HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP2021-00005 - SEP Letters / Memos - 3/17/2021 (3)�.z saP2ol1-caxDS
51+XZOZL -0000
RE IVE D
5-711
Waterman West East Dock Re
Habitat Manage
December 11, 2020
t Plan
Site Address:
12 Beach Dr. 6999 East Highway 106
Union, WA
For:
Watermark Estate Management Services
10230 NE Points Dr., Suite 200
Kirkland, WA 98033
MARINE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS
380 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
360-385-4073
msa@marinesurveysandassessments.com
Table of Contents
1 Project Overview 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Applicant Information 1
1.3 Project Location 1
1.4 Project Description 2
1.4.1 West Dock Description 2
1.4.2 East Dock Description 3
1.5 Construction Details 7
1.6 Action Area 8
2 Species and Habitat 9
2.1 On Site Habitat Information 9
2.2 Mason County 10
2.3 State Priority Habitat & Species 10
2.3.1 Forage Fish 10
2.4 Federal ESA Species & Critical Habitat 11
2.4.1 Puget Sound Chinook 12
2.4.2 Hood Canal Summer -run Chum 13
2.4.3 Bull Trout 13
2.4.4 Puget Sound Steelhead 14
2.4.5 Rockfish 14
2.4.6 Marbled Murrelet 15
2.4.7 Humpback whale 16
2.4.8 Leatherback Sea Turtle 16
2.4.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale 16
2.4.10 Green Sturgeon 17
3 Effects of the Proposed Action 17
3.1 Direct Effects 17
3.1.1 Water Quality 18
3.1.2 Pile Driving Noise 19
3.2 Indirect Effects 20
3.2 1 S ahnonid Migratory Pathway Alteration 20
Watermark HMP MS&A I i
3.2.2 Increased Predation 21
3.2 3 Shading Impacts 21
3.2.4 Boating Impacts 22
3.2.5 Sediment Scour 22
3.3 Impacts to FEMA Floodplain 22
3.4 Cumulative Effects 23
3.5 Inten-elated/Interdependent Effects 24
4 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts 24
5 Take Analysis 25
6 Determination of Effect 26
7 Conclusions 27
7.1 No Net Loss Evaluation 27
References 28
Attachment 1. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 35
Attachment 2. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal
Summer -run Chum 37
Attachment 3. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Bull Trout 39
Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Nearshore Rockfish 41
Appendix 1. Habitat Report 42
List of Tables & Figures
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Designated Critical Habitat .... 11
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
2
West Dock Proposed Site Plan 3
East Dock Proposed Site Plan 5
Proposed East Dock Elevation View 5
East Dock Moorage Float Detail 6
WDFW Documented Forage Fish Spawning Habitat 11
FEMA Flood Map (arrows indicate docks to be replaced) 23
Department of Ecology Shoreline Photo (dated 5/24/1993) 32
Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas Map 33
Watermark HMP MS&A I ii
Figure 10. Photo of the existing West Dock 33
Figure 11. Photo of the existing East Dock (looking north) 34
Figure 12. Photo of the existing East Dock (looking east) 34
Watermark HMP MS&A I iii
1 Project Overview
1.1 Introduction
The project proposal is along a shoreline of statewide significance, within fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas (FWHCA), and is also within a FEMA 100-year floodplain. This
report addresses the FEMA Habitat Assessment requirements including an assessment of
impacts. This report has been prepared to demonstrate that the project will meet the standards for
overwater structures under Mason Country Code (MCC) 17.50.32(B) and the goals of Mason
County's Shoreline Master Program (SMP); it also includes a No Net Loss evaluation.
1.2 Applicant Information
Name: c/o Ray Nelson at Watermark Estate Management Services
Mailing Address: 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 200
Kirkland, WA 98033
1.3 Project Location
Section 33, Township 22N, Range 3W
Site Address: 6999 East State Route 106 (Site H & K), Union, WA
Parcels: 32233-50-00010 (west) and 32233-50-00902 (east) in Mason County
Latitude/Longitude:
47.348790°/-122.071061° (west pier)
47.348460°/-122.070031° (east pier)
Waterbody: lower Hood Canal
The project location is seen in Figure 1.
Watermark HMP MS&A I 1
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Service La}er Credits: Eouro:: E=ri, Maxar, GeoE}e, Earthst r Geographies, CNES,'hirbus CS, USE , USGS, h_roGRIC, IGN, ar•d the GIS User Community
Eouro- • Esri, HERE, Garmir,, USGS, InErmap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, E=riJa.pan,1','ETI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thaila": , NGCC, Op_nStreetMap
1.4 Project Description
1.4.1 West Dock Description
The proposal is to remove the existing structures which have been in place since at least 1993
and replace them with a new pier, ramp, and float within the footprint of the existing structures
(Figure 2). The proposed structures will use a more fish friendly design and materials to reduce
habitat impacts. Current structures include an existing 116'+ sectional walkway float that
extends over tidelands into Hood Canal. The shoreward end of the float abuts a low concrete
bulkhead that is set 10 ft shoreward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). There are five
(5) floating walkway sections out to three (3) finger floats. All of the floating portion of the
structure sits on the tidelands when the tide level recedes below a +4 ft MLLW tide. All of the
float sections are solid decked. All the float sections are secured by seven (7) large diameter
creosote -treated timber piles embedded into the beach. The float sections and piles are
deteriorating and need to be replaced.
The proposal is to remove all the existing float sections and creosote piles and replace them with
a new fixed pile pier, ramp, and moorage floats. The replacement structures include the
following:
• New 8' 1" x 34' pier consists of (6) 8-inch galvanized steel piles driven to refusal with
galvanized steel cap beams welded to two piles each. A new 8' 1" x 28' fully grated
Watermark HMP MS&A 12
aluminum framed pier will be bolted to the new galvanized steel cap beams. 8" tall curbs
will be installed along the length of the pier and ramp.
• The new fully grated aluminum framed ramp will connect to the new pier on the shoreward
end and rest on the main walkway float.
• There will be two (2) fully grated aluminum framed main walkway floats (measuring 8' 1"
x 54' in total) and three (3) fully grated aluminum framed finger floats (each measuring
5.5' x 20'). Walkway and finger floats will connect with heavy galvanized steel float
hinges. The floats will be secured with (5) 10-inch galvanized steel piles and include float
feet to prevent grounding on tidelands.
• The new structures will replace the existing structure in the same location and the same
configuration. No change in size, shape, or location is proposed.
• The existing boatlift and mechanical equipment will be re -installed on the new floats.
Figure 2. West Dock Proposed Site Plan
I�.I•I1•���•1:
�i1:1•�it•�~301i/.CI�
liNl /.ilti::•11••r` a.1z.)11taid
WATER SUDE
10 BE RE -INSTALLED
/
/
/
/
/
1
1
(4)
PROJECT COMM fl
THIS DOCUMENT Is PICMIEWf PROPERTY OF WATERFRONT
CONSTRUCTION INC.. NC 1! NOT TO SE USED, IN %HOIE OR N
PART. FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT 1IRIOUT THE WR1TTE N
AUTHORIZATION OF RY1TUVRONT CONSTRUCTION INC.
(3) PROPOSED
EXTERNAL 10' ►
STEEL PLES
1
1
1
I
I
(5) PROPOSED FORTS
I
(6) P8.
/ SSTTEEL PLES
1 1
1
1
1
1
I / W �'
1 / I
/ % /I/ / /
"% 1 7
/ / /!
/ / / 1
/ / / I
/ / I 1
110'f FR00 KILL 1/ '1
1(3) EXISTING JETISKI FIATS � 1 ,1
TO BE RETAINED/ 1
& RE-INSTALLEQ 4 1�`
/ \ \ .4 —
/ 1
I ...
‘'(7) (8) '(°) (10)
1 '1 11
1
0116POSED PLAN VIEW
16' 8' 4' 0' 16'
.' \
\\\
1 \ \ \
1 \ \
1 \ \ 1
EXTSRNO
PROPOSED
NET CHANGE
PIER
0 S/F
274.8 S/F
+274.8
RAMP
0 S/F
228.3 S/F
+228.3
FLOATS
1293 S/F
764.5 Si,
-508.5
GRATING
0 S/F
1173.1 S/F
+1173.1
PILING
7
11
+4
I 1II
, 1.,CONCRETEWALKWAY I 1 I
1 1 TO REMMN - -
1
11 1 .►-
04 r 1 % 11
1
1 1 1 1
11 1 1
% 1 1
I. 1 1 1
(1 1) 1'(`2) (13) (114)
1
1 j 1 1 1 11T0 INCLUDE CURDS ON 1
1 11 1 1 FIXED PER & RAMP 1
I 11 1 1 1
REVISED
I 1-21- 02o
REFERENCE 4:
WPUCANT: WATERMARK ESTATE
MGMNT SERV..
LLC
PROPOSED: DOCK/FLOAT REPLCEMENT
SHEET' 0 OF:9
NEAR/AT:
O1MG/:18-32049-A2-6H
UNION/HOOD
CANAL
OA T E: 9 -23- 2 02 0
1.4.2 East Dock Description
The proposal is to remove the existing structures which have been in place since at least 1993
and replace them with a new pier, ramp, and float within the footprint of the existing structures.
Watermark HMP
MS&AI3
The proposed structures will use a more fish friendly design and materials to reduce habitat
impacts. Current structures include an existing 26-ft fixed pile pier and 156'+ sectional moorage
float that extends over tidelands into Hood Canal. The fixed pile pier starts upland of a low
concrete bulkhead and extends a few feet seaward of the bulkhead located at the eastern edge of
the property. There are six (6) floating walkway sections out to a large moorage float. All of the
floating portion of the structure sits on the tidelands when the tide level recedes below a +5 ft
MLLW tide. The entire existing pier and floats are solid decked except for two sections of
grating on the large moorage float. All of the float sections are secured with anchors embedded
into the beach with chain and heavy ropes connecting the anchors to the float sections. The
existing pier, walkway floats, moorage float, and anchors are deteriorating and need to be
replaced.
The proposal is to remove all of the existing structures and associated anchors and replace them
with a new pier, ramp, and floats (Figure 3). The replacement structures include the following:
• A new 7' 11" x 85' (overwater) fully grated aluminum framed pier will be constructed in
multiple sections. A 6' 8" x 24' fully grated section of pier will be behind the bulkhead.
The pier will have twelve (12) 8-inch and four (4) 4-inch galvanized steel support piles
driven to refusal with galvanized steel cap beams welded to the top of the piles. The pier
sections will be secured to the cap beams. The 4-inch pin piles will be installed behind
the existing bulkhead (Figure 3).
• A new 7' 11" x 28' fully grated aluminum framed ramp will connect to the seaward end of
the pier and the small connecting float.
• A small connecting float will be secured by two (2) 10-inch steel piles and supported by
two 2' x 6' x 20" float tubs and two 2' x 4' x 20" float tubs (Figure 5).
• The new 20'3" x 34'3" fully grated aluminum framed moorage float will be secured by
(6) 10-inch steel piles. Eight (8) SeaFlex anchor rodes will connect to the float's exterior
frame on one end with the other end connected to a steel pile or i-beam float stops. The
SeaFlex rodes will allow the float to move vertically with the tides but prevent lateral
movements (Figure 5 and 5).
• Flotation for the moorage float will be four (4) foam -filled HDPE pontoons installed
under the entire length of the moorage float (Figure 5).
• A new float stop grid will be installed to prevent the moorage float from grounding out at
low tides. Float stops will be installed on the eight (8) 10-inch piles and an additional 12
HDPE-lined pontoon cradles will be installed along the beams of the grid to help support
the float at low tides and prevent it from grounding out. The 10-inch piles will not project
above the float deck to allow for seaplanes to safely access the float without damaging
the wings. See Figures 4 and 5 for more detail on the float stop system.
• The new fully grated aluminum structures will replace the existing structures in the same
location and the same configuration. No change in size, shape or location is proposed.
