The URL can be used to link to this page

15-102487Jim Ferrell, Mayor Ms. Karen Kline Mcclellan Architects 3309 Wallingford Avenue Seattle, WA 98103 Re: File #15-102847-00-AD; RESPONSE TO INQUIRY Christensen; 204 SW 292nd Street, Federal Way Dear Ms. Kline: June 22, 2015 - FILE This letter is written in response to your inquiry regarding modification of an existing, legally nonconforming accessory building within a shoreline jurisdiction. We understand that you would like to demolish the existing building and replace it with a smaller cabana building and associated deck (with a total square footage approximately half the size of the existing 1,090 square foot structure). Federal Wray Revised Code (FWRC) 15.05.220(1)(b) states: "Applications for substantial development or building permits to modify a nonconforming use or development, as defined in this chapter may be approved only if: The modifications will not make the use or development more nonconforming." Applying this code section to your inquiry, we have determined the following: I. Square Footage Limitations: The proposal, as we understand it, would be allowed in that the total square footage following reconstruction would be less than the existing square footage. The 150 square foot limitation does not apply in that you are modifying an existing larger structure and making it more conforming. 2. Height.• The height of the new structure would also be limited to that of the existing building. With your building permit submittal, please provide an elevation drawing of the existing building with the elevation of the new building super -imposed on top of it. 3. Deck: Similar to the first question, the deck square footage you have requested would be allowed. It must be located within the footprint of the existing structure. In summary, the new building —including a deck or patio —may not exceed the footprint or height of the existing structure. Because the dimensions of the new structure will be dependent on the dimensions of the existing structure, please do not demolish the existing structure until after the building permit for the proposed structure has been issued (at which point the city will issue you a demolition permit as well). Additionally, we will likely condition the project with a timeline for completion following demolition of the existing structure. 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 • (253) 835-7000 4 www.cityoffederalway.com Ms. Karen Kline Page 2 June 22, 2015 Review Process You will need to submit a Shoreline Exemption request (application enclosed), building permit application (enclosed) and demolition application (enclosed —same as building permit application). The Shoreline Exemption fee is $105.50. The building permit fee is based on the project valuation. The demolition fee is also based on structure valuation. Potential Code Issues In reviewing your in we Jiave identified several other code issues that may come into play. 1. The site is located in an Erosion Hazard Area and may require a geotechnical report per FWRC 15.10.160. 2. The site is located in an area known to contain historic, cultural, or archaeological resources and any ground disturbing activities are subject to a site inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist per FWRC 15.05.040(6). 3. The work appears to be located within the 100-year flood plain and is therefore subject to the provisions of FWRC 15.15. 4. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been requiring submittal of a Habitat Management Plan addressing the proposal's impact on salmonids for projects occurring within the 100-year flood plain. As this project is occurring within the footprint of a previously approved area, we may be able to exempt it from that requirement —more discussion is needed on this issue. 5. Based on the aerial photograph you submitted, it is not clear if the existing structure is built within the required five-foot side yard setback (which is a zoning requirement, rather than a shoreline regulation). This can be addressed by ensuring the proposed structure meets that setback requirement. The above is not intended to represent permit review comments, but simply to alert you to several potential issues so that you are aware of the relevant code sections and can address those issues in your application submittal. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at isaac.conlen r)cits ffede. alway.com, or 253 835 2643. . Sincerely, Isaac Conlen Planning Manager enc: Shoreline Exemption Application Building Permit Application Demolition Application file #13-102847-00-AD Doc LD- 69753 Isaac Conlen From: Karen Kline <karen@mccarch.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:04 PM To: Isaac Conlen Subject: Waterfront Auxiliary Building Attachments: 2015-06-09 Christensen Site.jpg Hello Isaac - Last week I spoke with Margret from your office regarding a small Federal Way project that my office is working on and she referred me to you for help with some of my shoreline questions. I am working on the design of a water front "cabana" enclosure for a client on a residential lot. The project address is 204 SW 292nd St, Federal Way, WA 98023. We will be applying for a permit to demolish the property's existing water front auxiliary building to construct a smaller auxiliary building in its place. The new enclosure will only include a small kitchen and powder room. I have a few questions regarding how shoreline restrictions will effect our design: 1) What are the square footage limitations for this structure? The client was told that 150 SF is the maximum for an enclosure to be built within a shoreline buffer. Does the 150 SF limit pertain to just the enclosed building footprint or for all new impervious surface? (The existing non -conforming building footprint is 1,090 SF). 2) What is the height limit for this structure? Can we use the height of the existing non -conforming building to define our height limit? 3) What are our limitations for building a deck or patio around/ adjacent to this structure? How much leeway do we have to propose a deck or patio area around the enclosure, especially if the patio could be a pervious material? Please see the attached image describing the site conditions. Thank you for your help! Karen Karen Kline McClellan Architects 3 309 � allit gfbrci Ave Scuttle, WA 98 101 Ni: 206-728-0480 wwNN—.mccaxch.com EXISTING AUXILIARY STRUCTIJRE TO BE DEMOL(91-IED AND REPLACED BY NEW 150 SF ENCLOSURE 1,090 SF 204 SW 9 MAIN6 11 A HOUSE lk % N g o0 36' a s Gov /) 9�oaa�/ r q n shaL-r ly?ork -2 go, S JJ 9l�va L/ �o CL6b e n 16 §�� \ k § \ \ \ to \ / T. / ]_ Gi�\/�'�� § U. z§#■ mf2 2IL j B§KK r2S § 2 �- §2) k k ( ° 2 2 �(�■§ ° §a ■ K`�-- » §§bg Lu0— / ) § it 2 e--w OD om \ k \ k ) §§ § U §k§§ X:C, LC AC4 ( a;R / 2 ui }� } }s!p k C4 ' ' k a 8 k §o 5 n g S § % \�§ Al 13 W %in § § § $ 2 . , . . . w 0 14 9 MC SQUARED I N C O R P O R A T Ii D February 13, 2015 Pacific Northwest Bulkhead P.O. Box 11477 Olympia, WA 98508-1477 Attn: Ms. Kim Kaufman RECEIVED JUN p 4 2015 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS RE. Robert & Lauren Christensen Rock Bulkhead, 204 SW 292"d St. Federal Way, WA 98023 Dear Kim: 1235 EAST 4TH AVE SUITE 101 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 (360) 754-9339 FAX (360) 352-2044 E-mail: eng@mc2-inc.com The rock bulkhead is being constructed at the eastern shore of Puget Sound, south of the Redondo Beach area and northeast of Poverty Bay. The rock bulkhead is being used to protect the toe of the slope at the beach from erosion. The main purpose of the wall is to protect the slope above from wave erosion to minimize future landslides. If you have any questions, or if I may be of further help, please call me at (360) 754- 9339. Sincerely yours, MC Squared, Inc. Mike Szramek, P.E. S.E. Principal Engineer File M:1Michael SzramekWly DocumentslpacNWbulk\CHRISTENSEN-ROCK-FEDERAL-WAY-FEB-2015 wpd I-,I1s S'HIUC URAL • FOUNAWHON • CIVIL NGINE.EIRS, King County 288 1, 7 P 02 020 tw ej 00 A fltit" 4f -P "ilim) ra Alf" '2902Oj & 9 02.0 0 3- 0 P OR a Kill! 6 ZA 2931 F; 2 31-7. 