HomeMy WebLinkAboutBiological Evaluation - PLN General - 4/17/2006 Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project
Army Corps of Engineers Reference #
wological
April 17, 2006
For:
Jack Van Horn
Box 226
Allyn, WA 98524
Prepared by:
Marine Surveys It Assessments
521 Snagstead Way
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone: (360) 385-4073, Fax: (360) 385-1724
E-mail: sea@cablespeed.com
List of Figures and Attachments
Figure Number Page
1. Project location .................................................................................17
2. Site view..............................................................................................18
3. Plan and elevation views of proposed structure..........................19
4. Typical float details ...........................................................................20
5. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map...............................21
6. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map ..................................22
7. Documented surf smelt spawning areas.......................................23
Attachment Number Page
1. SCUBA survey transect map ............................................................24
2. Photographs of the site...............................................................25-27
3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list...................................28-29
4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment..............................................30-33
5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook.................................................................34-35
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project 2
Biological Evaluation
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location:
Section 32, Township 22N,Range 01 W.
390 East Cronquist Road
Allyn, WA 98524
Latitude:N.47021.12'Longitude: W.122°49.57'
See Figure 1 for project location.
B. Project Description:
The proposed project involves the construction of a new pier,ramp and float(PRF)structure on Case Inlet
(Figures 1 and 2).
The PRF structure will be composed of a fixed pier measuring 4'wide by 44'long, a fully grated aluminum
ramp measuring 4'wide by 40'long and a float section measuring 8'wide and 24' long. The float will have 50%
functional grating installed(Figure 3). Float stops will be incorporated into the float pilings(Figure 4). These
float stops will suspend the float approximately 12" above the beach at low tides. The corrected depth at the
waterward end of the float will be approximately+2.0'.The structure will extend 100' into Case Inlet from the
existing bulkhead(Figures 2 and 3).
General Marine Water Residential Dock Design Guidelines:
1)Residential recreational dock will be designed as follows:
a)A pier width of 4 feet solid decked with no grating.
b)A pier width of 6 feet or greater will have 50%functional grating installed.
c)Pier support piling to be spaced with maximum span or spacing between support pilings. A spacing of 20
feet is considered optimal. Wood pilings vary 9"to 12" in diameter. Steel pilings are 10" in diameter.
d)Ramp widths will be a maximum of 4 feet and fully grated.
e)A float width up to 4 feet solid decked with no grating
f)A float width greater than 4 feet with functional grating installed on 30 percent of the surface area
g)A float width greater than 6 feet with functional grating installed on 50 percent of the surface area
h)Float structure width will be no greater than 8 feet.
2)No portion of the dock or float system shall ground or rest on the beach. Pile blocks or stops will be used to
maintain a minimum of 12 inches between the bottom of the dock or float and the beach grade.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project-
3)Flotation for the structure shall be fully enclosed and contained in a rigid shell that prevents breakup of loss
of the flotation material into the water and is not readily subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation and abrasion
caused by rubbing against dock fixtures or waterborne debris. Flotation material shall not be constructed of
shrink-wrap type plastic, or spray-on foam-type shell. Flotation material may be contained by the following
material: concrete,polyethylene shells or rubber tires.
4)For floats and piers that are designated to be constructed of treated wood,the specification is for ACZA
treated Douglas fir.
5)If ACZA piling are used then the wood shall have undergone one or more of the following BMPs to
minimize leaching of contaminants into the water or the bed(note: see amendment to Best Management
Practices (BMPs)for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments, BMP Amendment#1,April 17,2002):
a)Aqua-Ammonia Steaming Cycle(AASC);
b)Post Treatment Kiln Drying;
c)Minimum Plant Holding Time("MPHT"). In addition to recommendations for the ACZA BMPS-
Amendment#1 for"MPHT"treatment,all ACZA treated wood shall be held under cover a minimum of 3
weeks at a constant temperature that meets, or exceeds 60' F. If the ambient temperature is less than 601 F,
then ACZA treated wood must undergo the Post Treatment Kiln Drying,noted above;
d)In-Retort Ammonia Removal Plus Plan Holding Time(MPHT), as conditioned in previous section(c),
but held under cover, for a minimum of 1-week, at a constant temperature that meets or exceeds 601 F.
e)ACZA wood treatment methods shall be verified by providing a signed and dated certification from a
third party.
6)In cases where steel piling is specified,the piling may be coated with an epoxy coating or hot-dip galvanized.