Watermark HMP MS&A 14
Figure 3. East Dock Proposed Site Plan
1
1
1
1
(5)
stt L4
lizNattlIgTO EMMA
11113St:T.TrIZi:i%:n_• CL ER8
in f.• 411::•11•islh.*tc 112:41 l / [I•II&tm
(6)
PROPOSED
694t SF FLOATS
W/ (8) 10' STEEL PILES
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
SILT FENCE (SEE SHEET
8 FOR DETAIL)
PROPOSED
NET CHANGE
EXISTING
PIER
159 S/F
608 S/F
+447
RAMP
0 S/F
222 S/F
+222
FLOATS
1681 S/F
-885
778 S/F
GRATING
194 S/F
1873 S/F
+1479
PIUNG
0
24
+24
FOOTPRINT
1820 S/F
1816 S/F
-4
OVERWATER SQUARE FOOTAGE - 1681.5 S/F
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE o 1816 S/F
PROJECT OESXMED BY:
PROPOSED 237.5 SF
RAMP
KFVISIil)
l l-?3-2020
(7)
TO INCWOE IiE—OOOIGNED FLOAT
THIS 000JWENT IS Pft tLU4f/ PROPERTY OF WATERFRONT
CONSTRUCTION INC., ANO 5 NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE 0R IN
PART. fon ANY OTTER PROJ[DT WITNOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTIIORUATION OF WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION INC.
f
7'-11'
PROPOSED 833.5 SF
FIXED PIER W/ (12) 8' STEEL
PILES & (4) 4 PIN PILES
/
(10)
HTL/OHWL
0 11.45'
(11) (12) / 13) (14)
PROPOSED PLAN DETAIL VIEW
16' 8 4' 0' 18'
SCALE: 1/10-sal.
oasnNG CONCRETE
BULKHEAD_TO REMAIN
-._IP'._
REFERENCE 4:
APP CNit. WATERMARK ESTATE MGMNT SERV., LLC
PROPOSE): REMOVE & REPLACE
EXISTING FLOATS
& SEA -PLANE MOORAGE
FOR VESSEL
SMKF 6 9
EAR/AI : UNION/HOOD CANAL
IN
DATF 9-23-2020 10-32¢19- -§K __,
Figure 4. Proposed East Dock Elevation View
RAMP & PIER
LEFT OUT OF THIS —\\
VIEW FOR CLARRY 5►-2"
4'-8"f
(2) PRO
2'x6'x20" & (2) _
2'x4'x20" HIGH —DENSITY
FLOAT TUBS
(4) PROPOSED 24"e HDPE
FOAM —FILLED PONTOONS
PROPOSED FLOAT W/ (8)
SEA —FLEX TENDONS
34'-3"
f
311*****ffl��Ij•��III•I f I•I /• �' '�'f�'�I'�I�������i�I�I�, , �I�1`l�I�I���I`I4i/`� .�.►�I��tI�/��I�I�I������������������1�����ti��4 '� c�������` N/ems/�s/• 11�����, ����������� ��������r -
,/ ..Ir ./ ./ ,// � ./f. f .I/./�./ �; ..�/.//./f.,�,.//./f, ff.I/. j. ,��,,►.//./�,// If. fj /I /I'/Il ,* *No`/f�//tff�j/�hs, , ff`jf'`jf.I �j./�. ff. ff. ff. ►�I.//./�.// i f . f •\/Vs�� �1 ��``�������a`/���`����������������``�1�f / (4) PROPOSED W10x49
/�f`f�` `•``SECTIONS TO ANCHOR
SEA —FLEX TENDONS
1'
(8) PROPOSED 10"
Sl tEL PILES W/
W10x49 FLOAT STOPS
PREVENTING FLOAT
FROM GROUNDING OUT
PROPOSED ELEVATION: E 3
8'
4' 3' 2 1' 0'
8'
SCALE: 1 /8"=1'
(12) PROPOSED HDPE—UNED
PONTOON CRADLES
Watermark HMP
MS&A 5
Figure 5. East Dock Moorage Float Detail
3x3" SQUARE
ALUMINUM TUBE
SIMILAR TOP & BOTTOM
2x4" RECT. ALUMINUM TUBE
(DIAGONAL & PERPENDICULAR
LONG) TUDINALS)
13'±
34'-3"
(*)
(")
N44070.0,,,000#0,
SOS*,
(*)
c
t
r=-
111
3'
T
4'±
4'±
4'±
4'± 20'
4't
4'±
4'±_
T
3'
1
201-3"
(*TO OUTSIDE OF 1" FASCIA)
PROPOSED FLOAT FRAMING DETAIL
8' 4' 3' 2' 1 ' 0' 8'
SCALE: 1 /8"-1'
PROPOSED PIER MATERIAL UST
(8) PROPOSED 10" STEEL PILES
W/ (4) W-10x49 FLOAT STOPS
PREVDONG FLOAT FROM GROUNDING
(2) PROPOSED 2'x8'x20" FLOAT TUBS
(2) PROPOSED 2'x4'x20" FLOAT TUBS
OUTER FOOTPRINT
118'
SPECS
TREATMENT
PART
EXTERNAL
PIUNG
GALVANIZED
12"
STD
WALL
Slut
PIPE
CAP :EAM
ASSY
GALVANIZED
1" STEEL
BAR / W6x15
GRATING
FIBERGLASS
NONE
ALUMINUM
NONE
PIER
TU
:
ING
HARDWARE
STAINLESS
OR
HDG.
STEEL
PROPOSED FLOAT MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
SEAFLEX ANCHOR RODES
(8) LOCATIONS
(4) PROPOSED 24"0
FOAM -FILLED HDPE PONTOONS
•
34'-3" •
-•
10.01.
(
1
i
1
20'-3"
TOTAL AREA OF GRATING - 737 SF
AREA OF FUNCTIONAL GRATING - 449 SF
OR 61 % OF TOTAL GRATING ON FLOATS
FLOAT TUB LAYOUT
SCALE: 1 /8"-1'
fl
SEAFLEX ANCHOR RODES IN (8) LOCATIONS
TO CONNECT BTWN FRAMING & 10" STEEL
PIUNG/I-BEAM FLOAT STOPS. TO INCLUDE RE —DESIGNED
REVISED
11-23-2020
PROPOSED RAMP MATERIAL. UST
FLOAT
PART
SPECS
TREATMENT
GRATING
_
FIBERGLASS
NONE
RAMP
TUBING
ALUMINUM
NONE
HARDWARE
STEEL
STAINLESS
OR
HDG.
PART
SPECIFICATIONS
TREATMENT
PILING
10"
STD
WALL
STEEL
PIPE
GALVANIZED
FLOAT
STOPS
12"
STD
STEEL
I
-BEAM
GALVANIZED
FLOAT
NAILERS
ALUM.
SQ.
TUBE
NONE
FLOAT
TRUSS
FRAMING
ALUM.
RECT.
TUBE
NONE
FLOAT
FASCIA
1
x12"
COMPOSITE
FASCIA
NONE
FLOAT
GRATING
FIBERGLASS
NONE
HARDWARE
STEEL
STAINLESS
OR
HDG
PROJECT DESIGNED BY:
Wat/Ifrfsrc;I iI; Ccn ri I,:i;i,: t,
THIS OCCUM NT IS PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF WATERFRONT
CONSTRUCTION INC., AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, FUR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION INC.
REF-tXENCE
#:
APPLICANT:
WATERMARK
ESTATE
MGMNT
SERV.,
LLC
PROPOSED:
REMOVE & REPLACE
EXISTING
FLOATS
FOR
VESSEL
do SEA —PLANE
MOORAGE
SHEET:
9 OF:
9
NEAR/AT:
UNION/HOOD
CANAL
DATE:9-23-2020
DWG#:18-32049-A2-9K
Water nark HMP
MS&A6
1.5 Construction Details
Pre -fabrication construction: The proposed aluminum framed pier, ramp, and float will be
prefabricated in the contractor's Seattle Yard.
Site preparation: If required by Mason County, a pre -construction site meeting will be
scheduled with County staff and the construction crew. The tidelands will be examined
waterward of pier to ensure safe access corridor for barge to reach float and pier without the risk
of grounding on sensitive aquatic vegetation or hitting a large rock that could damage the barge
hull.
Construction access: Construction access to site will be from the water only via the construction
barge.
On site construction: The proposed project involves the following:
• Using the barge mounted construction crane, remove the existing overwater structures
and associated piles and anchors.
• All construction debris will be placed in 20 c/y containers on the construction barge.
• Using a vibratory pile driver from the barge crane, drive all new galvanized steel piles to
support the aluminum pier sections and to secure the float sections.
• Install galvanized steel cap beams and secure to pier support piles.
• Set aluminum pier section and secure to the steel cap beams.
• Set the moorage floats in place and secure to float mooring piles and walkway floats.
• Connect ramp to seaward end of the pier and set waterward end of ramp on new moorage
float.
• Dispose of all construction debris at an approved upland disposal site.
Equipment used: Crane barge will be used to deliver materials, equipment, and crew to the site.
Crane will be used to remove existing structures and place them into the 20 c/y containers. Piles
to be driven with the barge mounted construction crane using a vibratory pile driver. Small
power tools and hand tools will also be used to complete the project.
Materials used: Material consists of aluminum framed float with plastic foam -filled moorage
tubs, aluminum framed pier sections, and aluminum framed ramp. Both pier, ramp, and float
facilities will have grated decking and galvanized steel pipe piles and galvanized hardware.
Work corridor: The barge would operate offshore during construction to avoid disturbances to
the tidelands or upland shoreline.
Staging areas and equipment washouts: All staging area activities will occur on the barge.
Once the project has been completed construction equipment will be transported to contractor's
Waterinark HMP MS&A 17
yard where washouts will occur in a contained area of the contractor's yard to ensure runoff does
not enter the marine water column.
Stockpiling areas: Construction equipment and materials will be stockpiled and staged on the
construction barge with no disturbance to the tidelands or uplands.
Running of equipment during construction: Equipment will be running off and on throughout
the on -site construction phase. All equipment will be kept in good running order and will only be
running when required.
Clean-up: Existing structures and all construction debris will be loaded onto the barge and held
on the barge in a 20 c/y container bins. Debris will be barged to the contractor's Seattle yard,
offloaded into trucks and transported to an approved upland disposal site for recycle or disposal.
No vegetation will be disturbed so re -vegetation is not proposed.
Project timing: All proposed construction will occur within the approved work windows and
take place during daylight hours. Work will be coordinated with high tides for deliveries and pile
driving/construction and the barge will move offshore during low tides.
Duration of construction: Onsite project work will take a 3-4 work weeks for each dock,
depending on tides.
1.6 Action Area
The "project area" is the area within and around the footprints of the docks. The project area also
includes areas used for staging materials and equipment and accessing the site. The "action area"
includes any areas with potential ecological effects from short-term construction activities or
long-term habitat modifications. Short-term construction impacts would include potential
turbidity effects from pile installation and removal, as well as noise effects. For impact
assessments during potential fish migration, the distance at which underwater pile driving noise
attenuates to ambient sound levels is generally considered the project action area, even though
the radius of potential injury is a much smaller area (CalTrans 2015). The NMFS prescribed
acoustic thresholds are:
• 150 dBRms threshold for fish behavioral impacts
• 120 dBRms threshold for marine mammals behavioral impacts for continuous (vibratory
pile driving)
For this project, the following equation was used to delineate the action area where sound
exposure levels (SELs) from pile driving could cause behavioral effects in fish (150 dBRms) since
the likelihood of marine mammals being present is low:
Watermark HMP MS&A 18
R2 = Ri x 10^((dBRI-dBthreshold)/15)
Where,
R1= distance of known/measured sound level
R2= estimated distance that a sound will attenuate to prescribed acoustic threshold
For sound levels measured 10 meters away during vibratory pile driving of 12-inch steel pipe
pile, there was a peak of 171 dB, 155 dBRms, and 155 dBsEL (CalTrans 2015, Table I.2-2.).
The action area for a maximum of 10-inch piles for vibratory pile driving is then calculated to be
approximately 21.5 meters where sound is anticipated to attenuate to 150 dBRms. This action area
also includes potential turbidity effects from pile driving (25 ft around each pile as defined by the
USACE).
2 Species and Habitat
2.1 On Site Habitat Information
A SCUBA survey was performed on September 28, 2020 from approximately 11:00 am to 3:00
pm at the project site located at 6999 E. Highway 106, Union, WA. Bryan De Caterina and Darby
Flanagan from Marine Surveys & Assessments used SCUBA to run transects in the area of 2
existing docks where replacement structures are proposed to identify flora, fauna, substrate types
and other qualitative information relative to the proposed project. Weather was clear and sunny;
water visibility was 6 to 10 feet.
Nine (9) transects were surveyed from the baseline along MHHW/bullchead at the western end of
the site near West Dock. Eleven (11) transects were surveyed from the baseline along
MHHW/bulkhead at the eastern end of the site near East Dock.
The area of the survey ranged in elevation from +8 ft MLLW near the bulkhead to -5 ft MLLW at
the seaward extent of the 500-ft survey transects. Substrate is pea gravel and mud throughout
with some areas of cobble. Oysters were observed in many areas.
Macroalgae identified at the site included some small areas of Ulva (10-75% cover) and foliose
red algae (1-5%). Salt -tolerant vegetation in the upper -shore zone included:
• Plantago maritima (Seaside Plantain) 10-15% cover
• Salicornia 5-30% cover
• Jaumea carnosa (Fleshy Jaurnea) 30-40% cover
• Atriplex patula (Spear Saltbrush) 10% cover
• Distichlis spicata (Saltgrass) 5-10% cover
Watermark HMP MS&A 1 9
Zostera manna eelgrass was observed only at the seaward ends of the 500-foot long transects of
the moorage dock survey area. No Laminariales or other kelp species were observed in the
survey areas.
