Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPier Repair - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 5/13/2021 Habitat Management Plan Pitt Pier Repair Hoodsport, WA For: Seaview Hoodsport, LLC 1329 N Northlake Way Seattle, WA 98103 Prepared by: BioResources, LLC Kim Schaumburg Fisheries biologist, University of Washington, 1981 10112 Bay View Rd. KPN Vaughn, WA, 98394 (253) 884-5776 or 225-2973 Email: kiniberly035(acenturytel.net January 14, 2021 PL G REGENEO Mp er street 1 13 2021 615 �!. A`d Table of Contents 1.0 Proposed Action.............................................................................. 3 1.1 Background ................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Need and Objectives................................................................ 3 2.0 Project Description........................................................................... 4 2.1 Shoreline Project Activities..................................................................4-5 2.2 Timing.......................................................................................... 5 2.3 Conservation Measures...................................................................... 5 2.4 Best Management Practices.................................................................. 5-7 3.0 Action Area.................................................................................... 7-8 4.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information..................................................... 8-9 4.1 ESA Listed Species.......................................................................... 9-14 5.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions....................................................... 14 5.1 Action Area................................................................................. 14 5.2 Proposed Project Area..................................................................... 14-15 6.0 Effects of the Action.......................................................................... 15 6.1 Direct Effects.................................................................................. 15-16 6.2 Temporary Direct Effects........................................................................................... 17 6.3 Indirect Effects................................................................................. 17-18 6.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................ 19 7.0 Conclusion...................................................................................... 19 7.1 Take Analysis.................................................................................. 19 7.2 Determination of Effect....................................................................... 19-20 8.0 References.......................................................................................21-25 Attachments 1. Project Location...................................................................................26 2. Site Plan and Cross Section............................... ............................................ 27 3. Site Photograph...................................................................................28 4. Site Photograph...................................................................................29 5. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 30 6. Site Photograph.................................................................................. 31 Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 2 1.0 Proposed Action This Habitat Management Plan has been submitted on behalf of Seaview Hoodsport, LLC at the request of Mason County to comply with the County's regulations regarding shoreline development.The proposed action is the repair of an existing pier on the Hood Canal in Hoodsport. Mitigation for the proposed project includes the use of environmentally friendly materials, such as Alaska yellow cedar, and the installation of a replacement pier deck that is grated. 1.1 Background The proposed project site is located at 23430 North U.S. Highway 101 in the Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area 16 (WRIA 16) in Mason County, Section 14, Township 22N, Range 04W, Western Meridian (Attachment 1). The Mason County Tax Parcel number is 42214-41-00160. The latitude is 47.39325 north, and the longitude is-123.14476 west. The shoreline is designated Residential by the Shoreline Master Program of Mason County. The proposed project site is located on a 1.38 acre shoreline lot with three hundred(300) feet of Hood Canal frontage, approximately(approx.)one mile south of Hoodsport, as per Mason County Assessor records. The lot supports three transient labor cabins of 240 square feet(sf) each and a single-family residence of 1300 sf,all constructed in 1938. There is also an existing pier of approx.twelve by forty feet(12' x 40')fronting the residence.A 1976-77 aerial photograph from the Washington Department of Ecology revealed that the pier existed on the shoreline at that time. Other shoreline appurtenances include a concrete bulkhead and inset concrete beach access steps (Attachments 3 thru 6). 1.2 Project Need and Objectives The applicant's existing pier is old and in need of repairs. The repairs shall include replacing the existing frame,joists, and decking. The tops of the existing wood pilings will also be cut off and replaced if any are found to be rotted. The project objective is to make the applicants' shoreline structure safe for both humans and the environment, all- the-while avoiding or minimizing impacts to ESA-listed species and improving shoreline habitat at the site. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 3 2.0 Project Description As per the engineered design by MET Engineering, PLLC (Attachment 2), the existing pier will be replaced by a ten-foot six-inch (10' 6") by thirty-six-foot seven-inch(36' 7") pier. The total overwater coverage at the site will be approx. 384 square feet. The repaired pier shall be constructed of sustainably harvested and environmentally innocuous Alaska yellow cedar lumber and ACZA (Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate) pressure treated lumber. In the event that the topmost section of any existing pilings are found to be rotted,the replacement pile sections will be pressure treated Douglas fir. The replacement pile sections will be affixed to the existing piles by a method to be determined by the project's engineer. To protect against erosion, fasteners or other hardware will be made of galvanized and/or stainless steel. The decking of the pier will have a fiberglass grating product installed, a minimum fifty percent total with 60 percent light passage, as required by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). A circular saw, a handheld pneumatic driver, and various hand tools will be used throughout the proposed project. All materials,equipment, and debris will be transported to and from the site by vehicle. Work will be conducted during low tides and geo-textile fabric will be spread over the dry shoreline beneath the work area before commencement of project construction each work day, in order to contain any manmade construction debris. At the completion of construction each day,the geo-textile fabric will be removed from the shoreline at the site, along with all construction debris and other existing manmade debris. All debris will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. 