7)All wood float piling shall be equipped with UHMW or rub strips to prevent direct contact of piling to float
collar,or float.The contractor shall notify WDFW, in writing,within one-year of project completion,
recognizing that maximum low tides are necessary to install.
8)Removal or destruction of overhanging bankline vegetation shall be limited to that necessary for the
construction of the project.Normally there is no removal.
9)Intertidal wetland vascular plants shall not be adversely impacted due to project activities(e.g., barge shall
not ground,equipment shall not operate,and other project activities shall not occur in intertidal wetland
vascular plants). If such vegetation is adversely impacted, it shall be replaced using proven methodology.
10)Floats shall not ground on surf smelt spawning beds. The pier, ramp, float and associated moorings shall
have been designed and shall have been located to avoid shading of eelgrass(Zostera spp.).
11)Eelgrass and kelp shall not be adversely impacted due to any project activities(e.g.,barge shall not ground,
equipment shall not operate, and other project activities shall not occur in eelgrass and kelp).
12)All natural habitat features on the beach larger than 12 inches in diameter, including trees, stumps, logs and
large rocks, shall be retained on the beach following construction. These habitat features may be moved during
construction if necessary.
13)To further mitigate for project impacts the applicant will be responsible for adhering to a habitat planting
plan that will be submitted for review in the Biological Evaluation or Regional General Permit application.
14) Project activities shall be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed.
15)No petroleum products or other deleterious materials shall enter surface waters.
16) Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 4
General Construction and Operating Procedure:
1)Timing of the in-water work,e.g.pile driving will be as specified in the JARPA,Biological Evaluation,
HPA, Corps of Engineers or other authorized regulatory agencies.
2)Where forage fish spawning is documented or reported, additional testing may be requested of WDFW to
vary work windows. Site inspection, notification and scheduling will be per WDFW procedures.
3)Work on projects will be accomplished per the submitted and approved drawings and specifications.
4)All manmade debris involved in the construction process will be removed from the site and disposed in
approved upland site.
5)All required in-water construction, including pile driving and installation of pier pile caps,will be conducted
within the permitted work window.
6)Pile driving will be completed with vibrator hammer equipment.
7)Over-water construction may need to be completed after the in-water work window due to the very limited
time frame of the in-water work window. This work may include completion of the pier deck,and installation
of ramp, float and any required utilities. Over-water work will be conducted under the following procedures:
a)All materials will be moved by hand equipment or small barges that will bring materials to the site but
will not be allowed to ground or in any way be detrimental to the site.
b)The ramp and float will be constructed at an upland off-site location and installed as modular units. Most
of the pier deck and framing materials will be pre-cut off-site.
c)All over-water remaining construction completed with hand tools and small relatively quiet power tools,
i.e. skill saw, ''/z" electric drill, etc.
e)Typical construction times to complete a residential dock will be 7 to 14 days.
8)All possible precautionary measure will be taken to contain material, material wastes or any other foreign
material on project site.
C. Action Area:
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the project location. This area includes
potential turbidity effects from pile driving(25' around each piling),as well as noise impacts on the listed fish
and bald eagles.
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. Species Information:
In the project area,there is one salmon species, 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,No. 56).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
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 5
confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) in October of
1999. Bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)and marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also
been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1978 and 1992,respectively.
On September 2,2005,NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant
Units(ESUs)of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal
Summer-run Chum ESU.The project site is in the designated area for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU(Federal
Register/Vol 70,No.170/Friday, September 2,2005 Rules and Regulations).
On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale(Orcinus orca)as endangered under
ESA(Federal Register,Vol. 70,No. 222,November 18, 2005).
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). USFWS has designated critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout.
However, Case Inlet is not included in the area proposed for critical habitat(Federal Register,Vol. 70,No. 185,
September 26, 2005).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.
Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook,also called the king salmon, is 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 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 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.
In the North Bay area, north of the project site,naturally spawning, self-sustaining,populations of summer
and fall chum, coho and steelhead can be found in Coulter and Sherwood creeks(Chuck Baranski,pers.
comm.).Naturally spawning chinook are present in these streams, but are probably supported by the
hatchery releases in Coulter Creek. Chuck Baranski (WDFW)believes "that these streams are not typical,
productive chinook habitat and that these populations would not likely sustain themselves over the long
term if hatchery production was discontinued."