The full habitat report and map can be seen in Appendix 1.
2.2 Mason County
The project site is located on a shoreline that is designated as "Residential" under the Mason
County SMP, which would allow for recreational overwater structures (17.50.080 (A)(4)). The
proposed work would occur below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) which would place
it in FWHCA.
The marine intertidal and subtidal portions of the proposed project site would be considered
critical areas under MCC 8.52.170, particularly due to intertidal areas supporting surf smelt
spawning and the oyster beds at the project site; eelgrass was found 400+ ft from the site.
Species of Importance listed under MCC 8.52.170 that may occur near the project site or be
affected by the proposed project are discussed in the following sections.
2.3 State Priority Habitat & Species
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
mapper indicates surf smelt spawning habitat, estuarine and marine wetland, oyster beds, and
purple martin breeding area at the project site. Dungeness crab is mapped waterward of the
action area. WDFW PHS and Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) data document resident coastal
cutthroat, coho, winter steelhead, and fall chum in a stream approximately 650 ft immediately
west of the project site; resident coastal cutthroat are documented in two streams to the east with
the closest being approximately 450 ft from the project site.
All three streams are outside of the action area, however, these salmonid species may travel past
the project site.
2.3.1 Forage Fish
Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), sand lance
(Ammodytes hexapterus), and surf smelt (Hypornesus pretiosus) as prey resources. These forage
fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of
predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles.
According to WDFW, there is documented surf smelt spawning habitat along the shoreline
(Figure 6).
Watermark HMP MS&A 110
Figure 6. WDFW Documented Forage Fish Spawning Habitat
Forage Fish Spawning Map - Washington State
Forage Fish Spawning
Data
Sand Lance Spawning
smelt Spawning
Herring Spawning
Pre -spawner Herrring
Holding Areas
WADNR Aquatic Reserves
Forage Fish Survey Data
Sand Lance Spawning
Smelt Spawning
MEE
This map displays sand lance, smelt, herring spawning areas, herring pre -spawner holding areas, and the forage fish
spawning survey beaches in Washington State.
USDA FSA, GeoEye, Maxar I Washington Department of Natural Resources Aquatics Division ( These data were collected by WDFW staff with contributions
from the North Olympic Salmon Coalition and the Friends of the San Juans. I Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife I Esri, HERE, Garmin
I 1
0.4mi
2.4 Federal ESA Species & Critical Habitat
For each listed species with the potential to be in the project action area, the listing status,
distribution of species, and relevant life history traits are presented in the sections below. Salmon
species that utilize streams nearby will also be included as they may migrate past the project site.
For species with critical habitat within the action area (Table 1), a detailed Assessment of
Impacts to Critical Habitat is included with this report as an attachment (see Attachments 2 - 4).
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Designated Critical Habitat
NMFS/USFWS
Critical
Habitat
Action
Area
2014)
Y
Final
Nearshore
Rockfish
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
Final
Deepwater
Rockfish
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
2014)
N
2005)
N
Chum
Salmon
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
for
Puget
Sound
Chinook
Salmon
,Y
Marine
(NMFS,
Critical
2005)
Habitat
2005)
N
Freshwater
Puget
Sound
Chinook
Salmon
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
Critical
Habitat
for
Puget
Sound
Steelhead
(NOAA,
2016)
N
Watermark HMP
MS&AI11
Marine
Critical
Habitat
Hood
Canal
Summer
-run
Chum
Salmon
(NMFS,
2005)
Y
N
Southern
Resident
Killer
Whale
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
2006)
Steelhead
Trout
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
2005)
N
Y
Bull
Trout
Final
Critical
Habitat
(USFWS,
2010)
Marbled
Murrelet
(USFWS,
2016)
N
Northern
Spotted
Owl
(USFWS,
2012)
N
Leatherback
Sea
Turtle
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
2012)
N
Green
Sturgeon
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
2009)
N
Southern
Eulachon
(NMFS,
2011)
N
Proposed
Humpback
Whale
Critical
Habitat
(NMFS,
2019)
N
2.4.1 Puget Sound Chinook
Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), also called the king salmon, are
distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most Chinook in the Puget Sound
are "ocean -type" and migrate to the marine environment during their first year (Myers et al.
1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a
length of 401nm or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of
their first year at a length of 60-80 mm (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed
on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans).
As they grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile
fish, drift insects, and euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean -type Chinook use
estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for
.
survival.
The Puget Sound Chinook is listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened
according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). In
addition, NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of
West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The portion of the project
footprint and action area below the line of extreme high water is in an area designated as critical
habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (70 FR 52685; September 2, 2005).
The project site and action area are within Puget Sound Chinook marine critical habitat.
According to queries of the SaSI data (WDFW), the closest Chinook riverine presence is outside
of the action area in the Tahuya River to the north and the Skokomish River to the southwest.
There is also documented Chinook presence in Mission Creek and the Union River at the end of
the Hood Canal (SaSI, WDFW). This species may emigrate past the project site.
An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook" is provided in
Attachment 2.
Watermark HMP MS&A 112
2.4.2 Hood Canal Summer -run Chum
In Puget Sound, chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams.
Puget Sound chum typically spawn from September to March (WSCC 2003). Chum (along with
ocean -type Chinook) spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon
(Healey 1982). Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average
residence of 24 days (Simenstad et al. 1982). Juvenile chum consume benthic
organisms found in and around eelgrass beds (harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods and
isopods), but change their diet to drift insects and plankton such as calanoid copepods,
larvaceans, and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50 - 60 mm (Simenstad, Fresh, &
Salo 1982). Chum move offshore and switch diets when presented with a lack of food supply
(Simenstad et al. 1982).
NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer run chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened
under the ESA (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). NMFS designated critical habitat for the Hood
Canal summer -run chum ESU shortly after (70 FR 52739; September 2, 2005) and it includes the
entire Hood Canal and contiguous shoreline north/northwest, ending past Dungeness Bay near
Sequim.
Hood Canal Summer -run chum critical habitat is within the action area. No streams near the
project site have documented summer chum presence; the Tahuya River and Union River (both
over one mile away) are the closest with documented summer chum presence (SaSI, WDFW). It
is possible this species might migrate past the project site.
An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Hood Canal Summer -run Chum" is provided
in Attachment 2.
2.4.3 Bull Trout
Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout (Saivelinus confluentus) have ranged geographically from
northern California (at present they are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,
and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the
char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in
streams and migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring.
Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15
degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman & McIntyre, 1993). They live both
in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater
(anadromous) before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete
all of their life in the streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions,
and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal Puget Sound population (64 FR 58910;
November 1,1999).
Watermark HMP MS&A ( 13
All populations of bull trout including the Coastal -Puget Sound populations, were listed as
threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1999 (64 FR 58910;
November 1, 1999). USFWS designated critical habitat for bull trout in 2010 (75 FR 63898;
October 18, 2010).
The project site is along shoreline designated as critical habitat for bull trout. The Skokomish
River is the nearest stream (over 3 miles away) with documented bull trout presence (SaSI,
WDFW). It is unlikely this species would migrate past the project site as there are no streams
east of the project site that are documented as being utilized by bull trout, but they may forage in
the nearshore environment of the project site.
An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Bull Trout" is provided in Attachment 3.
2.4.4 Puget Sound Steelhead
Steelhead is the name given to the anadrornous form of the species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The
freshwater residents are called rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning
and migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to
two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four
years before returning to Washington streams. Steelhead migrate quickly through Puget Sound
and into the open sea as individuals or in small groups (PSEMP 2012). Unlike Chinook,
steelhead do not have a long term feeding and growth period in Puget Sound nearshore areas
(PSEMP 2012).
NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA
(72 FR 26722; May 11, 2007). Critical habitat has been finalized for the Puget Sound steelhead
distinct population segment (81 FR 9252; February 24, 2016).
There is no designated critical habitat for steelhead in the action area. There is designated critical
habitat in the Skokomish River and Tahuya River as well as in Mission Creek and the Union
River towards the end of the Hood Canal with a few designated streams in between. According
to queries of WDFW's SaSI data, there is documented presence of winter steelhead in a stream
within 0.5 mile to the west side of the project site. This species may migrate past the project site.
2.4.5 Rockfish
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) rockfish remain in the
upper part of the water column as larvae and pelagic juveniles. Around 3 to 6 months old,
bocaccio rockfish settle into intertidal, nearshore habitat; they prefer to settle in rocky reefs, kelp
beds, low rock, and cobble areas (Love et al. 2002). Juvenile yelloweye rockfish are usually
found in the upper extent of the adult depth range instead of in intertidal habitat (Studebaker- et
al. 2009). As both species grow larger, they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around
rocky reefs and coarse habitats. Marine habitats high in complexity are associated with higher
Watermark HMP MS&A 114
numbers of rockfish species (Young et al. 2010). Adult yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish
generally inhabit depths from approximately 90 ft to 1,400 ft (Love et al. 2002). Both species are
opportunistic feeders, with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of adult rockfish
include marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod, and sharks.
NOAA has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) as
threatened species under the ESA and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio rockfish
(Sebastes paucispinis) as endangered (75 FR 22276 April 28, 2010). The Georgia Basin refers to
all of Puget Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia,
north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. The western boundary of the
Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Critical
habitat for both species was designated in 2014 (79 FR 68042; November 13, 2014).
The proposed project is in the designated nearshore rockfish critical habitat. Although these
species have the potential to be present within the action area, the effects of this project are
expected to be minimal, if at all. Adult rockfish and juvenile yelloweye rockfish are commonly
found in deeper water than exists at the project site. Shallow, intertidal, nearshore waters in
rocky, cobble, and sand substrates (with or without kelp) can provide suitable substrate for
juvenile (3-6 month old) bocaccio rockfish. However, the highest densities of juvenile rockfish
are found in areas with floating or submerged kelp species, which was not observed at this site. It
is more likely any juvenile bocaccio rockfish in the area inhabit the eelgrass that was found 400+
ft waterward of the site as little to no submerged aquatic vegetation was found around the docks
(Appendix 1) .
An "Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Rockfish" can be found in Attachment 3.
2.4.6 Marbled Murrelet
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marrnoratus) are small marine birds in the Alcidae family.
They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical
nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival
and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the
marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other
small schooling fish and invertebrates.
Marbled murrelets have been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992 (57 FR 45328;
October 1, 1992). Critical habitat was designated by USFWS in 1996, revised in 2011, and
reviewed again in 2016 to determine if the ESA definition of critical habitat was being met (81
FR 51348, August 4, 2016).
Watermark HMP MS&A 115
There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the
project site (WDFW, USFWS). Due to the presence of surf smelt spawning habitat in the area, it
is possible that marbled rnurrelets may forage in the action area.
2.4.7 Humpback whale
NMFS has listed the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) as an endangered species that
may occur in Puget Sound (81 FR 62260; September 8, 2016). Critical habitat was proposed by
NMFS in 2019, but does not include any portion of the Hood Canal (84 FR 54354; October 9,
2019).
In at least the last three years, no humpback whales have been documented in the action area or
in the Hood Canal (Orca Network), therefore, it is unlikely that any humpback whales would be
impacted by this project.
2.4.8 Leatherback Sea Turtle
NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as an endangered species
that may occur in Puget Sound (35 FR 8491; June 2, 1970). There is no designated critical
habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Puget Sound at this time; it is designated along the outer
coast of Washington state (77 FR 4170; January 26, 2012).
Breeding habitat for leatherback sea turtles in Washington does not exist, even though they are
occasionally seen along the coast (Bowlby et al. 1994). Leatherback sea turtles are rarely seen in
Puget Sound (McAllister, pers. comm.). It is highly unlikely leatherback turtles would be found
near the project site.
2.4.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale
The Southern Resident population consists of three pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004),
"While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro
Strait, Boundary Passage, the Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait." During early autumn, these pods, especially
J pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and Chinook
salmon runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter
water less than 5 meters deep (Baird 2001).
On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as
endangered under the ESA (70 FR 69903; November 18, 2005). NOAA Fisheries has designated
critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20 ft relative to a
contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (71 FR 69054; November 29,
2006).
Waterrnark HMP MS&A 116
According to the Southern Resident Killer Whale Sighting 1990-2013 map (Olson 2014), there
were no sightings in quad #435 during July -February work window. There are few killer whale
sightings in the Hood Canal and when they are sighted, it is usually in the northern portion of the
Hood Canal.
Due to the shallow nature of the project site and the low number of sightings, this species is not
expected to be present during construction.
2.4.10 Green Sturgeon
On April 7, 2006, NMFS determined that the Southern Distinct Population Segment of North
American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris; hereafter, "Southern DPS") is at risk of
extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and listed
the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (71 FR 17757; April 7, 2006).
