Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHX2021-00023 JARPA - SHX Inspections - 6/9/2021 •--------------------------------------, AGENCY USE ONLY 1 t Date received: US Army Corps i 1 WASHINGTON STATE of Engineers Seattle District'Stmt ' Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Agency reference#: j1v(?,�21-yc��23 Application (JARPA) Form' ; Tax Parcel#(s): 3�3�3 -'� —01012- USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. ' c Sotl U✓i��/ 1 1 SI-�t t� Y11u rr\� S ��[ ►\� Part 1—Project Identification PLANNING 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) hel Thompson Bulkhead Addition Project RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2021 Part 2—Applicant 615 W. Alder ;; ; The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [hei 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Thompson, Robert 2b. Organization (if applicable) 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) PO Box 569 2d. City, State, Zip Chehalis, WA 98532 2e. Phone(1) 2f. Phone(2) 2 . Fax 2h. E-mail (360) 269-7982 ( ) ( ) byrdthom@gmaii.com Additional forms may be required for the following permits: • If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit(RGP),contact the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for application information(206)764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act,you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form(SPIF)or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http//www.nws.usace.anm.miI/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory/PermitGuide book/EndangeredSpecies.aspx. • Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit,contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. 2To access an online JARPA form with[help]screens,go to http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa iarpa form/9984/iarpa form.aspx. For other help,contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-917-0043 or heIiJ ora.Wa.goy. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 15 Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this application.) L1p] 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Valdeman, Caralyn 3b. Organization (if applicable) Integrated Northwest Construction, Inc. 3c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box) 60 N Lake Cushman Rd, Suite 109 3d. City, State, Zip Hoodsport, WA 98584 3e. Phone(1) T(206) . Phone(2) 3 Fax 3h. E-mail (253) 888-5314 319-4239 Caralyn@integratednwconstruction.com Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help] ® Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know, contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete DARPA Attachment E to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization. 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) 41b. Organization (if applicable) 4c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box) 4d. City, State, Zip 4e. Phone(1) 0. Phone(2) 4 . Fax 4h. E-mail JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 15 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [help] ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help] ® Private ❑ Federal ❑ Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) —managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) 51b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) Lhel 250 N Ayock Beach Drive 5C. City, State, Zip(If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help] Hoodsport, WA 98548 5d. County Mason 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. Lhtijj 1/4 Section Section Township Range 03 23N 3W 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. Lei • Example.47.03922 N lat. /-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees-NAD 83) 47.50731 N -123.05449 W 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. LLe-ipj • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. 32303-50-01012 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (if you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) Ln, Ipl Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel #(if known) MARTIN TRUST, ROBERT A PO BOX 386 32303-50-01013 % JANE MARTIN TRUSTEE EDMONDS WA 98020 ..... .......... _.. ....__....... _... ............ JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 15 5L List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. tei 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. nei Hood Canal. 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? hel ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. Site is on a 0.74 acre shoreline lot backed by Hwy 101 North. There is little to no native vegetation. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. Residential. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. Residential or recreational. 5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current condition. The lot supports a single-family residence with associated appurtenances and an approx. 83-foot concrete bulkhead, seven-foot wood bulkhead section, a forty-foot, anchored woody debris log, and at least two additional pieces of large woody debris. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [Les] From Shelton, take SR 101 North, past Lilliwaup. The site is located in the community of Ayock Beach. Part 6—Project Description 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [nelp] The proposed action to an existing approximately (approx.) eighty-three foot (83') concrete bulkhead is the addition of a thirty-foot 30') concrete bulkhead section and a four-foot 4' wing-wall. Mitigation for JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 4 of 15 the project will include installing the new bulkhead section landward of an existing wood bulkhead section and an anchored woody debris log. Additionally, native grasses and shrubs shall be planted over all disturbed areas landward of the new bulkhead addition. 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help] The existing concrete bulkhead is in excellent condition. The shoreline at the site is swash aligned to prevailing south winds and winds out of the north. Hood Canal is regularly subjected to strong moderate winds and occasionally high winds with gusts in excess of fifty miles per hour. The subject property is located at the apex of a large cuspate spit that supports a residential neighborhood with over a hundred residential structures. The spit is pounded by wave action during strong moderate to high winds, more frequently on the south side, from prevailing winds. The existing concrete bulkhead runs the length of the property's frontage on the south side of the spit and approx. twenty-seven feet (27') on the north side, plus a seven foot (7') wood section and an approx. forty foot (40') anchored woody debris log. There is an approximate gap of four to five feet between the terminus of the wood bulkhead section and the south end of the woody debris log. The lack of a cohesive bulkhead along the north side of the property's frontage, in close proximity to the spit's apex, has resulted in erosion to the upper shoreline that threatens to damage the north end of the existing concrete bulkhead and the residence. The new bulkhead section will attach to the existing concrete bulkhead and be the same height and width. It will include four-foot wing walls at both the south and north ends but only the latter will be exposed to Hood Canal. The wood bulkhead section will be removed from the site. In conclusion, the project objective is to augment the existing bulkhead and prevent imminent damage to the existing bulkhead and residence, while avoiding or minimizing impacts to ESA-listed species and improving shoreline habitat at the site. 6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help] ercial [� Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help] ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam /Weir ❑ Floating Home (upland) ❑ Boat House ❑ Dike/ Levee/Jetty ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Road ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Scientific Measurement Device ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock/ Pier ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Mining ❑ Stormwater facility ® Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ® Piling/Dolphin ❑ Utility Line ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway ❑ Raft Other: JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 5 of 15 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. [n l • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain. The existing approx. seven-foot bulkhead section will be dismantled and removed from the site. As per the engineered design by MET Engineering, PLLC, the proposed bulkhead addition will be constructed of concrete and rebar along thirty feet (30') of linear frontage with a four-foot wing wall set at a thirty degree angle at the north end. The south end of the new section will be connected to the existing concrete bulkhead by embedded rebar and epoxy. Rebar will be epoxied into drilled holes before concrete is poured. The entire thirty-four-foot section will be the same height and width as the existing: approx. four feet above grade and eight inches, respectively. The footing and cap will also be the same as the existing: three feet (width) and one-foot (height)for the footer, while the cap will be L-shaped with the overhang facing the water. A four-foot wing-wall will also be installed at the south end of the new bulkhead section at an approx. 70 degree angle. It will not be exposed to tidal waters. The new bulkhead section will be installed in a linear path that moves landward of the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot anchored woody debris log. The new bulkhead section's footing will be excavated by manual labor, using hand tools. Concrete for the bulkhead and its footing will be hand mixed or delivered by a concrete pump truck. Work will occur during low tides, and no in- water work will occur. Construction equipment will consist of a circular saw and various hand tools. Workers, equipment, debris, and materials will be transported to the site by land vehicles. Materials will be stockpiled in an upland area of the site. Work will be done during low tides when the work area is dry. Again, no in-water work will occur. Geo-textile fabric will be spread over the dry shoreline before commencement of project construction each work period, in order to contain any manmade construction debris. At the completion of each work period, the geo-textile fabric will be removed from the shoreline at the site, along with all construction debris and other existing manmade debris. All manmade debris, including the concrete, will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. Activities are within the 100-year flood plain. The nearest waterbody is Hood Canal. 6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) [Le • If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JAR PA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start date: unknown End date:60 days, after issuance of all required permits. ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [ ,) $23,100. 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? he! • If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 6 of 15 Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation ❑ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) hel 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. hel ® Not applicable 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [r,eA ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [r,ejA ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? • If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? [der) • If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g. • If No,or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. [ JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 7 of 15 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. (, ; Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area flood, etc.) rating ft. or type' (sq. ft. or category' Acres) acres) If no official name for the wetland exists,create a unique name(such as"Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents,such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System.Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3 Indicate the days,months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter"permanent"if applicable. 4 Creation(C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation(R),Enhancement(E),Preservation(P),Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee(B) Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: 7L For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. E-e_1_i 7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. ( ei Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 8 of 15 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. [helfl 1. Construction to take place during the WDFW's approved work window of July16th thru February 15th, for the protection of juvenile salmonids. 2. The new bulkhead section will be installed on a landward path relative to the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot anchored woody debris log. 3. Excavated substrate will be spread along the toe of the existing bulkhead at the end of each work day. 4. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) stipulations to be strictly adhered to. 5. All manmade debris, including concrete blocks, to be removed from the shoreline and disposed of at a licensed landfill or disposal facility. 6. All disturbed area landward of the bulkhead addition shall be planted with salt tolerant native grasses and shrubs. 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? (_ ] ® Yes ❑ No 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non-wetland waterbodies? (net] • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No, or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable Yes. 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. hel A watershed approach is an analytical process for making compensatory mitigation decisions that support sustainability or improvement of aquatic resources in a watershed (33 CFR 332.2). This generally involves large projects that impact wetlands. The proposed project will be mitigating impacts with on-site mitigation. Conservation Measures were previously noted in this document. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 9 of 15 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [rc � Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile name' location of impact3 (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of drive, etc.) placed in or waterbody removed from directly affected waterbody Hood Canal Upper Approx. Approx. 6 cu/yds out 34 linear feet shoreline 30 days but to be spread over the beach as per HPA stipulations and 18 cu/ ds in If no official name for the waterbody exists,create a unique name(such as"Stream 1")The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent,provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. 3Indicate the days,months or years the watetody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter"permanent"if applicable. 8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. [r i,,] Approx. 8 cu/yds of concrete and 10 cu/yds of grave/soil. The former is for the bulkhead addition and the latter to back fill it. 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [h,G,_] All excavating will be done by manual labor. Excavated substrate will be spread along the toe of the existing bulkhead at the end of each work day, as per the HPA stipulations. Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [, p] Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 10 of 15 9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? [h�,e;c • If Yes,list the parameter(s)below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: htti)://www.ecy.wa.-gov/pro-grams/wq/303d/- Yes ❑ No 9C. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [hti • Go to http://cfl)ub.ei)a.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC. 17110018 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA#) is the project in? [—e!] • Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria,htm to find the WRIA#. WRIA 16 9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? hel • Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swgs/criteria html for the standards. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? hei • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. • For more information, go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws rules/173-26/211 designations.html. ❑ Rural ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ® Other Resl� 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? hei • Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesApplications/Pages/ft) watertyping.asox for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. ® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? [�,�] • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ® Yes ❑ No Name of manual: Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. 9L Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? • If Yes, please describe below. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 11 of 15 ❑ Yes ® No 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. netl A cuspate spit. 