The URL can be used to link to this page

15-102697Submit by Email FPrint Fornn CONuvwNITY & EcoNONnc DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 33325 e Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 CITY or 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way www.ci oftederalway.c2r SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT EXEMPTION APPLICATION File# 15-104 q TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Project Name: Bob Christensen replace failing timber with rock. Project Address: 204 SW 292nd st. Pacific Northwest Bulkhead Inc. Kim Kaufman Applicant: _ P.O. Box 11477 Mailing Address: Olympia, WA 98508 Phone Number: 360-888-6357 E-mail: Pacificnwbulkhead@comcast.net Replace failing timbers with rock (80 ton) 62' long 5' tall. Description of Project: Meets the criteria for exemption under which section of * WAC 173-27-040: *WashintonAdministrative Code online: anras.leg.wa.gav Applicant's Signatur Date Bulletin # 143 —March 25, 2013 1 of 2 k:\Handouts\Shoreline Exemption TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF 1) The proposed development is consistent with Section a 6 'i G of WAC 173-27-040 and is therefore exempt from the Substantial Development Permit Process. N Yes ❑ No (explanatory narrative attached) 0 avi wow d �V rork 2) Proposal requires: ►noreline Variance Lr - u Shoreline Conditional Use to ❑ Review, Approval or Permit by other State or Federal Agency C14-11 off' rp—JeYAf W ru, 6v1IJ'4s rayt,,g4. .� 1. CP" C� �k +rah W fl Fw GO e_!Egi°1 is a.4f !r refpn , �v l � rQ 61 e~ v �+�.:► fr_%y c �u%�-�_K �1 P1�_. _ . . _ 3) Proposal complies with applicable provisions of the City's Shoreline Master Program. 0 Yes ❑ No Condition(s) attached: 9 Yes ❑ No . OrSD. [. . i v. vYiSn i �rG►-� f ��r -re J. —rIj e CA h1'�r+��i vk IM F 4 J �1Y@�' GQ N1 �a'u � c� i t•i Xr 'r 64Je ki ovase IloweaP� fee e-oc z-ed),� 4) In accordance with k�W RC Section 15.05.130, this application is hereby: 9 Approved ❑ Denied Director, Community evelopment Date Distribution: ® Applicant ® Owner g7 File ❑ Outside Agency Bulletin # 143 —March 25, 2013 2 of 2 k:\Handouts\Shoreline Exemption REPLACE FAILING TIMBER WITH ROCK (80 TON) MHHW 11.5E' EXISTING. -- CONCRETE CONCRETE BEACH CABIN r TOE OF SLOPE TOP O SLOPE 3LWLt i =GLi CHRISTENSEN ROBERT T & LAUREL 204 SW 292NQ ST } FEDERAL WAY 93023 7" 13 m L a 57< fled W-j LU Ul) LLJ Gi 0 LL- uj e! )k 41 ok f- Ilk i , 7jj AC �4j lo -ev a 7 � r • ' i T 1 --.•.ti � a t -'T +' a✓:- .'i ��- --=fit' � -�� '.� , • i 1 .1^ 9 i k — rr v 4 jtA AR AR -A La -.0 !10 �Amw PR-j klq 21 a7 kkf, -:t.l _V1 ir SL_l. it - it It APP 2v le - it 4� 4f IL aX rd vv- -1, - - F, W-U- 7 iA 4.1,Construction Process The replacemnNt_shoreline protection will be replaced approximately 20 feet section pV-9-tinie. Unstable soil will ex�avated and rock placed a minimum 1.5 feet below the be he beach. Minimum excava ion w�occur in the vicinity of the Douglas fir tree t: b a ;e� b7served. Colluvial and fill soils will be removt--k order to place the large angular rock on ble footing. Clearing of vegetation will be minimal will only impact the lawn adjaceo'to the bulkhead. Suitable '1 1 soil excavated for placement f the e rock that contains coar"nd and gravels will be placed on the beach, as allowed by W6=DFW. soils that con��s or fine material will be placed below OHW. Bulkhead construction will occur during the a federal and state fish work windows. No ly i ls work will occur when the area is tidally in ated. enals ain d equipment will be brought in 5 - h line by barge and will operate within 25-fee th existing s eline protection. Existing stormwater in tightlines, if present, will be intergrr d into the replacement A reline protection. 4.2.1 Construction Construction a�tivjtKes will occur during daylight hours within the normal woA� week. In -water constra onw take place during the low tide period when the project area is n�b mundated.hi- cti 01 water k ill be conducted between July 16 and March 14, within the prescribS, rk �wor Y"�LA" window as determined by WDFW and ACOE for juvenile salmon and forage fish spec. All [d wor Z11be wcom'pleted within two weeks. 4.3 Conservation Measures The following protection and conservation measures will be followed by the bulkhead contractor. Any additional measures imposed by regulatory agencies will also be strictly followed. Work below the ordinary high water line will not occur from March 15 through June 14 of any year for the protection of migrating juvenile salmon. Work below the ordinary high waterline from October I through April 30 of any year will be performed within forty—eight hours after the location is inspected by a department representative or biologist acceptable to the department and it is determined that no spawning is occurring or has recently occurred. Project activities below MFMW will not occur when the project area, including the work corridor is inundated by tidal waters. 16 May 2015 • The existing treated wood protection will be removed from the beach and disposed at an appropriate upland facility. • The waterward face of the replacement rock bulkhead will be located W��ard of the existing treated wood protection, except for in front of the large Douglas fir tree. All trenches, depressions, or holes created in the beach area will be backfilled prior to inundation by tidal waters. Trenches excavated for base rocks may remain open during construction. However, fish shall be prevented from entering such trenches. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project will be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site. All manniade debris on the beach will be removed and disposed of upland such that it does not enter waters of the state. All natural habitat features on the beach larger than 12 inches in diameter, including trees, stumps, logs, and large rocks, will be retained on the beach following construction. These habitat features may be moved during construction if necessary. Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed. Extreme care will be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the beach or water. 0 Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life. Chay)ter 5. Project Area's H 5.1 Types of I 5. LI Direct Effects Bulkheads and bank pro!ecft9Fr'c`an have numerous direct an_-d-iwl�rect impacts on critical fish and wildlife habitat and spe3iei�'of concern (VVDFW 2006). Directs effeRg-amthose impacts resulting from the proposed ion. Direct impacts include elimination of habitat an4-disturbance to fish and wildlife c by noise and water quality issues. The proposed action for t0s-pm�ect is the replaceme of the existing treated wood shoreline protection with an angular rock bulkhe"!Thie i lu( Pro action includes both short and long term direct effects. Short term direct unpaca in de impacts from the construction activities. These impacts include removing landscaping May 2015 17 The marine extent of salmon, groundfish, and coastal pelagic EFH includes those watepft,05M tH earshore and tidal submerged environments within Washington, Oregon, anA-Iffialifomia e tb ffs e sev s out to 0 state te * orial waters out to the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) offs between the Canadian bo r to the north and the Mexican border to the south. There e seven composite asin EFHs: estuarine, cky shelf, non -rocky shelf, canyon continenta elfibasin, neritic and 1 s oceanic habitats. Re t assessment of EFH at the 7oled project area includes intertidal/nearshore and associ ed riparian areas. The proposed replacement shoreline tection pro' includes the removal of an existing 0 " p treated wood shoreline protection structure evio y built within potential sand lance and surf ur smelt spawning gravel. The proposed replace shoreline protection will protect the toe of the �p shoreline and large Doug fir from wind a Xwave tion. Placement of the large angular rock will prevent future erosion. The shoreline protection pr;oJec ay temporarily reduce the po;��alions of benthic organisms in t to a small area adjacen . project that are prey species for v groundfish and juvenile pelagic fishes that utfli Intertidal/nearshore EFH. Benthic and epmilben ' prey species that are temporarily displac are expected to recover quickly after construction acti , 'es are completed. �nporar"y disp'ac Since new inve rate communities will quickly reestablished in the project are no long-tenn I Ical PI r in Zar loss of biol ical productivity is expected as a result of the shoreline protee project. Simil ly orage species such as surf smelt, sand lance, and squid could also be tem rarily I impac by elevated temporary turbidity. How"ever, the impacts are expected to be or be use the species are not expected to be in the project area during construction. In order to conserve intertidal/nearshore EFH and reduce potential effects on associated species, the proposed shoreline protection project would , incorporate the following conservation measures: a Project activities will be limited to replacement of existing shoreline protection only. 0 No additional elimination of intertidal habitat will occur. Work below the ordinary high water line will not occur from March 15 through July 15 of any year for the protection of migrating juvenile salmonids. A forage fish spawning survey, by a qualified biologist, will take place before construction begins to insure that no eggs are present adjacent to the project site, as required by WDFW. Project activities below M111-1W will not occur when the project area, including the work corridor is inundated by tidal waters. May. 2015 33 Rock for the bulkhead will be composed of clean, angular material of a sufficient durability and size to prevent its being broken up or washed away by high water or wave action. Use of equipment on the beach will be held to a minimum, confined to a single access point, and limited to a 25-foot work corridor waterward of the existing bulkhead. A-11 trenches, depressions, or holes created in the beach area will be backfilled prior to inundation by tidal waters. If trenches excavated for base rocks need to remain open during construction, fish will be prevented from entering such trenches. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project will be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site. All maninade debris on the beach will be removed and disposed of upland such that it does not enter waters of the state. This includes the pre-existing pieces of concrete and anthropomorphic debris. Intertidal wetland vascular plants will not be adversely impacted due to project activities (e.g., barge shall not ground, equipment shall not operate, and other activities shall not occur in intertidal wetland vascular plants). Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed. The project shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life. The combination of the conservation measures detailed above and the temporary and localizo a tivi ies reduces the effects on Essential Fish Habitat to the pointOwrthe a� ' pro'e�t i �ifttcant and discountable, and thus the proposed shore�liine pro ion project e ects ns f f M I t Li ay Affect, but kely to Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat. 5.4 Assessment Report at As The purpose of the preceding Floodplain �A� i's'"ent Report is to document that the proposed project meets the re i criteria of the'Fsadangered Species Act (ESA) as . q�ire�nenjs,�d clarified in the Biological Opinioq��sued by the National Marind'�hheries Service (NMFS) on September 22, 2008 Th�s , - . ent Rep with ,�:)odplain Habitat Assessm o concludes, that i a 'e — — �h' minimization and cons. f n measurements, the following: _ies No A or May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Endangered cies A f ct, t is ffect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat 34 May 2015 RECEIVED JUN 042015 FLOODPLAIN HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDs Christensen Replacement Marine Shoreline Protection Project Prepared for Bob Christensen May, 2015 FLOODPLAIN HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT Christensen Replacement Marine Shoreline Protection Project Prepared for Bob Christensen 204 SW 292nd St, Federal Way, Washington 98023 Prepared by Bill Rehe 8305 Dogwood Lane NW Gig Harbor, WA 98332 May, 2015 Contents Chapter1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. I Chapter2. Project Area ............................................................................................................. 2.1 Location ............................................................................................................................. �l 2.2 Project Area Description ..................................................................................................... Chapter 3. Project Area's Habitat ............................................................................................. 2 3.1 Background Research ....... ....................... ..................................................................... 2 3. 1.1 Primary Data Source and Supporting Information ................................................... 2 3.2 Protected Species Identification .......................................................................... .............. 3 3.3 Site Investigation ................................................................................................................ 7 3.4 Habitat Narrative ................................................................................................................ 7 3.4.1 Surrounding Land/Water Uses ................................................................... ........... 10 3.4.2 Shoreline Vegetation and Habitat Features ............................ ............................... 11 3.4.3 Aquatic Substrate and Vegetation .......................................................................... 12 3.4.4 Water and Sediment Quality .................................................................................. 13 3.5 Habitat Area Map .................................................................... .................................... 14 Chapter4. Project Description ................................................................................................ 14 4.1 Final Project ....................................................................... .............................................. 15 4.2 Construction Process ........................................................................................................ 17 4.2.1 Construction Schedule .............................................. ....... ..................................... 17 4.3 Conservation Measures ........................................................................... ......................... 17 Chapter 5. Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 18 5.1 Types of Impacts ................... ...... — .............. ........................... ....................................... 18 5. 1.1 Direct Effects ......................................................................................................... �18 5.1.2 Indirect Effects ....................................................................................................... 19 5.1.3 Interdependent and Interrelated Actions ................................................................ 19 5.1.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................. 20 5.2 Effects Determination ................................................................................... ................. -20 5.3 Essential Fish Habitat Analysis ........................................................................................ 35 5.4 Assessment Report Conclusion ........................................................................................ 37 Chapter6. References ..................................................................................... -.- ........ .......... 38 List of Figures Figure 1. Site map ............................................. Figure 2. Flood Hazard map ............................. Figure 3. Project site .................................. ...... Figure 4. Documented surf smelt map .............. Figure 5. Shoreline modifcation map ................ Figure 6. Slope stability map ............................ Figure 7. Project site vegetation ........................ Figure 8. Habitat area map ................................ Figure 9. Site plans ........................................... Figure 10. Nautical map .................................... ......................................................................... 2 ...................................................................... -.8 ......................................................................... 9 ....................................................................... 10 ...................... ........................... I ............. ...... I I ..................................................................... - 12 ....................................................................... 13 ....................................................................... 14 ..................... .................... ............................ 16 ....................................................................... 33 List of Tables Table 1. ESA listed species in Henderson Wet ............................................................................... 4 Table 2. Determination of effects on ESA listed species ............................................................... 21 ii ChaDter 1. Introduction The Christensen's are proposing to replace a section of failed existing wood shoreline protection (bulkhead) along the eastern shoreline of Poverty Bay, Puget Sound in King County, Washington. The existing shoreline protection consists of a poured in place concrete and treated wood bulkhead, a sets of concrete stairs and concrete boat ramp. The treated wood has become damaged and fractured from age and storms. The Christensen's are proposing to install a replacement angular rock bulkhead around a large Doug fir tree and landward of the existing, failing bulkhead. The replacement rock bulkhead will result in less wave reflection damage to the beach bed and will result in no -net -loss of forage fish and intertidal habitat. The City of Federal Way is requiring a floodplain development permit and a habitat assessment. The purpose of the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Regional Guidance (2010) is to meet the requirements and criteria of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as clarified in the Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on September 22, 2008. The following Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Report describes the project area, project area's habitat, and assess potential impacts. Chapter 2. Project Area 2.1 Location The proposed project is located at 204 SW 292' Street in Federal Way, King County, Washington. The subject property is situated in the SE quarter of Township 21 North, Range 4 West, Section 06, NE Quarter, W.M. and includes the shoreline adjacent to King County Tax Parcel 119600-0125. The project area is located in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, Duwarnish/Green watershed. To access the site from Interstate 5, take exit 143 toward S. 3201 St toward Federal Way. Turn right onto I't Ave S. Turn left onto SW 292 nd St. Destination will be on the right. 2.2 Project Area Description The project or "Action Area7' consists of a private residential property located along the eastern shoreline of Puget Sound near Poverty Bay (Figure 1). Upland portions of the properties are comprised of a single family residence, asphalt and gravel driveway, parking and storage areas, and landscape vegetation. The shoreline of parcel 1196000125 is armored with a combination of treated wood and concrete bulkhead. There is a large existing beach cottage/boathouse, stairs built out onto the beach and a concrete boat ramp. May 2015 Figure 1. Site map indicating the locations of the Christensen replacement shoreline protection. The red line identifies the existing bulkhead and stairs while the blue dashed line shows the location of the approximately 50 linear foot section of treated wood bulkhead section to be replaced. Inset provides vicinity map of the site (indicated by red star). Chapter 3. Project Area's Habitat 3.1 Background Research 3. 1.1 Primary Data Source and Supporting Information 1. King County GIS Center (http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS.aspx); 2. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) data for the property and adjacent areas (WDFW 2007); 3. Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) data for sensitive or State- or ESA - listed plant species on the property and adjacent areas (Washington DNR 2006); 2 May 2015 4. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Coastal Atlas data for the property and adjacent areas (WDOE ht!ps://fortress.wa.gov/ec�/coastalatlas2OO I/viewer.htm); 5. Aerial photograph and topographic map of the site; 6. National Marine Fisheries Service critical habitat maps (www.nmfs.noaa/12r/species/criticalhahLLtat.htm 7. US Fish and Wildlife Service critical area maps (http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov 8. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps Cwww_fws.&ov/wet1ands� 9. US Fish and Wildlife Service habitat recovery plans (wwW.fws.aov/Pacir1c 10. National Marine Fisheries Service habitat recovery plans (www.nwr.noaa. 11. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey maps hLtp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ap�/) 12. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Assessment (www.ecy.wa.goy/progrramL/,,v�/303d/2008/index.htmi 3.2 Protected Species Identification The following species list (Table 1) is based on data acquired from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) websites and publications. A number of species present in Western Washington and Thurston County are listed as federally endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This section includes a discussion of listed species with the potential to be within the Project Area and possible impacts due to the proposed project activities. Several species listed and protected by ESA are found in Washington but are not found in or near the vicinity of the project area and will not be addressed in the Effects Determination section of this assessment. The proposed project area is surrounded by developed residential areas and it is highly unlikely that particular plants and animals will be found in the vicinity of the project area. The ESA -listed species not affected (No Effect) by proposed project activities include: spotted owl; leatherback sea turtle; humpback whale; albatross; Grizzly Bear, Caribou; Lynx; Otter, Green Sturgeon, grey wolf, Spalding's Catchfly; Checker -mellow; Desert -parsley; water howellia ladies' tresses; Lupine; Paintbrush and stickseed (WDFW 2008). May 2015 Table 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Ad and potentially found in the vidnitv of Povertv Bay. CommonName Scientific Name Listing Status Critical Habitat Des nated? Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhampus marmoratus Threatened Yes Steller (Northern) Sea Lion Eumatopias jubatus Delisted Delisted Bull Trout Salvelinus coqfluentus Threatened Yes Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened Yes Steelhead Trout OncorkTchus mykiss Threatened Yes Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss Endangered Yes Canary Rockfish Sebastes pinn�ger Threatened Yes Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Threatened Yes Killer Whale Orcinus orca Endangered Yes Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhampus marmoratus — Threatened, listed 1992 Critical habitat designated May 1996 (50 CFR Part 17.11) Marbled murrelets are members of the Alcidae family of seabirds. They are found from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska to central California. Marbled murrelets may winters as far south as southern California. In Washington, the highest densities of marbled murrelets are found along the coastal waters of the Olympic Peninsula. Murrelets nests and roosts in mature and old growth coastal forests. Nesting may occur from April to September (WDFW 1991). They mainly feed from 500 feet and 1.2 miles off shore in waters less than 100 feet deep. Preferred prey items include small fish like sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and crustaceans. Critical habitat has been designated in Oregon and California, but no critical habitat has been designated in the project area or anywhere else in Washington. Steller.(Northern) Sea Lion Eumatopias jubatus eastern population — Delisted 2013 Critical habitat designated August 1993 (58 FR 45269) The eastern populations of Steller sea lions are found in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California. Steller sea lions prefer colder temperatures to sub -arctic waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Haul outs and rookeries usually consist of beaches (gravel, rocky or sand), ledges, and rocky reefs. Critical habitat in the eastern population has been 4 May 2015 identified in portions of Alaska, Oregon, and California. No critical habitat has been designated in Washington. Steller sea lions are rarely seen in the Puget Sound. Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus — Threatened, listed 1999 Critical habitat designated October 2010 (75 FR 63898) Bull trout occur in less than half of their historic range, with fragmented and isolated populations occurring throughout British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout exhibit a wide range of life history strategies including resident, fluvial, adfluvial, and anadramous (WDFW 2000). Anadramous life history forms migrate through large rivers to spawn in cold, clear tributaries. Spawning occurs from late August through November for Coastal and Puget Sound populations. Fry emerge from late winter to early spring. Marine waters and estuaries are used for growth and maturation. Four distinct stocks of bull trout have been identified within the Southern Puget Sound. They are the Puyallup River, Puyallup/Carbon River, Puyallup/White and Nisqually River bull trout stocks. These stocks, although rare, are known to occur in the nearshore habitat throughout the year. There is no known record of bull trout occurring in Poverty Bay. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawyacha — Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) June 2005 (70FR37160) Critical habitat designated September 2005 Chinook salmon use the nearshore of Puget Sound for feeding, rearing and migration. Juvenile Chinook salmon use estuary areas for feeding, rearing and osmoregulating during spring, summer, and fall, depending on their life history strategy. Stream -type Chinook salmon spend limited time in estuaries, while ocean -type Chinook can spend many months feeding and growing there. Juvenile Chinook prefer estuary and marine habitats with adequate water quality, temperatures, food, and depth. In addition to these basic requirements, Chinook also require cover in the form of overhanging shoreline vegetation, woody material, and marine vegetation such as macroalgae or eelgrass. Puget Sound Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss — Threatened, listed May 2007 Critical habitat designated September 2005 (70FR52630) Fifteen distinct population segments (DPS) of steelhead trout have been identified in Washington, Oregon and California. Within these DPSs, steelhead trout exhibit two reproductive ecotypes. Summer or winter ecotypes are based on the duration of spawning migration and state of sexual maturity at time of river entry. The Duwamish/Green Rivers and numerous Puget May 2015 Sound tributaries supports populations of winter steelbead trout. Populations in the Duwamish/Green Watershed are listed as Threatened by WDFW (V*TDFW 2015). Steelhead trout, like other salmonids, heavily utilized nearshore areas to complete their life history. After spawning in streams and rivers, juvenile steelhead migrate into estuary areas for growth and osmoregulation. Juveniles and adults use the nearshore area throughout the year for forage, migration and growth. It is likely that steelhead trout may utilize parts of Poverty Bay when migrating or accessing Cold and Redondo Creeks. Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss —Endangered, listed July 20 10 Bocaccio rockfish distribution ranges from northern British Columbia to central Baja California. Spawning (hatching) occurs from December through April. The live larval young drift over large areas in the surface waters. Larval and juvenile Bocaccio may passively drift for several months before settling in deeper habitats. These fish were once quite common on steep walls of Puget Sound. However, due to declining numbers and increased rarity they were listed as endangered on April 2 8, 2010 (FR, 201 Oa). Adults generally occupy water 50- 250 meters in depth over rocky outcroppings, boulder fields, and sloping walls and will school with both conspecifics and other species of rock fish. Juveniles are found in much shallower waters over rocky substrate with various understory kelps and/or sandy bottoms with eelgrass. Approximately one month after settling juveniles will start to school. Adults and large juveniles feed on small fish and squid, whereas larvae and small juveniles feed on copepods, krill, diatoms, dinoflagellates and various larvae (Love et. al, 2002). Canary Rockfish Sebastes pinniger — Threatened, listed July 20 10 Canary rockfish are a long lived member of the scorpion fish family. Found from northern British Columbia to northern Baja California, they can live up to 80 years of age. In recent years, canary rockfish populations in Puget Sound have declined, leading to their listing as threatened on April 2 8, 20 10 (FR, 20 1 Oa). Canary rockfish spawn in the winter, producing pelagic larvae and juveniles that remain in the upper water column for 3-4 months (Love et al. 2002). Juveniles settle in areas of shallow water (15 to 20 meters) around nearshore rocky reefs, where they may congregate for up to three years (Boehlert 1980, Sampson 1996) before moving into deeper water. Adults live at depths of 80-200 meters in areas with significant currents around high relief rock outcrops. May 2015 Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus — Threatened, listed July 20 10 Yelloweye rockfish, once a common species found from the eastern portions of the Aleutian Islands to Northern California. Like other members of the scorpion fish family, yelloweye rockfish are extremely long-lived reaching ages of up 118 years. Due to declining numbers and increased rarity theywere listed as threatened on April 28,2010 (FF, 2010a). Little is known about the larval stage of yelloweye rockfish, but it is most likely similar to the drift larval stages of bocaccio and canary rockfish. Young juveniles migrate to vertical walls with cloud sponges and anemones at depths greater than 15 meters. Adults and subadults occupy rocky areas with crevices, eaves, and boulder where they feed on small fish, shrimp, crab, and lingcod eggs (Love et. al, 2002). Killer Whale, Southern Resident Orcinus orca — Endangered, listed November 2005 Critical habitat designated November 2006 Killer Whales are found in open oceans and coastal waters. Southern resident Killer Whales may be found spring through fall in Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound. Movements into the Puget Sound usually coincide with migration of salmonids into the region (NMF S 2008). The Puget Sound contains designated habitat for southern resident Killer Whale. 