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 amphidromous
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(amphidromous)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 amphidromous forms of bull trout in the
contiguous United States(Federal Register,Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999).
Spawning populations are known to exist in the Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers, but USFWS considers the
Nisqually River and Puyallup subpopulations"depressed" based on fewer than 500 spawning adults
(Federal Register,Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999). According to WDFW(1998), little is known about either the
Puyallup or Nisqually stock life histories, spawn timing and location, and stock status.There are no known
spawning populations of bull trout in the northern Case Inlet-North Bay area(Jim Uehara, WDFW,pers.
comm.). However, it is possible that anadromous bull trout will forage adjacent to the project area.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 6
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 source,but eagles are opportunistic and will take a variety of fish, small mammals, sea
urchins,clams,crabs and carrion when they are available. 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(Stalmaster 1987). They will 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 two active nests approximately 3,700'(0.70 miles)north of the site.The nests are separated from
the site by a dense forest(Nordstrom,pers. comm.).Nordstrom reports that there are no eagle wintering
concentration areas near the site.
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 and other small schooling fish, and feed on invertebrates. Annual aerial
surveys for marbled murrelets(Marine Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound Ambient
Monitoring Program, WDFW)indicate that no marbled murrelets make use of nearshore habitat in the
northern Case Inlet area(Figures 5 and 6). There is no old growth nesting habitat near the project site, and
there are no documented nests near the site(Nordstrom,pers. comm.).
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,bald eagles and salmon.
There are documented surf smelt spawning beaches along the shoreline where the project site is located
(Figure 7-Penttila 1995).
Surf smelt require a specific mixture of coarse sand and fine gravel in the upper intertidal zone(+7' up to F
above MHHW)for spawning habitat(Penttila,pers. comm.). They make no effort to bury their eggs, but
rely on wave action to cover the eggs with a fine layer of substrate. Surf smelt spawn from late June to early
April in the Allyn area.
The nearest sand lance spawning beaches are 1.5 miles south of the site.
There are no Pacific herring spawning areas in Case Inlet.
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 Case Inlet 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 Case Inlet project area(Jeffries, pers. comm.).
Van Horn 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 near the project site.
Southern Resident Killer Whales: 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 killers whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less than 5
meters deep(Baird 2001).
According to Osborne(2003),there have been no sightings of any Southern Resident pods in the project
area during the period from 1990 to 2003. Due to the rare occurrence of the Southern Resident pods in this
area, it seems unlikely that the proposed project will have significant impacts on this species.
B. Survey Results:
A SCUBA survey was done September 14,2005, a cool, cloudy day, from 3:45 PM to 4:30 PM at the site on
the western shore of Case Inlet. Amy Leitman and Perna Kitaeff used SCUBA to run six transects to identify
flora,fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information relative to the Biological Evaluation. Water
visibility was good,about 20 feet. The Van Horn property has a 3'high concrete bulkhead with stairs for beach
access. The shoreline orientation is generally north and south(compass bearings of 3300-150°). Two mooring
floats are currently located within the project area. The MHHW line is about 1'/2 vertical feet above the toe of
the bulkhead.
The six parallel transects(Tl—T6)ran perpendicular to the bulkhead, oriented generally east to west(compass
bearings of 60°-240°), and extended seaward 160'from the interface of the beach and the bulkhead(the
"bulkhead/beach interface"). The distance between all transects was 20', for a total distance of 100'as measured
along the bulkhead.T1 was located 25' north of the northern property line;T3 was located 25'south of the
northern property line,the site of the proposed pier,ramp and float; and T6 was located 60'south of T3. The
survey transect and habitat map(Attachment 1)shows the location of each transect within the survey area.
Surface Substrate: In general,the substrate was pea gravel for the first 10' seaward of the bulkhead along each
transect. By approximately 20' seaward of the bulkhead/beach interface, the substrate was almost
completely covered with golf-ball sized cobble. For the first 40'to 50'from the bulkhead/beach interface,
numerous Lirularia sp. (periwinkles)were found on the cobble but only a few Balanus glandula(barnacles)
were noted along all the transects.Beyond approximately 50'from the bulkhead/beach interface, and
continuing through about 90',barnacle coverage was dense. Barnacles covered approximately 90%of the
cobble 60'from the bulkhead/beach interface along T 1-T3, nearly 100%of the cobble 70'along T4 and
about 50%of the cobble 50'along T5 and T6. Periwinkles were noted to about 70'seaward of the
bulkhead/beach interface. By approximately 100'along T1,T2, T3 and T4 and by about 120'along T5 &
T6,all as measured from the bulkhead/beach interface,the substrates had become a mix of sand and broken
shell with cobble covering about 50%of the area. Continuing seaward along all the transects,the cobble
coverage percentage diminished; by 160'the substrates were only sand and broken shell.