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [nclr] • If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ❑ Yes ® No 91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. L J In the action area, there are four species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened species. The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated for the former three species. The action area includes critical habitat for the bull trout. Two other species in the project area are listed as proposed. The fisher(Martes pennanti) is listed as proposed threatened, and the Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) is listed as proposed under the ESA"similarity of appearance" provision. In the action area, there are nine species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as either threatened, endangered, or candidate species. The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) are listed as endangered, while the Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), and killer whale (Orcinus orca) are listed as threatened. Critical habitat has been designated for the Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish, leatherback turtle, and green sturgeon. Hood Canal is designated critical habitat for the chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish. 9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 12 of 15 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publishes a Priority Habitats and Species list (PHS) and a Species of Concern (SOC) list. The PHS list includes habitats, species, and species groups considered to be priorities for conservation and management. The project site is categorized as one of those habitat types--Marine/Estuarine Shoreline. WDFW data revealed that three other species of anadromous salmonids on the State's PHS list may be found within the action area: the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), the Puget Sound coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), the Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), the sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). The Puget Sound coho salmon is also an ESA listed Species of Concern. Species of Concern are not species that are being actively considered for listing under the ESA by the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) or FWS. They have been identified as Species of Concern because of concerns or great uncertainties regarding biological status and threats. A Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife GIS forage fish map(WDFW 2020) reveals that the shoreline at the proposed project site is not a documented spawning area for forage fish. Additionally, the Washington Department of Ecology's Coastal Atlas mapping program reveals a patchy eelgrass fringe along the shoreline at the site that commences at the apex of Ayock spit and moves northward, while a continuous eel grass bed commences at the same point and moves southward (WDOE 2014). Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help(a)-ora.wa.gov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help] • For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecy.wa gov/programs/sea/sepaie-review.html. ❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ® A SEPA determination is pending with_Mason County (lead agency). The expected decision date is ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) heip VT his project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? 173-27-040 ❑ Other: 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ® Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): W A C (73-a}-0 Lt O (()(c) Other city/county permits: Mason County Shoreline Exemption JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 13 of 15 ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ® Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: ® Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption—Attach Exemption Form Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for$150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash. Check the appropriate boxes: ❑ $150 check enclosed. (Check# ) Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ❑Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. (Agreement# ) ❑ My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption) ❑ HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff. (Agreement # ) ❑ Mineral prospecting and mining. ❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land. (Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor,or other proof of current land use.) ❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012. (HPA# ) Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Use Authorization Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for$25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Do not send cash. Washington Department of Ecology: ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ❑ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ❑ Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects) ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 14 of 15 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the DARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. hel 11a. Applicant Signature (required) [help] I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and 1 agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (� . 1 (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) r Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature D e 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature nel I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. Caralyn Valdeman 02/26/21 Authorized Agent Printed Name orized Agent Signature Date 11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant). nei Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name ' Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that:Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies. conceals,or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false,fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than$10.000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at(800)917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call(877)833-6341. j ORA publication number: ENV-019-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 15 of 15 jT N �Fc^ MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST �yl�� � S ► � � �� �n> � rf\ �-R_ ( sus MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IIiq� `9< A. BACKGROUND 3/1 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:Thompson Bulkhead Addition Project. 2. Name of applicant: Robert Thompson. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Integrated Northwest Construction, Inc., Caralyn Valdeman. 60 N Lake Cushman Rd, Suite 109, Hoodsport, WA 98584. (206) 319-4239 or (253) 888- 5314. caralyn@integratednwconstruction.com. 4. Date checklist prepared: 01-29-21. 5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): No phasing. Work to be completed ASAP after receiving all required permits. 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal: if yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An HMP has been prepared. 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. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. A Mason County Shoreline exemption permit and a building permit; an HPA from the WDFW. `,A S, A,,vo Cv y ccr� t:yw v. If 1 1&' <s dl 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, inuding 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). The existing approx. seven-foot bulkhead section will be dismantled and removed from the site. As per the engineered design by MET MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2 Engineering, PLLC, the proposed bulkhead addition will be constructed of concrete and rebar along thirty feet (30') of linear frontage with a four-foot wing wall set at a thirty degree angle at the north end. The south end of the new section will be connected to the existing concrete bulkhead by embedded rebar and epoxy. Rebar will be epoxied into drilled holes before concrete is poured. The entire thirty-four-foot section will be the same height and width as the existing: approx. four feet above grade and eight inches, respectively. The footing and cap will also be the same as the existing: three feet (width) and one-foot (height) for the footer, while the cap will be L-shaped with the overhang facing the water. A four- foot wing-wall will also be installed at the south end of the new bulkhead section at an approx. 70 degree angle. It will not be exposed to tidal waters. The new bulkhead section will be installed in a linear path that moves landward of the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot anchored woody debris log. The new bulkhead section's footing will be excavated by manual labor, using hand tools. Concrete for the bulkhead and its footing will be hand mixed or delivered by a concrete pump truck. Work will occur during low tides, and no in-water work will occur. Construction equipment will consist of a circular saw and various hand tools. Workers, equipment, debris, and materials will be transported to the site by land vehicles. Materials will be stockpiled in an upland area of the site. Work will be done during low tides when the work area is dry. Again, no in-water work will occur. Geo- textile fabric will be spread over the dry shoreline before commencement of project construction each work period, in order to contain any manmade construction debris. At the completion of each work period, the geo-textile fabric will be removed from the shoreline at the site, along with all construction debris and other existing manmade debris. All manmade debris, including the concrete, will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. Activities are within the 100-year flood plain. The nearest waterbody is Hood Canal. 12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of 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 MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3 any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located on Hood Canal at 250 N Ayock Beach Drive. Section 03, Township 22N, Range 03W. The legal description is: AYOCK BEACH BLK: 1 LOT: 12 & 11-A B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approx. percent slope)? Not steep. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Pea gravel and cobble. d. Are there surface indications of history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approx.10 cu/yds of gravel and dirt will be used to fill behind the bulkhead. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally describe. The WDOE's BMPs and the WDFW's HPA provisions shall be followed during construction to prevent erosion. g. About what percentage of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The project adds no new impervious surface area to the site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: All HPA provisions and the WDOE's BMPs shall be adhered to during construction. 2. AIR: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. duct, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known N/A MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4 b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NIA 3. WATER: a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Hood Canal. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Approx. 10 cu/yds gravel and dirt, and 8 cu/yds concrete in. Approx. 6 cu/yds of excavated sediments will be spread along the toe of the existing bulkhead as per the HPA's stipulations. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. 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. No. b. Ground: MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 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 (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None will be discharged. C. Water runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters? If so, describe. Any runoff would be from precipitation. WDOE's BMPs and the WDFW's HPA provisions shall be adhered to during construction. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: if so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The HPA provisions and the WDOE's BMPs shall be adhered to. 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _shrubs _X_ grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, 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? MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6 None. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A native planting is proposed. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. In the action area, there are four species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened species. The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated for the former three species. The action area includes critical habitat for the bull trout. Two other species in the project area are listed as proposed. The fisher (Martes pennants) is listed as proposed threatened, and the Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) is listed as proposed under the ESA "similarity of appearance" provision. In the action area, there are nine species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as either threatened, endangered, or candidate species. The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) are listed as endangered, while the Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 7 (Oncorhynchus keta), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), and killer whale (Orcinus orca) are listed as threatened. Critical habitat has been designated for the Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish, leatherback turtle, and green sturgeon. Hood Canal is designated critical habitat for the chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, fish migrate throughout Hood Canal. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: See Thompson HMP, please. 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. None. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. 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: None. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, which could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. An ambulance in the event of a construction accident. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: WDOE's BMPs shall be adhered to. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 8 b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 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. N/A 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any" N/A 8) LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Residential and recreational. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. C. Describe any structures on the site. The existing bulkhead. S, r e5 . A e li c t d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, a short wood section of the existing concrete bulkhead. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Unk own. I Pe 5.� d, ,,I (� 5 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Unkrr6wn. g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? Residential. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "Environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Hood Canal. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Unknown. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9 j. Approximately how may people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. i. Proposed measure to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Bulkheads and overwater structures are common to residences on Hood Canal. 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 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? Same height as the existing, approx. 4 feet. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. C. Proposed measure to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: None. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 10 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Boating, fishing, hiking, etc. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. State Routes 101. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. Unknown. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Unknown. MASON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project. If known, indicated when peak volumes would occur. Unknown. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, Other)? If so, generally describe: No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: 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. None. 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: REL�� PLANNING 'UN 09 2021 Biological Evaluation A'der street Thompson Bulkhead Addition Hood Canal Mason County, WA For: Robert Thompson PO Box 569 Chehalis, WA 98532 Prepared by: BioResources, LLC Kim Schaumburg Fisheries biologist, University of Washington, 1981 10112 Bay View Rd. KPN Vaughn, WA, 98394 (253) 884-5776 or 225-2973 Email: woc ii• v.3o#x:eeaia,N tei.tic February 1, 2021 Table of Contents 1.0 Proposed Action.............................................................................. 3 1.1 Background ................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Need and Objectives................................................................ 3-4 2.0 Project Description........................................................................... 4 2.1 Project Activities.............................................................................. 5-6 2.2 Mitigation Monitoring&Maintenance...................................................................... 6 2.3 Timing.......................................................................................... 6 2.4 Conservation Measures...................................................................... 