13 2- 0 MT Trio Warmation wwaidedan this reap has bean co-rnplad bl King Coonly3iflifffnim a vadelyalsources and Is mbpet to change vAhoul ftotica_ KngCcunIymAesjj*mprn&erljatbns vwaffmflakaxpir"scrimplied, THs. doclemnus N L-9 King County asI.) accon' my, comoleness, tin�el in ass, o r rightsIci Ile use notTnlqr4ed tw use as a tuivey pmducl. King Courlly SMI Ml kM .41n ra, any general, special, lndmCL Incidental, or damages induding, but rick linited to, lost revenues or lost profits resultaq from the use oronisuse GIS CENTER con sequential of the ialfoffna lion cm tained on this rna;)- Any sale of this map or information on (his map, is prohitiled eaciapi by written permission of King County. Date: 7/6/2015 r r r r r w O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Q 0. 0_ o_ 0. 0_ 0_ n . 00. 0_ n n a a n . 00_ 0_ a 0_ 0_ Cl a) a) ma) a) a) a) a) (D a) a) a) m a) a) CD a) a) a) m N i Q Q Q Q Q Q K Q Q Q Q 11, Q Q Q Q ac N a d C. C. ' a 4) a Cl) Cl) M (M C0 m Cl) Cl) co co M co c7 m Cl) co m Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C. O O O CD00 00 OD 00 OD ODCD 00 co00 00 00 00 CD 00. 00 00 00 00 00 (D C. O O O Q) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O 0) 0) (3) O O) (3) (M 0) O 0) 0) c r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Q Q w Q' Q w Q of Q Q' LY Q 2' Q Q Q' N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W W W •� w W W W W ❑W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W W W i LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U) cn U) U) U) U h w w w 0 w U) U) cn F cn W cn cn w0 (n w w w (n s.. > ❑ ❑ ❑ F F ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ W ❑ w ❑ ❑ ❑ w ❑ Q z z z CO cn z z z z z z z > z > z z z > f -a N N N N N `p N N N N N Q N Q N N N Q Cl) H (3) (M m W m 0) m 0) W 0) 0) D) Cl)W 0) a) m (4 (n N >N N N N N N lL N >N> >>N N N Z N Z N N >N> Z N>> 04 (n (n (n in (n in in Cn in in (n Cn Lo (n L0 (n N (n 0) (n -,t V cD N O N N V N_ V O a0 O _� N O _O ti N !6 0) N O N CO N N Cr) N N d N coN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N J Q a w m g = OW ❑ O H J W Z W LL Q Q ❑ U Y U O Z G7 ❑ CSJ (n 0 - m Z ❑ 2 Q ' Z J N � = O m + + + Z w J w + Z W o6 (� W -J H W + O W W w r F- 2 En U ❑ ❑ cq Q J r m z O Cn Of � O } L w U Q w > J Of W Q (IfJ w Q Q Q } Z Z L j J W Y Q' z L6 = LL Q C7 Z N Q z 2 Z m Z• Q W H 2 2 H C. I_ z_ 7 Z � W 7 O F- O p Q Of O Q w 5 Q n Q O � Q Q z w Q z Q ❑ Z z Y 3 O (n Q W Y Q U y ❑ J w w Ur W Q Q U ❑_ ❑ S Q Q U J co LL y U W Q W W O U Q Q F U (n Ln Ln (D O O "t Lr) LD (D N Lo cn LD O LA 0 Lf) (0 L— LO w m N U) (0 (D (— I-- N N O CD N V t0 lf') Ln r- O V N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N V 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0, o O o C. O O O 0 C. 0 o O o L O O O O C. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO a (D m (D (D m (D w co(D m (D (0 CD m CD CD (0 m w (D m (D m CO (0 m� (0 (D (D m (D 0 m r r r r r r C) r 0 r r r 0 r 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 n n Q.n a n Cl.n n co N N N N Cl) N Cl) ODD O00 00 00 m 00 co m m m m m (3) m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q2J' Q Q w w w w w w w w w LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL `pz of N Cl) W N Q m ? O OC14 C14LL O N N Z af O w af of W 2 Y W Y z W O z +� Q w Q O Q 2 + LL' ❑ J J O Q Y o = Q O O Zp¢m❑ O 0 2 O w O-j t z U OY w Q w< U' a U)Z❑ 3: 1 Q U) 2 LO � O N N f-- ti N C) O O O O O O m m m Co-Itv N 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD O o ' o O o O o O O O o CD CID ca co ro m co co co co 0 m m m m m m m m m ti r r r p 7/5/2015 King County Parcel \lever 2.0 1196000024 Print Search results Selected parcel(s) »: New selection Add to selection Export gear Selected parcels: 1 Parcel Address number �C 1196004875 186 SW 292ND ST 98023 Map layers by: ? Parcel number ; Search Find Intersection Zoom to Parcel1196004875 Present use: Single Family(Res Use/Zone) ^' Jurisdiction: FEDERAL WAY Taxpayer name: ANDERSON WALTER E JR Address: 186 SW 292ND ST 98023 Appraised value: $0 Lot area: 10,000 Levy code: 1205 . J2:I n Property Report Districts Report V� r-- �� t � source: King County Assessor 04 ,-- '"' T � ram• :� c� 422 � Si1 10Qi �, gd. http:) gisrtaps.tdrxgcounty.go4wcelrieai-2' 112 7/5/2015 King County Parcel Vievyer 2.0 1196000121 by:: Parcel number Search Find Intersection Zoom to Print Search results Selected parcel(s) p; New selection Acid to selection Export Clear 5eiec:>ed parrels: 1 Parcel Address -- number X 1196000121 212 SW 292ND ST 98023 Map layers -11-11M ,-,..w //9 4,00dj-P-/ Present use. Single Family(Res Use/Zone) -1 Jurisdiction: FEDERAL WAY Taxpayer name: GREAUSH AMY THERESE Address: 212 SW 292ND ST 99023 Appraised value: $0 Lot area: 15,613 Levy code: 1205 property Report DisJrlcts Report Source: King County Assessor lr•7 lr`, lr- 0 tR� PI � !S V 4 la a c C",r,. C a+ <7' S �= t2 32 SW 292rid St 1 C) C. htip.//g i sinaps.W ng county.g rndparcel Newer2l 112 7/5/2015 IQng County Parcel Viewer2.0 1196000024 by". Parcel number Search Find Intersection Zoom to Print im Search results Selected parcel(s) - - - •_._.._ • New selection Add to selection Export {mar s le"teci arczls; .1 Parcel Address number___. 1196000075 214 SW 292ND ST 98023 Map layers 10 9M - s'I Parce41196000075 Present use: Single Family(Res Use/Zone) ' f•"t Jurisdiction: FEDERAL WAY Taxpayer name: TORKELSON FAMILY LIMITED PA �s Address: 214 SW 292ND ST 98023 Appraised value: SO 41 SL St Lot area: 14,926 Levy code: 1205 IILI Property Report Districts Report Source: King County Assessor �5 r• n T Address: 214 SW 292ND ST Source: KCGIS Center hrip.