Substrate Slope: All four transects were parallel and extended seaward 160'from the bulkhead/beach interface.
The water depths showing the slope contour were measured at 4:05 PM along T3;the other transects had
similar contours.The water level was six vertical inches above the toe of the bulkhead at 4:05 PM;
measurements were taken at the bulkhead and at 10-foot intervals thereafter. The corrected depths along T3
were:
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 8
Distance Along Transect Corrected Depths
MLLW
0' +13.4'
10, +11.9'
20' +10.4'
30' +8.9'
40' +7.9'
50' +7.9'
60' +5.9'
70' +5.0'
80' +4.0'
90' +3.0'
100, +2.0'
110' +1.0'
120' -0.0'
130' -1.0'
140' -2.0'
150' -3.0'
160' -3.0'
Macroalgae: The following species of macroalgae were noted in the survey area:
Enteromorpha intestinalis: Sea Hair(Enteromorpha intestinalis)covered approximately 2%of the area
between 120'and 150'from the bulkhead/beach interface along T3.
Gracilaria sp.: This alga, Gracilaria sp., was noted covering approximately 1%of the area 120'along T2
and about 5% of the area 160'along T6,measured from the bulkhead/beach interface.
Laminaria sp.: One or two pieces of Laminaria sp. were observed 140'from the bulkhead/beach interface
along T6.
Mastocarpus papillatus: This alga,Mastocarpus papillatus, was observed covering approximately 1%to
5%of the area between 70'and 80'from the bulkhead/beach interface along all transects.
Sargassum muticum: Within the survey area,the greatest density of Sargassum muticum(covering about
35%of the area)was found 150'from the bulkhead/beach interface along T2. Small amounts were also
noted 150'along T1 and T4, covering approximately 1%and 5% of the areas respectively.
Ulva fenestrata: Along T 1, Sea Lettuce (Ulva fenestrata)was observed covering approximately 20% of the
area 140'from the bulkhead/beach interface before increasing to 30%of the area by 160'. This alga was
noted covering 20% of the area 150' along T2, before diminishing to 10% coverage by 160'. Sea Lettuce
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project* 9
was also found 150'along T3 and T4,covering about 5%of the area,and 110' along T5 and T6, covering
about 20%of the area, in each case measured from the bulkhead/beach interface.
Microalgae: A diatom mat was observed on the sand and broken shell substrate about 160' from the
bulkheadibeach interface along all four transects.
Eelgrass:No eelgrass(Zostera sp.)was observed in the survey area.
Invertebrate Species: Several species of invertebrates were noted in the survey area, including:Balanus
glandula(barnacle), Cancer gracilis(graceful crab),Hemigrapsus oregonensis(shore crab),Lirularia sp.
(periwinkle),Metridium senile(plumed anemone),Pagurus sp. (hermit crab),Pisaster brevispinus (short-
spined star),Pisaster ochraceus(ochre star),Pycnopodia helianthoides(sunflower star),and Saxidomus
giganteus(butter clam); a Tresus nuttallii(horse clam) siphon was observed and a shell found.
Vertebrate Species:No vertebrate species were noted during the survey.
Photographs of the site are seen in Attachment 2.
C. Environmental Baseline:
Discussed below are some of the parameters that are identified in the Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation Handbook as critical for the listed species. As mentioned,the pathways and indicators will
undoubtedly be divergent for this biological evaluation since the proposed action area is in the marine,not
freshwater,environment.
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. However,the PRF project will have no effect on the water temperature in Case Inlet.
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, because there is no salmon-spawning
habitat near the project area, sediment/turbidity impacts on salmon spawning activity should not be an
issue.
Watershed Condition: According to studies by Schwartz et al. (1991), The project is located along a
divergence zone for two drift cells.
III. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
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 in
reference to the listed species it is imperative to look at the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed
action on the listed species and their habitat.