2.1 Shoreline Project Activities Removal of the Existing Pier The existing pier's frame,joists, and decking will be disassembled using various hand tools and removed from the site. If the topmost section of any of the existing pilings are found to be rotted,the rotted area will be cut off. At the completion of construction each day, all construction debris and other existing manmade debris will be removed from the shoreline and disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. Installation of the Replacement Pier The pier may be constructed in sections, off-site, or built on-site during low tides. Work will be conducted during low tides and geo-textile fabric will be spread over the dry shoreline beneath the work area before commencement of project construction each work day, in order to contain any manmade construction debris.At the completion of Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 4 construction each day,the geo-textile fabric will be removed from the shoreline at the site, along with all construction debris and other existing manmade debris. As previously noted, all debris will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. 2.2 Timing The replacement overwater structure will be installed over an approx. thirty (30)day period during daylight working hours normal to a rural neighborhood. 2.3 Conservation Measures 1. Construction to take place as per the HPA stipulations from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. Best Management Practices to be strictly adhered to. 3. Work will be conducted during low tides and geo-textile fabric will be spread over the dry shoreline beneath the work area before commencement of project construction each work day. All construction debris and other existing manmade debris will be disposed of at a licensed landfill or other licensed disposal site. 4. Pier to be grated(fifty percent total with 60 percent light passage). 5. To be constructed of Alaska yellow cedar and AZCA pressure treated lumber. 2.4 Best Management Practices In order to maintain the present water quality of the Hood Canal during project construction,Best Management Practices (BMPs)will be implemented. BMPs are defined as physical, structural,and/or managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water(WDOE). The following BMPs shall be used to insure that water quality is not degraded during and after construction: • Equipment will be cleaned and checked for leaks, offshe and daily, before commencing work. *The applicant will supply the site with a portable bathroom or allow workers access to an onsite bathroom so that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 5 *The applicant will be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous spill. *Pressure treated wood used in the project shall undergo one or more of the following BMPs to minimize leaching of contaminants: a)Aqua-Ammonia Steaming Cycle (AASC). b)Post Treatment Kiln Drying. c) Minimum Plant Holding Time. d) In-Retort Ammonia Removal Plus Plan Holding Time. e)ACZA Solution Bath/Rinse Procedure. •The applicant will have a spill kit and be able to perform basic control, containment, and/or confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and personnel protective equipment available. In other words, small spills, such as paint or oil,will be promptly and fully collected and disposed of at a suitable disposal site. In the event of a spill, a fish kill, and/or if fish are observed in distress the Washington State Department of Ecology(800.258.5990)and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's Area Habitat Biologist, Laura Street(360)490-2087),will be notified immediately. The WDFW's HPA provisions and the appropriate Washington Administrative Code regulations will be strictly adhered to,including: WAC 220-110-270 Common saltwater technical provisions The following technical provisions apply to projects in saltwater areas. Project activities may be prohibited where project impacts adversely affect fish habitats for which no proven mitigation methods are available. (1)Use of equipment on the beach area will be held to a minimum and confined to specific access and work corridors. (2)Bed material,other than material excavated for bulkhead footings or placement of bulkhead base rock,will not be utilized for project construction or fills. The department may allow placement of dredged material in areas for beneficial uses such as beach nourishment or cleanup of contaminated sediments. (3) Wet concrete will be prevented from entering waters of the state. Forms for any concrete structure will be constructed to prevent leaching of wet concrete. Impervious material will be placed over any exposed concrete not lined with forms that will come in contact with waters of the state. Forms and impervious material will remain in place until the concrete is cured. (4)Beach area depressions created during project activities will be reshaped to pre- project beach level upon project completion. (5)No debris or deleterious material will be disposed of or abandoned waterward of the ordinary high water line except at an approved in-water site. (6)All debris or deleterious material resulting from construction will be removed from the beach area or bed and prevented from entering waters of the state. (7)No petroleum products or other deleterious materials will enter surface waters. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 6 (8)Project activities will be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed. (9)All piling, lumber,and other materials treated with preservatives will be sufficiently cured to minimize leaching into the water or bed. (10) Wood treated with preservatives,trash,waste, or other deleterious materials will not be burned below the ordinary high water line. Limited burning of untreated wood or similar material, subject to timing restrictions or other provisions may be allowed. (11)Project activities will not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life. (12)If a fish kill occurs or fish are observed in distress,the project activity will immediately cease and the department granting the HPA will be notified immediately. 