Critical habitat for the threatened Southern DPS green sturgeon was subsequently designated by
NMFS in 2009 (74 FR 52300; October 9, 2009).
Southern DPS green sturgeon occupy coastal bays and estuaries from Monterey Bay, CA to
Puget Sound, WA. Observations of green sturgeon in Puget Sound are much less common
compared to the other estuaries in Washington State. Green sturgeon have a complex
anadromous reproductive cycle and do not reach reproductive age until 15 years old for males
and 17 years old for females; female green sturgeon are thought to spawn every 5 years (NMFS,
2002). Activities of concern in Puget Sound include dredging and capping, which could affect
benthic habitats, alter water flow and water quality (NMFS, 2009). There is no designated critical
habitat for green sturgeon in the action area.
3 Effects of the Proposed Action
When reviewing all of the data, the direct and indirect effects of the project on the listed species
and their critical habitat should be considered. Impacts to ESA -listed species and critical habitats
are based on current baseline conditions versus historic pre -development conditions, where
existing structures are considered an element of the environmental baseline at the time of a
proposed action.
3.1 Direct Effects
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed
project will immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential,
direct impacts caused by the construction process include increased noise and impacts to water
quality.
Watermark HMP MS&A 117
3.1.1 Water Quality
Increased turbidity caused by pile removal and vibratory pile driving could have adverse effects
on salmon and bull trout. The impact level depends on duration of exposure, concentration of
turbidity, the life stage during the increased exposure and the options available for the fish to
avoid the plumes. The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or behavioral
(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a).
Variations in suspended sediment concentration can also negatively impact species composition,
biomass, algal growth and can affect secondary production as well (Newcombe and MacDonald
1991; Kahler et al. 2000). Filter feeders can have blockages in feeding structures which affects
their feeding efficiency, in turn reducing growth rates, increasing stress or in some cases can
result in death (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Suspended sediments can also impact
salmonid fishes by increasing mortality rate, reducing growth rate and/or reducing resistance to
disease, modifying natural movements, interfering with development, reducing prey abundance
and fish catch methods (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991).
For this project, during pile installation, turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief; a
silt curtain will also be used to help reduce turbidity. The area where turbidity impacts may affect
the listed fish has been defined by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as a 25 ft radius
around each pile. However, turbidity is much more localized with pile installation than it is with
pile removal. To be more reserved in our analysis of turbidity from activity associated with pile
work, we will discuss turbidity from pile removal as it tends to generate more turbidity than pile
driving.
In terms of turbidity generated by vibratory pile removal, the following results were noted in
"Jimmycomelately Piling Removal Monitoring Project" (Weston Solutions 2006):
"Based on TSS measurements from fixed OBS sensors, the primary source for sediment
resuspension was prop wash from the tug boat as it maneuvered the barge to and from
pile removal locations. This influence was increased by "live boating," the use of the tug
to continuously hold the barge on location, which was necessitated by the absence of
operating spuds to hold the barge in position. TSS concentrations resulting from the tug's
prop wash often exceeded 50 to 100 mg/L. To provide some perspective, the Washington
State Water Quality Limits for AA waters is 5 NTU (approximately 5 mg/L) above
background. Generally, elevated TSS concentrations did not remain for more than five
minutes; however, on one occasion, a turbidity plume was observed from the work station
to the shore and near the mouth of Jimmycomelately Creek. It should be pointed out that
the former log yard is located in very shallow waters and it is not uncommon to have
elevated turbidity from wind waves in this area.
Watermark HMP MS&A 118
The extraction of the pile resulted in greater increases in TSS, with average
concentrations of 40 mg/L near the pile and 26 mg/L at the sensor located 5 to 10 meters
from the pile (approximately 30 and 16 mg/L above background, respectively). The
turbidity plume during extraction, although larger than observed during activation of the
vibratory hammer, did appear to be finite; however, it was difficult to determine how long
the turbidity plume persisted, because the tug boat prop wash would overwhelm the
signal from the pile removal soon after the pile was pulled."
A positive effect on water quality would result from the removal of creosote -treated piles.
Creosote is a broad term encompassing coal tar creosote, coal tar, and coal tar pitch wood
preservatives. Concern with creosote -treated wood comes from the presence, leaching, and
outgassing of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Effects associated with organics like
PAHs depend on a variety of factors including route of exposure, duration and concentration,
chemical composition, organism sensitivity, life stage affected, organism potential for
detoxification/excretion, and the organism's physical condition (Johnson et al. 2007, Vines et al.
2000). Nevertheless, compounds in creosote degrade in water extremely slowly since they can
also cling to suspended particles and aggregate in sediments near the creosote piles, where
organisms can then consume them (Johnson et al. 2007, Vines et al. 2000). Toxicity to organisms
varies; however, many are considered carcinogens and endocrine disruptors for many species
(Dickey and Huettel 2016).
3.1.2 Pile Driving Noise
Exposure to elevated in -water sound levels can lead to a variety of impacts to fish, including
behavioral, stress and physiological responses, and injury to hearing organs (including temporary
or permanent hearing loss), and structural and cellular damage (including barotrauma to organs
and potentially lethal damage to gas -filled structures such as swim bladders) (Hastings and
Popper 2005, Halvorsen et al 2011). These effects are usually associated with impact pile
driving and the associated high levels of sound pressure underwater. In this respect, vibratory
pile driving (which is proposed for this project) is considered to be a better alternative to avoid
in -water noise impacts to fish.
Feist et al. (1992) reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise
approximately 2,000 ft from the source. Based on the studies at the Everett Holneport, these
researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink
and chum salmon. It is also possible that noise from pile driving will mask the approach of
predators. As calculated in section 1.5 above, 21.5 meters is where sound is anticipated to
attenuate to 150 dBiuvts (the threshold for fish behavioral impacts).
Marine mammals, such as killer whales and humpback whales, can also be impacted by pile
driving noise. Migration, resting, and foraging behaviors may be altered in response to noise
Watermark HMP MS&A 119
effects from pile driving. Using the equation mentioned in section 1.5 above, vibratory pile
driving sound is expected to attenuate to 120 dBis approximately 1 mile away; which is a
conservative estimate as land masses would keep most of the in -water noise from propagating to
the west or the south. Due to the low sightings of killer whales and humpback whales in lower
Hood Canal, a marine mammal monitoring plan has not been prepared.
3.2 Indirect Effects
When considering the indirect effects of the proposed project on the listed species and their
habitat, one must determine the effects that might occur later in time, after completion of the
project. The dock replacements would continue long-term impacts in lower Hood Canal;
however, creosote removal and the addition of grated surfaces would result in a net benefit to the
marine environment.
3.2.1 Salmonid Migratory Pathway Alteration
It is generally accepted that overwater structures in the nearshore environment can alter
migration behavior of juvenile salmon; though these effects may vary depending on the design
and orientation of the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light (Simenstad
et al. 1999). Simenstad et al. (1999) summarized the following observations from previous
studies on fish migration behavior with regard to overwater structures:
• delays in their migration due to disorientation caused by lighting changes
• loss of schooling refugia due to fish school dispersal under light limitation
• a change in migratory route into deeper water, without refugia, to avoid the light
change.
However, the significance of these effects is not clear. Nightingale and Simenstad (2001b) state,
"Presently, although we know that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or
otherwise alter their shoreline movements when encountering an overwater structure, the
conditions under which this behavioral modification is significant to the fishes' fitness and
survival is relatively unknown."
A study by Williams et al. (2003) at the Mukilteo ferry terminal, found that, "Salmon fry were
observed in all nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). The fry
were observed under a wide range of PAR values (0.0 µmol m-2 s-1 to 2370 µmol m-2 s-1). Fry
were observed both outside the terminal and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows
produced by the 10-m-wide terminal structure did not appear to act as bathers to fry movement
at this location." Chum and pink salmon fry were the most abundant species at this study site.
Responses to overwater structure also seem to vary by species. After reviewing literature on
juvenile salmon use of nearshore habitats, notable conclusions Weitkamp (2003) made were: all
Watermark HMP MS&A 120
species of juvenile salmon avoided areas with substantial changes in light intensity, Chinook
juveniles preferred widely spaced piles over densely spaced piles that create dark conditions,
chum fry do not seem to alter their course to avoid piers, and coho responses to light varied by
study.
Grating will be incorporated into the proposed docks and measures will be incorporated to
prevent the proposed floats from grounding out; therefore, the current baseline conditions will
not be altered in a way that would cause additional pathway alteration to migrating salmonids.
3.2.2 Increased Predation
Historically, there is little evidence of docks aggregating salmonid predators in the Puget Sound
(Ratte & Salo 1985; Cardwell et al. 1980; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b). Dock associated
structures, such as breakwaters, may serve as marine mammal haulout areas, but there is limited
evidence that suggests these mammals are particularly targeting small out -migrating juveniles. It
might be assumed that birds would be interested in small migrating juveniles, but there is no
evidence that docks provide an aggregation site for predatory birds (Taylor and Willey 1997).
An additional concern about the impacts of overwater structures on migrating salmon is that they
will be forced to move out into deeper water, where they will be consumed by predatory fish
species. However, in the Williams study cited above, the authors noted:
"We found no evidence that avian, marine mammal, or fish predators consumed more
juvenile salmon near WSF terminals than along shorelines without overwater structures.
Few species appeared to be targeting abundant fry in nearshore habitats, and we observed
only two occasions in which predators (one tern sp., one staghorn sculpin) had consumed
juvenile salmon."
The authors also state:
"Our analysis of fish diets at the Mukilteo ferry terminal provides one piece of conclusive
evidence that juvenile salmon were not a major dietary component of predatory fish
species during our study."
3.2.3 Shading Impacts
Shading caused by overwater structures can reduce or eliminate eelgrass, macroalgae, and other
epibenthic organisms resulting in reduced prey and refugia resources for salmonids (Simenstad et
al. 1999; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b). The proposed structure will have functional grating
installed to minimize shading impacts. The existing floats which are proposed to be removed
have mostly solid decking. The minimum number of piles needed to secure the docks will be
Watermark HMP MS&A 121
used. Float feet and a float stop grid will prevent the proposed floats from grounding out. All of
these design parameters will minimize shading impacts.
3.2.4 Boating Impacts
Boating activity can cause damage to the aquatic habitat due to prop scour and increased
turbidity. In several studies, aquatic vegetation and benthic organisms were found to be absent or
greatly reduced in areas where boat traffic was high and the propellers were within one foot of
the bottom (Chmura and Ross 1978). Lagler (1950) found that propellers within approximately
14 inches of the bottom removed all plants and silt within a swath approximately 5 ft wide.
Conversely, boat use over deeper water can actually stimulate aquatic plant growth by increasing
the dissolved carbon dioxide and increasing water circulation (Warrington 1999).
It is assumed that most boating activity adjacent to the dock will be at slow speeds. Little
macroalgae was found around the docks and the closest eelgrass was documented 400+ ft
waterward (Appendix 1).
3.2.5 Sediment Scour
As noted by Ratte and E. O. Solo (1985) and Penttila and Doty (1990), piles can impact the
water flow around the piles, thereby altering the bathymetry in the adjacent area. Nightingale and
Simenstad (2001b) also noted that piles can affect water direction and intensity, which could
result in altered substrate distribution and associated detritus. Nightingale and Simenstad (2001b)
observed that "...widely spaced piles allow currents to flow freely and sediment is essentially
unaffected." The piles for the proposed project are spaced apart as far as possible to minimize
sediment scour and water circulation impacts.
3.3 Impacts to FEMA Floodplain
The site is within the intertidal zone of marine waters, categorized by FEMA as a Special Flood
Hazard Area Zone AE (EL 14 ft) (Figure 7).
This habitat assessment describes impacts to habitat functions associated with the proposed dock
replacements within the 100-year floodplain (the marine waters of lower Hood Canal). There
will be temporary noise and turbidity impacts associated with construction that will extend
beyond the project footprint and into the action area within the adjoining floodplain. However,
long-term adverse impacts are not anticipated as the proposed docks will be updated to include
grated surfaces to reduce shading impacts and measures to prevent the floats from grounding out
at low tides; creosote -treated piles will also be removed.
This assessment demonstrates that there will be no long-term adverse effects from replacing the
two docks at the site. This finding also applies to the adjoining floodplain and the state, county,
and federally listed species and their habitat within the floodplain. Avoidance and minimization
Watermark HMP MS&A 122
measures, as well as Best Management Practices, presented in Section 4 will prevent impacts to
species and their habitat within the adjoining floodplain.
Figure 7. FEMA Flood Map (arrows indicate docks to be replaced)
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
123c424 %Y 47 2111Tt
FEMA Legend
5 30.1'; C O4'. F
t'ff, ti/)U/101 9
hirs 'Dr )tWmtry. Nif ti^Ct 1ial 0.' `vL'Jr 242.0.
4/ +.
