Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArmy Corps of Engineers Biological Eval Joint Use Pier, Ramp Float - PLN General - 10/18/2004 RECEIVED OCT 18 2004 MCCD - PLANNING BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project Army Corps of Engineers Reference # For: Robert Drohman 9991 E. SR 106 Union, WA 98592 Robert&Lauren Turk 9981 E. SR 106 Union, WA 98592 Mailing Address: Robert Drohman 4326 Legacy Drive NE Olympia, WA 98516 Prepared by: Marine Surveys&Assessments 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend, WA 98368Phone: (360)385-4073, Fax: (360)385-1724 E-mail seancablesneed.com July 9, 2004 List of Figures and Attachments Figure Number Page 1. Project location............................................................................................ 21 2. Site plan....................................................................................................... 22 3. Elevation view.............................................................................................23 4. Plan view..................................................................................................... 24 5. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map............................................... 25 6. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map.................................................26 7. Surf smelt spawning beaches....................................................................... 27 8. Sand lance spawning beaches...................................................................... 28 9. Pacific herring spawning and holding areas................................................. 29 Attachment Number Page 1. SCUBA survey transect map....................................................................... 30 2. Photographs of the site............................................................................31-32 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list.............................................33-34 4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment..........................................................35-38 Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•2 Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project Biological Evaluation I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location: Section 36,Township 22N,Range 03W 9981 and 9991 E. SR 106, Union,WA 98592 Latitude:N 47121.50'Longitude: W 123°00.81' The project location is seen in Figure 1. B. Project Description: The proposed project involves the construction of a joint-use pier,ramp and float(PRF)structure in Hood Canal(Figures 1 and 2). Four properties adjacent to SR 106 will be included in the joint-use agreement.The future owners of two of the four properties have not been determined at this time. The proposed structure will consist of a 6'wide by 60'long fixed pier with six pilings and a 4'by 40'ramp landing on a 8'by 12'float with two float pilings(Figures 3 and 4). Attached at a right angle to the end of the 12'float will be a 8'by 80' float(consisting of four 20'long floats)with six float pilings. The floats will have 50%functional grating with 60%open area.The ramp will be 100%grated. The pier will have 30%functional grating. Float stops and stub pilings will be installed to suspend the floats at least 12" above the seabed during low tides. The pier section will be approximately 12.0'above the beach at its waterward end. The total overwater area of the proposed structure will be 1236 W. The 8'by 80'float will be oriented at approximately 451 and the 8'by 12'float will be oriented at approximately 315°. The PRF will extend 115'into Hood Canal. The Douglas fir pilings,treated with ACZA(Chemonite) 1.5#retention,will be towed to the site. The 10" diameter pilings will be driven with a barge-mounted 2,000 lb drop hammer. Set-up time for each piling is approximately 20 to 30 minutes,while actual driving time is about the same, depending on the conditions. This work is always done during daylight hours at high tide,with the barge floating,not resting on the substrate. The most landward pilings will be driven first,those farther out will be driven as the tide goes out. The pile driver will be in operation for approximately 7 hours. After the pilings are driven,the fixed pier will be built on the six pilings nearest land using conventional construction methods. The floats will be built offsite,placed in the water at Twanoh State Park,towed to the site and attached to the seaward pilings. The ramp will be pre-assembled offsite, loaded on a float at the same site, towed to the project area and set in place. All framing materials for the pier and floats will be ACZA treated. All fastenings and hardware will be hot dipped galvanized. The flotation will consist of polystyrene fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene resin tubes. Floatation will be placed so that it does not obstruct the float grating. All treated lumber used for this project will meet or exceed the standards established in"Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments"developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute,revised July 1996 and amended April 17,2002. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•3 The following Best Management Practices(BMP)guidelines as enumerated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)will be followed during this project: All sawdust, trimmings or drillings from the treated wood used in this project will be contained in such manner to prevent them from entering the beach,bed or waters of the state. All cut-offs, excess materials and other wastes will be retrieved and disposed of at an approved disposal site. No heavy equipment will be used on the beach. Additional BMP guidelines may be required in the Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA). C.Action Area: The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the proposed PRF location. This action area includes the area(25' surrounding each piling) in which potential turbidity plumes generated by pile driving may impact the listed fish species. The action area will also include the area in which pile-driving noise may affect nesting and wintering eagles,marbled murrelets and the listed fish species. Several boats will be moored periodically at the site. The action area should include the area in which the listed species may be impacted by boat use. However, defining the extent of this area is somewhat arbitrary, because no one can anticipate where the boat owners will operate their boats. For the purpose of this BE the action area potentially impacted by boat use will be defined as one mile in all waterward directions from the PRF, even though boat use may extend beyond that area. H. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION A. Species Information: In the project area,there are two salmon species, Hood Canal summer-run chum(Oncorhynchus keta)and Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Federal Register, Vol. 64,Nos. 56 and 57). NMFS also listed the Steller sea lion(Eumetopias jubatus)as threatened and both the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)and the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. Bull trout(Salvelinus conjluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)in October of 1999.Bald eagles(Hahaeetus leucocephalus)and marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1978 and 1992,respectively. On April 30,2002,the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a NMFS consent decree withdrawing the February 2000 critical habitat designations for the Hood Canal summer-run chum and Puget Sound Chinook. The critical habitat designations will be re-issued after additional analysis. According to the USFWS, no special management protection for critical habitat has been designated for the bald eagle at this time. There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site(Federal Register, Vol. 61,No. 102, 1996). The critical habitat designation for the bull trout was deemed"not determinable"due to the meager understanding of the biological needs of the species at this time(Federal Register, Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999).There is no designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions or leatherback sea turtles in Washington and no designated critical habitat for humpback whales at this time. Hood Canal Summer-run Chum: Drohn=and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•4 Chum salmon have the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any Pacific salmon(Groot and Margolis 1991), and historically may have been the most abundant of all the salmon species(Heave 1961). In the Puget Sound area the spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams. Summer,fall and winter runs are present. Fall-run chum are most prevalent,but summer runs are found in the Hood Canal, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in southern Puget Sound(WDFW 1994). In the Hood Canal,the summer-run stocks spawn from early-September to mid-October,while spawning of the fall-run stocks begins about the third week in October and may continue into January(WDFW 1994). Juvenile chum in Washington begin migration downstream in late January and continue through May, although there is considerable variability in the onset of migration due to the large number of cues influencing migration (Simenstad et al. 1982 and Salo 1991). The migration to the estuarine environment usually happens immediately after emergence(Simenstad 1998),but juveniles have been reported to remain in freshwater streams for up to a month(Salo and Noble 1953;Bostick 1955; and Beall 1972). Chum and ocean-type chinook spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon (Dorcey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982).Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average residence of 24 days(Simenstad 1998). 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 et al. 1982). Eelgrass beds are probably the main migration corridors for juveniles,providing both forage opportunities and refuge from predation(Simenstad et al. 1982). As the spring and early summer season progress and plankton blooms and forage opportunities increase, the migration rate slows(Bax 1983). Simenstad and Salo(1982)found that as the food resources started to decrease in mid to late summer,juvenile chum tended to move offshore, suggesting a relationship between out migration and prey availability. Summer chum escapements in Hood Canal have generally experienced a continuous decline for the past 30 years. However,in 1995 - 1996 there was a dramatic increase in escapement, especially in some rivers on the western arm of Hood Canal such as the Big Quilcene,the Duckabush and the Dosewallips. Streams on the eastern side of the canal continued either to have no returning adults(Big Beef Creek, Anderson Creek, and the Dewatto River)or no increases in escapement(Tahuya River)(Johnson et al. 1997). The dramatic escapement increases of 1995 - 1996 were not seen in 1997. For example, in the Dosewallips,the 1996 escapement rose to almost 7000 fish,but declined to under 100 in 1997(Bernthal et al. 1999).In 1999, summer chum escapement in the Dosewallips was 351 (Johnson,pers. comm.). However, chum returns in the fall of 2001 increased to 700 to 800 in the Dosewallips, Duckabush and the Hamma Hamma rivers. The return to Big Beef Creek increased to 600 fish from 20 in 1999. The situation is more critical for the Hood Canal summer-run chum populations in southern Hood Canal (Skokomish River northeast to the Union River). Summer-run chum have existed in the past in the Tahuya River, which enters Hood Canal approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the site,but that run may be extinct at this time(Bernthal et al. 1999). The same situation exists in the Skokomish River, which enters Hood Canal approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project area. The Union River enters the Hood Canal approximately 8.7 miles northeast of the project,area at Belfair, and supports a summer-run chum population. In contrast to other summer-run chum populations in southern Hood Canal,this stock has shown a general increase during the last 15 years(Bernthal et al. 1999),but is still thought to be below historic levels. Pugd Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, 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 fiy from March to May at a length of 40 mm., 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 Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-5 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. Summer/fall-run chinook have spawned in the Skokomish,Union,Tahuya, Duckabush,Dosewallips and Hamma Hamma Rivers in the past-all of these rivers empty into the Hood Canal. Escapement is currently strong in the Skokomish River,but much weaker in the other rivers given the available productive habitat. For example, in the Tahuya there were no returning chinook in 1999 according to the Salmon Spawning Ground Survey Data from WDFW(Egan,pers. comm.). In the Duckabush River in 1999,the spawner escapement was just 92 chinook(Johnson,pers. comm.). A large number of the naturally spawning chinook in the Skokomish are derived from hatchery strays from Hoodsport and George Adams hatcheries(WDFW 1994). Chinook of hatchery origin have been released in the Tahuya and Union rivers, and the genetic impacts are unknown. These fish are considered a stock of mixed origin(a stock whose individuals originated from commingled native and non-native parents)with composite production(a stock sustained by both wild and artificial production)(Myers et al. 1998 and WDFW 1994). Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout 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 and 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. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States(Federal Register, Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999). There are three bull trout subpopulations in the Skokomish River Basin. There is an isolated population in Lake Cushman(due to the construction of a dam on the North Fork Skokomish River), a second subpopulation occurs in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and a third subpopulation occurs in the upper North Fork Skokomish River above Staircase Falls(Staircase Falls is assumed to be a barrier to migration of the Lake Cushman stock into the upper North Fork Skokomish). The first two populations are considered"depressed"(with fewer than 500 spawners in each population), and the third population is considered"unknown"because of insufficient information(Federal Register, Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999). Marty Ereth, a Habitat Biologist for the Skokomish Tribe,has reported fisherman catching bull trout in the lower Skokomish from fall to spring(pers comm.). According to Ereth, "it is not known whether these bull trout are fluvial Skokomish bull trout dropping down in to the floodplain to overwinter,if they are a local anadromous form or if they are an anadromous population from another area foraging and over wintering in the lower Skokomish River." Bald Eagle: In 1973, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagle was listed as threatened in Washington State. Currently, there are about six hundred nesting pairs of bald eagles in Washington. Each winter several hundred additional eagles take up temporary residence on rivers and streams to feed on the spawned out carcasses of salmon. Eagles are generally riparian, associated with coasts, rivers and lakes. Nest selection includes three key elements: (1)proximity to water, and a clear flight path to the water, (2)they usually prefer to find the largest tree in the area, and(3)an open view of the surrounding area. An otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity in the area. Birds are their primary food Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•6 source,but eagles are opportunistic and will take a variety of fish, small mammals, sea urchins, clams, crabs and carrion. In Washington State,most nest-building activity occurs in January and February. Egg laying occurs in March or early April and eaglets hatch after a 35-day incubation period(Stahnaster 1987). They remain in the nest for 10-12 weeks before attempting their first flights in mid-July. They may remain in the area for another month before dispersal(Anderson et al. 1986). There are no active nests within a mile of the site and there are no eagle winter concentration areas near the site(Nordstrom,pers. comm.). Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets 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.There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site. Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Marine Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound.Ambient Monitoring Program, WDFW)indicate that marbled murrelets do make use of nearshore foraging habitat in this part of the Hood Canal in the winter(Figure 6). However,they are rarely seen in this area in the summer(Figure 5). Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring(Clupea harengus pallasi), sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus)and surf smelt(Hypomesus 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. There are documented surf smelt spawning beaches at and adjacent to the site(Figure 7, Penttila 1999). They require sand/gravel substrates in the upper intertidal zone(the area between+7'above MLLW and F above MHHW)on which to deposit their eggs. Egg deposition occurs between September 15 and March 1 in the Hood Canal area. The nearest sand lance spawning beaches are approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site(Figure 8). According to Penttila(1995), spawning takes place primarily on fine-grained sand substrates, although spawning can occur on sand-gravel substrates as well as gravel up to 3 cm in diameter. Spawning can take place on sheltered beaches, current-swept beaches on tidal passages and on exposed wave-swept beaches. They deposit their adhesive eggs in the upper intertidal zone(the area between+5'above MLLW and MHHW). Sand lance spawn from October 15 to March 1. There are Pacific herring spawning areas approximately 3000'northeast of the site(Figure 9, WDFW 2000). Herring usually spawn from January 15 to April 1 on Zostera marina, Gracilariopsis and other macroalgae. Steller Sea Lions. Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska. Breeding colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon(Osborne et al. 1988). There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the Hood Canal area(Jeffries et al. 2000), although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May)where their visits are transitory. Humpback Whales: Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound, even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982). According to Osborne et al. (1988),there were only three sightings of humpback whales in Puget Sound from 1976 to 1988. It is highly unlikely they would be present near the Hood Canal project area(Jeffries,pers. Comm.). Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-7 Leatherback Sea Turtle: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington, even though they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994).They are rarely seen in Puget Sound(McAllister,pers. comm.). Again, it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found in the Hood Canal near the project site. B. Survey Results: A SCUBA survey was done June 8, 2004,beginning at 11:00 AM, at the Drohman-Turk project site on the south side of Hood Canal. Lynn Goodwin and Amy Leitman used SCUBA to run eight transects to identify flora, fauna, substrate types, and other qualitative information relative to the Biological Evaluation. Water visibility was less than 20'. The eight parallel transects were run perpendicular to shore, each 150'long, measured from the interface of the rock riprap along the highway and the beach. T1 was located about 50' southwest, and T8 about 60'northeast, of the center of the proposed pier structure. The distance between T1 and T2 was 25;between T7 and T8 was 3 5; and all other transects were 10'apart. The habitat survey map (Attachment 1)shows the transect locations TRANSECT DATA Surface Substrate:The substrates of T1 —T4 were primarily cobble,pea gravel,broken shell and sand. By about 90'from the riprap/beach interface,the substrate was virtually 100%covered by oysters(Crassostrea gigas). The substrate had changed to cobble, shell and pea gravel with only about 10%oyster coverage by about 100'from the riprap/beach interface. T5 —T8 had nearly 100%oyster coverage about 85'from the riprap/beach interface, diminishing to about 10%coverage at 110'along the transects. By 120',and continuing to the end of T5 and T6, the substrate had changed to primarily sand with shell and cobble.T7 and T8 were primarily sand with cobble from about 135'from the riprap/beach interface to the end of the transects. Substrate Slope: All transects extended seaward for 150'from the riprap/beach interface. Tidal elevations showing the slope contour were measured on T5;the other transects had similar contours. Measurements were taken 50'from the riprap/beach interface and at each 10 foot interval thereafter. The