Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBulkhead - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 5/20/2009 Habitat Management Plan Arcand Bulkhead Project Union, Washington For: Patti Arcand 40 E Merrimount Dr Union,WA 98592-9639 Prepared by: Kim Schaumburg Fisheries biologist, BioResources,LLC 10112 Bay View Rd. KPN Vaughn,WA,98394 (253) 884-5776 or 225-2973 Email: kimberly035(a),centurytel.net May 20,2009 Arcand Habitat Management Plan 2 Table of Contents I. Project Description A. Project Location........................................................................ 3 B. Project Description..................................................................... 3-4 C. Action Area..............................................................................4 II. Species and Habitat Information A. Species and Habitat Information..................................................... 5 B. Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Puget Sound Chinook Salmon.............................................................. 5-6 Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum...........................................................6-7 Puget Sound Steelhead.......................................................................7-8 Leatherback Turtle............................................................................8 HumpbackWhale..............................................................................8 KillerWhale....................................................................................8-9 StellerSea Lion............................................................................... 9 BullTrout..................................................................................... 9-10 MarbledMurrelet...............................................................................10 ForageFish..................................................................................... 10-11 C. Survey Results........................................................................... 11 D. Existing Environmental Conditions................................................... I 1-12 III. Effects of the Action A. Direct Effects............................................................................. 12-13 B. Indirect Effects...........................................................................13-14 C. Cumulative Effects.......................................................................14 D. Take Analysis.............................................................................14 E. Conservation Measures..................................................................15 F. Determination of Effect................................................................. 15 IV. References............................................................ .......................... 16-18 List of Attachments 1. Project location................................................................................. 19 2. Site plan........................................................................................... 20 3. Cross Section.................................................................................. . 21 4. Site Photograph....................................................................... .......... 22 5. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 23 i Arcand Habitat Management Plan 3 I. Project Description A. Project Location Section 35,Township 22N,Range 03W WRIA 14 Tax Parcel#322355202003 40 E Merrimount Dr,Union WA 98592(Attachment 1) B. Project Description This Habitat Management Plan has been submitted on behalf of Patti Arcand to facilitate approval of a proposed project to construct approximately 110 to 120 feet of new rock bulkhead along the shoreline that fronts her property,directly adjacent State Route Highway 106 east of Union (Attachment 2&3). The property is located on the Hood Canal in Mason County. Erosion to the beach toe from wave and tidal action has resulted in a substantial loss of the applicant's limited waterfront property(Attachment 4&5). SR Hwy 106,which is endangered at the site,will also benefit significantly from the proposed bulkhead. In addition,approximately ten,small to medium-sized,native trees will be preserved. The Pe ro rty s single-family residence is located on the hillside at the south side of the property, P overlooking Hwy 106 and the Hood Canal. The low bank frontage,which fronts Hwy 106, is currently unamored. Approximately 110 to 120 lineal feet of bulkhead shall be constructed using large angular rock,backed by filter fabric and 4 to 8 inch quarry spalls. One set of beach access steps shall be included. Base rock shall be keyed into the ground a minimum or 18 to 24 inches below the existing beach grade,with the maximum height to be approximately 6 feet above the existing grade. The entire length of the bulkhead shall be constructed landward of MHHW. Existing manmade debris including concrete and asphalt shall be removed from the beach,while non-native rip-rap scattered over the beach shall be utilized in the construction of the bulkhead. Existing large woody debris shall be anchored along the bulkhead. Appropriate surf smelt spawning gravel(1/16 to%4 inch pea gravel)shall be spread along the beach toe following construction,as per the HPA provisions from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. All bulkhead equipment and materials will be driven to the site. The equipment will consist of a track excavator and various hand tools. Minimal vegetation shall be disturbed(some overhanging vegetation may need to be trimmed). The WDFW's construction requirements(WAC 220-110- 285)shall be strictly adhered to: (1)use of machinery on the beach will be limited to daylight hours and confined to a 25-foot wide corridor immediately waterward of the new bulkhead face or within the stockpile area,whichever is