3.3 Site Investigation A site visit was performed Thursday, April 30th, 2015. Conditions were clear and sunny with little to no wind. The site visit was performed during an approximately 8.5 foot (MLLW) and took approximately two hours. The overall condition of the beach and shoreline were examined, including general soil and vegetation characterization, potential critical habitats were identified, and the presents of species of concerned were investigated. The site visit was performed by Bill Rehe, professional fisheries biologist with over twenty years of experience in the Northwest. Mr. Rehe holds four-year and advanced degrees in fisheries science. His areas of expertise includes marine and nearshore ecology, salmon biology, wetland science, and forage fish ecology. In addition to formal training at accredited universities, he has received training by the Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service. May 2015 3.4 Habitat Narrative The proposed project is located in Poverty Bay, central Puget Sound. Poverty Bay is a developed body of water surrounded by dense residential development. There are no fish bearing drainage on or adjacent to the Christensen parcel or the Action Area. A small portion of the project area is located within the Puget Sound floodplain (Ecology 2015, Figure 2). According to FENIA, the area adjacent to the project area has a moderate to low risk of being flooded. The replacement angular rock bulkhead will have and equivalent or slightly smaller foot print within the floodplain area. Figure 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Map for Poverty Bay, Puget Sound. Project area (red diamond) is surrounded by moderate -to -low risk areas. There is no salmonid spawning areas in or near the proposed project area. It is likely the area is used for migration corridor and foraging. Nearby rivers and streams support runs of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) (WDFW 2015). May 2015 During the site visit, substrate with the potential for surf smelt spawning was identified along existing bulkhead. An approximately 15 to 18 foot wide band of suitable gravel was identified in the proper spawning elevations for surf smelt and potentially sand lance, but no spawning areas for herring were identified (Figure 3). r I Figure 3. Project site looking north-northeast. Note the approximately 15-18 foot band of coarse sand and pea gravel suitable for surf smelt spawning. According to WDFW salmonscape (2015a) and Priority Habitat and Species (2015b) websites, no surf smelt spawning is documented within and adjacent to the proposed project area (Figure 4). No potential or documented Sand Lance spawning occurs on or adjacent to the project area. The nearest document forage fish spawning area is located north of the Project site between Wooten Park and Cold Creek. Because suitable surf smelt and sand lance gravel is present on the site, impacts to the potential habitat will be avoided, minimized and mitigated for as if the area was documented spawning habitat. May 2015 Figure 4. Documented surf smelt habitat north-northeast of the project area (WDFW 2015). Poverty Bay provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species common to central Puget Sound. Benthic macrofauna include crab and bivalve species. Several bird species were observed adjacent to the project area. These bird species include Glaucous -winged Gulls (Larus glaucescens), Northwest Crow (Corvus caurinus), Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias) and a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). No mammals were observed. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) priority habitat and species maps identify estuarine intertidal wetlands adjacent to the project area (WDFW 2014a) 3.4. 1 Surrounding LandlWater Uses Poverty Bay is dominated by residential development. The shoreline in the vicinity of the project site is listed as stable and is heavily armored (8 1 -100%) (Figure 5, Ecology 2015). There are two 303(d) list sites located north and south, but not immediately adjacent to the project site in Poverty Bay. 10 May 2015 Figure 5, Washington Department of Ecology Shoreline Atlas illustrating share modification (armoring) at and adjacent to the project area (red star), May 2015 11 Figure 6. Washington Department of Ecology Shoreline Atlas illustrating slope stability modification at and adjacent to the project area (red star). Ecology lists the project area as stable. 3.4.2 Shoreline Vegetation and Habitat Features The project area is vegetated mainly with landscaping species above NCRIW. Lawn and ornamental species, including large patches of English ivy (Hedera helix), cover most of the property. There are two large Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees near the shoreline. A small amount of large woody debris (LWD) is located at the toe of the existing bulkhead. 3.4.3 Aquatic Substrate and Vegetation The beach substrate adjacent to the existing bulkhead includes a 15 to 18 foot wide strip of coarse sand that gradually turns to pea gravel and then cobble (Figure 7). There is no aquatic vegetation such as rockweed (Fucus spp.), eelgrass (Zostera marina) or kelp growing within or near the project area. According to Ecology Shoreline Atlas (2015), patch (fragmented) kelp occurs offshore of the project area. 12 May 2015 -S. Figure 7. Project site looking east. Note the lack of aquatic vegetation present on the beach. 3.4.4 Water and Sediment Quality Poverty Bay has several location included on Ecology's 303(d) list of impaired water quality for exceeding the numerous state criteria (Ecology, 2015). The area to the north of the project area is on the Ecology 303(d) list for bacteria and fish and shellfish habitat. The area to the south of the project site is on the Ecology 303(d) list for 82 different criteria. The water and sediment at and directly adjacent to the project area have not been identified as containing detrimental substances. May 2015 13 3.5 Habitat Area Map Figure 8. Habitat area map of project area depicting approximate location of existing bulkhead (blue), Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM; yellow line) and Douglas fir to be preserved (green dot). Chapter 4. Project Description The proposed project includes the replacement of approximately 50 linear feet of failing treated wood shoreline protection with 50 linear feet of angular rock bulkhead to stabilize the marine shoreline. The concrete bulkhead, stairs and ramp will not be replaced. This section expands on the descriptions found in Part 6-Project Description of the Washington State Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA). 14 May 2015 4.1 Final Project After the installation of the angular rock bulkhead around a large Doug fir tree and landward of the existing, failing bulkhead, the project area will look similar to the existing conditions. Post - construction, the site will continue to be used as a single family residence. There will be no increase in traffic, stormwater runoff, noise or change in air quality. Once the project is complete, the area should recover quickly from short term construction impacts and over time benefit from the additional habitat mix and the removal of treated and creosote wood. The angular rock bulkhead will also have less of an impact from wave refraction as the vertical wood or concrete bulkhead. REPLACF FAIUNG TIMUR %WTH ROCK (90 TON) M~ 1.1 EXISnNG 7 UINCRE EXISTMG REACH CA&N r0V CI F SLOOr Figure 9. Plans depicting the proposed fmal project design. May 2015 15 4.2 Construction Process The replacement shoreline protection will be replaced approximately 20 feet section at a time. Unstable soil will be excavated and rock placed a minimum 1.5 feet below the bed of the beach. Minimum excavation will occur in the vicinity of the Douglas fir tree to be preserved. Colluvial and fill soils will be remove in order to place the large angular rock on a stable footing. Clearing of vegetation will be minimal and will only impact the lawn adjacent to the bulkhead. Suitable soil excavated for placement of the toe rock that contains coarse sand and gravels will be placed on the beach, as allowed by WDFW. No soils that contain clays or fine material will be placed below OHW. Bulkhead construction will occur during the allowed federal and state fish work windows. No work will occur when the area is tidally inundated. Materials and equipment will be brought in by barge and will operate within 25-feet of the existing shoreline protection. Existing stormwater tightfines, if present, will be intergrated into the replacement shoreline protection. 4.2. 1 Construction Schedule Construction activities will occur during daylight hours within the normal work week. In -water construction will take place during the low tide period when the project area is not inundated. In - water work will be conducted between July 16 and March 14, within the prescribed work windows as determined by WDFW and ACOE for juvenile salmon and forage fish species. All work will be completed within two weeks. 4.3 Conservation Measures The following protection and conservation measures will be followed by the bulkhead contractor. Any additional measures imposed by regulatory agencies will also be strictly followed. Work below the ordinary high water line will not occur from March 15 through June 14 of any year for the protection of migrating juvenile salmon. Work below the ordinary high water line from October 1 through April 30 of any year will be performed within forty—eight hours after the location is inspected by a department representative or biologist acceptable to the department and it is determined that no spawning is occurring or has recently occurred. Project activities below MHHW will not occur when the project area, including the work corridor is inundated by tidal waters. 16 May 2015 • The existing treated wood protection will be removed from the beach and disposed at an appropriate upland facility. /a., J • The waterward face of the replacement rock bulkhead will be located we"ard of the existing treated wood protection, except for in front of the large Douglas fir tree. All trenches, depressions, or holes created in the beach area will be backfilled prior to inundation by tidal waters. Trenches excavated for base rocks may remain open during construction. However, fish shall be prevented from entering such trenches. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project will be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site. All manmade debris on the beach will be removed and disposed of upland such that it does not enter waters of the state. All nawral habitat features on the beach larger than 12 inches in diameter, including trees, stumps, logs, and large rocks, will be retained on the beach following construction. These habitat features may be moved during construction if necessary. a Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed. Extreme care will be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the beach or water. 