The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP2013-00051 - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 07 2014 Douglas Stream Restoration Project Biological Evaluation Reference Number NWS-2o14-46 July 25, 2014 C CC _ V (E SEP 2 4 2014 Prepared for - S Prepared COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Kathleen and Reimer Doug as 101 Wampam Point Road Quilcene, WA 98376 • f t. f ,1 10/11t. 4111.0441,s Cl �~ ( / / . f S 1JSSN� ;, '' MARINE SURVEYS Et ASSESSMENTS 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 385-4073 marine.surveys.inc®gmait.com Table of Contents I. Project information- nature and intensity A. Project location 4 B. Project description 4 C. Action area 4 II. Listed species and habitats A. Endangered Species Act listed species of concern 5 B. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species 8 III. Project impacts A. Current state of Wampam Point Spit 9 B. Physical and biological effects of proposed restoration 9 C. Jefferson County shoreline restoration goals 10 D. Direct construction impacts 10 E. Native plant relocation plan 1 1 F. Monitoring and contingency plan 1 1 G. Indirect/interdependent effects 12 H. Take analysis 12 I. Determination of effect 12 IV. References 14 Figures 1. Project location 17 2. Pre-dredge aerial and satellite photographs 18 3. Post-dredge aerial and satellite 19 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 2 4. Parcel ownership at Wampam Point 20 5. Site plan: Vicinity map 21 6. Site plan: Overhead view 22 7. Site plan: Proposed ditch and berm profiles 23 8. Southeast Jefferson County drift cell mapping 24 9. Overview of stream terminus changes from 2006-2011 25 10. Site photograph of current stream terminus 26 11. Upstream photographs 27 12. Restoration planting plan 28 13. Location of proposed monitoring transects 29 Attachment 1: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List 30 Attachment 2: Essential fish habitat assessment 32 Attachment 3: Assessment of impacts to critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook 34 Attachment 4: Assessment of impacts to Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat. 36 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 3 I. Project information A.Project location: Section 19,Qtr Section SE1/4,Township 27N,Range 1W. 101 Wampum Point Road,Quilcene,WA.98376 Latitude N 47.815845 Longitude W 122.849508 The project location is seen in Figure 1. B.Project description:the proposed project is to restore a stream that has been re-directed via dredging to near its natural,original channel.Prior to dredging in 2008,the unnamed stream terminated on tideland on Wampam Point in Quilcene,WA.It now terminates in a dredged channel approximately 130' north of this location(Figures 2-3). According to a report prepared by NTI Engineering for the proponents,Kathleen and Reimer Douglas,the effects of dredging have included stress to the existing shellfish beds,diminished access to community tidelands on the nearby spit,and development of unsightly upland on the Douglas property and the tidelands adjacent to the stream extension(NTI 2011).These changes have led the proponents to propose mitigating the negative effects of the dredging by returning the stream to near its former(pre-dredge)course,ending on Jefferson County property. To understand the context for the proposed action,it is necessary to consider the recent history of the project area. From the 1970's to the early 1990's,the Wampam Point area was used as a log staging facility(NTI 2011).In 1998,the East Bay Residential Community was created as a collection of single-family homes with jointly held community tideland access.The Douglas parcel,as well as a neighboring parcel owned by John and Carol Gusoskey,is in the aforementioned East Bay Residential Community(Figure 4).The community is bordered to the south by the unnamed stream,which crosses both the Gusoskey parcel(to the north of the stream)and a parcel owned Robert and Janet Palmer(to the south of the stream). In 2008,an emergency JARPA permit for a stream rerouting operation was issued to the Gusoskeys by the Washington department of Fish&Wildlife,for the stated purpose of flood control on the Gusoskey and Palmer properties(Control No. 115558-1;issued 12/12/2008). The re-directed stream now runs north parallel to a bulkhead on the Gusosky property.It is this action that has led to the aforementioned damage to the tidelands and surrounding upland areas. The current project proposes to restore restoring pre-2008 stream contours as closely as possible.The restoration will occur entirely on Jefferson County Tideland property.To re-route this stream to its original east-west direction and contour,a small east-west channel will be excavated and backed with a small berm(Figures 5-7).The amount of material which will be excavated to form the new stream is approximately 11 cubic yards.The excavated channel bottom width will be 4 ft.,and the depth will be approximately 1.5 ft.(Figures 6-7). The excavated material will be used to create a 1-2'tall berm along the entire length of the new stream channel.To complete this berm, approximately 9.5 additional cubic yards of material will be"scalped"from the area north of the proposed channel and berm. The"scalp"area is the currently existing berm created in the 2008 dredging event. Scalping 9.5 cubic yards of material from this berm will allow for regular tidal inundation of the eastern side of the spit;this area has been`cut off from regular tidal exchange by the existing tall berm and as a result supports upland vegetation uncharacteristic of an intertidal area.Providing tidal exchange will allow the eastern edge of the spit to gradually regain an intertidal(as opposed to upland)nature. C.Action area: As a habitat restoration action,the consideration of impacts must include both short term construction related impacts as well as long term changes to local physical and biological processes. Short-term construction related impacts for consideration include turbidity and noise.The long-term physical effects of restoration on sediment drift and beach erosion,as well as the biological effects on shellfish,forage fish,and other Endangered Species Act or WDFW priority species and habitats should be considered.The action area for should MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 4 include the area within a one half-mile radius of the project site.Finally,the suitability of this restoration action as it applies to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program restoration goals should also be considered. II. Listed species and habitats Endangered Species Act listed species of concern A range of fish,marine mammal,and bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act may occur,or have critical habitat,within the proposed action area.The listing status,presence of species and critical habitat in the area,and relevant life history traits of each listed species are presented below. Puget Sound Chinook:The Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)is listed under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)as threatened according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Vol. 70,No. 123/ Tuesday,June 28,2005/Rules and Regulations).In addition,NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs)of West Coast salmon,including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The project site 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). The project site is located in WRIA 17.According to the Washington State Conservation Commission,Chinook salmon"are not found in WRIA 17 in abundant numbers as spawners and,when found,are either the result of hatchery production or straying"(WSCC 2002).However, fall-run Chinook have been identified in the Big Quilcene River,which empties into the project action area(WDFW 2013a). Relevant life history:Puget Sound Chinook,also called king salmon,are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size.Most chinook in the Puget Sound are"ocean-type"and migrate to the marine environment during their first year(Myers et al. 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. 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 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). In the impact area,Hood Canal summer run chum spawn in the Big Quilcene River,across Quilcene Bay from Wampam Point. Spawning also occurs in the Little Quilcene River,just north of the project site and impact area. The Big/Little Quilcene River summer Chum are considered a separate stock in the WDFW/Tribal summer chum recovery plan(WDFW/PNPT 2000). Between 2002-2012,total escapements from the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers have ranged from a low of approximately 2000 spawners in 2010 to a high of approximately 38,000 spawners in 2004(WDFW 2013c). Relevant life history:In Puget Sound,Chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams.In Hood Canal,the summer-run stocks spawn from early-September to mid-October(WDFW 1994). Chum(along with ocean-type Chinook)spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon (Dorcey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982).Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average residence of 24 days(Simenstad 1998).Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around eelgrass beds(harpacticoid copepods,gammarid amphipods and isopods),but change their diet to drift insects and plankton MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 5 IIII such as calanoid copepods,larvaceans,and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50-60 mm. (Simenstad et al. 1982). Puget Sound Steelhead:NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)as a threatened species under the ESA(Federal Register/Vol.72,No.91 /Friday,May 11,2007/Rules and Regulations).No critical habitat has yet been determined for the Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment,and the site is not included in the proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead(Federal Register/Vol.78,No.9/Monday, January 14,2013/Proposed Rules). Winter-run Puget Sound steelhead are present in the Big Quilcene River(WDFW 2013b).These steelhead belong to the Quilcene/Dabob Bay Winter Steelhead population,which has low escapement(generally<40 fish/year)and is has been given an"unknown"status by WDFW(2013c). Relevant life history:steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species O. mykiss. The freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again,unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean,where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington streams. Bull Trout: Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)in 1999(Federal RegisterNol.64,No.210/Monday,November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations). The project site is not located on a shoreline designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register/Vol.75,No. 200/Monday,October 18,2010/Rules and Regulations). According to WDFW,bull trout have a documented presence in Big Quilcene creek(2013a).However,the most recent stock assessment of WA bull trout/Dolly Varden noted that"none have been trapped in the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery in recent years,nor have any been observed in recent snorkel surveys... Consequently,we do not believe that there in is a distinct bull trout/Dolly Varden stock in the Big Quilcene River"(WDFW 2004). Any bull trout in the project area are likely to be only erratic and occasional visitors to the Big Quilcene River. Relevant life history:coastal Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea.Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations)takes place in the spring.Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival.Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and 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). Rockfish:NOAA has listed the distinct population segments(DPSs)of yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered(Federal RegisterNol. 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. In addition,NOAA has recently proposed to designate shallow water critical habitat for juvenile boccahio and canary rockfish(Federal RegisterNol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday,August 6,2013/ Proposed Rules). The effects of this project on adult rockfish are expected to be minimal,if they occur at all,because adult rockfish are commonly found in much deeper water than exists at the project site. If juvenile or pelagic rockfish are present, MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 6 the direct and indirect effects of this project are expected to be similar to those discussed in this document for salmon because juveniles are found closer to shore in shallow waters. However,the project is not located in the proposed shallow water critical habitat for juvenile boccahio and canary rockfish. Relevant life history:Bocaccio,canary,and yelloweye rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles.As juveniles they settle to benthic environment. They prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas(Love et al.2002).As the three species grow larger they move into deeper waters.Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats.Yelloweye rockfish are commonly found at depths from 300'to 590'. Canary rockfish usually habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160' and 820'(Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations.).All three species are opportunistic feeders,with their prey dependent on their life stage.Predators of the adults of these species include marine mammals,salmon,other rockfish,lingcod and sharks. Marbled Murrelet:Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992.There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site(WDFW 2013a,NOAA 2013). Relevant life history:marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(WDFW 1993).Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance,sea perch,Pacific herring,surf smelt,other small schooling fish and invertebrates. Humpback Whale: NMFS has listed the humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales in Washington at this time. Humpback whales were seen in Dabob Bay-which Quilcene Bay empties into-in January and February of 2012 according to the Orca Network(Orca Network 2012).However,the Orca Network newsletter said the organization couldn't recall a report of a humpback whale ever being seen in that area. Relevant life history:Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound,even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982). Steller Sea Lion:NMFS has listed the Eastern distinct population segment(DPS)of the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)as a threatened species that may occur in Puget Sound(Federal Register/Vol 55,No.227/ Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations). NMFS has,however,recently proposed to remove the eastern DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife(Federal Register/Vol.77,No. 75/Wednesday, April 18,2012/Proposed Rules). According to WDFW,no Steller sea lions have been identified in the project area(WDFW 2013a). Relevant life history: Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska.Breeding colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon(Osborne et al. 1988).There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the area(Jeffries et al.2000), although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May)where their visits are transitory. Leatherback Sea Turtle:NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.There is no designated critical habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Washington at this time. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 7 Relevant life history:There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,even though they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994). They are rarely seen in Puget Sound(McAllister,pers. comm.).Again, it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found near the project site. Southern Resident Killer Whales: On November 15,2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca)as endangered under ESA(Federal Register,Vol. 70,No.222,November 18,2005/Rules and Regulations).NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water."(Federal Register/ Vol.71,No.229/November 29,2006/Final Rule). The proposed project is not within Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat.In a review of Southern Resident habitat use,NMFS found no confirmed sightings inside the Hood Canal from 1990-2003 (Federal Register/Vol. 71,No.229/Wednesday,November 29,2006/Rules and Regulations). Since 2003,all killer whale sightings in Hood Canal appear to be of transient killer whales. Northern Spotted Owls: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has listed the Northern Spotted Owl as a threatened species(Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 123/Tuesday,June 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations). In addition,USFWS has designated critical habitat for Northern Spotted Owls that includes forestland near Quilcene Bay(Federal Register/Vol.57,No. 10/Wednesday,January 15, 1992/Rules and Regulations). According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps,the action area includes Northern Spotted Owl management buffer land(WDFW 2013a).However,because the proposed action occurs on the shoreline and out of forested land,no Northern Spotted Owl habitat will be directly affected by the proposed action. Relevant life history:Northern Spotted Owls are a medium size owl in the family Strigidae and are native to western North America.These birds inhabit primarily old growth forests and some younger forest in the southern part of their range.The range of the Northern Spotted Owl extends on the Pacific coast from southern British Columbia to northern California. In addition to fragmentation and loss of old growth forest,the recent invasion of the non-native Barred Owl has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(USFWS 2004). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitats and species According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,a number of priority fish,marine invertebrate, marine mammal,and bird species are found within the 0.5 mile action area. In addition to the ESA-listed fish species previously noted within the action area,coast resident cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)and pink salmon(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)have been found in Big Quilcene Creek (WDFW 2013a).Forage fish, including sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus)and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus), may also be found in the action area. These fish are an important food source for a variety of consumers such as migrating salmon and bald eagles.According to WDFW,there is no "documented" forage fish spawning activity at the site,but it is in an area that has been designated as a potential forage fish spawning habitat.There is documented surf smelt spawning habitat approximately 2100 feet south of Wampam Point.Documented sand lance spawning beaches are located approximately 4200 feet south of Wampam Point.(WDFW 2013b).None of the above species have Federal or State concerned,threatened, or endangered status. Priority marine invertebrate species within the action area include Dungeness crab(Metacarcinus magister), pandalid shrimp species,and oyster species,none of which are recognized by the State or Federal government to have concerned,threatened,or endangered status(WDFW 2013a). Priority marine mammal species include the harbor seal(Phoca vitulina),which has a haulout site within the action area(WDFW 2103a).Harbor seals have no Federal concerned,threatened, or endangered status but are a State "monitored"species. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 8 Finally,priority bird species include the bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus).Breeding habitat is present within the action area(WDFW 2013a).Bald eagles are listed as a Federal species of concern and a State sensitive species. III. Project Impacts The proposed restoration of the unnamed stream at Wampam Point is a complex action.As such,the project impacts must be assessed on multiple levels.The current state of Wampam Point,and the probable impact that the 2008 stream dredging had on this state,are considered first.The long-term physical and biological effects of the proposed restoration,as well as how these fit into Jefferson County restoration goals,are then considered.Finally, direct construction-related impacts are considered. A.Current state of the Wampam Point Spit: Although no true"before and after"survey of the impacted spit at Wampam Point was done in response to the 2008 Gusoskey dredging operation,it is possible to get a clear view of its impact from aerial imagery and site photography.Photographs taken pre—(May 2006)and post-(September 2011)dredge indicate the change in stream channel.The new terminus is located approximately 130' northward of the pre-dredge terminus(Figures 2- 3,6).This aerial photography also illustrates the changing upland nature of the post-dredge spit,with dense upland vegetation now evident northeast of the stream channel. The new channelized stream has also created a muddy ditch emptying to the north,as opposed to the old meander terminating westward onto the East Bay Community Tidelands/Jefferson County Tidelands(Figures 2-3, 10).This deep channel impedes the Douglas's access to the community tidelands,as well as access for other neighbors to the north of the Gusosky parcel.Finally,this channel and its associated dredge spoil piles above the channel have created an unsightly view from the Douglas property. B.Physical and biological effects of the proposed restoration: It is likely that the unnamed stream was an important source of sediment for the spit at Wampam Point. This spit forms the transition zone between an area of northward sediment drift,which originates at Fisherman's Point on the southeast corner of the bay,and an area of no appreciable sediment drift,which continues through the shallows north of the spit(WSCC 2002,Jefferson County 2008a;Figure 8).The northward sediment drift may have aided in the development of the spit at Wampam Point but may not be sufficient to maintain it.This is likely because Quilcene Bay does not feature strong shoreline sedimentary drift.According to the WSCC,"sediment sources [in Quilcene Bay] are moderate and alongshore,except where rivers and/or streams enter the bay where they become more abundant and fluvial"(2002). In an area of moderate sedimentary drift,the unnamed stream provided a considerable amount of sediment to the spit. The sediment from the stream is now redirected to the shoreline north of the spit,an area with no appreciable nearshore drift(Figure 8). It is probable that this sediment source is simply"lost"to the spit with the current stream orientation.A deep east-west scour has also formed on the spit,as seen in aerial photography(Figure 3).A "notch,"where the spit is eroding at the location of the former stream terminus,is also growing over time.This is clear in satellite photography from before the dredge in 2006 as well as post-dredge in 2009 and 2011 (Figure 9). Further evidence of this loss is the observation by the proponents that previously buried piers from the former logging operation on the spit are becoming exposed.Without the former sediment flow from the unnamed stream, sediment replenishment from south of the spit is evidentially insufficient,on its own,to keep the spit from eroding. Indeed, erosion of Puget Sound spit beaches may be a response to reduction in sediment supply from upland areas (Shipman and Canning 1993). By re-routing the stream to its original terminus,a valuable source of sediment will be restored to the spit. Over time,the reduced sediment input to the spit will likely result in not only a diminished spit,but a diminished habitat for intertidal fish and invertebrate use.The proponents have noted a dying-off of the shellfish beds on community tidelands to the west of the dredge site,which could indicate that the amount of suitable habitat may MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 9 already be decreasing.Many factors impact the success of shellfish,especially in their early stages.According to the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership,"early survival can be impacted by alterations in the conditions of water passing over or through beach sediments, such as in salinity,temperature,sediment load,or pollutants"(Dethier 2006).A major change in flow over the shellfish beds,as caused by the 2008 dredge,may have negatively altered a state that allowed for shellfish persistence. In addition to improving the substrate available for shellfish,restoring the natural stream flow will return detritus and nutrient flow,a likely benefit to these filter-feeding species. Although there is currently no forage fish spawning on the spit,it is listed as"potential"forage fish spawning habitat(WDFW 2013a).Reduced habitat area due to an eroding spit would make forage fish use less likely; restoring habitat on the spit(by restoring the sediment-bearing stream)will provide substrate that may be utilized by forage fish for spawning in the future. C.Jefferson County shoreline restoration goals: As part of its comprehensive Shoreline Master Program update,Jefferson County released a Final Shoreline Restoration Plan in 2008.This plan identifies overall restoration goals for the county as well as specific targets for restoration action.The proposed stream restoration at Wampam Point fits into both of these categories,making it an ideal candidate for consideration as a restoration action. The following Jefferson County goals are especially applicable to the proposed action(from Jefferson County 2008b): •To increase the availability,viability and sustainability of shoreline habitats for salmon,shellfish,forage fish, shorebirds and marine seabirds, and other species; •To improve habitat quality for sensitive and/or locally important species,and support the biological recovery goals for federally protected species; •To encourage cooperative restoration actions involving local,state,and federal public agencies,tribes, NGOs,and private landowners. As the above assessment of the physical and biological effects of the proposed action indicates,it is very likely that restoring natural stream flow will nourish the Wampam Point spit.By restoring sediment to the spit,quality habitat for priority fish and shellfish species will be recovered and promoted. This project would also be a unique collaboration between local agencies and a private landowner.Though the impacts to the spit are largely occurring on East Bay Community Tidelands and Jefferson County Tidelands,the proponents will be covering all costs associated with the permitting and execution of the proposed restoration action. In addition,Jefferson County has also targeted"Restor[ing]natural stream morphology in areas where channelization has occurred"in the WRIA 17 watershed(Jefferson County 2008b).The proposed restoration is a direct action in service of this goal. When residential construction was permitted at the East Bay Residential Community,the unnamed stream was identified as a Type 3 stream(NTI 2011).This categorization includes streams that don't necessarily have a documented fish presence,but are assumed to support fish because they contain suitable habitat(WAC 222 16- 031).Upland of the tidelands,the stream is currently channelized(Figures 10-11).Removing the dredged channel along the tidelands would be an ideal start to a more complete restoration effort.This stream is less than half a mile east of the mouth of the Big Quilcene River,which has Chinook salmon,Hood Canal Summer-run Chum salmon, Steelhead,and bull trout present(WDFW 2013a).As an effort to restore a potential fish-bearing stream,the proposed action is a very appropriate restoration goal. D.Direct construction impacts The direct physical effects of re-dredging the stream are unlikely to immediately reduce or destroy any priority species or habitats.A tracked excavator will be used to create the new channel and backing berm. I will also be used to take material from the 2008 berm to aid in creating the new berm.Movement of the excavator in the upper MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 10 intertidal will cause some beach substrate disruption.As tidal exchange inundates the area,increased turbidity may also occur. The impact level on salmonids depends on duration of exposure,concentration of turbidity,the life stage during the increased exposure,and the options available for fish to avoid the plumes. The effects can be summarized in terms of lethal,sublethal,or behavioral(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 and Simenstad,editor, 1988).The most likely salmonid response to this temporary increase in turbidity would be avoidance of the area.To minimize any negative impacts on migrating salmonids,construction should take place during the work window of July 15 to February 1. E.Native plan relocation plan In addition to the habitat benefits previously discussed in this document,native plant species displaced by the filling and re-contouring of the current stream channel will be salvaged and replanted to the banks of the restored stream channel.These species include dunegrass(Elymus mollis),silver burweed(Ambrosia chamissonis), seashore saltgrass(Distichlis spicata),American glasswort(Salicornia virginica),and Plantain species. See Figure 12 for the restoration planting plan. An as-built drawing and report will be submitted to Jefferson County as documentation of the implementation of the approved replanting plan within one month of installation.The plan will include vegetation description and photo documentation from established photo stations. Monitoring will take place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season(late August or early September)of each monitoring year. The performance standards will be monitored by measuring plots in zones within the planting area that will be established and mapped after planting occurs,on the as-built plan. There will be photo points for each plot and they will be referenced on the as-built plan.Photos will be taken at all points for all years as visual documentation of the performance standards progress,or lack of.Collected data and photos will be compiled into a report for Jefferson County DCD.The report will address whether the performance standards are being met during each monitoring year and if the final end of monitoring period standards are going to be met. Monitoring results will determine whether or not contingency measures will be needed. Percent cover: The percent cover standard will be monitored by looking at each monitoring unit of the removal areas from above and estimating the area covered by invasive species.The percent cover within an area can be quantified as a total greater than 100%because plants(in tree,high/low shrub and herbaceous layers)overlap in cover. Maintenance Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the persistence of all native species within the mitigation area.Hand weeding will be necessary to remove all invasive plants that establish themselves in the removal area. Contingency Plan If a 90%removal rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, invasive plants will be removed to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. F.Monitoring and contingency plan: This restoration project aims to re-direct the existing stream towards its pre-dredge western terminus on the Wampam Point Spit. It also aims to re-open the eastern extent of the spit to tidal exchange. The monitoring and contingency plan addresses both of these goals. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 11 Stream re-direction: work will be done in the summer,when the unnamed stream has little to no flow. Once the fall and winter arrive and stream flow increases,the newly constructed east-west berm will be tested. If the east- west berm is not sufficient to re-direct flow to the west side of the spit,more material will need to be placed along its upper extent during the next available work window. This material will come from the north-south berm created by the 2008 dredge.Because the initial site plan calls for the minimum practical amount of material to be removed, there will still be ample material available. Tidal exchange along the eastern extent of the spit: Once tidal exchange and wave action act on the lowered north-south berm, it is likely that the eastern extent of the spit will return to an intertidal(as opposed to upland) area.If the existing berm is insufficiently lowered,however,the upland area may remain intact due to insufficient tidal exchange. We propose to track the lowering of the original berm over time, and remove more material if,after 2 winters of tidal and wave action,the upland area is not"reconnected"to the intertidal successfully. Prior to the start of work,permanent transects will be established on Jefferson County property.These transects will be marked with rebar stakes driven into the beach on their eastern and western ends. We propose 4 transects, with each encompassing the area just landward of the current channel,the existing berm,and the area just seaward of the existing berm. While the exact location of transects will be decided on-site prior to construction,they will generally run parallel to each other in an east-west direction. See Figure 13 for the approximate locations of transects.Along each transect,4 height measurements will be taken using a surveyor's transit.The transit will be set at a fixed point on the Douglas property.By taking all measurements from a fixed point,the exact location along a given transect can be repeatedly measured over time. We propose monitoring the height of the berm and surrounding area just prior to construction(summer 2014), immediately following construction(summer 2014),and in two successive spring seasons(spring 2015 and spring 2016). If the north-south berm does not lower beyond+8' above MLLW after this time,and the eastern area of the spit still retains substantial upland vegetation,more material removal will be necessary.Because the existing beach profile is approximately+8' above MLLW in the area immediately seaward of the north-south berm(Figure 1),we expect lowering the berm to this beach grade will be sufficient to allow tidal inundation.If this is not the case, however,we propose lowering the berm to approximately+7.0' above MLLW. The maximum amount of material that would be removed from the existing berm to accomplish this would be less than 10 yd3.Any material added to the newly constructed east-west berm will be added at an elevation below the MHHW. G.Interrelated/interdependent effects: Completion of this project will not 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 will occur because of this project. H.