#gismapsAngcounty.go4parcelueAer2l 112 7/512015 King County Parcel Viewer 2.0 1196000024 by: ; Parcel number Search Find Intersection Zoom to Print Search HYC F'- results � Parcel1196000016 Selected Present use: Single Family(Res Usell parce](s) Jurisdiction: FEDERAL WAY New r� Taxpayer name: KORUM JEROME M selection { Address: 136 SW 292ND ST 9802 :add to H` DF, Appraised value: $0 selection i r Lot area: 46,074 r port 9 Levy code: 1205 Clear A42 l ,i Pr�+?6P,rty Report C)istrir[s Report Selected ; `� Source: King County Assessor ilk I `s 211212`� tJf��5 2-902iDj Parce �rt2.57 sf +,• , �i rl numt 1 *21)5;321� c= a cs p I! M C l 232[3 illy y. � �fD4 00 42 t� C b ^-r Ci�:j 4 Map layers , 5ri C-VBGI � : w. •� �2920 E 237 i21 w`2fD5 13 1250 16 l ttp://gisrnapsAngcounty.godparceNever2l 1/2 LITHIC ANALYSTS May 4, 2015 Kim Kauffman, Office Agent Pacific Northwest Bulkhead 4735 Bayshore Lane NW Olympia, WA 98508 RE: Proposed Christensen Bulkhead Project, 204 SW 292nd Street, Parcel No. 119600-0125, Federal Way, King County, Washington Dear Ms. Kauffman, This letter report describes the results of a cultural resources survey of property owned by Robert T. and Laurel Christensen at 204 SW 292th Street, in Federal Way, King County, Washington. This property is located in the Buenna neighborhood near Redondo on Puget Sound (Figures 1 9). The proposed project is expected to require a shoreline permit from the City of Federal Way. FWRC 15.05.040(6) requires a site inspection and evaluation for ground disturbing activities in areas known to contain historic, cultural, or archaeological resources. A precontact shell midden (45KI003) is located nearby (Figure 2). This report is intended to assist you and the landowner in providing documentation of the site inspection and results. Project Background The proposed bulkhead project is located along the shoreline of East Passage on Puget Sound in Section 6, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., USGS Poverty Bay Quadrangle (Figure 1). The landform on which the property is located rises steeply in elevation above Poverty Bay and is flanked by relatively high bluffs. A short distance east, just below Redondo Beach, a creek cuts through the landform to enter Poverty Bay, and thus Puget Sound. The homes along the beach in this area have bulkheads. T PO Box 2466, Silverthorne, CO 80498 403 73f0 Ave NE, Olympia, WA 98506 E AS EXISTING LOCATION OF REPLACEMENT IN SAME LOCATION OHWm I Area of Proposed Work 12' 111996000165 1 2196000075 121214 F, 1196000072 0 1196004920 0 1196004870 200 11960048 186 1196000016 148 III i * V i ■ ■ 8 "DZ 8.,DI . ^-- i---:------------ ---------- -- I NOTE: Lakehaven Utility District (neither warrants nor guarantees the ,accuracy of any facility information ° (provided. Facility locations and 'eonditions are subject to field i1ttCy DI 'verification. NN Christensen Bulkhead (15-102699-00-SE) 0 100 200 Feet 6/12/2015 BU CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6-8-15 TO: E.J. Walsh, Development Services Manager Scott Sproul, Building Official Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Chris Ingham, South King Fire & Rescue FROM: Stacey Welsh, Planning Comments due: No meeting --please email completeness comments by 6/18 and technical comments by 6/29. FILE NUMBER(s): 15-102699-00-SE & 15-102697-SH RELATED FILE NOS.: None PROJECT NAME: CHR I S T EN S EN f VL4ZH r�il�I i PROJECT ADDRESS: ZONING DISTRICT: 204 SW 292ND ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Bulkhead replacement, replacing failing timbers with rock approximately 62' long 5' tall. LAND USE PERMITS: SEPA & Shoreline Exemption PROJECT CONTACT: PACIFIC NORTHWEST BULKHEAD PO BOX 11477 OLYMPIA, WA 98508 MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Master Land Use Application SEPA Checklist Shoreline Exemption Site Photos Cultural Resources Study Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report Drawing & letter from engineer Submit by Email Print Form CITY Federalo. Way RECEIVED MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT of Cowdumw DEVELOPMENT SERVICES J U N 0 4� 2015 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 CDS www.cityoffederalwgy.com f tl/ APPLICATION NO(S) .L <� '4"' - 1 L 7 rff'i Date Project Name Bob Christensen replace failiriq_timers with rock. Property Address/Location 204 SW 292nd st. Parcel Number(s) 1196000125 Project Description Replace failing timbers with rock approximately 62' long 5' tall PLEASE PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director's Approval) Process H (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process Vt SEPA w/Project --_MFA Only �X-f Shoreline: Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information Zoning Designation - Comprehensive Plan Designation Value of Existing Improvements Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): Occupancy Type 'l Construction Type Applicant Signature: Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: im Kaufman Address .O. BO l i 77 City/State: iympia, WA zip: 8508 Phone 60-8s8-6357 Fax: 6 943-6879 mail: ar..ifirnwt�ulkhn+ric�cnmracr.nc Signature: Owner Bob Christensen Namie: - 04 SW 29- 2nd 5t. Zip: 198023 Phone: 53-733-4607 Fax: Bulletin #003 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1/ L, ` UAt�, Ii�lMa r OA `i1�+,� � J J'� W` Application L03 Web date: 11/15/2012 x M Land Use Permit Application Form King County Departmentof Permitting and Environmental Review S� Douglas Street, Suite 210 WA 98065-9266 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600, 20.6-296-6600 TT".1 Relay: 711 Stan Use Only - Do not write In this box Application DO NaT WRITE ABOVI< THIS DIVIPg Date Received (stamp) I (We) request the foilowing permit(s) or approval(s): ❑ Public agency &utility exception ❑ Site development permit Binding site plan ❑ Reasonable use exception ❑ Site -specific comprehensive plan Boundary line adjustment amendment _ Su id g- permit ❑ Reuse of public schools ❑ Special district overlay removal _ Ccrditional use permit ❑ ❑ Right of -Way use permit El Special use permit = -. ;; as � ;arat on excepon ❑ Ncn-linear ❑ Road variance Shoreline conditional use permit ❑ Subdivision — Formal L;net-, ra--sge ,.,aris;;ce or adjustment ® Shoreline exemption ❑Temporary ❑ Subdivision — Short use permit _�;' re%rc;: fo*mining sites -- ❑ ❑ Shoreline redesignation Shoreline substantial development ❑ Urban planned development �.�; �tters.;`.� permit ❑ Zone reclassification .— .ri.Y :•r.��_L .n ant ❑ Shoreline variance ❑ Zoning variance being duly sworn, state that I am the owner or officer __-o.a=,on owning properfj described in the legal description fled with this application and that I have _ e �^ he rL,tas and -ag' I_ions of the Depsrtment of Permitting and Environmental Review (Permitting) rg tie crapa-.=`ion and filing of this application and that all statements, answers and information submitted on are in all respe :s true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. -e rev`. :: � of tis application, it may be necessary for Permitting staff to make one or more site visits- BY - - this aaulica'.ion form, you are giving permission for these visits- if it is rental property, the owner hereby ter?a?,ts of possible site visits- -!ed Na—e RC W :r CHFISTENSEN Signature -- 738- 4$U7 E-mail ,_. 2n3 - -- - hn ' FEDERAL WAY WA 98023- e +-acg 2��" SW 292 ST __ sT ZIP • -- _ - � CITY STRE_- °'-��'r state be!oi i the name, add ess and telephone number of the authorized applicant for this application the Ceiti ication and Transfer of Application Status form fled with this application. DA:'=IC NORTHWEST BULKHEAD INC KIM KAUFMAN AGENT --a 360 - 888 - 6357, E-mail �acificnwbufkhead conacast.net ❑LYMPIA WA 98508- :? Address Po BOX 11477 crrY sT ZIP 1 f 2 Page o L03 11I1512012 CIT Federal Way Department of Community Development Services 33325 a Avenue South RECEIVED Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com JUN 42015 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist. Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts, or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable"or "does not apply ".onlyhenyou can explain av%+ it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies and/or reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process, as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to allparls ofyourproposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of lancL Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact Instructions for Lead Agencies: Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal, and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first, but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use ofcheckbstfornonprojectproposals: helms For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans, and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the 5L'1'PI.1:;4IF \T':ll. sum-,, JUR NQN1Ptt0f:C'1' AC:'ITOXS art D . Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for nonprojects) questions in Part B (Environmental Elements) that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 1 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 A. BACKGROUND ILiW 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: DLelpj Bob Christensen replace failing timbers with rock. 2. Name of applicant: h� elpi Pacific Northwest Bulkhead Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Kim Kaufman 360-888-6357 p.o. bog 11477 Olympia, wa 98505 4. Date checklist prepared: BAIW 2/13/15 5. Agency requesting checklist: hel City of Federal Way 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Bielp When permits are available job finish date ten days after start date. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Djelpl no 8. list any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. DLeI4 HPA 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 21tLIpj no 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. DAIW jarpa HPA building permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.} -iel - Replace failing timber with rock (80ton) 62' long 5' tall replacement rock bulkhead. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 2 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location o£your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known.. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. hel BUENNA ADD LOTS 1-2-3-4 BLK 3 TGW E 100 FT BLK 2 TGW VAC ALLEY ADJ SD BLKS 2 & 3 See attached site plan map and driving directions. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS gel 1. Earth a. General description of the site VLe1W (underline/circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat, Rolling. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? DLelpl c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. D1eI4 Sand, Gravel, Various size rocks. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. gel See attached photos. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. hVLe-IPJ See attached site plan. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Nielp FTi] g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? hel none Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 3 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Dje1W no b. Ground Water 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well fof drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses, and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Let i no 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the Number of houses to be served (f applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. ,ahe�l j none c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will tbis water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. hhp� n/a 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. hje1 �� No 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. no d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: n/a 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: h _x_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __x_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x_shrubs x_ grass pasture crop or grain orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 5 of 14 k:\Handouts\Rnviwnmental Checklist May 2014 wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? hLel J none c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Jdelpj See habitat assessment. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. fhe p n/a e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. none 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site, or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: V1e1W birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other songbirds, deer, fish b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. hVLe1pJ See habitat assessment. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. VIgIpI Not to my knowledge d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. VLelpj n/a e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. none 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. hel n/a Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 6 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. hey no c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Kiel �. n/a 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Jhel no �"- - 1) ^ D —es cn -e an vivn' or-possibre co>�a�on at the site from-pr'esentor past uses. none 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. none 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the projeces development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. none 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. n/a 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. n/a b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 7e1 none 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long- term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. hel n/a Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 7 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? VieIW None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. h�el W n/a 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any, h�J SEPA, JARPA, HPA, building permit m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. none 9. Housing —.. a. t ppmxuna iy Fiaw-many units waeil be provt3 cl, aii l Tndicke w et iet� fniddie, or low-income housing. rhelt)j, n/a b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. n/a c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. hLel J n/a 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Je1W n/a b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? hel n/a c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. VLelpl n/a 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? VLelpj n/a Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 9 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? el W n/a