0 Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life. Chapter 5. Project Area's Habitat 5.1 Types of Impacts 5. LI Direct Effects Bulkheads and bank protection can have numerous direct and indirect impacts on critical fish and wildlife habitat and species of concern (WDFW 2006). Directs effects are those impacts resulting from the proposed action. Direct impacts include elimination of habitat and disturbance to fish and wildlife caused by noise and water quality issues. The proposed action for this project is the replacement of the existing treated wood shoreline protection with an angular rock bulkhead. The proposed action includes both short and long term direct effects. Short term direct impacts include impacts from the construction activities. These impacts include removing landscaping May 2015 17 vegetation associated with excavating landward of the existing bulkhead to place rock, operating the excavator within the authorized work corridor, and the temporary grounding of the barge. Long term direct effects include the placement of 3-man rock on the beach in front of the large Doug fir tree. This will replace habitat with angular rock for approximately 10 linear feet waterward of the existing treated wood bulkhead. The other approximately 40 linear feet of replacement bulkhead will be curved landward to compensate for the rock placed in front of the Doug Fir. The project will result in increased amount of sand lance and surf smelt spawning habitat and should have no -net -loss of habitat or functions over the current condition. 5.1.2 Indirect Effects Indirect impacts include long term habitat conversion and changes to natural nearshore processes, such as sediment recruitment and transportation. Because the replacement rock bulkhead will be built landward (except for in front of the Doug fir) of the existing treated and creosote wood bulkhead, long term habitat conversion should be less than current impacts. This should result in an overall minor net benefit to the project area. Retaining the large Doug fir will be beneficial to the overall health and fiinction of the nearshore habitat. The Doug fir provides shade and nutrient input to the marine environment as well as a perch for bird species. Indirect effects to nearshore processes should be minor or neutral since the site is already impacted by shoreline protection. The shoreline adjacent to the project is not listed as a feeder bluff (Ecology 2015), so no new impacts will occur to the drift cell. 5.1.3 Interdependent and Interrelated Actions Interdependent actions are those actions having independent utility apart from the proposed replacement shoreline protection. There are no known interdependent actions. Interrelated actions are those actions that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for its justification. Interrelated actions include stabilization of the post -construction site, removal of invasive vegetation, planting of native vegetation and placement of "fish mix7 material, as required by WDFW. 5.1.4 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of unrelated future activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the project area. Future activities that are usually evaluated include residential development, bulkhead, docks, and other structures. Future residential development is unlikely, being that all properties are already developed and are not likely to be subdivided further. Remodeling of existing structures, like the existing boathouse is likely to occur. According to Ecology's shoreline atlas, the area adjacent to the project area contain 81-100% shoreline armoring. The property to the north and south of the Christensen's property already have 18 May 2015 concretebulkheads. There are currently no docks and piers on the Christensen's properties. The neighbors to the north have a large dock and pier. Small structures, like picnic tables, gazebos or storage sheds may be built above M]HHW and would likely have little to no effect on the shoreline environment. 5.2 Effects Determination Federally listed threatened and endangered species that may occur in the project area potentially include Marbled Murrelet, Bull Trout, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound Steelhead, Bocaccio Rockfish, Canary Rockfish, Yelloweye Rockfish and Killer Whale. A summary of the effect determinations for the proposed project activities on each species is presented in Table 2. Potential direct effects include behavior disturbance from construction noise and water quality impacts due to increased turbidity from replacing the shoreline protection. These effects will be avoided and minimized by the conservation measures listed in section 4.3. The direct effects are considered localized to the immediate project area, temporary and short term in duration, minimal in significance when considered in the context of the surrounding developed environment of Poverty Bay, Puget Sound. There are numerous threatened or endangered species in Washington and the Puget Sound. Two of those species, Humpback Whales and Leatherback sea turtles are unlikely to be found in the Puget Sound. Humpback whales, usually found in open coastal waters, do not occur within the central Puget Sound or Poverty Bay. Historically, Humpback Whales sightings have occurred four times in the Puget Sound in 1976, 1978, and twice in 1988 (Calambokidis et al 1990). Leatherback Sea Turtles are occasionally seen along the Washington coast, rarely ftu-ther south than the Strait of Juan de Fuca. According to WDFW biologists, Leatherback have not been found in Poverty Bay. Due to their unlikely presence, the rarity of the species and the anticipated short and temporary impacts associated with the project, the proposed actions will have No Effects on Humpback Whales or Leatherback Sea Turtles. Table 2. Species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act and determination of effects from nroiect activities. CommonName Scientific Name Effects on Listed I- Species Effect on Designated Critical Habitat Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhatn1wis No Effect No Effect on mannoratus designated critical habitat Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus May Affect, but is Not May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect May 2015 19 Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus May Affect, but is Not May Affect, but is Not tshawytscha Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss May Affect, but is Not May A ct, but is Not Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Bocaccio Ro ish Sebastespaucispiniss May Affect, but is Not May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Canary Rockfish ?bastespinniger May Affect, but is Not May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus May Affect, but is Not May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Killer Whale Orcinus orca No Effect No Effect on designated critical habitat Marbled Murrelet Occurrence in the Project Area Marine observations of murrelets during the nesting season are believed to correspond to the presence of large blocks of suitable nesting habitat inland. There are no suitable nesting areas in close proximity to the Poverty Bay. Similarly, no designated critical habitat (i.e. terrestrial nesting habitat) is located in or along the shores of Puget Sound or Poverty Bay. Designated critical habitat does not currently include marine foraging habitat. Marbled murrelet sightings are rare in the central and southern Puget Sound. Historically, limited sighting were made in King County (www.soundtosage.or ). The closest nesting areas to Poverty Bay and the project area were located east in the Cascade Mountains, east of Lake Stevens and north of Sultan (approximately 34 records) and approximately 35 miles west in Olympic Mountains, west of Port Hadlock and Port Townsend (approximately 15 records) (WDFW 2008). Effects of the Action Potential effects of the proposed shoreline protection project on marbled murrelets primarily include disturbance and increased turbidity during excavation of the rock wall toe trench that may inhibit foraging or result in temporarily reduced food availability and reduced visibility/detectability of prey. Noise from construction equipment and temporary increases in turbidity during excavation will likely cause prey fish to avoid the immediate area of the proposed project. Consequently, in the unlikely event that a marbled murrelet was present within 20 May 2015 the immediate vicinity of the project area, they would be expected to temporarily avoid the immediate area and forage elsewhere until construction activities are completed. The addition of the construction noise in the localized area of the project area should not appreciably add to disturbance noise for marbled muffelets. Any construction noise will be short- term and confined to the project area. No underwater noise will be produced, since the work will be performed in the dry at low tides. Any terrestrial noise will blend in to the ambient background noise before it can disturb locations outside of the Action Area. Marbled murrelets, in the unlike chance they are in the area, will stay away from the project area, and the sound generated during construction will not cause changes in behavior of these animals as they are likely to have become somewhat habituated to vessels and urban noise. Determination of Effect Proposed shoreline protection activities will not result in any long-term degradation of habitat or other significant adverse effects on marbled murrelets. Short-term effects such as noise disturbance and reduced prey availability will either not occur or will be very small in magnitude, as discussed above. Temporary disturbance to foraging activities are expected to be insignificant and discountable. The survival or reproductive success of marbled murrelets in the project vicinity would not be affected. Therefore, the proposed shoreline protection project activities will have No Effect on marbled murrelet. The proposed project will have No Effect on designated critical habitat for marbled murrelet since none is present in the vicinity of the project. Bull Trout — Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment Occurrence in the Project Area The current distribution of bull trout within Puget Sound marine waters is not well understood. They have been documented to occur from the Canadian border to at least the Nisqually River delta, but no record of historical bull trout presence in Poverty Bay or the project area is known to exist. Bull trout migrate throughout the inner bays and nearshore of Puget Sound from Possession Sound, to the Nisqually Delta. Bull trout are typically found in snowmelt-dominated streams like the Puyallup and Nisqually Rivers that maintain cold water temperatures year-round in headwater reaches (WDFW, 2002). The Puyallup and Nisqually River supports a small population of anadramous bull trout. Records show that bull trout in south Puget Sound