Grealish Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Report
FLOODPLAIN HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Grealish Bulkhead Repair/ Replacement Project
Prepared for
Amy Grealish
July, 2019
FLOODPLAIN HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Grealish Bulkhead Repair/ Replacement Project
Prepared for
Amy Grealish
212 SW 292nd St.
Federal Way, Washington 98023
Prepared by
North Fork Environmental, INC.
Bill Rehe
8305 Dogwood Lane NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
July, 2019
i
Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................1
Chapter 2. Project Area .............................................................................................................1
2.1 Location ..............................................................................................................................1
2.2 Project Area Description .....................................................................................................1
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
Chapter 6. References .............................................................................................................38
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Site map ............................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Flood Hazard map ............................................................................................................8
Figure 3. Project site ........................................................................................................................9
Figure 4. Documented surf smelt map ...........................................................................................10
Figure 5. Shoreline modifcation map.............................................................................................11
Figure 6. Slope stability map .........................................................................................................12
Figure 7. Project site vegetation.....................................................................................................13
Figure 8. Habitat area map .............................................................................................................14
Figure 9. Site plans ........................................................................................................................16
Figure 10. Nautical map .................................................................................................................33
List of Tables
Table 1. ESA listed species in Poverty Bay. ....................................................................................4
Table 2. Determination of effects on ESA listed species ...............................................................21
July 2019 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
The Grealish’s are proposing to replace their failing concrete 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 bulkhead, a set of concrete
stairs and concrete boat ramp. There is also an existing boathouse and davit. The concrete
bulkhead has become damaged and fractured from age and storms. The Grealish’s are proposing
to install a replacement concrete bulkhead approximately 1 foot landward of the existing, failing
bulkhead. The replacement 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 212 SW 292nd Street in Federal Way, King County,
Washington. The subject property is situated in Township 21 North, Range 4 West, Section 06,
NE Quarter, W.M. and includes the shoreline adjacent to King County Tax Parcel 119600-0121.
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. 320th St toward Federal Way. Turn
right onto 1st 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 1196000121 is armored with a concrete
bulkhead. There is an existing boathouse, stairs and concrete ramp built into the bulkhead.
2 July 2019
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;
3. Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) data for sensitive or State- or ESA-
listed plant species on the property and adjacent areas;
July 2019 3
4. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Coastal Atlas data for the property and
adjacent areas (WDOE https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas2001/viewer.htm);
5. Aerial photograph and topographic map of the site;
6. National Marine Fisheries Service critical habitat maps
(www.nmfs.noaa/pr/species/criticalhabitat.htm);
7. US Fish and Wildlife Service critical area maps (http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/)
8. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps
(www.fws.gov/wetlands/)
9. US Fish and Wildlife Service habitat recovery plans (www.fws.gov/pacific)
10. National Marine Fisheries Service habitat recovery plans (www.nwr.noaa.gov)
11. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey
maps (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/)
12. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Assessment
(www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/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 King 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).
4 July 2019
Table 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act and potentially found in the
vicinity of Poverty Bay.
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
tshawytscha
Threatened Yes
Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened Yes
Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss Endangered Yes
Canary Rockfish Sebastes pinniger Delisted Delisted
Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Threatened Yes
Killer Whale Orcinus orca Endangered Yes
Marbled Murrelet
Brachyrhampus marmoratus – Threatened, listed 1992
Critical habitat designated May 1996 (50 CFR Part 17.11)
Marbled murrelets are members of the Alcidae family of seabirds. They are found from the
Aleutian Islands, Alaska to central California. Marbled murrelets may winters as far south as
southern California. In Washington, the highest densities of marbled murrelets are found along
the coastal waters of the Olympic Peninsula. Murrelets nests and roosts in mature and old growth
coastal forests. Nesting may occur from April to September (WDFW 1991). They mainly feed
from 500 feet and 1.2 miles off shore in waters less than 100 feet deep. Preferred prey items
include small fish like sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), Pacific herring (Clupea harengus
pallasi) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and crustaceans. Critical habitat has been
designated in Oregon and California, but no critical habitat has been designated in the project
area or anywhere else in Washington.
Steller (Northern) Sea Lion
Eumatopias jubatus eastern population – Delisted 2013
Critical habitat designated August 1993 (58 FR 45269)
The eastern populations of Steller sea lions are found in southeast Alaska, British Columbia,
Washington, Oregon and California. Steller sea lions prefer colder temperatures to sub-arctic
waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Haul outs and rookeries usually consist of beaches (gravel,
July 2019 5
rocky or sand), ledges, and rocky reefs. Critical habitat in the eastern population has been
identified in portions of Alaska, Oregon, and California.
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
6 July 2019
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 the y 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 – Delisted
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.
July 2019 7
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, July 18th. Conditions were clear and sunny with little to no
wind. The site visit was performed during an approximately 1.16 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 include 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.
8 July 2019
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 Grealish parcel or the Action Area.