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 project. I.Determination of effect: After reviewing the g appropriate data,the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound chinook-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 2.Hood Canal summer run chum-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 12 3. Puget Sound steelhead-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 4. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 5. Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish -"May effect,not likely to adversely affect" 6. Marbled murrelet- "No effect" 7. Humpback whale-"No effect" 8. Steller sea lion-"No effect" 9. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect" 10.Southern Resident killer whale-"No effect" 11.Northern Spotted Owl-"No effect" MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 13 IV. References Angell,T. and K. C.Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle,WA, 146 pp. Bowlby,D.E., G. A. Green and M.L.Bonnell. 1994.Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Dethier,Megan M.2006.Native Shellfish in Nearshore Ecosystems of Puget Sound.Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report Number 2006-04.Published by Seattle District,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle WA. 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. Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 123/Tuesday,June 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 227/Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 57,No. 10/Wednesday,January 15, 1992/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 123 /Tuesday,June 28, 2005/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. 75/Wednesday,April 18,2012/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 9/Monday,January 14,2013/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday,August 6,2013/Proposed Rules Healey,M. C. 1982.Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries:the life support system,pp. 315 -341.In: V.S.Kennedy (ed.),Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Jefferson County,WA. 2008a.Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Mapping.Available: http://www.coj efferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Shorelinelnventory.htm. Jefferson County,WA. 2008b.Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project: 2008 Update. Available: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/shorelineplanning.htm. Jeffries, Steven J.,Patrick J. Gearin,Harriet R. Huber,Don L. Saul and Darrell A.Pruett.2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Wildlife Science Division, Olympia,WA, 150 pp. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 14 Love,M.S.,M.M.Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson.2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific.University of California Press,Berkeley,California. Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope,G. J. Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer,T.C.Wainwright,W. S. Grand,F.W. Waknitz, K.Neely, S.T.Lindley,and R. S.Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington,Idaho, Oregon,and California.U.S.Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Environmental Response Management Application: Puget Sound.2013.Available:http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/environmental-response- management-application-erma/pacific-northwest-erma.html. Nightingale,B.and Charles Simenstad.2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Ecology,and Washington State Department of Transportation,Olympia,WA, 177 pp. NTI Engineering&Land Surveying(NTI).2011. Spit Restoration Alternatives Investigation:Prepared for Kathleen and Reimer Douglas.Port Angeles,WA. Orca Network.2012.February 2012 Sightings Archive.Available: http://www.orcanetwork.org/Archives/index.php?categories_file=Sightings%20Archive%20%20Feb%2012. Freeland,WA. Osborne,R.,J.Calambokidis and E.M.Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers,Anacortes,WA, 191 pp. Rieman,B.E.and J.D.McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S.Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station,Ogden,UT.38 pp. Simenstad,C.A.,K.L.Fresh and E.O. Salo. 1982.The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function,pp.343-364. In V.S.Kennedy(ed.).Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Simenstad,C.A.,(ed.). 1988.Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA,September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad,Charles A.,(ed.). 1998.Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions.University of Washington,Seattle,WA. Shipman,Hugh;Canning,Douglas J., 1993,Cumulative environmental impacts of shoreline stabilization on Puget Sound. IN Magoon,O.T.;Wilson,W. S.;Converse,Hugh;Tobin,L.T.,editors,Coastal zone'93;Proceedings of the 8th symposium on coastal and ocean management:American Society of Civil Engineers,v. 2,p.2233-2242. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Northern Spotted Owl, Five-Year Review:Summary and Evaluation. USFWS,Portland,Oregon.November 2004.Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/pdf/NSO_5-yr_Summary.pdf Washington State Conservation Commission. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors.Water Resources Inventory Area 17,Quilcene/Snow Watershed(2002). 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, WA. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 15 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point No Point Treaty Tribes.2000. Summer Chum Salmon Initiative. 797 pp. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory:Bull Trout/Dolly Varden.449 pp. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013a. Priority Habitats and Species report.Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013b. Salmonscape Interactive Mapping.Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013c. Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine(SCoRE). Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/. Olympia,WA. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 16 A) & North ?N'' " ' — 'Wampam PointSpit Quacene 1 ce t r MI . : y kd R V",.es`.,'+^. Dabob Bay B) V.ampam Pouu spit Figure 1.A) Vicinity Map of location in Quilcene Bay. B)Area map. White circle indicates approximate 1/2 mile radius action area around proposed restoration. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 17 A) M " *' ' ° k .. � c L' � " = &m p u;: to a ,*'Y- ' t-,4--40 ' ** 4* elf it Jo # , * Vt + ..„ � Image C Aa71z1: B) igt t ., +•. 4 ;* .*,c.*4..,yw iii .er" _ s.; ' Figure 2. A) Satellite image of Wampam Point pre-dredge (07/2006). B) Aerial photograph of Wampam Point pre-dredge (05/2006). Note location of stream terminus on tidelands west of Gusoskey Parcel. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 18 A) te ",-"!". f r r . :At • B) Douglas Parcel \Drib ,u,oskey Parcel v p 'v. Figure 3. A) Satellite image of Wampam Point post-dredge (08/2011). B) Aerial photograph of Wampam Point post-dredge (09/2011). Note re-aligned stream orientation running north parallel to Gusoskey bulkhead. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 19 —., . • I ? tre.14 Lo/ E ; 1287.62 GOV'T LOT X 6 GO V'T LOT - • .%. - • .. • 7 .'•'' ' N8T.471'41•1J— — 1— ! LOT D , -............1 -... i 7-041 •■• I p....,0 ■Ix." r..• 0 r1.9214 ACRES ;; r . 1'3 .1". k Pmc. V+ Com- ti; .... ■;g ".a,v" :10 ' it r" ‘ 1J1) ;' 1 ' 0.1.34 11 i I § 11 1 11 ISS.34 4 • - ^It?U ti t, iksj: {14M1 ',I.7 .k1 t.) r .r .-- .i. u. .0' :f, "'ti"■4'. / LOT C 7, 0 „ =-,.... . -67-*S.7i — i 7 ; 8 1.9837 ACRES • •SIVIS•at.t . * n FA•-.. „....-• IG E U °led.C1 1. CJ SO' 100. 20d 3450 I I .4... : I:" ." , 'PlillidUMMJ . < : tr.It\ 1 I LOT B //: A -. MIT 4184 taStneol ISI•ILISIO WI MS KAM Ica•••0■••41‘...... Scowl^ It ,...7 '5,,Tst...1. .5•••••••....., 1.....,-3.A SCALE ; 1" . 100 TIDELANDS i ..P. 2.2097 ACRES t '‘ - ,.I. k‘ • C-, S.O- I,,,,r•-r3.,- , 1 \ TAX 'El' ■S• 10.11.04 ila-37•111•1 • l'.4 tst DI ". 8st. * ,. . . .. •-•a'''..- ,... - ,... .1'.,s' ., rortore.r. 34, t.k L 0 f " 4tdt Slit ot zg" •.:,*-;.., wa1,11tran!-- ,• ". ;„ . i 2719 ACRES / f•• zu - Vii 411. - '■ r■..--, Th......, a (INCLUDES TIDELANDS) -' `• •••• I.kl.. . •• • ........., .4. -..„ I 0..1 ut..1.4,3 rat ar ....iri A ss :::: ...7 -------'-::‘..: :' ... fuel•DO*NU attICJI • Ise\ --.'"4-'- nslarS \-----.:-....... 0!•.tx ,!.erW• ••:'....10M1441- ;C:4 ...---- . 0#0.t.,•.....;...,' • ......,... ... .;---------'.----- .• il,SI 30..53 PORT ION TRACT 3 OF STATE •••f• • . • • , I\ *WV.trt • 1.4S.; OTSER RESERVE PER VOL. 17 \‘• q's I — PAGE 109 Of SURVEYS APN 701 - 194--010 , hketch Is provided, thout ellaige, V your 7i\ / -1-0,cin it .is lot trt- ie43 to show 0 /11441iiirS c"" 1"'"'""'" a id • ' a I g 0 Figure 4.Parcel ownership in the vicinity of Wampam Point. "Lot A"is owned by John and Carol Gusoskey,"Lot B"is owned by Kathleen and Reimer Douglas.The East Bay Community Tidelands are also on"Lot A,"and the remainder of the Wampam Point Spit is located on Jefferson County Tidelands Tax "B"land. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 20 COVER SHEET STREAM RESTORATION FOR KATHLEEN & REIMER DOUGLAS B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A ... i) R2,%, < • a 7t/ 4. V WAHINGTON 0 T i ," a a °S "` UtE 4M$ YN W Q s,.. 00011A 111.414 V 0 VANCOUVER +•- 0 vanAw OREGON 1•160011 LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE r �raa: , i 2z • 7/,8 4 i C ,< , 45910 p Q- CSS/ONAL c. ' VICINITY MAP ®NORTMwESTERN IERRITOR1ES INC 10,4 DATE: 7/18/2014 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION /11PlAi, NTI ENGINEERING � &SURVEYING DRAWN BY ZNS/CR 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD. QUILICENE , . 1, " � ' FOR: -, mw'CMU ca.+ REVIEW:JCW NT/ P a52�.4 DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & T"°°∎"z.4`"8 SHEET 1 OF 3 Figure 5. Site plan: Vicinity map MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 21 y 1 1 ,,. lio ), ° 1a , , / Ilk , , p ,.. , O 1:.!1' e , .!\ no il 4 v. .11, i \410 \.% 4 44r4141.10 V) _l x A , of-i 2�Ar€0 :mA z cN ,. r' 0_ g 0 4 U cqi = rte RI PA /gib r\R p A ii 1 i i / a — oa "4r '� F y 0 0 _ v,� - rte-_�� N m o t� 2 Net ©NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES, INC 2014 DATE: 7/18/2014 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION � ‘ NTI ENGINEERING DRAWN BY. ZNS/CR ' -taw &SURVEYING / 717 SOUTH PEA800Y STREET FOR: 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE 't PORT ANGELES.WA 98382 - WWW NTMU COM REVIEW: JCW DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & REIMER NTI F';801452.891 SHEET 2 OF 3 Figure 6. Site plan: Overhead view. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 22 /° `' \ 1 . ( . | I 1 | $ I . !Mi. ,8 1 § ° 1 Ii ! 0 / 2 \ } / $ \ ƒ F �2 |R 0 |\ � 0 I §| | m ) m \4 i / � / ? ! � m � I @ ® : » * 7 , 1I 0 7 || ) { % . I ( 2 81.-' / � / f 2 m \ . 2 1 I k � t . a 4- 1 -4l . . 7 2� o -4 Vt SAE ?\ , .1111%4 2 .o _ •� ' N �� 66 o / 1 o NORTHWESTERN m_OR INC m. DATE: 7/18/2014 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-§ STREAM RESTORATION «: �IENGINEERING I D�WNe: zsc � &SUS SURVEYING SE 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, OU|HCENE dIt. valor" Awn,POIRJ CO," REVIEW: JCW DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & REIMER NT! ` SHEET J OF J Figure 7. Site plan: pr oposed ditch and berm profiles. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 23 CLAL.AM COUNTY I yv • ( l'''/ • i ; S �t • lT$AP COUNTY 444r4434.444 M+q 444 4 was.44.44 44044..44 44 rH 4. ,, 1. .. .... ysmr ....+.:mow: =FtRSC.N COUNTY ' i 100000111320:0021310210010 .. IASON COUNTY 041.te •v0..p +0.0..40 440.444 444r.4r.e.4.a4 On w.a wr r4nn nr,se?r w*Wq 4,4464 r4. i"AMU 44444 44,44 4,M.044.4,,4NV . c '%4.441. 4.. 44* Ga.44 0444 .444 V.s.1 1vR .44440. • 0 05 t 1 MAP 11 A. M.�^"' y„,-. 0 05 I COASTAL PROCESSES AND MODIFICATIONS- - SOUTHEAST JEFFERSON COUNTY ra r r4r.rerr �',.�lf-1 i�1..�0t�i,�l'r --..., 1-,., ..7........ IwrMwlw.MMwM..r.4.,wc.n is lm JEFFERSON COUNTY SHOREl3NE WPGOI KY r4.sr••Coo*OM M *CI- w�tiar.""'"11014.w.4.ca+•.ar 4+404. Jwu.2008 �5m. 0m oq.11..0bI1C.500! w•rr r m,4' ,0 Figure 8. Southeast Jefferson County Shoreline Mapping Drift Cell Analysis Map. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 24 A) rm-Jrcym xlaaro cnn l B) 1)11.,44ratire,rus., ;,: -f°.•-,,. t.. .. Chwos.-..zy Pacel Psi_ • C) .m1s:ge aasam kamwux Figure 9. Satellite photography showing changing nature of stream terminus from A) July 2006, B) May 2009, and C) August 2011. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 25 , , • 114 • : Vim, "s,.,.r.' Figure 10. Dredged area of unnamed stream near its terminus, looking south. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 26 ' di 4 d, � �, k ' ' V Y 1 ,,*9 { 4'°S)` a .- j C . t yLi es* y' f S � '4. y � � * �.� �a'! ��t S`�erj'�y mow; . . 4 *I 4 F j ?} ,.. .- !4 �� ,a4 r..V.--„wa.y,<.,q.r„ey�....;�+ swwvw-. y� � y! ►,a- y, .ti •`_ � r;Y”..1,:", e-r— .4' ,. "#w a zr - 'F.-t lid r— "° , t+ �i�1_ '� jL� vx 1f: a Ottijr, yC►.P <+S�idk . w. a w♦ v at Figure 11. Channelized nature of unnamed stream upstream of proposed restoration. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 27 ill, ?? , w � if A. I ;ote. .::r„, r :*,,,...,,,,i,:i,,,,,,,, , , ,.. , ,...),,,-c: a.. ,„,..„... r''Im.,,,a)--. .,,i — ' ' ., :. ,V.:-. A, , 1, . ♦T , W --, r ,- Qozma= *'k4iNt / /, <C z/t E g<t■ , .; w w Z• via LDa ' o - • w K,bwa'z r�Z m J �'.� 'y -' O aZOQ r�ij0 kb H Dv xJJ 0 < °w -nZ ( , o H r�u. •-•! a t Figure 12. Restoration Planting Plan 28 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project a^n ki > o's•. �.y a -Z.,,° i .�Es 5„:„,-44% B q -p „� ,..a ' etc,, s u t#xi�y6 ,„, -E e a d 4 r.Y i . er op� o x'?n c . ,., ,,,, ,., - 7 4.77,, "kw' .7 „..74Ak ,Fa 7 k �k s x �t rt ' 7.. ** 2'. s. ' 'iliggr '.'-':' *.4. .'” " 4 lilt*4 — Figure 13. Location of proposed monitoring transects. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 29 Attachment 1: LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES;AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN JEFFERSON COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised April 24,2013) LISTED Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) [outer coast] Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation(e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) due to similarity of appearance CANDIDATE Fisher(Martes pennanti)—West Coast DPS Whitebark pint(Pinus albicaulis) SPECIES OF CONCERN Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) Bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) [outer coast] Cascades frog(Rana cascadae) Cassin's auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 30 Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) [southwest Washington DPS] Destruction Island shrew(Sorex trowbridgii destructioni) Long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis(Myotis volans) Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi) Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus) Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus) River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei) Tufted puffin(Fratercula cirrhata) Valley silverspot(Speyeria zerene bremeri) Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei) Western toad(Bufo boreas) MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 31 Attachment 2: 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). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. 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 attached BE. The project consists of a stream realignment;a pre-existing dredge will be re-contoured to natural conditions,and a small dredge will be done to restore stream flow to its natural tendancy. 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 temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)due to turbidity impacts from the construction process. E.EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached 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, coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon,but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)in the long term. The restoration of the stream will likely have long-term positive effects on fish habitat. G.Additional References MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 32 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). MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 33 Attachment 3: Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: Restoration of an unnamed stream,Quilcene WA. Applicant: Kathleen and Reimer Douglas. The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead are: (1)Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Salmon and steelhead are not noted in the unnamed stream. Effects to PCE: Likely to improve existing conditions. See attached Biological Evaluation. (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, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Stream is channelized upstream of the proposed restoration; it was rated as a"Type 3" stream that did not contain fish, but was assumed to be able to support fish because it contained suitable habitat. Effects to PCE: The proposed restoration is at the stream mouth,and will not affect upstream rearing sites. (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: Stream is channelized upstream of the proposed restoration; it was rated as a"Type 3" stream that did not contain fish, but was assumed to be able to support fish because it contained suitable habitat. Effects to PCE: As a stream restoration project, it will likely have a positive effect on the conditions in (3). (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 BE,the current stream terminus is a channelized ditch in the upper intertidal area This provides little natural cover and may be an obstruction. Effects to PCE: Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity as tidal waters inundate the upper intertidal area. The project will have no impacts on salinity conditions or water temperature. Work windows will MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 34 prevent impacts to migrating salmonids, bull trout and spawning surf smelt.Long-term effects are likely to be positive,removing a channelized terminus and replacing it with the original meandering stream terminus. (5)Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: See 4 above Effects to PCE: 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 PCE: None Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 35 Attachment 4: Assessment of impacts to Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat. Bocaccio Rockfish: Bocaccio are found from Stepovac Bay on the Alaska Peninsula to Punta Blanca in central Baja California.They are most common from Oregon to California and were once common on steep walls in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002). Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface,occasionally associated with drifting kelp mats . Bocaccio bear live young and the larvae and pelagic juveniles remain close to the surface and are occasionally associated with floating kelp beds(Love et al.2002).Most bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months but some will remain pelagic for up to 5.5 months before settling into littoral zones.They prefer rock or cobble substrates with kelp beds and/or kelp canopies as well as artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms.Research by Love et al. (2006)revealed: In 2003,using a manned research submersible,we conducted fish surveys around eight oil and gas platforms off southern California as part of an assessment of the potential value of these structures as fish habitat.From these surveys,we estimated that there was a minimum of 430,000 juvenile bocaccio at these eight structures. We determined this number to be about 20%of the average number of juvenile bocaccio that survive annually for the geographic range of the species. Another interesting observation made by the researchers was that: By comparison,juvenile bocaccio recruitment to nearshore natural nursery grounds, as determined through regional scuba surveys,was low in the same year. This research demonstrates that a relatively small amount of artificial nursery habitat may be quite valuable in rebuilding an overfished species. According to Palsson et al.(2009),bocaccio rockfish: were once caught in localized areas in South Sound(Washington 1977)but they have not appeared in recent research or recreational catches.Bocaccio were always infrequent in the recreational fishery,with a few erratic occurrences in North Sound but more consistent,low occurrences in South Sound.Bocaccio has never been observed during WDFW bottom trawl,video,or dive surveys in Puget Sound. In a personal communication(Email,October 7,2010)Palsson(WDFW)stated, "Young of the year(YOY) bocaccio and canary rockfishes have not been identified in surveys conducted in Puget Sound." Palsson et al.(2009)also observed that: Overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes is the leading cause of decline to yelloweye rockfish,canary rockfish and bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.The evidence is clear that historic overfishing has played a major role in the declines of rockfish in the Puget Sound region. Yelloweye Rockfish: Yelloweye rockfish range along the US and Canadian west coast,with individuals recorded from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands.The major portion of the abundance is found central California to Alaska and they are rare in Puget Sound(Love et al.2002).Yelloweye rockfish juveniles settle primarily in shallow,high relief zones,crevices and sponge gardens(Love et al. 1991). There is no consistent trend for the presence of yelloweye in Puget Sound.The frequency of yelloweye occurring in the recreational rockfish catch data indicated frequencies of less than one percent were seen in the 1960s,which increased to 3%in the 1990s(Federal Register 2009). MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 36 In terms of the depths at which yelloweye have been found in Puget Sound,Palsson noted,(Email,July 26,2010), "The upper depth limit of yelloweye is less known,but we have only detected them as shallow as 60'." Canary Rockfish: Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett,Baja California,and the Western Gulf of Alaska. Within this range, canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon. The larvae and pelagic juveniles of canary rockfish are found in the upper 100 m of the water column(Love et al. 2002).Estimates of larval duration range from 1-2 months to 3-4 months(Love et al.2002).Juveniles prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas(Love et al.2002).During this settlement they consume on crustaceans(e.g.,harpacticoids)barnacle cyprids,and euphasiid eggs and larvae.According to information found in the Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas and the Habitat Survey,there are kelp beds (Laminaria,flat Dermasterias and Costaria)along the project site shoreline. According to the Federal Register(2009): In Puget Sound Proper,canary rockfish occurred at frequencies above 2 percent of the total rockfish catch in the 1960s and 1970s,but by the late 1990s had declined to about 0.76 percent.Relying on the estimate of Palsson et al.(2008)of 40,683 rockfish in Puget Sound Proper,a 0.76—percent frequency rate would mean there are about 300 individual canary rockfish in Puget Sound Proper. Impact of proposed action: As noted above,the main reason for the decrease in the abundance of these three rockfish has been the historic overfishing of these populations.This overfishing has reduced not only the number of these fish in Puget Sound, but also has reduced the proportion of larger females,which harms the overall productivity of these populations. Adult bocaccio,canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish are typically associated with rocky habitats.According to Palsson et al.(2009),such habitat is extremely limited in Puget Sound,with only 10 square km of such habitat in Puget Sound Proper(i.e.,south of Admiralty Inlet),and 207 square km2 in Northern Puget Sound. Adult yelloweye rockfish are commonly found in waters 300'to 590'in depth.Canary rockfish usually in habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160'and 820'(Federal Register, 2009).Therefore,it seems likely that the adults are not impacted by any short-term turbidity impacts that may result. Because juveniles settle in more shallow water than adults,impacts to juveniles would be limited to the brief turbidity associated with stream re-routing.These impacts would only occur if the juveniles happened to be in the area.As noted above,YOY bocaccio and canary rockfish have not been detected in Puget Sound recently and yelloweye have only been detected at depths of 60'or deeper. Therefore,it seems unlikely that turbidity impacts will occur. Effects Determination for:Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish : "May effect,not likely to adversely affect" References: Federal Register/Vol. 74,No. 77/Thursday,April 23,2009/Proposed Rules. Federal Register/Vol.75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations. Love,M. S.,M.Carr,and L.Haldorson. 1991.The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus Sebastes. Env.Bio.Fish.30:225-243 Love,M.S.,M.M.Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press,Berkeley,California. MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 37 Love,M. S.,D.M Schroeder, W. Lenarz,A MacCall,A. S.Bull and L. Thorsteinson. (2006).Potential use of offshore marine structures in the rebuilding an overfished rockfish species. bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis). Fish. Bull. 104:383-390. Mills ML,Yuk Wing Cheng, and Robert E.Pacunsk. September 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division,Fish Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Palsson, W.A.,Tien-Shui Tsou,Greg G. Bargmann,Raymond M.Buckley, Jim E. West, MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 38 I Douglas Stream Restoration Project Biological Evaluation I • Reference Number S-201446 • July 25, 2014 Prepared for: Kathleen and Reimer Douglas 101 Wampam Point Road Quilcene, WA 98376 S -‘14 S S rsa MARNE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 385-4073 rnarine.surveys.inc®gmaiLcom Table of Contents I. Project information- nature and intensity ' A. Project location 4 B. Project description 4 C. Action area 4 II. Listed species and habitats A. Endangered Species Act listed species of concern 5 B. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species 8 III. Project impacts ' A. Current state of Wampam Point Spit 9 B. Physical and biological effects of proposed restoration 9 ' C. Jefferson County shoreline restoration goals 10 D. Direct construction impacts 10 ' E. Native plant relocation plan 1 1 ' F. Monitoring and contingency plan 1 1 G. Indirect/interdependent effects 12 ' H. Take analysis 12 I. Determination of effect 12 1 ' IV. References 14 Figures 1 . Project location 17 2. Pre-dredge aerial and satellite photographs 18 3. Post-dredge aerial and satellite 19 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 2 4. Parcel ownership at Wampam Point 20 ' 5. Site plan: Vicinity map 21 ' 6. Site plan: Overhead view 22 7. Site plan: Proposed ditch and berm profiles 23 ' 8. Southeast Jefferson County drift cell mapping 24 9. Overview of stream terminus changes from 2006-2011 25 ' 10. Site photograph of current stream terminus 26 11 . Upstream photographs 27 12. Restoration planting plan 28 ' 13. Location of proposed monitoring transects 29 Attachment 1: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List 30 Attachment 2: Essential fish habitat assessment 32 ' Attachment 3: Assessment of impacts to critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook 34 ' Attachment 4: Assessment of impacts to Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat. 36 1 I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 3 I. Project information A. Project location: ' Section 19,Qtr Section SE1/4,Township 27N,Range 1W. 101 Wampum Point Road,Quilcene,WA. 98376 Latitude N 47.815845 Longitude W 122.849508 The project location is seen in Figure 1. ' B. Project description: the proposed project is to restore a stream that has been re-directed via dredging to near its natural,original channel. Prior to dredging in 2008,the unnamed stream terminated on tideland on Wampam Point in Quilcene,WA. It now terminates in a dredged channel approximately 130' north of this location (Figures 2-3). ' According to a report prepared by NTI Engineering for the proponents, Kathleen and Reimer Douglas,the effects of dredging have included stress to the existing shellfish beds,diminished access to community tidelands on the nearby spit,and development of unsightly upland on the Douglas property and the tidelands adjacent to the stream extension(NTI 2011). These changes have led the proponents to propose mitigating the negative effects of the dredging by returning the stream to near its former(pre-dredge)course,ending on Jefferson County property. ' To understand the context for the proposed action, it is necessary to consider the recent history of the project area. From the 1970's to the early 1990's,the Wampam Point area was used as a log staging facility(NTI 2011). In 1998,the East Bay Residential Community was created as a collection of single-family homes with jointly held ' community tideland access. The Douglas parcel,as well as a neighboring parcel owned by John and Carol Gusoskey, is in the aforementioned East Bay Residential Community(Figure 4). The community is bordered to the south by the unnamed stream,which crosses both the Gusoskey parcel (to the north of the stream)and a parcel ' owned Robert and Janet Palmer(to the south of the stream). In 2008,an emergency JARPA permit for a stream rerouting operation was issued to the Gusoskeys by the Washington department of Fish& Wildlife, for the stated purpose of flood control on the Gusoskey and Palmer properties(Control No. 115558-1; issued 12/12/2008). The ' re-directed stream now runs north parallel to a bulkhead on the Gusosky property. It is this action that has led to the aforementioned damage to the tidelands and surrounding upland areas. ' The current project proposes to restore restoring pre-2008 stream contours as closely as possible. The restoration will occur entirely on Jefferson County Tideland property. To re-route this stream to its original east-west direction and contour,a small east-west channel will be excavated and backed with a small berm(Figures 5-7). The amount ' of material which will be excavated to form the new stream is approximately 11 cubic yards. The excavated channel bottom width will be 4 ft.,and the depth will be approximately 1.5 ft. (Figures 6-7). ' The excavated material will be used to create a 1-2' tall berm along the entire length of the new stream channel. To complete this berm, approximately 9.5 additional cubic yards of material will be"scalped"from the area north of the proposed channel and berm. The"scalp"area is the currently existing berm created in the 2008 dredging event. ' Scalping 9.5 cubic yards of material from this berm will allow for regular tidal inundation of the eastern side of the spit; this area has been `cut off' from regular tidal exchange by the existing tall berm and as a result supports upland vegetation uncharacteristic of an intertidal area. Providing tidal exchange will allow the eastern edge of the ' spit to gradually regain an intertidal (as opposed to upland)nature. C. Action area: As a habitat restoration action,the consideration of impacts must include both short term ' construction related impacts as well as long term changes to local physical and biological processes. Short-term construction related impacts for consideration include turbidity and noise. The long-term physical effects of restoration on sediment drift and beach erosion,as well as the biological effects on shellfish, forage fish, and other Endangered Species Act or WDFW priority species and habitats should be considered. The action area for should MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 4 include the area within a one half-mile radius of the project site. Finally,the suitability of this restoration action as it applies to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program restoration goals should also be considered. II. Listed species and habitats Endangered Species Act listed species of concern A range of fish,marine mammal,and bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act may occur,or have critical habitat,within the proposed action area. The listing status,presence of species and critical habitat in the area,and relevant life history traits of each listed species are presented below. ' Puget Sound Chinook: The Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)is listed under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)as threatened according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Vol. 70,No. 123 / Tuesday,June 28,2005 /Rules and Regulations). In addition,NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs)of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The project site 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). The project site is located in WRIA 17.According to the Washington State Conservation Commission,Chinook salmon"are not found in WRIA 17 in abundant numbers as spawners and, when found, are either the result of ' hatchery production or straying"(WSCC 2002). However, fall-run Chinook have been identified in the Big Quilcene River,which empties into the project action area(WDFW 2013a). Relevant life history:Puget Sound Chinook, also called king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size.Most chinook in the Puget Sound are"ocean-type" and migrate to the marine environment during their first year(Myers et al. 