are very rare. One bull trout was caught in the nearshore approximately I kin west of McAllister Creek in 1978 (Fresh et al. 1979). Two additional records of bull trout occurrence in freshwater habitat in the Nisqually River were recorded in the mid 1980's (WDFW 1998) and late 1990's (USFWS 2004). Adult or sub -adults from this population may occasionally use the shoreline near the project area when feeding on outmigrating juvenile Chinook (Chan 2012). Although adult or juvenile bull May 2015 21 trout may be present in nearshore waters year round, the likelihood of encountering bull trout in the project area during the construction work window is extremely low. Effects of the Action Proposed project activities are likely to cause temporary and localized increases in turbidity. Although bull trout are unlikely to be in the project area, potential foraging habitat may be temporarily unavailable because of turbidity. Prey items important to bull trout are not likely to be affected by project activities. Like bull trout, the prey items, such as Chinook salmon, will temporarily avoid the project area. In -water noise will not be increased by project activities. Noises produced by construction equipment will be terrestrial and similar to surround urban noise levels. Conservation measures described in section 4.3, particularly avoidance of the juvenile salmon migration period, are expected to prevent adverse short-term effects to bull trout during shoreline protection activities. The temporary loss of the benthic organisms during the construction of the shoreline protection is expected to have a negligible effect on long-term habitat quality within the project area. Overall, the effects of the proposed action would be insignificant and discountable due to the temporary duration of the proposed project actions and the implementation of the proposed conservation measures to minimize the potential for bull trout to be within the project area. Critical Habitat The following primary constituent elements (PCEs) were given for bull trout in the Federal Register (October 18, 2010) in the re -designation of critical habitat. (1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. Springs, seeps, and groundwater sources are not located within or near the project area. (2) Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. Ae proposed actions may have a temporary effect on migrating adult salmonids, primarily in the form of temporary elevation of turbidity and noise levels, which are considered to be insignificant. No permanent barriers to in�gradon would result fton; shoreline protection activities. (3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. 22 May 2015 Other than temporary disruption of benthic and epibenthicfood sources, the shoreline protection project would have an insignificant effect on the food base in Poverty Bay. Long-term, removing the treated wood bulkhead and replacing it with a rock bulkhead should slightly increase the amount of intertidal habitat availablefor surf smelt spawning. Protecting the large Dougfir tree will provide continued shade on the beach to help prevent forage fish eggs from drying out during low tide. (4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. The shoreline protection project is occurring in a marine shoreline aquatic environment. Ae majority of the shoreline is already armored. Ae proposed project will stabilize the marine shoreline and rehabilitate surf smelt spawning areas along an otherwise homogenous urbanized shoreline. (5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 *C (36 to 59 'F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will depend on bull trout life -history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streaniflow; and local groundwater influence. Ae project area is located within an area that is moderately stratified compared to most other Puget Sound basins because no major river systems fiow into Poverty Bay. Although surface temperatures near the Poverty Bay can reach 14-15'C in summer, the temperatures Of subsurface waters generally rangefrom 10-13'C in summer and 8-1 O'C in winter (WDOE 1999). Ae shoreline protection project will not alter or increase water temperature beyond the current average temperatures. (6) In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young -of -the -year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from silt to coarse sand,_ embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system. Poverty Bay and the project area are not utilized by bull troutfor spawning or rearing; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. (7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph. The proposed shoreline protection project would not alter the hydrograph or tidal exchange. This PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. May 2015 23 (8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. The proposed shoreline protection project would not alter the quantity of water in Poverty Bay or the project area. The proposed project would have a temporary, insigniflcant effect on turbidity. (9) Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. The presence of such predatory, interbreedit�g, or competing species would not occur in the project area. Predation by terrestrial or marine aquatic species would not be affected by the proposed shoreline protection project. In summary, the Project Area may serve as migratory or feeding habitat for coastal/Puget Sound bull trout heading for the Puyallup or Nisqually Rivers. As in most of the Puget Sound nearshore locations, the PCEs in the project area have been significantly altered and are not likely to be used by bull trout. Shoreline protection activities may result in temporary impacts to substrates, water quality and noise. As discussed in previous paragraphs, these impacts are minor, temporary, discountable, and do not interfere with movements or feeding of bull trout. Determination of Effect For the reasons described above, no significant cumulative, interrelated or interdependent effects on bull trout are expected from the proposed shoreline protection project or activities. Overall, due to the low likelihood of an individual bull trout being within the project area, the effects of the proposed action on Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout would be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, the proposed shoreline protection activities May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout or its designated critical habitat. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Occurrence in Project Area Chinook salmon in the central Puget Sound River are of "mixed" hatchery and native stocks (WDFW 2012). Adults enter to the area river from mid -June through the fall. Chinook salmon may be present or migrating through the Puget Sound and the marine waters adjacent to the project area from mid -May through October. Out -migrating juvenile Chinook salmon could potentially use the waters in and around the project area from March until mid -July. As with much of the Puget Sound nearshore, the habitat in and adjacent to the project area has been significantly altered. Spawning opportunities for Chinook salmon do not occur in Poverty 24 May 2015 Bay or the project area. No rivers or streams with the potential to support Chinook spawning occur within or near the project area. Poverty Bay and the project area likely serves as feeding and migratory habitat for Puget Sound Chinook. Ocean -type Chinook utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for rearing than stream -type juveniles (Healey 1991). Both life history strategies ofjuveniles Chinook could move into marine waters in and around the project area to feed on drifting insects and small nektonic organisms (calanoid copepods, crab larvae, larval and juvenile fish, and euphausiids) (Simenstad et al. 1982; Healey 1991). Effects of the Action This project will not result in long-term, permanent impacts to Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Scheduling construction to occur during approved work windows will minimize impacts to salmon. Construction activities that will occur below OHWM will likely have short-term impacts on salmonids that may be present in the project area during that time. However, project impacts are likely to be insignificant because of their localized and temporary nature and the existing impacted environinental conditions of the site (i.e., lack of aquatic vegetation and habitat complexity). These impacts will be minimized by conservation measures included in the construction Section 4.4. Planting the area with overhanging vegetation will improve habitat conditions and water quality over the long term. Critical Habitat Critical habitat, as defined in the ESA, identifies specific areas that have the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of a listed species, and that may require special management consideration or protection (50 CFR Part 17). Designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon includes all naturally spawned populations from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound (50 CFR Part 226). Critical habitat is designated for areas containing the physical and biological habitat features, or primary constituent elements (PCEs) essential for the conservation of the species or that require special management consideration. PCEs include sites that are essential to supporting one or more life stages of the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) and that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the ESU. Specific sites and features designated for Puget Sound Chinook salmon include: 1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity, water quality, and substrate conditions that support spawning incubation and larval development. The project area does not containfteshwater spawning sites capable ofsupporting Chinook this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality, natural cover, and forage that support juvenile development. May 2015 25 The project area does not containfteshwater rearing sites, this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, and natural cover conditions that support juvenile and adult mobility and survival. The project area does not containfreshwater migration corridors; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and salt water, as well as natural cover and Jorage supporting juvenile and adult survival and growth. 7he project area does not contain estuarine areas; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, natural cover, and forage supporting survival and growth. Ae proposed slope protection project will not alter water quantity, quality orforage of water in Poverty Bay or the project area permanently. The proposedproject will protect natural cover by preserving an existing large Doug fir that provides overhanging shade to the shoreline. 