c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? iel n/a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. n/a 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Vzel Boating, swimming b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. VmI4 No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. hel n/a 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. DLelp No b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. No c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. h�j None d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans For the above and any permits that may be required. n/a 14. Transportation Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 10 of 14 LAHandouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. h�pe1 J n/a b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? h� elpI n/a c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? VLelyj n/a d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state trsnspnrtation fao7.ities, not inrhiding rlriveways'� I.f sn, generally describe (indicate whethex- +i�hlir. nr rivate�. - �� n/a e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity o� water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. hjelp� n/a f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed projector proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non -passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? el n/a g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. no h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. fhe1 n/a 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? f so, generally describe. jhelpl M Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 11 of 14 k--\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. VLe-1PI n/a 16. Utilities a. Underline/circle utilities currently available at the site: Vhe1W electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other n/a b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. h�� n/a C. SIGNATURE. The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Printed Name of Signee: Position and Agency/Organation:—% eel- �� iz Date Submitted: %15— Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 12 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 Author: Pam Trautman and J. Jeffrey Flenniken Title of Report: Proposed Christensen Bulkhead Project, 204 SW 292"d Street, Parcel No. 119600-0125, Federal Way, King County, Washington Date of Report: May 2015 County: King Section 6, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M. Quad: Poverty Bay Acres: 0.8 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? N/A Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? No TCP(s) found? No Replace a draft? No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of PDFs is required. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. • Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. LITHIC ANALYSTS May 4, 2015 Kim Kauffman, Office Agent Pacific Northwest Bulkhead 4735 Bayshore Lane NW Olympia, WA 98508 RE: Proposed Christensen Bulkhead Project, 204 SW 292nd Street, Parcel No_ 119600-0125, Federal Way, King County, Washington Bear Ms_ Kauffman, This letter report describes the results of a cultural resources survey of property owned by Robert T. and Laurel Christensen at 204 SW 292th Street, in Federal Way, King County, Washington. This property is located in the Buenna neighborhood near Redondo on Puget Sound (Figures 1 9). The proposed project is expected to require a shoreline permit from the City of Federal Way. FWRC 15.05.040(6) requires a site inspection and evaluation for ground disturbing activities in areas known to contain historic, cultural, or archaeological resources_ A precontact shell midden (45K1003) is located nearby (Figure 2)_ This report is intended to assist you and the landowner in providing documentation of the site inspection and results. Project Background The proposed bulkhead project is located along the shoreline of East Passage on Puget Sound in Section 6, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., USGS Poverty Bay Quadrangle (Figure 1)_ The landform on which the property is located rises steeply in elevation above Poverty Bay and is flanked by relatively high bluffs. A short distance east, just below Redondo Beach, a creek cuts through the landform to enter Poverty Bay, and thus Puget Sound. The homes along the beach in this area have bulkheads. �. PC) Box 2466. Silverth©me, CO 80498 403 73"1 Ave NE. Olympia, VVA 98506 It is approached by a steep gravel trail and staircase from above (Figure 3). The area at the bottom of the stairs behind the bulkhead is planted in grass. Archaeological site 45KI003 (Bryan 1953) was originally recorded in 1953 as a shell midden along both sides of the creek (Cold Brook) where 15t Avenue South intersects with Redondo Way South. Cultural material was two —three feet deep, but the site had been previously disturbed by bulldozing for construction of the road and a mobile home park. A subsequent archaeological inspection of the site revealed skeletal remains, which had been "redeposited from the slope to the midden" (Moura 1981). The Christensen property is located within the traditional use area of today's Suquamish Tribe and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Both spoke Southern Lushootseed. In addition, the Puyallup Indian Tribe and the Duwamish Tribe also utilized the area (Suttles and Lane 1990). A Lushootseed place name, Tso'Lkobld, is recorded for Redondo Creek once used by whales to get from Puget Sound to Steel Lake. The small creek (Cold Brook) at Buenna was called Qa'gahwEtx for crabapples that grew there. Several versions of an oral history are recorded regarding the large boulder on the beach southwest of the project area known as Kokowi'ltsa or Blanket Rock (Waterman 2001). Blanket Rock is located four parcels from the project and is clearly visible from the Christensen beach. In all versions of the story, covering events from around Three Tree Point above Redondo to Blanket Rock, a husband and wife were both turned into rocks. The wife became a white rock on the beach north of Redondo. Her husband, dressed in whistling marmot skins, was turned into Blanket Rock, so named because its surface resembles a wrinkled blanket (Ballard 1929 in Caster 2010). Interior groups visited the beaches at Redondo during spring to camp. Others from White River camped at Des Moines and Three Tree Point encompassing the geography of the various stories (Caster 2010). After the displacement of Indian people, the prairie areas were utilized for agriculture and other areas nearby for logging. However, the Redondo area was not settled by European -Americans until 1870, when Ernst Lange constructed a cabin on the beach. A homestead claim was filed by Sam Stone, who established one of the earliest logging settlements on Puget Sound, Stone's Landing. Upland sawmills soon followed. The Weyerhaeuser Company harvested most of the largest trees in area by 1915. The name of Stone's Landing was changed to Redondo in 1906. Buenna, established in 1890 west of today's 1st Avenue South, was one of the first