3.0 Action Area The action area is located on the shoreline of Hood Canal at the proposed project site. Besides the proposed project location,the action area includes the surrounding area within a designated distance from the site in order to account for construction impacts that may affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as either endangered or threatened. The limits of the action area are based upon the geographic extent(in both aquatic and terrestrial environments)of the physical, chemical, and biological effects resulting from the proposed action, including direct and indirect effects, as well as effects of interrelated and interdependent activities(WSDOT 2010). Because no in-water work or disturbance of shoreline sediments will occur,terrestrial noise is expected to have the most far-reaching effect. The action area for terrestrial noise effects is based upon an ambient sound level of 40 dBA for an area with a population of less than 100 people per mile(WSDOT 2010). In addition,the Olympic National Forest programmatic biological assessment uses an estimated ambient level of 40 dBA for undisturbed forested areas (USDI 2003).Noise frequency and levels for the disassembly of the existing pier is expected to be short term and moderate, as the contractor will be using hand tools such as a skill saw. The sawing of the lumber is expected to produce the proposed project's maximum noise level. The noise level of a circular saw at fifty feet was determined as follows: The noise level at 50 feet from a chain saw is 84 dBA (WSDOT 2014). The noise level of a chain saw at three feet is 110 dBA,while a circular saw is 100 dBA. Assuming that a chain saw is between approx. five and ten percent noisier than a circular saw,the noise level of a circular saw at fifty feet was assigned 79 dBA. To determine the distance that the proposed project's maximum point source construction noise will travel before it attenuates to the ambient sound level;the following Practical Spreading Loss Model equation was used: Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 7 D=Do * 10((Construction Noise—Ambient Sound Level in dBA)/a) Where D =the distance from the noise &Do=the reference measurement distance of 50'. Average construction noise from the proposed project will travel approx. 3,970 feet over hard site conditions(Hood Canal) and 1,656 feet over soft site conditions(forested areas) before it(the noise) attenuates to the ambient sound level. Therefore,the extent of the action area is 3,970 feet or 0.75 mi. over the Hood Canal's surface and 1,656 feet or 0.31 mi. inland from the proposed project site and adjacent shorelines. Besides Hood Canal,the action area also includes several perennial and seasonal streams, including the fish-bearing Hill and Finch Creeks located approx. 0.05 and 1.0 mi. north, respectively. 4.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information In the proposed project area,there are four species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)as either threatened or endangered. The bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata),and yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus) are listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated for the former three species. The project area is located on Hood Canal,which has been designated critical habitat for the bull trout. Two other species in the project area are listed as proposed. The fisher(Martes pennanti) is listed as proposed threatened, and the Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) is listed as proposed under the ESA "similarity of appearance"provision. In the action area,there are nine species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)as either threatened, endangered, or candidate species. The humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae),Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), and leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)are listed as endangered, while the Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss), Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris),yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), and killer whale (Orcinus orca)are listed as threatened. Critical habitat has been designated for the Chinook salmon,Hood Canal summer-run chum, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish, leatherback turtle, and green sturgeon. Hood Canal is designated critical habitat for the Chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish. In addition,the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publishes a Priority Habitats and Species list(PHS) and a Species of Concern(SOC) list. The PHS list includes habitats, species, and species groups considered to be priorities for conservation and management. The project site is categorized as one of those habitat types-- Marine/Estuarine Shoreline. WDFW data revealed that three other species of anadromous Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 8 salmonids on the State's PHS list may be found within the action area: the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta), the Puget Sound coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch),the Pink salmon(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha),the sockeye salmon(Oncorhynchus nerka), and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). The Puget Sound coho salmon is also an ESA listed Species of Concern. Species of Concern are not species that are being actively considered for listing under the ESA by the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)or FWS. They have been identified as Species of Concern because of concerns or great uncertainties regarding biological status and threats. A Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife GIS forage fish map (WDFW 2020) reveals that the proposed project site is not a documented spawning area for forage fish. Additionally,the Washington Department of Ecology's Coastal Atlas mapping program reveals a patchy eelgrass fringe along the shoreline at the site. 4.1 ESA Listed Species BULL TROUT Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family and are native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Water temperature above 15 degrees Celsius is believed to limit bull trout distribution, as eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Bull trout are also vulnerable to degraded stream habitat,poor water quality, dams and other stream blocking structures,and predation by non-native fish. Critical habitat includes rearing, foraging, and migration habitat in the Hood Canal. It is possible that bull trout may be found in the action area at any time of the year. MARBLED MURRELET A small, diving seabird in the family Alcidae, the marbled murrelet forages for small fish and invertebrates almost exclusively in nearshore marine waters,while nesting inland in old-growth or mature conifer forests. Threats include loss of habitat,predation, gill-net fishing operations,oil spills, marine pollution, and disease. The USFWS assembled a team of scientists in October 2011 to investigate causes for the continued decline in murrelet populations. The outcome of these discussions listed many factors, chiefly loss of potential nesting habitat as the main reason for hindrance of population recovery goals (WDFW 2012). Potential nest trees are coniferous trees within 55 mi (88.5 km)of marine waters that support at least one 4-inch(10.2-cm) diameter platform located at least 33 feet(10 meters)above the ground, with horizontal and vertical cover(USFWS 2012). If a tree or forested area does not support these habitat features, it is"extremely unlikely"to support a murrelet nest(USFWS 2012).Nest success is influenced by forest structure,the spatial Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 9 mix of habitat and non-habitat, human disturbance,prey availability, and marine foraging conditions. Human disturbance can lead to higher predation levels by Steller's and gray jays, crows, ravens, and other species that seek human-related foods and refuse at high- use recreational areas(Peery et al. 2004,Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006). Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated in May of 1996,but it is not located within close range of the project site on Hood Canal. The USFWS indicates that marbled murrelet may occur in Hood Canal, so it is possible the birds could be found in the action area. STREAKED HORNED LARK Horned larks are birds that utilize wide open spaces with no trees and few or no shrubs. The streaked horned lark nests on the ground in sparsely vegetated sites dominated by grasses and shrubs. Historically this type of habitat was found in prairies in western Oregon and Washington, in dune habitats along the coast of Washington, on the sandy beaches and spits along the Columbia and Willamette Rivers, and in grasslands,estuaries, and sandy beaches in British Columbia(WDFW 2012).Today the streaked horned lark nests in a broad range of habitats, including native prairies,coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely-vegetated edges of grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground,moderately-to heavily- grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel shoulders of lightly-traveled roads, airports, and dredge deposition sites in the lower Columbia River(WDFW 2012). It is expected that the action area contains unsuitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO The yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus) is a neotropical migrant bird that winters in South America and breeds in western North America. The yellow-billed cuckoo is insectivorous and lives in riparian woodlands(USFWS 2014). Reports of individual cuckoos have been very rare in recent decades,with only three known reports since 2000,these being near Lind(Adams Co.) in 2001, near Eureka(Walla Walla Co.) in June 2007, and from Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge(Stevens Co.) in June 2012. Habitat loss and pesticide use are thought to be two of the main causes for the precipitous decline of western yellow-billed cuckoos.Agriculture, grazing, reservoir construction, flood control,urbanization, and other factors across the West have caused the large-scale loss and degradation of lowland riparian forest,which is the cuckoo's primary habitat. It is expected that the action area contains unsuitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 10 HUMPBACK WHALE Exploitation of humpback whales from commercial whaling continued until 1966, leaving their numbers severely depleted. Listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, a North Pacific stock is known to occur seasonally off the Washington coast (Calambokidis et al. 2000, 2001). In 2012,a humpback ventured into the Hood Canal and was spotted south of the Hood Canal Bridge; however, a humpback whale would be a rare visitor to the action area. LEA THERBACK TURTLE The Leatherback is listed as endangered throughout its range (Federal Register,June 2, 1970). There are no nesting sites in Washington State,though leatherbacks have been reported feeding as far north as British Columbia(NMFS 1998). There is no critical habitat for the species in Washington State. The most pelagic of sea turtles, it is unlikely that leatherbacks will be found in the action area. PUGET SOUNDIGEORGIA BASIN ROCKFISH DPS In 2010,the NMFS listed the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (distinct population segment)of bocaccio rockfish as endangered and yelloweye rockfish as threatened (NOAA 2014). In 2017,the Puget Sound canary rockfish was delisted. In August of 2013,NMFS proposed designation of critical habitat for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish DPS. On November 13, 2013,NMFS finalized critical habitat for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish distinct population segment(DPS). The proposed critical habitat includes specific shoreline and deepwater areas of Hood Canal. When bocaccio reach a size of 1 to 3.5 inches(3 to 9 centimeters) or 3 to 6 months old, they settle into intertidal, nearshore waters in rocky, cobble and sand substrates with or without kelp(Love et al., 1991; Love et al., 2002). This habitat feature offers a beneficial mix of warmer temperatures,food, and refuge from predators(Love et al., 1991). Unlike bocaccio,juvenile yelloweye rockfish are not typically found in intertidal waters(Love et al. 1991; Studebaker et al. 2009),but are most frequently observed in waters deeper than 98 feet(30 meters)near the upper depth range of adults (Yamanaka et al., 2006). Rockfish are iteroparous(i.e.,have multiple reproductive cycles during their lifetime)and are typically long-lived(Love et al., 2002). Puget Sound rockfish are long-lived species with Yelloweye rockfish living more than 100 years and bocaccio over 50 years. Depth is generally the most important determinant in the distribution of many rockfish species of the Pacific coast(Chen, 1971;Williams and Ralston, 2002; Anderson and Yoklavich, 2007;Young et al., 2010). Adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio generally occupy habitats from approximately 30 to 425 in(90 ft to 1,394 ft) (Orr et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002).Adult yelloweye and bocaccio prefer habitats within and adjacent to areas that are highly rugose (rough).These are benthic habitats with moderate to extreme steepness; complex bathymetry; and/or substrates consisting of fractured bedrock, rock,and boulder-cobble complexes(Yoklavich et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002; Wang, 2005; Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 11 Anderson and Yoklavich, 2007). In Puget Sound, adult yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio have been documented in areas with non-rocky substrates such as sand, mud, and other unconsolidated sediments(Haw and Buckley, 1971; Washington, 1977; Miller and Borton, 1980). Currently,NOAA Fisheries reports that there is insufficient information regarding the habitat requirements of larval yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio to determine which features are essential for conservation, and they have not designated specific critical habitat for this life-stage. Critical habitat at the project site for juvenile bocaccio occurs from the shoreline from extreme high water out to a depth no greater than 30 in (98 ft) relative to mean lower low water. In the action area,there is also deepwater critical habitat for juvenile and adult yelloweye rockfish,and adult bocaccio,which occurs from depths greater than 30 in (98 ft). It is probable that rockfish may be found in the action area. HOOD CANAL SUMMER-RUN CHUM ESU Summer chum are the earliest returning chum salmon stocks in the Hood Canal, spawning from mid-August through September. Unlike most other anadromous salmonids,chum migrate almost immediately to marine waters after hatching. Eelgrass beds are probably the main migration corridor for juveniles,providing both forage opportunities and refuge from predation (Simenstad et al. 1982). Critical habitat in the action area includes rearing, foraging, and migration habitat. The nearest documented presence of summer-run chum is in Finch Creek, approx. 