Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MEP2014-00010 Boat Basin Maintenance Dredge - MEP Permit / Conditions - 4/23/2014
�P 2C) H - 06010 c; -o" Co r � SSE SSN V�' Tahuya Boat Basin Maintenance Dredge Project Tahuya, Mason County February 51h, 2014 For: Basin & Channel Property Owners Association c/o Linda Sollars 22402 66th Ave. W. Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Prepared by: Marine Surveys&Assessments Office: 627 Hudson St. Mailing: 521 Snagstead Way. Port Townsend,WA 98368 Phone: (360) 385-4073 Email: marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com Table of Contents I. Project Information.............................................................................3 A. Project Location...............................................................................3 B. Project Description.......................................................................3-4 C. Action Area......................................................................................4 II. Habitat and Species Information....................................................4-7 A. Habitat Description..........................................................................4 B. Species Description......................................................................4-5 1. Puget Sound Chinook ............................................................6-7 2. Hood-Canal Summer Chum.......................................................7 3. Bull Trout...................................................................................7 4. Puget Sound Steelhead...........................................................7-8 5. Rockfish.....................................................................................8 6. Marbled Murrelets .....................................................................8 7. Forage Fish.................................................................................9 8. Humpback Whales.....................................................................9 9. Leatherback Sea Turtle..............................................................9 10. Southern Resident Killer Whales...............................................9 III.Effects Analysis of Proposed Action........................................... 10-12 A. Direct Effects........................................................................... 10-12 B. Indirect Effects...............................................................................12 C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects................................................12 D. Take Analysis.................................................................................12 IV.Mitigation and Management Measures toMinimize or Avoid impacts..................................................... 13-14 A. Work Windows........................................................................13 B. Dredge Guidelines ...................................................................13 C. Siltation Management........................................................ 13-14 V. Determination of Effect.....................................................................15 References........................................................................................... 16-19 Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 1 Figures 1. Vicinity Map........................................................................................20 2. Site Plan: Proposed Dredge Area.........................................................21 3. Site Plan: Bathymetry Survey..............................................................22 4. Site Plan: Dredge Cross-section and Thickness Estimates..................23 5. Site Plan: Dredge Material Disposal Site.............................................24 6. Site Plan: Aerial Photo of Project Site.................................................25 7. Site Plan: Potential Forage Fish Spawning Habitat in Action Area ....26 Attachments 1. Habitat Survey Results.....................................................................27-43 2. Habitat Survey Transect Map................................................................44 3. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Steelhead....................45-46 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound BullTrout ............................................................................................47-49 5. Assessment of Impacts to Proposed Critical Habitat for Georgia Basin (Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye) Rockfish......................................50-54 6. Sample and Analysis Plan Memo....................................................55-57 Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 2 TAHUYA BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION I.PROJECT INFORMATION A.Project Location: Section 19,Township 22 North, Range 03 West. Tahuya, Mason County, Washington, 98588 Latitude 47°23'08.42"N Longitude 123°06'49.19"W Please note that the Tahuya basin in this project refers to the boat basin of the Tahuya Basin and Channel Property Owners Association and is different from that of the Tahuya River which is located three mile east of this project site. The project location can be seen in the vicinity map in Figure 1. B. Project Description: The Basin& Channel Property Owners Association of Tahuya is proposing to perform a maintenance dredge at the Tahuya basin, located on the Hood Canal in Mason County. Since the last maintenance dredge in 2005, a significant portion of the basin has been backfilled in by sedimentation. The previous dredge was approved by U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit number 200300812 and Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Right of Entry Agreement number 20-076066. This maintenance dredge will serve to keep the Tahuya basin and channel navigable and accessible to the public and stakeholders of the basin. This biological evaluation will discuss the potential impacts of this maintenance dredge as well as provide recommendations to minimize these potential impacts. The proponents of this project are proposing to dredge up 1,166 cubic yards of material