A. Direct Effects:
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project on the listed species and habitats one must
determine if the proposed project will immediately remove or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat.The
direct impacts caused by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to pile driving.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 10
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. It is
also possible that noise from pile driving will mask the approach of predators. The reported Everett
Homeport results may not be entirely applicable to the proposed project, because a vibratory pile driver will
be used in the proposed project-a diesel powered compression hammer was used in the Everett study. As
stated in the Feist report, "It would be reasonable to say that juvenile salmonids might respond differently to
the sounds of a vibratory hammer, compared to that of a diesel compression hammer."
Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Figures 5 and 6) indicate that there are no murrelets found in
the marine environment near the Case Inlet project area. Therefore, it seems improbable that the
construction phase or the presence of this structure will have any significant impact on this listed species.
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could,under certain circumstances,have adverse effects
on salmon,bull trout and forage fish The effects depend on duration of exposure,concentration of turbidity
and the life stage of the salmon during the increased exposure. The effects can be discussed in terms of
lethal, sublethal or behavioral(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 a and Simenstad 1988). For this project,
turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief. The area of turbidity effects defined by the Army
Corps of Engineers(ACOE) is a 25'radius around each piling.
Because the work windows for salmon and bull trout do not overlap with the work window for surf smelt in
the Allyn area,testing must be requested of WDFW to determine work windows. Site inspection,
notification and scheduling will be per WDFW procedures.
In addition, due to the scarcity of Steller sea lions, humpback whales, leatherback sea turtles and southern
resident killer whales in the project area it is concluded that the proposed project construction and its
presence will have little or no effect on these species.
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 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 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.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 11
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. The following design parameters will lessen
shading impacts on the benthic environment:
• The pier will be 4'wide
•The ramp will be 4'wide and fully grated.
• The float will have 50%functional grating installed.
• Float grounding impacts will be avoided by the incorporation of float stops,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 seen in Attachment 1, there is little macroalgae adjacent to the floats. Given the bathymetry and the
paucity of macroalgae at the site, it seems that boating impacts will be minimal, if they occur at all.
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.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 12
E. Conservation Measures:
Because the work windows for salmon and bull trout do not overlap with the work window for surf smelt in the
Allyn area,testing must be requested of WDFW to determine work windows. Site inspection,notification and
scheduling will be per WDFW procedures.Pile driving during the work window determined by WDFW will
minimize direct impacts on migrating salmon,bull trout and possible surf smelt spawning activity.
Additional overwater work can take place as discussed in the General Construction and Operating
Procedure section above.Additional conservation measures will minimize adverse effects of the project. They
include:
1. The pier will be 4'wide.
2. The ramp will be 4'wide and fully grated.
3. The float will have 50%functional grating installed.
4.Float grounding impacts will be avoided by the incorporation of float stops,which will support the float at
least 12" above the seabed at low tides.
5. Floatation will be oriented so that it does not obstruct the grating.
6.Plastic wear strips will be installed between the float and the pilings to reduce treated wood chafe.
7.A vibratory pile driver will be used.
8.According to the Army Corps of Engineers RGP-6(February 2005), eight mitigation points will be required
for this 496-ftz PRF project(using Habitat Category B). The applicants have agreed to remove the existing 8'x
12'plastic float from their site.This will produce 21 mitigation points(MMO# 7)-more than enough points for
this project.
Calculations:8 x 12=96. 96/9= 10.6. 10.6 x 2=21.2 points.
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"
2. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"
3. Bald eagle-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
4.Marbled murrelet-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be
beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting pile-driving work to the approved work window will reduce
direct impacts on the listed species. There will be no grounding impacts on the benthic environment. Shading
impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the conservation measures discussed above. The
availability of forage fish for bull trout, salmon, marbled murrelets and eagles will not be impacted.
5. Steller sea lion-"No effect"
6. Humpback whale-"No effect"
7. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect"
8.Southern Resident killer whale "No effect"
These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project* 13
References
In addition to literature review, several people contributed information to this study. Regional scientific
knowledge aided with the understanding of important ecological systems within the project area.The
individuals referenced are listed below.
Egan,Ron. WDFW. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Olympia, WA.
Jeffries, Steve. WDFW, Senior Research Scientist,Marine Mammal Investigation Division,Olympia, WA.
McAllister,Kelly. WDFW,Regional Habitat Biologist, Olympia, WA.
Nordstrom,Noelle. WDFW,Fish and Wildlife Biologist,Olympia, WA.
Nysewander, Dave. WDFW,Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Project leader,Marine Birds and
Mammals, 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.
Will. 36(4): 13-20.
Angell, T. and K. C. Balcomb I11. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 146 pp.