6-7 2.5 Best Management Practices.................................................................. 7-9 3.0 Action Area.................................................................................... 10-11 4.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information..................................................... 11-12 4.1 ESA Listed Species.......................................................................... 11-17 5.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions....................................................... 17 5.1 Action Area................................................................................. 17 5.2 Proposed Project Area..................................................................... 17-18 6.0 Effects of the Action.......................................................................... 18 6.1 Direct Effects.................................................................................. 18-20 6.2 Temporary Direct Effects.................................................................... 20-21 6.3 Indirect Effects................................................................................. 21-22 6.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................. 22-23 7.0 Conclusion...................................................................................... 23 7.1 Take Analysis.................................................................................. 23 7.2 No Net Loss Standard......................................................................... 23-24 7.3 Determination of Effect....................................................................... 24-25 8.0 References.......................................................................................26-3 1 Attachments 1. Project location....................................................................................32 2. Site Plan with Existing&Proposed Development.............................................33 3. Site Photographs.................................. ........................................................34 4. Site Photographs................................................................................. 35 5. Site Photographs..................................................................................36 6. Site Photographs............................................................................... 37 7. Site Photographs..................................................................................38 8. Site Photographs..................................................................................39 9. Site Photographs..................................................................................40 10. Site Photographs..................................................................................41 11. Site Photographs..................................................................................42 Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 2 1.0 Proposed Action This Habitat Management Plan has been submitted on behalf of Robert Thompson at the request of the Seattle District United States Army Corps of Engineers to comply with Endangered Species Act(ESA) regulations regarding shoreline development. The proposed action to an existing approximately(approx.) eighty-three-foot(83') concrete bulkhead is the addition of a thirty-foot(30') concrete bulkhead section and a four-foot (4')wing-wall. Mitigation for the project will include installing the new bulkhead section landward of an existing wood bulkhead section and an anchored woody debris log. Additionally, native grasses and shrubs shall be planted over all disturbed areas landward of the new bulkhead addition. 1.1 Background The proposed project site is located at 250 N Ayock Beach Drive in the Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area 16 (WRIA 16) in Mason County, Section 03,Township 23N, Range 03W, Western Meridian (Attachment 1). The Mason County Tax Parcel number is 32303-50-01012. The latitude is 47.50731 north, and the longitude is-123.05449 west. The shoreline is designated Residential by the Shoreline Master Program of Mason County. The proposed project site is located on a 0.74 acre shoreline lot with 105 feet of linear frontage and in excess of 115 feet of actual Hood Canal frontage in Lilliwaup, as per Mason County Assessor records and a Google Earth aerial(2018). The lot supports a single-family residence with associated appurtenances and an approx. 83-foot concrete bulkhead, seven-foot wood bulkhead section, a forty-foot,anchored woody debris log, and at least two additional pieces of large woody debris (Attachments 3 thru 11). 1.2 Project Need and Objectives The existing concrete bulkhead is in excellent condition. The shoreline at the site is swash aligned to prevailing south winds and winds out of the north.Hood Canal is regularly subjected to strong moderate winds and occasionally high winds with gusts in excess of fifty miles per hour. The subject property is located at the apex of a large cuspate spit that supports a residential neighborhood with over a hundred residential structures. The spit is pounded by wave action during strong moderate to high winds, more frequently on the south side, from prevailing winds. The existing concrete bulkhead runs the length of the property's frontage on the south side of the spit and approx. twenty- seven feet(27') on the north side,plus a seven foot(7')wood section and an approx. forty foot (40') anchored woody debris log. There is an approximate gap of four to five feet between the terminus of the wood bulkhead section and the south end of the woody debris log. The lack of a cohesive bulkhead along the north side of the property's Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 3 frontage, in close proximity to the spit's apex, has resulted in erosion to the upper shoreline that threatens to damage the north end of the existing concrete bulkhead and the residence. The new bulkhead section will attach to the existing concrete bulkhead and be the same height and width. It will include four-foot wing walls at both the south and north ends but only the latter will be exposed to Hood Canal. The wood bulkhead section will be removed from the site. In conclusion,the project objective is to augment the existing bulkhead and prevent imminent damage to the existing bulkhead and residence,while avoiding or minimizing impacts to ESA-listed species and improving shoreline habitat at the site. 2.0 Project Description The existing approx. seven-foot bulkhead section will be dismantled and removed from the site. As per the engineered design by MET Engineering, PLLC (Attachment 2),the proposed bulkhead addition will be constructed of concrete and rebar along thirty feet (30')of linear frontage with a four-foot wing wall set at a thirty degree angle at the north end. The south end of the new section will be connected to the existing concrete bulkhead by embedded rebar and epoxy. Rebar will be epoxied into drilled holes before concrete is poured. The entire thirty-four-foot section will be the same height and width as the existing: approx. four feet above grade and eight inches, respectively. The footing and cap will also be the same as the existing:three feet(width)and one-foot(height) for the footer, while the cap will be L-shaped with the overhang facing the water. A four-foot wing-wall will also be installed at the south end of the new bulkhead section at an approx. 70 degree angle. It will not be exposed to tidal waters. The new bulkhead section will be installed in a linear path that moves landward of the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot anchored woody debris log. The new bulkhead section's footing will be excavated by manual labor, using hand tools. Concrete for the bulkhead and its footing will be hand mixed or delivered by a concrete pump truck. Work will occur during low tides, and no in-water work will occur. Construction equipment will consist of a circular saw and various hand tools. Workers, equipment, debris, and materials will be transported to the site by land vehicles. Materials will be stockpiled in an upland area of the site. Work will be done during low tides when the work area is dry. Again,no in-water work will occur. Geo-textile fabric will be spread over the dry shoreline before commencement of project construction each work period, in order to contain any manmade construction debris. At the completion of each work period,the geo-textile fabric will be removed from the shoreline at the site, along with all construction debris and other existing manmade debris. All manmade debris, including the concrete, will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 4 2.1 Project Activities Demolition The existing approx. seven-foot bulkhead section will be dismantled and removed from the site. Debris will be removed from the shoreline at the end of each work day. All manmade debris, including the concrete, will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. Excavation of the Footing Excavation of the new footing will be done by manual labor and hand tools. The contractor will only excavate the area to be poured during a single work day, as the work will likely be done in approx. two or three sections. Excavated substrate will be spread along the toe of the existing bulkhead at the end of each work day. The untreated lumber forms will be constructed off-site or at an upland area of the site. They will be installed following excavation,prior to the pouring of concrete. Pouring of the Concrete Before concrete is poured, rebar and the previously constructed forms will be installed into the excavated footing area. Rebar will be attached by drilled holes and epoxy to the existing bulkhead's north end. Fast setting concrete will be poured and allowed to cure. Forms will be removed from the shoreline after the concrete has set. Installation of the Fill Material& Mitigation Native Plantings Approximately seven cubic yards of rip-rap and/or gravel shall be installed landward of the bulkhead addition, to be topped by approx. three cubic yards of native soil. To mitigate for the proposed project,the approx. 250 sf area shall be planted with salt tolerant native grasses and shrubs. It is recommended to seed the area with grass, before planting shrubs. Until the grass is established,biodegradable erosion control matting or other erosion control material may need to be temporarily spread over the planting area and firmly secured, as required, during high tides in conjunction with stormy weather. Plants should be thinned or trimmed as necessary and watered at least three times per week during dry conditions in spring and summer months. Invasive,non-native vegetation should be removed at least twice a year or as necessary. Due to the close proximity of Hood Canal, no herbicides or pesticides should be used in this project. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 5 Potted one gallon or bare root plants are recommended. Organic mulch should be used to mulch the newly installed plants in order to minimize runoff from topsoil. Straw will introduce weeds and is not recommended for mulching at the site. The exact location of the plantings will be at the installer's discretion. Besides the native grass seeding, at least twenty(20) shrubs are recommended to be installed. Recommended salt tolerant species include: oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), salal (Gaultheria shallon),tall Oregon- grape(Berberis aquifolium), sword fern (Polystichum munitum),Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana), coastal lupine (Lupinus littoralis), and coastal strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis). 2.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Maintenance The property owners will inspect the planting area at least once a month until the vegetation has been established. The property owners will monitor and water the native vegetation plantings at least three times per week during dry months, until the vegetation has become established. It is expected that vegetation should be adequately established in three to five years. Dead plants will be replaced throughout the monitoring period. If necessary, invasive, non-native vegetation will be removed or cut back at least twice per year. 2.3 Timing Work will be completed in approx.thirty(30) days during daylight working hours normal to a rural neighborhood. Construction will take place during the work windows of July 16th thru February 15th, for the protection of juvenile salmon and bull trout. 2.4 Conservation Minimization Measures & Mitigation 1. Construction to take place during the WDFW's approved work window of July I6th thru February 15th, for the protection of juvenile salmonids. 2. The new bulkhead section will be installed on a landward path relative to the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot anchored woody debris log. 3. Excavated substrate will be spread along the toe of the existing bulkhead at the end of each work day. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 6 4. Best Management Practices(BMPs)and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's(WDFW)Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) stipulations to be strictly adhered to. 5. All manmade debris, including concrete blocks,to be removed from the shoreline and disposed of at a licensed landfill or disposal facility. 6. All disturbed area landward of the bulkhead addition shall be planted with salt tolerant native grasses and shrubs. 2.5 Best Management Practices In order to maintain the present water quality of Hood Canal during project construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented.BMPs are defined as physical, structural, and/or managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water (WDOE). The following source control BMPs,which are detailed in the WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume II Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention(2012), shall be implemented for long-term protection of water quality at the site: BMP C154: Concrete Washout Area Purpose: Prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater from concrete waste by conducting washout off-site, or performing on-site washout in a designated area to prevent pollutants from entering surface waters or ground water. Conditions of Use: Concrete washout area best management practices are implemented on construction projects where: •Concrete is used as a construction material. •It is not possible to dispose of all concrete wastewater and washout off-site (ready mix plant, etc.). *Concrete trucks,pumpers, or other concrete coated equipment are washed on-site. •Note: If less than 10 concrete trucks or pumpers need to be washed out on-site, the wash water may be disposed of in a formed area awaiting concrete or an upland disposal site where it shall not contaminate surface or ground water. The upland disposal site shall be at least 50 feet from sensitive areas such as storm drains, open ditches, or water bodies, including wetlands. •A temporary washout facility shall be constructed on-site or the concrete truck shall be washed out off-site. *When temporary concrete washout facilities are no longer required for the work,the hardened concrete, slurries and liquids shall be removed and properly disposed of. *Materials used to construct temporary concrete washout facilities shall be removed from the site of the work and disposed of or recycled. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 7 BMP C151: Concrete Handling Purpose: Concrete work can generate process water and slurry that contain fine particles and high pH, both of which can violate water quality standards in the receiving water. Concrete spillage or concrete discharge to surface waters of the State is prohibited. Use this BMP to minimize and eliminate concrete, concrete process water, and concrete slurry from entering waters of the state. Conditions of Use: Any time concrete is used, utilize these management practices. *Wash out concrete truck chutes, pumps, and internals into formed areas only. Assure that washout of concrete trucks is performed offsite or in designated concrete washout areas. DO not wash out concrete trucks onto the ground, or into storm drains, open ditches, streets, or streams. *Return unused concrete remaining in the truck and pump to the originating batch plant for recycling. Do not dump excess concrete on site, except in designated concrete washout areas. *Wash offhand tools including,but not limited to, screeds, shovels, rakes, floats,and trowels into formed areas only. *Wash equipment difficult to move in areas that do not directly drain to natural or constructed stormwater conveyances. *Do not allow washdown from areas,such as concrete aggregate driveways, to drain directly to natural or constructed stormwater conveyances (or Puget Sound). •Contain washwater and leftover product in a lined container when no formed areas are available. Dispose of contained concrete in a manner that does not violate ground water or surface water quality standards. *Always use forms or solid barriers for concrete pours, such a pilings, within 15-feet of surface waters. The following additional BMP will be used to insure that water quality is not degraded during and after construction: •Equipment will be cleaned and checked for leaks, offsite and daily, before commencing work. The following Spill Prevention Control measures will also be followed: *The applicant will supply the site with a portable bathroom or allow workers access to an onsite bathroom so that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. •The applicant will be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous spill. •The applicant will have a spill kit and be able to perform basic control,containment, and/or confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and personnel protective equipment available. In other words, minor spills, such as paint or oil,will be promptly and fully collected and disposed of at a suitable Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 8 disposal site. In the event of a spill, a fish kill, and/or if fish are observed in distress the Washington State Department of Ecology(800.258.5990)and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's Area Habitat Biologist, Brittany Gordon (360.620.3601), will be notified immediately. The WDFW's HPA provisions and the appropriate Washington Administrative Code regulations will be strictly adhered to,including: WAC 220-110-270 Common saltwater technical provisions The following technical provisions apply to projects in saltwater areas. Project activities may be prohibited where project impacts adversely affect fish habitats for which no proven mitigation methods are available. (1) Use of equipment on the beach area will be held to a minimum and confined to specific access and work corridors. (2)Bed material,other than material excavated for bulkhead footings or placement of bulkhead base rock, will not be utilized for project construction or fills. The department may allow pl acement of dredged material in areas for beneficial uses such as beach Y p $ nourishment or cleanup of contaminated sediments. (3)Wet concrete will be prevented from entering waters of the state. Forms for an P g Y concrete structure will be constructed to prevent leaching of wet concrete. Impervious material will be placed over any exposed concrete not lined with forms that will come in contact with waters of the state. Forms and impervious material will remain in place until the concrete is cured. (4) Beach area depressions created during project activities will be reshaped to pre- project beach level upon project completion. (5)No debris or deleterious material will be disposed of or abandoned waterward of the ordinary high water line except at an approved in-water site. (6)All debris or deleterious material resulting from construction will be removed from the beach area or bed and prevented from entering waters of the state. (7)No petroleum products or other deleterious materials will enter surface waters. (8)Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed. (9)All piling, lumber, and other materials treated with preservatives will be sufficiently cured to minimize leaching into the water or bed. (10) Wood treated with preservatives,trash,waste, or other deleterious materials will not be burned below the ordinary high water line. Limited burning of untreated wood or similar material, subject to timing restrictions or other provisions may be allowed. (11)Project activities will not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life. (12) If a fish kill occurs or fish are observed in distress,the project activity will immediately cease and the department granting the HPA will be notified immediately. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 9 3.0 Action Area The action area is located on the shoreline of Hood Canal at the proposed project site. Besides the proposed project location,the action area includes the surrounding area within a designated distance from the site in order to account for construction impacts that may affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as either endangered or threatened. The limits of the action area are based upon the geographic extent(in both aquatic and terrestrial environments)of the physical, chemical, and biological effects resulting from the proposed action, including direct and indirect effects, as well as effects of interrelated and interdependent activities(WSDOT 2010). Turbidity and noise are expected to have the most far-reaching effects. Because work will occur during low tides and no in-water work will occur, project turbidity is expected to be no greater than turbidity that is common to the area during heavy rains,when various ephemeral and perennial streams and the Skokomish River discharge sediment laden water into Hood Canal. The Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas Mapping program (WDOE 2017)revealed that littoral drift at the site moves northward by way of an approx. 3.9 mile drift cell that commences approx. 3.9 mi. south of the project site at Lilliwaup and terminates at the apex of the cuspate spit on the subject property. A second drift cell moves southward and commences approx. 0.5 mi. to the north and also terminates at the cuspate spit's apex. It is expected that the excavation required to augment the existing bulkhead will be moderate. Therefore,terrestrial noise is expected to be the most far-reaching effect from the proposed project. The action area for terrestrial noise effects is based upon an ambient sound level of 40 dBA for an area with a population of less than 100 people per mile (WSDOT 2010). In addition,the Olympic National Forest programmatic biological assessment uses an estimated ambient level of 40 dBA for undisturbed forested areas(USDI 2003).Noise frequency and levels for the disassembly of the existing decks is expected to be short term and moderate, as the contractor will be using hand tools such as a skill saw. The sawing of the lumber is expected to produce the proposed project's maximum noise level. The noise level of a circular saw at fifty feet was determined as follows: The noise level at 50 feet from a chain saw is 84 dBA(WSDOT 2014). The noise level of a chain saw at three feet is 110 dBA, while a circular saw is 100 dBA. Assuming that a chain saw is between approx. five and ten percent noisier than a circular saw, the noise level of a circular saw at fifty feet was assigned 79 dBA. To determine the distance that the proposed project's maximum point source construction noise will travel before it attenuates to the ambient sound level;the following Practical Spreading Loss Model equation was used: D=Do * 10((Construction Noise—Ambient Sound Level in dBA)/a) Where D=the distance from the noise &Do =the reference measurement distance of 50'. Average construction noise from the proposed project will travel approx. 3,970 feet over hard site conditions(Hood Canal)and 1,656 feet over soft site conditions(forested areas) Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 10 before it(the noise) attenuates to the ambient sound level. Therefore,the extent of the action area is 3,970 feet or 0.75 mi. over the Hood Canal's surface and 1,656 feet or 0.31 mi. inland from the proposed project site and adjacent shorelines. Besides Hood Canal, the action area also includes several perennial and seasonal streams, including unnamed perennial streams, located approx. 0.2 south and 0.3 mi. north, respectively. Additionally,the action area is designated as Essential Fish Habitat(EFH) for several salmonid species including the ESA listed Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawyacha),the Puget Sound coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and the pink salmon(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), as well as the ESA listed Bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis) and Yelloweye rockfish(Sebastes ruberrimus). 4.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information In the proposed project area,there are four species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as either threatened or endangered. The bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated for the former three species. The project area is located on Hood Canal,which has been designated critical habitat for the bull trout. Two other species in the project area are listed as proposed. The fisher(Mantes pennanti) is listed as proposed threatened, and the Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) is listed as proposed under the ESA "similarity of appearance"provision. In the action area,there are nine species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) as either threatened, endangered, or candidate species. The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis), and leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea) are listed as endangered, while the Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawyacha), Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss), Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris),yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), and killer whale (Orcinus orca) are listed as threatened. Critical habitat has been designated for the Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum,Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish, leatherback turtle, and green sturgeon. Hood Canal is designated critical habitat for the chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish. In addition,the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publishes a Priority Habitats and Species list(PHS)and a Species of Concern(SOC) list. The PHS list includes habitats, species, and species groups considered to be priorities for conservation and management. The project site is categorized as one of those habitat types-- Marine/Estuarine Shoreline. WDFW data revealed that three other species of anadromous Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 11 salmonids on the State's PHS list may be found within the action area: the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), the Puget Sound coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch),the Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha),the sockeye salmon(Oncorhynchus nerka), and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). The Puget Sound coho salmon is also an ESA listed Species of Concern. Species of Concern are not species that are being actively considered for listing under the ESA by the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) or FWS. it They have been identified as Species of Concern because of concerns or great uncertainties regarding biological status and threats. A Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife GIS forage fish map (WDFW 2020) reveals that the shoreline at the proposed project site is not a documented spawning area for forage fish. Additionally,the Washington Department of Ecology's Coastal Atlas mapping program reveals a patchy eelgrass fringe along the shoreline at the site that commences at the apex of Ayock spit and moves northward,while a continuous eel grass bed commences at the same point and moves southward(WDOE 2014). 4.1 ESA Listed Species BULL TROUT Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family and are native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Water temperature above 15 degrees Celsius is believed to limit bull trout distribution, as eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Bull trout are also vulnerable to degraded stream habitat,poor water quality, dams and other stream blocking structures, and predation by non-native fish. Critical habitat includes rearing, foraging, and migration habitat in the Hood Canal. It is possible that bull trout may be found in the action area at any time of the year. MARBLED MURRELET A small,diving seabird in the family Alcidae,the marbled murrelet forages for small fish and invertebrates almost exclusively in nearshore marine waters,while nesting inland in old-growth or mature conifer forests. Threats include loss of habitat,predation, gill-net fishing operations, oil spills, marine pollution, and disease. The USFWS assembled a team of scientists in October 2011 to investigate causes for the continued decline in murrelet populations. The outcome of these discussions listed many factors, chiefly loss of potential nesting habitat as the main reason for hindrance of population recovery goals (WDFW 2012). Potential nest trees are coniferous trees within 55 mi (88.5 km) of marine waters that support at least one 4-inch (10.2-cm)diameter platform located at least 33 feet(10 meters)above the ground,with horizontal and vertical cover(USFWS 2012). If a tree or Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 12 forested area does not support these habitat features, it is "extremely unlikely"to support a murrelet nest(USFWS 2012).Nest success is influenced by forest structure,the spatial mix of habitat and non-habitat,human disturbance, prey availability, and marine foraging conditions. Human disturbance can lead to higher predation levels by Steller's and gray jays, crows, ravens, and other species that seek human-related foods and refuse at high- use recreational areas(Peery et al. 2004, Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006). Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated in May of 1996,but it is not located within close range of the project site on Hood Canal. The USFWS indicates that marbled murrelet may occur in Hood Canal, so it is possible the birds could be found in the action area. STREAKED HORNED LARK Horned larks are birds that utilize wide open spaces with no trees and few or no shrubs. The streaked horned lark nests on the ground in sparsely vegetated sites dominated by grasses and shrubs. Historically this type of habitat was found in prairies in western Oregon and Washington, in dune habitats along the coast of Washington, on the sandy beaches and spits along the Columbia and Willamette Rivers,and in grasslands, estuaries, and sandy beaches in British Columbia(WDFW 2012). Today the streaked horned lark nests in a broad range of habitats, including native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural fields,wetland mudflats, sparsely-vegetated edges of grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground, moderately-to heavily- grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel shoulders of lightly-traveled roads, airports, and dredge deposition sites in the lower Columbia River(WDFW 2012). I The action area may contain suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is a neotropical migrant bird that winters in South America and breeds in western North America. The yellow-billed cuckoo is insectivorous and lives in riparian woodlands (USFWS 2014).Reports of individual cuckoos have been very rare in recent decades,with only three known reports since 2000,these being near Lind (Adams Co.) in 2001,near Eureka(Walla Walla Co.) in June 2007, and from Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge (Stevens Co.) in June 2012. Habitat loss and pesticide use are thought to be two of the main causes for the precipitous decline of western yellow-billed cuckoos.Agriculture, grazing, reservoir construction, flood control, urbanization, and other factors across the West have caused the large-scale loss and degradation of lowland riparian forest, which is the cuckoo's primary habitat. It is expected that the action area contains unsuitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 13 HUMPBACK WHALE j Exploitation of humpback whales from commercial whaling continued until 1966, leaving their numbers severely depleted. Listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, a North Pacific stock is known to occur seasonally off the Washington coast (Calambokidis et al. 2000, 2001). In 2012, a humpback ventured into the Hood Canal and was spotted south of the Hood Canal Bridge; however, a humpback whale would be a rare visitor to the action area. LEA THERBACK TURTLE The Leatherback is listed as endangered throughout its range (Federal Register, June 2, 1970). There are no nesting sites in Washington State, though leatherbacks have been reported feeding as far north as British Columbia(NMFS 1998). There is no critical habitat for the species in Washington State. The most pelagic of sea turtles, it is unlikely that leatherbacks will be found in the action area. PUGET SOUNDIGEORGL4 BASIN ROCKFISH DPS In 2010,the NMFS listed the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (distinct population segment)of bocaccio rockfish as endangered and yelloweye rockfish as threatened (NOAA 2014). In 2017,the Puget Sound canary rockfish was delisted. In August of 2013,NMFS proposed designation of critical habitat for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish DPS. On November 13, 2013,NMFS finalized critical habitat for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish distinct population segment(DPS). The proposed critical habitat includes specific shoreline and deepwater areas of Hood Canal. When bocaccio reach a size of 1 to 3.5 inches(3 to 9 centimeters) or 3 to 6 months old, they settle into willow, intertidal, nearshore waters in rocky, cobble and sand substrates with or without kelp (Love et al., 1991; Love et al., 2002). This habitat feature offers a beneficial mix of warmer temperatures, food, and refuge from predators(Love et al., 1991). Unlike bocaccio,juvenile yelloweye rockfish are not typically found in intertidal waters(Love et al. 1991; Studebaker et al. 2009), but are most frequently observed in waters deeper than 98 feet(30 meters)near the upper depth range of adults (Yamanaka et al., 2006). Rockfish are iteroparous (i.e.,have multiple reproductive cycles during their lifetime) and are typically long-lived (Love et al., 2002). Puget Sound rockfish are long-lived species with Yelloweye rockfish living more than 100 years