greater. The department may permit rock to be stockpiled within fifty feet of the new bulkhead face; (2)work at the site will take place during the allowed work windows for the protection of sand lance,surf smelt,and juvenile salmonids; (3)work will not occur when the project area,including the work corridor(excluding the area occupied by a grounded barge), is inundated by tidal waters,or when tidal waters are within 30- feet of the bulkhead face; (4)excavated material will be placed within the designated work corridor and covered to prevent erosion. Excavated materials containing silt,clay,or fine-grained Arcand Habitat Management Plan 4 soil shall not be stockpiled below the ordinary high water line; (5) all trenches, depressions and/or holes created in the beach will be backfilled prior to inundation by tidal waters. Trenches excavated for the placement of the base rocks can remain open during construction, but fish must be prevented from entering the trenches(the turbidity barrier will help to fulfill this requirement); and(6)the appropriate sized gravel will be spread on the beach following construction(as per the HPA provisions). Work on the project is tentatively scheduled to begin after the receipt of all required permits and approvals. Work will be completed in less than 14 days during daylight working hours normal to a rural neighborhood. In order to maintain the present water quality of the Hood Canal during bulkhead construction, Best Management Practices will be implemented. BMPs are defined as physical,structural, and/or managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water(WSDOE). The following applicable BMPs shall be used to insure that water quality is not degraded by erosion and sedimentation from rainfall at the site. 1)All existing vegetation shall be preserved except where required to be removed for construction purposes. 2) Equipment shall be cleaned and checked for leaks,offsite and daily,before commencing work. 3) Large angular rock shall be clean before being placed on the shoreline. The following Spill Prevention Control measures shall also be followed: 1)The contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom or the applicant's bathroom will be available for workers,so that liquid or solid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. 2)The contractor shall be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous spill. 3)The contractor shall 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, small spills, such as paint or oil, shall be promptly and fully collected and disposed of at a suitable disposal site. In the event of a significant 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,Margie Shirato (360.427.2179), shall be notified immediately. C. Action Area The action area is located on the shoreline of the Hood Canal at the proposed project site. Besides the proposed project location,the action area includes the area within a one-mile radius of the site in order to account for construction related noise that may affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as either endangered or threatened; specifically, nesting or foraging marbled murrelets, Steller sea lions, killer whales, and humpback whales. Several small,non fish-bearing streams that empty into the Hood Canal are also part of the action area. The action area also includes the marine environment within a one-mile radius, in order to account for littoral drift. At high tide the disturbed substrate in the construction area will come into contact with water, resulting in increased turbidity and sedimentation that may impact listed fish. Site-specific conditions, including peat, sand, gravel,and cobble are expected to result in moderate turbidity that will be confined to a localized corridor along the shoreline. Arcand Habitat Management Plan 5 II. Species and Habitat Information A. Species Information In the proposed project area,there are nine species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as either Endangered or Threatened:the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae),the killer whale(Orcinus orca),the bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus),the Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),the Puget Sound Steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss),the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta),the marbled mun elet(Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus), the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus),and the leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea). 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. The SOC list includes only native Washington Fish and Wildlife species that are listed as State Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, or Candidates for these designations,or Federal Endangered,Threatened,Candidate,or Species of Concern. 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),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. WDFW reports that the 2002 Stock Status of the Southeast Hood Canal coho and fall chum are Healthy. These three salmonid species will not be discussed further in this assessment. Since the beach at the proposed project site is a potential forage fish spawning site(WDFW 2003),the three PHS listed species of forage fish will be discussed, due to their importance in the food chain. In addition,Mason County publishes a species of importance list. The species most likely to be found in the proposed project area include the Chinook salmon,bald eagle(Haliaetus leucocephalus),common loon(Gavia immer), Brandt's cormorant(Phalacrocorax penicillatus), great blue heron(Ardea herodias), hooded merganser(Lophodytes cucullatus),harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus),and purple martin(Progne subis). Conservation measures proposed in this report are expected/intended to minimize