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. ' 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 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). ' In the impact area, Hood Canal summer run chum spawn in the Big Quilcene River,across Quilcene Bay from Wampam Point. Spawning also occurs in the Little Quilcene River,just north of the project site and impact area. The Big/Little Quilcene River summer Chum are considered a separate stock in the WDFW/Tribal summer chum ' recovery plan(WDFW/PNPT 2000). Between 2002-2012,total escapements from the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers have ranged from a low of approximately 2000 spawners in 2010 to a high of approximately 38,000 spawners in 2004(WDFW 2013c). ' Relevant life history: In Puget Sound,Chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams. In Hood Canal,the summer-run stocks spawn from early-September to mid-October(WDFW 1994). ' Chum(along with ocean-type Chinook)spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon (Dorcey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982). Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average residence of 24 days(Simenstad 1998).Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around eelgrass beds(harpacticoid copepods,gammarid amphipods and isopods),but change their diet to drift insects and plankton MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 5 such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans,and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50-60 mm. (Simenstad et al. 1982). Puget Sound Steelhead: NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)as a threatened species under the ESA(Federal Register/Vol. 72,No.91 /Friday, May 11,2007/Rules and Regulations).No critical habitat has yet been determined for the Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment,and the site is not included in the proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead(Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 9/Monday, ' January 14,2013/Proposed Rules). Winter-run Puget Sound steelhead are present in the Big Quilcene River(WDFW 2013b). These steelhead belong ' to the Quilcene/Dabob Bay Winter Steelhead population,which has low escapement(generally<40 fish/year)and is has been given an"unknown"status by WDFW(2013c). ' Relevant life history: steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species O. mykiss. The freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again,unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to the ' open ocean,where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington streams. Bull Trout: Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife ' Service(USFWS)in 1999(Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/Monday,November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations). The project site is not located on a shoreline designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register/Vol.75,No. 200/Monday, October 18, 2010/Rules and Regulations). ' According to WDFW, bull trout have a documented presence in Big Quilcene creek(2013a). However,the most recent stock assessment of WA bull trout/Dolly Varden noted that"none have been trapped in the Quilcene ' National Fish Hatchery in recent years,nor have any been observed in recent snorkel surveys... Consequently,we do not believe that there in is a distinct bull trout/Dolly Varden stock in the Big Quilcene River"(WDFW 2004). Any bull trout in the project area are likely to be only erratic and occasional visitors to the Big Quilcene River. ' Relevant life history: coastal Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations)takes place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and 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 1 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). ' Rockfish: NOAA has listed the distinct population segments(DPSs)of yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered(Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81,April 28,2010, Final Rule). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget ' Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In addition,NOAA has recently proposed to designate shallow water critical ' habitat for juvenile boccahio and canary rockfish(Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday,August 6,2013/ Proposed Rules). The effects of this project on adult rockfish are expected to be minimal, if they occur at all, because adult rockfish are commonly found in much deeper water than exists at the project site. If juvenile or pelagic rockfish are present, MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 6 the direct and indirect effects of this project are expected to be similar to those discussed in this document for salmon because juveniles are found closer to shore in shallow waters. However,the project is not located in the proposed shallow water critical habitat for juvenile boccahio and canary rockfish. Relevant life history: Bocaccio,canary,and yelloweye rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic h settle to benthic environment. They prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds, low rock Juveniles.As juveniles they y p Y P and cobble areas(Love et al. 2002).As the three species grow larger they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats. Yelloweye rockfish are commonly found at depths from 300'to 590'. Canary rockfish usually habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160' and 820' (Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations.). All three ' species are opportunistic feeders, with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of the adults of these species include marine mammals, salmon,other rockfish, lingcod and sharks. ' Marbled Murrelet: Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992. There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site(WDFW 2013a,NOAA 2013). ' Relevant life history: marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(WDFW 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring,surf smelt,other small schooling fish and invertebrates. ' Humpback Whale: NMFS has listed the humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales in Washington at this time. Humpback whales were seen in Dabob Bay-which Quilcene Bay empties into- in January and February of 2012 ' according to the Orca Network(Orca Network 2012).However,the Orca Network newsletter said the organization couldn't recall a report of a humpback whale ever being seen in that area. Relevant life history: Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget ' Sound,even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982). Steller Sea Lion:NMFS has listed the Eastern distinct population segment(DPS)of the Steller sea lion ' (Eumetopias jubatus)as a threatened species that may occur in Puget Sound(Federal Register/Vol 55,No. 227/ Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations). NMFS has, however,recently proposed to remove the eastern DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife(Federal Register/Vol. 77,No. 75/Wednesday, April 18,2012/Proposed Rules). According to WDFW, no Steller sea lions have been identified in the project area(WDFW 2013a). ' Relevant life history: Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska. Breeding colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon(Osborne et al. 1988). There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the area(Jeffries et al. 2000), although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May)where their visits are transitory. ' Leatherback Sea Turtle: NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.There is no designated critical habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Washington at this time. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 7 I Relevant life history: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,even though they are Ioccasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994). They are rarely seen in Puget Sound(McAllister,pers. comm.).Again, it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found near the project site. I Southern Resident Killer Whales: On November 15,2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca)as endangered under ESA(Federal Register, Vol. 70,No. 222,November 18,2005 /Rules and Regulations).NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (Federal Register/ Vol. 71,No. 229/November 29,2006/Final Rule). I The proposed project is not within Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat. In a review of Southern Resident habitat use,NMFS found no confirmed sightings inside the Hood Canal from 1990-2003 (Federal Register/Vol. 71,No.229/Wednesday,November 29,2006/Rules and Regulations). Since 2003,all killer whale sightings in IHood Canal appear to be of transient killer whales. Northern Spotted Owls: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has listed the Northern Spotted I Owl as a threatened species(Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 123/Tuesday,June 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations). In addition,USFWS has designated critical habitat for Northern Spotted Owls that includes forestland near Quilcene Bay(Federal Register/Vol. 57,No. 10/Wednesday,January 15, 1992/Rules and Regulations). IAccording to WDFW priority habitat and species maps,the action area includes Northern Spotted Owl management buffer land(WDFW 2013a). However,because the proposed action occurs on the shoreline and out of Iforested land, no Northern Spotted Owl habitat will be directly affected by the proposed action. Relevant life history:Northern Spotted Owls are a medium size owl in the family Strigidae and are native to I western North America. These birds inhabit primarily old growth forests and some younger forest in the southern part of their range.The range of the Northern Spotted Owl extends on the Pacific coast from southern British Columbia to northern California. In addition to fragmentation and loss of old growth forest,the recent invasion of Ithe non-native Barred Owl has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(USFWS 2004). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitats and species I According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, a number of priority fish,marine invertebrate, marine mammal, and bird species are found within the 0.5 mile action area. I In addition to the ESA-listed fish species previously noted within the action area,coast resident cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)and pink salmon(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)have been found in Big Quilcene Creek (WDFW 2013a). Forage fish, including sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus)and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus), I may also be found in the action area. These fish are an important food source for a variety of consumers such as migrating salmon and bald eagles. According to WDFW,there is no "documented" forage fish spawning activity at the site,but it is in an area that has been designated as a potential forage fish spawning habitat.There is ' documented surf smelt spawning habitat approximately 2100 feet south of Wampam Point. Documented sand lance spawning beaches are located approximately 4200 feet south of Wampam Point. (WDFW 2013b).None of the above species have Federal or State concerned,threatened,or endangered status. IPriority marine invertebrate species within the action area include Dungeness crab(Metacarcinus magister), pandalid shrimp species,and oyster species,none of which are recognized by the State or Federal government to Ihave concerned,threatened,or endangered status(WDFW 2013a). Priority marine mammal species include the harbor seal (Phaca vitulina),which has a haulout site within the action I area(WDFW 2103a). Harbor seals have no Federal concerned,threatened,or endangered status but are a State "monitored"species. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 8 Finally,priority bird species include the bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Breeding habitat is present within the action area(WDFW 2013a). Bald eagles are listed as a Federal species of concern and a State sensitive species. III. Project Impacts The proposed restoration of the unnamed stream at Wampam Point is a complex action. As such,the project impacts must be assessed on multiple levels. The current state of Wampam Point,and the probable impact that the ' 2008 stream dredging had on this state,are considered first. The long-term physical and biological effects of the proposed restoration,as well as how these fit into Jefferson County restoration goals, are then considered. Finally, direct construction-related impacts are considered. A. Current state of the Wampam Point Spit: Although no true"before and after"survey of the impacted spit at Wampam Point was done in response to the 2008 Gusoskey dredging operation, it is possible to get a clear view of its impact from aerial imagery and site photography. Photographs taken pre—(May 2006)and post-(September 2011)dredge indicate the change in stream channel. The new terminus is located approximately 130' northward of the pre-dredge terminus(Figures 2- ' 3, 6). This aerial photography also illustrates the changing upland nature of the post-dredge spit,with dense upland vegetation now evident northeast of the stream channel. The new channelized stream has also created a muddy ' ditch emptying to the north,as opposed to the old meander terminating westward onto the East Bay Community Tidelands/Jefferson County Tidelands(Figures 2-3, 10). This deep channel impedes the Douglas's access to the community tidelands,as well as access for other neighbors to the north of the Gusosky parcel. Finally,this channel ' and its associated dredge spoil piles above the channel have created an unsightly view from the Douglas property. B. Physical and biological effects of the proposed restoration: It is likely that the unnamed stream was an important source of sediment for the spit at Wampam Point. This spit forms the transition zone between an area of northward sediment drift,which originates at Fisherman's Point on the southeast corner of the bay, and an area of no appreciable sediment drift,which continues through the shallows north of the spit(WSCC 2002,Jefferson County 2008a; Figure 8). The northward sediment drift may have aided in the development of the spit at Wampam Point but may not be sufficient to maintain it.This is likely because Quilcene Bay does not feature strong shoreline sedimentary drift.According to the WSCC, "sediment sources [in Quilcene Bay] are moderate and alongshore,except where rivers and/or streams enter the bay where they become more abundant and fluvial"(2002). In an area of moderate sedimentary drift,the unnamed stream provided a considerable amount of sediment to the spit. The sediment from the stream is now redirected to the shoreline north of the spit,an area with no appreciable nearshore drift(Figure 8). It is probable that this sediment source is simply"lost"to the spit with the current stream orientation.A deep east-west scour has also formed on the spit, as seen in aerial photography(Figure 3).A "notch,"where the spit is eroding at the location of the former stream terminus, is also growing over time. This is ' clear in satellite photography from before the dredge in 2006 as well as post-dredge in 2009 and 2011 (Figure 9). Further evidence of this loss is the observation by the proponents that previously buried piers from the former logging operation on the spit are becoming exposed. Without the former sediment flow from the unnamed stream, I sediment replenishment from south of the spit is evidentially insufficient,on its own,to keep the spit from eroding. Indeed, erosion of Puget Sound spit beaches may be a response to reduction in sediment supply from upland areas (Shipman and Canning 1993). By re-routing the stream to its original terminus,a valuable source of sediment will be restored to the spit. Over time,the reduced sediment input to the spit will likely result in not only a diminished spit,but a diminished habitat for intertidal fish and invertebrate use.The proponents have noted a dying-off of the shellfish beds on community tidelands to the west of the dredge site,which could indicate that the amount of suitable habitat may MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 9 • already be decreasing. Many factors impact the success of shellfish,especially in their early stages. According to the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership,"early survival can be impacted by alterations in the conditions of water passing over or through beach sediments,such as in salinity,temperature, sediment load,or pollutants"(Dethier 2006). A major change in flow over the shellfish beds,as caused by the 2008 dredge, may have negatively altered a ' state that allowed for shellfish persistence. In addition to improving the substrate available for shellfish,restoring the natural stream flow will return detritus and nutrient flow,a likely benefit to these filter-feeding species. Although there is currently no forage fish spawning on the spit, it is listed as"potential"forage fish spawning habitat(WDFW 2013a).Reduced habitat area due to an eroding spit would make forage fish use less likely; restoring habitat on the spit(by restoring the sediment-bearing stream)will provide substrate that may be utilized by forage fish for spawning in the future. C.Jefferson County shoreline restoration goals: ' As part of its comprehensive Shoreline Master Program update,Jefferson County released a Final Shoreline Restoration Plan in 2008. This plan identifies overall restoration goals for the county as well as specific targets for restoration action.The proposed stream restoration at Wampam Point fits into both of these categories, making it an ideal candidate for consideration as a restoration action. The following Jefferson County goals are especially applicable to the proposed action(from Jefferson County ' 2008b): • To increase the availability,viability and sustainability of shoreline habitats for salmon, shellfish,forage ' fish, shorebirds and marine seabirds,and other species; • To improve habitat quality for sensitive and/or locally important species, and support the biological recovery goals for federally protected species; ' • To encourage cooperative restoration actions involving local, state, and federal public agencies,tribes, NGOs,and private landowners. As the above assessment of the physical and biological effects of the proposed action indicates, it is very likely that restoring natural stream flow will nourish the Wampam Point spit. By restoring sediment to the spit,quality habitat for priority fish and shellfish species will be recovered and promoted. This project would also be a unique ' collaboration between local agencies and a private landowner. Though the impacts to the spit are largely occurring on East Bay Community Tidelands and Jefferson County Tidelands,the proponents will be covering all costs associated with the permitting and execution of the proposed restoration action. In addition,Jefferson County has ' also targeted"Restor[ing] natural stream morphology in areas where channelization has occurred" in the WRIA 17 watershed(Jefferson County 2008b). The proposed restoration is a direct action in service of this goal. ' When residential construction was permitted at the East Bay Residential Community,the unnamed stream was identified as a Type 3 stream(NTI 2011). This categorization includes streams that don't necessarily have a documented fish presence,but are assumed to support fish because they contain suitable habitat(WAC 222 16- ' 031). Upland of the tidelands,the stream is currently channelized(Figures 10-11). Removing the dredged channel along the tidelands would be an ideal start to a more complete restoration effort. This stream is less than half a mile east of the mouth of the Big Quilcene River,which has Chinook salmon,Hood Canal Summer-run Chum salmon, Steelhead, and bull trout present(WDFW 2013a).As an effort to restore a potential fish-bearing stream,the proposed action is a very appropriate restoration goal. D.Direct construction impacts The direct physical effects of re-dredging the stream are unlikely to immediately reduce or destroy any priority ' species or habitats.A tracked excavator will be used to create the new channel and backing berm. I will also be used to take material from the 2008 berm to aid in creating the new berm. Movement of the excavator in the upper MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 10 i intertidal will cause some beach substrate disruption. As tidal exchange inundates the area, increased turbidity may ' also occur. The impact level on salmonids depends on duration of exposure,concentration of turbidity,the life stage during the ' increased exposure,and the options available for fish to avoid the plumes. The effects can be summarized in terms of lethal,sublethal,or behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 and Simenstad, editor, 1988). The most likely salmonid response to this temporary increase in turbidity would be avoidance of the area. To minimize any ' negative impacts on migrating salmonids,construction should take place during the work window of July 15 to February 1. E.Native plan relocation plan In addition to the habitat benefits previously discussed in this document,native plant species displaced by the filling and re-contouring of the current stream channel will be salvaged and replanted to the banks of the restored ' stream channel.These species include dunegrass(Elymus mollis),silver burweed(Ambrosia chamissonis), seashore saltgrass(Distichlis spicata),American glasswort(Salicornia virginica),and Plantain species. See Figure ' 12 for the restoration planting plan. An as-built drawing and report will be submitted to Jefferson County as documentation of the implementation of the approved replanting plan within one month of installation.The plan will include vegetation description and ' photo documentation from established photo stations. Monitoring will take place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season(late August or early September)of each monitoring year. The performance standards will be monitored by measuring plots in zones within the planting area that will be established and mapped after planting occurs,on the as-built plan. There will be photo points for each plot and they will be referenced on the as-built plan. Photos will be taken at all points for all years as visual documentation of the performance standards progress,or lack of. Collected data and photos will be compiled into a report for Jefferson County DCD. The report will address whether the performance standards are being met during each monitoring year and if the final end of monitoring period standards are going to be met. Monitoring results will determine whether or not contingency measures will be needed. Percent cover: The percent cover standard will be monitored by looking at each monitoring unit of the removal ' areas from above and estimating the area covered by invasive species.The percent cover within an area can be quantified as a total greater than 100%because plants(in tree,high/low shrub and herbaceous layers)overlap in ' cover. Maintenance Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the persistence of all native species ' within the mitigation area.Hand weeding will be necessary to remove all invasive plants that establish themselves in the removal area. Contingency Plan If a 90%removal rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, invasive plants will be removed to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. F.Monitoring and contingency plan: ' This restoration project aims to re-direct the existing stream towards its pre-dredge western terminus on the Wampam Point Spit. It also aims to re-open the eastern extent of the spit to tidal exchange. The monitoring and ' contingency plan addresses both of these goals. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 11 1 Stream re-direction: work will be done in the summer, when the unnamed stream has little to no flow. Once the fall and winter arrive and stream flow increases,the newly constructed east-west berm will be tested. If the east- west berm is not sufficient to re-direct flow to the west side of the spit,more material will need to be placed along ' its upper extent during the next available work window. This material will come from the north-south berm created by the 2008 dredge. Because the initial site plan calls for the minimum practical amount of material to be removed, there will still be ample material available. ' Tidal exchange along the eastern extent of the spit: Once tidal exchange and wave action act on the lowered north-south berm, it is likely that the eastern extent of the spit will return to an intertidal (as opposed to upland) area. If the existing berm is insufficiently lowered,however,the upland area may remain intact due to insufficient tidal exchange. We propose to track the lowering of the original berm over time, and remove more material if,after 2 winters of tidal and wave action,the upland area is not"reconnected"to the intertidal successfully. ' Prior to the start of work,permanent transects will be established on Jefferson County property. These transects will be marked with rebar stakes driven into the beach on their eastern and western ends. We propose 4 transects, with each encompassing the area just landward of the current channel,the existing berm,and the area just seaward of the existing berm. While the exact location of transects will be decided on-site prior to construction,they will generally run parallel to each other in an east-west direction. See Figure 13 for the approximate locations of transects. Along each transect, 4 height measurements will be taken using a surveyor's transit. The transit will be set at a fixed point on the Douglas property. By taking all measurements from a fixed point,the exact location along a given transect can be repeatedly measured over time. We propose monitoring the height of the berm and surrounding area just prior to construction(summer 2014), immediately following construction(summer 2014),and in two successive spring seasons(spring 2015 and spring 2016). If the north-south berm does not lower beyond+8' above MLLW after this time, and the eastern area of the spit still retains substantial upland vegetation,more material removal will be necessary. Because the existing beach profile is approximately+8' above MLLW in the area immediately seaward of the north-south berm(Figure 1),we expect lowering the berm to this beach grade will be sufficient to allow tidal inundation. If this is not the case, ' however,we propose lowering the berm to approximately+7.0' above MLLW. The maximum amount of material that would be removed from the existing berm to accomplish this would be less than 10 yd3.Any material added to the newly constructed east-west berm will be added at an elevation below the MHHW. ' G.Interrelated/interdependent effects: ' Completion of this project will not 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 will occur because of this project. ' H.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 project. I.Determination of effect: After reviewing the appropriate data,the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound Chinook-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 2. Hood Canal summer run chum-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 12 3. Puget Sound steelhead-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 4. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" ' 5. Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish -"May effect, not likely to adversely affect" 6. Marbled murrelet- No effect" 7. Humpback whale-"No effect" 8. Steller sea lion -"No effect" ' 9. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect" 10.Southern Resident killer whale-"No effect" ' 11.Northern Spotted Owl-"No effect" 1 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 13 IV. References ' Angell,T. and K. C.Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle,WA, 146 pp. ' Bowlby,D. E., G.A. Green and M. L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. ' Dethier,Megan M.2006.Native Shellfish in Nearshore Ecosystems of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report Number 2006-04. Published by Seattle District, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle WA. ' 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. Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 123/Tuesday,June 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 227/Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 57,No. 10/Wednesday,January 15, 1992/Rules and Regulations ' Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 123 /Tuesday,June 28, 2005/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. 75 /Wednesday,April 18, 2012/Proposed Rules ' Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 9/Monday,January 14,2013/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday, August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules ' Healey,M. C. 1982.Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries:the life support system, pp. 315 - 341.In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.),Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. ' Jefferson County, WA. 2008a.Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Mapping. Available: http://www.co.j efferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Shorelinelnventory.htm. ' Jefferson County, WA. 2008b. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project: 2008 Update. Available:http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/shorelineplanning.htm. ' Jeffries, Steven J.,Patrick J. Gearin,Harriet R.Huber,Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett.2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA, 150 pp. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 14 Love,M.S., M.M. Yoklavich,and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley,California. Myers,J. M.,R. G.Kope,G. J. Bryant,D. Teel,L.J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W. Waknitz, ' K.Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon,and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp ' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) Environmental Response Management Application: Puget Sound.2013. Available: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/environmental-response- management-application-erma/pacific-northwest-erma.htm I. Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001 b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology,and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp. NTI Engineering& Land Surveying(NTI). 2011. Spit Restoration Alternatives Investigation: Prepared for ' Kathleen and Reimer Douglas. Port Angeles, WA. Orca Network. 2012. February 2012 Sightings Archive.Available: U http://www.orcanetwork.org/Archives/index.php?categories_file=Sightings%20Archive%20-%20Feb%2012. Freeland, WA. Osborne,R.,J. Calambokidis and E. M. Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers,Anacortes, WA, 191 pp. Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. ' Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,Ogden, UT.38 pp. Simenstad, C.A.,K.L. Fresh and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the ' life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function, pp. 343-364. In V.S. Kennedy(ed.). Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY. ' Simenstad,C. A., (ed.). 1988.Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad, Charles A.,(ed.). 1998. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer ' chum salmon and recommended actions. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Shipman, Hugh; Canning,Douglas J., 1993, Cumulative environmental impacts of shoreline stabilization on Puget ' Sound. IN Magoon, O. T.; Wilson, W. S.; Converse,Hugh; Tobin,L. T.,editors, Coastal zone'93; Proceedings of the 8th symposium on coastal and ocean management:American Society of Civil Engineers,v. 2, p. 2233-2242. t United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Northern Spotted Owl, Five-Year Review:Summary and Evaluation. USFWS, Portland, Oregon.November 2004.Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/pdf/NSO_5-yr_Summary.pdf ' Washington State Conservation Commission. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors. Water Resources Inventory Area 17,Quilcene/Snow Watershed(2002). 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, WA. U MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 15 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point No Point Treaty Tribes.2000. Summer Chum Salmon ' Initiative. 797 pp. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2004. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory: Bull Trout/Dolly ' Varden.449 pp. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013a. Priority Habitats and Species report.Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013b. Salmonscape Interactive Mapping.Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013c. Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine(SCoRE). Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/. Olympia,WA. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 16 I CCV`T LOT - tam Lae E pi cc .428.4.88 sras I cav'T LOT L Q T D ,,. ! eras 44'422*W ) w r1.9214 ACRE$ pars. 9+ ca,. ul i :s ,e 1, I n < LA u) t 3 1\ N Z LIL. I + 0 , r ip S L 0 T C t"la I I.9837 ACRES l C..43 c♦.... I) 8• ., S _ al•aru 3 t O x1 4 i'So hod { 114 )111\ ! } , •• LOT T B IY It t lttr uwron s...... 6 6.411 MS tom rot 1«o,wnvw.a, stc.r *[+ 1:::V.r4♦ '4LLV,+;: Lail A x *` Gf b'' ' tlti" Naa.t�s«♦ 4. SCALE t 1• " 100' TIDELows 2.2097 ACRES E TAX .4ES.si /4' viii. ,r+°S° a.a6'»s . Av�o r vtera a<.w =P LOT A a ..c". I 4 +, 1St AN 31, t t.2 19 ACRES a " ♦ -rv.' ♦Cttra.1OES TIDELANDS) `;,- S. +.:.+. . 41,'""o` .` l +1s1M tfe.4)11.4.4 er ♦a . "" 4.. "`\ A 111 �♦ %;.'f t0.1LT 041'MIL 173FtI ..^y._. M`fr �``• ��.0.-------,Le:• ', ♦. _...�» 2♦.♦I .s 6 � 2*". ` '�1,•11Y�t4.l }yylttlr...'M'1♦vF I/♦..' PORTION RN ERAGT 3 of STATE ♦.'.4` ti rs"erl .♦ t11♦._ UTSfR RESERVE PER VOL. !7 la °nCE 09 Of SURVEYS ,.. \ 5 APN 701 - 194-010 I i \,,,,,,,,;# f K �tl'A . 7 KMa test 4411 1124. t a maws?Mt 1111 \111 f 71 j ,t.0 I Figure 4. Parcel ownership in the vicinity of Wampam Point. "Lot A" is owned by John and Carol Gusoskey,"Lot B" is owned by Kathleen and Reimer Douglas. The East Bay Community Tidelands are also on "Lot A,"and the remainder of the Wampam Point Spit is located on Jefferson County Tidelands Tax I "B"land. I I I I I I I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 20 I I I COVER SHEET STREAM RESTORATION FOR KATHLEEN & REIMER DOUGLAS I BRITISH COLUMBIA ....‘ 1— • / ,,, kP'''',N 7 '""--_,--`-,---„,ti.), 4.:4's — ,„, ii 1< , - I CA ""...• Y ( 4— WASHINGTON v num= ti I • . a a 1/4 MAWS WAN 0 v I 0 . NOMA MIA .0 -- I YANCEIUMEP ,4,iLl. COW NNW*a POMEME I OREGON - LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE I I I ,NO:c'Alt ' z VIII 4 1,04,_ p _45910_0 V We._utS111, cs, issi...0 VICINITY MAP 0 NORTHWESTERN 7.WrOR145. NC 20, I DATE: 7/18/2014 SCALE: AS SHOWN NVVS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION NT! ENGINEERING Imalti & SU RVEYNG DRAWN BY ZIVS/CR 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE '7 SGUTH PEABODY SINCE 1111d 7'PORT ANGELES WA NM. I FOR: REVIEW: JCW DOUGLAS. KATHLEEN & REIMER 1.1.- NT! WWW WWI COM P-OM 4S7-61S1 r ONE 4$24498 SHEET 1 IFigure 5. Site plan: Vicinity map MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 21 I 1444tos\I I I " 1. I 1 5 -iPt I .T.1.. 1 co I ‘1 il I 5 8 /1 4 _ Tri ;. PATO 1 ,.. ilik\ 1 4.619gA ...,= i4 I 1 . \ • 1 13 ---. --,. I NN1 i g * .' 41111, 401111141M\ '‘,.. •-,.., U) —1 I I si1, .,S-l',r,,-,Ts,•I,t4Y-f4w=0° k3 g,i„,,1.Tq 2A■2,,tw:2• 0 q, N r l q g 4 7, "Z C) '8I! x, • IT! T.R , i; I i 1 si- ---. -... / / I 4(116”, 1111111 - I ,> z u,(.1, •.ir li.,ZAtormat. r- rn 8 ---p -::- piiv., N at I ©NOR TWESTERN TERRITORIES, INC 20 1 4 DATE: 7/18/2014 , SCALE: AS SHOWN - NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION -„7,irie,,c4 NTI ENGINEERING I DRAWN BY 2NS/CR 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE , glow & SURVEYING REVIEW: JCW JCW ----- DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & REIMER NTI _ ... I SHEET 2 OF J Figure 6. Site plan: Overhead view. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 22 I ■ I 1 • II 8 I • I I 1 I ? i . I g 1 1 8 g I • 73 1 —0 73 ') I - :r7 m I ri 4 CO 0 ? 1 11\1 I 0 Y 14'13 7: 11 M 1 7:1 8 1 g \ ' 2:1 g I I I Is‘ (i) 7 m r'4) 2:1 0 I ri * C) ---1 5 1 --il -- m r, Z I . I a I4-11161 c`a .). .. ?' '..., NV ' fte.411%.ftlib..* > .te. ."...•.,1 p I r- et 0 v 1 0 --„, '',.. tzw•■■••■ I re4) ■;.> .4.1:W ' N fil kt t A 0 0 I ©NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES INC 2514 DATE: 7/18/20 7 4 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION 44, •zed., VI ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: ZNS/CR lare _FOR REVIEW:JCW 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE • SHEET 3 OF DOUGLAS. KATHLEEN & REIMER ‘,....v. N T 1 3. Figure 7. Site plan: proposed ditch and berm profiles. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 23 I I I I • I COUN TY T CLAI,AM ��k r'' - '- *• a ia .? , \$ ,„ ( . , f.' , ,,,,, I, \ ' 1 w. d.. i b, ,, f... ...., .. , ,,t.,....‘j T ... I I iessowict , r a "7,4k. t �,y+w < 1. v � � I wirsac4 TY. t I �'` war f fWatl . .. -'7 ,F iowvwMMaFwwMw FERSON C WNTY aF,... s.. _SON C011NrY °ia°~` ... i� r,..m.oa.ax�ao.rm..ar.ew.99 ,— ra. s...wa.namaianwan...gr'a aar .an v.swawaa�w.awwan.onawr.w cootIP e.r a.e.�...wc 19........ fd/6PtE /.. .7.--------.... °°�. COASTAL PROCESSES AND MKK.NFIC,ATIONS I . ,t=":::.:::":;:-.=7;;'' SOUTHEAST JEFFERSON COUNTY aa.a...r..rw w...r.'"1: JEFFERSON COUNTY$*OREUfYE RAP FOtK'i= x,oen r s.o+s.w!+> :++� .ti iTS ......am.ww tea'+. e wt.aa Au..c wpr as «raw IFigure 8. Southeast Jefferson County Shoreline Mapping Drift Cell Analysis Map. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 24 I A) :"LI~--'-. '''1:1'. II Pre-dreJge rlcrnn tcnnmu+ Y -. � s _, m r ^3 $ IB) ,,,tr.t s F I jp I yam,, I ) a C I ( ;:-.v.l.t, ,---. ,.4.„_:‘,,,,I.,.,,,,,,. , . { s E:n I I Figure 9. Satellite photography showing changing nature of stream terminus from A) July 2006, B) May 2009, and C) August 2011. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 25 I a i Mrs. , m. o- • _ 6 r..F w, t p i, IFigure 10. Dredged area of unnamed stream near its terminus, looking south. I I 1 I I I I I I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 26 J I . . l f, 7*� ryw i g t s' `. 99 w t 49 ffi 1, I �.. CC T I br Ai ir Alltv ,? I x.4* 4 ,u 4+` i,6" x,�. " *'itr,Dgpp " rot y 4Ff' , 'RP* _ tip, „...:,:.10,, 4 i. 1, #47- ' ' ,...' "4", ' � l'' 'd';-..-." r vJ r °fit .1t,,, I IFigure 11. Channelized nature of unnamed stream upstream of proposed restoration. I I I I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 27 I I I I I I i.t I 1 ........:),„.„...... (it ; ,,, , I ........,,k „. --------- , , , ,,,N m \ , . .14k. ,, �j 11--w-r,r a 46 t z ' '''..k‘k ' i011iw '''''' '' ''''''',L-4-r- '' -0 lit - .,. .- "- r 1 .. iv.f w ,, ,r,, , t t ,,-.4.';`, gIt'(•8 ex zazw4, (11414-- I 0•10101111111111 Mr111110011111111100 IMONNON IFigure 12. Restoration Planting Plan I I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 28 I I Douglas Property d IJefferson County Tidelands I 1 e I y Gusoskey Property . I , Wampam Point Associ tin Property ,, I 1 I 1 Figure 13. Location of proposed monitoring transects. I I I I I I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 29 I 1 ' Attachment 1: LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' AS PREPARED BY THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised April 24,2013) ' LISTED ' Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) [outer coast] Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal species include: ' 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. ' 2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species,and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. ' 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation(e.g., increased noise levels,increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. DESIGNATED ' Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl 1 PROPOSED Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) due to similarity of appearance CANDIDATE ' Fisher(Martes pennanti)—West Coast DPS Whitebark pint(Pinus albicaulis) SPECIES OF CONCERN ' Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Brown pelican(Pelecanus occidentalis) [outer coast] Cascades frog(Rana cascadae) Cassin's auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 30 Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki claria) [southwest Washington DPS] ' Destruction Island shrew (Sorex trowbridgii destructioni) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) ' Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi) ' Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) ' Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei) Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) ' Valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremeri) Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei) Western toad (Bufo boreas) MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 31 I Attachment 2: Essential fish habitat assessment IA. Background I 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 I 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). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. I 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. IB. 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 I 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). IC. Proposed Action The details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the attached BE. The project consists of a stream realignment;a pre-existing dredge will be re-contoured to natural conditions,and a small dredge Iwill be done to restore stream flow to its natural tendancy. 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 temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for I groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)due to turbidity impacts from the construction process. E.EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached BE will be implemented to minimize any 1 possible adverse effects to EFH. IF. Conclusion The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon, but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget ISound pink salmon)in the long term. The restoration of the stream will likely have long-term positive effects on fish habitat. G. Additional References I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 32 ■ I 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). I PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan(October, 1998). IPFMC, 1998b.The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 33 I I ' Attachment 3: Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: Restoration of an unnamed stream, Quilcene WA. Applicant: Kathleen and Reimer Douglas. The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead are: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. ' Existing Conditions: Salmon and steelhead are not noted in the unnamed stream. Effects to PCE: Likely to improve existing conditions. See attached Biological Evaluation. (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, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. ' Existing Conditions: Stream is channelized upstream of the proposed restoration; it was rated as a"Type 3" stream that did not contain fish, but was assumed to be able to support fish because it contained suitable habitat. ' Effects to PCE: The proposed restoration is at the stream mouth, and will not affect upstream rearing sites. (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: Stream is channelized upstream of the proposed restoration; it was rated as a"Type 3" ' stream that did not contain fish, but was assumed to be able to support fish because it contained suitable habitat. Effects to PCE: As a stream restoration project, it will likely have a positive effect on the conditions in (3). (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 BE,the current stream terminus is a channelized ditch in the upper intertidal area. ' This provides little natural cover and may be an obstruction. Effects to PCE: Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity as tidal waters inundate the upper intertidal area.The project will have no impacts on salinity conditions or water temperature. Work windows will MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 34 prevent impacts to migrating salmonids, bull trout and spawning surf smelt. Long-term effects are likely to be ' positive, removing a channelized terminus and replacing it with the original meandering stream terminus. (5)Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: See 4 above Effects to PCE: 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 PCE: None ' Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 1 MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 35 I Attachment 4: Assessment of impacts to Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye I Rockfish Critical Habitat. Bocaccio Rockfish: IBocaccio are found from Stepovac Bay on the Alaska Peninsula to Punta Blanca in central Baja California.They are most common from Oregon to California and were once common on steep walls in Puget Sound(Love et al. I2002). Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface,occasionally associated with drifting kelp mats . Bocaccio bear live young and the larvae and pelagic juveniles remain close to the surface and are occasionally ' associated with floating kelp beds(Love et al.2002). Most bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months but some will remain pelagic for up to 5.5 months before settling into littoral zones. They prefer rock or cobble substrates with kelp beds and/or kelp canopies as well as artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms. Research by Love et al. (2006)revealed: In 2003,using a manned research submersible,we conducted fish surveys around eight oil and gas I platforms off southern California as part of an assessment of the potential value of these structures as fish habitat. From these surveys,we estimated that there was a minimum of 430,000 juvenile bocaccio at these eight structures. We determined this number to be about 20%of the average number of juvenile bocaccio that survive annually for the geographic range of the species. IAnother interesting observation made by the researchers was that: By comparison,juvenile bocaccio recruitment to nearshore natural nursery grounds, as determined through regional scuba surveys, was low in the same year. This research demonstrates that a relatively small amount of artificial nursery habitat may be quite valuable in rebuilding an overfished species. IAccording to Palsson et al. (2009),bocaccio rockfish: were once caught in localized areas in South Sound(Washington 1977)but they have not appeared in recent research or recreational catches.Bocaccio were always infrequent in the recreational fishery, with a few erratic occurrences in North Sound but more consistent, low occurrences in South Sound. Bocaccio ' has never been observed during WDFW bottom trawl,video, or dive surveys in Puget Sound. 1 In a personal communication(Email,October 7, 2010)Palsson(WDFW) stated, "Young of the year(YOY) bocaccio and canary rockfishes have not been identified in surveys conducted in Puget Sound." rY Palsson et al. (2009)also observed that: IOverutilization for commercial and recreational purposes is the leading cause of decline to yelloweye rockfish,canary rockfish and bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. The evidence is clear that historic overfishing has played a major role in the declines of rockfish in the Puget Sound region. Yelloweye Rockfish: II I Yelloweye rockfish range along the US and Canadian west coast,with individuals recorded from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands. The major portion of the abundance is found central California to Alaska and I they are rare in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002).Yelloweye rockfish juveniles settle primarily in shallow,high relief zones, crevices and sponge gardens(Love et al. 1991). There is no consistent trend for the presence of yelloweye in Puget Sound. The frequency of yelloweye occurring in the recreational rockfish catch data indicated frequencies of less than one percent were seen in the 1960s, which II ' increased to 3%in the 1990s(Federal Register 2009 . me eased ( g ) I MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 36 In terms of the depths at which yelloweye have been found in Puget Sound, Palsson noted,(Email,July 26,2010), "The upper depth limit of yelloweye is less known, but we have only detected them as shallow as 60'." Canary Rockfish: Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett,Baja California, and the Western Gulf of Alaska. Within this range, canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon. The larvae and pelagic juveniles of canary rockfish are found in the upper 100 m of the water column(Love et al. 2002). Estimates of larval duration range from 1-2 months to 3-4 months(Love et al.2002).Juveniles prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds, low rock and cobble areas( Love et al. 2002). During this settlement they consume ' on crustaceans(e.g., harpacticoids)barnacle cyprids, and euphasiid eggs and larvae. According to information found in the Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas and the Habitat Survey,there are kelp beds (Laminaria, flat Dermasterias and Costaria)along the project site shoreline. ' According to the Federal Register(2009): In Puget Sound Proper,canary rockfish occurred at frequencies above 2 percent of the total rockfish catch in the 1960s and 1970s,but by the late 1990s had declined to about 0.76 percent.Relying on the estimate of Palsson et al.(2008)of 40,683 rockfish in Puget Sound Proper,a 0.76—percent frequency rate would mean there are about 300 individual canary rockfish in Puget Sound Proper. ' Impact of proposed action: As noted above,the main reason for the decrease in the abundance of these three rockfish has been the historic ' overfishing of these populations.This overfishing has reduced not only the number of these fish in Puget Sound, but also has reduced the proportion of larger females,which harms the overall productivity of these populations. ' Adult bocaccio, canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish are typically associated with rocky habitats. According to Palsson et al. (2009), such habitat is extremely limited in Puget Sound,with only 10 square km of such habitat in Puget Sound Proper(i.e., south of Admiralty Inlet), and 207 square km2 in Northern Puget Sound. ' Adult yelloweye rockfish are commonly found in waters 300'to 590' in depth. Canary rockfish usually in habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160'and 820'(Federal Register, 2009). Therefore, it seems likely that the adults are not impacted by any short-term turbidity impacts that may result. Because juveniles settle in more shallow water than adults, impacts to juveniles would be limited to the brief ' turbidity associated with stream re-routing. These impacts would only occur if the juveniles happened to be in the area.As noted above,YOY bocaccio and canary rockfish have not been detected in Puget Sound recently and yelloweye have only been detected at depths of 60'or deeper.Therefore,it seems unlikely that turbidity impacts will occur. Effects Determination for: Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish : "May effect,not likely to adversely affect" References: Federal Register/Vol. 74,No. 77/Thursday,April 23,2009/Proposed Rules. ' Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28, 2010/Rules and Regulations. Love, M. S.,M. Carr, and L. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus Sebastes. IEnv. Bio. Fish. 30:225-243 Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of ' California Press, Berkeley,California. MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 37 Love,M. S.,D. M Schroeder, W. Lenarz,A MacCall,A. S. Bull and L. Thorsteinson. (2006).Potential use of ' offshore marine structures in the rebuilding an overfished rockfish species. bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis). Fish.Bull. 104:383-390. ' Mills ML, Yuk Wing Cheng, and Robert E. Pacunsk. September 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division, Fish Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Palsson, W.A., Tien-Shui Tsou, Greg G. Bargmann, Raymond M. Buckley,Jim E. West, 1 1 1 1 MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 38 II I AGENCY USE ONLY 2 0 1 0 lid I WASHINGTON STATE US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Date received: I Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Agency reference#: Application (JARPA) Form Tax Parcel#(s): USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN WHITE SPACES BELOW. IPart 1—Project Identification 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) [help]2 IQuilcene Bay Spit Restoration IPart 2—Applicant The person or organization responsible for the project. [help] I 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Kathleen & Reimer Douglas I 2b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 2021 North 78th Street I 2c. City, State, Zip Seattle, WA 98103 2d. Phone(1) 2e. Phone(2) 2f. Fax 2g. E-mail I (206) 335-2991 (206) 524-6640 ( ) Kathleen @kmdouglas.com IPart 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11b. of this Iapplication.) [help] 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) IWilson, Justin C., NTI Engineering & Land Surveying 3b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 717 South Peabody; (914 Washington St., Ste. 6, Port Townsend 98368) Additional forms may be required for the following permits: I • If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit(RGP),contact the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for application information(206)764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act,you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form(SP IF)or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/PublicMenu/Menu.cfm?sitename=REG&pagename=mainpage_ESA I • If you are applying for an Aquatic Resources Use Authorization you will need to fill out and submit an Application for Authorization to Use State- Owned Aquatic Lands form to DNR,which can be found at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr_use_auth_app.doc • Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you think you will need a Shoreline permit,contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they will accept the JARPA. I 2To access an online JARPA form with[help]screens,go to http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/sitefalias_resourcecenter/jarpajarpa_form/9984/jarpa_form.aspx. For other help,contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-917-0043 or help@ora.wa.gov. JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 1 of 16 1 3c. City, State, Zip Port Angeles, WA 98362 3d. Phone(1) 3e. Phone(2) 3f. Fax 3g. E-mail ( 360) 452-8491 (360) 460-0683 (360 ) 452-8498 justin @nti4u.com Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. [help] ❑ Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) X Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) I X There are multiple property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ' 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)and Organization (if applicable) Frosholm, Donna- Jefferson County DCD ' 4b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 621 Sheridan Street ' 4c. City, State, Zip Port Townsend, WA 98368 4d. Phone(1) 4e. Phone(2) 4f. Fax 4g. E-mail ' (360) 379-4466 ( ) dfrostholm @co.jefferson.wa.us ' Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [help' ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g., linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. ' 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help] ❑ State Owned Aquatic Land (If yes or maybe, contact the Department of Natural Resources(DNR)at(360)902-1100) ❑ Federal ' X Other publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ' Private 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) [help] ' Intertidal land is immediately adjacent to 101 Wampum Point Road 5c. City, State, Zip(If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help] Quilcene, WA 98376 ' 5d. County [help] ' Jefferson JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 2 of 16 I I 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help] 1/4 Section Section Township Range SE 1/4 19 27N 1W I5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [help] • Example:47.03922 N lat./-122.89142 W long. (NAD 83) I47.816172 N lat. /-122.8490056 W long. (NAD 83) 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [help] I • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. Intertidal land is located immediately adjacent to 701194029 I5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) [help] I Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) Kathleen & Reimer Douglas 101 Wampam Point Road 701194029 Quilcene, WA 98376 I John & Muriel Gusoskey 83 Wampam Point Road 701194030 Quilcene, WA 98376 IWilliam and Lindsay Wright 25008 SE Mirrormont Way Issaquah, WA 98027 IRobert Palmer P.O. Box 1560 Port Townsend, WA 98368 I5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help] I5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [help] Unnamed Stream, East Quilcene Bay I 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year flood plain? [help] X Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know I 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [help] Native and imported plants and foliage, including small bushes, grasses and wildflowers are on the (new) uplands adjacent to the project area. Existing / pre-existing (prior to 2008 dredging of unnamed stream) habitat I includes riverine and stream bank aquatic, aviary and small mammal wildlife. Estuarine habitat includes existing shellfish beds on community tidelands property and shellfish beds on Jefferson County property. Photographs below show the site in 2006 and 2011 (Figures 1 and 2). I I I IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 3 of 16 I . ,. .i I , 1 1 1 .. . .. - Figure 1. May 23,2006(courtesy Klass Aerial Photography). Figure 2. September 1,2011 (courtesy Klass Aerial Photography) I5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [help] Rural residential and vacation home development, recreational uses (picnics, hiking, shellfish harvesting) and 1 shellfish and wildlife habitat. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [help] ISame as above. 5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s). [help] ' Residential /vacation homes, with rock bulkhead along shoreline. Piers from past logging operation remain in bay/tidelands area, sediment trap (see JARPA Control No. 115558-1; issued 12/12/2008) and various wooden I and other retaining structures (observed) alongside channel in unnamed stream. Note that these are outside the proposed project area but they may be exacerbating the deep trench condition of project area. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [help] Follow Highway 104 west to Chimacum/Quilcene exit. Turn right at the end of the exit onto Center Road. Continue 7.7 miles and turn left on East Quilcene Bay Road. Go 1.9 miles, turning right (just past Lindsey Hill Road) at Wampum Point sign. Go through East Bay gate. Douglas property is second house. I Part 6—Project Description 6a. Summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6d. [help] I Project seeks to return Unnamed Stream channel to original discharge location into Quilcene Bay, pre-2008 stream dredging project, with a discharge direction approximately N70-80 E across beach berm. To re-route this stream to its original east-west direction and contour, a small east-west channel will be excavated and backed with a small berm. The amount of material which will be excavated to form the new stream is approximately 11 I cubic yards. The excavated channel bottom width will be 4 ft., and the depth will be approximately 1.5 ft. The excavated material will be used to create a 1-2' tall berm along the entire length of the new stream channel. To complete this berm, approximately 9.5 additional cubic yards of material will be "scalped" from the area north of I the proposed channel and berm. The "scalp" area is the currently existing berm created in the 2008 dredging event. Scalping 9.5 cubic yards of material from this berm will allow for regular tidal inundation of the eastern side of the spit; this area has been 'cut off' from regular tidal exchange by the existing tall berm and as a result I supports upland vegetation uncharacteristic of an intertidal area. The existing berm reaches heights of greater than +10' above MLLW. The goal is to lower this berm to a height of between +8.0' above MLLW and +9.0' above MLLW. All work will occur on Jefferson County property, and will be done using the minimum amount of material practical. This will minimize fill within the marine waters of the United States, as required by the IUSACE. The project will restore community tidelands access to property owners and help to protect existing, threatened IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 4 of 16 I shellfish beds to prevent additional loss of aquatic life, and may enhance fishway to Unnamed Stream (see IFigures 1-6 and attached Biological Evaluation). See Figures 7 and 8 below for site plans. I I6b. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help] ❑ Commercial ® Residential ❑ Institutional LJ Transportation X Recreational I ® Maintenance ® Environmental Enhancement I6c. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help] ❑ Aquaculture [II Culvert H Float ❑ Road I ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam /Weir ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Scientific I] Boat House El Dike/ Levee/Jetty ❑ Land Clearing Measurement Device ❑ Boat Launch ® Ditch ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs Boat Lift — Dock/ Pier ❑ Mining El Stormwater facility ❑ Bridge El Dredging ❑ Outfall Structure n Swimming Pool I ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Piling H Utility Line ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Retaining Wall I ® Channel Modification ❑ Fishway (upland) X Other: I6d. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6c. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. [help] I • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year flood plain. I Existing channel will be redirected from N-S discharge to approximate 2008 discharge channel path by creating a small E-W berm as shown on attached plans. A light, mini-excavator or similar equipment will be used, gaining access via temporary ramp from Douglas property. Some reinforcement may be needed to ensure bulkhead / I ramp stability. The upper portions of the previously-dredged N-S berm will be scalped and material will be used to create the new E-W berm. Activity is timed to avoid salmon or other fish runs, performed between July 16, 2014 and February 1, 2015 as soon as permit authorization is granted. Project will be completed within approximately one week of start date and is anticipated to be a one-time project. I 6e. What are the start and end dates for project construction? (month/year) [help] • If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or I stage. Start date: 7/16/2014* End date: 02/2015 ❑ See JARPA Attachment D *or upon permit approval, if later I6f. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help] 1 IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 5 of 16 I I In 2008 under a prior JARPA permit (Control No. 1155.58-1; issued 12/12/2008), the Unnamed Stream was dredged, the channel was redirected and additional ditching was created in an approximately north-south orientation (see Figure 4, project plans). Excessive spoils from the dredging process were left along channel/ditch banks, adding significant material to both upland and bayward side of ditch. East Bay property I owners' access to the community tidelands has been significantly limited by the deep channel /ditch created by the dredging, and the additional uplands. Redirecting of the stream has altered the preexisting sediment transport paths, resulting in areas of deep scour of the spit area and exposing piers from the former logging I operation, and adversely affecting the health of the existing shellfish beds which have become subaerially exposed as the overlying fine sediments have been scoured and dispersed north by the new channel (see Figure 3-6). I I a.0 v Ts ' � , Figure 3. July,2006,view of beach from Douglas property SE corner. Figure 4. August,2011,view showing new uplands&trench. Icl a , ,. ti'0 1 "cam tt • Figure 5. 2006 overview of beach and spit from Douglas property. Figure 6. 2011 view of trench and reworked spoils from Douglas property. 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [hel IEstimated project cost: Less than $5,000.00 (including mobilization, demobilization & temporary access development and equipment/operator charge). I 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [help] • If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know I tJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 6 of 16 Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation ' n Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help] 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. [help] ® Not applicable 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help] ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help] fI Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [help] • If yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package. ' U Yes ❑ No 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? [help] ' • If yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know ' 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? [help] • If yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g. • If No,or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ' ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable ' 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. [help] 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted; the extent and duration of the impact; and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a ' similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. [helpl Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name1 type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area ' flood, etc.) rating ft. or type4 (sq. ft. or category2 Acres) acres) If no official name for the wetland exists,create a unique name(such as'Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents,such ' as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System.Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 'Indicate the days,months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter"permanent"if applicable. 