanthus 5%, foliose red algae 10%. 189 -1,1 Cobble, pebble Ulva 20%; Sargasoum 5%; Saccharina 5%; Chondracanthus 5%, foliose red al ae 101;o- 204 Cobble, pebble Ulva 20%; Sargasoum 5%; Saccharina 5%; Chondracanthus 5%, foliose red al ae 10%. Transect 4 Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 33 Distance (Ft) Tidal along Elevation Substrate and Macrval�ae tr.�nxect (Corrected to Other Features [estimated % cover) from Ft MLLW) Rioted baseline 0 Cobble, pebble -- 37 Cobble, pebble Ulva 60%, foliose red algae 10%. 78 1.8 Cobble, pebble Ulva 60%; foliose red algae 10%. 105 0.8 Cobble, pebble Ulva 50%; Chondracanthus 5%; foliose red algae 10%. 129 -0.2 Cobble, pebble Ulva 50%; Sargassum 5%; Saccharina 5°%; Chondracanthus 5%; foliose red algae 10%. 153 -1.2 Cobble, pebble Ulva 50%; Sargassum sum 5%; Saccharina 5°%; Chondracanthus 5%; foliose red algae 10%. /° 168 Cobble, pebble Ulva 20%; Sargassum 5%; Saccharina 5%; Chondracanthus 5%; foliose red algae 10•x°. Transect 5 Distance (Ft) Tidal along Elevation Substrate and Mncroalt;ae transect [Corrected to Other lieafures [estimated % cover) frnm Ft MI�LVI+) Noted baseline 0 Cobble, pebble --- 39 Cobble, pebble Ulva 60%; foliose red algae 10%. 68 1.7 Cobble, pebble Ulva 60%; foliose red algae 10%. 98 0.7 Cobble, pebble Ulva 40%; Sargassum 5%; Saccharina 10%; foliose red al a 10%. 119 -0.3 Cobble, pebble Ulva 40%; Sargassum 5%; Saccharina 10%; foliose red al a 10%. 142 -1.3 Cobble, pebble Ulva 40%; Sargassum 5%; Saccharina 10%; Chondracanthus 5%, foliose red algae 10%. 152 Cobble, pebble Ulva 40%; Sargassum 5%; Saccharina 10%; Chondracanthus 5%; foliose red algae 10%. Zimmerman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 34 Attachment 2: Habitat Map Zimmerman Boat Ramp 214 Nebel Dr. Sequim, WA 98382 Habitat Survey Results ^\ Suf=u UA'O Vdtu;Tkola 002341042 � A Legend Tax Parcels Est MH HW & ©oat Ramp Shoreline Transect Est Depth (ft MLLW)' = Saccharina: 1-10°/k Cover Total % Cover Vegetation (incl- Ulva) 1-10 ' 11-25 M 26- 7e .76 -105 402341009 =D37-15 150 225 300 f=eet Service Layer Cr diL S-ree Esn, D,gilnl C'ohu, G—Eye Eadh,tar Geographic, CNESW,b- DS USDA USES A—GRIP, IGN, and the GIS User Co--dy'The deplhsshown — far ref-- only and ran have an erreruf +:-one Feat: Uiny should not he used ter engineedng purmsec Zitmierman Boat Ramp and Bulkhead Replacement 35