platted towns on the shores of Poverty Bay. The Buenna School was constructed that same year on what is now SW 296th Street between 91h and 10th. The Buenna School was consolidated with Federal Way School District in 1919 and torn down in 1935. Even though the area is now part of city of Federal Way, it is still known as Buenna (Caster 2007). Previous Cultural Resource Survey The project area has not been previously surveyed for archaeological materials. One cultural resource survey was conducted for the Redondo Outfall Pipe Repair on the beach north of the current project. This was north of, and adjacent to, archaeological site 45KI003. It was determined that the site does not extend into that project (Early 2005). Survey Methodology and Results Archaeologists J. Jeffrey Flenniken, Ph.D. and Pam Trautman surveyed the proposed bulkhead project area on April 22, 2015, for evidence of historic and prehistoric artifacts. The goals of the survey were to determine if the proposed project would have an impact on previously recorded archaeological site (45KI003) or any as yet unrecorded sites. A meandering pedestrian survey of the supratidal and intertidal zone was conducted at low tide under sunny and dry weather conditions. The APE consists of a small, flat, grass -covered yard area just behind an existing and deteriorating wooden bulkhead (Figures 4 — 6) and the gravel beach below. The area immediately adjacent to and behind the bulkhead was covered with a thick grass lawn cover. Washed out areas behind the bulkhead provided a view of the subsurface area indicating previous disturbances, such as installation of drainage pipe (Figure 6). Three STPs (Figures 3 and 7) were excavated to determine the potential existence of subsurface cultural resources. All STP sediments were screened through %" hardware cloth. Cultural materials were not identified in the STPs. Starting at the west end of the yard area, STP1 (10YR 3/3 dark brown, moist; 0550110 mE/5243319 mN) was excavated to 70 cmbs (Figure 3). Excavated clay/sand sediments produced modern glass, red brick fragments, marine shell fragments, rounded pebbles and cobbles, and bits of rusted metal. STP2 was excavated just east of STP1 in the middle of the grassy lawn Figure 3). STP2 (10YR 3/3 dark brown, moist; 0550119 mE/5243321 mN) was excavated to 70 cmbs. (Excavated clay/sand sediments produced a large unmovable concrete block (STP dug around concrete block), modern glass jar neck fragment, charred asphalt single fragment, marine shell fragments, rounded pebbles and cobbles, and bits of rusted metal. STP3 was excavated east of STP2 near the eastern property boundary (Figure 3). STP3 (10YR 3/3 dark brown, moist; 0550125 mE/5243329 mN) was excavated to 50 cmbs, aborted due to a very large rocks. Excavated clay/sand sediments produced modern glass, marine shell fragments, and rounded pebbles and cobbles. STP sediments revealed disturbed sediments which were most likely deposited during the excavation of the cabin foundation next to the lawn area. All STPS were negative for cultural resources. In addition, artifacts were not found on the gravel beach below. Conclusions and Recommendations Although one pre -contact archaeological site has been mapped nearby, this study concludes that site, 45KI003, is not located within the project area. The proposed Christensen Bulkhead Project has minimal potential for significant cultural resources. Based on the results of this survey, we recommend that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed bulkhead installation, and no further investigation is recommended. This report should be submitted to the City of Federal Way who will submit it to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia. Sincerely, a?� J. Jeffrey Flenniken, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Pam J. Trautman Cultural Specialist References and Figures Ballard, Arthur 1929 Mythology of Southern Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Reprinted in 1999 by Snoqualmie Valley Historical Museum. North Bend. Bryan, B. 1953 University of Washington Archaeological Field Form for 45KI003 on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia. Caster, Jerry 2007 Federal Way Historical Society Timeline. Historical Society of Federal Way. Federal Way. 2010 Native American Presence in the Federal Way Area. Revised and expanded from 2005. Mariograph prepared. forthe- Way Historical. Society. -'- Federal Way. Early, Amber 2005 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Redondo Outfall Pipe Repair Project, King County, Washington. NWAA Report No. WA 05-91, on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia. Moura, G. 1981 State of Washington Master Site File for 45KI003 on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia. Suttles W., and B. Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, edited by Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Waterman, T. T. 2001 Puget Sound Geography. Original Manuscript from T. T. Waterman. Edited with additional material by V. Hilbert, J. Miller and S. Zahir. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way. 5 1 P a g e N Eg@ 000 REPLACE FAILING TIMBER WITH ROCK (80 TON) EXISTING MHHW 11.5E' . _ --- --�-- - � ' -• - CONCRETE .. EXISTING I CONCRETE r TOE OF SLOPE BEACH CABIN r Ir TOP 0� SLOPE cc Q. 1 2; 1 C Y-ALt 1-=LU' CHRtSTENSEN ROBERT T & LAUREL 204 SW 202ND ST FEDERAL WAY 98023 f a RECEIVED FLOODPLAIN HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT JUN 64.2015 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.............................................................................................................1 2.1 Location..............................................................................................................................1 2.2 Project Area Description..................................................................................................... I 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 Chapter 4. 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 Figure1. Site map................................................................................................ Figure 2. Flood Hazard map................................................................................ Figure3. 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................................................................................... Figure9. Site plans.............................................................................................. Figure10. Nautical map....................................................................................... List of Tables Table 1. ESA listed species in Henderson Inlet...............................................................................4 Table 2. Determination of effects on ESA listed species...............................................................21 Chalater 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 292nd 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, Duwamish/Green watershed. To access the site from Interstate 5, take exit 143 toward S. 3201 St toward Federal Way. Turn right onto V Ave S. Turn left onto SW 292nd St. Destination will be on the right. 