from an approximately 12,281 ft2 area along the channel connecting the Tahuya basin to Hood Canal (Figure 2). The desired elevation of the channel after the dredge is +4 MLLW(with 1' overdredge), with 6'wide sloped sides (2:1 slope). A bathymetry survey was conducted to measure current elevations and to estimate the dredge material thickness (Figures 3 and 4). A summary of the bathymetry survey data and dredge volume estimates are available in Table 1. Similar to the previous maintenance dredge, an excavator will be used during an extreme low tide to perform the dredge. The dredge spoils will be disposed of on a bank that is directly adjacent to the dredge areas so that the dredged sediments will continue to nourish the same drift cell (Figure 5). The U.S. Army Corp of Engineer's Dredge Material Management Office in Seattle has been contacted, the sediments are not contaminated and due to the relatively small volume of the dredge, a sample and analysis plan is not necessary (Attachment). C. Action Area:. The action area should include the area within a one half-mile radius of the project site for turbidity impacts and construction related noise impacts. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 3 Table 1. Summary of estimated dredge areas and volumes. Total Area of Bathymetry Survey Channel Sloped Sides` Total Dredge Area 53,980 ft2 7,676 ft2 4,605 ft2 12,281 ft2 Average Elevation -7.68' -7.10' Minimum Elevation -3.89' -3.89' Maximum Elevation -14.45' -13.34' Average Dredge Thickness 3.10' 3.35' Minimum Dredge Material Thickness -0.11, 1.70' Maximum Dredge Material Thickness ._ 9.34' 9.13' Volume 881 cubic yards 285 cubic yards 1,166 cubic yards Elevations are in MLLW *6'wide sloped sides(2:1 slope with average dredge material thickness of X) Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 4 II. HABITAT AND SPECIES INFORMATION A. Habitat Description The Tahuya basin is an intertidal estuarine habitat(WDFW 2014) with deeper areas within the basin and a shallow channel leading to Hood Canal (see Figure 6). Please note that the proposed dredge will only be in the area of the channel (Figure 2). A habitat survey was conducted on July 24t', 2013 and the detailed findings of this survey can be found in Attachment 1. In general the tidal areas adjacent of the channel r� were barren with small isolated patches of Salicornia and Marsh Jaumea; the substrate consisted of cobbles and some oyster shell on the eastern slope of the channel. The channel contained relatively low area coverage of Ulva, Fucus and Cystoseira, with its substrate consisting of pea gravel. Rendsland Creek, a fish bearing stream is located directly north of the dredge disposal site (Figure 6). The documented fish in Rendsland Creek are identified in the Species Description below. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified potential forage fish spawning habitat within the one half-mile radius of the action area, approximately 600' south of the dredge south (Figure 7). This area is located within WRIA 15 the Kitsap basin. According to NOAA Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA) the project site is located in an area where there is a south to north net shore drift. B. Species Description Priority listed species located within the vicinity of the action area Coast Resident Cutthroat Trout, Chum Salmon, and Coho Salmon, as well as oyster beds and wintering concentrations of waterfowl (WDFW 2014). The Coho Salmon is a candidate species for federal listing and the Hood Canal Summer Chum are federally listed as threatened species (Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine—SCoRE). Given the location of the proposed maintenance dredge, it is possible that the species and habitats listed above will be affected by dredging activities. However, potential impacts can be minimized or prevented by following the measures suggested in Section IV of this biological evaluation document. Near the project area, the Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)(Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations). On May 11, 2007. NMFS also listed the Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA (Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 91 /Friday, May 11, 2007/ Rules and Regulations). On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Federal Register/Vol 70, No.170/Friday, September 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations). Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in October of 1999. The project site is not located on a shoreline Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 5 designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout(Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 185/September 26, 2005/Rules and Regulations). On April 27, 2010, NOAA listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered(Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 81 /April 28, 2010/Final Rule). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as endangered under ESA (Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 222/November 18, 2005/Rules and Regulations). NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales (Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 229/November 29, 2006/Final Rule). "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water. The project site is not located in the critical habitat for the Southern Resident killer whale. NMFS also listed both the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992. There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site (Federal Register/ Vol. 61, No. 102/ 1996). There is no designated critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles in Washington and no designated critical habitat for humpback whales at this time. 1.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. The project site is located in WRIA 15. According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2003): A small number of Chinook spawn in Union and Tahuya Rivers. Naturally spawning Chinook generally have not met escapement goal of 400 fish over the long-term(late 1960s to early 1990s). With the exception of Skokomish River runs, the Hood Canal stock is rated as "depressed" Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 6 According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps, no Puget Sound chinooks are present near the project site or the action area (WDFW 2014). 