and bocaccio over 50 years.Depth is generally the most important determinant in the distribution of many rockfish species of the Pacific coast(Chen, 1971; Williams and Ralston, 2002; Anderson and Yoklavich, 2007;Young et al., 2010). Adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio generally occupy habitats from approximately 30 to 425 m(90 ft to 1,394 ft) (Orr et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002). Adult yelloweye and bocaccio prefer habitats within and adjacent to areas that are highly rugose (rough). These are benthic habitats with moderate to extreme steepness; Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 14 complex bathymetry; and/or substrates consisting of fractured bedrock, rock,and boulder-cobble complexes(Yoklavich et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002; Wang, 2005; Anderson and Yoklavich,2007). In Puget Sound, adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio have been documented in areas with non-rocky substrates such as sand, mud, and other unconsolidated sediments(Haw and Buckley, 1971; Washington, 1977; Miller and Borton, 1980). Currently,NOAA Fisheries reports that there is insufficient information regarding the habitat requirements of larval yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio to determine which features are essential for conservation, and they have not designated specific critical habitat for this life-stage. Critical habitat at the project site for juvenile bocaccio occurs from the shoreline from extreme high water out to a depth no greater than 30 m (98 ft) relative to mean lower low water. In the action area,there is also deepwater critical habitat for juvenile and adult yelloweye rockfish, and adult bocaccio,which occurs from depths greater than 30 m (98 ft). It is probable that rockfish may be found in the action area. HOOD CANAL SUMMER RUN CHUM ES Summer chum are the earliest returning chum salmon stocks in the Hood Canal, spawning from mid-August through September. Unlike most other anadromous salmonids, chum migrate almost immediately to marine waters after hatching. Eelgrass beds are probably the main migration corridor for juveniles,providing both forage opportunities and refuge from predation (Simenstad et al. 1982). Critical habitat in the action area includes rearing, foraging, and migration habitat. It is expected that adult and/or juvenile summer-run chum may be found in the action area. CHINOOK SALMON ES U The majority of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound area exhibit an ocean-type life history and migrate to the ocean within their first year. Factors contributing to the Chinook's decline include widespread migratory blockages and degradation of freshwater and marine habitat,with many upper watersheds affected by poor forestry practices and the mid- and lower-watersheds affected by agriculture and urbanization. Commercial and recreational fishing are also partly responsible for the decline in native Chinook abundance, along with predation by non-native species, marine mammal or bird predation in areas of dwindling salmon run-size, competition from hatchery fish, and natural environmental conditions such as floods and droughts that reduce already limited spawning, rearing, and migration habitat. Hood Canal is critical habitat, and the action area includes foraging and migration habitat. It is expected that adult and/or juvenile Chinook salmon may be found in the action area. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 15 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD DPS The steelhead has the most complex life history of any Pacific salmon. Steelhead usually spend two to four years in their home stream before heading to marine waters, and are known as a rainbow trout if they remain in freshwater. Steelhead remain in saltwater for approximately three years, then return to their home stream to spawn. Iteroparous,they are capable of spawning more than once,and some will spawn a second or third time before dying. Habitat utilization by steelhead in the Puget Sound area has been dramatically affected by large'dams and other manmade barriers in a number of drainages, including the Nooksack, Skagit, White,Nisqually, Skokomish,and Elwha river basins (USFWS 2013). In addition to limiting habitat accessibility, dams affect habitat quality through changes in river hydrology, altered temperature profile, reduced downstream gravel recruitment,and the reduced recruitment of large woody debris (USFWS). Hood Canal is designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound steelhead and the action area includes foraging and migration habitat. GREENSTURGEON The green sturgeon,which is native to the Pacific Ocean, can reach 7 feet(210 cm) in length and weigh up to 350 pounds(154 kg). Bottom feeders,they are an ancient fish that has a cartilaginous skeleton and large bony plates instead of scales. The ecology and life history of green sturgeon have received little study, evidently because of the generally low abundance, limited spawning distribution, and low commercial and sport fishing value of the species(Moyle 2002). Critical Habitat for the green sturgeon does not include the Puget Sound or the Hood Canal. The extent to which Southern DPS sturgeon use Puget Sound is unknown (NMFS 2002). Although the shoreline at the proposed project site has not been designated Critical Habitat, it is possible that the proposed project site may be utilized by foraging or migrating Southern DPS green sturgeon. KILLER WHALE Orcinus orca is the largest member of the dolphin family. Their life span in the wild is between 30 and 50 years. Males average 23 feet in length and weigh 7 to 10 tons. Females average 21 feet and 4 to 6 tons. They are found in all oceans of the world, but are most common in the Arctic and Antarctic or on the west coast of Canada and the United States. Orcas are highly social and travel in pods that usually consist of 5 to 30 adult and juvenile whales. Pods are led by females. On November 29, 2006,NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat for the Southern Resident Pod distinct population segment(DPS). Hood Canal has not been designated as critical habitat. A Transient pod has visited Hood Canal several times over that past few years and consumed large numbers of harbor seals, so it is possible that they may be Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 16 found foraging in the action area. It is also possible that the resident pod could be found in the action area. 5.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions 5.1 Action Area The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions,to which the effects of the proposed action are then added. The environmental baseline is defined as"the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, and private actions and other human activities in the action area,the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or informal section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process" (50 CFR 402.02). The proposed project site is in WRIA 16,on Hood Canal in Mason County. The majority of the fresh and marine waterbodies in WRIA 16 suffer from water quality issues. Hood Canal is listed on the state's 2012 Water Quality 303(d)-5 list of impaired waterbodies for the following parameters: bacteria, pH,and dissolved oxygen (low). The Hood Canal is a glacial-carved fjord that runs 63 miles from its mouth at Admiralty Inlet to Lynch Cove at Belfair. The canal averages 1.5 miles in width and has a mean depth of 177 feet and a maximum depth of 600 feet. Several factors, including the canal's great depth,poor water circulation, and the input of nutrients have resulted in its lowest concentrations of dissolved oxygen in recorded history. Algae appears to be a primary culprit.Huge algae blooms fueled by warm weather and nutrients from leaking septic tanks, fertilizer runoff, etc., eventually die then decompose, a process that consumes significant amounts of oxygen. Another problem, impacting fish passage in area streams, is aggradation. To the south, several streams including Eagle Creek, Lilliwaup Creek, Little Lilliwaup Creek, and Sund Creek are aggraded with alluvial sediments, likely due to impacts from upstream development and logging. Other Hood Canal rivers and streams along SR 101 are heavily aggraded, as well. 5.2 Proposed Project Area A field investigation was conducted in January of 2021, and the project area was surveyed visually on foot. The tide was the higher of low tides that day, but the work area was viewable. The proposed project site is located on a 0.74 acre lot at Ayock Beach, a residential neighborhood that is located on a large cuspate spit. The north and south shores of the spit are approx. a quarter mile in length. The subject property is located at the spit's apex and features shoreline on both the north and south shores of the spit. The Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 17 applicant's existing bulkhead adjoins to the adjacent bulkhead to the south and continues to the spit's apex (approx. 56'),where it turns to the north and continues approx.twenty- seven feet(27'). At the end of the concrete bulkhead, a temporary, approx. seven-foot wood bulkhead section has been affixed flush to the backside of the concrete bulkhead to alleviate erosion that is cutting behind the structure. An old, decomposing log embedded into the bank landward of the bulkhead has been exposed by tidal waters. Landward of the log there is a narrow grassy area. There is only a few feet(at the closest point), between pier posts of the residence's deck and the eroding shoreline. An existing, approx. forty-foot(40')anchored woody debris log, located about five feet north of the wood bulkhead section, appears to be only marginally effective at alleviating erosion. In aerial photographs (Google Earth 2018, WDOE 2016),all properties along the spit's south shoreline appear to be protected by bulkheads, while all properties along the north shoreline for approx. 0.15 mi. northward of the spit's apex appear to be unbulkheaded with the exception of the subject property. It is expected that Ayock spit is subjected to severe erosion at its apex during strong south and north winds. The slope of the upper beach at the proposed project site is steep at the spit's apex but decreases moving southward and northward. The substrate consists primarily of pea gravel and shell hash. Several small pieces of basalt rock were observed, along with two concrete blocks.Further waterward,the mid and lower littoral zones were underwater and unobservable.No eel grass, kelp, or other macrophytes were observed. 6.0 Effects of the Action 6.1 Direct Effects Direct effects are the immediate effects of the project on the listed species and their habitats (FWS &NMFS 1998). The direct effect to the project site from the proposed project will be the alteration of littoral habitat from the removal of the existing protruding concrete bulkhead section and six concrete p lus the installation of a concrete pilings, repair to the existing concrete bulkhead in an area that is critical habitat for several previously discussed ESA listed species.Regional studies suggest a broad range of potential effects of erosion control structures on Puget Sound shores(WDFW 2014). In general,these can be categorized as follows (in bold type) by the WDFW's Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines(WDFW 2014): Loss of upper beach and backshore. Even when built high on the beach profile, seawalls typically eliminate a narrow zone of the high tide beach. On Puget Sound, this may result in the absence of accumulated drift logs and beach wrack and the loss of dry beach at high tides,which may in turn reduce the area available for forage fish spawning(Penttila 2007)and for recreation. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 18 I Shoreline armoring is believed to affect physical processes in many ways, primarily by causing beach narrowing, sediment coarsening, and a decrease in the natural sediment supply from eroding bluffs (Ruggiero 2010). Shoreline armoring also is thought to affect biological processes through loss of upper intertidal habitat, changes in sediment composition, and decreased organic input. A recent study from 2016 has confirmed this (University of Washington 2016). The Ayock spit features low to no-bank waterfront. Historically, low-bank sites provide minimal amounts of sediments to the shoreline. Ayock spit may have been formed in the distant past by feeder bluffs; however, connectivity with any feeder bluffs was lost when State Highway 101 was installed. The bulkhead addition will inhibit damage to the existing residence at the site that could pollute Hood Canal with an unknown amount of debris. It is expected that the bulkhead addition will have an insignificant impact on the loss of upper beach and backshore as the volume of sediments impounded by the bulkhead addition will be minimal, due to the no-bank elevation of the site. In addition, proposed mitigation will include the addition of forage fish spawning gravel along the length of the upper beach at the site, as per the WDFW's HPA stipulations, to restore sediments lost due to wave refraction from the bulkhead's presence. The presence of the bulkhead is expected to reduce the amount drift logs and beach wrack at the site. Approximately forty feet of the applicant's shoreline will remain unbulkheaded. The applicant's adjacent property is also unbulkheaded. Aquatic-terrestrial connectivity. Armor modifies the natural transition between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This can affect movement of materials and organisms between systems, reduce the quality of riparian functions,and introduce discontinuities to this narrow ecotone and ecological corridor. Structures also tend to result in alterations to the pattern of natural drainage to the beach. The residential community of Ayock Beach and State Highway 101 act as barriers between the beach and large native vegetation, bluff sediments, and other habitat materials and organisms. The bulkhead addition will include drainage and therefore is unlikely to impact existing drainage to the beach. The presence of the highway and the Ayock Beach community may have previously altered the natural drainage of streams in the area. It is expected that the bulkhead addition will have an insignificant impact on aquatic-terrestrial connectivity, as it has been previously modified to the detriment of the marine estuarine ecosystem in the area. Sediment delivery and transport. Seawalls on coastal bluffs stop the natural erosion of feeder bluffs,thereby reducing the delivery of sediment to the littoral system and reducing the overall budget of the local littoral cell. Bulkheads that encroach across the beach,either because of their original construction,or because of subsequent erosion of adjacent shores(passive erosion), may act as groins, Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 19 impeding longshore transport of sediment and leading to localized erosion on down- drift properties. A WDFW document claims that eroding coastal bluffs are the primary source of beach sediment on most Puget Sound beaches(Keuler 1988, Johannessen and MacLennan 2007). However, a 2011 report by the U.S. Geological Survey claims that rivers and streams contribute seventy percent of sediments to Puget Sound,while shoreline erosion contributes only thirty percent. Whatever the case,the presence of Hwy 101 has isolated the spit at the project site from potential sources high-bank bluff sediments. As previously noted,the proposed project site is no-bank. Ayock spit features low to no- bank waterfront. Historically, low-bank sites provide minimal amounts of sediments to the shoreline. Additional direct effects to the shoreline along the Hood Canal in the action area includes the following: Loss of intertidal benthic habitat from the bulkhead addition Some benthic aquatic invertebrates at the project site will be impacted by substrate disturbance and displacement when the existing bulkhead is augmented in length by thirty-four feet, which will occupy approx. 34 sf of benthic habitat. Species that live in or utilize the benthic zone and its substrate,including Oligochaetes, nematodes, and terrestrial amphipods and isopods are expected to be negatively impacted during construction. This could result in reduced feeding opportunities for juvenile salmonids and rockfish. However, the new bulkhead section will be installed on a landward path relative to the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot piece of large woody debris, so it is expected that the impact to benthic habitat will be minimal. 