0 250 500
1,000
1.500
t• Feet
2.000
1:6,000
111'1411 W •IPW4rN
SEE AS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR ARM PA.NCL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
9
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
riot! t ¥ .143
With BEE Or Depth tax at .sa .fir r!_ Ay
Regulatory Floodway
02% Annual Chance Flood Hazard. Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth Tess than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile :
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levies. See Notes.:
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee: ,
NO emus Area of Minimal Flood Hazard : • -
Effective LOMRs
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
— — — • Channel Cuhert. or Storm Sewer
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Levee. Dike, or Floodwall
2O2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
In Water Surface Elevation
- Coastal Transect
e'i--- Base Flood Elevation Line (GTE)
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
Trio pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represen
an authontaUve property location.
Thls map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps If it Is not void as desaibod below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's bascmap
accuracy standard,
The flood hazard Inhumation is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web senices provided by FEMA. This map
oaf exported on 11 1tl 202') .it 4 ie. Fht and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this data and
time. The NFHL and effective Information may change a
become superseded try new data over time.
This map Imago Is void If the ono ot more of the following map
elements do not appear. bascntap imagery, flood zone labels.
legend. scalp bar, map creation datecommunity identifiers.
FIRM panel number. and FIRM effective date. Map Images for
unmapped and unntodemi:ed areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
3.4 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects from future state, local, or private projects that are reasonably certain to occur
with one mile of the project site are anticipated for this project. This would include shoreline
properties within one mile to the east and west of the project site. The proposed project would
facilitate continued habitat alteration along the shoreline and may promote future activities,
including fishing, swimming, and any other water dependent recreational activity. The influence
of these activities cannot be quantified in this assessment, but with appropriate regulations in
place, these activities are not anticipated to have an adverse effect on state and ESA -listed
species and/or critical habitat.
Watermark HMP
MS&A 123
3.5 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects
The shorelines of Hood Canal include many permitted docks and marinas. Completion of this
project is not anticipated to promote future construction or other activities that would not
otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent
actions that could affect species are anticipated to occur because of this project.
4 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts
Conservation measures presented here include avoidance and minimization measures that are
intended to address both Mason County criteria and FEMA requirements. The FEMA
requirements pertain to marine critical habitat and ESA -listed species within the adjoining
floodplain.
All shoreline development must be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner
that protects ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. This section describes the steps
taken during project planning and implementation to find the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative to achieve the project goal.
The following mitigation sequencing steps, as described in Mason County
SMP17.50.110(B)(1)(c), were considered during project development:
• No action: To avoid the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.
o The project purpose and need are described in more detail in the Project
Description section. "No Action" would not achieve the project goal. The current
West and East docks need to be updated because they are ungrated and ground out
at low tides.
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid
or reduce impacts.
o The proposal will replace the docks in the same footprint and introduces no new
long-term impacts to ecological function along the marine shoreline. Grated
surfaces and measures to prevent the floats from grounding out at low tides will
be incorporated in the replacement West and East docks.
• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
o The proposed replacement of these two docks will reduce impacts to the
nearshore environment by preventing grounding of the floats at low tides and
incorporating grated surfaces. The existing floats of both docks ground out at low
tides, possibly damaging benthic environment below.
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations.
Watermark HMP MS&A 124
o Opportunities to reduce or eliminate the permanent direct and indirect negative
impacts from the project over time include grated surfaces, measures to prevent
the floats from grounding out at low tides, and the removal of creosote -treated
p
iles
• Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.
o Compensatory mitigation has not been proposed at this time because there will
not be a change in overwater coverage. Grating will also be incorporated into the
new overwater structures to reduce shading impacts and existing creosote piles
will be removed.
• Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
o Because compensatory mitigation is not proposed, this step was not applicable in
project planning.
Ecologically friendly design and construction techniques will always be implemented during
construction, as well as the following measures:
1. The design of the dock will comply with regulatory agencies' criteria.
a. Grating will be incorporated throughout both docks.
b. Proposed floats will not ground out due to the addition of float feet and a float pile
grid.
2. "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) will be exercised throughout this project
including:
a. Care will be taken to contain all construction debris.
b. EPA Region 10 BMPs for pile removal will be followed.
c. A silt curtain will be used for pile removal and installation to reduce turbidity.
d. The piers, ramps, and floats will be prefabricated in Seattle.
e. No grounding of the barge will occur. When the tides recede, the barge will move
offshore to ensure it does not ground out.
3. USACE in -water work windows will be observed (July 16 to February 15).
4. Prior to any work in the upper shore zone (USZ) outside of the surf smelt work window
(March 2 to September 14), a WDFW certified biologist should conduct a forage fish
survey to verify the presence/absence of spawning activity.
5 Take Analysis
The ESA (Section 3) defines "take" as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap,
capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm"
as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species
Watermark HMP MS&A 125
by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering." It is
likely that no "take" will result from this project.
6 Determination of Effect
ESA -listed species and critical habitat in the action area and FEMA Flood Hazard Area are
evaluated below based on the following assessments:
• No effect (absolutely no effect whatsoever, either positive or negative);
• May affect, not likely to adversely affect (insignificant effects that never reach the level
where take occurs, or effects are discountable and extremely unlikely to occur; or there
would be an entirely beneficial effect); or,
• May affect, likely to adversely affect (measurable or significant effects are likely, and the
project will require formal consultation) .
This determination of effect for protected species and habitat is contingent upon implementation
of the conservation measures described in section 4. In general, direct adverse effects to the
ESA -listed species (avoidance, behavior modification) will be short-term, but would not result in
take, and would not contribute to an increased risk of extinction. Indirect effects may be reduced
over time with reduced shading of substrate and improved water quality.
After reviewing the appropriate data, the determination of effect to each ESA -listed species
likely to be present within the action area is:
• Puget Sound Chinook — "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
• Rockfish — "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
• Bull trout — "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
• Hood Canal Summer -run chum — "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
• Puget Sound Steelhead — "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
• Marbled Murrelet — "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
• Northern Spotted Owl — "No effect"
• Green sturgeon — "No effect"
• Southern Eulachon — "No effect"
• Humpback whale — "No effect"
• Leatherback sea turtle — "No effect"
• Southern Resident Killer Whale — "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
Watermark HMP MS&A 126
7 Conclusions
7.1 No Net Loss Evaluation
Because these are renovations in the sane footprint as opposed to new structures, the project will
perpetuate a permanent loss of intertidal habitat but will not result in additional habitat or
functional loss. Short-term impacts from demolition and construction will be minimized through
avoidance and minimization measures. Some ecological benefits will result from the removal of
creosote -treated piles, an overall reduction in shading, and preventing the floats from grounding
out; therefore, no net loss to ecological function is anticipated to occur.
Watermark HMP MS&A 127
References
Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field -Naturalist
115:676-701.
Caltrans. 2015. Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects
of Pile Driving on Fish. Report number CTHWANP-RT-15-306.01.01. November 2015.
Cardwell R.D., S.J. Olsen, M.I. Carr, and E.W. Sanborn. 1980. Biotic, water quality and
hydrologic characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. Tech. Rep. 54, WDFW, Olympia,
WA.
Chmura, G.L. and N.W. Ross. 1978. The Environmental Impacts of Marinas and Their Boats: A
literature review with management considerations. Marine Advisory Service, University
of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI.
Dickey, R. and M. Huettel. 2016. Seafood and beach safety in the aftermath of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. Oceanography 29(3):196-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/
oceanog.2016.83.
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
Register / Vol.
35, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 1970 / Rules and Regulations.
57, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 1992 / Rules and Regulations.
64, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
71, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 2006 / Rules and Regulations.
71, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations.
72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.
74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations.
75, No. 52 / Thursday, March 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
76, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations.
77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations.
79, No. 219 / Friday, November- 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations.
81, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
81, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
81, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
84, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations.
Feist, B.E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile
pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon behavior and distribution.
FRI-UW-9603. Fisheries Resources Institute, University of Washington. Seattle, WA.
Watermark HMP MS&A (2 8
Halvorsen, M.B., Casper, B.M., Woodley, C.M., Carlson, T.J., and Popper, A.N. 2011. Predicting
and mitigating hydroacoustic impacts on fish from pile installations. NCHRP Research
Results Digest 363, Project 25-28, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. California Department of
Transportation. Contract No. 43A0139, Task Order 1. Sacramento CA.
Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries - the life support system, p. 315-341. In:
V.S. Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Johnson, L.L., M.R. Arkoosh, C.F. Bravo, T.K. Collier, M.M. Krahn, J.P. Meador, M.S. Myers,
W.L. Reichert, and J.E. Stein. 2007. The Effects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
Fish from Puget Sound, Washington. The Toxicology of Fishes: Chapter 22.
Kahler, T., M. Grassley, & D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers,
and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA -listed salmonids in
lakes. Final Report prepared for the City of Bellevue.
Lagier, K.F., A.S. Hazzard, W.E. Hazen, and W.A. Tompkins. 1950. Outboard motors in relation
to fish behavior, fish production and angling success. Transactions of the 15th Annual
North American Wildlife Conference. pp. 280-303.
Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich, and L.K. Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the northeast
Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant,
F.W. Waknitz, K. Neeley, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook
salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Technical Memo, NMFS-
NWFSC-35, 443p.
Newcombe, C.P. and MacDonald, D.D., 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic
ecosystems. North American journal of fisheries management, 11(1), pp.72-82.
Nightingale, B. and C.A. Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. White Paper.
Submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department
of Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation.
Nightingale, B. and C.A. Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. White Paper,
Res. Proj. T 1803, Task 35, Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington
State Transportation Center (TRAC). Seattle, WA. 133p.
Olson, J., 2014. Southern Resident Killer Whale Sighting Compilation 1948-2013. Web.
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected species/marine _mammal
s/killer- whales/occurrencemap.pdf
Watermark HMP MS&A 129
Orca Network. Sightings Archives. Accessed October 2020. Available at:
http://www.orcanetwork.org/sightings/archives.html
Pearson, S.F. and M.M. Lance. 2018. Fall -spring 2017/2018 Marbled Murrelet At -Sea Densities
for Four Strata Associated with U.S. Navy Facilities: Annual Research Progress Report.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA.
Penttila, Dan and D. Doty. 1990. Results of 1989 eelgrass shading studies in Puget Sound,
Progress Report Draft. WDFW Marine Fish Habitat Investigations Division.
Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) Salmonid Workgroup. 2012. Methods
and quality of VSP monitoring of ESA listed Puget Sound salmon and steelhead. Bruce
A. Crawford editor. 148 p.
https://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/psemp/salrnonid_VSP_monitoringassessment.pdf
Ratte, L.D. and E.O, Salo. 1985. Under -pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus
spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington. Port of Tacoma. Report number FRI-UW-
8508. December 1985.
Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation
of Bull Trout. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Technical Report
TNT-302, Ogden, Utah, September 1993. 38 pp.
Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington
coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pages
343 -3 64. In: V.S. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press. New York,
NY.
Simenstad, C. A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thorn, and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry
terminals on juvenile salmon migrating along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase I: Synthesis
of state of knowledge. Washington State Department of Transportation. Seattle, WA.
Research Project T9903. June 1999.
Studebaker, R.S., K.M. Cox, and T.J. Mulligan. 2009. Recent and historical spatial distributions
of juvenile rockfish, Sebastes spp., in rocky intertidal tidepools with emphasis on
Sebastes melanops, Trans., Am. Fish. Soc., 138:645-651.
Taylor, W.S. and W.S. Willey. 1997. Port of Seattle fish mitigation study: Pier 64/65 short -stay
moorage facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beak
Consultants.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Final Biological Opinion for Regional General
Permit 6: Structures in Inland Marine Waters in Washington State (RGP-6). USFWS
Reference: 01EWFW00-2016-F-0565. Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA.
Watermark HMP MS&A 130
Vines, C.A., T. Robbins, F.J. Griffin, and C.N. Cheri-. 2000. The effects of diffusible creosote -
derived compounds on development in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi). Aquatic
Toxicology 51: 225-239.
Warrington, P.D. 1999. Impacts of outboard motors on the aquatic environment.
www.nalms.org/bciss/impactsrecreationboat.htm
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington. July 1993. Unpubl. Rep. Washington
Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
report. Accessed October 2020. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI).
Accessed October 2020. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html#
Weitkamp, D.E. 2003. Young Pacific salmon in estuarine habitats. Pararnetrix, Inc., Kirkland,
WA. 53 pp.
Weston Solutions. 2006. Jimmycomelately piling removal monitoring project. Final Report for
the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Sequim, WA. 116 pp.
Wiles, G.J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department
Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp.
Williams, G.D., R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler, J.A. Southard, L.K. O'Rourke, S.L. Sargeant, V.I
Cullinan, R. Moursund, and M. Stamey. 2003. Assessing overwater structure -related
predation risk on juvenile salmon: field observations and recommended protocols.