2.2 Project Area Description The project or "Action Area" 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); May 2015 4. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Coastal Atlas data for the property and adjacent areas (WDOE https://fortress.wa.2ov/ecv/coastalatlas200 I /viewer.htm); 5. Aerial photograph and topographic map of the site; 6. National Marine Fisheries Service critical habitat maps { www. nm fs. noaalprlspec ieslc ri t i ca l h ab itat. htm }; 7. US Fish and Wildlife Service critical area maps htt :/Icriticalhabitat.fws.2ov/ 8. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps (wwW.fws.gov/wet1ands0 9. US Fish and Wildlife Service habitat recovery plans (www.fws.gov/pacifiic} 10. National Marine Fisheries Service habitat recovery plans (www.nwr.noaa. ov 11. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey maps(http:llwebsoilsui-vey.nres.Lisda.gov/ap.p/ 12. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Assessment (www.ecy.wa.gov/pLograms/wg/303d/2008/index.html 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 Act and potentially found in the vicinity of Poverty Ba►i'. Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status Critical Habitat Designated? Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhampus marmoratus Threatened Yes Steller (Northern) Sea Lion Eumatopias jubatus Delisted Delisted Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Yes Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshaw tscha Threatened Yes Steelhead Trout Oncor chus m kiss Threatened — Yes Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss Endangered Yes Canary Rockfish Sebastes inni er Threatened Yes Yellowe a 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. Munelets 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 tshawytscha — Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) June 2005 (70FR37160) Critical habitat designated September 2005 Chinook salmon use the nearshore of Puget Sound for feeding, rearing and migration. Juvenile Chinook salmon use estuary areas for feeding, rearing and osmoregulating during spring, 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 steelhead trout. Populations in the Duwamish/Green Watershed are listed as Threatened by WDFW (WDFW 2015). Steelhead trout, like other salmonids, heavily utilized nearshore areas to complete their life history. After spawning in streams and rivers, juvenile steelhead migrate into estuary areas for growth and osmoregulation. Juveniles and adults use the nearshore area throughout the year for forage, migration and growth. It is likely that steelhead trout may utilize parts of Poverty Bay when migrating or accessing Cold and Redondo Creeks. Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss — Endangered, listed July 2010 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 28, 2010 (FR, 2010a). Adults generally occupy water 50- 250 meters in depth over rocky outcroppings, boulder fields, and sloping walls and will school with both conspecifics and other species of rock fish. Juveniles are found in much shallower waters over rocky substrate with various understory kelps 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 2010 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 28, 2010 (FR, 2010a). 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 2010 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 they were listed as threatened on April 28, 2010 (FR, 2010a). Little is known about the larval stage of yelloweye rockfish, but it is most likely similar to the drift larval stages of bocaccio and canary rockfish. Young juveniles migrate to vertical walls with cloud sponges and anemones at depths greater than 15 meters. Adults and subadults occupy rocky areas with crevices, caves, and boulder where they feed on small fish, shrimp, crab, and lingcod eggs (Love et. al, 2002). Killer Whale, Southern Resident Orcinus orca — Endangered, listed November 2005 Critical habitat designated November 2006 Killer Whales are found in open oceans and coastal waters. Southern resident Killer Whales may be found spring through fall in Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound. Movements into the Puget Sound usually coincide with migration of salmonids into the region (NMFS 2008). The Puget Sound contains designated habitat for southern resident Killer Whale. 3.3 Site Investigation A site visit was performed Thursday, April 30t', 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 7 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 FEMA, 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). 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 (81-100%) (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 shore 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 MHHW. 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 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. FaS1ONG CONCRETE 4OV� �T RF_oLACF FAw NG PUBER WITH ROCK (BB TON) y' EVONG CONCRETE 1 - BEACH CAWN � P(pp p;; SLL`PE � 1� a Figure 9. Plans depicting the proposed final 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 tightlines, 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 M]FH-lW 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. �Zw■ The waterward face of the replacement rock bulkhead will be located and 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 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. 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. L I 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 function 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 mix" 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 MHHW 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 further 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. Common Name Scientific Name Effects on Listed Sp ecies Effect on Designated Critical Habitat Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhampus No Effect No Effect on marmoratus 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 tshcrrvytscha Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss May Affect, but is Not May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss May Affect, but is Not May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Likely to Adversely Affect Affect Canary Rockfish Sebastes pinniger 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.gM . 