Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBiological Evaluation - GEO General - 1/28/2005 R E C E I JAN 2 8 2 05 MC CD - PLANNiNC� Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project Army Corps of Engineers Reference # 2004-01431 gical Evaluation January 10, 2005 i For: Loren and Jeannie Fladseth 10248 21 st Ave. SW Seattle,WA 98146 Raymond and Barbara Sebastian 5066 Turkeytrack Rd. Placerville, CA 95664 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 i List of Figures and Attachments Figure Number Page 1. Project location.................................................................................19 2. Site plan................................... ............20 ............................................... 3. Plan View............................................................................................21 4. Elevation View...................................................................................22 5. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map...............................23 6. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map..................................24 7. Surf smelt spawning beaches..........................................................25 8. Sand lance spawning beaches......................................................26 9. Pacific herring spawning and holding areas................................27 10. Planting plan......................................................................................28 Attachment Number Page 1. SCUBA survey transect map............................................................29 2. Photographs of the site ...............................................................30-32 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list....................................33-34 4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment...............................................35-38 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run Chum.......................................................................39-40 Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 2 Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project Biological Evaluation I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location: Section 24, Township 22N,Range 03 W 10741, 10743 and 10731 North Shore Road Belfair, WA 98528 Latitude: N 47�22.78'Longitude: W 123°00.72' 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).The proposed structure will consist of a 6'by 65'fixed pier with 10 pilings, a 4'by 40' ramp leading to a 6'wide by 8'long float with two float pilings(Figures 3 and 4). Attached at a right angle to this float will be 8'by 60'float with two float pilings. The 8'wide float will have 50%of its area grated and the 6'wide float will have 33%of its area grated. The pier will have 50%of its area grated. The pier and ramp will be located within 26'of true north. The waterward end of the pier will be approximately 14'above the seabed. Plastic strips will be installed between the pilings and the float to prevent chafing. 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 seven hours. After the pilings are driven,the fined pier will be built on the pilings nearest land using conventional construction methods. The floats will be built offsite,placed in the water at the Port of Allyn boat ramp on North Shore Road,towed to the site and attached to the seaward pilings. The ramp will be pre-assembled offsite, loaded on the 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. 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. Fiadseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 3 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. 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 owner will operate the boat. 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. li. 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. NMFS has proposed to designate critical habitat for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs)including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU(Federal Register,Vol. 69, No.239,December 14, 2004).The project site is in the proposed area. 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 is proposing critical habitat designations for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout-a final decision will be made in June 2005. However,the site is not located on the shoreline that is proposed to be designated as critical habitat in Hood Canal(Federal Register,Vol. 69,No. 122, 2004).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: 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). Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 4 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 chum have existed in the past in the Tahuya River,which enters Hood Canal approximately 3.2 miles southwest of the project area,but that run may be extinct at this time(Bernthal, et al., 1999). The Union River enters the Hood Canal approximately 9 miles northeast of the project area at Beards Cove and supports a summer-run chum population. In contrast to other summer-run chum populations in the 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. Puget 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 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. 