Baird,R. W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676-701
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.
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.
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.
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. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol 70,No.170/Friday, September 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol 70,No.185 /Monday, September 26,2005 /Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register,Vol. 70,No. 222 /November 18, 2005 /Rules and Regulations.
Feist, Blake E.,J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink and
chum salmon behavior and distribution. FRI-UW-9603.
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.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project 14
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,pp. 150.
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 Commer.,NOAA Tech Memo.NMFS-NWFSC-
35,443 pp.
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.
Nightingale, B. 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,pp. 177.
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.
Osborne,R. W. 2003. Southern resident killer whale sighting compilation 1990-2003.The Whale Museum,
Friday Harbor,WA 98250.
Penttila, Daniel E. 1995. Spawning Areas of the Pacific Herring Clupea, Surf Smelt Hypomesus, and the Pacific
Sand Lance Ammodytes in Southern Puget Sound, WA. Charts updated and revised Feb. '99. Ms. Rpt.
WDFW,Marine Res. Div.
Ratte, L.D. and E.0, Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. in
Commencement Bay, Washington. FRI -UW-8508, Fish. Res. Inst. UW.
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.
Schwartz,Maurice L., et al., 1991.Net shore-drift in Washington state: Volume 2, South Puget Sound.
Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
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, 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.
Stalmaster, 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 mitigation study: Pier 64/65 short-stay moorage
facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beak Consultants.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project• 15
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,RGP-6,(February 14,2005): Maintenance,Modification and Construction of
Residential Overwater Structures in Inland Marine Waters within the State of Washington.
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.Unplubl. Rep. Wash.Dept. Wildl.,Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead
Stock Inventory,Appendix One,Puget Sound Stocks, South Puget Sound Volume,Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1998. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory.
Appendix,Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. Olympia, WA.
Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats.Review Draft. Parametrix,
Inc. Kirkland, WA.
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. 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.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 16
Figure 1. Project location
• docks � ;` ° Y ' i •1
Olymi
Sho
h
i
Rocky Pa
* Rocks / ROCKY
Van HOM Site
Beach`° : t D T
l arbor V.�. � `�'� -'
Ak, VA UGHN
5
100
+ +
45
/^
a ;1 , n
'[STATE
STRETCH POINT
• PARK P — C
fj '�,,
18"E
Name:VAUGHN
Date: 3/28/2006
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Copyright(C)1997 Maptech,Inc.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project-
Figure 2. Site view
—EXISTING ROCK BULKHEAD
tOHN AND DONNA FETCH I
1811 LINCOLN CIRCLE SE
RENTON WA 98055
}
i
I
I
EXISTING ROCK BULKHEAD
Q
HOWARD AND BRENDA RIGGLEMAN
400 EAST CRONOUIST ROAD c 8
ALLYN WA 98524 �gg
R R CASE INLET
d'
496.05'
--- ---------- --- i 10i, i
'I I
f
VAN HORN _
PO BOX 226
AL
ALLYN WA
98524 � e
—- EXISTING CONCRETE BULKHEAD
-----------
491.30'
EXISTING CONCRETE BULKHEAD
OWIGHT AND ELLEN SASTEN
1827 ROLLING HILLS AVE SE
RENTON WA 98055
0 1� 4 0
Sec SL32 T 22N R I E Lat/Long 47.33'N/ 122.83"W Corps Reference
Purpose: Private use recreational dock MARINE FLOATS Proposed: To construct a 4'x40 pier,a 4'x40'
and Boat Moorage Tacoma WA(253)383-2740 ramp and an 8'x24'float with
Datum: 0.0 (8)"Chemonite treated"piling.