6.2 Temporary Direct Effects Temporary direct effects caused by the construction process include: *Noise *Increased turbidity in Hood Canal due to disturbed substrate from the bulkhead repair •Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 20 Noise The main source of construction noise will be the operation of a circular saw. The proposed project site is located in a residential neighborhood that is backed by a state highway, so it is expected that the terrestrial noise from a skill saw will not be more excessive than noise normal to the neighborhood. No in-water work will occur. Therefore, underwater noise will not be a factor. Increased turbidity in Hood Canal Increases in turbidity will be temporary and are expected to have discountable and insignificant effects on listed species and their critical habitat and other aquatic species in the action area as no in-water work will occur. Salmonids have been observed to move laterally and downstream to avoid turbidity plumes(Sigler et al. 1984, Lloyd 1987, Scannell 1988). Juvenile salmon are mobile, so it is possible that they will avoid the areas of disturbance and not be impacted, as it seems reasonable to assume that they are subject to encountering turbidity that results from natural sediment recruitment processes. It has also been suggested that turbidity can be used by juvenile salmon as a protective cover (Gregory and Northcote1993). Turbidity may be generated after tidal waters cover the work site and contact disturbed beach sediments. Work will occur during low tide (when the work area is dry) and the resulting turbidity is expected to be far less than turbidity common to the area during storm tides or from turbid runoff from nearby streams and drainages. Potential water pollution Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants, including concrete, is another possible temporary direct effect of the proposed project. As previously discussed,BMPs and Spill Prevention Control measures will be implemented during construction in order to maintain the present water quality of the Hood Canal and prevent pollution. 6.3 Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur(50 CFR 402.02). Regional studies suggest a broad range of potential effects of erosion control structures on Puget Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 21 Sound shores (WDFW 2014). In general,these can be categorized as follows (in bold type)by the WDFW's Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines(WDFW 2014): Passive erosion. Most shores in Puget Sound are naturally eroding. A seawall or g Y g revetment may effectively stabilize the area landward of the structure, but does nothing to address the underlying retreat of the beach face or shoreline,which will continue on the seaward side of the structure(Fletcher et al. 1997, Griggs 2005). With time this results in narrowing of the remaining beach, the loss of the upper beach, and increased interaction of the structure with waves. This is a significant impact of armoring, but one that may take many decades to appear. As previously noted, the slope of the upper beach is steep at the spit's apex but decreases moving southwest and northwest. This is observable in Attachments (3 & 11). Cuspate spits (or forelands) are formed where two drift cells meet from opposite directions and deposit sediment in a formation extending away from the shore to a seaward point (EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group 2007). These are triangular depositional features,with straight or concave shores extending out to a seaward point(Uda 2005). They are typically formed by the convergence of two drift cells from opposite directions, often at the narrowest part of an inlet or large bay;these landforms may be migrating in one direction, with erosion typically occurring on the south side and deposition on the north (Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. 2007). The cuspate spit at the site is located approx. 0.6 mi. south of the narrowest part of the Hood Canal (1.15 mi.) between the Great Bend and Bangor. Erosion is noticeable at the south end of the bulkhead, running southward.Moving northward, sediments begin to accrete along the toe before the bulkhead moves onto the north side of the spit. There, sediment deposition is significant and the toe is completely buried. It seems probable that the steeping of the beach at the spit's apex on the site is the result of wave action from the convergence of the two littoral drift cells and longshore drift driven by opposing wind directions. The severe erosion observed landward of the north end of the bulkhead is the result of wave action on the unprotected shoreline and wave refraction off the back of the bulkhead. It is expected that the bulkhead addition will not significantly exacerbate passive erosion at the site, if drift continues to deliver a consistent supply of sediments. The perennial stream located approx. 0.25 mi. to the south is likely a consistent source of sediments due to upstream development and logging. The project will also result in a one-time addition of sediments to the beach. 6.4 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the action subject to consultation" (50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative impacts are difficult to Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 22 access. Continued growth and urbanization is likely to detrimentally impact fish and wildlife resources. Global warming could raise the water level of Puget Sound, leaving many waterfront properties underwater. Over-fishing may deplete stocks of salmon,even as restoration of habitat in the watershed furthers their likelihood of survival. 7.0 Conclusion 7.1 Take Analysis Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species, "take" being defined in Section 3 as to harass, harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed species by"significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing,migrating, feeding, and sheltering" (50 CFR 222.102). "Harass" is further defined as an intentional or negligent act which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include,but are not limited to, breeding, feeding,or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). In regards to the proposed project, it is extremely unlikely that any"take"will occur. The previously discussed conservation measures will further insure the likelihood that no "take"will occur. 7.2 The No Net Loss Standard The Shoreline Management Act(SMA)provides a broad policy framework for protecting the natural resources and ecology of the shoreline environment. The SMP Guidelines establish a standard of"no net loss" of shoreline ecological functions as the means of implementing that framework through shoreline master programs. WAC 173-26-186(8) directs that master programs"include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions." The SMP must include regulations that require developers to follow mitigation sequencing: avoid impacts,minimize impacts,rectify impacts,reduce impacts over time, compensate for impacts, monitor impacts and take corrective measures.No Net Loss is achieved through the application of restoration and mitigation. Simply stated,the no net loss standard is designed to halt the introduction of new impacts to shoreline ecological functions resulting from new development(WDOE 2017). Both protection and restoration are needed to achieve no net loss (WDOE 2017). *Avoid impacts—Untreated Alaska yellow cedar will be used instead of pressure treated lumber for shoreline access steps, pier, and float. Existing concrete beach access steps will be removed. •Minimize impacts—approximately forty feet of the applicant's shoreline will remain unbulkheaded. The new bulkhead section will be installed on a landward path Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 23 relative to the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot anchored woody debris log. *Rectify impacts—existing concrete blocks along the existing bulkhead's toe will be removed from the beach. The new bulkhead section will be located landward of the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot woody debris log. *Reduce impacts over time—the new bulkhead section will be located landward of the existing wood bulkhead section and the approx. forty-foot woody debris log. •Compensate for impacts—see restoration. •Monitor impacts and take corrective measures—in the event the new bulkhead section causes the beach to erode, restoration measures will be implemented (see restoration). *Restoration—the eroded beach toe that fronts the existing concrete bulkhead will have forage fish spawning gravel spread along the length of it to restore sediments lost due to wave refraction from the bulkhead's presence, as per the WDFW's HPA stipulations. 7.3 Determination of Effect A determination of May affect, not likely to adversely affect is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species or their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. After reviewing the appropriate data and survey information, I have concluded that the proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or Threatened species if the previously discussed conservation measures are implemented.In my most honest and professional opinion, while the proposed project may impact individual Endangered or Threatened species in the project area, it is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their designated Critical Habitat. The determination of effect for each of the listed species is: 1. Puget Sound chinook and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 2. Hood Canal summer-run chum and their designated Critical Habitat--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 3. Puget Sound Steelhead and their designated Critical Habitat--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 4. Leatherback turtle—No effect. S. Humpback whale—No effect. 6. Killer whale---No effect. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 24 7. Bull trout and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 8. Marble muff elet No effect. 9. Green Sturgeon No effect. 10. Puget Sound Rockfish and their designated Critical Habitat Nay affect, not likely to adversely affect. 11.Northern spotted owl--No effect. 12. Streaked horned lark--No effect. 13. Streaked horned lark and their designated Critical Habitat No effect. I Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 25 8.0 References Literature Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 170/September 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 70,No.185/September 26, 2005/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 176/September 12, 2006/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 229/November 29, 2006/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 200/October 18, 2010/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/77 FR 14062/March 8,2012/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 192/October 3, 2013/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/78 FR 2725/January 14,2013/Proposed Rules Federal Register/78 FR 47635/August 6,2013/Proposed Rules Federal Register/79 FR 68041 November 13, 2014/Rules and Regulations Google Earth. 2018. Aerial Imagery. Internet report. URL: https://www.gongle.com/earth/ Angell, T. and K.C. Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Bards and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Brodeur, R.D., K.W. Myers, and J.H. Wells. 2003. Research Conducted by the United States on the Early Ocean Life History of Pacific Salmon.North Pacific Anadromous Fish Comm. Bull. 3: 89-131. Czuba,J.A., Magirl, C.S., Czuba, C.R., Grossman, E.E., Curran, C.A., Gendaszek,A.S., and Dinicola, R.S.,2011, Sediment load from major rivers into Puget Sound and its adjacent waters: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-3083,4 p. Druehl, Louis D. 2000. Pacific Seaweeds.Harbour Publishing, Madeira Park, BC Canada. EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. 2007. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound. An Interim Guide. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 26 Internet report. URL: https://Cms.cityoftacoma.org/Planning/Shoreline/Articles Studies/nearshore interim gui de.pdf I Gilbert, C. and Williams J. 2002.National Audubon Society Field Guide to Fishes, Alfred A Knopf, Inc.New York. Groot, C. and L. Margolis(eds.) 1991.Life history of Pacific salmon, UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Finlayson, D. 2006. The Geomorphology of Puget Sound Beaches. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006-02. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Hart, J.L. 1973.Pacific Fishes of Canada, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-04. Published by Seattle District,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. Hirschi, R., T. Labbe, and A. Carter-Mortimer. 2003. Point No Point Treaty Council Technical Report 03-1—Shoreline Alterations in Hood Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. Internet report. URL: https://pnptc.org/PNPTC Web data/Publications/habitat/PNPTC Shoreline Alterations Report.pd f Johannessen,J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-04. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Johannessen,J., A. MacLennan, A. Blue, J. Waggoner, S. Williams, W. Gerstel, R. Barnard, R. Carman, and H. Shipman, 2014. Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Leigh,M. 1996. Grow your own native landscape: a guide to identifying, propagating, and landscaping with Western Washington native plants. Washington State University Cooperative Extension/Thurston County, Olympia, WA. Mason County, Washington. 2018. Mason County Resource Ordinance. Internet report. URL: https:Hlibrary.municode.com/wa/mason county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=TIT8 EN PO Mason County, Washington. 2021.Assessor-Treasurer Electronic Property Information Profile. Internet report. URL: http://property.co.mason.wa us/Taxsifter/Search/results aspx`'q=42307 50 00025 Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 27 MET Engineering, PLLC. 2021. Thompson engineered drawings, 11-10-20. Unpublished document. 3 p. National Geographic. 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America.National Geographic Society, Washington,D.C.pg. 226. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Endangered Species Act- Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation; Rick and Mary Ann Kirkby Bulkhead Project Kitsap County, Washington. Internet report. URL: tile:///C:/Users/Kim%20S/Downloads/F13661-200703106 krkby bulkhead 02-11- 2009.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014.Distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species. Internet report. URL: _http://www.nwr.noaa.gov National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Bocaccio rockfish. Internet report. URL: http//www.nmfs.noaa. ovg /pr/species/fish/bocaccio.htm National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Bocaccio rockfish. Internet report. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sgecies/fish/yelloweye.htm NOAA. 2003.Non-Fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Recommended Conservation Measures. Version 1. Internet report. URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.g_ov/salmon-habitat/salmon-eth/upload/efh-nonfishing.pdf NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Fisheries agency lists Puget Sound killer whales as endangered. Internet report. URL: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2533.htm NOAA Fisheries. 2006. Proposed critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales. Internet report. URL: -http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/Whales-Dolphins- Porpoi se/K i l ler-W hal es/ES... NOAA. 2014. Ten Years of Research, Southern Resident Killer Whales and Conservation. Internet report. URL: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/killer whale re12ort/pdfs/bigreport62514.pdf NOAA Fisheries. 2016. Puget Sound Steelhead. Internet report. URL: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected species/salmon steelhead/salmon an d steelhead listings/steelhead/pint sound/pug_et sound steelhead.html NOAA. 2020. Endangered and Threatened Marine Species. Internet report. URL: http://www.nmfs.iioaa.gov/pr/species/esa/ NOAA. 2020. Tide predictions for Union,WA. Internet report. URL: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tides09/tab2wc 1 b.html. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 28 Osborne, R.,J. Calambokidis, and E.M. Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers, Anacortes, WA. 191 p. Penttila, Daniel E. 1995. Spawning areas of the Pacific herring(Clupea), surf smelt (Hypomesus), and the Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes) in central Puget Sound, Washington. Wash. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Manuscript Report. Ruggiero,P., 2010, Impacts of shoreline armoring on sediment dynamics, in Shipman, H., Dethier, M.N., Gelfenbaum, G., Fresh,K.L., and Dinicola,R.S., eds., 2010, Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring—Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010- 5254,p. 179- 186. Skokomish Indian Tribe & Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Recovery Plan for Skokomish River Chinook Salmon. Internet Report. URL: http://hccc.wa.�;ov/Downloads/Downloads GetFile aspx?id=397519&fd=0 Toft,Jason D. 2008. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring at Seahurst Park 2008, Year 3 Post-Restoration of Seawall Removal. Internet report. URL: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.or�z/c5ed/t7561 e41043bd849ca04afl 1 ef36da9278a9 pdf Washington State Department of Ecology. 1977. Shoreline Photo Viewer. Internet report. URL: https://fortress.wa. og_ v/ec /shorephotoviewer/ Washington State Department of Ecology. 2020. Coastal Atlas. Internet report. URL: https://fortress.wa. og v/ecy/coastalatlas/Default Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. Stormwater Manual For Western Washington, Volume lI, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. WDOE Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. 6pp. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. 