HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP2013-00051 - HMP •
Douglas Wampam Point Restoration Project
Biological Evaluation /
•
Habitat Management Plan
October 23, 2013
For:
• Kathleen and Reimer Douglas
101 Wampam Point Rd.
Quilcene, WA 98376
Prepared by:
Marine Surveys a Assessments
521 Snagstead Way
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone: (360) 385-4073
Email: marine.surveys.inc @gmail.com
•
•
Kathleen Douglas Wampam Point Restoration Project
Biological Evaluation
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. Puget Sound Chinook 5
B. Hood Canal summer-run Chum 5
C. Puget Sound Steelhead 6
D. Bull Trout 6
E. Rockfish 6
F. Marbled Murrelet 7
G. Humpback whale 7
H. Steller Sea Lion 7
I. Leatherback Sea Turtle 7
J. Southern Resident Killer Whale 8
K. Northern Spotted Owl 8
•
L. WDFW 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. Planting and monitoring plan 1 1
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 2
•
F. Indirect/interdependent effects 11
G. Take analysis 12
H. Determination of effect 12
IV. References 13
Figures
1. Project location 16
•
2. Pre-dredge aerial and satellite photographs 17
3. Post-dredge aerial and satellite 18
4. Parcel ownership at Wampam Point 19
5. Site plan of proposed restoration 20
6. Southeast Jefferson County drift cell mapping 21
7. Overview of stream terminus changes from 2006-2011 22
8. Site photograph of current stream terminus 23
9. Upstream photographs 24
10. Restoration planting plan 25
Attachment 1 : United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List 26
•
Attachment 2: Essential fish habitat assessment 28
Attachment 3: Assessment of impacts to critical habitat for Puget Sound
Chinook 30
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 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.
According to a report by NTI Engineering and Land Surveying, from the 1970's to the early 1990's the Wampam
Point area was used as a log staging facility. 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 the trench created by the 2008 dredge to its pre-dredge contours as well as
restoring the old stream mouth as closely as possible. The restoration will occur entirely on Jefferson County
Tideland property. First, a small excavator will be used to cut spoil piles from around the 2008 dredge channel and
use them to infill the current channel. The excavator will then do minor stream modification to restore flow in the
• original E-W direction(Figure 5). Material from this modification will then be used to finish restoring the 2008
channel to its original grade. All materials for this project will come from on-site,and the activity will be timed to
avoid any salmon runs in the area. The entire project is expected to take less than one week,and to be a one-time
action.
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
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.
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 4
•
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
such as calanoid copepods,larvaceans,and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50-60 mm. (Simenstad et
al. 1982).
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 5
•
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,
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.
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 6
• 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.
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.
MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 7
• 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 .
� p p ( )
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.
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.
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 8
•
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, 5). 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, 8). 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 6). 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 6). 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 7).
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
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
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 9
•
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 8 &9). 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 fill and re-grade the existing channel from the 2008 dredge
and restore the original stream flow. Movement of the excavator in the upper intertidal will cause some beach
substrate disruption.As tidal exchange inundates the area,increased turbidity may also occur.
MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 10
•
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.Planting,monitoring,and mitigation 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
10 for the restoration planting plan.
S 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.
Performance Standard# 1 (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.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.
• � p J
MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 11
•
G.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.
H.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"
3. Puget Sound steelhead-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"
•
4. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"
S. 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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 12
•
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 jefferson.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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 13
•
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. 200 lb. 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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 14
•
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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 15
•
A)
North
Vampam Point Spit
k
• fF+}
B)
i T
• I 1
North
•
• '^ Wantpam Point Spit
2013 Google
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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 16
•
***---*.„':'. .,..,,:. ,... ,,„..},,,,,,,,,,,,. ,,,„..... . 4. ,
,,.. , , _r_„,,„,.,,, ,,, -„,,,,,,,,,,,,,tht,...„.„, ,
. -,...,.....,,,„, ,..,, ,„,„,,,..„.4,,'
.t Y,,, R r ,T 4. y; .• $$$
", y . auk 1 .
v OP
ttax
a '
° §„ `
#
0
�
LL� S '4 ” k Y
4. € ,,,
,fig E .
t
c ',. image t .Qx i -J-
B)
's'°*- - s ^_ ' -,'.,f w?Y '#
�r,� s ..!,4 "--,-r' fit
X4 `4- `, y ` Y,
It
. w { te''
4 . r
, '^iqa, 4 4,
' r
I I
, •kc1, i to 4 6i1V, ' * - , - .r.
•
Y
F;
Via.
tea.,� �•,,,�
. - _r, -
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.
A)
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 17
---„ • „4. ...„ .,-..-....1::::,..„.. _.:4 r , ..,._,...,. —
_. ...,... , 4 4, ,14,... .....