impacts to listed and/or unlisted species that may inhabit or utilize the proposed project site. B. Federal Threatened or Endangered Species PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON Puget Sound Chinook salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act by NOAA Fisheries in March of 1999(64FR 14308). In April of 2002,critical habitat designation for the species and 18 other ESU(evolutionarily significant units)of Pacific salmon and steelhead Arcand Habitat Management Plan 6 was withdrawn--until further analysis of the economic impacts on affected businesses, communities,and individuals--after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a NOAA Fisheries consent decree. A lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association and other plaintiffs, alleging that NOAA Fisheries Service failed to designate timely critical habitat for the 19 ESU for which critical habitat had been vacated. Ultimately,NOAA Fisheries agreed to file final critical habitat designations with the Federal Register by August 15, 2005. The designations include approximately 2,182 miles of near-shore habitat in Puget Sound and 1,683 stream miles. The boundaries of the Puget Sound ESU correspond generally with the boundaries of the Puget Lowland ecoregion. Chinook salmon are found in most of the rivers in this region. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into the Puget Sound, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Elwha River eastward, including rivers and streams flowing into the Hood Canal, South Sound,North Sound, and the Strait of Georgia in Washington State. The majority of Chinook salmon in this area exhibit an ocean-type life history and migrate to the ocean within their first year, as compared to the stream- type Chinook that reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence(Gilbert 1912, Healey 1983). Due to their early outmigration to estuarine waters, ocean-type Chinook more extensively utilize estuaries and coastal areas for juvenile rearing(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). The majority of benthic/epibenthic prey items such as amphipods that juvenile Chinook consume are associated with eelgrass and other macroalgae. In estuaries, Chinook fry are generally shoreline oriented, spending most of their time within 20 meters of shoreline(Weitkamp 2000). They have been observed utilizing nearshore areas including areas along shoreline structures, such as riprap,piers, and log rafts(Kask and Parker 1972; Ledgerwood et al. 1990; Meyer et al. 1980; Weitkamp et al. 1981; Weitkamp and Schadt 1982;Taylor and Willey 1997). Adults in marine waters forage on a large array of fish species,especially herring and sand lance(Scott and Crossman 1973). In most streams within the Puget Sound ESU,the overall abundance of indigenous Chinook salmon has declined substantially from historical levels. Factors contributing to this downward trend 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. The WDFW reports that summer/fall spawning chinook spawn in the Hood Canal. The Skokomish Chinook stock status in 2002 was rated Depressed due to chronically low natural escapements. The Mid-Hood Canal stock was rated Critical due to chronically low escapements. There is no documented presence of Chinook in the Action Area(WSDE 2007,WDFW 2003). It is possible that juvenile Chinook may utilize the shoreline at the site. HOOD CANAL SUMMER-RUN CHUM In Puget Sound,chum salmon (Oneorhynchus keta)populations have developed three genetically distinct stocks—summer, fall,and winter chum. Fall-run chums are the most prevalent, but summer runs are found in the Hood Canal,the Strait of Juan de Fuca,and in southern Puget Arcand Habitat Management Plan 7 Sound(WDFW 1994). Summer chum are the earliest returning chum salmon stocks in the Hood Canal, spawning from mid-August through September. Chum salmon spawn in the lowermost reaches of rivers and streams, generally in small to medium sized streams or tributaries to larger rivers. Like Chinook and coho, chum are semelparous, spawning once,then dying. Unlike most other anadromous salmonids,chum migrate almost immediately to marine waters after hatching. Chum,therefore,are more dependent on estuarine and marine habitats. Eelgrass beds are probably the main migration corridor for juveniles, providing both forage opportunities and refuge from predation(Simenstad et al. 1982). Historically,native chum salmon were present in nearly all coastal Washington streams. They have the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any Pacific salmon(Groot and Margolis 1991). NOAA Fisheries has identified 4 ESUs of chum salmon in Washington,Oregon, and California. The Hood Canal Summer-Run ESU was listed as threatened on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14508). This ESU,which consists of 16 historically quasi-independent populations, nine of which are presumed to be extirpated, includes chum populations in Hood Canal, in the streams of Discovery and Sequim bays on the Straight of Juan de Fuca,and in the Dungeness River; although,the existence of the latter run is uncertain(NMFS 2003). While Hood Canal Fall-Run chum stocks are generally rated healthy at this time(WDFW 2002), Summer-Run stocks reveal a continuing pattern of chronically low escapements. The Tahuya River stock, which reported no escapements in 2001,2002,or 2003, is considered extinct, as is the Dewatto River stock.The Duckabush stock, which is a native stock with wild production,has shown modest improvement in recent years,although its 2002 status rating was Depressed. Lilliwaup and Hamma Hamma stocks were rated Critical and Depressed,respectively; although,hatchery supplementation programs using Lilliwaup and Hamma Hamma Summer-Run chum as broodstock have likely contributed to a slight improvement in recent escapement numbers. The Union River stock was rated Healthy in 2002. In 2000,a hatchery supplementation program was begun with the intent of increasing the abundance of Union River Summer chum to allow for transfers of fish in order to reintroduce summer chum to the Tahuya River(WDFW 2002). The migration to the estuarine environment usually happens immediately after emergence (Simenstad 1998). Upon release,hatchery chum salmon juveniles, in inside waters(of Hood Canal and Puget Sound)actively disperse, many across open water to the opposite shore, and then passively migrate close to shore at rates that vary annually and seasonally(4-14 km per day), depending on residual surface-water outflows(Bax 1982, 1983a). Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around eelgrass beds,but change their diet to drift insects and plankton as their size increases to 50-60 mm. (Simenstad et al. 1982). Species that outmigrate at such small sizes have a strong reliance upon shallow-water habitats, especially those vegetated with algae and eelgrass, for important prey resources and shelter from predation(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). The nearest documented spawning stream for summer-run chum is the Union River,which is located approx. 11 miles to the northeast of the proposed project site. It is possible that juvenile summer-run chum may utilize the shoreline at the site. PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD On May 7`h 2007,the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Puget Sound Steelhead as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Covered under the listing are naturally spawned steelhead from river basins in the Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the eastern half of the Strait of Arcand Habitat Management Plan 8 Juan de Fuca, including more than 50 stocks of summer-and winter-run fish. The listing also covers two winter-run hatchery stocks:the Green River and the Hamma Hamma River. The steelhead,(Oncorhynchus mykiss),has the most complex life history of any Pacific salmon. Known as a rainbow trout if they remain in freshwater,steelhead usually spend two to four years in their home stream before heading to marine waters. They remain in saltwater for approximately three years,then return to their home stream to spawn. Steelhead are iteroparous and do not necessarily die as result of spawning. Some will spawn a second or third time. NOAA Fisheries has identified 15 ESU of steelhead in Washington,Oregon,Idaho,and California. The WDFW reports that the 2002 status of the Skokomish summer and winter steelhead were rated as Unknown and Depressed,respectively,while the status of the Union and Tahuya winter steelhead were rated as Unknown and Depressed,respectively. It is possible that adult and/or juvenile steelhead may utilize the shoreline habitat at the site. LEATHERBACK 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 vicinity of the proposed project site. HUMPBACK WHALE 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). Humpbacks occasionally venture into Puget Sound. Four years ago,alone whale was spotted in the waters between Point Defiance and Vashon Island(Calambokidis 2004);however, since their favorite prey is krill,a pelagic zooplankton, it is doubtful that Hood Canal would be a prime feeding area. Presently,there is no designated critical habitat for the humpback whale. KILLER WHALE On November 15`h,2005 the Southern Resident Killer whale population was listed as an endangered species. The population,which currently stands at 89 whales,experienced a 20% decline in the 1990's and is still at risk from vessel traffic,toxic chemicals,and limited prey availability,namely salmon. Recent studies reveal that killer whales are among the most contaminated marine mammals in the world. Chemical contamination leaves the whales more susceptible to disease and may cause reproductive failure. Orcimrs 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 Arcand Habitat Management Plan 9 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 whales. Pods are lead by females. On November 29, 2006,NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat for the Southern Resident Pod distinct population segment(DPS). Critical habitat includes the Summer Core Area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands, Puget Sound, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The total area comprises approximately 2,560 square miles, including all marine waters relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line at a depth of 20 feet(6.1 m)relative to extreme high water. The 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 found foraging in the vicinity of the proposed project site. STELLER SEA LION Steller sea lions are distributed throughout the rim of the North Pacific Ocean from California to northern Japan (Loughlin et al. 1984). In 1990 National Marine Fisheries Service listed the species as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In 1997 the population west of Cape Suckling Alaska was reclassified as Endangered. There are no documented rookeries for Steller Sea Lions in Puget Sound,nor has any critical habitat been established for the species in Washington State. The Steller sea lion is a transitory visitor to Puget Sound, so it is possible that the species could be found foraging in the area. BULL TROUT Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family and are native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. On November 1, 1999,the Coastal-Puget Sound population was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses all Pacific coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound. On September 23,2005,the U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the bull trout, which in Washington State includes over 1,519 miles of streams and 966 miles of near-shore marine shoreline(70 FR 56304). Bull trout and Dolly Varden look very similar and were once considered the same species. Morphological analysises have confirmed the distinctiveness of the two species in their different, but overlapping geographic distributions(Haas and McPhail 1991),but because the two species are difficult to visually differentiate,the WDFW currently manages bull trout and Dolly Varden together as"native char." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified subpopulations for which status,distribution,and threats to bull trout were evaluated. Thirty-five subpopulations were identified in the Coastal-Puget Sound. Bull Trout reach sexual maturity between four and seven years of age and have been known to live as long as 12 years. 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. Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life- history strategies(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary(or nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout Arcand Habitat Management Plan 10 spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish remain for one to four years before migrating to either a lake(adfluvial), river(fluvial), or to saltwater(Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989). The latter anadromous bull trout are the only form relevant to this assessment. The WDFW indicates that three bull trout subpopulations occur in the Skokomish River basin in the Hood Canal analysis area: the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River,the upper North Fork Skokomish River, and the Cushman Reservoir. Bull trout in the latter are restricted to an adfluvial life-history form,due to the Cushman Dam on the north fork of the Skokomish river. The South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation is considered depressed,while the remaining two subpopulations are listed as Unknown because insufficient information is available. Critical habitat for the bull trout was designated in September of 2005,and it includes 966 miles of marine shoreline in Washington State, much of it in Puget Sound(70 FR 56304). There is no documented presence of bull trout at the proposed project site(WSDE 2007, WDFW 2003). It is possible that migrating or foraging adult and/or juvenile bull trout may utilize the shoreline at the site. MARBLED MURRELET In September of 1992, USFWS listed the marbled murrelet as threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. 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. The primary threat to the species is the loss of nesting habitat due to the harvesting of old-growth forests. A life history strategy involving a relatively long life span, delayed sexual maturity,and low annual reproductive potential is also a problem. Beissinger(1995) suggests that productivity is below levels required to sustain the listed population. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated in May of 1996,but it is not located within close range of the proposed project site on the Hood Canal. The listed population size in Washington,Oregon, and California was estimated at 18,550 to 32,00 birds(Ralph et al. 1995, Nelson 1997). Marbled murrelet populations in those three states may be declining at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year. USFWS indicates that marbled murrelet utilize the Hood Canal. FORAGE FISH Forage fish represent an important link in the food chain between herbivores and predatory marine species. Pacific herring(Clupea harengus pallasi), Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus),and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus)are the foundation of fish prey supporting piscivores(consumers of fish)in Puget Sound(West 1997). These three species are also important food sources for most of the above-mentioned Endangered or Threatened species. Furthermore, surf smelt is the target of valuable commercial and recreational fisheries, while herring are an important source of commercial and sport fishing bait. Historical fishing by Indian tribes for herring and surf smelt has also been well documented(Stewart, 1977),and it remains an important part of their culture. Arcand Habitat Management Plan 11 Surf smelt spawn throughout the year,depositing semitransparent adhesive eggs on mixed sand- gravel beaches in the upper intertidal zone generally higher than +7 feet in tidal elevation. Overhanging vegetation helps egg development by providing shade that controls temperature and moisture on the beach(Pentilla 2001). As 80%of all Washington spawning has been found to occur in coarse sand and pea gravel, it is likely that substrate type and size may be the primary factor in spawning location(Nightingale& Simenstad 2001). Surf smelt feed on a wide variety of prey, including crustacea, copepods,amphipods,crab and shrimp larvae,and marine worms. Sand lance spawn in November to February,depositing adhesive eggs the size of sand grains in the upper intertidal zones of gravel-sand beaches. Spawning locations appear to be determined by the availability of sand substrate. The fine sandy beach material coats the eggs and likely serves to assist in moisture retention when they are exposed during low tides(Nightingale& Simenstad 2001). Sand lance larvae and juveniles have been found to feed in the upper water column during the day upon prey items such as copepods, crab larvae,amphipods, and diatoms (Tribble 2000). Pacific herring spawn in January to April, depositing transparent adhesive eggs on objects such as eelgrass,kelp,or rocks, predominantly in shallow water between 0 and—10 feet in tidal elevation. Larval and juvenile herring feed upon prey items such as copepods, invertebrate eggs,diatoms, barnacle and mollusk larvae, bryozoans, rotifers,and young fishes. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated and mapped critical spawning habitat for herring, sand lance,and surf smelt. A WDFW GIS map(2003) indicates that the site is a potential forage fish spawning site. C. Survey Results Field investigations were conducted on March 2, 2009 at approximately noon. The project area, which is on the applicant's property on the north side of SR Hwy 106,was surveyed visually on foot during a low tide. The weather was overcast and the temperature around forty-five degrees Fahrenheit. The proposed project area consists of approx. 110 to 120 feet of low-bank waterfront, adjacent to SR Highway 106. The slope of the beach is shallow. The substrate in the upper littoral zone, which will be impacted during the brief construction period,consists primarily of sand, gravel, and cobble,along with some non-native rock (basalt rip-rap)and asphalt. Wave and tidal action is eroding the toe of the low bank that fronts highway, endangering numerous small to medium sized native trees, including Western red cedar(Thuja plicata),red alder(alnus rubra),and Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii). The following invertebrate species were observed on the beach: barnacles(Balanus glandula)and Pacific oyster(Crassostrea gigas). The following drift macroalgae were observed: sea lettuce(Ulva spp.). D. Existing Environmental Conditions 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 Arcand Habitat Management Plan 12 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 located in WRIA 14(Water Resource Inventory Area)on a residential property with approximately 110 to 120 feet of waterfront on the Hood Canal. State Highway 106 accesses the waterfront portion of the site and is within close proximity to the all of the shoreline in the area. The majority of the shoreline along the South Shore of the Hood Canal has been developed with single-family residences that have bulkheads and docks. The Hood Canal is a glacial-carved fjord that runs 63 miles from its mouth at Admiralty Inlet to Lynch Cove at Belfair. It averages 3.8 miles in width and 500 feet in depth(Johnson et al. 1997). 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,dairy waste, and fertilizer runoff,etc.,eventually die then decompose, a process that consumes significant amounts of oxygen. In October of 2003 large fish kills were reported in the Hood Canal(USGS 2006). WDFW biologist Margie Shirato reported that a fish kill had occurred recently(June `07)near Dewatto, which is over a dozen miles northwest of the proposed project site. WRIA 14 features an extensive network of low-elevation, low-gradient streams that are dependant on precipitation and groundwater for flow,but it has no major rivers. The majority of the fresh and marine waterbodies in WRIA 14 suffer from water quality issues. The Hood Canal is on the WSDE's(Washington State Department of Ecology's)2004 Water Quality 303(d) List as an impaired waterbody for the following parameters in the vicinity of Union: dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform. Besides water quality issues and shoreline hard-armoring, it can be assumed that the existing environmental conditions in the area have also been degraded by organic and inorganic pollutants,deforestation, fishing,and other anthropogenic changes that accompany urbanization. III. Effects of the Action A. 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 will be the construction of a rock bulkhead in an area that is marine habitat for seven previously discussed salmonid species. Direct effects to the shoreline along the Hood Canal include the alteration of littoral (intertidal)habitat from the placement of quarry spalls and large angular rock on the beach. Temporary direct effects caused by the proposed project include: 1)Sedimentation and/or siltation, and turbidity in the Hood Canal. 2)Noise. 3) Water pollution from incidental release of fuel,oil,or other contaminants. 4)Damage done to the shoreline during the construction process. 1)Disturbed substrate from the installation of the rock bulkhead may result in increased turbidity and sedimentation and/or siltation,which might effect the migration of juvenile salmonids along the shoreline by creating a temporary barrier in the littoral zone. Juvenile salmonids are mobile, so it is possible that they will avoid the area of disturbance and not be impacted. Salmonids have Arcand Habitat Management Plan 13 been observed to move laterally and downstream to avoid turbidity plumes(Sigler et al. 1984, Lloyd 1987, Scannell 1988). Gregory and Northcote(1993)suggested that turbidity could be used as a protective cover by juvenile salmon. As previously discussed, BMP's will be strictly adhered to during construction in order to maintain the present water quality of the Hood Canal and prevent runoff and pollution. In order to further minimize the adverse effects,the proposed new and repair bulkhead project will not take place between March 15th and June 14th, when juvenile salmonid migration activity is high, or between September 15th and March 1 st, when surf smelt may be spawning(except within forty-eight hours after the location is inspected by an approved fisheries biologist to determine that no spawning has recently occurred). 2)The main source of construction noise will be the operation of heavy equipment. The project site is located in a rural residential neighborhood that is adjacent to a State Highway, so it is expected that the noise from heavy equipment will not be more excessive than noise normal to the neighborhood. 3) Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel,oil, or other contaminants is another possible temporary direct effect. As previously discussed, Spill Prevention Control measures and BMPs shall be implemented during the proposed project. 4)A fourth possible temporary direct effect is damage done to the shoreline during the construction process. Movement of the track excavator in the upper intertidal area will cause some beach substrate disruption. As previously discussed,to reduce this type of impact the WDFW's construction requirements shall be strictly adhered to. B. 