water's edge was 4l'below the riprap/beach interface at 11:22 AM. The corrected tidal elevations on T5 were as follows: Distance Along Transect Tidal Elevation (MLLV,I) 50 ft +5.5 ft 60 ft +4.5 ft 70 ft +3.5 ft 80 ft +1.5 ft 90 ft +0.5 ft 100 ft -0.5 ft 110 ft -0.5 ft 120 ft -1.5 ft 130 ft -2.5 ft 140 ft -4.5 ft 150 ft -5.5 ft Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 8 Macroalgae. Chordaphyllum sp.: A few specimens of this alga were noted at about 140'and beyond on T1. Cryptosiphonia woodii: Bleached Brunette(Cryptosiphonia wood i)was first noted about 90'along T3 from the riprap/beach interface. On T4 and T5 the density of this alga increased to 5%approximately 120'to 130'from the riprap/beach interface. Desmarestia sp.: Low amounts of Desmarestia sp.were found beginning about 165'from the riprap/beach interface on T1 and drifting about 100'from the riprap/beach interface on T5. Sargassum sp.:This alga was found in low amounts(coverage of about 5%of the area)beginning at 120'on T5 and at 135'on T7. Zostera marina: A low density of eelgrass was found during the survey. All eelgrass was found beyond the proposed structure location. On each transect, eelgrass was first noted between 130'and 150'from the riprap/beach interface and continued beyond the transects. An intensive eelgrass survey was done along all transects. Eelgrass was first found at-5.5'MLLW elevation on Tl, at-4.5'MLLW elevation on T2 — T7, and at-2.5'MLLW on T8. Eelgrass continued beyond the end of all transects at-5.5'MLLW. The shoreward edge of the eelgrass band was located approximately 137'from the riprap/beach interface. Please see the Eelgrass Table for more detailed data. Invertebrate Species:Along the upper littoral zone were barnacle(Balanus glandula)encrusted rocks, and old oyster shell. Seaward along the transects several species of invertebrates were found,primarily Crassostrea gigas(Pacific oyster), in extremely dense beds, Saxidomus gigantea(butter clams),Tresus sp. (horse clams)(2 large holes on T1),Pisaster brevispinus(sea stars), Evasterias troschelli-(mottled stars) and Polinices lewisii (moon snails). Vertebrate Species:A tube fish was noted on T8. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•9 Eelgrass Table: Drohman & Turk Intensive Habitat Survey Results Tidal Transect Distance Ave.#Turrions Elevation Along (Corrected to Number Transact per 114 meter 2 MLLW) T1 150, First noted -5.5 T2 136' First noted -4.5 T2 150' 0.0 -5.5 T3 137' First noted -4.5 T3 150, 2.3 -5.5 T4 143' First noted -4.5 T4 150, 0.3 -5.5 T5 140' First noted -4.5 T5 150' 0.3 -5.5 T6 144' First noted -4.5 T6 150' 0.3 -5.5 T7 143' First noted -4.5 T7 150' 1.7 -5.5 T8 130' First noted -2.5 T8 150' 1 0.7 -5.5 In addition to this survey, communications with WDFW biologists(Kelly McAllister, Steve Jeffries, Dave Nysewander, Ron Egan, Dan Penttila, Thom Johnson and Noelle Nordstrom)helped provide local information and knowledge. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project- 10 C. Environmental Baseline: Listed below are some of the parameters that are identified in the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Handbook as critical for the listed salmon. As mentioned,the pathways and indicators will undoubtedly be divergent for this BE since the proposed action area is in the marine,not freshwater, environment. Habitat Elements: In the marine environment, one component that is very important for ocean going salmon is the forage habitat. Maintenance of available prey species, and in turn, their habitat requirements are critical. Eelgrass beds are well-documented forage areas for juvenile salmon(Simenstad and Salo 1982). It has been shown that the dominant prey species for outmigrating smaller juvenile chum salmon consist of benthic organisms such as harpacticoid copepods and gammarid amphipods(Simenstad et al. 1982)usually associated with eelgrass beds. As seen in the habitat survey, the closest eelgrass at this site was found along Transect 8 at approximately 20'from the northern corner of the float at a depth of-2.5'MLLW. The waterward edge of the 80'float is located at approximately-1.0'MLLW Water Quality: For poikilothermic organisms,including salmon,whose body temperature is determined by the ambient water,temperature is a critical environmental factor. Numerous biological and physical mechanisms, such as digestion rate,metabolic rate, appetite, predatory-prey interactions,growth rate, and cues for migration just to name a few, are inextricably linked with the temperature of the water where they live. It seems unlikely that the construction of the PRF will cause measurable temperature changes in the area- Sediment/turbidity episodes have also been identified as critical to the incubating eggs of salmon. Without proper aeration, the eggs have the potential of suffocating. However,there is no spawning habitat in the project area for the listed salmon. An additional pathway by which water quality might be degraded by the proposed project is the leaching of copper, arsenic, and/or zinc out of the framing timbers used. It is known that copper, arsenic and zinc present in ACZA(Chemonite)treated wood products are toxic to aquatic organisms at varying concentrations(Brooks 1997).However,Brooks has shown that when used in moderately well circulated bodies of water,the levels of these three chemicals resulting from the use of ACZA treated wood products are well below regulatory standards and will produce levels far below those causing either acute or chronic stress in marine life. The ACZA and CCA treated wood used in this project will meet or exceed the standards established in"Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments"developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute. Watershed Condition: According to Schwartz(1991),the project site is located along a drift cell that begins approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the site and terminates approximately 2.4 miles northeast of the site at Twanoh State Park. III.EFFECTS OF THE ACTION A. Direct Effects: The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project has been described and the action area defined. A habitat survey has been provided. When reviewing all the data,the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project- 11 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 turbidity due to pile driving. Pile driving noise: Feist et al. (1992)reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000' from the source. Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport,these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon. Noise from pile driving may mask the approach of predators. The impacts of pile driving noise depend upon the number of fish present in the area,the distance of the fish from the site and the duration of the pile driving process. Pile driving noise at this site will probably have short-term impacts on the listed fish species. The pile driver will be in operation for approximately 7 hours and pile driving will take place during an approved work window(discussed below),which will minimize contact with the listed fish. Because there are no active eagle nests within a mile of the site,pile-driving noise will not impact nesting eagles. Marbled murrelets 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). There are no critical nesting habitats within close range of the project and no nests. Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Figure 5)indicate that no murrelets have been seen in the marine environment near the Hood Canal project area in the summer months. Because of this, construction during the work window mentioned below would cause no significant impacts on murrelet foraging. In the marine environment, forage fish abundance could affect survival of the murrelets(Ralph et al. 1997). Construction will be limited to periods outside the forage fish spawning periods,thereby eliminating any significant impact to the murrelets' food supply. Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by 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 and Simenstad, editor, 1988). For this project,turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief. The area where turbidity impacts may affect the listed fish has been defined by the Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)as a 25'radius around each piling. To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids,bull trout and possible forage fish spawning activities,pile driving should take place during the work window from July 16 to September 14. Work during this period will reduce the possibility of contact with these species. Pier stringers are typically attached to the pilings from a barge during the pile-driving phase. If necessary,the remaining overwater construction of the PRF could be completed outside of the stated work window with minimal impacts to the listed species. Typically,pier decking is cut to length on shore and screwed or nailed to the pier stringers beginning at the landward end of the pier. There is no possibility of debris falling into the water. The ramp and floats are towed to the site by a small workboat and secured to the pilings and pier using hand tools. This process usually takes one to two days. The construction process will be brief and will produce no more noise or turbidity than normal boat activity on Hood Canal. Due to the scarcity of Steller sea lions, humpback whales and leatherback sea turtles in the action area, it is concluded that the proposed project construction and its presence will have no effect on these three species. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 12 B. Indirect Effects: Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project,indirect effects might include alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation,reduction in prey resources and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure and increased boat use. Migratory pathway alteration: It is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter migration behavior of juvenile salmon(though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources and refugia by shading aquatic plant life (Simenstad et al. 1999;Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b). However, the significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad et al. state, "We found no studies that described empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats was reflected in changes in survival."Nightingale and Simenstad 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 new study by Williams et al. (2003)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(Mukilteo ferry terminal)and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by the 10-m-wide terminal structure did not appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location." There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns—that is not in dispute. As seen in the new study by Williams and in many other studies(see the recent literature review by Weitkamp- 2003), there are studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures. Of course,there are other studies indicating migration patterns are altered by overwater structures. The issue is that no one has shown that these migration changes lead to increased mortality or decreased fitness. None of the studies that report changes in salmonid migration patterns caused by overwater structures have reported that these changes have a negative impact on salmonids-see the quotes above from Simenstad et al. 1999 and Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b. Nevertheless,the Services(NMFS and USFWS)have chosen to accept the hypothesis that overwater structures will have negative impacts on salmonids, even though there is no current scientific research proving that this hypothesis is true.Their impact minimization recommendations are based on this assumption. Increased predation: At this time, there is no 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 no scientific literature that states that these mammals are particularly targeting small outmigrating 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). Therefore, it cannot be stated,based on existing research,that the predation rates of juvenile salmonids will be altered due to the presence of the structure. Shading and crushing impacts: Shading caused by overwater structures and float grounding can reduce or eliminate eelgrass,macroalgae and other epibenthic organisms. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 13 The following design parameters will lessen shading impacts on the benthic environment: • The 8-foot wide floats will have 50%functional grating installed down their entire lengths(60%open area). • The 6-foot pier will have 30%functional grating installed down its middle. • The ramp will be 100%grated. Float grounding impacts will be avoided by the incorporation of float stops and stub pilings, which will support the float at least 12" above the seabed at low tides. 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(Chumra and Ross 1978; Ogilvie 1981). Langler(1950)found that propellers within approximately 14" of the bottom removed all plants and silt within a swath approximately 5'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). As noted above,the closest eelgrass was seen at a corrected depth of-2.5',20'from the float. The waterward edge of the float will be located at a corrected depth of-1.0. When the waterward edge of the float is resting on its float stops at a tidal elevation of 0.0',the water's depth will be one foot,making boat use unlikely. At this tidal elevation,the seabed where this eelgrass is growing will be approximately 2.5'under water. Several boats will be moored at the site during the summer. It is assumed that most boating activity adjacent to the float will be at slow speeds. It is possible that at low tides,boat traffic over these eelgrass beds will cause some scouring impacts. The magnitude of these impacts depends on such factors as boat speed,tidal elevation, frequency of boat use at low tides,time of year of boat use, etc. The overall impact on migrating juvenile salmon is difficult to quantify. Pollution from exhaust can have indirect adverse effects on the listed