September 2003. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Sequim, WA.
Young et al. 2010. Multivariate bathymetry-derived generalized linear model accurately predicts
rockfish distribution on Cordell Bank, California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series.
Vol. 415: 247-261.
Watermark HMP MS&A 131
Figure 8. Department of Ecology Shoreline Photo (dated 5/24/1993)
Watermark HMP MS&A ( 32
Figure 9. Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas Map
WA Dept. of Ecology
U ?WO 61u:ro+o* Cotpceabon p 2020 Wet (ONES 1?0201 tMtnbubon
Alrbuw US,v 2020 IIENE
0 025 U5
Figure 10. Photo of the existing West Dock
1
Assessed
Waters/Sediment
Water
OW Category 5 - 303d
RV Category 4C
=r; ' Category 48
Category 4A
Category 2
IV Category 1
Sediment
660
Category 5 - 303d
Category 4C
%MO, Category 4B
G2Z Category 4A
z,z Category 2
Category 1
sea
FC!OGY
Watermark HMP
MS&A I 33
Par
1.
Figure 11. Photo of the existing East Dock (looking north)
7�•
Ey C'••FL j•'•' e. >. AZ.; la}p^j .•
•'1, �I, '' .. ».-^vim- • •'N'II y•
1'. •
•
I le;i • A.. • •
. • I •-
"•'•
Si. 4a.
ed. • -•1Rti'.
(tie 11
Figure 12. Photo of the existing East Dock (looking east)
•
Mira
1 •
•
y a
�*t► i , isj.� lust
. Jw'
Watermark HMP
MS&A 134
Attachment 1. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult
with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for
the relevant species. According to the MSA, EFH means "those waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For the Pacific West Coast, the
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) has designated EFH for federally managed
groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC 1998b) and Pacific salmon fisheries (PFMC
1999
).
The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the
EFH for the relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize of
otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH.
B. Identification of EFH
The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the
mean high water line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts
of Washington, Oregon and California, seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic
zone (370.4 km) (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for
salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state
telTitorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370.4 kin) offshore of
Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border PFMC,
1999).
C. Proposed Action
The details of the proposed project are presented in "Project Description" section of the BE.
The project consists of the replacement of two docks in the same footprint.
D. Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in
detail in the "Effects Analysis" section of the attached BE. The project may have minor
temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for Pacific coast salmon and groundfish due to
turbidity impacts resulting from construction and from long-term effects such as shading.
Watermark HMP MS&A 135
E. EFH Conservation Measures
The conservation measures contained in the BE will be implemented to minimize any possible
adverse effects to EFH. These include grating in the replacements docks and structures to
prevent the floats from grounding out at low tides.
F. Conclusion
The project may have temporary and long-term adverse effects on EFH for Pacific coast salmon
and groundfish. No new permanent adverse effects on EFH will occur. The project will minimize
impacts on EFH by:
1. Best Management Practices will be followed.
2. In -water Tidal Reference Area 11 work windows will be followed (July 16 to February
15
)•
3. Creosote will be removed from the marine environment.
4. Solid decking will be replaced with grated decking.
The site is in PSNERP coastal inlet unit 137, which has a recommendation of "Restore".
"Restore" is defined as "sites where indicators of degradation suggest the opportunity to
substantively increase ecosystem services through restoration, but where degradation is not so
complex or intense that recovery of self-sustaining and resilient ecosystem services becomes
unlikely" (Cereghino et al. 2012).
G. Additional References
Cereghino, P., J. Toft, C. Simenstad, E. Iverson, S. Campbell, C. Behrens, J. Burke. 2012.
Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore
Report No. 2012-01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon
Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts
and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999).
PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998).
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8
(December, 1998).
Watermark HMP MS&A 136
Attachment 2. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget
Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer -run Chum
Project description: West and East Dock replacements
Applicant: Watermark Estate Management Services
The Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) determined essential to the conservation of
salmon are:
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate
supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply, the project is in a marine environment.
Effects to PBF: None.
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain
physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage
supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging
large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side
channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply, the project is in a marine environment.
Effects to PBF: None.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions
and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large
rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and
survival.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply, the project is in a marine environment.
Effects to PBF: None.
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh -and saltwater; natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,
and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,
supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: In the action area, Department of Ecology's 303(d) lists the stream to the
west that is a tributary to the Hood Canal as Category 5 water for bacteria (Figure 9). Solid
decking on both docks currently impacts habitat through shading and the floats of both docks
ground out at low tides. There is scattered large riparian vegetation along the shoreline. Little
aquatic vegetation was observed, and no large rocks or boulders were noted (Appendix 1). There
is surf smelt spawning habitat mapped along the shoreline (Figure 6).
Watermark HMP MS&A 137
Effects to PBF: Localized impacts associated with pile removal/installation on site will cause
localized, short term increases in turbidity. However, long term water quality will be improved
through the removal of creosote and habitat function will be improved through the introduction
of dock grating and measures to prevent the floats from grounding out at low tides.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and
forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural
cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and
boulder and side channels.
Existing Conditions In the action area, Department of Ecology's 303(d) lists the stream to the
west that is a tributary to the Hood Canal as Category 5 water for bacteria (Figure 9). Solid
decking on both docks currently impacts habitat through shading and the floats of both docks
ground out at low tides. There is scattered large riparian vegetation along the shoreline. Little
aquatic vegetation was observed, and no large rocks or boulders were noted (Appendix 1). There
is surf smelt spawning habitat mapped along the shoreline (Figure 6).
Effects of the Action: Localized impacts associated with pile removal/installation on site will
cause localized, short term increases in turbidity. However, long term water quality will be
improved through the removal of creosote and habitat function will be improved through the
introduction of dock grating and measures to prevent the floats from grounding out at low tides.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic
invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply, the project is in a marine environment.
Effects to PBF: None
Determination of Effect: May affect, not likely to adversely affect critical habitat
Watermark HMP MS&A 138
Attachment 3. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Bull
Trout
The physical and biological features (PBFs) determined essential to the conservation of bull
trout (Saivilinus confluentus) are:
(1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporehic
flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply, the site is in a nearshore marine environment.
Effects to PBF: None.
(2) Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments
between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats,
including, but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent or seasonal barriers.
Existing Conditions: There are two ungrated docks that are along the shoreline; the floats on
both ground out at low tides. Department of Ecology's 303(d) lists the stream to the west that is
a tributary to the Hood Canal as Category 5 water for bacteria (Figure 9).
Effects to PBF: The proposed project is occurring in the same footprint for each dock so no
additional marine nearshore habitat will be affected. With grating incorporated into the new
dock, shading impacts will be reduced. Float feet and a float pile grid will prevent the floats from
grounding out at low tides.
(3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic
macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.
Existing Conditions: This is a developed shoreline with a bulkhead along part of the shoreline
and few scattered large trees along the shore. There is documented surf smelt spawning at the
site. The habitat survey noted little macroalgae; eelgrass was found 400+ ft waterward.
Effects to PBF: The replacement docks are not anticipated to adversely affect this PBF. They
will be replaced in the same footprint with grating incorporated to reduce shading impacts. The
new docks will remain elevated at all tides instead of resting on the beach. No upland, riparian,
or aquatic vegetation will be removed.
(4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and
processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates,
to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.
Existing Conditions: This is a developed shoreline with overwater structures and bulkheads and
some large riparian vegetation along the shore. There is little complexity due to the shallow
nature of the site.
Effects to PBF: The replacement docks are not anticipated to adversely affect this PBF. They
will be replaced in the same footprint with grating incorporated to reduce shading impacts. The
new docks will remain elevated at all tides instead of resting on the beach.
Watermark HMP MS&A 13 9
(5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia
available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this
range will vary depending on bull trout life -history stage and form; geography; elevation;
diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local
groundwater influence.
Existing Conditions: Department of Ecology's Water Quality Atlas (Figure 9) identifies water
east of the site as being listed for temperature (Category 2), which is common in south Hood
Canal.
Effects to PBF: None.
(6) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and
embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young -of -the -year and juvenile survival. A
minimal amount (e.g., less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 rnm (0.03 in.) in
diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of
these conditions.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the site is in a nearshore marine environment which is not
used for bull trout spawning habitat.
Effects to PBF: None.
(7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and
seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural
hydrograph.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply, the site is in a nearshore marine environment.
Effects to PBF: None.
(8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are
not inhibited.
Existing Conditions: Department of Ecology's Water Quality Atlas (Figure 9) identifies water
at the site and adjacent as being listed for bacteria and temperature.
Effects to PBF: There will be no additional long-term effects to water quality from this dock
replacement. The removal of creosote treated will improve water quality at this site.
(9) Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, srnallmouth
bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the site is in a nearshore marine environment where these
species are not present.
Effects to PBF: None.
Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" critical habitat
Watermark HMP MS&A 140
Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for
Nearshore Rockfish
The Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) determined essential to the conservation of Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish are:
(1) Nearshore juvenile rearing sites with sand, rock, and/or cobble to support forage and refuge.
Existing Conditions: The existing substrate is mostly cobble, pebble, and mud.
Effects to PBF: The project won't affect this PBF.
(2) Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival,
reproduction, and feeding opportunities.
Existing Conditions: The existing substrate is mostly cobble, pebble, and mud, with no eelgrass
or kelp present around the docks. A small percentage of vegetation is present (Appendix 1).
Effects to PBF: The project could have brief and temporary negative impacts on zooplankton
(prey species for juvenile rockfish) due to brief turbidity and noise resulting from pile removal
and installation. A positive effect on habitat will most likely occur due to removal of creosote -
treated wood and the introduction of grating in the new docks to reduce shading. To reduce
benthic impacts, the new docks will remain elevated above the bottom at all tides.
(3) Water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival,
reproduction, and feeding opportunities.
Existing Conditions: Department of Ecology's Water Quality Atlas identifies water at the site
and adjacent as being listed for bacteria and temperature (Figure 9).
Effects to PBF: Impacts associated with pile removal and installation on site will cause
localized, short term increases in turbidity. However, long term water quality will be improved
through the removal of creosote -treated wood.
Determination of Effect: May affect, not likely to adversely affect critical habitat
Watermark HMP MS&A 141
Appendix 1. Habitat Report
360-385-4073
msa@marinesurveysandassessments.com
380 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
Watermark 2020 Habitat Survey Report
A SCUBA survey was performed on September 28, 2020 from approximately 11:00 am to 3:00
pm at the project site located at 6999 E. Highway 106, Union, WA. Bryan DeCaterina and Darby
Flanagan from Marine Surveys & Assessments used SCUBA to run transects in the area of 2
existing docks where replacement structures are proposed to identify flora, fauna, substrate types
and other qualitative information relative to the proposed project. Weather was clear and sunny;
water visibility was 6 to 10 feet.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
•
• a _
1. •- - -•
0
t•R_V
a—tr- r► N
123 E1IlV 123-6'1
1 1
�.
-1-
/,+
• ''6
1 Li.. \ .1
1 2
12J •'1.1 1i
- I - t
^ l•
• I • - '1 I I•- • . ♦ :,(- iI I —I tin I i
lJ
dot I,'1-t `r1' i
ip
�•• I,af .• ` ''-j� t.t1, I) t lc is
•
�'- 1 •�� ,: 1: ' ' 4t, . .L
•t-
1 AS. •
.T
123 '213•'.V
1
a
! i
-1,_
`t�•r• _•\ \:t .�
•
,r.I 1 h
k1 I •!'
1• ,Ytr • 1 I, 1 t
li
°F� yq
f'
4 t
jProject Location
e
.
.'?' 1. i de r•1
'
Miles «' � :1
4 =
nol- .t ♦:
ris
�,,,�
11 :, ,
(1).f
i_• 1
t •• ..es!
l
Service Layer Credits: Eource: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Eartr.atar G_o,rapfiics, CNE&Airbus CS, US CA, USGS,heroGRID, IGN,are the GIS User Community
Scluroes: Esri, HERE, Garrrin, USGS, Irtrrrap, INCREMENT P, NRCar,, EsriJapan, }'ETI, Esri China (Herb Kor.'a), Esri Korea, Esri IThailar• •, NGCC, (q' Op_r.•Str:-_tMap
••I
Nine (9) transects were surveyed from the baseline along MHHW/bulkhead at the western end of
the site near the "Pier 1" (Moorage/West Dock). Eleven (11) transects were surveyed from the
Watermark HMP
MS&A 142
baseline along MHHW/bulkhead at the eastern end of the site near "Pier 2" (Helicopter/East
Dock).
The transects at each location were oriented heading north from the shoreline and were arranged
from east to west, or when looking at the water from shore, from right (T-1) to left (T-1 1 / T 9).