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). Possible indirect effects from the proposed project include: 1)Scouring and steepening of the beach in front of the new hard-armored section of shoreline. 2)The loss of shoreline vegetation. 3)A reduction in the accumulation of large drift logs on the beach. 1) When waves reflect off shoreline armoring structures, particularly concrete or other types of flat-faced bulkheads,they can cause scouring and hardening of the substrate. The sediment in front of a bulkhead will gradually become coarser as wave action and littoral drift removes the finer sediment and there is no sediment available for replenishment because it is impounded behind the bulkhead(Macdonald et al. 1994). Hard-armored bulkheads cut off sediment that was once available to feed the beach,thus adversely affecting natural beach-forming processes. Impoundment of sediment landward of the bulkhead can also result in potential loss of forage fish spawning habitat and a reduction in the amount of available shallow water habitat that juvenile salmonids rely on for food or cover(including eelgrass beds),although the Pentec Report(2003) reveals that the amount of eelgrass present along the open shoreline appears to be independent of the degree of shoreline modification. Unlike concrete or wood bulkheads,the uneven surface and irregular form of a rock bulkhead is expected to dissipate some of the energy from wave action and lessen the previously discussed detrimental effects associated with hard-armoring. The proposed rock bulkhead will also be located landward of MHHW. Bulkheads located landward of MHHW cause fewer beach impacts than those at or waterward of MHHW. In addition,existing woody debris shall be P g Arcand Habitat Management Plan 14 anchored along the bulkhead to further dissipate wave energy. As per the WDFW's HPA provisions,surf smelt spawning gravel may also be spread along the bulkhead in order to restore the beach to its pre-scoured condition and create forage fish spawning habitat. 2)No native vegetation will be lost as a result of the proposed project. The bulkhead will protect existing small and medium sized native trees on the shoreline that provide shade,organic debris, and possible insect prey for salmonids. 3)Shoreline armoring can also limit the accumulation of large drift logs on the beach, as large woody debris is less likely to accumulate on beaches that have steepened due to the presence of a bulkhead(Macdonald et al. 1994). Large woody debris provide detrital input,food sources,and potential refuge for migrating juvenile salmon. As previously discussed,existing woody debris shall be anchored to the beach. C. 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 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. D. 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 and the existing development activities,it is extremely unlikely that any "take"will occur. The following conservation measures(some previously discussed)will further insure the likelihood that no"take"will occur. Arcand Habitat Management Plan 15 E. Conservation Measures 1) No Construction to take place during the prohibited work window between March 15 and June 14th,for the protection of juvenile salmonids,or between September 15th and March 1 st,when surf smelt may be spawning(except within forty-eight hours after the location is inspected by an approved fisheries biologist to determine that no spawning has recently occurred). 2) The WDFW's common saltwater technical provisions(WAC 220-110-270)and HPA provisions to be strictly adhered to. 3) Previously discussed BMPs to be strictly adhered to. 4) Existing woody debris shall be to the beach along the bulkhead face. 5) Appropriate surf smelt spawning gravel shall may be spread along the bulkhead,as per the HPA provisions from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 6) Manmade debris on the beach, including asphalt and concrete,shall be removed from the site. Non-native basalt(rip-rap)shall be utilized in the bulkhead project. F. 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. The determination of effect for each of the listed species is: 1. Puget Sound chinook May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 2. Puget Sound Steelhead--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 3. Hood Canal summer-run chum—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 4. Leatherback turtle—No effect. fect. 5. Humpback whale—No effect. 6. Killer whale—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 7. Steller sea lion—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. fect. 8. Bull trout--May affect, not likely to adversely affect 9. Marble murrelet—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. f r� %i �I I Arcand Habitat Management Plan 16 IV. References Literature Angell,T.and K.C.Balcomb III. 1982. Marine Birds 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. Druehl,Louis D. 2000. Pacific Seaweeds. Harbour Publishing,Madeira Park, BC Canada. 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.63,No. 111 /June, 10, 1998/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol.64,No. 128/July,6, 1999/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 65,No. 1 /January 3,2000/Proposed Rules 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. Harbo,R. 1997. Shells&Shelish of the Pack Northwest,Harbour Publishing,Madeira Park, British Columbia. Finlayson,D. 2006. The Geomorphology of Puget Sound Beaches. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Finlayson,D.and Shipman H. 2003. Puget Sound Drift Cells: The importance of waves and wave climate. Puget Sound Notes,Issue No.47, September 2003. Johannessen,J.W.,A. MacLennan,and A. McBride. 