fish. Warrington(1999)concluded from his study of the literature that, "There is no significant effect of outboard exhaust on zooplankton, phytoplankton,periphyton or other aquatic invertebrates in the bulk water."However,he also concluded that there are no acceptable works on exhaust effects on salmonids. Fuel spills are another potential source of pollution. Crude oil and petroleum produce behavioral changes in fish at low concentrations, with physiological impacts occurring at higher concentrations(Warrington 1999). Warrington concludes that salmonids may face toxic conditions in areas with low flushing rates and heavy marina concentrations due to petroleum pollution. The project site is not located near a marina. If refueling takes place at a marine fueling station, and not at the proposed dock structure,the possibility of fuel spills at the site is remote. If refueling takes place at the proposed structure, the possibility of fuel spills is also remote. Hand carried fuel tanks are usually filled at a service station, sealed with their cap and taken to the boat. Once in the boat, the fuel line from the engine is connected to the fuel tank. The fuel tank cap remains secured;hence,there is little chance for a fuel spill. Concerns have been expressed about impacts on Pacific herring in their holding areas caused by boating activity. Herring tend to congregate in holding areas 3-4 weeks prior to spawning which takes place beginning in late January. Dan Penttila(pers. comm.)has stated that herring remain near the seabed during daylight hours and only move close to the surface at night(within 10 fathoms). Based on these observations, it seems highly unlikely that boating activity would have any significant impact on Pacific herring in the holding area. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 14 C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects: Completion of this project will not 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 regulated under ESA will occur because of this project. D. 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 by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering."It is likely that no"take"will result from this project. E. Conservation Measures: In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species,pile driving should take place between July 16 and September 14 of any year. Pile driving during this time will minimize direct impacts on migrating salmon,bull trout,wintering bald eagles and forage fish spawning activities. Additional conservation measures will minimize indirect adverse effects of the project. They include: 1. The 8-foot wide floats will have 50%functional grating installed down their entire lengths(60%open area). 2. The 6-foot pier will have 30%functional grating installed down its middle. 3. The ramp will be 100%grated. 4. Stub pilings and float stops will suspend the floats at least 12" above the seabed,thereby eliminating float-grounding impacts. 5. This structure will be a joint-use structure used by four families. 6. As seen in the Photographs, the site is located adjacent to Highway 106 and its right of way, leaving no room for planting native vegetation. F. Determination of Effect: After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys,the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound chinook-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"Puget Sound chinook. 2. Hood Canal summer-run chum-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"Hood Canal summer-run chum. 3. Bull trout-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"bull trout. 4. Bald eagle-"No effect'on bald eagles. 5.Marbled murrelet-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect'marbled murrelets and their designated critical habitat. This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting construction work to the approved work window will reduce direct impacts on the listed species.There are no eagle nests within a mile of the project site. No forage fish spawning activity will be affected because of work closures during spawning activity. There will be no grounding impacts on the benthic environment. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 15 by the conservation measures discussed above. The availability of forage fish for bull trout, salmon,marbled murrelets and eagles will not be impacted. If overwater work is necessary outside of the work window,the impacts to the listed species will be minimal, if they occur at all. The noise and turbidity produced by the small work boat transporting the floats and ramp to the site will be brief and will be no greater than that produced by existing boat traffic. 6. Steller sea lion-"No effect"on Steller sea lions and their designated critical habitat. 7. Humpback whale-"No effect"on humpback whales. 8. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect"on leatherback sea turtles and their designated critical habitat. These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 16 References In addition to the literature review, several people contributed information to this study.Regional scientific knowledge aided the understanding of important ecological systems within the project area. The individuals referenced are listed below. Egan, Ron. WDFW. Marine Resources Division. Fish Biologist, Olympia,WA. Jeffries, Steve. WDFW, Senior Research Scientist,Marine Mammal Investigation Division, Olympia, WA. Johnson,Thom. WDFW, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Fish Management Division, Port Townsend, WA. McAllister,Kelly. WDFW, Regional Habitat Biologist, Olympia,WA. Nordstrom,Noelle. WDFW,Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Olympia,WA. Nysewander, Dave. WDFW,Project Leader, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Marine Birds and Mammal Biologist, Olympia, WA. Penttila, Daniel. WDFW,Marine Resources Division,Fish Biologist, La Conner, WA. Literature Anderson, B.,J. Frost, K. McAllister,D. Pineo and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986.Bald eagles in Washington. Wash. Wildl. 36(4): 13-20. Angell,T. and K. C. Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle,WA, 146 pp. Bax, N. J. 1983. The early marine migration of juvenile chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)through Hood Canal -its variability and consequences. Ph.D.thesis.UW, Seattle,WA. 196 pp. Beall, E. P. 1972.The use of predator-prey tests to assess the quality of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)fry. M.S.thesis. UW, Seattle, WA. Bernthal, C. Coordinator. 1999. Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments. Revised July 1996. Western Wood Preservers Institute,Vancouver,WA. Bostick, W. E. 1955.Duwamish River seining studies.In: Puget Sound stream studies,pp. 5-6. Wash. Dep. Fish. Olympia, WA. Bowlby,D. E.,G. A. Green and M. L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Brooks, Kenneth M. 1997. Literature review and assessment of the environmental risks associated with the use of ACZA treated wood products in aquatic environments. Prepared for Western Wood Preservers Institute. Unpublished, Vancouver, WA. 