2. Hood-Canal Summer Chum: Chum salmon are also known as dog salmon. Like other anadromous salmonid, chums utilize freshwater streams for spawning after spending three to five years at sea. The abundance of chum salmon in Puget Sound tends to fluctuate naturally during even/odd cycles, suggesting a possible competitive interaction with pink salmon in estuary or nearshore habitats (McHenry, et al. 1996). Hood Canal Summer-run Chum: NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer run Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened under the ESA (Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 123/ Tuesday, June 28, 2005). The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Hood Canal summer run hum E Federal Register Vol 7 No. Friday,C SU / 0 70/ ( g Y, September 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations). According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2003): The majority of Hood Canal Summer Chum spawn in rivers on the west shore of the Hood Canal. Escapements of Hood Canal Summer Chum have,been chronically low since the 1980s with escapements goals reach only three times between the years of 1968 to 1991. According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps, only Hood Canal Fall Chum are present near the project site or the action area (WDFW 2014). 3.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). Although it is possible for bull trout to be present in the Hood Canal, according to WDFW priority habitat and species maps as well as Washington State Conservation P Y P P g Commision, no Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout are present in WRIA 15 (WDFW 2014, WSCC 2003). 4.Puget Sound Steelhead: Steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species O. mykiss. The freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 7 Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington streams. According to the Washington State Conservation Commission(2003): Winter Steelhead are present throughout west WRIA 15 with Dewatto, Tahuya, and Union Rivers as the main production areas. The stock is rated as "depressed" According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps, no Puget Sound Steelheads are present near the project site or the action area(WDFW 2014). 5.Rockfish: Bocaccio rockfish are found more often in South Puget Sound, whereas Yelloweye are more prevalent in North Puget Sound. All three species of rockfish remain close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles. As juveniles they settle to benthic environment. They prefer to settle in rocky reefs, kelp beds, low rock and cobble areas (Love et al. 2002). Yelloweye juveniles are also found in sponge gardens. As the three species grow larger they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats. Yelloweye rockfish are commonly found at depths from 300' to 590'. Canary rockfish usually habitat the area between 160' to 820' and Bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160' and 820'. All three species are opportunistic feeders, with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of the adults of these species include marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod and sharks (Love et al. 2002).. NOAA has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of Yelloweye and canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of Bocaccio as endangered(Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 81 /Wednesday, April 28, 2010/Rules and Regulations.). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. This project site is located in NOAA's recently proposed shallow water critical habitat for juvenile Bocaccio and canary rockfish (Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 151/Tuesday, August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules). The effects of this project on adult rockfish are expected to be minimal,if they occur at all, because adult rockfish are commonly found in much deeper water than exists at the project site. If juvenile or pelagic rockfish are present, the direct and indirect effects of this project are expected to be similar to those discussed in this document for salmon because juveniles are found closer to shore in shallow waters. 6. 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 (WDFW 2014). Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 8 7. 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. WDFW SalmonScape maps (WDFW 2014) indicate the presence of potential forage fish spawning habitat in the southern portion of the action area(see Figure 7), the activities associated with the proposed project has the potential to impact this forage fish habitat. Suggestions for minimizing and mitigating for such impacts are listed in Section IV. 8. 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. However, more recently, a juvenile humpback whale was sighted near Johnson Point(NE of Olympia), with several fresh injuries (Orca Network Sighting Report-July 10, 2006). Another sighting was made in Dalco Passage between Gig Harbor and Pt. Defiance on June 23, 2011 (Orca Network Sighting Report). Due to the location of the project site being in the nearshore and the fact that it is highly unlikely that Humpback Whales will be found in the southern reaches of Hood Canal, no Humpback Whales are expected to be impacted. 9. 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 Hood Canal or the action area. 10. Southern Resident Killer Whales: The Southern Resident population consists of three pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004), "While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro Strait, Boundary Passage, the Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait." During early autumn, these pods, especially J pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and chinook salmon runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less than 5 meters deep (Baird 2001). According to information provided by NMFS, no Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat is present in the Hood Canal or near the action area (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/criticalhabitat/killerwhale_sr.pdf). Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 9 III. EFFECT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED 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 dredging project on the listed species and habitats 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 proposed project include: (1) increased turbidity from dredging, (2) entrainment of juvenile salmonids and (3) increased noise. Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by dredging 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 2001 and Simenstad, editor, 1988). Lake and Hinch (1999) found 20% mortality in coho salmon at concentrations of anthropogenically-derived sediments of 100 g/L(96 hour exposures). Sherk et al. (1974) studied sublethal effects of fuller's earth suspensions on estuarine fishes.The lowest concentration x duration dosage that elicited a sublethal responses occurred at 650 mg/1 for 5 days in white perch (elevated hematocrit level). Servizi (1990) found no impairment of osmoregulatory capacity in coho exposed to suspended sediment concentrations of 14,400 mg/1 for less than 4 days. Coho did exhibit gill damage at exposures of 3,100 mg/1 over 96 hours (Servizi 1990). One of the major problems with laboratory tests like those cited above-is that the applicability of the information is highly subjective - results vary according the experimental design. For example, Newcombe and MacDonald (1991) found some mortality of chinook and coho smolts during short-term exposure to suspended sediment levels of 500 mg/1 to 1,400 mg/1 while LeGore and Des Voigne (1973) found no acute effects on juvenile coho exposed to concentrations of 28,800 mg/1. Clarke and Wilber(1999) observed that in field dredging operations, fish and other motile organisms encounter localized suspended- sediment plumes for minutes to hours, not days,because they can avoid unstable conditions. Adult fish responses to duration of less than one day at concentrations of 1,500 mg/1 (conditions relevant to most actual dredging conditions) have not been studied enough to reach definite conclusions. Turbidity generated by hydraulic dredging (cutterhead and hopper types) is generally less than that generated by clamshell dredges (LaSalle 1989). LaSalle reported suspended sediments of several hundred mg/1 within 3 meters from the draghead in cutterhead hydraulic dredges (cutterhead hydraulic dredges use a rotating cutter device at the draghead in addition to suction) and little suspension in surface waters. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 10 The following discussion will provide some insight into the turbidity increases associated with the use of a clamshell dredge. Choker Research at Grays Harbor College (Phipps et al. 1992 as discussed in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000 Programmatic Biological Evaluation) conducted water quality measurements during clamshell dredging in the inner harbor in 1990. Samples were taken at 34 sites. At each site three samples were taken at three different depths (top, middle and bottom) and at three different locations around the clamshell dredge- one as close to the clamshell as possible, another at 100 to 150 meters down-current from the dredge and one upstream of the dredge location to represent ambient conditions. The investigators made every effort to collect to samples at the worst time, such as during a slack tide. They found that out of a total of 600 samples, "only 23 had a total suspended solids (TTS) value higher than 500mg/1 and 7 of these were measuring ambient conditions. The highest TSS measurement was 3000 mg/1 (the ambient condition at this time was 700 mg/1, and most were below 1000 mg/l." In their analysis of the turbidity impacts associated with the Grays Harbor project, The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) went on to state that," In addition, given the flushing rates calculated for Grays Harbor, sediment plumes created by both clam shell and hopper dredges are thought to dissipate rapidly. Therefore any biological effects of dredging plumes would be generally short lived." Based on the above discussion, it is possible that dredging activities in the outer channel area in the vicinity of the macro algae beds will have some impact on these beds. However, a Biological Opinion was written by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2006) concerning a small dredging project(550 cubic yards) in Cultus Bay in Island County, WA. A clamshell dredge was used in that project also. Regarding the dredging impacts on water quality, it was stated, "The increase in turbidity should be localized and short-term, and should be dissipated with a few hours following construction each day. Effects are expected to short-term effects that subside over short time frames (pulse effect)." One could assume that the same statement can be made about the impacts of the proposed project. Entrainment: McGraw and Armstrong (1990) conducted entrainment studies for hopper and pipeline dredging activities in Grays Harbor,WA over a ten-year period. Most of the dredging was conducted outside of peak salmonid migration periods and it was reported that only one juvenile chum was entrained. Noise Impacts: Noise associated with dredging operations might affect migrating salmonids and foraging murrelets.Although Feist et al. (1992) concluded that pile driving noise (as opposed to dredging operations) alters the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon, Nightingale and Simenstad(2001)have concluded that, "Further research into the effects of noises specific to dredging are required to conclude the effects dredging noises may have upon salmonids and other fishes." 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 have a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). There is no critical nesting habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests (Federal Register,Vol. 61, No. 102, 1996).Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets (Figure 6) indicate that very Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 11 few murrelets have been seen in the marine environment near the project area in the summer months. Because of this, construction during the work window mentioned below would cause few, if any, impacts on murrelet foraging. B.Indirect Effects: Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. Potential indirect effects of the proposed project are: 1) the alteration of benthic salmonid habitat and 2) Alteration of forage fish spawning substrate. Salmonid Habitat Alterations: As seen in Figure 2 and 5, the proposed dredging project footprint and disposal site is adjacent to Rendsland Creek, but will not extend into the creek. As mentioned above there may be some brief turbidity impacts on action area, but these are not expected to cause long term impacts. As quoted above in relation to the Cultus Bay dredging project, "The increase in turbidity should be localized and short- term, and should be dissipated with a few hours following construction each day. Effects are expected to short-term effects that subside over short time frames (pulse effect)." Forage Fish Substrate Alterations: As seen in Figures 2 and 7, the dredge footprint will not extend into the potential forage fish spawning habitat in the southern portion of the action area. Additionally by timing this dredge to occur during extreme low tides and within the suggested work window, any impacts on potential forage fish spawning habitat can be minimize. 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. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 12 IV. MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID IMPACTS A. Work Windows: As ESA listed species are found within the proposed project's action area, construction should only take place during work windows when these species are not migrating or spawning near the action area. The approved work windows are as follows: July 161h to February 15th for salmonids and April lst to January 14th for forage fish. Thus the best time for construction during which impacts to both salmonids and forage fish can be minimized is from July 16th to January 14th. B. Dredge Guidelines. Several recommendations for dredge operation practices have been highlighted in the Executive Summary of the White Paper"Dredging Activities: Marine Issues" (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001) submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1. The recommendations made in the White Paper are as follows: ■ Reducing the volumes of dredged materials removed ■ Reducing the frequency of dredging ■ Avoiding projects that convert intertidal to subtidal habitat ■ Requiring that dredges and barges completely contain dredged material to minimize turbidity increases ■ Employing best management practices to reduce changes to ambient light conditions ■ Avoiding geoduck losses by avoiding dredging in geoduck tracts. Technological tools such as the "Silent Inspector" should be considered whenever particularly sensitive habitats or organisms are at risk due to dredging proximal to sensitive habitats or in projects where sediments both suitable and unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal will be dredged adjacent to each other. 2.Additionally, due to the mechanical method of dredging (excavator)in this project, turbidity and siltation impacts can be minimized if dredging was done at only during extreme low tides when the dredge area is emersed. C. Siltation Management: Several methods are suggested to prevent siltation. In 1998 Mason County adopted Washington State Department of Ecology's STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN, often termed "the Technical Manual". (WSDE 2012). The following precautions for siltation prevention during construction processes are suggested in Volume II"Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention" in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. These Best Management Practices (BMPs) are as follows: Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 13 I ■ BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation ■ BMP C102: Buffer Zones ■ BMP C103: High Visibility Fence ■ BMP C 105: Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit ■ BMP C 106: Wheel Wash ■ BMP C107: Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization ■ BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding ■ BMP C121: Mulching ■ BMP C122: Nets and Blankets ■ BMP C123: Plastic Covering ■ BMP C124: Sodding ■ BMP C125: Topsoiling/Composting ■ BMP C126: Polyacrylamide (PAM) for Soil Erosion Protection ■ BMP C130: Surface Roughening ■ BMP C131: Gradient Terraces ■ BMP C 140: Dust Control ■ BMP C150: Materials on Hand ■ BMP C 151: Concrete Handling ■ BMP C152: Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention ■ BMP C153: Material Delivery, Storage and Containment ■ BMP C154: Concrete Washout Area ■ BMP C160: Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead ■ BMP C162: Scheduling Please refer to Volume II "Construction Storrnwater Pollution Prevention"in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington for BMP details. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 14 V.DETERMINATION OF EFFECT: After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound Chinook - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 2. Hood Canal Summer Chum - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 3. Bull Trout- "No effect" 4.Puget Sound Steelhead- "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" 5. Bocaccio, Yelloweye and Canary Rockfish —"May affect, not likely to adversely affect' 6. Marbled Murrelet—"May affect, not likely to adversely affect' 7. Forage Fish —"May affect, not likely to adversely affect' 8. Humpback Whale - "No effect' 9. Leatherback Sea Turtle - "No effect' 10. Southern Resident Killer Whale - "No effect' Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 15 References 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. 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. Clark, D. G. and D. H. Wilbur. 1999. Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations due to sediment resuspension. DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E9), U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg MS. Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 102/May 24, 1996/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 123/June 28, 2005/Rules and Regulations Federal Register/Vol 70, No.170/September 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 222/November 18, 2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 229/November 29, 2006/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 91 /May 11, 2007/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 81 /April 28, 2010/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 151/August 6, 2013/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. 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. Hinman, C. 2007.Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington Homeowners. Washington State University Extension Pierce County, Tacoma, WA, 45pp. http://county.wsu.edu/mason/nrs/water/Documents/Raingarden_handbook.pdf Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 16 i Hruby, T., 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025. Lake, R. G. and S. Gz Hinch. 1999.Acute effects of suspended sediment angularity on juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 56: 862-67. LaSalle, M. W. 1989. Physical and chemical alterations associated with dredging. In Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop proceedings, C.A. Simenstad(ed.), Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. LeGore, R. S. and D. M. DesVoigne. 1973.Absence of acute effects on threespine sticklebacks and coho salmon exposed to resuspended harbor sediment contamination. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 30(8): 1240-1242. Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. McGraw, K. and D. Armstrong. 1990. Fish entrainment by dredges in Grays Harbor, Washington. In Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings, C. A. Simenstad (ed.),Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. 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. Newcombe, C. P. and D. D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 11:72-82. Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001. 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. NMFS. September 26, 2006. Endangered Species Act- Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. Sandy Hook Residential Moorage Maintenance Dredge Project, Cultus Bay Sixth Field HUC 171100190301, Island County,Washington. NOAA Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA) 2014. Available at: https://www.erma.unh.edu/northwest/erma.html#/x=-122.66955&y=47.86951&z=9&layers=. Coastal Response Research Center, University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH. Osborne, R., J. Calambokidis and E. M. Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers, Anacortes, WA, 191 pp. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 17 Peterson, Charles H., Darren HM Hickerson, and Gina Grissom Johnson. "Short-term consequences of nourishment and bulldozing on the dominant large invertebrates of a sandy beach." Journal of Coastal Research (2000): 368-378. Phipps, J. B., S. Phillipi, C. Wright, V. Souze, and T. Beals. 1992. Grays Harbor Dredge Monitoring. Unpublished Report. Choker Research, Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen, WA. Rieman, 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. Servizi,J.A. 1990. Sublethal effects of dredged sediments on juvenile salmon. In Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop proceedings, C.A. Simenstad (ed.), Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad, C.A., 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. Sherk,J.A.,J. M. O'Connor, D.A. Neumann, R. D. Prince and K. V. Wood. 1974. Effects of suspended and deposited sediments on estuarine organisms, Phase II. Reference No. 74 - 20, Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Tait,James F. and Gary B. Griggs. 1991. Beach response to the presence of a seawall, comparison of field observations. Contact Report CERC-91-1, U. S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. WDFW(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Priority Habitats and Species maps. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. SalmonScape maps. Available at: http://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/gispublic/apps/salmonscape/default.htm. Olympia, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine (SCoRE). Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/. Olympia, Washington. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 18 Washington State Conservation Commission. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors. Water Resources Inventory Area 15 (West), Kitsap Basin and 14 (North), Kennedy- Goldsborough Basin(2003). Wiles, G. J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp. WSDE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. Olympia, WA. 1035 pp. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/Stormwater/manual.html Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 19 Figure 1. Vicinity Map. t . it fter•'r Legend Project Location Of • . ♦ 1 � �� .�_.'•V' NYC,•� •_ •. ��.�`� ._y :�ty�F: ��t,;ter tt tt f i Figure 2. Site Plan: Proposed Dredge Area Legend " , ..Proposed •� ; Dredge Area e r i VII � . Al .. � 11. # #A . . 9 j Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 21 Figure 3. Site Plan: Bathymetry Survey b Tahuya Measured Depths & Dredge Channel with 2.1 slope f"�' f #7°i� F7 I It �r' •i1,� . I •E'r5 0631 A� 05 SA 46 01 �S?6 06:8 0571 *5 4 114.5 04.45 Y 4, N Feet 0 45 90 180 270 360 Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 22 Figure 4. Site Plan: Dredge Cross-section and Thickness Estimates Tahuya Bathymetry and Dredge Cross-Sections CS-1 vir, -- ------- - -- �� cs-i Current elevation feet MLLW s a CS-2 r 2 22 io 4�`rf a , "' C 2 h,. CS-3 CS-3 t' V C. CS-4 j u CS 5 !0 j Legend Transects(Depth Survey) 12 CS.6 Cross-Section(profile views) to C \ b - 0.5 ft surveyed depth contours a Estimated Dredge Material Thickness(ft.) 2 (to dredge to proposed+4'MLLW depth) 0-1 ft. C�1-2ft. Y s y ©2-3ft. f 1111110 3-5 ft. Feet 5-10 ft. l� 0 12.5 25 75 100 Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 23 Figure 5. Site Plan: Dredge Material Disposal Site q t ,,"iw A ANI � *"-to"- t Disposal Site .e Disposal Zone l-. Taraet Area r•� o^�'� ,�� " Disposal Coordinates s • *r; �„ Lat 47°23'08.60"Long 123106'50.83"WGS84 4 4iF . . b .. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation. Page 24 Figure 6. Aerial Photo of Project Site 00 • t 4 4 V, K r , i Y Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 25 Figure 7. Potential Forage Fish Spawning Habitat in Action Area Legend Potential Forage Fish Spawning Habitat Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 26 Attachment 1. Habitat Survey Results A habitat survey was conducted on July 24th, 2013, a sunny day, from approximately 12:OOPM to 2:30 PM at the project site. Amy Leitman and Nam Siu ran fifteen transects to identify flora, fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information relative to the proposed dredging in this project. The first transect(TO)ran from south to north at 355° Magnetic North along the western edge of the proposed dredge area. The remaining fourteen transects (Tl-T14)begins perpendicularly from TO running west to east at 95' Magnetic North and bisecting the proposed dredge area. Trnnsects T 1 through T 14 were all parallel and oriented 20ft apart along TO starting with T1 at the southernmost extent and T14 at the northernmost extent. The attached transect map (Figure 1.) and habitat survey map (Figure 2.) shows the location of each transect and our findings. Macroalgae and Substrate TO Distance in feet along transect along western edge Substrate and Other Macroalgae (estimated percent of proposed dredge area Features Noted of area covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 355° Barnacle, Fucus 0-5%, 0-60 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Salicornia 0-2% 60-80 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Barnacle, Fucus 0-5% 80-100 Cobble with some Pea Barnacle, Fucus 0-5% Gravel and Sand Sand with some Pea Ulva 0-5%, Fucus 0-2%, 100-120 Gravel and Cobble Marsh Jaumea 0-2%, Ulva 0-5%, Salicornia 0-2%, 120-140 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Marsh Jaumea 0-2%, 140-160 Cobble with some Pea Decrease in Sand, Gravel and Sand Decrease in Ulva, Salicornia 5% Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 27 Pea Gravel with some Salicornia 10%, 160-180 Sand and Cobble Marsh Jaumea 0-2%, Cobble with some Pea Base of Bluff @ point, 180-200 Gravel and Sand end of Salicornia 200-220 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Fucus 0-2%, 220-240 Cobble with some Pea Beginning of bank, Fucus 10% Gravel and Sand Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38521°N, 123.11430°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38575°N, 123.11369°W T1 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae(estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-17 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Barren 17-28 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Marsh Jaumea begin 28-46 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Fucus 0-5% 46-57 Pea Gravel with some Fucus 10% Sand and Cobble Pea Gravel with some Western Water's edge 57-69 Sand and Cobble. (Channel) at 69ft (1:06PM), Fucus 5% 69-81 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Cystoseira 10% Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 28 at 81ft(1:06PM) 81-152 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shells 5%, Gravel and Sand 152 Bulkhead Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38521 N, 123.11430 W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38806°N, 123.11381°W T2 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-7 Sand with some Pea Salicornia begin Gravel and Cobble 7-42 Sand-with some Pea Barren Gravel and Cobble 42-56 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Barnacles begin 56-68 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Fucus 10% Western Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) 68 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble at 68ft(1:08PM) Mussels 20% Ulva 0-2%, Fucus 0-2%, Oyster shells 77 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 77ft(1:08PM) Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 29 77-146 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shells 5% Gravel and Sand 146 Bulkhead Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38521°N, 123.11433°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38511°N, 123.11378°W T3 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-41 Sand with some Pea Barnacle, Marsh Jaumea Gravel and Cobble 5%, Fucus 0-2% 41-61 Pea Gravel/Cobble Barren Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 61 Water's edge (Channel) Sand/Mud at 61ft(1:13PM) Cystoseira 10%, Fucus 15%, Ulva 10%, 76 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Purple Varnish Clams Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 76ft(1:13PM) 76-130 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 10% Gravel and Sand 130-134 Pea Gravel with some Barren Sand and Cobble Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 30 134 Bulkhead Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38530°N, 123.11444°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38516°N, 123.11377°W Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 31 T4 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' Fucus 2%, 0-30 Pea Gravel/ Cobble Marsh Jaumea 2% 30-39 Sand Patch Barren Barnacle, 39-63 Pea Gravel/Cobble Marsh Jaumea 5% Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 63 Sand/Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 63ft(1:22PM) Cystoseira 5%, 77 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Fucus 15%,Ulva 15% Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 77ft(1:22PM) 77-110 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 10% Gravel and Sand 110-136 Pea Gravel with some Marsh Jaumea 2% Sand and Cobble 136 Bulkhead Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38537°N, 123.11430°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38522°N, 123.11375°W Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 