..4
rr
SA
r x
7
z° r
y, .4 a:
`lhaA`. ''4.. gar
! 9
* ".- - . 4-4441*
•
y :
B)
k• ' '� s ' w
+, ' ti app -..- 4 tt i 4
, a 1.t .....0-',e 1
' iii '� ' '
x
*i.
t �`, * 11 ,
•
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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 18
•
- - GOY•T LOT • 1 f ,�+YLei E i - 1287.62 _
o COY'T LOT £ "''" a• A`•`� '°`x'444'" ' N89'44.42mV
a LOT D E
wr•u•{VI
r 1.9214 ACRES �° s Prci'/4 Cox-
..'. 1I,
'., u, S °'y ..`• 10.111 I
5 N
1 Ttt}•�l•tt•t 1 , s 1
1y11.=� 1tT=i 4t., ...t. .
< n $ i2 =.,P .�' i LOT C a •
n r r U.p� N3! 'IT '-7°
I I .9837 ACRES t , F»° c.....
` K....
3 > i 111.41 I Q sot.sf fl 101.02 I.'[=.w�
0 So' /oo' zoo 30o t "'�.• ' I. i,
.; w i 1....o..: ; '..
•3 LOT B - 1- a 144 POT+nat t0KKx1 truultt0 Pt!
DPI 110014/tat+NO.v.nu..... Scar
•' ( SY1T•LH! •:sltV•N� /SOTS A 1
SCALE / I" • 100' TIDELANDS ' h 2.2097 ACRES a A_.-a 1 i. '\ c,a is. sat n/ora tic .
TAX _e_ rx.r/ !
V. strv:s•t . ♦11'•
• _ J \j Rt.V Ta 10..0• • - / ..3.!; i °. CORt741tt d fo• Tr N'
_S ° e>r f t °.i�° wx�t�aT�tm 4.1.11 u.sa Eti LOT A •
"`to `' . '".-O r, . 11.2719 ACRES �,` it ��
u.<..-' -n,....�r a a•IINCLUOE9 TIDELANDS) :'.. w' wa. t ` 4V `�
I .....
sum/tt.11=rut Cr ar , .‘,..• . t `•.\�%.\ f'r
—"•+•P— 4 4t t/hot 0/na ...........`,111 ,1' •
O s•.,+ h.•
avert •- t°t^, ;...go.* , wA "_ •,10,---.........fir r.-- ,a /
• • P
,A0•61 r•trr I 4'14 era a.r e
PORTION TRACT 3 OF STATE • 411 P/ `� '.•'' won" Wxa. �.,p•
OrSER RESERVE PER VOL. 17 +'I`�
S
PACE 109 OF SURVEYS \�. �"5 APN 701 — 1 94-010 1
'`e to show au rn V,.,,, \--.....avT nt..wcnt Pt:ear. /Of 12.132214 Pats 1411 2 Id
�#j °
.•, ., _ \ 1 JO
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.
0 MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 19
•
<WM:NAP WI:M.L5.,E1V /1-/ 1-.* ma o
&WINNOW"-wa.a. 7 1W "..••/s ,l
n.+ae.o-.ar.,.s DM-..WeeE 4
MI Wr�maa..ug.•lHU.,aoWr..moos,,. SV70R00 ?13Y113t1 4' N337H1YN owls... �••� A t-„ i;i
A.
. 4Lf86 VIA 3N3371170 -OX 1NIOd nrkowA1 101 """ "e 1„
ONIA3A2 nS s.ONR133N19N3 IIN 't 118/I-/X3 31/S
ens e.,+....r...ow6
E e
i i
Cn(no
a _ } o
�
_z, E I I
a
Cr 0 ~ i _' o I I
1�� a CCC l.
I
°w ° a =
i-
t Z� 1 6 I G
57 x ° W I
i- .e. ..„..t. 4 i i*6.■ i..,. ,,,'..1 r:1, 1 Cn st 0
I• i',.; ;.+i 5 il
CCI 1 it tlii l t 3 .1
W I I a !
W � i e
R 1 RC81 1 0011 -1 I E
o
111! lilt) z
vanill
w
L iii.! K,
• x k �& °
sa i f'--- ' -- ' L ''
ZSP i 'z:-....-
_ C
Z v ' ilr 1 i
-i ng iTil 1
" a- a
K a fi
u i/ p
�� � w y�� tX'Jl X
„ V
'4,„ two oM Tli1 N.C.Md.u.YaWaMOWN, b
i
_f_. .
„,
Figure 5. Site plan for the proposed stream restoration.
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 20
•
CLALLAM COUNTY
If
t
• .'
■
..1„\No,/ I
4 ye
, i l
l
•
•
•
.
f
KITSAP COUNTY
•
l..aw ses
ea
• s..r..w..+M+na...a
aae w.
r..
=FERSON COUNTY Am., '
NW ser
=ere
1ASON COUNTY CM Mee
I.la nN.
—s a..".