1.0 mi.to the north. It is expected that adult and/or juvenile summer-run chum may be found in the action area. CHINOOK SALMON ESU The majority of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound area exhibit an ocean-type life history and migrate to the ocean within their first year. Factors contributing to the Chinook's decline include widespread migratory blockages and degradation of freshwater and marine habitat, with many upper watersheds affected by poor forestry practices and the mid- and lower-watersheds affected by agriculture and urbanization. Commercial and recreational fishing are also partly responsible for the decline in native Chinook abundance,along with predation by non-native species,marine mammal or bird predation in areas of dwindling salmon run-size,competition from hatchery fish,and natural environmental conditions such as floods and droughts that reduce already limited spawning, rearing, and migration habitat. Hood Canal is critical habitat, and the action area includes foraging and migration habitat in the Canal and potential spawning and rearing habit in Hill Creek, approx. 0.7 miles to the south. The WDFW's SalmonScape mapping program reveals the documented Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 12 presence of Chinook in Hill Creek. It is expected that adult and/or juvenile Chinook salmon may be found in the action area. PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD DPS The steelhead has the most complex life history of any Pacific salmon. Steelhead usually spend two to four years in their home stream before heading to marine waters, and are known as a rainbow trout if they remain in freshwater. Steelhead remain in saltwater for approximately three years,then return to their home stream to spawn. Iteroparous,they are capable of spawning more than once, and some will spawn a second or third time before dying. Habitat utilization by steelhead in the Puget Sound area has been dramatically affected by large dams and other manmade barriers in a number of drainages, including the Nooksack, Skagit, White,Nisqually, Skokomish, and Elwha river basins(USFWS 2013). In addition to limiting habitat accessibility, dams affect habitat quality through changes in river hydrology, altered temperature profile,reduced downstream gravel recruitment, and the reduced recruitment of large woody debris (USFWS). Hood Canal is designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound steelhead and the action area includes foraging and migration habitat. The nearest documented presence of Puget Sound steelhead is in Finch Creek, approx. 1.0 mi. to the north. It is expected that steelhead may be found in the action area. GREEN STURGEON The green sturgeon,which is native to the Pacific Ocean, can reach 7 feet(210 cm) in length and weigh up to 350 pounds(154 kg). Bottom feeders, they are an ancient fish that has a cartilaginous skeleton and large bony plates instead of scales. The ecology and life history of green sturgeon have received little study, evidently because of the generally low abundance, limited spawning distribution, and low commercial and sport fishing value of the species(Moyle 2002). Critical Habitat for the green sturgeon does not include the Puget Sound or the Hood Canal. The extent to which Southern DPS sturgeon use Puget Sound is unknown (NMFS 2002). Although the shoreline at the proposed project site has not been designated Critical Habitat, it is possible that the proposed project site may be utilized by foraging or migrating Southern DPS green sturgeon. KILLER WHALE Orcinus orca is the largest member of the dolphin family. Their life span in the wild is between 30 and 50 years. Males average 23 feet in length and weigh 7 to 10 tons. Females average 21 feet and 4 to 6 tons. They are found in all oceans of the world, but are most common in the Arctic and Antarctic or on the west coast of Canada and the United States. Orcas are highly social and travel in pods that usually consist of 5 to 30 adult and juvenile whales. Pods are led by females. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 13 On November 29, 2006,NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat for the Southern Resident Pod distinct population segment(DPS). Hood Canal has not been designated as critical habitat. A Transient pod has visited Hood Canal several times over that past few years and consumed large numbers of harbor seals, so it is possible that they may be found foraging in the action area. It is also possible that the resident pod could be found in the action area. 5.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions 5.1 Action Area The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions, to which the effects of the proposed action are then added. The environmental baseline is defined as "the past and present impacts of all Federal, state,and private actions and other human activities in the action area,the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or informal section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process" (50 CFR 402.02). The proposed project site is in WRIA 16,on Hood Canal in Mason County. The majority of the fresh and marine waterbodies in WRIA 16 suffer from water quality issues. Hood Canal is listed on the state's 2012 Water Quality 303(d)-5 list of impaired waterbodies for the following parameters: bacteria, pH,and dissolved oxygen (low). The Hood Canal is a glacial-carved fjord that runs 63 miles from its mouth at Admiralty Inlet to Lynch Cove at Belfair. The canal averages 1.5 miles in width and has a mean depth of 177 feet and a maximum depth of 600 feet. Several factors, including the canal's great depth,poor water circulation, and the input of nutrients have resulted in its lowest concentrations of dissolved oxygen in recorded history.Algae appears to be a primary culprit. Huge algae blooms fueled by warm weather and nutrients from leaking septic tanks, fertilizer runoff, etc.,eventually die then decompose, a process that consumes significant amounts of oxygen. Another problem impacting fish passage in area streams is aggradation. To the north, several streams including Eagle Creek, Lilliwaup Creek, Little Lilliwaup Creek, and Sund Creek are aggraded with alluvial sediments,likely due to impacts from upstream development and logging. Other Hood Canal rivers and streams along SR 101 are heavily aggraded, as well. 5.2 Proposed Project Area A field investigation was conducted in December of 2020,and the project area was surveyed visually on foot. The tide was high but the work area was viewable. The proposed project site is located on a long,narrow lot between Hwy 101 and the Hood Canal shoreline. The landward side of the Highway features a steep, forested bluff and a residential property fronting Hill Creek. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 14 The shoreline was viewed from the existing concrete bulkhead. Recent heavy precipitation had left the shoreline waters turbid, likely due to storm flows from nearby Hill Creek. A Google Earth aerial from 2016 revealed the slope of the beach to be moderate and the substrate to be sand and gravel. The existing pier was observed to be in poor condition. The deck appears to have rotted in places and broken away from the pilings on the south side, leaving it(deck)hanging sideways and unusable. At least one piling was observed to have weeds growing on its top. 6.0 Effects of the Action 6.1 Direct Effects Direct effects are the immediate effects of the project on the listed species and their habitats(FWS &NMFS 1998). The direct effect to the project site will be the repair of an existing overwater structure in an area that is Critical Habitat for previously discussed salmonid species. Direct effects to the shoreline along Hood Canal include the following: •Shading impacts from the overwater structure *Migratory impacts from the overwater structure •Leaching of wood preservatives Shading impacts from the repaired pier The repaired pier will cause a reduction in light to the underlying aquatic environment by creating a light/dark boundary that may give piscivorous species an advantage over their prey. Overwater structures cause a reduction in light to the underlying marine environment, which can have significant impacts on the health and productivity of eelgrass and other macroflora. Overwater structures also create a light/dark boundary that may give piscivorous species an advantage over their prey. However,there is little empirical evidence to support this conclusion. Simenstad et al. (1999) found no studies attributing predation mortality to overwater structures. In another study, sea perch and pile perch were found to be the most abundant fish under docks(Ratte 1985).Neither species are potential predators of juvenile salmon. In addition, grated overwater structures produce a mottled shade that is similar to shading from trees. Data suggests that other fish species, including salmonids, are also attracted to the shade produced by overwater structures, so it is possible that adult salmonids could prey on juveniles at the site. However,researchers have indicated that structural complexity can moderate predator-prey interactions by providing more refuges for prey species as well as reducing the foraging efficiency of the predator(Cooper and Crowder 1979). This moderation may apply to naturally occurring structural habitat complexity, as well as habitat complexity due to the presence of docks,piers, boathouses and associated pilings (WDFW, WDOE, WSDOT 2001). Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 15 In addition, White(1975) determined that phytoplankton primary production is not significantly reduced by narrow residential piers, due to the presence of more optimal light conditions than found in surface waters,where light intensities are higher than those in which algae thrive. In conclusion,the proposed pier repair will be grated to allow 60 percent light passage; therefore, shade created by the proposed pier repair is expected to have discountable and insignificant direct effects on salmonids and other fish that may be in the action area. Migratory impacts from the pier It is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter migration behavior of juvenile salmon and reduce salmon prey resources and habitat by shading aquatic vegetation. For example, a 2010 study by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service revealed that juvenile Chinook swam around or under the deep end of a Lake Washington pier before resuming their migration along the shoreline(Celedonia and Tabor 2010). The significance of these effects,however, is debatable as studies have not documented negative impacts on salmonids. Schools of out-migrating chinook have been observed swimming around piers, presumably because of the change in light level and/or presence of predators(Tabor and Piaskowski 2001). Tabor and Piaskowski also found that larger juvenile chinook avoided overwater structures both at night and during the day. Other studies suggest that juvenile salmonids may utilize docks for protective cover. Roni and Weitkamp(1996) found that juvenile chum were likely passing under the Manchester Naval Fuel Pier, while Taylor and Willey(1997)documented that juvenile salmon appeared to migrate through Pier 66 on the Seattle waterfront using a fish passage opening, the shoreline, and the edges of dock structures. While the effects of shade on migrating juvenile salmonids is unclear, there is no empirical evidence of mortality. The significance of predation to migrating populations has never been empirically assessed(Simenstad et al. 1999).No studies have examined mortality due to predation much less that mortality is attributable to overwater structures (Nightingale& Simenstad 2001). Simenstad et al. (1999) reported that the significance of predation to migrating populations has never been empirically assessed. No studies have examined mortality due to predation much less that mortality is attributable to overwater structures. The leaching of wood preservatives The leaching of wood preservatives is the most common contaminant-related issue with overwater structures. Laboratory studies by Weis et al. (1991, 1992)have shown that leaching decreases by about 50%daily once the wood is immersed in seawater. Recent work on contaminant leaching from ACZA includes a 2004 study of arsenic, copper, and zinc concentrations in sediment, water, and shellfish near four ACZA-treated wood structures on the Olympic Peninsula. In this study,there were insignificant increases in Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 16 arsenic, copper, and zinc in sediment and water at three out of four sampling sites and minimal uptake by shellfish(Brooks 2004). Given that that amount of ACZA treated wood used in the proposed project shall be minimal and all treated wood used in the project shall have undergone one or more USACE's recommended BMPs to minimize leaching of contaminants into the water, it is unlikely that leaching from treated wood will have a noticeable impact on marine life at the proposed project site. In addition,the dock's framing,joists, and decking will not be immersed in the water. The repaired pier will be constructed of sustainably harvested and environmentally innocuous Alaska yellow cedar lumber and ACZA (Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate)pressure treated lumber. 6.2 Temporary Direct Effects Temporary direct effects caused by the proposed project include: •Noise •Water pollution from incidental release of fuel, oil-, or other contaminants Noise The main source of construction noise will be from the sawing of lumber. Terrestrial noise will be intermittent and is expected to be a maximum of 79 dBA at 50 feet.No pile driving will occur and no in-water work will occur. Therefore, underwater noise will not be a factor. Potential water pollution Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel, oil,or other contaminants is another possible temporary direct effect. As previously discussed, Spill Prevention Control measures and BMPs shall be implemented during the proposed project. 