2005. Inventory and Assessment of Current and Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion and Accretion Areas for the Marine Shorelines of Water Resourse Inventory Areas 8&9. Coastal Geologic Services. Belllingham, WA. Pp. 46- 47. Leigh,Michael. 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. Arcand Habitat Management Plan 17 National Geographic. 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic Society,Washington, D.C.pp. 108,226. NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Biological Opinion for the Duhon New Bulkhead and Stairs Project, Jefferson County, Washinton. Unpublished report for U.S.Army Corp of Engineers. NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Preliminary findings of NOAA Fisheries' Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team for Puget Sound and Ozette Lake ESUs. NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources Division,Portland,Oregon. Unpublished report. NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Biological Opinion for the Steve West Bulkhead Replacement,Thurston County,Washington. Unpublished report for U.S.Army Corp of Engineers. NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Fisheries agency lists Puget Sound killer whales as endangered. Internet report. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2533.htm NOAA Fisheries. 2006. Proposed critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales. Internet report. http://w�Nva.n��,r.noaa.go\,/Marine-Mammals/Whales-Dolphins-Porpoise/Killer- Whales/ES... Osborne,R.,J.Calambokidis,and E.M.Dorsey. 1988. A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers,Anacortes,WA. 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. Rodrick,E.and R.Milner(technical editors). 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife,Wildlife Management,Fish Management,and Habitat Management Divisions,Olympia, WA. 17pp. Shannon,J.and W.Taylor. 2003. Monitoring Puget Sound Forage Fish Habitat: Lessons from the Redondo Seawall Mitigation and Monitoring Project. King County Department of Transportation, Seattle,WA. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Polluted Runoff(Nonpoint Source Pollution). 17 pp. Internet report. hi!p://www.epa.jzov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/Chapter6/ch6- 4.htrn1 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Shoreline Armoring Effects on Coastal Ecology and Biological Resources in Puget Sound,Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Studies,Volume 7. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2002. Net Shore-Drift in Washington State. WSDE, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Critical spawning habitat for herring, surf smelt, sand lance,and rock sole in Puget Sound,Washington. Prepared by Fish Program, Olympia,WA. pp.3,4;maps 141, 147. 1 • I Arcand Habitat Management Plan 18 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Salmon Stock Inventory of South Sound. Internet report. Website:http://wdfw.wa.gov/ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Species of Concern in Washington State. Internet report. Website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wim/diversty/soc/soc.htm Wells,D., L.Hennessee,and J Hill. 2003. Shoreling Erosion as a Source of Sediments and Nutrients Middle Coastal Bays,Maryland. Coastal and Estuarine Geology File Report No. 03-07. Maryland Geological Survey. Baltimore,MD. 12 pp. ,I i it �I I II Arcand Habitat Management Plan 19 Attachment 1 Vicinity Map. Z-d 106 Hood Canal 106) Arcand Residence N^ 40 E Merrimount Drive Manzanita Dr a�f_111­111r­ 1 I I I ' 1 I - - - - - ----r- - - - - - - - -- --- -- -- APPROX. ;* PARCEL#322355202003 PROPERTY LINE I U : a SEC35-T22N-R03W-W M. 1\ HOOD CANAL 0.00 ACRES I� ;v I P+ ^' N � 1 N I � I (D 3 BULKHEAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF LARGE ANGULAR ROCK ALONG APPROX. 110 TO 120 LINEAL FEET OF FRONTAGE, LANDWARD OF THE BANK TOE AND MHHW QUARRY SPALLS AND FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY BEHIND THE BULKHEAD. NON-NATIVE RESIDENCE LOCATED ON ROCK(RIP-RAP)THAT IS SCATTERED HILLSIDE OVERLOOKING SR HWY OVER THE BEACH TO BE UTILIZED AS SR HWY 106. 106 QUARRY SPACES. I 1 I ' APPROX. 110'TO 120' I I 1 I I I $, 1 I 1 1 I 1 EXISTING WOODY DEBRIS ON BEACH TO REMAIN. ASPHALT AND CONCRETE DEBRIS ON BEACH TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. I I 1 APPROX. N PROPERTY LINE 1 0 I I I I I I BULKHEAD PROPOSAL PROJECT NAME: ARCAND RESIDENCE °R`""NG�: 1'=20' NORTH FILE: SP/ARCAND PROJECTADDRESS: PATTI ARCAND //^� 0 � BY. KLS 40 E MERRIMOUNT DR `. ALL SITE DIMENSIONS DATE:4 03-09 L UNION,WA98592-9639 ARE APPROXIMATE PARCEL#322355202003 SEC35-T22N-R03W-W M. 0.00 ACRES 0 A. D BULKHEAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED = a OF LARGE ANGULAR ROCK ALONG APPROX. _ 110 TO 120 LINEAL FEET OF FRONTAGE LANDWARD OF THE BANK TOE AND MHHW 0 QUARRY SPALLS AND FILTER FABRIC SHALL r* BE USED BEHIND THE BULKHEAD. NON-NATIVE W ROCK(RIP-RAP)THAT IS SCATTERED OVER THE BEACH TO BE UTILIZED AS QUARRY SPALLS. �I 0 v �I 6'MAX.ABOVE GRADE HEIGHT MHHW 11.80 J Hood C a n a ! 18"MIN. BEACH GRADE 'n BASE ROCK SET BELOW FILTER FABRIC BEACH GRADE. :TNurye Q� y Twumh SINe Puk QUARRY SPALLS 0 2 EXISTING WOODY DEBRIS ON BEACH TO REMAIN. ARCAND RESIDENCE N^ ASPHALTAND CONCRETE DEBRIS ON BEACH TO BE a REMOVED FROM THE SITE. eta pr E � VICINITY MAP MAP BY MICROSOFT BULKHEAD PROPOSAL PROJECT NAME: ARCAND RESIDENCE NORTH DRAWING SCALE: NTS FILE cstARc4ND PROJECTADDRESS: PATTI ARCAND BY. S os 40 E MERRIMOUNT DR �• UNION,WA98592-9639 ALL SITE DIMENSIONS ARE APPROAMATE ` Arcand Habitat Management Plan 22 Attachment 4 The bank at the proposed project site with a vehicle pullover area alongside SR Hwy 106 in the background. WIG r ' 1 ♦ r� F Y Nv • _ c } = GJ�w., try' v •' �w� � � ♦� �`a4:s �� .=a. 404JT II� ManagementArcand Habitat The bank at the proposed project site. IL _ r r • a r