2012 Water Quality Assessment 303(d) List: Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA 16). Internet report. URL: http://www.ecy.wa. o�v/pro.rams/wq/303d/currentassessmt html Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Forage Fish Spawning Map— Washington State Internet report. URL: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html`?id=I 968f74e2d41470cbd80b 1 af8dedd6b3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Species of Concern in Washington State. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 29 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/marbled murrelet.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Annual Report: Streaked Horned Lark. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endan eg red/species/streaked horned lark.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping application. Internet report: URL: http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app 1/fpars/viewer.htm Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. BA Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training Manual—Version 4-02-2014. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A 1 F85352-90E0-457B-9A8C- B5103E097FAE10/BA manualpart2.pdf Washington State Legislature. 1994. WAC 220-220-285 Single-family residence bulkheads in saltwater areas. Internet report. URL: http://app.letz.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-110-290 Washington State University. 2010. Spotlight On...Shoreline Planting. Internet report. URL: https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2144/2015/03/Spotli�,-ht-on-Shoreline- Planting pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Published by USFWS, Portland, OR. Internet report. URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery plans/]997/970924.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus). Volume 11 (of 11): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 277 +xvi pp U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Profile, Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/mm/m murrelet.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Guidance for Identifying Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees in Washington State. Internet report. URL: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2D97D3 D8-D448-43A7-8249- E2319095C 8C2/0/MAMUhabitatF W S.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Season and Analytical Framework for Section 7 Consultation in Washington. Internet report. URL: Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 30 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov[NR/rdonlyres/F3847D4F-BF 1 C-476C-8E9D- A45A715 B624C/0/CoverLtrNestingSeason pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Fischer,Martes Pennanti. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/Fisher%20Spec ies%2OProfi le%20Fin al.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Streaked Horned Lark, Eremophila alpestris strigata. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/spec ies/Fact%20sheets/streakedhorned larkfinal.pd f U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Endangered species and critical habitat list. Accessed 02-04-20. Internet report. URL: _https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/ University of Washington. 2016. UW News. Internet report. URL: https://www.wasli ington.edu/news/2016/04/18/first-salish-sea-wide-shorel ine-armoring stud y-shows-c um u l at i ve-effects-on-ecosystem/ Wikipedia. 2020. Hood Canal. Internet report. URL: htips://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-food Canal i I I I I Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 31 - 4 & I I. � ,► ff}}J �,4s ?HOMPSON RESIDENCE k` Al Google Earth o � 0 eD O MTTYAIAP.250 NAwck Beach A.,Ulkwp,WA 96555 n °arce 0 32303-5IM1012) I y phi — C/0 �:5 ENn1NEEPoNC NOTES. 1 n co �. CD ' 1.THE.ATES B J4-CMG CODES APFU 4JltG'.VTH lE MiSON CaATY j CD r APPLCABLEBUTLLYNGCODES G/202d CD e 2 COWRESSWE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE 35M PS 16 SACK),VOTH PLASTIGZFRaNuACCEIR4TORow I •;�t bu`�4 3 UAFACT 6t1LIQ+cAD EUBGRADE OTH 2&LB VWTOR`'PLATE .• T COhFAOTOR PMR TO FGfMMG FOR BaKHEAD FOOTING t 4*TER CON ETE FORMING IS CCdFLETED If-a R SHALL BE - SCHEALED MAV LOW TIDE To PRe,'EN-SALT V ATER FROM ENTEWNGTHEFOR% 7PaXY TM Qi 44 RF9AR S INTO EXrS-W EU_gfAD c ACW,�,ft,�CONCRETE C06FFESSI'vE STRENGTH(2,%0 PSI)IN wATLEAST'2'E3.15EDDEDWTON iB:P..Kf-Ao 75AYS g it O.C.4ERM-4,LY USE SUAPSON STROW,• E -IGi STRENGTH SET-XP EPDXY =,NO CHAWES TO TMS EN NEFRAG DRAWN3'T.-I OJT PERMISSION;ROM THIS ENGNEER I :SCALE 1:4-_,-COT - ram` L 7 i FOJ G. - - .A_ .. .. --...... ..- ,30DEGREES Fd. _ ...... ._--- ' HKVGSTA9N1TY4NAlT975: c c O�R.T1fldfNSi 4CkENT MO• Lamf-Side :�5� Waier Side 4 -r7;'Cai;;!CJ6,H"2 :Mf5E;s=.;'.SM PM."'•aIN FIF'• I — /� JiF¢f✓EF}4+It!•ETa1.L FItLTCNA1Kd.t.25 Crgn;SME' �5 Co=(7-WM I I-i.+1221=X.a h, _—il'PFCAI&W EAD QWS.Sft-TWA•A FM CCSTY GF WC.=+26 P9 Rw +- f lU 44�,ER'ICiLKOARag16014-CENTER F r{:MJF BIAXFfr.Vi'.W_,=4 L) F •;2M.a 416tl,eG/�^2)=84 LBS O - L tY U��;='rNfLZONT4l TORCEY1.g11E'tTA9M-uL.e,9=`aJ r'-_ei � `U MfFY.',E STA91 iZIM'i;k76EFa M �HORZONTA1 REBAR r �1. J p2 �+ �. ' _ ,�FOUR1411NFOOTING . OC MS, (7'Alw7 l 5Y s,A4y t,:;'=; o r HNC FOUR(4)IN STEM AL, m w =T�-SM-128*FT4M w __^.T=+•+cravess�FEr.Fs ( a scAE ^'7=+FOOT ; 3-0'I Attachment 3 The south end of the existing concrete bulkhead (on the south side of the spit), located a few feet south of the blue drain hole.Notice the exposed toe. amok ------------------- ' r � r Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 34 Attachment 4 Another view of the south end of the bulkhead.Notice beach sediments beginning to accrete and cover the bulkhead's exposed toe,moving northward. mow �r �:� X Thompson Habitat Management Plan p g Page 35 Attachment 5 Another view of the bulkhead on the south side of the spit, moving northward,with the apex of Ayock spit at the seal statue(center, right).Notice the increasing accretion of sediments along the toe. Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 36 1 i 4'"f ' �' I .may � .'! .r -(� .."M , �. .4' - ' '�i`. �� t �''••� °, ^• es...to .�• N�n !•, /. a ay.° ,. C + i Amp ,'' +, /` $ ► ! la' If >;��r a'�a�t ' ysfl , �•.`Aw e � ,. .� �. .ae.� a t. Attachment 7 The north end of the bulkhead with the wood section (to be removed) and the anchored woody debris log.Notice the accretion of sediments landward of the log and the erosion landward . I'I r i ^�h :, Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 38 N � a tia -ter ' •�. - �.Z�~. '1 _,- -± A��. ` ``.. �', i � r. �. it i '. 't.� �. ..!`. � ♦ .', �`' � • '• 111 •'• 1• �MOft;,r� y ��4•.;,f, gee ,t�k.. a ' �.,. �'ti ., I Attachment 11 The moderate slope of the beach on the applicant's unbulkheaded section of shoreline at the property's extreme north end(looking northward).Notice the heavy accretion of sediments. .f Thompson Habitat Management Plan Page 42 q SHORELINE STABILIZATION REQUIRED TO PREVENT DESTRUCTION OF RESIDENCE WITHIN 3-YEARS OF THIS REPORT at 250 N Ayock Beach Dr., Lilliwaup, WA 98555 (Parcel #: 32303-50-01012 Prepared for: Robert Thompson P.O. Box 569 Chehalis, WA 98532 (360) 269-7982 e-mail: byrdthom@p-maii.com gmail.com Prepared b . MET Engineering, PLLC P Y g g� 1018 E. Wishkah St. Aberdeen, WA 98520-2937 (360) 310-0270 cell (360) 289-0958 bus. e-mail: SMortaO)aol.com Contact: Steven P. Morta, P.E. Aug. 7, 2021 Rev: Dec. 4, 2021 Rev: Sep. 19, 2022 August 7,2021 Rev: Dec.4,2021 Rev: Sep. 19,2022 Page 1 of 5 MET Engineering, PLLC 'I'o: Robert Thompson P.O. Box 569 Chehalis, WA 98532 (360)269-7982 e-mail: bvrdthomri_&Rmail.com Subject: SHORELINE STABILIZATION of the Avock Peninsula Property Located at 250 N Avock Beach Dr., Lilliwaup, NVA 98555 (Parcel #: 32303-50-01012) Scope of Review On Thursday April 8,2021 this geotechnical engineer, licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington,visited the above site to evaluate the geological conditions located at the tip of the Avock peninsula extending out into the Hood Canal as indicated on the vicinity map. The primary purpose of this site visit was to get a better understanding of the soil-water interaction that is resulting in relatively severe erosion at this residential site. Digital color photographs were taken by this geotechnical engineer and some have been included in this geological assessment report which more specifically addresses the adverse wave action on the dark,dense silty loam soils that this single-family residence rests on. Site Development The Avock community lies on a small peninsula as indicated on the attached vicinity map as shown on Sheet 1.0 and extends out into Hood Canal a couple hundred feet as indicated on the attached site plan. At the tip of this peninsula, the Robert Thompson residence is located at the nearly east tip as indicated on the vicinity map which has been attached to this geological assessment. As a result of this location there is evidence of soil erosion occurring within the backyard of the single-family dwelling. This geotechnical engineer recommends that the existing concrete bulkhead be extended in the westerly direction at least another 30+feet onto the existing north side bulkhead. This would help to protect the residential property from further soil erosion due to the adverse combination of high northerly winds and a high tide that can result in continual soil erosion on the north side of the residence. MET Engineering PLLC has already prepared a detailed construction drawing as shown on engineering Sheet 2.0 of this bulkhead extension which gets doweled into the existing bulkhead resulting in a single structural continuation of the existing bulkhead. Assessment of Regional/Site Geology The geological unit for this site is a quantenary,i.e., with a designation of qls as described in detail on engineering Sheet 1.0. It is to be noted that this residential site flat and level with little to slopes present except for some shoreline buildup as indicated on attached photos#1 through #3. It is to be noted that the geological rock base was not evident here since it has been covered with a fairly 10t8 E. Wishkah St.,Aberdeen,Washington 98520-2937 360-310-0270 c,360-289-09-b,SMorta(w;aol.com August 7,2021 Rev: Dec.4,2021 Rev: Sep. 19,2022 Page 2 of 5 MET Engineering, PLLC dense dark brown silty loam soils with an allowable soil bearing capacity of up to 750 pounds per Square foot obtained from a geotechnical pointed steel probe. Soil Description As just mentioned in the previous paragraph., the dark brown silty loam soils have been eroding away as indicated on photograph #1 and #2 where it now has taken part of the back yard away. This geotechnical engineer recommends that the existing north side bulkhead gets extended at least another 30+ feet to protect the north side of the residence from an adverse combination of high northerly winds and extremely high tide events. These dark brown silty loam soils were exposed and that this geotechnical engineer took a closer examination of these soils which was mostly a dark silty loam and,therefore,susceptible to erosion when saturated by high waves and then vulnerable to erosion in its saturated state. The approximate depth to hard, competent soils is at least 2 to 4 feet below the surface. It is to be noted that even very dense soils can become relatively soft when exposed to ground water and, in this case, the waters f Hood o 0o Canal. Assessment olRegion/Site Geomorphology,Groundwater,and Upland VVaterbodies Since this site is mostly flat and level,there was no upland geology to examine nor were there any upland water bodies such as wetlands p o ands on this flat site. The depth to groundwater is effectively just a few to several feet below the surface due to the vicinity of the Hood Canal nearby. It is to be noted that the finished floor elevation of the residence is just a few feet above average sea level and,therefore, potentially susceptible to an adverse combination of high northerly winds and high tides. Again, this geotechnical engineer recommends the extension of the north side bulkhead at least another 30+feet to help protect the single-family residence from further soil erosion. As mentioned earlier in this geological assessment an engineered bulkhead design has already been prepared and is awaiting the results of this geological assessment. Also,there was no evidence of water seepage or any springs in the area. Wave action from the Hood Canal especially from a northerly wind has resulted in shoreline erosion especially when combined with a high tide. This is another reason for the westerly extension of the existing north bulkhead to protect the existing single family residence. Significant soil erosion has occurred behind the existing concrete bulkhead located on the north side of the residence. Assessment of Vegetation The only vegetation in the area is located in the backyard of the existing residence in the form of a lawn and some landscaping. There is actually no indigenous trees or vegetation since most of the area is taken up by lawn and a single story residence. There is some local vegetation on the front side,that is the entry side of the residence. 1018 E. Wishkah St.,Aberdeen,Washington 98520-2937 360-310-0270 c,360-289-0958 b,SMorta(a aol.com August 7,2021 Rev: Dec.4,2021 Rev: Sep. 19,2022 Page 3 of 5 MET Engineering, PLLC Evaluation of Erosion and/or Flooding Issues Soil erosion due to wave action has occurred especially in the backyard region of the existing residence. An existing concrete bulkhead located on the north-northeast side of the residence currently helps to protect the backyard area. However, there is significant soil erosion that has occurred behind the existing concrete bulkhead due to an adverse combination of high tides and high winds originating from the north. A 30-foot extension of the existing bulkhead as shown on the attached vicinity map on Sheet 1.0 and doweled into the existing bulkhead has the potential of significantly slowing down the erosion occurring in the backyard area of the residence. There is the potential of flooding of the existing residence if there an adverse combination of high winds originating from the north and also an extremely high tide. The extension of the existing concrete bulkhead on the north side of the residence would help to mitigate the effects of severe soil erosion and potential flooding issues. Evaluation if Nothing is Done at this Site The existing concrete bulkhead located on the north-northeast side of the residence has been helping to protect the residence from an adverse combination of high tides and high winds. But there is visual evidence where waves have effectively worked their way onto the backside, i.e.,the residential side of the existing bulkhead. If,, for example, the existing concrete bulkhead was not extended to the west at least another 30- feet, there would be continual soil erosion of the backyard and eventually of the residential foundation itself. Eventually, the existing residence itself would become undermined by the continual wave action due to high winds especially if originating from the north and simultaneously with high tides. The residence will become uninhabitable if the bulkhead extension is not completed within 3-years of this report date. Alternative Approaches Other potential"soft engineering"solutions such as the planting of vegetation and trees along the shoreline is not feasible since the force of the waves would immediately remove them after an adverse combination of severe winds and extremely high tides. Another option,for example, is the placement of logs along the shoreline,but these would also eventually float away due to the power of the waves. It is to be noted that water weighs 62.4 pounds per cubic foot and, therefore, is extremely heavy. The proposed 30-foot extension of the existing concrete bulkhead in the westerly direction would significantly slow down the potential of severe erosion of the existing backyard and eventually the residence itself. One also needs to take into consideration the average measurable increase in sea level height which has an adverse effect on the existing concrete bulkhead and that. serious soil erosion has already occurred on the backyard side of the bulkhead. Unfortunately, the extension of the existing bulkhead is the only viable solution at this point. 