6.3 Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and are later in time,but are still reasonably certain to occur(50 CFR 402.02). Possible indirect effects from the proposed project include: Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 17 *The loss of shoreline aquatic vegetation *The repaired pier results in an increased motorized boat presence at the site Loss of shoreline aquatic vegetation The proposed overwater structure will cause a reduction in light to the underlying aquatic environment,which can have significant impacts on the health and productivity of both native and non-native macrophytes and algae. Shade from overwater structures can negatively impact the growth of macro-algae and other plant life such as epibenthic algae and phytoplankton. It has been repeatedly documented that vegetation assemblages associated with eelgrass, support increased magnitudes of juvenile salmonid epibenthic prey(Thom et al. 1988, 1990; Simenstad et al. 1980, 1988a). Department of Ecology aerial photos from 1992-97, 2000-2002,2006-2007, and 2016- 2017 revealed that there was no eelgrass growing in the upper shore zone where the pier is located or within twenty-five feet of the structure.No eelgrass was observed in the photos of the site. The Washington Department of Ecology's Coastal Atlas mapping program reveals a patchy eelgrass fringe along the shoreline at the site, so it is probable that there is eel grass in deeper water. The optimal depth range for Zostera marina appears to be between 0 and 2 in below MLLW in most of greater Puget Sound, based on frequency of occurrence by depth (WDNR 2015). The grating of the new PRF will allow for light penetration, which is expected to improve habitat at the site. Potential increased motorized boat presence in the area The repaired pier may result in an increased motorized boat presence in the area. Fuel spills from powerboats can contaminate water quality and potentially affect listed salmonids directly or indirectly through their prey source(NMFS 2005). Powerboats also create amplified wave action that can erode the shoreline, and prop scouring can erode benthic habitat, although benthic habitat in the littoral zone is already significantly marginalized by the lake's fluctuating water levels. Powerboats also provide some oxygenation of surface waters, although the extent is probably negligible at best. Overall, the indirect effects of powerboat usage on Hood Canal is likely insignificant due to the canal's large size and the small number of boats that utilize it. In addition, it is unlikely that additional boat noise will deter murrelets from foraging in the area, as they appear to habituate to heavy levels of boat traffic(Strachan et al. 1995). Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 18 6.4 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future state or private activities,not involving Federal activities,that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the action subject to consultation" (50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative impacts are difficult to access. Continued growth and urbanization is likely to detrimentally impact fish and wildlife resources. Global warming could raise the water level of Puget Sound, leaving many waterfront properties underwater. Over-fishing may deplete stocks of salmon, even as restoration of habitat in the watershed furthers their likelihood of survival. 7.0 Conclusion 7.1 Take Analysis Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species, "take"being defined in Section 3 as to harass, harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound, trap, capture, or collect listed species,or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed species by"significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, and sheltering" (50 CFR 222.102). "Harass" is further defined as an intentional or negligent act which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include,but are not limited to, breeding, feeding,or sheltering(50 CFR 17.3). In regards to the proposed project, it is extremely unlikely that any"take"will occur. The previously discussed conservation measures will further insure the likelihood that no "take"will occur. 7.2 Determination of Effect A determination of May affect, not likely to adversely affect is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species or their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. After reviewing the appropriate data and survey information,I have concluded that the proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or Threatened species if the previously discussed conservation measures are implemented. In my most honest and professional opinion, while the proposed project may impact individual Endangered or Threatened species in the project area, it is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their designated Critical Habitat. The determination of effect for each of the listed species is: Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 19 1. Puget Sound chinook and their designated Critical Habitat May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 2. Hood Canal summer-run chum and their designated Critical Habitat--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 3. Puget Sound Steelhead and their designated Critical Habitat--May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 4. Leatherback turtle—No effect. S. Humpback whale—No effect. 6. Killer whale--No effect. 7. Bull trout and their designated Critical Habitat—May affect, not likely to adversely affect. 8. Marble murrelet No effect. 9. Green Sturgeon No effect. 10. Puget Sound Rockfish and their designated Critical Habitat No effect. 11.Northern spotted owl--No effect. 12. Streaked horned lark--No effect. 13. Streaked horned lark and their designated Critical Habitat—No effect. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 20 8.0 References Literature Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 170/September 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 70,No.185/September 26, 2005/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 176/September 12, 2006/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 71,No.229/November 29, 2006/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol. 75,No.200/October 18,2010/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/77 FR 14062/March 8,2012/Proposed Rules Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 192/October 3,2013/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/78 FR 2725/January 14, 2013/Proposed Rules Federal Register/78 FR 47635/August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules Federal Register/79 FR 68041 November 13, 2014/Rules and Regulations Google Earth. 2018. Aerial Imagery. Internet report. URL: https://www.google.com/earth/ Angell, T. and K.C. Balcomb 111. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Brodeur,R.D., K.W.Myers, and J.H. Wells. 2003. Research Conducted by the United States on the Early Ocean Life History of Pacific Salmon.North Pacific Anadromous Fish Comm. Bull. 3: 89-131. Druehl, Louis D. 2000.Pacific Seaweeds. Harbour Publishing,Madeira Park, BC Canada. Gilbert, C. and Williams J.2002.National Audubon Society Field Guide to Fishes, Alfred A Knopf, Inc.New York. Groot, C. and L. Margolis(eds.) 1991.Life history of Pacific salmon, UBC Press, Vancouver,British Columbia. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 21 Finlayson, D. 2006. The Geomorphology of Puget Sound Beaches. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006-02. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program,University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Hart, J.L. 1973.Pacific Fishes of Canada,Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-04.Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. Jones& Stokes Associates,Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.,R2 Resource Consultants. 2006. Overwater Structures and Non-Structural Piling White Paper. WDFW Publications, Olympia, WA. Kelty,R.A. and S. Bliven. 