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.TechRep. 54, Washington Dept. of Fisheries. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 17 Chumra, G. L. and N. W. Ross. 1978. The environmental impacts of marinas and their boats. A literature review with management implications, Marine Advisory Service,University of Rhode Island. Narragansett, RI. Dorcey, A. H. J.,T. G.Northcote and D. V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser River marshes essential to salmon? Westwater Research Center, Lecture 1,University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC. Federal Register/Vol. 61,No. 102/May 24, 1996/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 57/March 25, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Feist, Blake 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, Fish. Res. Inst.,UW, Seattle, WA. Groot, C. and L. Margolis(eds.). 1991.Life history ofPacifrc salmon, UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Healey, M. C. 1982.Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries:the life support system,pp. 315 -341.In: V.S. Kennedy(ed.),Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY. Jeffries, Steven J., Patrick J. Gearin, Harriet R. Huber, Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett. 2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA, 150 pp. Johnson,Orlay W., W. Stewart Grant, Robert G. Kope,Kathleen Neely, F. William Waknitz, and Robin S. Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo.NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 pp. Langler, 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. Myers,J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J.Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W. Waknitz,K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S.Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC- 35, 443 pp. Neave, F. 1961. Pacific salmon: ocean stocks and fishery developments.Pac. Sci. Congr. Proc. 1957(10): pp. 59-62. Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp. Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp. Ogilvie, M. A. 1981. The mute swan in Britain, 1978. Bird Study. 28: 87 - 106. Osborne,R.,J. Calambokidis and E. M. Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers, Anacortes, WA, 191 pp. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 18 Penttila, Daniel E. 1995. Investigations of the spawning habitat of the Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus, in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Research '95 Proceedings, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. Penttila, Daniel E. 1999. Documented Spawning Beaches of the Surf Smelt(Hypomesus), and the Sand Lance (Ammodytes)in Hood Canal, WA.Ms Rpt, WDFW,Marine Res. Div., La Conner, WA. Ralph, C.John, Sherri J. Miller, Linda L. Long,Brian P. O'Donnell,Michelle McKenzie and Kim Hollinger. 1997.Annual Report. Marbled murrelet and landbird research.Redwood Sciences Laboratory,U. S. D. A. Forest Service. Ratte, L. and E. O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in Commencement Bay. Report to Port of Tacoma,FRI-UW-8508,Fish. Res. Inst. UW, Seattle,WA. Rienman,B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station,Ogden,UT. 38 pp. Salo, E. O. and R.E. Noble. 1953.Chum salmon upstream migration.Minter Creek Biological Station Prog. Rep. (Sept. -Oct. 1953). Wash. Dept. Fish., Olympia, WA. Salo, E. O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta).In: C. Groot and L. Margolis(eds.). Pacific Salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Colombia. Schwartz, Maurice L. et al. 1991.Net shore-drift in Washington state: Volume 4, Hood Canal region. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,WA. Simenstad, C.A. and E. O. Salo. 1982. Foraging success as a determinant of estuarine and nearshore carrying capacity of juvenile chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)in Hood Canal, Washington,pp. 21-371.In: B. R. Melteff and R. A. Veve(eds.),Proceedings of the North Pacific Aquaculture Symposium,Alaska Sea Grant Rpt. 82-2. 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. Pp. 343-364.In: V. S. Kennedy, (ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY. Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad, Charles A., Coordinator. 1998. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale,R.M.Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903,Task A2, 116 pp. +appendices. Stahnaster, M. V. 1987. The Bald Eagle.Universe Books,New York, NY,227 pp. Taylor,W. S. and W. S. Willey. 1997. Port of Seattle fish migration study. Pier 64/65 short-stay moorage facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beck Consultants, Inc. Draft report to the Port of Seattle. Warrington, P. D. 1999. Impacts of outboard motors on the aquatic environment. www.nalms.org/bclss/impactsrecreationboat.htm Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington.Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 19 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory, Appendix One, Puget Sound Stocks, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Volume, Olympia, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2000. Critical Spawning Habitat for Herring, Surf Smelt, Sand Lance, and Rock Sole in Puget Sound Washington. Olympia,WA. Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003.Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, WA. Williams, G. D.,R. M. Thom, D. K. Shreffler, J. A. Southard, L. K. O'Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V. I. Cullinan, R. Moursund, and M. Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure-Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon: Field Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•20 r!R� 4 AM 1A Zk NIX0+ q Figure 2. Site plan TN MN 18 DEGREES EAST Pier,ramp and floaf approximately 330' HOOD These two lots will CANAL �p• be sold by Mr. Drohman and will be part of the Joint-use agreement �0 0 0� Paro sne�l i art , � SR 106 "o We lAf- ong �k1 / Boat ramp approximately DROHMAN o O• v s 4� TURK �� QO• a- oo. '�-� •ems � ADO Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•22 Figure 3.Elevation view �s 21 w u 1� �t b b .o c. a �o in M � LC C O � a � g o— fV tt ao O } � G �s co 717 Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•23 Figure 4. Plan view 0 o c' LE :o a in o Z ee ' 8 00 M c 0 rn c t L � Olt O C 4"' }O,C U O O IL') 00 v Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•24 Figure 5. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map ellingham + + + Vick aria Mt.Vernon - ® V 11 Port An 6 Marbled Murrelet Observations (On and Off Transect) Everett Summer 92-99 Aerial Surveys PSAMP,WDFW 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 A KILOMETERS ElAreas Sampled Bremerton, 0 1 -2 birds + ❑ 3-4 birds - Seattle ® 5-6 birdsAL �JJJ j 7-8 birds Project site J 9-11 birds f ' Tacoma Shelton — + +Olympia + Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•25 Figure 6. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map Bellingham Virg ona Mt Vernon _ r Port Angeles ry Marbled Murrelet Observations - (On Transect) Everett Winter 93-99 Aerial Surveys PSAMP,WDFW O 5 10152025303540 601 KILOMETERS t� n Areas Sampled J' Bremerton �< 1 7 0 1 -2 birds ❑ 3-4 birds - J -Seattle ® 5-6 birds r' 7-8 birds `l- 9-10 birds Project site 11 -24 birds r Shelton Tacoma + +Olympia + Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•26 Figure 7. Surf smelt spawning beaches At 1lr.'1 g •1 •• "1. z • '••raicag f�'i 0- 1 t� o 7k a; ���Y,�\ �'• .• �^�' Yam``.••�. • ,. ., P a+. .�.•��`.-��'.- • � ` �< ,�. a Il Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•27 Figure 8. Sand lance spawning beaches p - .� Y,_��••�•• ,', �• �%• ::.,=aA1• '. •;�(�''• .` - � '^+: a,• •• Ems' .n 'c ' _i 1:/' +'" • ''- '(I M� :�•-� �1• •ram ••J 1�'e ..}' R;]• �,��� ..�.. •♦ I'-+�. •'•�. ' Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•28 Attachment 1. SCUBA survey transect map Transects are 150' to The proposed structure is 115' long. a hash marks indicate where eelgrass was first noted. Ti T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 TS 25' 10 35' TN MN 10, r Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•30 Attachment 2. Photographs of the site N go y; s , 5 a y r. 'Al' 74 u � � ^gyp".. �' •:i' y. i. x II c J ! y j, 9 Y § yyF�� r1• 2000 Washington State Department of Ecology Oblique Aerial Photo - Mason County. Arrow indicates project site. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•31 { 4g s, 7. .d 4 f�f m F 1/ ` 1 • Attachment 3. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service species list October 22,2003 LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT,CANDIDATE SPECIES,AND SPECIES OF CONCERN THAT MAY OCCUR IN WESTERN WASHINGTON PREPARED BY U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WESTERN WASHINGTON OFFICE (Revised September 30,2003) FWS REF: 1-3-04-SP-0078 MARINE SURVEYS &ASSESSMENTS SPECIES LIST REQUEST PROJECT MASON COUNTY LISTED Wintering bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occur in the county from about October 31 through March 31. There is one bald eagle winter concentration area located in the county along the lower Hamma Hamma River. There are 30 bald eagle nesting territories located in the county.Nesting activities occur from about January 1 through August 15. There are four winter communal night roosts located in the county. Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) occur in the county. Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus) occur in the county.Nesting murrelets occur from April 1 through September 15. Northern spotted owls(Strix occidentalis caurina) occur in the county throughout the year. Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological assessment of the project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project construction(i.e., habitat loss,increased noise levels, increased human activity)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl has been designated in Mason County. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet has been designated in Mason County. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•33 PROPOSED None CANDIDATE Mazama pocket gopher{Thomomys mazama ssp.)(includes ssp. couchi,glacialis^louiei, melanops,pugetensis,tacomensis,tumuli,yelmensis)Streaked homed lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata) Whulge (Edith's) checkerspot(Euphydryas editha taylori) SPECIES OF CONCERN California wolverine(Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades frog(Rana cascadae) Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) Long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis(Myotis volans) Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi) Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus) Pacific fisher(Martes pennanti pacified) Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon(Faico peregrinus) River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog(Ascaphus true!) Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei) Western toad(Bufo boreas) Botrychium ascendens (triangular-lobed moonwort) Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•34 Attachment 4. 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). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life- history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. 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 territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370 .4 km)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 attached BE. The project consists of construction of a joint-use pier,ramp and float structure extending 115'into Hood Canal. 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 temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon) due to noise and turbidity impacts from pile driving. E. EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached BE will be implemented to minimize any possible adverse effects to EFH. F. Conclusion The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon, but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)in the long term. Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•35 G.Additional References 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). Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•36 Species of fishes, and life-stages with designated EFH in the waters of Puget Sound. (?= uncertain) Species Adult Spawning/ Juvenile Larvae Eggs/ Mating Paturition Groundfish Spiny Dogfish X X Big Skate X X X X California Skate X Lon nose Skate X X Ratfish X X Lin cod X X X X Cabezon X Kelp Greenling X Pacific Cod X X X X Pacific Whiting Hake X X Sablefish X X X X Black Rockfish X X Bocaccio X ? X ? Brown Rockfish Canary rockfish ? ? X China Rockfish X X Copper Rockfish X X ? Darkblotched Rockfish X X Greenstri ed Rockfish X X Pacific Ocean Perch X X Quillback Rockfish X X ? Redbanded Rockfish X Redstriped Rockfish ? Rosethom Rockfish X X Rosy Rockfish ? Rou he a Rockfish X ? Sharpchin Rockfish X ? Shorts pine Rockfish X X Stri etail Rockfish X Tiger Rockfish X X Vermillion Rockfish X ? X Yellows a rockfish X Yellowtail Rockfish X ? X Arrowtooth Flounder X X Butter Sole X X Cudfin Sole X Dover Sole X Ix X Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•37 English Sole X X X X X Flathead Sole X X X X Pacific Sanddab X X Petrale Sole X X Rex Sole X X X X Rock Sole X X X Sand Sole X X Starry Flounder X X X Coastal Pelagic Species Northern Anchovy X X X X Pacific Sardine X X X X Pacific Mackerel X X X X Market Squid X ? ? Pacific Salmon Coho Salmon X X Chinook Salmon X X Drohman and Turk Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•38 TN MN 18 DEGREES EAST Pier, ramp and floafi approximately 330' HOOD CANAL ��p� These two lots will gyp• be sold by Mr. Drohman and will be part of the joint-use agreement Pro osea ier ;- �`' SR 106 rar 1�1.10 �d Mong oat j l V ''.5�� %• asr �sty, Boat ramp approximately , p Qp• 12 / MOHMAN w s o0 TURK a0• oar •2 T � Reference:Drohmaw7urk Joint Use App.Marine Surveys and Assessments In:Hood Canal near Union Purpose: Recreational use of pier,ramp& float Datum:MLLW Adjacent Property Owners: 1) Neva Hunter-Trustee 2) Kenneth McKay Sheet 2 of 4 Date: 14 August 2004