Transects were separated from each other by 10 ft except the outer transects (T- 1 and T-11 / T-9)
which were offset by 15 feet. Most transects were 225 feet long, but some transects were
extended out to 500 feet to locate the edge of an offshore eelgrass bed.
The area of the survey ranged in elevation from +8 ft MLLW near the bulkhead to -5 ft MLLW at
the seaward extent of the 500-ft survey transects. Substrate is pea gravel and mud throughout
with some areas of cobble. Oysters were observed in many areas.
Macroalgae identified at the site included some small areas of Ulva (10-75% cover) and foliose
red algae (1-5%). Salt -tolerant vegetation in the upper -shore zone included:
• Plantago maritima (Seaside Plantain) 10-15% cover
• Salicornia 5-30% cover
• Jaumea carnosa (Fleshy Jaumea) 30-40% cover
• Atriplex patula (Spear Saltbrush) 10% cover
• Distichlis spicata (Saltgrass) 5-10% cover
Zostera marina eelgrass was observed only at the seaward ends of the 500-foot long transects of
the moorage dock survey area (Figure 4). No Laminariales or other kelp species were observed
in the survey areas. Total percent cover vegetation is mapped in Figure 5 but does not include
Ulva because the area around the site has not been documented as a herring spawning habitat
(although a pre -spawner herring holding area is located 1 mile offshore).
Please note the depths in this report are for reference only can have an error of +/- 1 ft and should
not be used for engineering purposes.
The full results for the Moorage/West Dock and Helicopter/East Dock can be seen at the end of
this report in Tables 1 and 2.
Watermark HMP MS&A 143
Figure 2.
Moorage dock looking seaward
Figure 3. Salt tolerant vegetation around OHWM (from west of helicopter float, looking east)
Watermark HMP
MS&AI44
Figure 4. Zostera marina found at end of T1 of Moorage Dock Survey Area
Water nark HMP MS&A J 45
Figure 5. Habitat Survey Results Map
Watermark Estates
6999 E. Highway 106
Union, WA
Piers 1 & 2 Survey Results
Survey Date: 9/28/2020
Map Date 10/30/2020
Moorage Dock
(Pier 1)
Legend
Proposed PRF (Waterfront 9-21-2020)
Existing Bulkhead (approx).
_�j 25-ft. Float Buffer
Pier 1 Survey Transect
Pier 2 Survey Transect
--- Est. Elev. (ft MLLW)`
Total % Cover Macroalgae (no Ulva)
Total % Cover Salt -Tolerant USZ Vegetation
1.0-25.0%
25.1 - 70.0%
70.1 - 100.0%
Z. marina presence
Eelgrass shoots or sparse patches
Eelgrass bed (sparse or patchy)
Helicopter Dock
(Pier 2)
300
Feet
Watermark HMP
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
'The depths shown are for reference only and can have an error of +/- one foot; they should not be used for engineering purposes.
MS&A 146
Table 1. Habitat Survey Results for Moorage (West) Dock
Transect 1 (Moorage Dock
Distance
along
(Ft)
Tidal
Substrate
and
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
%Cover;
Elevation
to
transect(Corrected
baseline
from
Other
Noted
FeaturesVegetation
Ft
MLLW)
0
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
30
Pebble,
Shell
hash.
mud,
Barren.
63
Pebble,
hash;
mud,
Oysters.
Shell
Barren.
107
2.8
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Foliose
reds
5%.
135
1.8
Pebble,
thud.
Foliose
5%.
reds
147
0.8
Pebble,
Foliose
reds
5%.
mud.
159
-0.2
Pebble,
Foliose
reds
5%.
mud.
199
-1.2
Pebble,
mud.
Foliose
reds
5%.
235
-2.2
Pebble,
mud.
Ulva
5%;
Foliose
reds
5%.
246
-2.2
Pebble,
mud.
Ulva
20%.
300
-3.2
Pebble,
mud.
Ulva
20%.
310
-3.2
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
381
-4.2
Pebble,
few
mud;
Barren.
oysters.
411
-5.2
Pebble,
mud.
Ulva
10%.
436
-6.2
Pebble,
Ulva
20%.
mud.
489
-6.2
Pebble,
Z. marina
shoots
transition
to
sparse
bed.
mud.
500
-7.1
Pebble,
mud.
Z.
bed.
marina
sparse
Transect 2 (Moorage Dock)
Distance
t
baseline
along
from
ansect(Corrected
(Ft)
Tidal
Substrate
and
Vegetation
°
/o
Cover,
.
Elevation
to
Other
Noted
Features
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
0
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
32
Pebble,
hash;.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
70
hash;
Pebble,
Oyster
mud,
boundary.
Shell
_
Barren.
Watermark HMP
MS&A 147
94
3.2
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
114
2.2
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
133
1.2
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
166
0.1
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
200
-0.9
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
243
-1.9
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
252
-2.9
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
382
-4.0
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
426
-5.0
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
452
-6.0
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
465
-7.0
Pebble,
Z. marina
shoots
transition
to
sparse
bed.
mud.
500
-7.1
Pebble,
mud.
Z.
bed.
marina
sparse
Transect 3 (Moorage Dock
Distance
(Ft)
Tidal
alongElevation
Substrate
and
Vegetation
%
Cover;
transect
(Corrected
Other
Features
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
from
to
Noted
baseline
Ft
MLLW)
Pebble,
mud,
Shell
0
hash.
Barren.
Pebble,
mud,
Shell
36
hash.
Barren.
Pebble,
mud,
Shell
92
3.4
hash.
Barren.
107
2.4
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
Pebble,
mud;
120
1.4
Edge
of
Float.
Barren.
Pebble,
mud;
130
0.5
lots
of
oyster.
Barren.
Pebble,
mud;
less
171
-0.5
oyster.
Barren.
191
-1.5
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
225
-2.4
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
Watermark HMP
MS&AI48
Transect 4 (Moorage Dock)
Tidal
Substrate
and
Vegetation
g
%Cover••
'
Distance
(Ft)
along
Elevation
(Corrected
to
transect
baseline
from
Other
Noted
Features
Eelgrass
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
0
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
37
3.8
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
87
108
2.7
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
119
1.7
Pebble,
edge
of
mud;
float.
Barren.
143
0.7
Pebble,
lots
of
oyster.
mud;
Barren.
174
-0.4
Pebble,
mud;
Oysters.
Barren.
189
-1.4
Pebble,
Barren.
laud.
225
-2.4
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
Transect 5 (Moorage Dock)
Tidal
Substrate
and
Eelgrass
Vegetation
gCover;
presence/absence
%
Distance
(Ft)
transect
baseline
along
from
•
m
Elevation
(Corrected
to
Other
Noted
Features
Ft
MLLW)
0
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
37
Barren.
84
3.9
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
109
2.9
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
114
1.9
Pebble,
Dock
mud;
Barren.
edge.
155
1.0
Pebble,
oyster.
mud;
lots
of
Foliose
reds
1%.
171
0.0
Pebble,
Foliose
1%.
reds
mud.
-1.0
Pebble,
mud.
Foliose
reds
1%.
178
199
-1.9
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
225
-1.9
Pebble,
mud.
Ulva
20%.
Watermark HMP
MS&AI49
Transect 6 (Moorage Dock
Vegetation
%
Cover;
Distance
(Ft)
Tidal
along
Elevation
Substrate
and
transect
from
(Corrected
to
Ot
her
Not
Features
ed
Eelgrass
presence/absence
baseline
Ft
MLLW)
0
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
25
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
63
4.3
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
Pebble,
Barren.
94
3.2
mud.
Pebble,
Barren.
101
2.2
mud.
119
1.2
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
154
0.2
Pebble,
mud;
Oysters
Barren.
183
-0.9
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
225
-1.9
Pebble,
mud.
Ulva
20%.
Transect 7 (Moorage Dock
Distance
(Ft)
Tidal
alongElevation
Substrate
and
Vegetation
%
Cover;
transect
(Corrected
Other
Features
Eelgrass
g
presence/absence
from
to
Noted
baseline
Ft
MLLW)
Pebble,
hash;
Salt
mud,
tolerant
Shell
Jaumea
Saltbrush)
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
Atriplex
10%;
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
Distichlis
(Fleshy
patula
(Seaside
Jaumea)
(Spear
spicata
30%;
0
vegetation
boundary.
(Saltgrass)
10%.
Plantain)
Plantago
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Seaside
Jaumea)
30%;
Pebble,
hash;
Salt
mud,
tolerant
Shell
Jaumea
Saltbrush)
40%;
carnosa
Atriplex
10%;
(Fleshy
patula
Distichlis
(Spear
spicata
36
vegetation
boundary.
(Saltgrass)
10%.
Pebble,
mud,
Shell
66
4.4
hash.
Barren.
79
3.4
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
100
2.5
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
Pebble,
mud;
lots
of
123
1.5
oyster.
Barren.
Watermark HMP
MS&A 150
143
0.5
Pebble,
mud;
Oyster.
No
'
Barren.
166
-0.5
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
191
-1.4
Pebble,
Ulva
10%.
mud.
-2.4
Pebble,
Ulva 75%.
207
mud.
350
-3.4
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
393
-3.3
Pebble,
Ulva
5%.
Z.
marina
shoots.
mud.
425
-4.3
Pebble,
Z.
bed.
marina
patchy
mud.
500
-5.3
Pebble,
Z.
marina
patchy
bed.
mud.
Transect 8 (Moorage Dock)
Distance
alongElevation
(Ft)
Substrate
and
Vegetation
/0
Cover;
Tidal
(Corrected
to
transect
baseline
from
Other
Noted
Features
Eelgrass
g
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
0
Pebble,
hash;
Salt
mud,
Shell
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Seaside
Jaumea)
30%;
40%;
carnosa
Atriplex
(Fleshy
(Spear
Saltbrush)
10%;
Distichlis
patula
spicata
tolerant
(Saltgrass)
10%.
vegetation
boundary.
33
Pebble,
hash;
Salt
mud,
Shell
Jaumea
Saltbrush)
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
Atriplex
10%;
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
patula
Distichlis
(Seaside
Jaumea)
(Spear
spicata
30%;
vegetation
boundary.
tolerant
(Saltgrass)
10%.
5.0
Pebble,
Shell
hash.
mud,
57
Barren.
4.0
Pebble,
79
Barren.
mud.
98
3.0
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
121
2.0
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
141
0.9
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
157
-0.1
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
189
-1.1
Pebble,
Ulva
60%.
mud.
310
-2.1
Barren.
Pebble,
mud;
Barren.
360
-3.2
Pebble,
Ulva
15%.
mud.
-4.2
Pebble,
387
Ulva
10%.
Eelgrass
shoot.
mud.
425
-4.2
Pebble,
Eelgrass
patches
(very
sparse).
mud.
Sparse
bed.
500
-5.3
Pebble,
mud;
Patchy
eelgrass
Bed.
eelgrass
Watermark HMP
MS&A 1 51
Transect 9 (Moorage Dock)
Tidal
Substrate
and
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
o
/o
Covey,
Distance
(Ft)
transect(Corrected
baseline
along
from
s
Elevation
to
Other
Noted
FeaturesVegetation
Ft
MLLW)
0
vegetation
Pebble,
hash;
Salt
mud,
boundary.
tolerant
Shell
Jaumea
Saltbrush)
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
Atriplex
10%;
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
Distichlis
patula
(Seaside
Jaumea)
(Spear
spicata
30%;
(Saltgrass)
10%.
26
vegetation
Pebble,
hash;
Salt
mud,
boundary.
tolerant
Shell
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Seaside
Jaumea)
30%;
Saltbrush)
40%;
carnosa
Atriplex
10%;
Distichlis
(Fleshy
patula
(Spear
spicata
(Saltgrass)
10%.
47
5.2
Pebble,
hash.
mud,
Shell
Barren.
4.2
Pebble,
74
Barren.
mud.
83
3.2
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
118
2.3
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
1.3
Pebble,
mud.
Ulva
10%.
147
152
0.3
Pebble,
mud.
Ulva
60%.
193
-0.7
Barren.
Pebble,
mud;
Barren.
225
-1.6
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
Watermark HMP MS&A 152
Table 2. Habitat Survey Results for Helicopter (East) Dock
Transect 1 (Helicopter Dock
Distance
transact(Corrected
baseline
along
from
(Ft)
Substrate
and
o
/o
Cover,
Tidal
Elevation
to
Other
Noted
FeaturesVegetation
Eelgrass
g
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
0
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
2
Pebble,
mud.
7.6
Barren.
25
6.6
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
40
5.7
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
80
Cobble,
4.7
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
122
Cobble,
boundary
pebble,
Oysters.
mud;
3.7
Barren.
180
2.7
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
200
1.7
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
0.8
Cobble,
Less
pebble,
Oyster.
mud;
247
Barren.
276
-0.2
Pebble,
mud,
Sand.
Barren.
300
-1.2
Pebble,
mud,
Oyster.
Sand;
No
Barren.