2003. Environmental and Aesthetic Impacts of Small Docks and Piers, Workshop Report: Developing a Science-Based Decision Support Tool for Small Dock Management,Phase 1: Status of the Science.NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 22.National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring,MD. 69pp. Mason County, Washington. 2018. Mason County Resource Ordinance. Internet report. URL: https://Iibrary.municode.com/wa/mason county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=TIT8 ENPO Mason County,Washington. 2020.Assessor-Treasurer Electronic Property Information Profile. Internet report. URL: http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Search/results.aspx?g=42307-50-00025 MET Engineering, PLLC. 2020. Lawrence engineered drawings, 12-15-20. Unpublished document. 2 p. National Geographic. 2002.Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.pg. 226. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species. Internet report. URL: _http://www.nwr.noaa.g_ov National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Bocaccio rockfish. Internet report. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.go National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Bocaccio rockfish. Internet report. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.ggy/pr/species/fish/yelloweye.htm Nightingale, B. and C. Simenstad. 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife,Ecology, and Transportation. Olympia, Washington. 177 p. Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 22 NOAA.2003.Non-Fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Recommended Conservation Measures. Version 1. Internet report. URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/salmon-habitat/salmon-efh/upload/eth-nonfishing.pdf NOAA Fisheries. 2005.Fisheries agency lists Puget Sound killer whales as endangered. Internet report. URL: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2533.htm NOAA Fisheries. 2006. Proposed critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales. Internet report.URL: _http://www.nwr.noaa.g_ov/Marine-Mammals/Whales-Dolphins- Porpoise/K iller-Whales/ES... NOAA. 2014. Ten Years of Research, Southern Resident Killer Whales and Conservation. Internet report. URL: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.aov/news/features/killer whale report/_pdfs/bigreport62514.pdf NOAA Fisheries. 2016. Puget Sound Steelhead. Internet report. URL: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.v,ov/protected species/salmon steel h ead/salmon an d steelhead listings/steelhead/puget sound/puget sound steelhead.html NOAA. 2020. Endangered and Threatened Marine Species. Internet report. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.jzov/12r/species/esa/ Osborne,R., J. Calambokidis, and E.M. Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers,Anacortes, WA. 191 p. Penttila,Daniel E. 1995. Spawning areas of the Pacific herring(Clupea), surf smelt (Hypomesus), and the Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes) in central Puget Sound, Washington. Wash.Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Manuscript Report. Poston, T. 2001. Treated Wood Issues Associated with Overwater Structures in Marine and Freshwater Environments. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,Richland, Washington.. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1977 thru 2016. Shoreline Photo Viewer. Internet report. URL: https://fortress.wa gov/ec /sY horephotoviewer/ Washington State Department of Ecology. 2020. Coastal Atlas. Internet report. URL: https://fortress.wa. og v/ecy/coastalatlas/Default Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. Stormwater Manual For Western Washington, Volume II, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. WDOE Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. 2012 Water Quality Assessment 303(d) List: Skokomish/Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA 16). Internet report.URL: http•//www ecy.wa og v/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.htmi Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 23 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Forage Fish Spawning Map— Washington State Internet report. URL: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=l968f74e2d41470cbd80b 1 af8dedd6b3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Species of Concern in Washington State. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.Annual Report: Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL: httl2://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/marbled murrelet.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.Annual Report: Streaked Horned Lark. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endan eg red/species/streaked horned lark.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL: http://gpps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscgpe/ Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Depth Distribution of Eel Grass in Greater Puget Sound. Internet report. URL: https://www.dnr.wa.mov/publications/aqr nrsh depth dist dnr 2015.pdf Washington State Department of Transportation.2014.BA Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training Manual—Version 4-02-2014. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A 1 F85352-90E0-457B-9A8C- B5103E097FAE10/BA manualpart2.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Published by USFWS,Portland,OR. Internet report. URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/dots/recovery plans/1997/970924.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus). Volume II(of II): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit. Portland, Oregon.277+xvi pp U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Profile, Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/mm/m murrelet.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Fischer,Martes Pennanti. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/Fisher%20SVecies%20Proftie%20F in al.pdf Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 24 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Streaked Horned Lark, Eremophila alpestris strigata. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/streakedhornedlarkfinal.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Endangered species and critical habitat list. Accessed 02-04-20. Internet report. URL: _https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Wikipedia. 2020. Hood Canal. Internet report. URL: https://en.wikipedia.orp/wiki[Hood Canal Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 25 f' keg( HOOD SPORT R .w : wr z Ho o 57 t. * ' J23430 US•101 r g! a 1 ,DVS Google Earth N t off • • SEAVIEW HOODSPORT UC.PIER-RETROFIT DESIGN at 23430 N H*)101,HorAs port VJA 98548 M 7 Fw&E wxj; ffl&_llE', H (Parcel#:422144ial6O) KJOfMgBM 102 FT SM 5 I.lPT EM 6 PT BEAM 6.1.PT MAKI HL.79 'k-�.>_e�, fsoT4 SIDES BEAD 2 12 AYC FAVA DOW 35 7' AMW PRINETER TOTAL 40MA Al.OF 0 izz--------- fi M 3 4'4 SO-T ji 0 b HOODC**L cw Si II d3C)ii VEA k!OFS.,0.6V VIEW OKM as tAi TTY6'. P,MAM f.12 P.T MAY Sr12 PT 3EAM I A -0p FA%(E.W"R D CK 0 S T 5 a&JTl ENE$ C) AL cn Attachment 3 The existing pier at the site. t Seaview Hoodsport, LLC HMP Page 28 Attachment 4 Another view of the pier. All ct4. ti d � i Seaview Hoodsport,LLC HMP Page 29 or _ . 1Ir I ' S�t {f 1 9 Z �k