6. Offshore marine areas with water -quality conditions and forage supporting survival and growth. Ae proposed slope stabilization project will not alter offshore marine areas with water - quality conditions and forage supporting survival and growth; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. Determination of Effect Adult, sub -adult, and juvenile Chinook salmon utilize the nearshore of the Puget Sound for at least some stage of their life history. The proposed slope stabilization project may affect the threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon, however, any Chinook salmon present would experience negligible effects from the proposed shoreline protection. Conservation measures including avoiding construction activities during the migration period of juvenile Chinook salmon and other salmonids, will reduce and prevent adverse short-term effects to Chinook salmon during construction of the slope stabilization project. Work along the shoreline could result in temporary degradation of the water quality; these effects would be limited to the immediate project area. The construction work will occur during prescribed Army 26 May 2015 Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and VV`DFW "work windows" when Chinook salmon are likely not present in the project area. The temporary loss of the benthic; communities in the project areas would have only a negligible effect on Chinook salmon habitat. For the reasons described above, no significant cumulative, interrelated or interdependent effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon are expected from the proposed slope stabilization project Overall, the effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound Chinook salmon would be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, the proposed shoreline protection activities May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Similarly, the proposed slope stabilization activities May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Puget Sound Steelhead Occurrence in the project area Winter populations of steelhead trout have been documented throughout south Puget Sound in the Nisqually River, Chambers Creek, North (Donkey) and Crescent Valley Creeks in Gig Harbor and the Puyallup River (WDFW 2015). In Poverty Bay, winter steelhead trout presence, based on modeling, are found in Cold and Redondo Creeks (WDFW 2015). Steelhead typically enter freshwater from December through mid -March and spawn from early February to early April (Washington State Conservation Commission, 2002). Juveniles outmigrate from mid - March through mid -July. Winter steelhead in WRIA 9 are listed as Threatened by the Salmon Conservation and Reporting Engine (SCoRE: WDFW, 2015). Adults and juvenile steelhead trout most likely use the area in the vicinity of the project area for migration and feeding. Effects of Action Potential direct and indirect effects to Puget Sound steelhead from the project are similar to Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Although the impacts of terrestrial noise and temporary turbidity would be short-term and localized, there is still the potential to affect steelhead trout. Potential impacts of the project action include physiological responses such as elevated stress levels due to noise, gill injury due to temporary exposure to increased turbidity levels, and behavioral responses, such as reduced feeding opportunities and avoiding the work area. The substrate in the project area contain gravel and courser sandy substrate and therefore is expected to settle out quickly. The proposed timing of the work, from mid -July through September, was chosen because it is the driest time of year (less chance of runoff) and steelhead trout are less likely to be in the project area. Since steelhead typically utilize deeper marine water habitats they would likely be present in low numbers or would not be present at the project area. Furthermore, steelhead trout May 2015 27 from the Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers am naturally exposed to elevated suspended sediment levels from these turbid rivers and should have less negative responses. This project will not result in long-term, permanent impacts to Puget Sound steethead. These temporary impacts will be minimized by following all conservation measures and working when juvenile steelhead trout are less likely to be in the area. There would be longer -term enhancements of water quality and habitat by stabilizing the shoreline and increasing the amount of intertidal. Therefore impacts are expected to be minimal and discountable. Critical Habitat The following primary constituent elements (PCEs) were given for steelhead trout in the Federal Register (September 5, 2005) in the designation of critical habitat: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development; The project area does not containfteshwater spawning sites; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. (2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Ae project area does not containfteshwater rearing sites; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation 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; Ae project area does not containfteshwater migration corridors; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. (4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater; (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels; and (iii) Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. The project area does not contain estuarine areas; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. 28 May 2015 (5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. The proposed shoreline protection project will not alter water quantity, quality orforage o water in Poverty Bay or the project area. The project area currently has little natural of cover. (6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. The project area does not contain offshore marine areas and will not degrade water quality conditions orforage; this PCE would not be affected by the proposedproject. Determination of Effect Due to the reduced presents of steelhead trout from relatively healthy stocks, the timing of the proposed project actions, the localized and temporary nature of the turbidity, the proposed project actions May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound steelhead or steelhead Critical Habitat. Bocitedo Rockfish Effects of Action it is very unlikely that any adult bocaccio rockfish would occur in project area as they tend to inhabit deeper water with rocky substrate. Bocaccios have not been documented in the Puget Sound since 2001 (NWS 2008). Historically, they were seen as bycatch in the south central Puget Sound near Point Defiance and Tacoma Narrows (Palsson et al 2009). The substrate in Poverty Bay is soft sediment (mud, sand, and mixed fines) and do not support essential rock fish habitat (NOAA 2013). Based on the shallow nature of Poverty Bay (figure 10) near the project area and the lack of suitable habitat it is extremely unlikely that adult Bocaccio rockfish would be present. May 2015 29 V *0 . - --- . de 96 MX�FT SCOAMD Vr-,�%FL T%WIFK: $VVWF AiRFA 95 ne* now F; 78 91 se ARY-1 P" 25 37� 17 —2 27 Figure 10. Nautical map of Poverty Bay, central Puget Sound. Red star indicates the project site. Although juveniles are present in shallower water, they are also associated with rocky areas with kelp cover and sandy areas with eelgrass beds. The probability of the larval stage or juvenile bocaccio to be present at the project area is very low because at these life stages they are dependent on tidal currents and the project area lacks proper habitat. Determination of Effect Due to the lack of rockfish habitat and the distance from deeper waters habitats, the presence of bocaccios in the proposed area is unlikely. The proposed project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect this species or its critical habitat. 30 May 2015 Canary Rockfish Effects of Action Canary rockfish are distributed throughout the Puget Sound although there numbers are greater in the north Puget Sound and San Juan Island (Miller and Borton 1980). In the south Puget Sound, recreation catch record document a local population near the Tacoma Narrows. Adult canary rockfish are unlikely to be encountered in Poverty Bay, as it lacks deep water, proper substrate, and high relief habitat. Juvenile canary rockfish recruitment and rearing is unlikely to occur in the project area, as it lacks proper vegetation or hard rocky substrate. Larval canary rockfish are not likely to be found within the project area either. Determination of Effect There is limited potential for occurrence of rockfish within the project area. Drift larval and small juvenile canary rockfish may potentially be present in Puget Sound waters during the summer months when construction would occur. Project effects to larval canary rockfish are highly unlikely. Due to the lack of canary rockfish habitat and the lack of impacts to known habitat, the proposed project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect canary rockfish DPS and critical habitat. Yelloweye Rockfish Effects of Action Yelloweye rockfish are somewhat rare in the south Puget Sound (NMIFS 2008). They are encountered more frequently in the north Puget Sound and Hood Canal (Miller and Borton 1980). It is very unlikely that adult yelloweye rockfish will be present in the project area as they inhabit deep water with rocky substrate that provides refuge space and feeding opportunities. This type of habitat is not present within the project area. Juvenile yelloweye rock fish are also not likely to be found near the project area as they prefer shallow areas with rocky substrate (NMFS 2008). The soft sediment of Poverty Bay does not contain rock crevices and kelp beds. Drift larval is also not expected to be found within project area. Determination of Effect Due to the lack of presence of yelloweye rockfish and yelloweye rockfish habitat in the project area the proposed action May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect on this species or critical habitat. May 2015 31 Southern Resident Killer Whales Effects of the Action It is highly unlikely that a Southern Resident Killer Whales would enter Poverty Bay because the shallow depth would likely limits their presence. Killer Whales require open water with no restrictions (NOAA, 2006). Also, during the proposed project window Southern Resident Killer Whales are typically not present in the Puget Sound as they tend to prefer open water habitats with feeding opportunities during the summer months. Critical Habitat The PCEs for Southern Residents include the following: (1) Water quality to support growth and development; (2) Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality and availability to support individual growth, reproduction and development, as well as overall population growth; and (3) Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging. The action area barely includes critical habitat for southern resident killer whale (shoreline of Puget Sound). However, the action addressed in this report does not directly affect the critical habitat, as the shoreline protection project occurs in the upper intertidal zone. As discussed in previous paragraphs, impacts to water quality, prey base, and passage for other species are discountable. Effects to killer whale critical habitat are not anticipated. Determination of Effect Due to the lack of suitable and critical habitat within the project area and the absence of Southern Resident Killer Whales during the project construction window, the proposed action is expected to have No Effect on southern resident killer whales and their designated critical habitat. 