A small portion of the project area is located within the Puget Sound floodplain (Ecology 2019,
Figure 2). According to FEMA, the area adjacent to the project area has a moderate to low risk of
being flooded. The replacement bulkhead will have an 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 star) is surrounded by moderate-to-low risk
areas.
There are 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 2019).
July 2019 9
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 (2019a) and Priority Habitat and Species (2019b) 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.
10 July 2019
Figure 4. Documented surf smelt habitat north-northeast of the project area (WDFW
2019).
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 2019a)
3.4.1 Surrounding Land/Water 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 2019). There are two
303(d) list sites located north and south, but not immediately adjacent to the project site in
Poverty Bay.
July 2019 11
Figure 5. Washington Department of Ecology Shoreline Atlas illustrating shore
modification (armoring) at and adjacent to the project area (red star).
12 July 2019
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 no 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 (2019), patch (fragmented) kelp
occurs offshore of the project area.
July 2019 13
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 locations included on Ecology’s 303(d) list of impaired water quality for
exceeding the numerous state criteria (Ecology, 2019). 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.
14 July 2019
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 55 linear feet of failing
concrete bulkhead with 55 linear feet of concrete bulkhead to stabilize the marine shoreline. The
existing stairs, ramp and davit will also be replaced. This section expands on the descriptions
found in Part 6-Project Description of the Washington State Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA).
Poverty
Bay
July 2019 15
4.1 Final Project
After the installation of the replacement concrete bulkhead 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 relocating the bulkhead approximately 1 foot landward.
Figure 9. Plans depicting the proposed final project design.
4.2 Construction Process
16 July 2019
The replacement shoreline protection will be replaced approximately 20 feet section at a time.
Unstable soil will be excavated and the bulkhead placed a minimum 1.5 feet below the bed of the
beach. Colluvial and fill soils will be removed in order to place footing 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 footing 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 integrated 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 February 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 three 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 February 15 through July 14
of any year for the protection of migrating juvenile salmon.
• Work below the ordinary high water line from October 1 through April 30 of any year
will be performed within forty−eight hours after the location is inspected by a department
representative or biologist acceptable to the department and it is determined that no
spawning is occurring or has recently occurred.
• Project activities below MHHW will not occur when the project area, including the work
corridor is inundated by tidal waters.
• The existing concrete structure will be removed from the beach and disposed at an
appropriate upland facility.
July 2019 17
• The waterward face of the replacement concrete bulkhead will be located 1 foot landward
of the existing structure.
• All trenches, depressions, or holes created in the beach area will be backfilled prior to
inundation by tidal waters. Trenches excavated for footings 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, h ydraulic 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
5.1.1 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 concrete bulkhead with an concrete bulkhead 1 foot landward. 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
vegetation associated with excavating landward of the existing bulkhead to place footings,
operating the excavator within the authorized work corridor, and the temporary grounding of the
barge.
18 July 2019
Long term direct effects include the placement of the replacement concrete bulkhead. This will
reestablish approximately 55 square feet of upper intertidal habitat. 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 bulkhead
will be rebuilt landward of the existing concrete bulkhead, long term habitat conversion should
be less than current impacts. This should result in an overall minor net benefit to the project area.
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 2019), 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
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 are 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 Grealish property already have bulkheads. There are currently no docks and
piers on the Grealish property. 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
July 2019 19
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, 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 Endan gered under the Endangered Species Act
and determination of effects from project activities.
Common Name Scientific Name Effects on Listed
Species
Effect on Designated
Critical Habitat
Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhampus
marmoratus
No Effect No Effect on
designated critical
habitat
Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispiniss May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, but is Not
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus May Affect, but is Not May Affect, but is Not
20 July 2019
Likely to Adversely
Affect
Likely to Adversely
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.org). 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 footing 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
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
July 2019 21
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 te mperatures 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
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.
22 July 2019
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.
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-term, removing
the existing bulkhead and replacing it with a concrete bulkhead approximately 1 foot landward
should slightly increase the amount of intertidal habitat available for surf smelt spawning.
(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.
July 2019 23
(5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia
available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within
this range will depend on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and
seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; 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 14-15oC in summer, the temperatures of
subsurface waters generally range from 10-13oC in summer and 8-10oC 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 conditio ns. 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.
(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.
24 July 2019
In summary, the Project Area may serve as migratory or feeding habitat for coastal/Puget Sound
bull trout heading for the Puyallup or Nisqually Rivers. As in most of the Puget Sound nearshore
locations, the PCEs in the project area have been significantly altered and are not likely to be
used by bull trout. Shoreline protection activities may result in temporary impacts to substrates,
water quality and noise. As discussed in previous paragraphs, these impacts are minor,
temporary, discountable, and do not interfere with movements or feeding of bull trout.
Determination of Effect
For the reasons described above, no significant cumulative, interrelated or interdependent effects
on bull trout are expected from the proposed shoreline protection project or activities. Overall,
due to the low likelihood of an individual bull trout being within the project area, the effects of
the proposed action on Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout would be insignificant and discountable.