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 Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project 9 5 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 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 (Stalmaster 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 Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 6 (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 in the project area(Figure 7-Penttila, 1999). They require sand/gravel substrates in the upper intertidal zone(tidal elevation of 7'up to 1'above the MI IWL) on which to deposit their eggs. Egg deposition occurs between September 15 and March 1 in the Hood Canal area. The nearest documented sand lance spawning beaches are approximately 3/4 mile southwest of the project site(Figure 8-Penttila, 1999).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. The nearest documented Pacific herring spawning areas are approximately one mile across Hood Canal on the southern shore(Figure 9-WDFW, 2000).There is also a large Pacific herring holding area extending from the Great Bend southwest of the project site to Twanoh State Park approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the site. This is the area where ripening adult herring congregate and hold for 2 to 3 weeks prior to spawning(herring usually spawn from January 15 to March 30 in this area). 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.). 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 August 10, 2004, a sunny,warm day, from approximately 1:00 PM to 2:15 PM at the project site. Chuck Needham and Pernma Kitaeff used SCUBA to run five transects to identify flora, fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information relative to the Biological Evaluation. Water visibility was good, about 15 feet. The shoreline of Hood Canal is oriented in a generally southwest-northeast direction along the adjoining Fladseth and Sebastian properties;Fladseth's property lying just southwest of the Sebastian property.The proposed joint-use pier would be located on the common property line. Access to the pier would be from the existing Fladseth deck and from a ramp to be constructed from the Sebastian lawn. Both properties have concrete bulkheads;the Fladseth bulkhead is approximately 9'high and has a landward jog at the property line to meet the Sebastian bulkhead. The MHHW line is about six vertical feet above the toe of the Fladseth bulkhead. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project - 7 The five parallel transects(Tl—T5)ran generally northwest to southeast,perpendicular to a line along the toe of the Fladseth bulkhead and extended as a baseline across the Sebastian property(the"bulkhead baseline"). All transects were 25'apart and 220'long, as measured from the bulkhead baseline. T1 was located 50'southwest; T5 50'northeast; and T3 along the common property line, for a total distance measured along the shoreline of 100'. The habitat survey map(Attachment 1) shows the location of each transect. Following are the collected data from the survey. r TRANSECT DATA Surface Substrate: Beginning at the bulkhead baseline,the substrate of T1 was a mix of gravel and pea gravel through about 100'along the transect;gradually becoming a mix of sand and mud by about 150%a mix of cobble and sand by about 200;and primarily cobble at 220'. The substrate of T2 was a mix of gravel and sand at the bulkhead baseline and was primarily gravel by 10'along the transect;the gravel substrate continued through about 140'. From 140'through 220'along T2 the substrate was cobble and gravel, changing to cobble and sand at 220'. The T3 substrate was a mix of gravel,pea gravel, and sand from the bulkhead baseline through about 170'before it changed to cobble and gravel and, at the transect end,to cobble and sand. T4 was a gravel and pea gravel mixture through about 80%then primarily gravel through 200%and a mixture of cobble,gravel, sand and mud to nearly 220'before changing to cobble, sand and mud at the transect end. Beginning at the bulkhead baseline and continuing through about 180',T5 was also a mixture of gravel and pea gravel before changing to sand,gravel and mud,then to cobble, sand and mud at about 200'and to gravel, cobble, sand and mud at the end of transect. The substrates along all five transects had extensive Crassostrea gigas(Pacific oyster)coverage,with densities of nearly 100%in some areas of each transect.Additional information on oyster densities is presented below in the section titled "Invertebrate Species." Substrate Slope: The transects were parallel, all extending seaward 220' from the bulkhead baseline. The tidal elevation showing the slope contour was measured at 1:41 PM on T3;the other transects had similar contours. Measurements were taken at the bulkhead baseline and at 10-foot intervals thereafter. The corrected tidal elevations on