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 murrelets. Any construction noise will be short- term and confined to the project area. No underwater noise will be produced, since the work will be performed in the dry at low tides. Any terrestrial noise will blend in to the ambient background noise before it can 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 1 km 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. The 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 migration would result from 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 epibenthic food sources, the shoreline protection project would have an insignificant effect on the food base in Poverty Bay. Long -terra, removing the treated wood bulkhead and replacing it with a rock bulkhead should slightly increase the amount of intertidal habitat available for surf smelt spawning. Protecting the large Doug fir 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. The majority of the shoreline is already armored. The 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 T), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will depend on bull trout life -history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streamflow; and local groundwater influence. The project area is located within an area that is moderately stratified compared to most other Puget Sound basins because no major river systems flow into Poverty Bay. Although surface temperatures near the Poverty Bay can reach 14-1 S°C in summer, the temperatures of subsurface waters generally range from 10-13°C in summer and 8-10°C in winter (WDOE 1999). The 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 trout for spawning or rearing, this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. (7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph. The proposed shoreline protection project would not alter the hydrograph or tidal exchange. This PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. 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, insignificant 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, interbreeding, 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 ()VDFW 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 of juveniles 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 environmental conditions of the site (i.e., lack of aquatic vegetation and habitat complexity). These impacts will be minimized by conservation measures included in the construction Section 4.4. 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 contain freshwater spawning sites capable of supporting Chinook; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality, natural cover, and forage that support juvenile development. May 2015 25 The project area does not contain freshwater rearing sites, this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, and natural cover conditions that support juvenile and adult mobility and survival. The project area does not contain freshwater migration corridors; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and salt water, as well as natural cover and forage supporting juvenile and adult survival and growth. The project area does not contain estuarine areas; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction, with water quantity, water quality, natural cover, and forage supporting survival and growth. The proposed slope protection project will not alter water quantity, quality or forage of water in Poverty Bay or the project area permanently. The proposed project 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. The 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 proposed project. 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 (ALOE) and WDFW "work windows" when Chinook salmon are likely not present in the project area. The temporary loss of the benthic communities in the project areas would have only a negligible effect on Chinook salmon habitat. For the reasons described above, no significant cumulative, interrelated or interdependent effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon are expected from the proposed slope stabilization project Overall, the effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound Chinook salmon would be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, the proposed shoreline protection activities May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Similarly, the proposed slope stabilization activities May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Puget Sound Steelhead Occurrence in the project area Winter populations of steelhead trout have been documented throughout 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 are 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 steelhead. These temporary impacts will be minimized by following all conservation measures and working when juvenile steelhead trout are less likely to be in the area. 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 contain freshwater spawning sites; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. (2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. The project area does not contain freshwater rearing sites; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival; The project area does not contain freshwater migration corridors; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. (4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater; (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels; and (iii) Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. The project area does not contain estuarine areas; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. 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 or forage of water in Poverty Bay or the project area. The project area currently has little natural 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 or forage; this PCE would not be affected by the proposed project. 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. Bocaccio 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 (NlvfFS 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 � 96 go � f SOGWf UO-O VF's~;Ft ric: :F AWA t f 96 (alp& rWW Fe 78 y µ s -76 1 �? L 63 ! t �go�� ,mot � - �• t as as ' -- - -- r 3, - se All 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 (NWS 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 intertidaUnearshore 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 intertidaUnearshore 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 intertidaUnearshore EFH and reduce potential effects on associated species, the proposed shoreline protection project would incorporate the following conservation measures: • Project activities will be limited to replacement of existing shoreline protection only. • 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 MHHW 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). 10 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 (NMFS) 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 BoehIert, 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 Farn1ly 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 eiongatus), 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.soundtosa e.or 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:l/fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. May 1991. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington State salmon stock inventory, Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. Olympia, Washington. 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 (WDFW). March 19, 2008. Habitat and Species Map and PHS Polygon Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Program, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2014a. Data accessed from website: www.wdfw.wa. ov/ma in saimonsca elindex.html 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