1018 E. Wishkah St.,Aberdeen,Washington 98520-2937 360-310-0270 c,360-289-0958 b,SMortaCa),aol.com 1 August 7,2021 Rev: Dec.4,2021 Rev: Sep. 19,2022 Page 4 of 5 MET Engineering, PLLC Minimize Mitigation Measures It has been determined that the 30-foot extension of the existing concrete bulkhead in the westerly direction as shown on the Vicinity Map on Sheet 1.0,is the minimum necessary to help protect the residence from significant further soil erosion of the backyard and potentially protecting the foundation of the residence itself. Site Map An aerial view of the site is shown on Sheet 1.0 along with the delineation of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) which by definition is the line of permanent vegetation. This, currently is identified by the backyard lawn which currently is getting severely undermined by the continual adverse combination of high winds and high tides. Typical Cross-section showing the MHHW and the OHWM Reference is made to Sheet 3.0 that shows the typical cross-section with respect to the existing concrete bulkhead. Significant soil erosion has occurred behind the bulkhead as shown in the cross- section and is working its way back to the residence. The proposed 30-foot extension of the existing concrete bulkhead as indicated on Sheet 1.0 will significantly slow down the soil erosion that is working its way to the residence itself. No Potential of a Slide Since the residential site is nearly flat and level, there is no potential for a slide and, therefore, a follow-on Geotechnical Report is not required in this case. Also,there was no evidence of a slide within 300 feet of this residential site and as a result there are no setbacks required since there are no hazardous slopes in the area. Conclusion and Recommendations l. It is the conclusion of this geotechnical engineer that to protect the single-family residence as shown on the Site Plan, i.e.,Sheet 2.0,the existing concrete bulkhead will need to be extended at least another 30+feet as shown on the site plan. 2. Since this residential site is nearly flat and level there is no need fora follow-on Geotechnical Report and also there are no landslide hazards within 300 feet of this site, and thus, setbacks from slopes do not apply at this site. 3. This geotechnical engineer did observe that the shoreline itself appeared to be moving inland and was especially noticeable on the north side of the Ayock peninsula. Most of the time storms originate from the south-southwest but when they originate from the north, then the shoreline on the north side become vulnerable and may eventually need to provide shoreline protection like a bulkhead along the north shoreline some time in the future. 1018 G. Wishkah St.,Aberdeen, Washington 98520-2937 360-310-0270 c,360-289-0958 b,SMorta(aaol.com August 7,2021 Rev: Dec.4,2021 Rev: Sep. 19,2022 Page 5 of 5 MET Engineering, PLLC 4. It is also to be noted that if the existing bulkhead is not extended at least another 30+ feet to the west, then the backyard becomes vulnerable and that this residence will become uninhabitable within 3-years of this report,as well,from an adverse combination of northerly storm events and extremely high tidal events. 5. Even though the subsurface silty loam soils are quite dense, over time when they get saturated from wave action, they eventually will erode away since they become soft and saturated with evidence of this shown on Photos 41 and #2. The extension of the existing bulkhead will significantly slow down this soil erosion process and help preserve the backyard and eventually the single-family residence itself. 6. it is also to be noted that the mean sea level appears to be rising as determined from satellite measurements due to melting of the polar icecaps. This potentially could also affect the longterm stability of residences as noted in Note 4 above since it is located on a low-lying waterfront such as the Ayock community. 7. The new bulkhead addition will need to be doweled into the existing bulkhead using#4 rebar with a minimum of 8"embedment to ensure a positive connection to both the new and existing bulkheads and vertical spacing not to exceed 8''. This Shoreline Stabilization report has been prepared per accepted engineering practice and is only to be used for this site since other sites may vary. Any questions or comments regarding report can be addressed by e-mail at SMortai.&aol.com or by calling this geotechnical engineer directly at (360)310-0270. Respectfully Submitted, cry P. � o Steven P. Morta, P.E. (360)310-0270 a .p 3 175$ ,��►a 'csSTEaF I QNALE� `l-/?_ZOZZ 1018 E. N1'ishkah St.,Aberdeen,Washington 98520-2937 360-310-0270 c,360-289-0958 b,SMortarWaol.com ROBERT THOMPSON: GEOLOGICAL UNIT. (Tm) � r TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONA-A: A A Existing Residence Erosion of the backyard is working its way back 0 40' to the residence. 20 SILTY LOAM - - ___ - MHHW -- OHWM DENSE GLACIAL TILL TYPE SOILS vELLY SA 0' 80' 60' 40' 20, 0' 20' 40' OHWM-ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK MHHW-MEAN HIGH HIGH WATER MARK GEOLOGIC UNIT LABEL: Qls GEOLOGIC_UNIT_DE SC: Quaternar; (2.6M yrs ago to present) mass-v,asting deposits. primarily landslide deposits. but locally includes talus, coiluvium. protalus ramparts and rock glaciers includes 19'-"' debris avalanche of Mount St Helens localiv includes P iocene-%,1iocene mass-viasting deposits GEOLOGIC UNIT POLY 500K ID: 1462- GEOLOGIC-AGE: Quaternary LITHOLOGY: Pleistocene continental glacial di-:r- i Geological Unit Label: Qls (Quaternary) Prepared by MET Engineering,PLLC,1018 E.Wshkah St,Aberdeen,WA 98520-2937 (360)310-0270 cell.(360)289-0958 bus SF:1ui!a:a.-poi r.;ui;; Prepared for:Robert Thompson,Owner Apr.15,2021 Site Visit on Thurs.4-8-2021 SHEET 3.0 from 3 00 to 4.15 pm GG UI 1 I •iradl�>r .. Area of Interest AOI) Soil Data Explorer Download Soils Data Shopping Cart(Free) Printable Version) Add to Shopping Ca rtl �J��� �� • �JJYJJ =J 5cale II 4• � Alli, 40 ly ss' F _�auanuu�•r � Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Mason County,Washington (WA645) Mason County, Washington (WA645) Map Acres percent Unit Map Unit Name in of AOI Symbol AOI Cg Coastal beach, 0 to 12.3 18.2% 2 percent slopes XJ Gk Grove gravelly 16.7 24.7% sandy loam, 5 to Printable version) 15 percent slopes Hf Hoodsport gravelly 4.5 6.7% Report—Map Unit Description sandy loam, 30 to 45 percent Slopes Mason County, Washington Cg—Coastal beach,0 to 2 percent slopes Totals for Area of 67.4 100.0% Map Unit Setting Interest National map unit symbol: 2h]s Elevation:0 to 10 feet Mean annual precipitation:42 to 48 inches FOIA I Accessibility Statement I privacy Mean annual air temperature: 52 to 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 190 to 210 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Beaches,coastal: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Beaches,Coastal Setting Landform: Beaches Typical profile H1 -0 to 60 inches: Error Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Drainage class:Poorly drained Depth to water table:About 0 to 72 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated):None specified Land capability classification(nonirrigated): 8w Hydric soil rating:Yes Description—Map Unit Description it I I it z119 Mason County,Washington (WA645) Mason County, Washington (WA645) Map Acres Unit Map Unit Name in Percent of AOI Symbol AOI Cg Coastal beach, 0 to 12.3 18.2% 2 percent slopes Gk Grove gravelly 16.7 24.7% sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Hf Hoodsport gravelly 4.5 6.7% sandy loam, 30 to 45 percent slopes Totals for Area of 67.4 100.0% Interest FOIA I Accessibility Statement Privacy Policy I Non-Discrimination Statement I Information Quality I USA.gov vdnite House J Printable Version Report—Map Unit Description Mason County, Washington Gk—Grove gravelly sandy loam,5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hkn Elevation: 0 to 980 feet Mean annual precipitation:90 inches Mean annual air temperature:48 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 180 days Farmland classification:Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Grove and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations,descriptions,and transects of the mapunit. Description of Grove Setting Landform:Outwash plains Parent material: Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 -0 to 9 inches:gravelly sandy loam H2-9 to 24 inches:very gravelly sandy loam H3-24 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 m/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding:None Available water capacity:Very low(about 2.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated): None specified Land capability classification(nonirrigated):As Hydrologic Soil Group:A Forage suitability group:Sloping to Steep Soils(G002XN702WA) Other vegetative classification: Sloping to Steep Soils (0002XN702WA) Hydric soil rating: No Description—Map Unit Description n.s,.xace.aiu.ti s w -ems On Thursday April 8, 2021 this geotechnical engineer visited the above site which is located at 250 N Ayock Beach Dr., Lilliwaup, WA 98555. The primary purpose of the visit was to determine the long term stability of the engineered bulkhead addition due to the bank erosion as indicated in the photograph above. During an adverse combination of high tide and high wind conditions, waves will impact the existing concrete bulkhead as shown above and the energy of this wave will then travel around the bulkhead. This transfer of wave energy from the face of the bulkhead to the end of the bulkhead has caused severe erosion of the bank as indicated above. The primary purpose of the engineered bulkhead extension to the west is to provide additional protection for the remaining backyard and to prevent it from gradually eroding away. It is to be noted that we'll have a similar situation with the new bulkhead where the wave energy will impact the new bulkhead and then travel west to the west end of the bulkhead and potentially cause soil erosion but only further west and away from the backyard area. p �{ _ :•.� +3 �"' is� _ � ; as n tY e This photo indicates that there's a build up of smooth gravels in front of the existing bulkhead as well as in front of the wooden bulkhead as well. However, as one can see to the right of this photo severe soil erosion has caused part of the residential backyard to be eroded away. If there is an adverse combination of high winds coming from the northerly direction and a higher than normal tide, then the resulting force of the waves can potentially cause severe damage to the exposed shoreline. In this case the existing bulkhead did its job and protected most of the existing backyard but the unprotected west end of the bulkhead resulted in severe soil erosion of the existing dark brown silty loam soils. As a result, it is recommended that the existing concrete bulkhead be continued in the westerly direction at least another 30+ feet. It is to be noted that an add-on bulkhead engineered design has already been prepared by MET Engineering dated March 10, 2021. It effectively, is a continuation of the already existing bulkhead and would provide additional protection to the existing backyard and to significantly slow down the backyard erosion currently taking place. Y � ' This photo is taken from the existing bulkhead and looking west to the rest of the shoreline. It is to be noted that there is an existing system of bulkheads on the south side of this peninsula where the winds predominantly originate from. There did not appear to be any extensive shoreline erosion on the south side of the peninsula due to the presence of these existing system of concrete bulkheads. It does not readily appear that a comparable system of concrete bulkheads is not necessarily required on the north side of the Ayock peninsula since the prevailing winds normally originate from the south-southwesterly direction. 1 �.; ;`: This photo was taken on the north side of the owner's residence and it appears to indicate that fairly recent deposits on the backside of these 2 to 3-feet diameter logs had occurred due to the erosive action of the waves. Even though most of the winds originate from the south-southwest direction, there are occasions when northerlies, i.e., winds originating from the north can cause beach erosion as indicated by the granular fill behind these logs. It is to be noted the proximity of the beach erosion with respect to the edge of the deck which is only a few feet away as indicated in this photo. This geotechnical engineer recommends that the existing concrete bulkhead on the north side of the Ayock peninsula gets extended further west to prevent further beach erosion that appears to be working its way very close to the owner's deck above. Theirs is also the potential concern of the nearly imperceptible rise of the ocean level that can potentially have an adverse impact on the Ayock beach community. This photo was taken looking north toward the floating bridge direction. As mentioned earlier, the prevailing winds normally originate from the south-southwest but on some occasions one can see how northernly winds could be directed south through this part of Hood canal. In general, the Ayock peninsula juts out into the canal and can get the full brunt of the storms that even have a more adverse impact to the shoreline if a severe storm event also occurs simultaneously with a high tide occurrence. It is to be noted that there's an extensive set of concrete bulkheads lining the south side of the Ayock peninsula since the prevailing southerly winds are from this side. MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES Shoreline Stabilization Boldmq,Vlanrvnq.6wuonmenlal Health.Community Halth Note:This checklist must be submitted with a Shoreline Geotechnical Assessment and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s) who prepared it for review pursuant to the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. If an item is found not applicable, the Assessment should explain the basis for the conclusion. MCC 17.50.340 B.2. New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except as follows: a. To protect existing primary structures: i. New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, shall not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence documented by a Shoreline Geotechnical Assessment* that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by tidal action, currents, waves, or sea level rise. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical assessment shall evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization. ii. The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. This shall be demonstrated in a Habitat Management Plan as required in MCC 8.52.170(J). iii. Primary structure means the structure or the only access associated with the principal use of the property that cannot feasibly be relocated. It may also include single family residential appurtenant structures that cannot feasibly be relocated. Applicant/Owner RoefR7' _11- oQ rP,SOu Parcel # 723G,? 's76-0/0/ 2 Site Address /V 14 Y()C 1< ff EA..CN /DP, e-./WA e'ItOW6. ip ,5'Srs_ Items to be included in assessment Located on page(s): Scope of review, including landowner concerns and site assessment objectives. Discussion of site development, including the location and setback of important primary and appurtenant structures, roads and utilities. Assessment of relevant wetlands and surface water drainage and control systems. 2 Assessment of site vegetation, including species and communities present. 2 Assessment of regional/site geology, including relevant rock/soil unit descriptions, geologic history and stratigraphic correlation. Assessment of regional/site geomorphology, including the influence of wave or tidal processes in controlling sediment transport and the evolution of the site's landform. Include assessment of the drift cell sediment budget and local beach conditions. May 2018 Evaluation of erosion and/or flooding issues, including assessment of causes,and rates or timeframes associated with each issue. Include evaluation of how historic shoreline modifications near the site may have impacted patterns of erosion. Evaluation of the amount of time until primary structures or major utilities will be damaged by wave or tidal action, based on evidence of erosion rates, a slope stability analysis or other 3 geotechnical considerations if no action is taken on the site. Discussion of alternative approaches to reduce risk from erosion on the site,including the use of nonstructural measures such as drainage and vegetation,and soft shoreline techniques such as gravel berms, large woody debris,or other measures. Explain why these techniques would be infeasible or insufficient to reduce the threat from erosion. Discussion describing the proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary, placed as far landward as possible and will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 3 A site map drawn to scale which identifies property boundaries,scale, north arrow and the location of proposed development,geologic features and ordinary high water mark(OHWM).All development setbacks should be delineated and marked. Cross-section(s),identified on site map,showing both horizontal and vertical scales, and identifying important features such as: MHHW and OHWM,top and bottom of bluff, location of I upland structures and utilities, and geologic units where relevant. Supplementary photographs. id?TACK 1, STEvFN 1'; MOk rAhereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions.I also certify that the Geotechnical Assessment,dated EN P.M AGMs. 1, 20 Z 1,and entitled 5��ti F WAS y �y T,OMATOAJ ..'j &RFL/Nf YTi e1Z1$A7?Aets all the requirements of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,Shoreline ' Stabilization Section(MCC 17.50.340),and is complete and true. �p .p 30758 fCSS��NA cP- '7- Z.e� (Signature and Stamp) `MCC17.50.020 Definitions:Shoreline Geotechnical Assessment. A scientific study or evaluation conducted by a qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology,the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting,erosion,and other geologic hazards or processes,conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions,the adequacy of the site to be developed,the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development,and measures to mitigate potential site-specific and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development,including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down-current properties. Geotechnical assessments shall conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by qualified professional engineers or geologists who have professional expertise about the regional and local shoreline geology and processes. Page 2 of 2 Disclaimer. Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Assessment. ,III