T3 were as follows: Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 8 Distance Tidal Along Elevation Transect L 0' +6.1' 10, +5.1' 20' +4.6' 30' +3.6' 40' +2.6' 50' +1.6' 60' +0.6 70' -1.4 80' -2.4' 90, -3.4' 100, -4.4' 110, -5.4' 120' -6.3' 130' -9.3' 140' -9.3' 150, -11.3' 160' -13.3' 170' -15.3' 180' -17.3' 190' -19.3' 200' -20.3' 210' -20.3' 220' -21.3' Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 9 Macroalgae: Chondracanthus exasperata.: This red alga(Chondracanthus exasperata)was noted only at 150' along T2 and at 160'along T4. Gracilaria sp.: This red alga(Gracilaria sp.)was noted at 160'along T1, at 170' along T2, and at 100'and 150'along T3. Laminaria saccharin:Laminaria saccharin, a brown alga, was found only at 200'along T 1. Nva fenestrata: Small amounts of Sea Lettuce(Ova fenestrata)were noted in the survey area, at 110' along T2 and at 180'along T3. Eelgrass: Zostera marina: Two eelgrass(Zostera marina)plants of 5-6 blades each were noted at 145'along T4. No other eelgrass was noted in the survey area. Invertebrate Species: Balanus glandula: Barnacles(Balanus glandula)were observed growing on the Fladseth bulkhead. Crassostrea gigas: Pacific oyster(Crassostrea gigas)coverage was dense through much of the survey area. Along T1, oysters were noted on the bulkhead and through 100'along the transect. Density varied between 10%at 25'to 100%at 40', diminishing to 90%coverage at 90'and 10%coverage at 100'. Along T2, oysters were noted on the bulkhead through 140',with the greatest density(100%coverage) at 100'before diminishing to zero coverage by 140'.T3 was similar but had nearly 100%coverage from 20'through 100'before coverage diminished to zero by 130'. Along both T4 and T5, oyster coverage began at the bulkhead baseline and increased in density to nearly 100%. Coverage was nearly 100% from about 80'through 1 10'along T4; coverage on T5 was nearly 100%by 30'and had diminished to zero by 120'. Henricia leviuscula: Several blood stars(Henricia leviuscula)were noted in the survey area, including: at 100'along T 1,40'along T2, 80'along T3, and 70'along T5. Patiria miniata: A number of bat stars(Patiria miniata)were noted in the survey area, including: along T1 at 100', along T2 at 40'and 110', along T3 at 80', along T4 at 110'and along T5 at 70'. Pisaster brevispinus: Several short-spined stars(Pisaster brevispinus)were observed in the survey area, including: along T1 at 100', along T2 at 40'and 110', along T3 at 100', along T4 at 110'and along T5 at 70'. Lirularia sp.: Periwinkles(Lirularia sp.)were found on all five transects between 20'and 40'from the bulkhead baseline. Cancer gracilis: A graceful crab(Cancer gracilis)was noted at 160' along T 1. In addition,tubeworms(polychaetes)were noted between 200'and 220'on T1,T3 and T5. Vertebrate Species: The only vertebrates noted in the survey area were two unidentified embiotocids(perch) on Tl. 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. Fladseth and Sebastian 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 noted above, only two eelgrass plants(5-6 blades each)were noted at approximately 145'along T4. 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 raze, 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. To alleviate degradation of water quality in the area during construction, all the proposed project components will be constructed within the WDFW BMP guidelines as discussed in the"Project Description" section. Photographs of the site are seen in Attachment 2. Watershed Condition: According to Schwartz, et al. (1991),the project site is located at a divergence zone of two drift cells. One drift cell extends to the southwest for a short distance and has a southerly drift direction. The other drift cell extends approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast with a northeastward drift direction. 111. 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, the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered. A. Direct Effects: When considering the direct effects of the proposed project,one must determine if the proposed project will immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the construction process include increased noise and 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 Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 11 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 minimise 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 minimise 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. 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. 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 o£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 ref igia by shading aquatic plant life(Simenstad et al. 1999;Nightingale and Simenstad 200lb). 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 µcool 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." Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 12 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. It should be noted that the nearest eelgrass is 54'waterward of the float and no macroalgae was found in the proposed footprint of the PRF. The following design parameters will lessen shading impacts on the benthic environment: •The 8-foot wide float will have four-foot wide grating(60%open area)installed. •The 6-foot wide float will have 2-foot wide grating installed. •The pier will have 50%of its area grated. •The pier will be approximately 14'above the seabed at its waterward end. •The pier and ramp will be oriented within approximately 26'of true north. •Given the bathymetry at the site, float stops will be installed only on the small 6'by 8'float. The float stops will suspend it at least 12" above the seabed during extreme 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). 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. It is assumed that most boating activity adjacent to the floats will be at slow speeds. It is possible that at low Flodseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 13 tides,boat traffic to and from the floats will cause some scouring impacts on the macroalgae present at the site. The magnitude of these impacts depends on such factors as boat speed, frequency of boat use at low tides,time of year of boat use, etc. As mentioned above, boat use over deeper water can actually stimulate aquatic plant growth by increasing the dissolved carbon dioxide and increasing water circulation (Warrington 1999). Given the number of unknown variables,the overall impact on the listed fish species caused by boating impacts to macroalgae is difficult to predict 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 razes 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. 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 minimise 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 minimise direct impacts on migrating salmon,bull trout,wintering bald eagles and forage fish spawning activities. Additional conservation measures will minimize adverse effects of the project. They include: 1. The 8-foot wide float will have four-foot wide grating(60%open area)installed. 2. The 6-foot wide float will have 2-foot wide grating installed. 3. The pier will have 50%of its area grated. 4. The pier will be approximately 14'above the seabed at its waterward end. 5. Floatation will be oriented so that it does not obstruct the grating. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 14 6. Plastic wear strips will be installed between the float and the pilings to reduce treated wood chafe. 7. Float stops will be installed to prevent float-grounding impacts. 8. The pier and ramp will be oriented within 26'of true north. 9.Native vegetation will be planted along the shoreline area. The planting plan is seen in Figure 10. One hundred percent survival of all planted trees and shrubs is required during the first and second years after planting the plot(s). During the third through fifth years after planting, 80 percent survival is required. The permittee must protect the planting plot(s) against predation(e.g.,beavers)—the Corps recommends fencing. Individual plants that die must be replaced with native shrubs and trees approved by the Corps. Maintenance of the mitigation area includes removal and replacement of dead or dying plants and removal of invasive and/or noxious weeds. Maintenance does not include trimming or mowing of the plants. The plants must be allowed to develop naturally. During the 5 years of monitoring,the permittee must implement any Corps required contingency plans(e.g., additional plantings,planting different species)if the performance standards were not met. Mitigation planting monitoring reports will be due annually for 5 years from the date the Corps accepts the as- built drawings. The mitigation monitoring report will include written and photographic documentation on tree and shrub mortality and replanting efforts. Photographs must be taken between June-August(the best time of year to show plant growth). Photographs must show a panoramic view of the entire mitigation planting area. A . set point from where photos are taken must be established and used repeatedly for each monitoring year. The date of the photos must be noted on the monitoring report. 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-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"bald eagles. S. 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 pile-driving 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 by the conservation measures discussed above. The availability of forage fish for bull trout, salmon,marbled murrelets and eagles will not be impacted. 6. Steller sea lion-"No effect"on Steller sea lions and their designated critical habitat. 7. Humpback whale-"No effect"on humpback whales. 8. Leath erback sea turtle-"No effect"on leatherback sea turtles and their designated critical habitat. These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project 9 15 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. 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. 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. 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. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 16 Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 69,No. 122/June 25,2004/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 69,No.239/December 14,2004/Proposed Rules 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 of Pacific 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, Way 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. 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. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 17 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.). Pacoc Salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Colombia, Schwartz, Maurice L. et al. 1991.Net shore-dry 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. Shreffier. 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 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. 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. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 18 - . - IVA {�, .:� ,,$",.� �'�' �. �� • ���1 � 7� (��'� fib,%I�;. _ ww POW; TER RlPl� 11tt /i 1, OW 17, f/ORO I Ai LIM ® W-.1010 � �k, T t �L�m VIA / .. Figure 2. Site plan Q Z Q V 0 d � X .� L a Z a N L c s Z s �- E Q 6 m a E Q ¢ � 0 ' W o 1v z a EE a 0 W `-4 _ ---- r.rrwr.n.� O v, _ •aw ts DC H a o 0 e CL �- _ wCL o X d o a L 3 } 8 ZO Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 20 Figure 3. Plan View STAIRS TO BEACH SEBASTIAN LAWN BULKHEAD 3' BY 16' FLADSETH WOOD DECK RAMP TO PIER BULKHEAb 50%OF PIER GRATED 6' 115' 65' 10' TN MN 34' 4 HOOD CANAL 6'WIDE FLOAT + *` 2' WIDE GRATING 8' y 4'WIbE GRATING g'09 N\'\\\\\\ 60' Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 21 Figure 4.Elevation View z 2 uHi� ul 3 N� W J �O E � �O 8 L �l i� O d 'a �o a �o �t ti I I 3 a i3 QL 6 a. } os s o � o Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 22 Figure 5. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map ` Mcloria - L ` . " - Mt Vemon Port Ari s Marbled Murrelet Observations 1 } ton and Off Transecti Everett Summer 92-99 Aerial Surveys PSAMP,W©FW 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 , KILOMETERS y Areas Sampled Bremerton 1 -2 birds F 3-4 birds .Project Site Seattle 5 -6 birds - 7-8 birds 9 -11 birds x Shelton Tacoma ` -- + -(_Olympia + Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 23 Figure 6. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map ham 1IF 8ria . vMn . Anger, Marbled Murrelet Observations (On Transect) Winter 93-99 Aerial Surveys PSAMP,WDFW 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 KILOMETERS Areas Sampled ' t B IeM# ton 1 -2 birds < 3-4 birds Pr otea Site $battle ® 5 -6 birds 7-8 birds 9-10 birds 11 -24 birds 3heli�n T8CS3TtEt .�©lympia Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 24 Figure 7. Surf smelt spawning beaches .:ram ..•VVV i�� '•O.- . � ';'.; J t 1 `;.•�`'C poi , y A • ,-'may.��. � I ? , ST U.„ W �� -- �• •= a4� •�� �_�!. '�, • it � j..i k' �l�, '� �� ° . .. na •�' . .••:�" �. �'. •J{�::�� ..,.-.,o: .f.�. L`..�i--...�11� �.�;.` .-...�.;,� sic _. .•�.- Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 25 Figure 8. Sand lance spawning beaches eJ ae If ••~fir•••�;.' '.. — �� � . �� +:Cl _ 1• 4rL }t it,to f- _ `•• ' Y•` ••. •,q9y '.:: y• . .:ems .�Z;�.Y' 2 �' °`_ l��. •�. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 26 Figure 9. Pacific herring spawning and holding areas -�! } r5. �l VIC- c. f�;t z• � t x{� -=-#-----'art-: _...�,•' .'� - � --- - �= f yr , -�.; r,: :•:•� ::t r _ Project Site ak WASHINGTON DEPAI:TMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Map Scale — t : 63360 Date: February 22, 2000 SURF SMELT, SANDLANCE, ROCXSOLE Coordinate System — State Plane South Zone 5626 (NAD2 AND HERRING INFORMATION FOR T22R03W Cartography by WDFW Habitat Program GIS DISCLAIMER This mop andr Iacludu Intorenaflan that washlagton YAK RESOUtCE DATA SYf,9010GY Deporlmenf et fish oad xlldllfe (wmrw) molnfoln: la a eutreI sompuler database. Tbls Infermaflaa only - documeafs the Ioeatlen of flah aad wildlife resources Strt Sfra Spow* Area TOlmship titles to the best of our Itsawlsdge. If is not o eemplNs Inventory and it -• wit Is Important to note that fish on1 dllle r Seattle nay eceur Ia areas not eurrsoily $"once S1'„#* Area - SCClimfl Liz knern to Wit bleleglets, or 1n areos tar rhleh yp�,« comprehensive surreys have Rat been conducted. Site Rodesole SpaW* Area Rivers crd Sirfxms specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of resources. ® tlerrrq Spawlmg Areo Much of this lnformollen Is based an field surveys by WDFW biologists, however sane arfiens came from otbar t ergenlrsllant er Indlvfduels Iba . �h(t Inlernwfloa bot bun ke ® tlenorallsed for relaoss 10 fhs generol poblle. Te nturs appropriate use or fsr rare :paelllc lnfonRa}Ion, users ate encouraged to esasull rtlh WDIW ►Ioleolstt. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project 9 27 Figure 10. Planting plan x N ' X i a. Q 6 N L Cf 0 CO O Z s w � Q Y -o m C CO Q � L Q LU 0 a � c CM ollQ °' 0 d 0 � 79 E 0 o w t37 0 (� a a `�- Z = Y Q p a W N O E O Y N O CO •a J } ' T cd � � c E r•^� a 4 g o Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 28 Attachment 1. SCUBA survey transect map Lawn SEBASTIAN FLA DSETH Wood deck Baseline 20' +4.6 - 30' +3.6 - 40' +2.6 - Distance from bulkhead and corrected depths 60' +0.6 - 10' 25' . TN 80' -2.4 - j AN 100' -4.4 - IN 120' -6.3 - 140' -9.3 - 16U -13.3- 180' -17.3 - 200' -20.3- 220' -21.3 Tl T2 T3 T4 T5 HOOD CANAL Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 29 ti£ '.1''�'1',1�_. [ yT��..•s} 1:, h, „':gem , a. asf.S- xx f t~ ra L t t. - a t y � 3 co LO 0. 'c? ' �'ts�; t •�` a- � r,, 1 7' t l`3„�-'�v :fir-;. •add �, 25 h 3SJ t N l d arc.' c. �• .Y.. �Y�i. �� tV� R 1 :'�IYY' 11�'S.L`.'� }(� (� ♦,�yGf �r `� s , ik Looking NE at the Sebastian bulkhead :mom z • ` d � 1 f i - dRj 7 j �Pl i4 Looking SW at the Fladseth deck Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 31 r 4- Sebastian (foreground)and Fladseth property 7 �� Fladseth deck and bulkhead Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 32 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 N IARINE 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. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 33 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 None CANDIDATE Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama ssp.)(includes ssp. couchi,glacialis^louiei, melanops,pugetensis,tacomensis,tumuli,yelmensis)Streaked homed lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata) nulge (Edith's)checkerspot(Euphydryas editha taylori) SPECIES OF CONCERN California wolverine(Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades frog(Rana cascadae) Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarld 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) Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 34 Attachment 4. Essential Fish Habifaf 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 new joint-use pier,ramp and float structure extending 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. Fladseth and Sebastian 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). Fladseth and Sebastian 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/ Grounditsh Mating Paturition S iny Dogfish X X -Big Skate X X X X California Skate X Lon nose Skate X X Raffish X X Lin cod X X X X Cabezon X Kelp Greenling X Pacific Cod X IX X X Pacific Whitn 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 -Greenstriped Rockfish X X Pacific Ocean Perch X X Quillback Rockfish X X ? Redbanded Rockfish X Redstriped Rockfish ? Rosethorn Rockfish X X Rosy Rockfish ? Rou he a Rockfish X ? Sharpchin Rockfish X ? Shorts pine Rockfish X X Stripetall 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 Curlfin Sole Ix Dover Sole X X Ix Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 37 English Sole X X X X X Flathead Sole X Jx 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 Northem Anchovy X X X X Pacific Sardine X X X X Pacific Mackerel X X X X Market quid X ? ? Pacific Salmon Coho Salmon X X Chinook Salmon X X Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 38 Attachment 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run Chum PUGET SOUND CRITICAL HABITAT - PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS From 50 CFR Part 226 Project description: Construction of a new,joint-use pier,ramp and float structure in Hood Canal. This addendum covers the primary constituent elements(50 CFR Part 226,page 74581-2)determined essential to the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)and Hood Canal Summer-run chum(Oncorhynchus keta) (1)Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning,incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Project is in a marine area. There are no suitable freshwater spawning sites in the project vicinity (2)Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility;water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood,log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions:Project is in a marine area. There are no suitable freshwater rearing sites in the project vicinity (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: Project is in a marine area. There are no suitable freshwater migration corridors in the project vicinity. (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: See the Habitat Survey and Photographs in the BE for the existing nearshore marine conditions. The site shoreline consists of several overhanging trees on the Sebastian property and a structure and deck on the Fladseth property. Both properties are bulkheaded. See Figures 7-9 for forage fish spawning areas near the site. It is possible that migrating chinook and chum would be present at the site. (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. (6)Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 39 Existing Conditions: See(4)above Effects Analysis A discussion of the effects of this project is seen in the BE. Determination of Effect: No adverse modification Conservation Measures: Conservation measures for this project are seen in the BE. Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 40 Y 1, c_'," "+ez4 - v