2.
s max „n 00....+,,,>✓mw,,,a*.00 ....O Ce
i
n..naa.A•, �ra�.av as
=wn, ',A ty ✓ ..s
: --�. t,. 0 a MAP 11
1 COASTAL PROCESSES AND MODIFICATIONS-
.� t� t fS€�f rte . ,...»>.. �. .... SOUTHEAST JEFFERSON COUNTY
.r..«.p'�r...e,�...�ey nue s.anew.xaw.t+u.nweem 200 ruc,n,e JEFFERSON COUNTY S1iOREUNE MAP FOLIO
SOURCE J...sa.Co"662000,wTC 2002 se,it-feli.III.atme,rttw*.Car*SUP,,.09I. June 2008
VOW 2002 Ecoag,GM .ne an 20 es,x,e.Oc,USGS tNMI W uqn,0...,e
Figure 6. Southeast Jefferson County Shoreline Mapping Drift Cell Analysis Map.
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 21
•
)
f k�+
Pre-dredge stream trtmimss ). P
•
Y�0
K `
B)
4
Pre-del:1g•stxIza te+mia:•ss >: ° '-* ``
11 y PX"A
C)
• ti
6
4
Pre-dreder stream term,n u > h
Figure 7. Satellite photography showing changing nature of stream terminus from A)July 2006,B)May 2009,and
C)August 2011.
22
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration
•
: ° tom
A `
.
.
•
rc}
Figure 8.Dredged area of unnamed stream near its terminus, looking south.
•
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 23
� `..• 41+ r."
'*It li {i# 3 f t. 1, a.
1.'° I
5
., , - ♦ ;."4- if
rn.
.
f
x
'rte p�`r__ '„'h — -
v
. w
L•a`*�.. r '^: «tee §„
Figure 9. Channelized nature of unnamed stream upstream of proposed restoration.
24
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration
•
ik
f** ''''' ' ' ......„ .
• ';,1 -itii
- .
'<$ ,,m , c
'''''' --:'`'i'''44'314,4°: .' : .rir:
-----,.(-
----...„,.`- ------- -
i /
„ , .., ' OOP°41 f f
„'
r, >— ' ,+ Z Q
m• ��Q HI!i a 1 m n J a
VI
L11 V)
�o <
ai Mb s a OM WNW air awNM
L.**‘........,,``
Figure 10. Restoration Planting Plan
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 25
•
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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 26
•
Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) [southwest Washington DPS]
Destruction Island shrew(Sorex trowbridgii destructions)
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 boreal)
•
• MS&A Douglas Wampam Point Stream Restoration 27
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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 28
• 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 Wampam Point Stream Restoration 29
•
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 30
• 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 31
LICENSE and INDEMNIFICATION
Applicant: Kathleen Douglas and Reimer Douglas,
collectively"Applicant"
Indemnified Party: Jefferson County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,
hereinafter"the County"
The Applicant intends to submit an application to the County for a permit to perform
certain work within the shoreline jurisdiction, specifically Quilcene Bay,upon and within
tidelands owned by the County identified on the Assessor's quarter-section map as Tideland B
(see attached quarter-section map).
The County grants Applicant LICENSE to enter upon and alter the County-owned
tidelands described above, including,but not limited to, dredging,placing or moving materials
found there. Applicant agrees this License is something of value, bargained for and exchanged.
Applicant, for good and valuable consideration bargained for and exchanged, agrees to
defend,hold harmless and indemnify the County against any lawsuit, claim or action alleging a
third party has suffered personal injury or property damage if such lawsuit, claim or action arises
from the negligent act(s) or omission(s) of the Applicant while performing or implementing the
work authorized by the permit granted to the Applicant by the County.
This duty to defend,hold harmless and indemnify the County is deemed to obligate the
Applicant to pay the legal costs and attorney's fees that the County might otherwise incur in
defending against such a lawsuit, claim or action.
This promise to defend,hold harmless and indemnify shall continue to survive and be in
effect in perpetuity DESPITE the occurrence of either a)the expiration,revocation or
termination of the permit granted Applicant to work within County-owned tidelands or b)the
completion of the work or project undertaken pursuant to the issued permit.
Applicant(s)has/have read this document and signs it voluntarily,knowingly and
willingly.
FO: JEFFERSON COUNTY
` (26
clip , County Ad,• ator Date
FOR APPLICANT
Kathleen Douglas' Reimer Doug as
Date: ! z' l 0 Date: l z 110 1,..4•3
1
D.ted this d' day of D L ,20 1 J .
•1'
0 • er Owner
?I.;t,p 0,---le7 a 7-4--j, AL".%n%5rrtO`Qr
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON)
On this day personally appeared before me, K()th l LLVL 4 P4.ryter Do acg laS,to me
known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed,for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned. //11
Given under my hand and official seal th' V d f �,2 ,20 �.
PiaL
;���
RENEE CHEN ( NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing
Notary Public
State of Washington at ,i m 11-7 My Commission Expires ` My commission expires: Apr t( t L.o+k' d�
April 16,2017
Approved:
UDC Administrator Date
2