5.3 Essential Fish Habitat Analysis The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) amended the Magnuson -Stevens Act to require Federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on projects that may adversely affect "Essential Fish Habitat" (EFH). The Pacific States Fishery Management Council amended the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan and the Coastal Pelagic Species Management Plan (1998a, 1998b) to designate waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth of commercially important fish species (50 CFR 600.905-930). The objective of this EFH assessment is to notify NOAA Fisheries of the project and potential effects and determine whether the proposed actions "may adversely affect" designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally managed fish species within the proposed Project Area. The analysis also includes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, and offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH. 32 May 2015 The marine extent of salmon, groundfish, and coastal pelagic EFH includes those waters from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within Washington, Oregon, and California state territorial waters out to the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) offshore between the Canadian border to the north and the Mexican border to the south. There are seven composite EFHs: estuarine, rocky shelf, non -rocky shelf, canyon, continental shelf/basin, neritic and oceanic habitats. Relevant assessment of EFH at the proposed project area includes intertidal/nearshore and associated riparian areas. The proposed replacement shoreline protection project includes the removal of an existing treated wood shoreline protection structure previously built within potential sand lance and surf smelt spawning gravel. The proposed replacement shoreline protection will protect the toe of the shoreline and large Doug fir from wind and wave action. Placement of the large angular rock will prevent future erosion. The shoreline protection project may temporarily reduce the populations of benthic organisms in a small area adjacent to the project that are prey species for various groundfish and juvenile pelagic fishes that utilize intertidal/nearshore EFH. Benthic and epibenthic prey species that are temporarily displaced are expected to recover quickly after construction activities are completed. Since new invertebrate communities will quickly reestablished in the project areas, no long-term loss of biological productivity is expected as a result of the shoreline protection project. Similarly, forage species such as surf smelt, sand lance, and squid could also be temporarily impacted by elevated temporary turbidity. However, the impacts are expected to be minor because the species are not expected to be in the project area during construction. In order to conserve intertidal/nearshore EFH and reduce potential effects on associated species, the proposed shoreline protection project would incorporate the following conservation measures: 0 Project activities will be limited to replacement of existing shoreline protection only. 0 No additional elimination of intertidal habitat will occur. Work below the ordinary high water line will not occur from March 15 through July 15 of any year for the protection of migrating juvenile salmonids. A forage fish spawning survey, by a qualified biologist, will take place before construction begins to insure that no eggs are present adjacent to the project site, as required by WDFW. Project activities below M]HJ-IW will not occur when the project area, including the work corridor is inundated by tidal waters. May 2015 33 Rock for the bulkhead will be composed of clean, angular material of a sufficient durability and size to prevent its being broken up or washed away by high water or wave action. Use of equipment on the beach will be held to a minimum, confined to a single access point, and limited to a 25-foot work corridor waterward of the existing bulkhead. All trenches, depressions, or holes created in the beach area will be backfilled prior to inundation by tidal waters. If trenches excavated for base rocks need to remain open during construction, fish will be prevented from entering such trenches. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project will be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site. All manmade debris on the beach will be removed and disposed of upland such that it does not enter waters of the state. This includes the pre-existing pieces of concrete and anthropomorphic debris. Intertidal wetland vascular plants will not be adversely impacted due to project activities (e.g., barge shall not ground, equipment shall not operate, and other activities shall not occur in intertidal wetland vascular plants). Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed. The project shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life. The combination of the conservation measures detailed above and the temporary and localized affect of project activities reduces the effects on Essential Fish Habitat to the point that the effects will be insignificant and discountable, and thus the proposed shoreline protection project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat. 5.4 Assessment Report Conclusion The purpose of the preceding Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report is to document that the proposed project meets the requirements and criteria of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as clarified in the Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NWS) on September 22, 2008. This Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report concludes, that with minimization and conservation measurements, the following: • No Affect or May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Endangered Species • May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat 34 May 2015 6.0 References Boehlert, G.W. 1980. Size composition, age composition, and growth of canary rockfish, Sebastes pinniger, and splitnose rockfish, S. diploproa, from the 1977 rockfish survey. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42:57-63. Calambokidis, J. and G. Steiger. (1990). Sightings and Movement of Humpback Whales in Puget Sound, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 71:45-49. Autumn 1990. Gearin, P.J., and J.J. Jeffries. 1996. Steller sea lion research in Washington State. In house publication. Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pp. 311-294. Jeffries, S.J., P.J. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, 600 Capital Way North, Olympia, Washington. Love, M.S., Yoklavick, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Pockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press 405. Miller, B.S. and S.F. Borton. 1980. Geographic Distribution of Puget Sound Fishes: Maps and Data Source Sheets. Volume 2. Family Percichthyidae (Temperate Basses) 32.1 through Family Hexigrammidae (Greenlings) 54.6. National Oceananic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Draft Steller sea lion recovery plan: eastern and western distinct population segments. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008a. Preliminary scientific conclusion of the review status of 5 species of rockfish: bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongatus), and redstriped rockfish (Sebastes proriger) in Puget Sound, Washington. NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. December 2008. National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). 2008b. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Coastal Pelagic Species. Modified from Coastal Pelagics Species Fisheries Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Portland, Oregon. May 2015 35 Palsson, W.A., T. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W. Cheng, and R.E. Pacunski. 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department f Fish and Wildlife. September 2009. Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, E.O. Salo. 1982. The Role of Puget Sound and Washington Coastal Estuaries in the Life History of Pacific Salmon: an Unappreciated Function. In V.S. Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine Comparisons. Pp. 343-364. Academic Press, New York, NY. Seattle Audubon. Sound To Sage: Breeding Bird Atlas of Island, King, Kitsap, and Kittitas Counties, Washington Data accessed from website:www.soundtosage.org Sampson, D.B. 1996. Stock status of canary rockfish off Oregon and Washington in 1996. Appendix C. In: Status of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery through 1996 and recommended biological catches for 1997: stock assessment and fishery evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1999. Data from Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2014. Coastal Atlas. Data accessed from website: https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. May 1991. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington State salmon stock inventory, Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2002. Salmonid stock inventory 2002. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (W`DFW). March 19, 2008. Habitat and Species Map and PHS Polygon Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Program, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2014a. Data accessed from website: www.wdfw.wa.g-Qv/mmpinp-/salmonscape/in 1ex-btm1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2014b. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2012. Request for an incidental harassment authorization under the marine mammal protection act. 36 May 2015