341
-2.2
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
400
-3.1
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
420
-4.1
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
438
-5.1
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
Barren.
Barren.
463
-6.1
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
Barren.
Barren.
-7.1
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
478
Barren.
Barren.
500
-8.0
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
NO
EG.
Barren.
Transect 2 (Helicopter Dock)
Tidal
Substrate
and
Vegetation
o
/o
Cover;
Distance
transact(Corrected
baseline
along
from
(Ft)
Elevation
to
Other
Noted
Features
Eelgrass
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
Watermark HMP
MS&A 153
0
Pebble,
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
carnosa
10%;
maritima
30%.
Salicornia
(Fleshy
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
mud.
5
8.3
Pebble,
Oysters
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
carnosa
10%;
maritima
40%.
Salicornia
(Fleshy
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
boundary.
mud;
19
Pebble,
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
carnosa
10%;
maritima
40%.
Salicornia
(Fleshy
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
7.3
mud.
43
6.3
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
90
5.2
Cobble,
Less
pebble,
Oyster.
mud;
Barren.
130
4.2
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
171
3.2
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
210
2.2
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
1.2
Cobble,
No
pebble,
SAV.
mud;
247
Barren.
263
0.1
Cobble,
SO
Many
pebble,
Oysters.
mud;
Barren.
300
-0.9
Pebble,
Sand;
Oyster
mud,
boundary.
Barren.
348
-1.9
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
389
-2.9
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
410
-4.0
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
435
-5.0
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
Barren.
Barren.
450
-6.0
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
Dung
Crab
&
Leather
Star.
Barren.
500
-7.0
Pebble,
mud,
EG.
Sand;
NO
Barren.
Transect 3 (Helicopter Dock
Distance
(Ft)
Tidal
alongElevation
Substrate
and
Vegetation
%
Cover;
transect
(Corrected
Other
Features
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
from
to
Noted
baseline
Ft
MLLW)
Pebble,
Plantain)
Plantago
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Seaside
10%;
0
mud.
Watermark HMP
MS&A 154
Jaumea
camosa
30%.
(Fleshy
Jaumea)
14
8.4
Pebble,
Oyster
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
carnosa
10%;
maritima
40%.
Salicornia
(Fleshy
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
boundary.
mud;
21
7.4
Pebble,
mud.
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
carnosa
10%;
maritima
40%.
Salicornia
(Fleshy
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
44
6.4
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
5.4
Cobble,
72
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
131
4.4
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
3.5
Cobble,
More
pebble,
Oyster.
mud;
173
Barren.
200
2.5
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
225
1.5
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
Transect 4 (Helicopter Dock)
Distance
transect(Corrected
baseline
along
from
(Ft)
Substrate
and
o
/a
Cover,
Elevation
Tidal
to
Other
Noted
FeaturesVegetation
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
0
Pebble,
mud;
Salt
Cont..
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
maritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
spicata
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
(Saltgrass)
5%.
tolerant
vegetation
8.7
Pebble,
Salt
Plantago
Jaumea
Plantain)
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
maritima
(Fleshy
Salicornia
spicata
(Seaside
Jaumea)
5%;
tolerant
boundary.
vegetation
mud;
(Saltgrass)
5%.
17
26
Pebble,
mud.
7.7
Barren.
45
6.6
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
108
5.6
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
125
4.6
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
166
3.6
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
202
2.6
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
225
1.5
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
Watermark HMP
MS&A 155
Transect 5 (Helicopter Dock)
Distance (Ft)
along
transect
from
baseline
Tidal
Elevation
(Corrected
to
Ft MLLW)
Substrate and
Other Features
Noted
Vegetation % Cover;
Eelgrass presence/absence
0
32
55
79
102
142
157
225
8.7
7.8
6.8
5.8
4.8
3.8
2.9
Transect 6 (Helicopter Dock
Pebble, mud; At
Bulkhead, Salt tolerant
vegetation boundary.
Pebble, mud; Oysters
boundary , Salt tolerant
vegetation boundary.
Pebble, mud.
Pebble, mud.
Pebble, mud.
Cobble, pebble, mud;
boundary of Float.
Cobble, pebble, mud.
Cobble, pebble, mud.
Plantago rnarAitima (Seaside
Plantain) 10%; Salicornia 10%;
Jaumea carnosa (Fleshy Jaumea)
40%; Distichlis spicata
(Saltgrass) 5%.
Plantago maritima (Seaside
Plantain) 10%; Salicornia 10%;
Jaumea carnosa (Fleshy Jaumea)
40%; Distichlis spicata
(Saltgrass) 5%.
Barren.
Barren.
Barren.
Barren.
Barren.
Barren.
Distance
(Ft)
Tidal
along
Elevation
Substrate
and
Vegetation
%Cover
transect(Corrected
Other
Featuresg'
Eelgrass
g
presence/absence
from
to
Noted
baseline
Ft
MLLW)
bulkhead)
Soil;
Upland
landscaped
(above
0
(non-native).
Upland
non-native
vegetation.
tolerant
Pebble,
vegetation
mud;
Salt
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
rnanitima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
spicata
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
25
8.0
boundary.
(Saltgrass)
5%.
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
Pebble,
mud;
Bulkhead,
40%;
carnosa
Distichlis
(Fleshy
spicata
Salt
tolerant
vegetation
40
9.0
boundary.
(Saltgrass)
5%.
Pebble,
Barren.
67
7.0
mud.
Watermark HMP
MS&AI56
83
6.0
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
106
5.0
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
3.9
Cobble,
175
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
2.9
Cobble,
197
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
225
1.9
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
Transect 7 (Helicopter Dock)
Distance
transect
baseline
along
'
from
S
ect(Corrected
(Ft)
Substrate
and
%
Cover;
Elevation
Tidal
to
Other
NotedEelgrass
FeFeaturesveVegetation
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
0
Soil;
Upland
(above
Upland
bulkhead)
(non-native).
landscaped
non-native
vegetation.
48
9.1
Plantago
Jaumea
Plantain)
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
maritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
spicata
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
Cobble,
Salt
tolerant
mud;
Bulkhead,
boundary.
vegetation
(Saltgrass)
5%.
64
8.1
tolerant
Cobble,
boundary.
vegetation
mud;
Salt
Plantago
maritima
(Seaside
Jaumea
Plantain)
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
Salicornia
(Fleshy
spicata
Jaumea)
10%;
(Saltgrass)
5%.
83
Pebble,
Some
mud;
7.1
Barren.
oysters.
126
6.2
Pebble,
of
mud;
float.
boundary
Barren.
149
5.2
Cobble,
boundary
pebble,
of
float.
mud;
Barren.
168
4.2
Cobble,
boundary
pebble,
oysters.
mud;
Barren.
225
3.2
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
Transect 8 (Helicopter Dock)
Tidal
Substrate
and
Vegetation
o
/o
Covey,
..
Distance
(Ft)
along
Elevation
to
t
baseline
r �
aI
from
�
se
ct(Corrected
Other
NotedEelgrass
Features
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
0
bulkhead)
Soil;
(non-native).
Upland
landscaped
(above
Upland
non-native
vegetation.
Watermark HMP
MS&A 157
49
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
maritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
spicata
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
Pebble,
Salt
tolerant
boundary.
mud;
(Bulkhead)
vegetation
(Saltgrass)
5%.
50
9.4
Pebble,
Salt
Plantago
maritima
(Seaside
Jaumea
Plantain)
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
Salicornia
(Fleshy
spicata
Jaumea)
10%;
mud;
tolerant
boundary.
vegetation
(Saltgrass)
5%.
80
8.4
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
less
Oyster.
94
7.3
Barren.
Pebble,
mud;
155
6.3
Pebble,
Barren.
mud.
169
5.3
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
Cobble,
175
4.3
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
225
3.3
Cobble,
Oysters.
pebble,
mud;
Barren.
Transect
9 (Helicopter
Dock)
Distance
(Ft)
Tidal
along
Elevation
Substrate
and
Vegetation
%Cover
t
ansect(Corrected
Other
Featuresg'
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
from
to
Noted
baseline
Ft
MLLW)
bulkhead)
Soil;
Upland
landscaped
(above
0
(non-native).
Upland
non-native
vegetation.
Pebble,
Salt
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
mud;
40%;
carnosa
Distichlis
tolerant
vegetation
spicata
51
boundary.
(Saltgrass)
5%.
Pebble,
mud;
Salt
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
maritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
tolerant
vegetation
spicata
54
9.5
boundary.
(Saltgrass)
5%.
Pebble,
Barren.
63
8.5
mud.
82
7.5
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
92
6.5
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
Cobble,
pebble,
mud;
112
5.6
Oyster
boundary.
Barren.
Cobble,
pebble,
mud;
151
4.6
Oysters
(many).
Barren.
Watermark HMP
MS&AI58
184
3.6
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
218
2.6
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
248
Pebble,
Sand;
Less
mud,
Oyster.
1.7
Barren.
264
0.7
Pebble,
mud,
Sand.
Barren.
292
-0.3
Pebble,
mud,
Sand.
Barren.
318
-1.3
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
346
-2.3
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
376
-3.2
Pebble,
Drift
mud,
Ulva.
Sand;
5%
Barren.
419
-4.2
Pebble,
Sand;
mud,
Barren.
Barren.
469
-5.2
Pebble,
Sand.
Barren.
mud,
500
-6.2
Pebble,
mud,
EG.
Sand;
NO
Barren.
Transect 10 (Helicopter Dock)
Substrate
Other
Noted
FeaturesVegetation
and
o
/o
Cover,
Tidal
Distance
along
(Ft)
Elevation
transect(Corrected
baseline
from
to
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
Ft
MLLW)
0
bulkhead)
Soil;
Upland
landscaped
(above
Upland
non-native
vegetation.
(non-native).
26
Plantago
Jaumea
Plantain)
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
Pebble,
Salt
tolerant
boundary.
mud;
(Bulkhead)
vegetation
40%;
carnosa
Distichlis
(Fleshy
spicata
(Saltgrass)
5%.
40
10.2
Pebble,
mud.
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
manitima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
spicata
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
(Saltgrass)
5%.
48
9.2
Pebble,
Salt
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
40%;
carnosa
10%;
Distichlis
rnaritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
spicata
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
mud;
tolerant
boundary.
vegetation
(Saltgrass)
5%.
59
8.1
Pebble,
mud.
Barren.
71
Pebble,
Oyster
less.
7.1
Barren.
mud;
100
6.1
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
Watermark HMP
MS&A 159
150
5.1
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
167
4.1
Cobble,
Barren.
pebble,
mud.
200
3.0
Cobble,
pebble,
mud;
More
Oyster.
Barren.
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
207
2.0
Oyster
boundary.
Barren.
249
1.0
Pebble,
mud,
Sand.
Barren.
270
0.0
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
5%
Drift
Ulva.
Barren.
290
-1.1
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
5%
Drift
Ulva.
Barren.
326
-2.1
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
5%
Drift
Ulva.
Barren.
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
5%
377
-3.1
Drift
Ulva.
Barren.
404
-4.1
Pebble,
mud,
Sand.
Barren.
435
-5.1
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
Barren.
Barren.
500
-6.2
Pebble,
mud,
Sand;
NO
EG.
Barren.
Transect 11 (Helicopter Dock
a
Distance
(Ft)
Tidal
alongElevation
Substrate
and
Vegetation
%
Cover;
transect
(Corrected
Other
Features
Eel
grass
g
presence/absence
from
to
Noted
baseline
Ft
MLLW)
bulkhead)
Soil;
Upland
landscaped
(above
0
(non-
native).
Upland
non-native
vegetation.
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
Pebble,
mud;
(Bulkhead)
40%;
carnosa
Distichlis
(Fleshy
Salt
tolerant
vegetation
spicata
34
boundary.
(Saltgrass)
5%.
Jaumea
Plantain)
Plantago
carnosa
10%;
maritima
Salicornia
(Fleshy
(Seaside
Jaumea)
10%;
40%;
Distichlis
spicata
Pebble,
5%.
41
10.3
mud.
(Saltgrass)
Plantago
maritima
(Seaside
Plantain)
10%;
Salicornia
Jaumea)
10%;
Pebble,
Salt
Jaumea
(Fleshy
mud;
40%;
carnosa
Distichlis
tolerant
vegetation
spicata
47
9.3
boundary.
(Saltgrass)
5%.
Watermark HMP
MS&A 160
58
8.3
Pebble,
rnud.
Barren.
7.4
Pebble,
rnud.
67
Barren.
98
6.4
Cobble,
Oyster-
pebble,
bed.
mud;
Barren.
142
5.4
Cobble,
pebble,
mud.
Barren.
159
4.4
Cobble,
pebble,
mud.
Barren.
193
3.4
Cobble,
pebble,
mud.
Barren.
225
2.5
Cobble,
Oyster
pebble,
mud;
Barren.
cont.
Watermark HMP MS&A 161