Adjacent Property Owners: Job Name: Van Horn Dock In: Case Inlet
(1) Howard and Brenda Riggleman Job Add: 390 East Cronquist Road At: Puget Sound
400 E.Cronquist Road Allyn WA 98524
Allyn WA 98524 County: Mason State:WA
(2) Dwight and Ellen Sasten Mail Add: PO Box 226 Appl b�: Jack Van Horn
1827 Rolling Hills Avenue SE Allen WA 98524
Renton WA 98055 Date: 3/23/06
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 18
Figure 3. Plan and elevation views of proposed structure
_ ° 3 cU o 0 0
8 -IM-1W o
o
i
i
} Q l� _ ~ �D
�Q� J Q
i
F
2: � t- z Q
v, O
W 3 J g J
---- �. :
a Q 3-_.0 W Q Q
LLJ
� _
w ULL. Q ND�
c X E- 0 Q LJ
U z
T Z W z Q 11U7F-
LL-� J � � z r,
Q Lj
as
C x @J Q
In
v w w a F-
- >F-c�
--
- -- - z
- x DJQ
W W x ~ N 3 Q
/ F- NCU J U W=O
f _ -
_./ ENO 0 W Z�
- - q
H R'WQ
w � a =w
W U _j
t- 0 g In J
--- __
�MHHW - - - � Q ooQ � � � �z�
U Z
W W �- �
z = l� F-- WW \Q'M
O0Y OQ > Dr-W
J LJ Q .- ►-W
_ J Cy Q • 0� Q Z W 2
M �Q .. I- > QM MO�li-
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 19
Figure 4. Typical float details
FULLY GRATED RAMP
WOOD, STEEL OR CONCRETE
DRIVEN PILE
FLOTATION TUBS
VARY IN SIZE
BEACH AT LOW TIDE
12' MINIMUM
DISTANCE
TYPICAL ELEVATION VIEW
50% FUNCTIONAL GRATING.
8' X 12' TIMBER ATTACHED
TO PILING TO PREVENT THE
FLOAT FROM GROUNDING.
(2) 1' GALVANIZED BOLTS.
WOOD, STEEL OR CONCRETE
DRIVEN PILE.
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
WOOD, STEEL OR CONCRETE
DRIVEN PILE
50% FUNCTIONAL GRATING
VARY IN SIZE
8' X 12' TIMBER ATTACHED
TO PILING TO PREVENT THE
FLOAT FROM GROUNDING.
BEACH AT LOW TIDE
One foot minimum distance
TYPICAL END VIEW OF FLOAT STOP
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 20
Figure 5. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map
Blaine
t �J911ellingham
i l
f '
I r i 1 Victoria = _
}
J0 � Mt Vemon
r r
i I,
t � � L:: �
Poet A
Murrelet Observations
Marbled _
(On and Off Transect) y r
L i ;Everett
Summer 92-99 Aerial Surveys
PSAMP,WDFW
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 fi
1
L■�-L�--L.F 1..�1 i � � y i ;
KILOMETERS <r „
Areas Sampled Bremerton
J
1 - 2 birds �f'
❑ 3 -4 birds ,Seattle
® 5 - 6 birds
7 -8 birds Plo�ect site'�tir 4 r
t r _
9 -11 birds T z �
is � •�1 'Tacoma
Tacoma
.. Olympia
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project• 21
Figure 6. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map
< Blaine
a Bellingham
Q
�r
Eli ' -
+ i , .r f + ,
Victoria fiJ4'. [ i .
011
Mt Vernon
tit
{
r
Port Angeles
L {:
Marbled Murrelet Observations + t
(On Transect) } '
�o- +Everett
Winter 93-99 Aerial Surveys t 1 -~
PSAMP,WDFW
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Li
r '
r r_
KILOMETERS 7 f
Areas Sampled 1 '
Bremerton
1 - 2 birds -
❑ 3 -4 birds ,Seattle
® 5 4.8 birds Y -
7 8 birds Project site ,4 y
9 - 10 birds
11 - 24 birds
snel in �- _ t , ' Tacoma
Olympia
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 22
j
Figure 7. Surf smelt spawning areas
i�
1
8Q
1
n Towers
1 � ::t=rig====•_== Tove ?;'';. j
p
4� 100
LLJ
a•� Q'i U
J• 60 W/cn
3:
all
/ ,k.t.=:.�:::::z .Vic�r� �--�—.i ••.... o
12
• -`-c► �r '': `Am 51
/ `j` •! of a
/' f r ..r � '�`' H ,•i, �\ `�„'QI�^ `�;s=zi,s,4ynes:sa �•�`
)Ca Rocs
Oly
I 1 O/ I // a ' � `.\�i,I' 'p.r� 1 oraa$ '�4f�11�,� �''%•�' s
�• 'f \ /a
hor S e a"cam a ` .,
Rocky Point:. _ }
•1 , :�.� Viz:: a� •`:a;�"�
RRocks O C K Y
PROJECT
:•Rotksc.:•E�:
o '
`� . ` • SITE
•. " .:.......::: x �
/ d • t� Known surf smelt spawning beaches
in the Allyn area, northern Case
Inlet.