4Creation(C),Re-establishment/Rehabilitation(R), Enhancement(E),Preservation(P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee(B) ' Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: JARPA 2010 vi 3/30/2010 Page 7 of 16 I 7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h., describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic Iyards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. [help] U 7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h., describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help] I Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation IIn Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [help] X Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) I8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. [help] El Not applicable I Restoration of the spit area of East Quilcene Bay west of the Unnamed Stream will provide nourishment to the existing shellfish beds. The project is planned to avoid or minimize adverse impact on salmon runs and other I aquatic populations. Light equipment will be used and carefully monitored, with daily equipment inspections prior to use to ensure no pollutants are introduced to the aquatic environment. Temporary access will be gained across Douglas bulkhead. Standard BMP's will be utilized to ensure no adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. I8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [help] ® Yes ❑ No I8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non-wetland waterbodies? [help] • If yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No,or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable IThis purpose of this project is to mitigate adverse impacts from a previous permit action (HPA Control No.115558-1). Specific mitigation includes restoration of preexisting sediment transport paths to restore existing I shellfish / aquatic habitat and restoration of access to community tidelands by property owners. No adverse impacts to non-wetland waterbodies is anticipated. 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was I used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g., you do not need to restate your answer here. [help] I8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help] Activity Waterbody Impact ! Duration of Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or I (clear, name' location2 impact3 to be placed in or linear ft.) of dredge, fill, removed from waterbody pile drive, waterbody directly affected I etc.) Re locate East . In TI B (see 3-5 days Approximately 9.5 cy Estimate about material from Quilcene Bay attached will be moved from 40 linear ft. of IN-S berm to map) existing berm to new berm to be new E W berm moved berm IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 8 of 16 I sediment IConstruction Unnamed Mouth of 1-2 days Approximately11 cy will Estimate about of new E-W Stream in Unnamed be excavated and 80 linear ft. berm Bay stream added to berm to— re- _ route stream. If no official name for the waterbody exists,create a unique name(such as"Stream 1")The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent,provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. I 'Indicate the days,months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter"permanent"if applicable. 8f. For all activities identified in 8e., describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. [help] I Material removed from N-S stream channel will be placed on new E-W berm (approximately 9.5 cy). Material will be removed to a depth of approximately 1.5' and a width of approximately 4' for 80' to create re-routed stream; this material will be placed on the new E-W berm (approximately 11 cy). I8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e., describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help] I Light equipment such as a rubber tired small excavator will be used to re-contour the extension ditch of the Unnamed Stream that currently directs the stream discharge northward from the mouth of the stream. The Unnamed Stream is planned to discharge slightly north of due west, at project completion. Sediment transport I is expected to be restored along the beach northward, directed westward as it approaches the mouth of the Unnamed Stream, replenishing the now exposed shellfish beds with needed sediment cover and nutrients. I I Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. I9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help] I Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact Army Corps of Christina Tong (206) 764-6878 08/28/2014 IEngineers Department of Ecology Rick Mraz (360) 407-6221 02/20/2012 Dept. of Fish &Wildlife Chris Byrne me 360 417-1426 08/2011 p Y ( ) Marjorie Shirato (360) 427-2179 02/2012 IDan Dafoe (360) 457-2516 03/2014 9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 on the Washington Department of I Ecology's 303(d) List? [help] • If yes, list the parameter(s)below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: I —http:I/www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/303d/. Yes X No I IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 9 of 16 I I 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help] • Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC. 17110019 I 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA#) is the r [heioi • Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/qis/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA#. WRIA 17 I9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? [help] I • Go to http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/wg/swgs/criteria.html for the standards. X Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable I 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? [help] • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. I • For more information, go to: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws rules/173-26/211 designations.html. ❑ Rural X Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other I9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [help] • Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesApplicxxations/Pages/fp_watertyping.aspx for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. IX Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater Imanual? [help] • If no, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. I X Yes ❑ No Name of manual: I 9i. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [help] Historical use of the property in the vicinity of the Unnamed Stream and its bay-ward discharge was as a log dump operation during mid 1900's. At that time, or at some time prior, the Unnamed Stream was relocated to I the existing channel. Properties to the south of the stream channel were developed as residential or vacation properties in the mid-1900's and later. By the late1900's the logging operation was discontinued, and the property was sold and subdivided. Homes on the north side of the unnamed stream were developed in the mid- ' 2000's. 9j. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help] I • If yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ❑ Yes X No 9k. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. [help] See Biological Evaluation I IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 10 of 16 ' 91. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. [help] See Biological Evaluation Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or helpora.wa.qov. ' • For a list of agency addresses to send your application, click on the "where to send your completed JARPA" at http://www.epermitting.wa.gov. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help] • For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html. ❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ® A SEPA determination is pending with _Jefferson Co (lead agency). The expected decision date is_Fall 2014 ' ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in lob.) [help] ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ' ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: _ ' ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. 1 Ob. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [help] LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance X Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): SDP Exemption (limited dredging to regain homeowner tideland ' access and improve shellfish habitat from 2008 "emergency" JARPA that may have exceeded permit intent.) Other city/county permits: ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: X Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption Washington Department of Ecology: ' ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification ' Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Resources Use Authorization FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 11 of 16 I I United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): X Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) n Section 10 (work in navigable waters) I United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects) I Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans,-photos, etc. [help] I11a. Applicant Signature (required) [help] I I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. II hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (initial) I By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) IKathleen & Reimer Douglas August 29, 2014 Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature Date I11 b. Authorized Agent Signature [help] I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, I and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry,.,ut the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued/ ry SEPrEh6ER ).5, X(1/4. ,. Justin C. Wilson ,. August 29, 2014- Authorized Agent Printed Name orized Agent Signature Date I \ , 11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant). [helpl Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. I I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the Ilandowner. IProperty Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date I 18 U.S.0§1001 provides that:Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 12 of 16 representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance(ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call(877)833-6341. ' ORA publication number: ENV-019-09 1 I JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 13 of 16 1 AGENCY USE ONLY I US lid Army Corps WASHINGTON STATE nr Engineers Date received: IJoint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) [help] IAgency reference#: Attachment C. Tax Parcel#(s): I Contact information for adjoining TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT [help] property owners. [help] Project Name: Location Name(if applicable): Use this attachment only if you have more than four adjoining 1 property owners. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below. I1. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. [help] Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel#(if known) 1 Claudia & Lawrence Sherman 18544 NE 19th Place Bellevue, WA 98008 I AJ &Jacqueline Schwagler 233 Alice Road Port Angeles, WA 98363 I I I I I 1 If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA)at I (800)917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call(877)833- 6341. ORIA publication number: ENV-022-09 rev. 08/2013 I 1 JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 14 of 16 I I \ § , ' 1, ■ I ,1 ck 5.° 'IP3 ....1,, ,.„ I 1 !? I 1- / 1114 I . 0 r:10,1" I 2 x. \ Illipoo:N,S1141111 =2 "A Q OA I A 1 e . ,,N, 14,■ a'cro IM g'4141%•,4 (/)C). 9, * 41111P 111111WIW —I I NI m ---- t M -ID I W8 ar-L_°9 Z I \\`, '' F'i .-511i (---"\ rq s42 PIE. 2 e,-P a41 2PE-M o3,d I 8 E I- Er=i eI E I ?'g i -- I 1 2 / I 4:146,6 J j.J_ I (-9 -t• -...-- 'I (-9 ^, • -, i 2 i7,fi, -ifi, Ir^ 1) I II IL ©NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES. INC 2014 DATE: 7/18/2014 I SCALE: AS SHOWN — NWS201446 STREAM RESTORATION NTI ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: ZNS/CR - - 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD. QUILICENE tfl -',.- ' 11,"' . •1 illr JOWL &SURVEYING , ?IT SOUTH PERSOOT STREET PORT ANGELES WA S8362 I FOR: PRAM WW1 COM REVIEW: JCW DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & REIMER NT! P ORR FSOTPST F(360T4524RP, ISHEET 2 OF .3 Figure 7. Site plan: Overhead view. IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 15 of 16 I I A A I I I 0 1 .. I . 8 a P71,;t 8 1 2 i • 71i ,- gg,T0 'ITT 6 13 40: 7 71 ) C ., ) o -o 's) " -13 0 (' i I ,,,-2 e be I'4' ,:, zo CD prj 71 U) Ill IjI, -e 0 ) 0 6 k • 778,,,7,, ?,g mrT, P ri OD MI I 73 1 0 of * .I. I IN1 n 1 ; i 1 0 R cn ° 1\ -0 I & el s P-1 17■) 71 • ,,, ,E; g,3 W 0 0 I 'a 0 --n klj z I - m t ..-, 1 ( [ I s I 1 i 1 1 •Cjighh. j u.... , ‘,., ... 1 l'eA, t'l A 1 F, I ' N il. \ I c NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES INC 2014 DATE: 7/18/2014 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION "'"" ,e, NTI ENGINEERING li t &SURVEYING DRAWN BY: ZA/S/CR I FOR: REVIEW;JCW 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & REIMER li ' ,1,SO(.17M PEABODY S,RE 11.1 NTI ,A,oAGELEs Vtls,RE,r A*14'141140 CON SHEET 3 OF 3 Figure 8. Site plan: proposed ditch and berm profiles. IJARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 16 of 16 A) 1 I North r .. AantpdIII Pori SpIt B) — Wampam Point Si 1 ' Figure 1.A) Vicinity Map of location in Quilcene Bay. B)Area map. White circle indicates approximate '/2 mile radius action area around proposed restoration. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 17 i I A I Norm Dot., parcel I I ° I Iimage U S Geoiog i- xvey B) I I North i r i d t r� max r rte. I I 3 I I I I Figure 2.:A' ,:„,.. ) Satellite image.0.,-,Wampam Point pre-dredge (07/2006). B) Aerial photograph of Wampam Point pre-dredge (05/2006). Note location of stream terminus on tidelands west of Gusoskey Parcel. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration p r 0 j e c t 1 8 V I A) �f<,• n Itiurth " o Parcel $f r E- U . . . cel, '" `r+ I m I 1 B) I)&)uglas Parcel IGu (,Ske-, Parcel I . � I .;.,. I I IFigure 3. A) Satellite image of Wampam Point post-dredge (08/2011). B) Aerial photograph of Wampam Point post-dredge (09/2011). Note re-aligned stream orientation Irunning north parallel to Gusoskey bulkhead. I MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 19 Douglas Stream Restoration Project Biological Evaluation Reference Number NWS-2o14-46 July 25, 2014 Prepared for: Kathleen and Reimer Douglas 101 Wampam Point Road Quilcene, WA 98376 1=; S f ,•,` 1- • SESS , MARINE SURVEYS £t ASSESSMENTS 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 385-4073 marine.surveys.inc®gmail.com Table of Contents I. Project information- nature and intensity A. Project location 4 B. Project description 4 C. Action area 4 II. Listed species and habitats A. Endangered Species Act listed species of concern 5 B. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species 8 Ill. Project impacts A. Current state of Wampam Point Spit 9 B. Physical and biological effects of proposed restoration 9 C. Jefferson County shoreline restoration goals 10 D. Direct construction impacts 10 E. Native plant relocation plan 1 1 F. Monitoring and contingency plan 1 1 G. Indirect/interdependent effects 12 H. Take analysis 12 I. Determination of effect 12 IV. References 14 Figures 1. Project location 17 2. Pre-dredge aerial and satellite photographs 18 3. Post-dredge aerial and satellite 19 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 2 4. Parcel ownership at Wampam Point 20 5. Site plan: Vicinity map 21 6. Site plan: Overhead view 22 7. Site plan: Proposed ditch and berm profiles 23 8. Southeast Jefferson County drift cell mapping 24 9. Overview of stream terminus changes from 2006-2011 25 10. Site photograph of current stream terminus 26 11. Upstream photographs 27 12. Restoration planting plan 28 13. Location of proposed monitoring transects 29 Attachment 1: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List 30 Attachment 2: Essential fish habitat assessment 32 Attachment 3: Assessment of impacts to critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook 34 Attachment 4: Assessment of impacts to Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat. 36 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 3 I. Project information A.Project location: Section 19,Qtr Section SE1/4,Township 27N,Range 1W. 101 Wampum Point Road,Quilcene,WA.98376 Latitude N 47.815845 Longitude W 122.849508 The project location is seen in Figure 1. B.Project description: the proposed project is to restore a stream that has been re-directed via dredging to near its natural,original channel.Prior to dredging in 2008,the unnamed stream terminated on tideland on Wampam Point in Quilcene,WA.It now terminates in a dredged channel approximately 130' north of this location(Figures 2-3). According to a report prepared by NTI Engineering for the proponents,Kathleen and Reimer Douglas,the effects of dredging have included stress to the existing shellfish beds,diminished access to community tidelands on the nearby spit,and development of unsightly upland on the Douglas property and the tidelands adjacent to the stream extension(NTI 2011).These changes have led the proponents to propose mitigating the negative effects of the dredging by returning the stream to near its former(pre-dredge)course,ending on Jefferson County property. To understand the context for the proposed action,it is necessary to consider the recent history of the project area. From the 1970's to the early 1990's,the Wampam Point area was used as a log staging facility(NTI 2011).In 1998,the East Bay Residential Community was created as a collection of single-family homes with jointly held community tideland access.The Douglas parcel,as well as a neighboring parcel owned by John and Carol Gusoskey,is in the aforementioned East Bay Residential Community(Figure 4).The community is bordered to the south by the unnamed stream,which crosses both the Gusoskey parcel(to the north of the stream)and a parcel owned Robert and Janet Palmer(to the south of the stream). In 2008,an emergency JARPA permit for a stream rerouting operation was issued to the Gusoskeys by the Washington department of Fish&Wildlife,for the stated purpose of flood control on the Gusoskey and Palmer properties(Control No. 115558-1; issued 12/12/2008).The re-directed stream now runs north parallel to a bulkhead on the Gusosky property.It is this action that has led to the aforementioned damage to the tidelands and surrounding upland areas. The current project proposes to restore restoring pre-2008 stream contours as closely as possible.The restoration will occur entirely on Jefferson County Tideland property.To re-route this stream to its original east-west direction and contour,a small east-west channel will be excavated and backed with a small berm(Figures 5-7).The amount of material which will be excavated to form the new stream is approximately 11 cubic yards. The excavated channel bottom width will be 4 ft.,and the depth will be approximately 1.5 ft.(Figures 6-7). The excavated material will be used to create a 1-2'tall berm along the entire length of the new stream channel.To complete this berm,approximately 9.5 additional cubic yards of material will be"scalped"from the area north of the proposed channel and berm. The"scalp"area is the currently existing berm created in the 2008 dredging event. Scalping 9.5 cubic yards of material from this berm will allow for regular tidal inundation of the eastern side of the spit;this area has been`cut off' from regular tidal exchange by the existing tall berm and as a result supports upland vegetation uncharacteristic of an intertidal area.Providing tidal exchange will allow the eastern edge of the spit to gradually regain an intertidal(as opposed to upland)nature. C.Action area: As a habitat restoration action,the consideration of impacts must include both short term construction related impacts as well as long term changes to local physical and biological processes. Short-term construction related impacts for consideration include turbidity and noise.The long-term physical effects of restoration on sediment drift and beach erosion,as well as the biological effects on shellfish,forage fish,and other Endangered Species Act or WDFW priority species and habitats should be considered.The action area for should MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 4 ICI include the area within a one half-mile radius of the project site. Finally,the suitability of this restoration action as it applies to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program restoration goals should also be considered. II. Listed species and habitats Endangered Species Act listed species of concern A range of fish,marine mammal,and bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act may occur,or have critical habitat,within the proposed action area.The listing status,presence of species and critical habitat in the area,and relevant life history traits of each listed species are presented below. Puget Sound Chinook: The Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)is listed under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)as threatened according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Vol. 70,No. 123/ Tuesday,June 28,2005/Rules and Regulations). In addition,NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs)of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The project site 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). The project site is located in WRIA 17.According to the Washington State Conservation Commission,Chinook salmon"are not found in WRIA 17 in abundant numbers as spawners and,when found,are either the result of hatchery production or straying"(WSCC 2002).However,fall-run Chinook have been identified in the Big Quilcene River,which empties into the project action area(WDFW 2013a). Relevant life history:Puget Sound Chinook,also called king salmon,are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size.Most chinook in the Puget Sound are"ocean-type"and migrate to the marine environment during their first year(Myers et al. 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. 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 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). In the impact area,Hood Canal summer run chum spawn in the Big Quilcene River,across Quilcene Bay from Wampam Point. Spawning also occurs in the Little Quilcene River,just north of the project site and impact area. The Big/Little Quilcene River summer Chum are considered a separate stock in the WDFW/Tribal summer chum recovery plan(WDFW/PNPT 2000). Between 2002-2012,total escapements from the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers have ranged from a low of approximately 2000 spawners in 2010 to a high of approximately 38,000 spawners in 2004(WDFW 2013c). Relevant life history:In Puget Sound,Chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams. In Hood Canal,the summer-run stocks spawn from early-September to mid-October(WDFW 1994). Chum(along with ocean-type Chinook)spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon (Dorcey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982).Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average residence of 24 days(Simenstad 1998).Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around eelgrass beds(harpacticoid copepods,gammarid amphipods and isopods),but change their diet to drift insects and plankton MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 5 it such as calanoid copepods,larvaceans,and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50-60 mm.(Simenstad et al. 1982). Puget Sound Steelhead:NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss)as a threatened species under the ESA(Federal Register/Vol.72,No.91 /Friday,May 11,2007/Rules and Regulations).No critical habitat has yet been determined for the Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment,and the site is not included in the proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead(Federal Register/Vol. 78,No.9/Monday, January 14,2013/Proposed Rules). Winter-run Puget Sound steelhead are present in the Big Quilcene River(WDFW 2013b).These steelhead belong to the Quilcene/Dabob Bay Winter Steelhead population,which has low escapement(generally<40 fish/year)and is has been given an"unknown"status by WDFW(2013c). Relevant life history:steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species O. mykiss. The freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again,unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean,where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington streams. Bull Trout: Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)in 1999(Federal RegisterNol.64,No.210/Monday,November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations). The project site is not located on a shoreline designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register/Vol.75,No. 200/Monday,October 18,2010/Rules and Regulations). According to WDFW,bull trout have a documented presence in Big Quilcene creek(2013a). However,the most recent stock assessment of WA bull trout/Dolly Varden noted that"none have been trapped in the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery in recent years,nor have any been observed in recent snorkel surveys... Consequently,we do not believe that there in is a distinct bull trout/Dolly Varden stock in the Big Quilcene River"(WDFW 2004). Any bull trout in the project area are likely to be only erratic and occasional visitors to the Big Quilcene River. Relevant life history:coastal Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea.Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations)takes place in the spring.Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival.Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and 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). Rockfish:NOAA has listed the distinct population segments(DPSs)of yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered(Federal RegisterNol. 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. In addition,NOAA has recently proposed to designate shallow water critical habitat for juvenile boccahio and canary rockfish(Federal RegisterNol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday,August 6,2013/ Proposed Rules). The effects of this project on adult rockfish are expected to be minimal,if they occur at all,because adult rockfish are commonly found in much deeper water than exists at the project site. If juvenile or pelagic rockfish are present, MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 6 the direct and indirect effects of this project are expected to be similar to those discussed in this document for salmon because juveniles are found closer to shore in shallow waters.However,the project is not located in the proposed shallow water critical habitat for juvenile boccahio and canary rockfish. Relevant life history:Bocaccio,canary,and yelloweye rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles.As juveniles they settle to benthic environment.They prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas(Love et al.2002).As the three species grow larger they move into deeper waters.Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats.Yelloweye rockfish are commonly found at depths from 300'to 590'. Canary rockfish usually habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160' and 820'(Federal Register/Vol.75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations.).All three species are opportunistic feeders,with their prey dependent on their life stage.Predators of the adults of these species include marine mammals,salmon,other rockfish,lingcod and sharks. Marbled Murrelet:Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992.There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site(WDFW 2013a,NOAA 2013). Relevant life history:marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(WDFW 1993).Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance,sea perch,Pacific herring,surf smelt,other small schooling fish and invertebrates. Humpback Whale:NMFS has listed the humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales in Washington at this time. Humpback whales were seen in Dabob Bay-which Quilcene Bay empties into-in January and February of 2012 according to the Orca Network(Orca Network 2012).However,the Orca Network newsletter said the organization couldn't recall a report of a humpback whale ever being seen in that area. Relevant life history:Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound, even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982). Steller Sea Lion:NMFS has listed the Eastern distinct population segment(DPS)of the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)as a threatened species that may occur in Puget Sound(Federal Register/Vol 55,No.227/ Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations). NMFS has,however,recently proposed to remove the eastern DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife(Federal Register/Vol.77,No. 75/Wednesday, April 18,2012/Proposed Rules). According to WDFW,no Steller sea lions have been identified in the project area(WDFW 2013a). Relevant life history: Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska.Breeding colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon(Osborne et al. 1988).There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the area(Jeffries et al.2000), although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May)where their visits are transitory. Leatherback Sea Turtle:NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.There is no designated critical habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Washington at this time. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 7 Relevant life history:There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,even though they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994). They are rarely seen in Puget Sound(McAllister,pers. comm.).Again,it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found near the project site. Southern Resident Killer Whales: On November 15,2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca)as endangered under ESA(Federal Register,Vol. 70,No.222,November 18,2005/Rules and Regulations).NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (Federal Register/ Vol.71,No. 229/November 29,2006/Final Rule). The proposed project is not within Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat.In a review of Southern Resident habitat use,NMFS found no confirmed sightings inside the Hood Canal from 1990-2003 (Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 229/Wednesday,November 29,2006/Rules and Regulations). Since 2003,all killer whale sightings in Hood Canal appear to be of transient killer whales. Northern Spotted Owls: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has listed the Northern Spotted Owl as a threatened species(Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 123/Tuesday,June 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations). In addition,USFWS has designated critical habitat for Northern Spotted Owls that includes forestland near Quilcene Bay(Federal Register/Vol.57,No. 10/Wednesday,January 15, 1992/Rules and Regulations). According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps,the action area includes Northern Spotted Owl management buffer land(WDFW 2013a).However,because the proposed action occurs on the shoreline and out of forested land,no Northern Spotted Owl habitat will be directly affected by the proposed action. Relevant life history:Northern Spotted Owls are a medium size owl in the family Strigidae and are native to western North America.These birds inhabit primarily old growth forests and some younger forest in the southern part of their range.The range of the Northern Spotted Owl extends on the Pacific coast from southern British Columbia to northern California. In addition to fragmentation and loss of old growth forest,the recent invasion of the non-native Barred Owl has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(USFWS 2004). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitats and species According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,a number of priority fish,marine invertebrate, marine mammal,and bird species are found within the 0.5 mile action area. In addition to the ESA-listed fish species previously noted within the action area,coast resident cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)and pink salmon(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)have been found in Big Quilcene Creek (WDFW 2013a).Forage fish, including sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus)and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus), may also be found in the action area.These fish are an important food source for a variety of consumers such as migrating salmon and bald eagles.According to WDFW,there is no"documented" forage fish spawning activity at the site,but it is in an area that has been designated as a potential forage fish spawning habitat.There is documented surf smelt spawning habitat approximately 2100 feet south of Wampam Point.Documented sand lance spawning beaches are located approximately 4200 feet south of Wampam Point.(WDFW 2013b). None of the above species have Federal or State concerned,threatened,or endangered status. Priority marine invertebrate species within the action area include Dungeness crab(Metacarcinus magister), pandalid shrimp species,and oyster species,none of which are recognized by the State or Federal government to have concerned,threatened,or endangered status(WDFW 2013a). Priority marine mammal species include the harbor seal(Phoca vitulina),which has a haulout site within the action area(WDFW 2103a).Harbor seals have no Federal concerned,threatened,or endangered status but are a State "monitored"species. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 8 Finally,priority bird species include the bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus).Breeding habitat is present within the action area(WDFW 2013a).Bald eagles are listed as a Federal species of concern and a State sensitive species. III. Project Impacts The proposed restoration of the unnamed stream at Wampam Point is a complex action.As such,the project impacts must be assessed on multiple levels.The current state of Wampam Point,and the probable impact that the 2008 stream dredging had on this state,are considered first.The long-term physical and biological effects of the proposed restoration,as well as how these fit into Jefferson County restoration goals,are then considered.Finally, direct construction-related impacts are considered. A.Current state of the Wampam Point Spit: Although no true"before and after"survey of the impacted spit at Wampam Point was done in response to the 2008 Gusoskey dredging operation,it is possible to get a clear view of its impact from aerial imagery and site photography.Photographs taken pre—(May 2006)and post-(September 2011)dredge indicate the change in stream channel.The new terminus is located approximately 130' northward of the pre-dredge terminus(Figures 2- 3,6).This aerial photography also illustrates the changing upland nature of the post-dredge spit,with dense upland vegetation now evident northeast of the stream channel. The new channelized stream has also created a muddy ditch emptying to the north,as opposed to the old meander terminating westward onto the East Bay Community Tidelands/Jefferson County Tidelands(Figures 2-3, 10).This deep channel impedes the Douglas's access to the community tidelands,as well as access for other neighbors to the north of the Gusosky parcel.Finally,this channel and its associated dredge spoil piles above the channel have created an unsightly view from the Douglas property. B.Physical and biological effects of the proposed restoration: It is likely that the unnamed stream was an important source of sediment for the spit at Wampam Point. This spit forms the transition zone between an area of northward sediment drift,which originates at Fisherman's Point on the southeast corner of the bay,and an area of no appreciable sediment drift,which continues through the shallows north of the spit(WSCC 2002,Jefferson County 2008a;Figure 8).The northward sediment drift may have aided in the development of the spit at Wampam Point but may not be sufficient to maintain it.This is likely because Quilcene Bay does not feature strong shoreline sedimentary drift.According to the WSCC,"sediment sources [in Quilcene Bay] are moderate and alongshore, except where rivers and/or streams enter the bay where they become more abundant and fluvial"(2002). In an area of moderate sedimentary drift,the unnamed stream provided a considerable amount of sediment to the spit. The sediment from the stream is now redirected to the shoreline north of the spit,an area with no appreciable nearshore drift(Figure 8). It is probable that this sediment source is simply"lost"to the spit with the current stream orientation.A deep east-west scour has also formed on the spit,as seen in aerial photography(Figure 3).A "notch,"where the spit is eroding at the location of the former stream terminus, is also growing over time.This is clear in satellite photography from before the dredge in 2006 as well as post-dredge in 2009 and 2011 (Figure 9). Further evidence of this loss is the observation by the proponents that previously buried piers from the former logging operation on the spit are becoming exposed.Without the former sediment flow from the unnamed stream, sediment replenishment from south of the spit is evidentially insufficient,on its own,to keep the spit from eroding. Indeed,erosion of Puget Sound spit beaches may be a response to reduction in sediment supply from upland areas (Shipman and Canning 1993). By re-routing the stream to its original terminus,a valuable source of sediment will be restored to the spit. Over time,the reduced sediment input to the spit will likely result in not only a diminished spit,but a diminished habitat for intertidal fish and invertebrate use.The proponents have noted a dying-off of the shellfish beds on community tidelands to the west of the dredge site,which could indicate that the amount of suitable habitat may MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 9 already be decreasing.Many factors impact the success of shellfish,especially in their early stages.According to the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership,"early survival can be impacted by alterations in the conditions of water passing over or through beach sediments, such as in salinity,temperature,sediment load,or pollutants"(Dethier 2006).A major change in flow over the shellfish beds,as caused by the 2008 dredge,may have negatively altered a state that allowed for shellfish persistence. In addition to improving the substrate available for shellfish,restoring the natural stream flow will return detritus and nutrient flow,a likely benefit to these filter-feeding species. Although there is currently no forage fish spawning on the spit,it is listed as"potential"forage fish spawning habitat(WDFW 2013a).Reduced habitat area due to an eroding spit would make forage fish use less likely; restoring habitat on the spit(by restoring the sediment-bearing stream)will provide substrate that may be utilized by forage fish for spawning in the future. C.Jefferson County shoreline restoration goals: As part of its comprehensive Shoreline Master Program update,Jefferson County released a Final Shoreline Restoration Plan in 2008.This plan identifies overall restoration goals for the county as well as specific targets for restoration action.The proposed stream restoration at Wampam Point fits into both of these categories,making it an ideal candidate for consideration as a restoration action. The following Jefferson County goals are especially applicable to the proposed action(from Jefferson County 2008b): • To increase the availability,viability and sustainability of shoreline habitats for salmon,shellfish,forage fish,shorebirds and marine seabirds, and other species; •To improve habitat quality for sensitive and/or locally important species,and support the biological recovery goals for federally protected species; •To encourage cooperative restoration actions involving local,state, and federal public agencies,tribes, NGOs,and private landowners. As the above assessment of the physical and biological effects of the proposed action indicates,it is very likely that restoring natural stream flow will nourish the Wampam Point spit.By restoring sediment to the spit,quality habitat for priority fish and shellfish species will be recovered and promoted. This project would also be a unique collaboration between local agencies and a private landowner.Though the impacts to the spit are largely occurring on East Bay Community Tidelands and Jefferson County Tidelands,the proponents will be covering all costs associated with the permitting and execution of the proposed restoration action. In addition,Jefferson County has also targeted"Restor[ing] natural stream morphology in areas where channelization has occurred"in the WRIA 17 watershed(Jefferson County 2008b).The proposed restoration is a direct action in service of this goal. When residential construction was permitted at the East Bay Residential Community,the unnamed stream was identified as a Type 3 stream(NTI 2011).This categorization includes streams that don't necessarily have a documented fish presence,but are assumed to support fish because they contain suitable habitat(WAC 222 16- 031).Upland of the tidelands,the stream is currently channelized(Figures 10-11).Removing the dredged channel along the tidelands would be an ideal start to a more complete restoration effort.This stream is less than half a mile east of the mouth of the Big Quilcene River,which has Chinook salmon,Hood Canal Summer-run Chum salmon, Steelhead,and bull trout present(WDFW 2013a).As an effort to restore a potential fish-bearing stream,the proposed action is a very appropriate restoration goal. D.Direct construction impacts The direct physical effects of re-dredging the stream are unlikely to immediately reduce or destroy any priority species or habitats.A tracked excavator will be used to create the new channel and backing berm. I will also be used to take material from the 2008 berm to aid in creating the new berm.Movement of the excavator in the upper MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 10 intertidal will cause some beach substrate disruption.As tidal exchange inundates the area,increased turbidity may also occur. The impact level on salmonids depends on duration of exposure,concentration of turbidity,the life stage during the increased exposure,and the options available for fish to avoid the plumes. The effects can be summarized in terms of lethal,sublethal,or behavioral(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 and Simenstad,editor, 1988).The most likely salmonid response to this temporary increase in turbidity would be avoidance of the area.To minimize any negative impacts on migrating salmonids,construction should take place during the work window of July 15 to February 1. E.Native plan relocation plan In addition to the habitat benefits previously discussed in this document,native plant species displaced by the filling and re-contouring of the current stream channel will be salvaged and replanted to the banks of the restored stream channel.These species include dunegrass(Elymus mollis),silver burweed(Ambrosia chamissonis), seashore saltgrass(Distichlis spicata),American glasswort(Salicornia virginica),and Plantain species. See Figure 12 for the restoration planting plan. An as-built drawing and report will be submitted to Jefferson County as documentation of the implementation of the approved replanting plan within one month of installation.The plan will include vegetation description and photo documentation from established photo stations. Monitoring will take place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season(late August or early September)of each monitoring year. The performance standards will be monitored by measuring plots in zones within the planting area that will be established and mapped after planting occurs,on the as-built plan. There will be photo points for each plot and they will be referenced on the as-built plan.Photos will be taken at all points for all years as visual documentation of the performance standards progress,or lack of. Collected data and photos will be compiled into a report for Jefferson County DCD.The report will address whether the performance standards are being met during each monitoring year and if the final end of monitoring period standards are going to be met. Monitoring results will determine whether or not contingency measures will be needed. Percent cover: The percent cover standard will be monitored by looking at each monitoring unit of the removal areas from above and estimating the area covered by invasive species.The percent cover within an area can be quantified as a total greater than 100%because plants(in tree,high/low shrub and herbaceous layers)overlap in cover. Maintenance Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the persistence of all native species within the mitigation area.Hand weeding will be necessary to remove all invasive plants that establish themselves in the removal area. Contingency Plan If a 90%removal rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year,invasive plants will be removed to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. F.Monitoring and contingency plan: This restoration project aims to re-direct the existing stream towards its pre-dredge western terminus on the Wampam Point Spit. It also aims to re-open the eastern extent of the spit to tidal exchange. The monitoring and contingency plan addresses both of these goals. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 11 Stream re-direction: work will be done in the summer,when the unnamed stream has little to no flow. Once the fall and winter arrive and stream flow increases,the newly constructed east-west berm will be tested. If the east- west berm is not sufficient to re-direct flow to the west side of the spit,more material will need to be placed along its upper extent during the next available work window.This material will come from the north-south berm created by the 2008 dredge.Because the initial site plan calls for the minimum practical amount of material to be removed, there will still be ample material available. Tidal exchange along the eastern extent of the spit: Once tidal exchange and wave action act on the lowered north-south berm,it is likely that the eastern extent of the spit will return to an intertidal(as opposed to upland) area. If the existing berm is insufficiently lowered,however,the upland area may remain intact due to insufficient tidal exchange. We propose to track the lowering of the original berm over time, and remove more material if,after 2 winters of tidal and wave action,the upland area is not"reconnected"to the intertidal successfully. Prior to the start of work,permanent transects will be established on Jefferson County property.These transects will be marked with rebar stakes driven into the beach on their eastern and western ends. We propose 4 transects, with each encompassing the area just landward of the current channel,the existing berm,and the area just seaward of the existing berm. While the exact location of transects will be decided on-site prior to construction,they will generally run parallel to each other in an east-west direction. See Figure 13 for the approximate locations of transects.Along each transect,4 height measurements will be taken using a surveyor's transit.The transit will be set at a fixed point on the Douglas property.By taking all measurements from a fixed point,the exact location along a given transect can be repeatedly measured over time. We propose monitoring the height of the berm and surrounding area just prior to construction(summer 2014), immediately following construction(summer 2014),and in two successive spring seasons(spring 2015 and spring 2016). If the north-south berm does not lower beyond+8' above MLLW after this time,and the eastern area of the spit still retains substantial upland vegetation,more material removal will be necessary.Because the existing beach profile is approximately+8' above MLLW in the area immediately seaward of the north-south berm(Figure 1),we expect lowering the berm to this beach grade will be sufficient to allow tidal inundation. If this is not the case, however,we propose lowering the berm to approximately+7.0' above MLLW. The maximum amount of material that would be removed from the existing berm to accomplish this would be less than 10 yd3.Any material added to the newly constructed east-west berm will be added at an elevation below the MITIHW. G.Interrelated/interdependent effects: Completion of this project will not 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 will occur because of this project. H.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 project. I.Determination of effect: After reviewing the appropriate data,the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound chinook-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 2.Hood Canal summer run chum-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 12 3. Puget Sound steelhead-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 4. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 5. Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish - "May effect,not likely to adversely affect" 6. Marbled murrelet- "No effect" 7. Humpback whale-"No effect" 8. Steller sea lion-"No effect" 9. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect" 10.Southern Resident killer whale-"No effect" 11.Northern Spotted Owl-"No effect" MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 13 IV. References Angell,T.and K.C.Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound.Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle,WA, 146 pp. Bowlby,D.E.,G.A.Green and M.L.Bonnell. 1994.Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Dethier,Megan M.2006.Native Shellfish in Nearshore Ecosystems of Puget Sound.Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report Number 2006-04.Published by Seattle District,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle WA. 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. Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 123/Tuesday,June 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 227/Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 57,No. 10/Wednesday,January 15, 1992/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 64,No.210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol.70,No. 123/Tuesday,June 28,2005/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. 75/Wednesday,April 18,2012/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol.78,No. 9/Monday,January 14,2013/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday,August 6,2013/Proposed Rules Healey,M. C. 1982.Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries:the life support system,pp. 315 -341.In: V.S.Kennedy (ed.),Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Jefferson County,WA.2008a. Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Mapping.Available: http://www.co.j efferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Shorelinelnventory.htm. Jefferson County,WA.2008b.Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project:2008 Update. Available:http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/shorelineplanning.htm. Jeffries,Steven J.,Patrick J.Gearin,Harriet R.Huber,Don L. Saul and Darrell A.Pruett.2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Wildlife Science Division, Olympia,WA, 150 pp. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 14 Love,M.S.,M.M.Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson.2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific.University of California Press,Berkeley,California. Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope,G. J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer,T. C.Wainwright,W. S. Grand,F.W. Waknitz, K.Neely, S.T.Lindley,and R. S.Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington,Idaho, Oregon,and California.U.S.Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Environmental Response Management Application: Puget Sound.2013.Available:http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/environmental-response- management-application-erma/pacific-northwest-erma.html. Nightingale,B.and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures:marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Ecology,and Washington State Department of Transportation,Olympia,WA, 177 pp. NTI Engineering&Land Surveying(NTI).2011. Spit Restoration Alternatives Investigation:Prepared for Kathleen and Reimer Douglas.Port Angeles,WA. Orca Network.2012.February 2012 Sightings Archive.Available: http://www.orcanetwork.org/Archives/index.php?categories_file=Sightings%20Archive%20%20Feb%2012. Freeland,WA. Osborne,R.,J.Calambokidis and E.M.Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound Island Publishers,Anacortes,WA, 191 pp. Rieman,B.E.and J.D.McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S.Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,Ogden,UT.38 pp. Simenstad,C.A.,K.L. Fresh and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function,pp.343-364. In V.S.Kennedy(ed.).Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Simenstad,C.A.,(ed.). 1988.Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant,Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad,Charles A.,(ed.). 1998.Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions.University of Washington, Seattle,WA. Shipman,Hugh; Canning,Douglas J., 1993,Cumulative environmental impacts of shoreline stabilization on Puget Sound. IN Magoon, O.T.;Wilson,W. S.;Converse,Hugh;Tobin,L.T.,editors,Coastal zone'93;Proceedings of the 8th symposium on coastal and ocean management:American Society of Civil Engineers,v. 2,p.2233-2242. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Northern Spotted Owl, Five-Year Review:Summary and Evaluation. USFWS,Portland,Oregon.November 2004.Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/pdf/NSO_5-yr Summary.pdf Washington State Conservation Commission. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors.Water Resources Inventory Area 17,Quilcene/Snow Watershed(2002). 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, WA. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 15 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point No Point Treaty Tribes.2000. Summer Chum Salmon Initiative.797 pp.Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2004.Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory:Bull Trout/Dolly Varden.449 pp. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013a. Priority Habitats and Species report. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia,Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013b. Salmonscape Interactive Mapping.Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013c. Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine(SCoRE). Available:https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/.Olympia,WA. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 16 A) # . ► ' ,, . , � ,tom � ' , °. f..$1.-.`; t 3 if o ,.' North - 4 -.<• ampam Po' , .t.-. . ....1... . ,e-ir.-- ,,,.#,Asi •., '‘A ''' 1 *11 d t, i Aurfcene TO , Bay t ti r I. e` '`a 4 id . A 1 .e, / / 400 r..a. , N, . 700.„..* . - -, . fi+r �" Datrob Bay F Jackson �' '.. `" I_ ' Cove erg' B) r s < T. � l sc ." , .. , 4 Ncuth f�"^ -- Wampatn Poin[Spi[ '`f r ✓r .C'"'Google Figure 1.A) Vicinity Map of location in Quilcene Bay. B)Area map. White circle indicates approximate 1/2 mile radius action area around proposed restoration. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 17 A T 1T1Ii Douglas Parcel 4 Gusoskey Panel >t r' . r } o--ttimq,9 4. tl L:SL B) Mile :I'd ii • t t Y )q 4 ': Figure 2. A) Satellite image of Wampam Point pre-dredge (07/2006). B) Aerial photograph of Wampam Point pre-dredge (05/2006). Note location of stream terminus on tidelands west of Gusoskey Parcel. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 18 A) r, i d Douglas Parcel __.. ' - ., _ Gusoskey Par(. 7 ,[ y B) i.e,i. ,,. -• - , -;-';.*--,:iitt -.:;.- 1. ' 1,4. «,„ . ,:„.4. .....):. , ,.. „4,,, ti,,,-4. -•.-'''")......,"'77 • ' '÷---------- North ri � I a ,,, ' ' :°' '.''','--:---:-:,, ,• -,.;-7---;,. r e `, ,; k „ 7 y I fi Figure 3. A) Satellite image of Wampam Point post-dredge (08/2011). B) Aerial photograph of Wampam Point post-dredge (09/2011). Note re-aligned stream orientation running north parallel to Gusoskey bulkhead. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 19 . - i recta 1..o! E 1 GOVT'T LOT 4' ...'WOK 1287.62 „J\......- 6 GOV'T LOT - • tIA: • • LOT D • .., -c-.1-1 zii N89 44 42 W 7-94 1 r.o9 1.1x." t tior r1.9214 ACRES 1.; P■rx. V+ Com. r 0 4 '7. •:ii , : tr) < F g ; N ..\ I 3 3 ,r, '4 ,... 1. . - = ., . q .•.,t It M he , m r , 4 .- 7c ■,... LOT C '**i,,1 - . 1.9837 ACRES 1 k 7..3. n ,, ■ ii 1$11 444.04 II\ .4 a 117.1111 S , 3 > 4 .7..,1 ° -741.41 0 . •4 0 SO. /00' ZOC1 30C) : . .1 I• ••••„••• 1 ‘ Iiimmim i 1 '.. 3 ' ..n LOT B /- -. ...-/QAT WM UMW It$14.41.11110 14 , Sv-vra......s. -5-cay....... ‘.••■,"1.A SCALE 1 1- 4 100* T I DEL.ANDS ; ./•.; 2.2097 ACRES \ S 1.4 -"*M--- ''''• ' o 1 TAX -13' ■I• 114.11 1411111111.1 '. /47 , , 11.1.1 0 197.43 .41. "' •a RI 't.. . r1 i.:11 1%TA Z•if ka....TO 14. ::LI A et 11.1'•• ••••••‘. ""WID"re4 i•,••1 0. j;* SI% Eu ./Ar 4,•••.„ PIS THIS 114313. * *3+41 141 44. 1.1 , ., L o-r A ...."14:,".. ;,„ 11.2719 ACRES /* 'il 4,1. '3' INCLUDES T IDELANDO) '' ".441..........c,1 ta.:".Z.:1:o s:::14:::rd: \ _.'._•. -1.;;1.1: CrN:. is.. aj------ '. ..!?*".4% /... stl, - .,.'VJ-... ' ' • ',o lk _____---• PORTION TRACT 3 OF STATE ex*sir 1 • 1.t\ • 314.11 • U1114; OTTER RESERVE PER VOL. 17 PAGE 109 Of SURVEYS N t,,,,' APN 701 -- 194-010 . / 11 \ ., ,-.....1100.1 11/.11414114.WL MI WA..I 0$41411008 1114 141 , 11 . • U ; \ ! 2, Figure 4.Parcel ownership in the vicinity of Wampam Point. "Lot A"is owned by John and Carol Gusoskey,"Lot B"is owned by Kathleen and Reimer Douglas.The East Bay Community Tidelands are also on"Lot A," and the remainder of the Wampam Point Spit is located on Jefferson County Tidelands Tax "B"land. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 20 COVER SHEET STREAM RESTORATION FOR KATHLEEN & REIMER DOUGLAS B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A R�' ._ 1< .i, A . --/ i- / . a W A S H I N G T O N Q v o °'°�'"` a O wu VILLA 0 11110110110 OREGON LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE 0 i ,,G.APS Ilk ' , 1 Zf 1. z • 7/18,f♦ V A,"o, FC!STE C "-4c''' SS/ONAl E.k VICINITY MAP C NORTHWLS/GRN IERRITORIES, INC.2014 DATE: 7/18/2074 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION NTI ENGINEERING DRAWN BY ZNS/CR IIREINI, &SURVEYING 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE "'SOUTH PEABOO,STREET FOR: POW ANGELES.WA 99362 IS■ WWW1414U COM REVIEW:JCW DOUGLAS. KATHLEEN & REIMER NT! i1JWla528491 SHEET 1 OF 3 Figure 5. Site plan: Vicinity map MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 21 � ' u \ o I 4 5a (/ L y � , P;=fig •� g ov 2 \10:\,\ OLK,. \,,,, fir IV414411111411110 Alt 4111V • 4. U) t71 c R 1) I { r M1. ;pt,- . 1-5-9 m \ sl, moEu T401 1`^E 2 3P 1r i >Q t 1 i / / 1 --1101R1 666 — ti c1 o O -A o 75 w a i c"o i'N S N ©NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES. INC.2074 DATE: 7/18/2014 �� SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION NNTI ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: ZNS CR nil &SURVEYING - 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE lit 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET FOR: PORT ANGELES WA 98362 ICI WWW.NTWU COM REVIEW: JCW _ DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & REIMER NTI F'O"598 SHEET 2 OF 3 Figure 6. Site plan: Overhead view. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 22 ♦ O °O'P ' op 8 8 1 1 1 1 O O'o 1 O O 1 4 V' i i m IN8 8 1 1 ft 1 I 8.$a I O i I) O m i m cn m .g co 0 0 0 1. tN) - 6 m 11 � s A a I 'Q *m X I I I = „I C4 F3 K I o i n NI O I <ii 5 F I I 1 1 1 1 ° I ° 1 ok o 1 T. 1 I I I C9 .rb I o O (A I a w r mo v SR 2-, 4, =FFA a N—Vl o 0 N e o 1. N 0 Q„"a NoRINWESERN TERRITORIES. INC 2010 DATE: 7/18/2014 �k�,. SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION /i11� .'. NTI ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: ZNS/CR —{ &SURVEYING 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE "l',QUI.PEA9iti31 FOR: FORiANGELES WA: 1 WWW NNW COM REVIEW: JCW DOUGLAS. KATHLEEN & REIMER NT/ F�MC:� 91 SHEET 3 OF 3 Figure 7. Site plan: proposed ditch and berm profiles. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 23 CLALLAM COUNTY [ ,. .c -r .."1- ''.i 'W R, '..,,V,014' ?„4").), s t ' Y..: l, 0 b \y 4 (C / ,- ' ' 11 i 7-,-.==. + ., ' ser .. ; • ft' iii ` # ii..fl : s j . 7!• +' ' . ,. ''. K:TSAP COUNTY r �a.rr svr.►...ry•�. mw....., y F;R',;C;N iOt;NTY s- ...am►away ..►woart* usaw.ww.arw.oat . _.. L z MAP 11 illi -- T COASTAL P MODIF(CATIONS SOUTHEAST JEFFERSON ANG COUNTY .. .. .. ..0.no.ww.a.wa........w.c,n.s.x. JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MAP FOL:O j >.>.m.+.o...-1JV4$.,.�co,....r■n..n. Au..2008 Figure 8. Southeast Jefferson County Shoreline Mapping Drift Cell Analysis Map. 24 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 1 A) s B) Si Pce4red�ztn32 t^Jmu:*ss s *-.7- 4+aoazeY Parcel C) a tea; _r P .lrcJgc.aeon i�m:nw -+ ?r. Ys• Figure 9. Satellite photography showing changing nature of stream terminus from A) July 2006, B) May 2009, and C) August 2011. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 25 • 9 '1 3 . P 1y' , �. pyr" .. ,. .. '.�,: , a. +� bnF,,Fk ,...."4 8' P i R °yam ^ i^ , (c' ' R Qy.+"St fir. Figure 10. Dredged area of unnamed stream near its terminus, looking south. 26 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project ► :max i. ... ! \ ,' j ! ,e- 1.i. , - ' *'' .itit e s .a * % r ,aa • 4 - d " w ti, R A 40 .' }a. t ttRV .g - am n r Figure 11. Channelized nature of unnamed stream upstream of proposed restoration. 27 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project . i * .a_ Sa- Y C per, .e. „. ..... . , . . . .., ,. ,.., ,.... ....:2 t •1 [ 1: � x / ,f Z °� m vik,..■�k,. s' Q 2 °3t,w `n°* ■ �. {- > ,t 1 w QH Wd� \ g % ° 8 ofj�QQ `,(4.-Ti 1 p w w F-a�d kpm, j o p v) OC Zawn ZwH % - j l t t. . _- - i v) m Qu'�Z �6 awo `.,, I/ ft x°Q �e e ,y o „ n z am` / I Figure 12. Restoration Planting Plan MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 28 Douglas Property Jefferson County Tidelands . KI , e ., .ems'-. t K Y oskey Propert Wampam Point Assoc - Propert - - * `:-. '1,. a ;' � 4 .r Figure 13. Location of proposed monitoring transects. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 29 Attachment 1: LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES;AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN JEFFERSON COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised April 24,2013) LISTED Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Short-tailed albatross(Phoebastria albatrus) [outer coast] Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation(e.g., increased noise levels,increased human activity and/or access,loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED Dolly Varden(Salvelinus malma)due to similarity of appearance CANDIDATE Fisher(Mantes pennanti)—West Coast DPS Whitebark pint(Pinus albicaulis) SPECIES OF CONCERN Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) Bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Brown pelican(Pelecanus occidentalis) [outer coast] Cascades frog(Rana cascadae) Cassin's auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 30 Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) [southwest Washington DPS] Destruction Island shrew(Sorex trowbridgii destructioni) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi) Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus) Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus) River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei) Tufted puffin(Fratercula cirrhata) Valley silverspot(Speyeria zerene bremeri) Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei) Western toad(Bufo boreas) MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 31 Attachment 2: 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). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. 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 attached BE. The project consists of a stream realignment;a pre-existing dredge will be re-contoured to natural conditions,and a small dredge will be done to restore stream flow to its natural tendancy. 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 temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for groundfish,coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)due to turbidity impacts from the construction process. E.EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached 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, coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon,but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)in the long term. The restoration of the stream will likely have long-term positive effects on fish habitat. G.Additional References MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 32 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). MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 33 Attachment 3: Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: Restoration of an unnamed stream, Quilcene WA. Applicant:Kathleen and Reimer Douglas. The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead are: (1)Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Salmon and steelhead are not noted in the unnamed stream. Effects to PCE: Likely to improve existing conditions. See attached Biological Evaluation. (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, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Stream is channelized upstream of the proposed restoration; it was rated as a"Type 3" stream that did not contain fish, but was assumed to be able to support fish because it contained suitable habitat. Effects to PCE: The proposed restoration is at the stream mouth,and will not affect upstream rearing sites. (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: Stream is channelized upstream of the proposed restoration; it was rated as a"Type 3" stream that did not contain fish, but was assumed to be able to support fish because it contained suitable habitat. Effects to PCE: As a stream restoration project, it will likely have a positive effect on the conditions in (3). (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 BE,the current stream terminus is a channelized ditch in the upper intertidal area. This provides little natural cover and may be an obstruction. Effects to PCE: Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity as tidal waters inundate the upper intertidal area.The project will have no impacts on salinity conditions or water temperature. Work windows will MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 34 prevent impacts to migrating salmonids, bull trout and spawning surf smelt.Long-term effects are likely to be positive,removing a channelized terminus and replacing it with the original meandering stream terminus. (5)Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: See 4 above Effects to PCE: 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 PCE: None Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 35 Attachment 4: Assessment of impacts to Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat. Bocaccio Rockfish: Bocaccio are found from Stepovac Bay on the Alaska Peninsula to Punta Blanca in central Baja California.They are most common from Oregon to California and were once common on steep walls in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002). Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface,occasionally associated with drifting kelp mats . Bocaccio bear live young and the larvae and pelagic juveniles remain close to the surface and are occasionally associated with floating kelp beds(Love et al.2002).Most bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months but some will remain pelagic for up to 5.5 months before settling into littoral zones.They prefer rock or cobble substrates with kelp beds and/or kelp canopies as well as artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms.Research by Love et al. (2006)revealed: In 2003,using a manned research submersible,we conducted fish surveys around eight oil and gas platforms off southern California as part of an assessment of the potential value of these structures as fish habitat.From these surveys,we estimated that there was a minimum of 430,000 juvenile bocaccio at these eight structures.We determined this number to be about 20%of the average number of juvenile bocaccio that survive annually for the geographic range of the species. Another interesting observation made by the researchers was that: By comparison,juvenile bocaccio recruitment to nearshore natural nursery grounds, as determined through regional scuba surveys,was low in the same year.This research demonstrates that a relatively small amount of artificial nursery habitat may be quite valuable in rebuilding an overfished species. According to Palsson et al.(2009),bocaccio rockfish: were once caught in localized areas in South Sound(Washington 1977)but they have not appeared in recent research or recreational catches.Bocaccio were always infrequent in the recreational fishery,with a few erratic occurrences in North Sound but more consistent,low occurrences in South Sound.Bocaccio has never been observed during WDFW bottom trawl,video,or dive surveys in Puget Sound. In a personal communication(Email, October 7,2010)Palsson(WDFW)stated,"Young of the year(YOY) bocaccio and canary rockfishes have not been identified in surveys conducted in Puget Sound." Palsson et al.(2009)also observed that: Overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes is the leading cause of decline to yelloweye rockfish,canary rockfish and bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.The evidence is clear that historic overfishing has played a major role in the declines of rockfish in the Puget Sound region. Yelloweye Rockfish: Yelloweye rockfish range along the US and Canadian west coast,with individuals recorded from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands. The major portion of the abundance is found central California to Alaska and they are rare in Puget Sound(Love et al.2002).Yelloweye rockfish juveniles settle primarily in shallow,high relief zones,crevices and sponge gardens(Love et al. 1991). There is no consistent trend for the presence of yelloweye in Puget Sound.The frequency of yelloweye occurring in the recreational rockfish catch data indicated frequencies of less than one percent were seen in the 1960s,which increased to 3%in the 1990s(Federal Register 2009). MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 36 In terms of the depths at which yelloweye have been found in Puget Sound,Palsson noted,(Email,July 26,2010), "The upper depth limit of yelloweye is less known,but we have only detected them as shallow as 60'." Canary Rockfish: Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett,Baja California,and the Western Gulf of Alaska.Within this range, canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon. The larvae and pelagic juveniles of canary rockfish are found in the upper 100 m of the water column(Love et al. 2002).Estimates of larval duration range from 1-2 months to 3-4 months(Love et al.2002).Juveniles prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas(Love et al.2002).During this settlement they consume on crustaceans(e.g.,harpacticoids)barnacle cyprids,and euphasiid eggs and larvae.According to information found in the Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas and the Habitat Survey,there are kelp beds (Laminaria,flat Dermasterias and Costaria)along the project site shoreline. According to the Federal Register(2009): In Puget Sound Proper,canary rockfish occurred at frequencies above 2 percent of the total rockfish catch in the 1960s and 1970s,but by the late 1990s had declined to about 0.76 percent.Relying on the estimate of Palsson et al.(2008)of 40,683 rockfish in Puget Sound Proper,a 0.76—percent frequency rate would mean there are about 300 individual canary rockfish in Puget Sound Proper. Impact of proposed action: As noted above,the main reason for the decrease in the abundance of these three rockfish has been the historic overfishing of these populations.This overfishing has reduced not only the number of these fish in Puget Sound, but also has reduced the proportion of larger females,which harms the overall productivity of these populations. Adult bocaccio,canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish are typically associated with rocky habitats.According to Palsson et al. (2009),such habitat is extremely limited in Puget Sound,with only 10 square km of such habitat in Puget Sound Proper(i.e.,south of Admiralty Inlet), and 207 square km2 in Northern Puget Sound. Adult yelloweye rockfish are commonly found in waters 300'to 590'in depth.Canary rockfish usually in habitat the area between 160'to 820' and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160'and 820'(Federal Register, 2009).Therefore, it seems likely that the adults are not impacted by any short-term turbidity impacts that may result. Because juveniles settle in more shallow water than adults,impacts to juveniles would be limited to the brief turbidity associated with stream re-routing.These impacts would only occur if the juveniles happened to be in the area.As noted above,YOY bocaccio and canary rockfish have not been detected in Puget Sound recently and yelloweye have only been detected at depths of 60' or deeper.Therefore,it seems unlikely that turbidity impacts will occur. Effects Determination for: Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish : May effect,not likely to adversely affect" References: Federal Register/Vol.74,No. 77/Thursday,April 23,2009/Proposed Rules. Federal Register/Vol.75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations. Love,M. S.,M.Carr,and L.Haldorson. 1991.The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus Sebastes. Env.Bio.Fish.30:225-243 Love,M.S.,M.M.Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific.University of California Press,Berkeley,California. MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 37 Love,M. S.,D.M Schroeder,W.Lenarz,A MacCall,A. S.Bull and L.Thorsteinson.(2006).Potential use of offshore marine structures in the rebuilding an overfished rockfish species.bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis). Fish.Bull. 104:383-390. Mills ML,Yuk Wing Cheng, and Robert E.Pacunsk. September 2009.The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound.Fish Management Division,Fish Program,Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Palsson,W.A.,Tien-Shui Tsou,Greg G.Bargmann,Raymond M.Buckley,Jim E. West, MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 38 • Douglas Stream Restoration Project Biological Evaluation Reference Number NWS-2014-46 July 25, 2014 • Prepared for: Kathleen and Reimer Douglas 101 Wampam Point Road Quileene, WA 98376 282014 JUL 72 E S (Jit) ri DEVROPMENT ‘ST , \\\ WO/Pr' 1 • 4 10,0801., ANIP"' 40004.100. 4•4?-- NS' S MARINE SURVEYS Et ASSESSMENTS 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 385-4073 marine.surveys.inc@gmail.corn • • Table of Contents I. Project information- nature and intensity A. Project location 4 B. Project description 4 C. Action area 4 II. Listed species and habitats A. Endangered Species Act listed species of concern 5 • B. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species 8 III. Project impacts A. Current state of Wampam Point Spit 9 B-.P ii€al and biological effects of proposed restoration 9 C. Jefferson shoreline restoration goals 10 D. Direct construction impacts 10 E. Native plant relocation plan 1 1 F. Monitoring and contingency plan 1 1 G. Indirect/interdependent effects 12 H. Take analysis 12 I. Determination of effect 12 • IV. References 14 Figures 1. Project location 17 2. Pre-dredge aerial and satellite photographs 18 3. Post-dredge aerial and satellite 19 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 2 • • 4. Parcel ownership at Wampam Point 20 5. Site plan: Vicinity map 21 6. Site plan: Overhead view 22 7. Site plan: Proposed ditch and berm profiles 23 8. Southeast Jefferson County drift cell mapping 24 9. Overview of stream terminus changes from 2006-2011 25 10. Site photograph of current stream terminus 26 11. Upstream photographs 27 • 12. Restoration planting plan 28 13. Location of proposed monitoring transects 29 Attachment 1: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List 30 Attachment 2: Essential fish habitat assessment 32 Attachment 3: Assessment of impacts to critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook 34 Attachment 4: Assessment of impacts to Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat. 36 • MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 3 • • I. Project information A.Project location: Section 19,Qtr Section SE1/4,Township 27N,Range 1W. 101 Wampum Point Road,Quilcene,WA. 98376 Latitude N 47.815845 Longitude W 122.849508 The project location is seen in Figure 1. B.Project description: the proposed project is to restore a stream that has been re-directed via dredging to near its natural,original channel. Prior to dredging in 2008,the unnamed stream terminated on tideland on Wampam Point in Quilcene,WA. It now terminates in a dredged channel approximately 130' north of this location(Figures 2-3). According to a report prepared by NTI Engineering for the proponents,Kathleen and Reimer Douglas,the effects of dredging have included stress to the existing shellfish beds,diminished access to community tidelands on the nearby spit, and development of unsightly upland on the Douglas property and the tidelands adjacent to the stream • extension(NTI 2011). These changes have led the proponents to propose mitigating the negative effects of the dredging by returning the stream to near its former(pre-dredge)course,ending on Jefferson County property. To understand the context for the proposed action,it is necessary to consider the recent history of the project area. From the 1970's to the early 1990's,the Wampam Point area was used as a log staging facility(NTT 2011). In 1998,the East Bay Residential Community was created as a collection of single-family homes with jointly held community tideland access. The Douglas parcel,as well as a neighboring parcel owned by John and Carol Gusoskey,is in the aforementioned East Bay Residential Community(Figure 4). The community is bordered to the south by the unnamed stream,which crosses both the Gusoskey parcel (to the north of the stream)and a parcel owned Robert and Janet Palmer(to the south of the stream). In 2008,an emergency JARPA permit for a stream rerouting operation was issued to the Gusoskeys by the Washington department of Fish&Wildlife,for the stated purpose of flood control on the Gusoskey and Palmer properties(Control No. 115558-1; issued 12/12/2008).The re-directed stream now runs north parallel to a bulkhead on the Gusosky property.It is this action that has led to the aforementioned damage to the tidelands and surrounding upland areas. The current project proposes to restore restoring pre-2008 stream contours as closely as possible.The restoration will occur entirely on Jefferson County Tideland property. To re-route this stream to its original east-west direction and contour, a small east-west channel will be excavated and backed with a small berm(Figures 5-7).The amount of material which will be excavated to form the new stream is approximately 11 cubic yards.The excavated channel bottom width will be 4 ft., and the depth will be approximately 1.5 ft. (Figures 6-7). • The excavated material will be used to create a 1-2' tall berm along the entire length of the new stream channel.To complete this berm,approximately 9.5 additional cubic yards of material will be"scalped"from the area north of the proposed channel and berm. The"scalp"area is the currently existing berm created in the 2008 dredging event. Scalping 9.5 cubic yards of material from this berm will allow for regular tidal inundation of the eastern side of the spit;this area has been `cut off' from regular tidal exchange by the existing tall berm and as a result supports upland vegetation uncharacteristic of an intertidal area.Providing tidal exchange will allow the eastern edge of the spit to gradually regain an intertidal (as opposed to upland)nature. C.Action area: As a habitat restoration action,the consideration of impacts must include both short term construction related impacts as well as long term changes to local physical and biological processes. Short-term construction related impacts for consideration include turbidity and noise.The long-term physical effects of restoration on sediment drift and beach erosion,as well as the biological effects on shellfish,forage fish,and other Endangered Species Act or WDFW priority species and habitats should be considered. The action area for should MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 4 • • include the area within a one half-mile radius of the project site. Finally,the suitability of this restoration action as it applies to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program restoration goals should also be considered. II. Listed species and habitats Endangered Species Act listed species of concern A range of fish,marine mammal, and bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act may occur,or have critical habitat,within the proposed action area.The listing status,presence of species and critical habitat in the area,and relevant life history traits of each listed species are presented below. Puget Sound Chinook: The Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)is listed under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) as threatened according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Vol. 70,No. 123 / Tuesday,June 28,2005 /Rules and Regulations). In addition,NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs)of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The project site 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). The project site is located in WRIA 17.According to the Washington State Conservation Commission, Chinook salmon"are not found in WRIA 17 in abundant numbers as spawners and,when found, are either the result of hatchery production or straying"(WSCC 2002). However,fall-run Chinook have been identified in the Big Quilcene River,which empties into the project action area(WDFW 2013a). Relevant life history: Puget Sound Chinook,also called king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size.Most chinook in the Puget Sound are"ocean-type"and migrate to the marine environment during their first year(Myers et al. 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. 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 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). • In the impact area,Hood Canal summer run chum spawn in the Big Quilcene River,across Quilcene Bay from Wampam Point. Spawning also occurs in the Little Quilcene River,just north of the project site and impact area. The Big/Little Quilcene River summer Chum are considered a separate stock in the WDFW/Tribal summer chum recovery plan(WDFW/PNPT 2000). Between 2002-2012,total escapements from the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers have ranged from a low of approximately 2000 spawners in 2010 to a high of approximately 38,000 spawners in 2004(WDFW 2013c). Relevant life history: In Puget Sound, Chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams. In Hood Canal,the summer-run stocks spawn from early-September to mid-October(WDFW 1994). Chum(along with ocean-type Chinook)spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon (Dorcey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982).Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average residence of 24 days(Simenstad 1998).Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around eelgrass beds(harpacticoid copepods,gammarid amphipods and isopods),but change their diet to drift insects and plankton MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 5 • •'I such as calanoid copepods,larvaceans,and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50-60 mm. (Simenstad et al. 1982). Puget Sound Steelhead:NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)as a threatened species under the ESA(Federal Register/Vol. 72,No. 91 /Friday,May 11,2007/Rules and Regulations).No critical habitat has yet been determined for the Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment,and the site is not included in the proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead(Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 9/Monday, January 14,2013/Proposed Rules). Winter-run Puget Sound steelhead are present in the Big Quilcene River(WDFW 2013b).These steelhead belong to the Quilcene/Dabob Bay Winter Steelhead population,which has low escapement(generally<40 fish/year)and is has been given an "unknown"status by WDFW(2013c). Relevant life history: steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species O. mykiss. The freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again,unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to the • open ocean,where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington streams. Bull Trout: Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)in 1999(Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/Monday,November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations). The project site is not located on a shoreline designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register/Vol.75,No. 200/Monday, October 18,2010/Rules and Regulations). According to WDFW,bull trout have a documented presence in Big Quilcene creek(2013a). However,the most recent stock assessment of WA bull trout/Dolly Varden noted that"none have been trapped in the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery in recent years,nor have any been observed in recent snorkel surveys... Consequently,we do not believe that there in is a distinct bull trout/Dolly Varden stock in the Big Quilcene River"(WDFW 2004). Any bull trout in the project area are likely to be only erratic and occasional visitors to the Big Quilcene River. Relevant life history: coastal Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations)takes place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and 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). Rockfish:NOAA has listed the distinct population segments(DPSs)of yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered(Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81, April 28, 2010,Final Rule).The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands,and the Strait of Georgia north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia.The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In addition,NOAA has recently proposed to designate shallow water critical habitat for juvenile boccahio and canary rockfish (Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday, August 6,2013/ Proposed Rules). The effects of this project on adult rockfish are expected to be minimal, if they occur at all,because adult rockfish are commonly found in much deeper water than exists at the project site. If juvenile or pelagic rockfish are present, MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 6 • • the direct and indirect effects of this project are expected to be similar to those discussed in this document for salmon because juveniles are found closer to shore in shallow waters. However,the project is not located in the proposed shallow water critical habitat for juvenile boccahio and canary rockfish. Relevant life history: Bocaccio,canary,and yelloweye rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles. As juveniles they settle to benthic environment. They prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds, low rock and cobble areas(Love et al. 2002).As the three species grow larger they move into deeper waters.Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats.Yelloweye rockfish are commonly found at depths from 300'to 590'. Canary rockfish usually habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160' and 820'(Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations.).All three species are opportunistic feeders,with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of the adults of these species include marine mammals, salmon,other rockfish, lingcod and sharks. Marbled Murrelet:Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992.There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the • project site(WDFW 2013a,NOAA 2013). Relevant life history: marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(WDFW 1993).Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance,sea perch,Pacific herring,surf smelt,other small schooling fish and invertebrates. Humpback Whale: NMFS has listed the humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales in Washington at this time. Humpback whales were seen in Dabob Bay-which Quilcene Bay empties into-in January and February of 2012 according to the Orca Network(Orca Network 2012).However, the Orca Network newsletter said the organization couldn't recall a report of a humpback whale ever being seen in that area. Relevant life history: Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound,even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982). Steller Sea Lion:NMFS has listed the Eastern distinct population segment(DPS)of the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)as a threatened species that may occur in Puget Sound(Federal Register/Vol 55,No. 227/ Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations). NMFS has,however,recently proposed to remove the • eastern DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife(Federal Register/Vol. 77,No. 75/Wednesday, April 18,2012/Proposed Rules). According to WDFW,no Steller sea lions have been identified in the project area(WDFW 2013a). Relevant life history: Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska. Breeding colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon(Osborne et al. 1988).There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the area(Jeffries et al. 2000),although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May)where their visits are transitory. Leatherback Sea Turtle:NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as an as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. There is no designated critical habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Washington at this time. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 7 • • Relevant life history: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,even though they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994). They are rarely seen in Puget Sound(McAllister,pers. comm.). Again, it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found near the project site. Southern Resident Killer Whales: On November 15,2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as endangered under ESA(Federal Register,Vol. 70,No. 222,November 18,2005/Rules and Regulations).NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (Federal Register/ Vol. 71,No. 229/November 29,2006/Final Rule). The proposed project is not within Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat.In a review of Southern Resident habitat use,NMFS found no confirmed sightings inside the Hood Canal from 1990-2003 (Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 229/Wednesday,November 29, 2006/Rules and Regulations). Since 2003,all killer whale sightings in Hood Canal appear to be of transient killer whales. Northern Spotted Owls: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has listed the Northern Spotted • Owl as a threatened species(Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 123/Tuesday,June 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations). In addition,USFWS has designated critical habitat for Northern Spotted Owls that includes forestland near Quilcene Bay(Federal Register/Vol. 57,No. 10/Wednesday,January 15, 1992/Rules and Regulations). According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps,the action area includes Northern Spotted Owl management buffer land(WDFW 2013a). However,because the proposed action occurs on the shoreline and out of forested land,no Northern Spotted Owl habitat will be directly affected by the proposed action. Relevant life history:Northern Spotted Owls are a medium size owl in the family Strigidae and are native to western North America. These birds inhabit primarily old growth forests and some younger forest in the southern part of their range.The range of the Northern Spotted Owl extends on the Pacific coast from southern British Columbia to northern California. In addition to fragmentation and loss of old growth forest,the recent invasion of the non-native Barred Owl has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(USFWS 2004). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitats and species According'to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,a number of priority fish,marine invertebrate, marine mammal,and bird species are found within the 0.5 mile action area. In addition to the ESA-listed fish species previously noted within the action area, coast resident cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)have been found in Big Quilcene Creek (WDFW 2013a).Forage fish,including sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus)and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus), • may also be found in the action area. These fish are an important food source for a variety of consumers such as migrating salmon and bald eagles. According to WDFW,there is no"documented" forage fish spawning activity at the site, but it is in an area that has been designated as a potential forage fish spawning habitat.There is documented surf smelt spawning habitat approximately 2100 feet south of Wampam Point. Documented sand lance spawning beaches are located approximately 4200 feet south of Wampam Point. (WDFW 2013b).None of the above species have Federal or State concerned,threatened, or endangered status. Priority marine invertebrate species within the action area include Dungeness crab(Metacarcinus magister), pandalid shrimp species,and oyster species,none of which are recognized by the State or Federal government to have concerned,threatened,or endangered status(WDFW 2013a). Priority marine mammal species include the harbor seal(Phoca vitulina),which has a haulout site within the action area(WDFW 2103a).Harbor seals have no Federal concerned,threatened,or endangered status but are a State "monitored" species. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project • • Finally,priority bird species include the bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Breeding habitat is present within the action area(WDFW 2013a). Bald eagles are listed as a Federal species of concern and a State sensitive species. III. Project Impacts The proposed restoration of the unnamed stream at Wampam Point is a complex action. As such,the project impacts must be assessed on multiple levels.The current state of Wampam Point,and the probable impact that the 2008 stream dredging had on this state, are considered first.The long-term physical and biological effects of the proposed restoration,as well as how these fit into Jefferson County restoration goals,are then considered.Finally, direct construction-related impacts are considered. A.Current state of the Wampam Point Spit: Although no true"before and after"survey of the impacted spit at Wampam Point was done in response to the 2008 Gusoskey dredging operation, it is possible to get a clear view of its impact from aerial imagery and site photography. Photographs taken pre—(May 2006)and post-(September 2011)dredge indicate the change in stream channel.The new terminus is located approximately 130' northward of the pre-dredge terminus(Figures 2- 3,6). This aerial photography also illustrates the changing upland nature of the post-dredge spit,with dense upland vegetation now evident northeast of the stream channel. The new channelized stream has also created a muddy ditch emptying to the north,as opposed to the old meander terminating westward onto the East Bay Community Tidelands/Jefferson County Tidelands(Figures 2-3, 10). This deep channel impedes the Douglas's access to the community tidelands,as well as access for other neighbors to the north of the Gusosky parcel. Finally,this channel and its associated dredge spoil piles above the channel have created an unsightly view from the Douglas property. B.Physical and biological effects of the proposed restoration: It is likely that the unnamed stream was an important source of sediment for the spit at Wampam Point.This spit forms the transition zone between an area of northward sediment drift,which originates at Fisherman's Point on the southeast corner of the bay,and an area of no appreciable sediment drift,which continues through the shallows north of the spit(WSCC 2002,Jefferson County 2008a; Figure 8).The northward sediment drift may have aided in the development of the spit at Wampam Point but may not be sufficient to maintain it. This is likely because Quilcene Bay does not feature strong shoreline sedimentary drift.According to the WSCC, "sediment sources [in Quilcene Bay] are moderate and alongshore,except where rivers and/or streams enter the bay where they become more abundant and fluvial"(2002). In an area of moderate sedimentary drift,the unnamed stream provided a considerable amount of sediment to the spit. The sediment from the stream is now redirected to the shoreline north of the spit,an area with no appreciable • nearshore drift(Figure 8). It is probable that this sediment source is simply"lost"to the spit with the current stream orientation. A deep east-west scour has also formed on the spit,as seen in aerial photography(Figure 3).A "notch,"where the spit is eroding at the location of the former stream terminus, is also growing over time. This is clear in satellite photography from before the dredge in 2006 as well as post-dredge in 2009 and 2011 (Figure 9). Further evidence of this loss is the observation by the proponents that previously buried piers from the former logging operation on the spit are becoming exposed.Without the former sediment flow from the unnamed stream, sediment replenishment from south of the spit is evidentially insufficient,on its own,to keep the spit from eroding. Indeed, erosion of Puget Sound spit beaches may be a response to reduction in sediment supply from upland areas (Shipman and Canning 1993). By re-routing the stream to its original terminus,a valuable source of sediment will be restored to the spit. Over time,the reduced sediment input to the spit will likely result in not only a diminished spit,but a diminished habitat for intertidal fish and invertebrate use.The proponents have noted a dying-off of the shellfish beds on community tidelands to the west of the dredge site,which could indicate that the amount of suitable habitat may MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 9 • II already be decreasing.Many factors impact the success of shellfish,especially in their early stages.According to the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership,"early survival can be impacted by alterations in the conditions of water passing over or through beach sediments, such as in salinity,temperature, sediment load,or pollutants"(Dethier 2006).A major change in flow over the shellfish beds,as caused by the 2008 dredge,may have negatively altered a state that allowed for shellfish persistence.In addition to improving the substrate available for shellfish,restoring the natural stream flow will return detritus and nutrient flow,a likely benefit to these filter-feeding species. Although there is currently no forage fish spawning on the spit, it is listed as"potential"forage fish spawning habitat(WDFW 2013a).Reduced habitat area due to an eroding spit would make forage fish use less likely; restoring habitat on the spit(by restoring the sediment-bearing stream)will provide substrate that may be utilized by forage fish for spawning in the future. C.Jefferson County shoreline restoration goals: As part of its comprehensive Shoreline Master Program update,Jefferson County released a Final Shoreline Restoration Plan in 2008. This plan identifies overall restoration goals for the county as well as specific targets for • restoration action. The proposed stream restoration at Wampam Point fits into both of these categories,making it an ideal candidate for consideration as a restoration action. The following Jefferson County goals are especially applicable to the proposed action(from Jefferson County 2008b): •To increase the availability, viability and sustainability of shoreline habitats for salmon, shellfish,forage fish, shorebirds and marine seabirds,and other species; •To improve habitat quality for sensitive and/or locally important species,and support the biological recovery goals for federally protected species; •To encourage cooperative restoration actions involving local,state,and federal public agencies,tribes, NGOs,and private landowners. As the above assessment of the physical and biological effects of the proposed action indicates,it is very likely that restoring natural stream flow will nourish the Wampam Point spit. By restoring sediment to the spit,quality habitat for priority fish and shellfish species will be recovered and promoted. This project would also be a unique collaboration between local agencies and a private landowner.Though the impacts to the spit are largely occurring on East Bay Community Tidelands and Jefferson County Tidelands,the proponents will be covering all costs associated with the permitting and execution of the proposed restoration action. In addition,Jefferson County has also targeted"Restor[ing] natural stream morphology in areas where channelization has occurred"in the WRIA 17 watershed(Jefferson County 2008b).The proposed restoration is a direct action in service of this goal. • When residential construction was permitted at the East Bay Residential Community,the unnamed stream was identified as a Type 3 stream(NTI 2011). This categorization includes streams that don't necessarily have a documented fish presence,but are assumed to support fish because they contain suitable habitat(WAC 222 16- 031). Upland of the tidelands,the stream is currently channelized(Figures 10-11). Removing the dredged channel along the tidelands would be an ideal start to a more complete restoration effort. This stream is less than half a mile east of the mouth of the Big Quilcene River,which has Chinook salmon,Hood Canal Summer-run Chum salmon, Steelhead, and bull trout present(WDFW 2013a).As an effort to restore a potential fish-bearing stream,the proposed action is a very appropriate restoration goal. D.Direct construction impacts The direct physical effects of re-dredging the stream are unlikely to immediately reduce or destroy any priority species or habitats. A tracked excavator will be used to create the new channel and backing berm. I will also be used to take material from the 2008 berm to aid in creating the new berm.Movement of the excavator in the upper MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 10 • • intertidal will cause some beach substrate disruption. As tidal exchange inundates the area,increased turbidity may also occur. The impact level on salmonids depends on duration of exposure,concentration of turbidity,the life stage during the increased exposure,and the options available for fish to avoid the plumes. The effects can be summarized in terms of lethal,sublethal,or behavioral(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 and Simenstad, editor, 1988). The most likely salmonid response to this temporary increase in turbidity would be avoidance of the area. To minimize any negative impacts on migrating salmonids, construction should take place during the work window of July 15 to February 1. E.Native plan relocation plan In addition to the habitat benefits previously discussed in this document,native plant species displaced by the filling and re-contouring of the current stream channel will be salvaged and replanted to the banks of the restored stream channel. These species include dunegrass(Elymus mollis),silver burweed(Ambrosia chamissonis), • seashore saltgrass(Distichlis spicata),American glasswort(Salicornia virginica),and Plantain species. See Figure 12 for the restoration planting plan. An as-built drawing and report will be submitted to Jefferson County as documentation of the implementation of the approved replanting plan within one month of installation. The plan will include vegetation description and photo documentation from established photo stations. Monitoring will take place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season(late August or early September)of each monitoring year.The performance standards will be monitored by measuring plots in zones within the planting area that will be established and mapped after planting occurs,on the as-built plan.There will be photo points for each plot and they will be referenced on the as-built plan.Photos will be taken at all points for all years as visual documentation of the performance standards progress,or lack of. Collected data and photos will be compiled into a report for Jefferson County DCD. The report will address whether the performance standards are being met during each monitoring year and if the final end of monitoring period standards are going to be met. Monitoring results will determine whether or not contingency measures will be needed. Percent cover: The percent cover standard will be monitored by looking at each monitoring unit of the removal areas from above and estimating the area covered by invasive species. The percent cover within an area can be quantified as a total greater than 100%because plants(in tree,high/low shrub and herbaceous layers)overlap in cover. Maintenance S Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the persistence of all native species within the mitigation area. Hand weeding will be necessary to remove all invasive plants that establish themselves in the removal area. Contingency Plan If a 90%removal rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year,invasive plants will be removed to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. F.Monitoring and contingency plan: This restoration project aims to re-direct the existing stream towards its pre-dredge western terminus on the Wampam Point Spit. It also aims to re-open the eastern extent of the spit to tidal exchange. The monitoring and contingency plan addresses both of these goals. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 11 • Stream re-direction:work will be done in the summer,when the unnamed stream has little to no flow. Once the fall and winter arrive and stream flow increases,the newly constructed east-west berm will be tested. If the east- west berm is not sufficient to re-direct flow to the west side of the spit,more material will need to be placed along its upper extent during the next available work window. This material will come from the north-south berm created by the 2008 dredge.Because the initial site plan calls for the minimum practical amount of material to be removed, there will still be ample material available. Tidal exchange along the eastern extent of the spit: Once tidal exchange and wave action act on the lowered north-south berm, it is likely that the eastern extent of the spit will return to an intertidal (as opposed to upland) area. If the existing berm is insufficiently lowered,however,the upland area may remain intact due to insufficient tidal exchange.We propose to track the lowering of the original berm over time,and remove more material if,after 2 winters of tidal and wave action,the upland area is not"reconnected"to the intertidal successfully. Prior to the start of work, permanent transects will be established on Jefferson County property.These transects will be marked with rebar stakes driven into the beach on their eastern and western ends.We propose 4 transects, • with each encompassing the area just landward of the current channel, the existing berm,and the area just seaward of the existing berm. While the exact location of transects will be decided on-site prior to construction,they will generally run parallel to each other in an east-west direction. See Figure 13 for the approximate locations of transects.Along each transect,4 height measurements will be taken using a surveyor's transit.The transit will be set at a fixed point on the Douglas property.By taking all measurements from a fixed point,the exact location along a given transect can be repeatedly measured over time. We propose monitoring the height of the berm and surrounding area just prior to construction (summer 2014), immediately following construction (summer 2014),and in two successive spring seasons(spring 2015 and spring 2016). If the north-south berm does not lower beyond+8' above MLLW after this time,and the eastern area of the spit still retains substantial upland vegetation,more material removal will be necessary.Because the existing beach profile is approximately+8' above MLLW in the area immediately seaward of the north-south berm(Figure 1),we expect lowering the berm to this beach grade will be sufficient to allow tidal inundation. If this is not the case, however, we propose lowering the berm to approximately+7.0' above MLLW. The maximum amount of material that would be removed from the existing berm to accomplish this would be less than 10 yd3. Any material added to the newly constructed east-west berm will be added at an elevation below the MHHW. G.Interrelated/interdependent effects: Completion of this project will not 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 will occur because of this project. S H.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 project. I.Determination of effect: After reviewing the appropriate data,the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound chinook-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 2. Hood Canal summer run chum-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 12 • • 3. Puget Sound steelhead-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 4. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 5. Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish -"May effect,not likely to adversely affect" 6. Marbled murrelet- "No effect" 7. Humpback whale-"No effect" 8. Steller sea lion -"No effect" 9. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect" 10.Southern Resident killer whale-"No effect" • 1 1.Northern Spotted Owl-"No effect" • II MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 13 or • IV. References Angell,T. and K. C. Balcomb 111. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle,WA, 146 pp. Bowlby,D.E., G. A. Green and M.L. Bonnell. 1994.Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Dethier,Megan M.2006.Native Shellfish in Nearshore Ecosystems of Puget Sound.Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report Number 2006-04.Published by Seattle District,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle WA. 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. Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 123/Tuesday,June 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 55,No. 227/Monday,November 26, 1990/Rules and Regulations • Federal Register/Vol. 57,No. 10/Wednesday,January 15, 1992/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 123/Tuesday,June 28, 2005/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. 75 /Wednesday, April 18,2012/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 9/Monday,January 14, 2013/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday, August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules • Healey,M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 -341. In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.),Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Jefferson County,WA.2008a.Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Mapping.Available: http://www.co.j efferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Shorelinelnventory.htm. Jefferson County,WA. 2008b.Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project: 2008 Update. Available: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/shorelineplanning.htm. Jeffries, Steven J.,Patrick J. Gearin,Harriet R. Huber, Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett. 2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Wildlife Science Division, Olympia,WA, 150 pp. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 14 • • Love,M.S.,M.M.Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson.2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific.University of California Press,Berkeley,California. Myers,J.M.,R. G. Kope,G. J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J. Lierheimer,T. C.Wainwright,W. S. Grand,F.W.Waknitz, K.Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington,Idaho, Oregon,and California.U.S. Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Environmental Response Management Application: Puget Sound.2013.Available: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/environmental-response- management-application-erma/pacific-northwest-erma.html. Nightingale,B. and Charles Simenstad. 200lb. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Ecology,and Washington State Department of Transportation,Olympia,WA, 177 pp. • NTI Engineering&Land Surveying(NTI). 2011. Spit Restoration Alternatives Investigation: Prepared for Kathleen and Reimer Douglas. Port Angeles,WA. Orca Network. 2012. February 2012 Sightings Archive. Available: http://www.orcanetwork.org/Archives/i ndex.php?categories_file=Sightings%20Archive%20%20Feb%2012. Freeland,WA. Osborne,R.,J. Calambokidis and E. M. Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers,Anacortes,WA, 191 pp. Rieman,B. E. and J. D.McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,UT. 38 pp. Simenstad, C.A.,K.L. Fresh and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function,pp. 343-364. In V.S. Kennedy(ed.). Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Simenstad,C. A.,(ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad,Charles A.,(ed.). 1998. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. University of Washington, Seattle,WA. • Shipman,Hugh; Canning, Douglas J., 1993,Cumulative environmental impacts of shoreline stabilization on Puget Sound. IN Magoon,O. T.;Wilson,W. S.; Converse, Hugh; Tobin, L.T.,editors,Coastal zone'93; Proceedings of the 8th symposium on coastal and ocean management:American Society of Civil Engineers,v. 2,p. 2233-2242. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Northern Spotted Owl, Five-Year Review:Summary and Evaluation. USFWS,Portland, Oregon.November 2004. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/pdf/NSO_5-yr_Summary.pdf Washington State Conservation Commission. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors. Water Resources Inventory Area 17,Quilcene/Snow Watershed(2002). 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, WA. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 15 • • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point No Point Treaty Tribes. 2000. Summer Chum Salmon Initiative. 797 pp. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004.Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory: Bull Trout/Dolly Varden.449 pp. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013a.Priority Habitats and Species report. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia,Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).2013b. Salmonscape Interactive Mapping.Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2013c. Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine(SCoRE). Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/.Olympia,WA. • • • MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 16 • • A) 'north 4... A'ampam Point Spit 4 • B) North • Wantpant Point Spit d tty • w 2013 Goog■e Figure 1. A) Vicinity Map of location in Quilcene Bay. B)Area map. White circle indicates approximate '/2 mile radius action area around proposed restoration. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 17 • 0 A I7muglas Parcel Cite. b,ey Parcel , ,,,41 44. .._,_, . .,, 4,0,0,, ,,t. ,. t :- .; *i PI' ' , -''''' B) i Gusoskey Y mzl � , • ,.;Z awn .' e"% tee, � ._ Figure 2. A) Satellite image of Wampam Point pre-dredge (07/2006). B) Aerial photograph of Wampam Point pre-dredge (05/2006). Note location of stream terminus on tidelands west of Gusoskey Parcel. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 18 0 • A) r North • Oip.4,40 sars.m. qp%, B) c. ri 9 ' „ ' � � +7 e 4gg.1y� ti • Figure 3. A) Satellite image of Wampam Point post-dredge (08/2011). B) Aerial photograph of Wampam Point post-dredge (09/2011). Note re-aligned stream orientation running north parallel to Gusoskey bulkhead. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 19 • • . . 1, 4 .ta 6. ; GOVT T LOT 5 *' ria L.,.1, •AT•TATA —/-... :287.62 _ GOV'T LOT - ' 0., ' • '• • • N89'44' LOT D - -,......-1 ! 7—98 a. r1.9214 ACRES ; Pt rx. V. Cam. a... 1 i .t. \ / .\ ?k •'"-',-/ 14...' 1\' / \ F. 4 i .• 130.3T 1 4 i , \\\ J gt . . . t o • 3 W 17• 4 ikCtiltA.'2P 1 C51.72L1 Wig :.1. 477 .4 I r 1.,„ ''-ir.ii _ 1..!,•,, i . Li ! i (g ' 1 9837 ACRES 'a ‘ \ ,........, ......... 0 ' •i TAT.04 < 8 OA A'AT'OVA 3 > 4 9 so /90' x... 3,90• * , , ... ,:, -i,-4 . ...AM VW AAARTICAA ASTAL.11110 MT q: I LOT B r f. ° ' i s,,,,,,,...... 1.1,4,4,..A. LoT,A SCALE 1 1". • 03 T(DEIMOS i ,iii 2.2097 ACRES 2 .,,/,' '".79>1. *I \ TAX -fl- .4 4' AIL O■ AIII*IP•IVA - oW 18 „...)// fa.77 0 MALI ' AT — ITT .0 <•',.. P.1.04.,a Pt....a r ,'•AT, ,\AS. OURAAA1101 OfTVA• TO IC, • A St kit I- It Eli ;.4,, .47&,,,. on.41,.4.4 .,.. , ...;- i. 1t.2719 ACRES /4 5,•` ...,:y<Y43 '‘' '''''..'''''. I noalw,.t.1,4 at'at. •IINiEitioiS TIDELANDS) .; .00 :AI.; -.\--- A AI . . —<4 TATAT it of AIWA ATATAA ' ....‘.. ..r--..t. ,!;.‘....›, a— AMMO \ --—*T-- all...LL TI.:.•-• ..7' ..-6114'‘...A 3,„...,! -- ..._,—,0---''-- Ce-• PC3rION ILAC1 3 3E STATE' UYSER RESERVE PER VOL 17 PAGE 103 OF SURVEYS' ' up../.7, ' ;7'4.'1 It77;"..:" •---.1.".., .i"....,.., .-....***:...— ‘.. %4 \ ......,.-z APN 701 -- 1 94 i /1,-010 . ... .AP '... ...\ * Aol AA' 1 _ * 'AV... I; 1 1 V.,. \ CI,.00<7 nrATAATAT.NA KA A4A., ,Of KOUT,Int tag ' i (il 1 , \ at Y - Figure 4. Parcel ownership in the vicinity of Wampam Point. "Lot A"is owned by John and Carol Gusoskey,"Lot B"is owned by Kathleen and Reimer Douglas.The East Bay Community Tidelands are also on "Lot A," and the remainder of the'Wampam Point Spit is located on Jefferson County Tidelands Tax "B" land. • • MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 20 • • COVER SHEET STREAM RESTORATION FOR KATHLEEN & REIMER DOUGLAS BRITISH COLUMBIA -�— / '1110 @wow ' o _ ■ • !_ W A S H I N G T O N ONONOO il► 090911"WA C 0 PORNO i...). OREGON LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE lr • ^� N►•I 4\ r ' 2 z • /18 4 .,, V OFF fC,S91E 1. S? SS/oNAL EN VICINITY MAP Q NOWi11MESTERN 1FRIWORES NC.2014 DATE: 7/18/2014 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION NTI ENGINEERING DRAWN BY ZNS/CR l &SURVEYING FOR: 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE t `w' 71160UTH PEABODA$TREET `� POflT NIGELES.W�99361 �.,. view 41140 COW REVIEW:JCW DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & REIMER NT/ P)3N9)4524491 F 060)152-0899 SHEET 1 OF 3 Figure 5. Site plan: Vicinity map MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 21 • • \ t, ,, ..,,, ..,, \ 0\ , r-------- , , w _ Ul ,,, i 1 I -- `__,___ ----- ) / I 1- 110 m , ;w ;1 .k \ e ,19 0, Mid k, N.,, \iiii0,t,,,A 11,44*--.., . ._,..,....,__._,... N, /i N o$ M ^t t T tl¢ v c o t s ,., Z Vm � §� i \ sl., C r"\ ,,,, ,, { A (,i to Ny I ii I i 3 00. Ii , • ° '' Q 1-,-\' ‘ , 6 N ee', ___, ,,Lr Lii r Air 0 NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES, INC 2014 DATE: 7/18/2014 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION % , NTT ENGINEERING r &SURVEYING DRAWN eY: zNS/cR 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE I , ,,,,SOUTH P�ABODYSRLL FOR: MOP' NNWV NTUU COM REVIEW: JCW NTI " 42849" ---- ---- DOUGLAS. KATHLEEN & REIMER SHEET 2 OF Figure 6. Site plan: Overhead view. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 22 • • .!.Y o 1 i 1 F 11' J I 1 4 ) m A m 1 M I o8 I. ? \ ` = C/) 0 1 z m I I e Iik 1 . 1 • 1 1 1 o* .+ 1 • , _ T F 1 . Y a u an a'. I ]1.• .4 It.2 41.WV 0 �� ° -`fl N N S 11.: z Ii 0 Q NORIIMES1VIN IDIROORIEX INC 2014 DATE: 7/18/2014 SCALE: AS SHOWN NWS-2014-46 STREAM RESTORATION 4` NTI ENGINEERING DRAWN BY INS/CR `BI &SURVEYING FOR: 101 WAMPUM PT. ROAD, QUILICENE t ''h " :10:-Ni-,=.1,ar 'WT•t+UE4ES w�9E767 moor www Nilau CC* REVIEW:JCW DOUGLAS, KATHLEEN & REIMER NT/ ,; ;: ; SHEET 3 OF 3 Figure 7. Site plan: proposed ditch and berm profiles. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 23 40 • .[...______ • t CI.ALIAM , h` 1T n . .1 •„ , I 1 , -...`.,,,sa.7 I i . . ,,,,,c .. ...s: c„,,,,, . : :./ • . . . .. ,, , , f :../ td II K!TSAP COUNTY • n o..s. .x • ..r.c . m !' a. IMMO M ...Mrr aw.toot -FVF ),,N” F rQLR'$@A 11•10...... • •✓bM. • •, Pn^n�. 7Z .MM # Nw.w MAP 11 "" 'c 5 � COASTAL PROCESSES AND MODIFICATIONS SOUTHEAST JEFFERSON COUNTY .a..., .m. JEFFERSON COUNTY SNORE I NE MAP F01.O M.M.C.a C..x. oS r`v . ...tt».MJ.C.9h.sM..4"N.*(S*V NY C∎ON) 0.M xm(coup ' ..e. »<M....x...us.o ow.......+..�wr. Jute 21YJ8 Figure 8. Southeast Jefferson County Shoreline Mapping Drift Cell Analysis Map. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 24 • • A) � I , • B) ( 4.0t, 144 .r- r C) • f • w { *s* Figure 9. Satellite photography showing changing nature of stream terminus from A) July 2006, B) May 2009, and C) August 2011. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 25 • • • I , , Y w _ ,v '.-_-'_.' .14*.41°-Y' _, `Y mo y ` �f' ay.. o+ s !/ w.r�e , ,-„ - ? ,'$II#n ti '�. -..,,, g7, :; • ' of t 4` . .i t,�*''' < `3 K42,.. u ..v Figure 10. Dredged area of unnamed stream near its terminus, looking south. • MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 26 • • --:::* '. = t ' , -- -, - - / . ... a e i , Vilit ' ' "^' . 1 ,,,-'4..* "mom., r p .7:7`,N,x S' NA AdeK + 4 ''* " �w�a.Vy'k41fr—C- , ' ..: , "d ' * •'&. 4"b- .»"d"f art ' ".,4`` �� .} „.„,...,,ii ' r xtc� � + c!N�% y ,t ' '4t _ " e� ,,,,f,,4 ( .;SA Y\� "'. ' 'Itait4c.°7, ',iv:1r '-,,- -",-*,-$1.,..140.--,„}-," .-,,,,,.... .716.-- ' , 4,-il, —. Figure 11. Channelized nature of unnamed stream upstream of proposed restoration. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 27 • • E L ' a:- .3 • .... .., . , ., ,:v.,,..„......!„,:,..3.,,,, ,,,, ,,,,,:...„.,, ..,.....:,...::,, ,,7- i ;-. '4 i ■ ,,, °aft . \ . .... ,-•, �t Vic. _ --",-.--.......,,,... ItiNlk '' 1 Y z ° wwVN ~<%iv ,..kityk‘ • #/ 4,e'''..-- ° Ym�wn. <ZV �.-�ac vj'gi aJ« < O �w UJ \ . Figure 12. Restoration Planting Plan 28 MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project • • Douglas Property.: 4„,,,, Jefferson County Tideland I , _ ,... ,„„_„,....„..,,„,,,,,, _ ,„ , ,,,, ..,,. , , e s e .. ...._, ...„ ... ..„... .. ., 4. ,. ,,... . , , ..,...._ . 0s4 , Property x z - Wampam Point Assoc n.Propert ..' t , „: . ,... . ., .,;. _ ,. , -, .1 1- .1',--- ,,,,. , , ) . ,._ . .„.„ ,,,,,,,-,-,:„-..- !.,,,,,,...1.,, _ ;.: '-- __ , , :,,,,,...,,,..,.„,..vit - , ' . . ., , v �. ..„... ...,. „„ . _ ...„. _, - ,i,.., , . ., , .,. .. . .,, „ , . Figure 13. Location of proposed monitoring transects. MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 29 • • Attachment 1: LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN JEFFERSON COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised April 24,2013) LISTED Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) • Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) [outer coast] Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species,and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation(e.g., increased noise levels,increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED • Dolly Varden(Salvelinus malma)due to similarity of appearance CANDIDATE Fisher(Martes pennant()—West Coast DPS Whitebark pint(Pinus albicaulis) SPECIES OF CONCERN Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) [outer coast] Cascades frog(Rana cascadae) Cassin's auklet(Ptychoramphus aleuticus) MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 30 • • Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) [southwest Washington DPS] Destruction Island shrew(Sorex trowbridgii destructioni) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi) Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus) • Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei) Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) Valley silverspot(Speyeria zerene bremeri) Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei) • Western toad(Bufo boreas) • MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 31 • • Attachment 2: 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). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. 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 attached BE. The project consists of a stream realignment;a pre-existing dredge will be re-contoured to natural conditions,and a small dredge will be done to restore stream flow to its natural tendancy. 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 temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)due to turbidity impacts from the construction process. • E. EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached 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, coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon,but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon) in the long term. The restoration of the stream will likely have long-term positive effects on fish habitat. G. Additional References • MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 32 • • 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). • • • MS&A Douglas Stream Restoration Project 33 • Attachment 3: Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: Restoration of an unnamed stream, Quilcene WA. Applicant:Kathleen and Reimer Douglas. The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead are: (1)Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Salmon and steelhead are not noted in the unnamed stream. Effects to PCE: Likely to improve existing conditions. See attached Biological Evaluation. • (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, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Stream is channelized upstream of the proposed restoration; it was rated as a"Type 3" stream that did not contain fish,but was assumed to be able to support fish because it contained suitable habitat. Effects to PCE: The proposed restoration is at the stream mouth,and will not affect upstream rearing sites. (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: Stream is channelized upstream of the proposed restoration; it was rated as a"Type 3" stream that did not contain fish,but was assumed to be able to support fish because it contained suitable habitat. Effects to PCE: As a stream restoration project, it will likely have a positive effect on the conditions in (3). (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 BE,the current stream terminus is a channelized ditch in the upper intertidal area. This provides little natural cover and may be an obstruction. Effects to PCE: Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity as tidal waters inundate the upper intertidal area. The project will have no impacts on salinity conditions or water temperature. Work windows will MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 34 • S prevent impacts to migrating salmonids,bull trout and spawning surf smelt.. Long-term effects are likely to be positive,removing a channelized terminus and replacing it with the original meandering stream terminus. (5)Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: See 4 above Effects to PCE: 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 S Effects to PCE: None Determination of Effect: "May affect,not likely to adversely affect" • MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 35 • Attachment 4: Assessment of impacts to Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat. Bocaccio Rockfish: Bocaccio are found from Stepovac Bay on the Alaska Peninsula to Punta Blanca in central Baja California.They are most common from Oregon to California and were once common on steep walls in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002). Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface,occasionally associated with drifting kelp mats . Bocaccio bear live young and the larvae and pelagic juveniles remain close to the surface and are occasionally associated with floating kelp beds(Love et al.2002).Most bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months but some will remain pelagic for up to 5.5 months before settling into littoral zones.They prefer rock or cobble substrates with kelp beds and/or kelp canopies as well as artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms.Research by Love et al. (2006)revealed: In 2003,using a manned research submersible,we conducted fish surveys around eight oil and gas • platforms off southern California as part of an assessment of the potential value of these structures as fish habitat. From these surveys,we estimated that there was a minimum of 430,000 juvenile bocaccio at these eight structures. We determined this number to be about 20%of the average number of juvenile bocaccio that survive annually for the geographic range of the species. Another interesting observation made by the researchers was that: By comparison,juvenile bocaccio recruitment to nearshore natural nursery grounds, as determined through regional scuba surveys,was low in the same year. This research demonstrates that a relatively small amount of artificial nursery habitat may be quite valuable in rebuilding an overfished species. According to Palsson et al. (2009),bocaccio rockfish: were once caught in localized areas in South Sound(Washington 1977)but they have not appeared in recent research or recreational catches.Bocaccio were always infrequent in the recreational fishery,with a few erratic occurrences in North Sound but more consistent,low occurrences in South Sound. Bocaccio has never been observed during WDFW bottom trawl,video,or dive surveys in Puget Sound. In a personal communication(Email, October 7, 2010)Palsson(WDFW) stated, "Young of the year(YOY) bocaccio and canary rockfishes have not been identified in surveys conducted in Puget Sound." Palsson et al. (2009)also observed that: Overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes is the leading cause of decline to yelloweye rockfish,canary rockfish and bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.The evidence is clear that • historic overfishing has played a major role in the declines of rockfish in the Puget Sound region. Yelloweye Rockfish: Yelloweye rockfish range along the US and Canadian west coast,with individuals recorded from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands. The major portion of the abundance is found central California to Alaska and they are rare in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002).Yelloweye rockfish juveniles settle primarily in shallow,high relief zones,crevices and sponge gardens(Love et al. 1991). There is no consistent trend for the presence of yelloweye in Puget Sound. The frequency of yelloweye occurring in the recreational rockfish catch data indicated frequencies of less than one percent were seen in the 1960s,which increased to 3%in the 1990s(Federal Register 2009). • MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 36 I • In terms of the depths at which yelloweye have been found in Puget Sound,Palsson noted,(Email,July 26,2010), "The upper depth limit of yelloweye is less known,but we have only detected them as shallow as 60'." Canary Rockfish: Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett, Baja California,and the Western Gulf of Alaska. Within this range, canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon. The larvae and pelagic juveniles of canary rockfish are found in the upper 100 m of the water column(Love et al. 2002). Estimates of larval duration range from 1-2 months to 3-4 months(Love et al. 2002).Juveniles prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas(Love et al. 2002).During this settlement they consume on crustaceans(e.g.,harpacticoids)barnacle cyprids,and euphasiid eggs and larvae. According to information found in the Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas and the Habitat Survey,there are kelp beds (Laminaria, flat Dermasterias and Costaria)along the project site shoreline. According to the Federal Register(2009): • In Puget Sound Proper,canary rockfish occurred at frequencies above 2 percent of the total rockfish catch in the 1960s and 1970s,but by the late 1990s had declined to about 0.76 percent. Relying on the estimate of Palsson et al.(2008)of 40,683 rockfish in Puget Sound Proper,a 0.76—percent frequency rate would mean there are about 300 individual canary rockfish in Puget Sound Proper. Impact of proposed action: As noted above,the main reason for the decrease in the abundance of these three rockfish has been the historic overfishing of these populations. This overfishing has reduced not only the number of these fish in Puget Sound, but also has reduced the proportion of larger females,which harms the overall productivity of these populations. Adult bocaccio, canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish are typically associated with rocky habitats. According to Palsson et al. (2009), such habitat is extremely limited in Puget Sound,with only 10 square km of such habitat in Puget Sound Proper(i.e.,south of Admiralty Inlet),and 207 square km2 in Northern Puget Sound. Adult yelloweye rockfish are commonly found in waters 300'to 590'in depth. Canary rockfish usually in habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160'and 820'(Federal Register, 2009). Therefore,it seems likely that the adults are not impacted by any short-term turbidity impacts that may result. Because juveniles settle in more shallow water than adults,impacts to juveniles would be limited to the brief turbidity associated with stream re-routing. These impacts would only occur if the juveniles happened to be in the area.As noted above,YOY bocaccio and canary rockfish have not been detected in Puget Sound recently and yelloweye have only been detected at depths of 60'or deeper. Therefore,it seems unlikely that turbidity impacts • will occur. Effects Determination for: Bocaccio,yelloweye and canary rockfish : "May effect,not likely to adversely affect" References: Federal Register/Vol. 74,No. 77/Thursday,April 23,2009/Proposed Rules. Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations. Love,M. S.,M. Carr, and L. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus Sebastes. Env. Bio. Fish. 30:225-243 Love,M.S.,M.M. Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press,Berkeley, California. MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 37 • Love,M. S.,D.M Schroeder,W. Lenarz,A MacCall,A. S. Bull and L. Thorsteinson. (2006).Potential use of offshore marine structures in the rebuilding an overfished rockfish species.bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis). Fish.Bull. 104:383-390. Mills ML,Yuk Wing Cheng,and Robert E. Pacunsk. September 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division,Fish Program,Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Palsson,W. A.,Tien-Shui Tsou,Greg G.Bargmann,Raymond M.Buckley,Jim E. West, • • • MS&A Douglas Warnpam Point Stream Restoration 38