Therefore, the proposed shoreline protection activities May Affect, but is Not Likely to
Adversely Affect Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout or its designated critical habitat.
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
Occurrence in Project Area
Chinook salmon in the central Puget Sound River are of “mixed” hatchery and native stocks
(WDFW 2012). Adults enter to the area river from mid-June through the fall. Chinook salmon
may be present or migrating through the Puget Sound and the marine waters adjacent to the
project area from mid-May through October. Out-migrating juvenile Chinook salmon could
potentially use the waters in and around the project area from March until mid-July.
As with much of the Puget Sound nearshore, the habitat in and adjacent to the project area has
been significantly altered. Spawning opportunities for Chinook salmon do not occur in Poverty
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 any new 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
July 2019 25
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 h abitat 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.
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.
26 July 2019
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.
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
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) 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 activiti es 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
July 2019 27
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 2019). In Poverty Bay, winter steelhead trout presence,
based on modeling, are found in Cold and Redondo Creeks (WDFW 2019). 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, 2019). 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 October, 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 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.
28 July 2019
(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.
(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 no 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
July 2019 29
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 (NMFS 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.
30 July 2019
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.
Yelloweye Rockfish
Effects of Action
Yelloweye rockfish are somewhat rare in the south Puget Sound (NMFS 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.
Southern Resident Killer Whales
Effects of the Action
July 2019 31
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 includes limited quantities of 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.
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
32 July 2019
oceanic habitats. Relevant assessment of EFH at the proposed project area includes
intertidal/nearshore and associated riparian areas.
The proposed replacement shoreline protection project includes the removal of an existing
concrete shoreline protection structure previously built within potential sand lance and surf smelt
spawning gravel. The proposed replacement shoreline protection will continue to protect the
marine shoreline from wind and wave action. Placement of the concrete bulkhead will prevent
future erosion.
The shoreline protection project may temporarily reduce the populations of benthic organisms in
a small area adjacent to the project that are prey species for various groundfish and juvenile
pelagic fishes that utilize intertidal/nearshore EFH. Benthic and epibenthic prey species that are
temporarily displaced are expected to recover quickly after construction activities are completed.
Since new invertebrate communities will quickly reestablished in the project areas, no long-term
loss of biological productivity is expected as a result of the shoreline protection project.
Similarly, forage species such as surf smelt, sand lance, and squid could also be temporarily
impacted by elevated temporary turbidity. However, the impacts are expected to be minor
because the species are not expected to be in the project area during construction.
In order to conserve intertidal/nearshore EFH and reduce potential effects on associated species,
the proposed shoreline protection project would incorporate the following conservation
measures:
• 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 February 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 ensure 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.
• 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 the footings need to remain open
during construction, fish will be prevented from entering such trenches.
July 2019 33
• All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting
from this project will be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland
disposal site.
• All manmade debris on the beach will be removed and disposed of upland such that it
does not enter waters of the state. This includes the pre-existing pieces of concrete and
anthropomorphic debris.
• Intertidal wetland vascular plants will not be adversely impacted due to project activities
(e.g., barge shall not ground, equipment shall not operate, and other activities shall not
occur in intertidal wetland vascular plants).
• Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed. The
project shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life.
The combination of the conservation measures detailed above and the temporary and localized
affect of project activities reduces the effects on Essential Fish Habitat to the point that the
effects will be insignificant and discountable, and thus the proposed shoreline protection project
May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat.
5.4 Assessment Report Conclusion
The purpose of the preceding Floodplain Habitat Assessment Report is to document that the
proposed project meets the requirements and criteria of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as
clarified in the Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (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
6.0 References
Boehlert, G.W. 1980. Size composition, age composition, and growth of canary rockfish,
Sebastes pinniger, and splitnose rockfish, S. diploproa, from the 1977 rockfish survey. Mar.
Fish. Rev. 42:57–63.
Calambokidis, J. and G. Steiger. (1990). Sightings and Movement of Humpback Whales in Puget
Sound, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 71:45-49. Autumn 1990.
34 July 2019
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 Percichthyi dae (Temperate Basses) 32.1 through Family
Hexigrammidae (Greenlings) 54.6.
National Oceananic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Draft Steller sea lion
recovery plan: eastern and western distinct population segments. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008a. Preliminary scientific conclusion of the
review status of 5 species of rockfish: bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (Sebastes
pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongatus),
and redstriped rockfish (Sebastes proriger) in Puget Sound, Washington. NMFS Northwest
Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. December 2008.
National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). 2008b. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer
Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle,
Washington.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Coastal Pelagic
Species. Modified from Coastal Pelagics Species Fisheries Management Plan. Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Portland, Oregon.
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. Kenn edy
(ed.). Estuarine Comparisons. Pp. 343-364. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Seattle Audubon. Sound To Sage: Breeding Bird Atlas of Island, King, Kitsap, and Kittitas
Counties, Washington Data accessed from website:www.soundtosage.org
July 2019 35
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://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.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.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.