i`
...... lil• \$ WDFW Baitfish Unit 3/28/95
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project 23
Attachment 1. SCUBA survey transect map
CASE INLET
TN -F�
Macroalgae present at densities
greater than 5%:
5 = 5argassum
U = Ulva
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
160
SAND AND U 30 U 10 — 3.0
BROKEN
SHELL
S35 U5 U5
U 20 140
2.0
_ 120
0.0
U20 U20
SAND,BROKEN
SHELL AND _100
COBBLE 2.0
_ 80
4.0
90%BARNACLES _ 60
ON COBBLE 5.9
a
_ 40
GOLF-BALL 7.9
SIZED
COBBLE
S
u
b
s
t _ 20
r 10.4
a
t Distance from
e bulkhead and
corrected depth
PEAGRAVEL on T3
PL 0 5 20
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 24
•
Attachment 2. Photographs of the site
010
p4a
1
i NAI
y `
,
7 R 6 A.
.! " ! ref \ 2 F� ��' •
Washington Department of Ecology Oblique Aerial Photos, Mason County, August 2000 - May 2001.
Arrow indicates the project site.
. Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 25
! - -
•
Looking north at the project site shoreline area
�-"MUM_
Looking north from the site at adjacent structures
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 26
•
MAP- a d��Pv- -ft-
looking south at the project site shoreline area
Swim float that will be removed as mitigation
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project• 27
Attachment 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list
October 22,2003
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL
HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
IN WESTERN WASHINGTON
AS PREPARED BY
THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
(Revised October 8,2004)
MASON COUNTY
LISTED
Wintering bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)occur in the county from about October 31 through March
31.
There is one bald eagle wintering concentration located in the county along the Lower 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 communal winter 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 l
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 project impacts to listed species
include:
l. 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 activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human
activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species
and/or their avoidance of the project area.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 28
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.
PROPOSED
Critical habitat for the bull trout(Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment)has been proposed in
Mason County.
CANDIDATE
Fisher(Mantes pennanti)(West Coast distinct population segment)
Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama)(includes ssp.couchi,glacialis,louiei, melanops,pugetensis,
tacomensis, tumuli,yelmensis)
Streaked horned 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 lamprey(Lampetra tridentata)
Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus)
River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei)
Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei)
Western toad(Bufo boreas)
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 29
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
involves the construction of a new PRF in Case Inlet.
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.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 30
G. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 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).
,
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 31
Species of fishes, and life-stages with designated EFH in the waters of Puget
Sound. (? = uncertain)
Species Adult Spawning/ Juvenile Larvae Eggs/
Mating Paturition
Grouhdfish
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
Redstri ed Rockfish ?
Rosethorn Rockfish X X
Rosy Rockfish ?
Rou he a Rockfish X ?
Shar chin Rockfish X ?
Shorts pine Rockfish X X
Stri etail Rockfish X
Tiger Rockfish X X
Vermillion Rockfish X ? X
Yellowe a rockfish X
Yellowtail Rockfish X ? X
Arrowtooth Flounder X X
Butter Sole X X
Curlfin Sole X
Dover Sole X Ix X
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 32
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
Star 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
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project• 33
Attachment 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook
Project description: Construction of a new pier,ramp and float structure in Case Inlet.
Applicant: Jack Van Horn
COE reference: unknown at this time
NMFS reference: unknown at this time
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead 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 the marine environment
Effects to PCE: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, logjams and beaver
dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment
Effects to PCE: 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 the marine environment
Effects to PCE: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: As noted in the Habitat Survey in the BE, Ulva and Sargassum are present in densities
greater than five percent. There is no overhanging vegetation adjacent to the bulkhead. There are documented
surf smelt,but no sand lance or Pacific herring spawning areas at the site. There are no large rocks or boulders.
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 34
Effects to PCE: Pile driving may produce brief and localized increased turbidity within 25'of each piling. The
project will have no impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions or water temperature. Work windows will
prevent impacts to the listed species.
Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by installed grating in the structure. Grounding
impacts will not occur because of the use of float stops. Based on the best available science, it is not clear at this
time whether or not the presence of the structure will have negative impacts on migration and overall mortality
of the listed fish species. See the above-mentioned section in the BE for a more detailed discussion of this issue.
(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: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: See 4 above
(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 site is in a nearshore marine environment
Effects to PCE:None
Determination of Effect: no destruction or adverse modification
Van Horn Pier, Ramp and Float Project- 35