32 T5 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae(estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-8 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Barren 8 24 Sand with some Pea Marsh Jaumea 10% Gravel and Cobble 24-37 Sand with some Pea Barren Gravel and Cobble 37-47 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Fucus 10% 47-61 Pea Gravel with some Fucus 10% Sand and Cobble Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 61 Sand/Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 61ft(1:29PM) Cystoseira 15%, 74 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Fucus 15%, Oysters Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 74ft(1:29PM) 74-115 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand 115-139 Pea Gravel with some Barren Sand and Cobble 139 Bulkhead Barren Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 33 Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38541°N, 123.11425°W Ending GPS Coordinates:47.38528°N, 123.11372°W T6 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-58 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Marsh Jaumea 10% Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 58 Sand)Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 58ft (1:34PM) Cystoseira 50%, 71 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Fucus 20%, Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 75ft(1:34PM) 71-81 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand 81-89 Cobble with some Pea Salicornia Patch 50% Gravel and Sand 89-121 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand 121-129 Pea Gravel/Sand Barren 129 OHWM/Wrack line Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38548°N, 123.11424°W Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 34 Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38531°N, 123.11373°W T7 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' Fucus 5%, 0-10 Sand/ Pea Gravel/Cobble Marsh Jaumea 5%, Ulva 10% Sand with some Pea Fucus 5%, 10-62 Gravel and Cobble Marsh Jaumea 5%, Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 62 Sand/Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 62ft(1:37PM) Cystoseira 50%, 75 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Fucus 15%, Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 75ft (1:37PM) 75 88 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand 88-96 Cobble with some Pea Salicornia Patch 80% Gravel and Sand Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 35 96-122 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand 122 OHWM/Wrack line Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38553°N, 123.11419°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 4738541.°N, 123.11374°W T8 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' Marsh Jaumea 10%, 0-55 Sand with some Pea Salicornia 10%, Gravel Fucus 5%, Ulva 0-3% 55-65 Pea Gravel Fucus 5% Western Water's edge Channel with Pea Gravel/ Water's edge (Channel) 65 Sand/Mud at 65ft (1:40PM) Purple Varnish Clams Cystoseira 80%, 80 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Fucus 10%, Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 80ft(1:40PM) Cobble with some Pea 80-93 Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 36 93-108 Cobble with some Pea Salicornia Patch 80% Gravel and Sand 108-125 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand 125 OHWM/Wrack line Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38560°N, 123.11423°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38542°N, 123.11375°W T9 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-19 Sand with some Pea Marsh Jaumea 10%, Gravel Salicornia 10% 19-60 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Marsh Jaumea 10%, Western Water's edge Channel with Pea Gravel/ Water's edge (Channel) 60 Sand/Mud at 60ft(1:46PM) Starts to widen Cystoseira 40%, 87 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Fucus 20%, Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 87ft (1:46PM) 87-98 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 37 98-103 Cobble with some Pea Salicornia Patch 90% Gravel and Sand 103-119 Cobble with some Pea Oyster shell 5% Gravel and Sand 119 OHWM/Wrack line Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38565°N, 123.11419°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38549°N, 123.11371°W Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 38 T10 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae(estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-36 Sand/Pea Gravel/Cobble Start of Slope, Marsh Jaumea 2%, 36-40 Cobble with some Pea Salicornia 2-5% Gravel and Sand Barnacles begin 40-53 Cobble with some Pea Fucus 30% Gravel and Sand 53-65 Sand with some Pea Fucus 30% Gravel and Cobble Western Water's edge g Channel with Pea Gravel/ Water's edge (Channel) 65 Sand/Mud at 65ft (1:51PM) Starts to widen Fucus 10%, 92 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Eastern Water's edge Sand/Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 92ft (1:51PM) 92-119 Cobble with some Pea Bank steepens at 96ft Gravel and Sand 119 OHWM/Wrack line Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38569°N, 123.11413°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38553°N, 123.11372°W T11 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' Top of Slope, 0-59 Rocks/Cobble/Pea Rocks at top, Gravel Marsh Jaumea 0-2%, Barnacle 59-66 Cobble/Pea Gravel Fucus 5%, Barnacle Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 66 Sand/Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 66ft(1:56PM) Fucus 5%, Mussels 98 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Eastern Water's edge Sand/Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 108ft(1:56PM) 98-113 Pea Gravel/Cobble Edge of Slope at 103ft 113-123 Pea Gravel Barren 123 OHWM/Wrack line Barren Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38572°N, 123.11421°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38559°N, 123.11369°W T12 Distance in feet along Macroalgae (estimated transect starting from Substrate and Other percent of area western edge of Features Noted covered/square meter) proposed dredge area and Other Biology Marine Surveys&Assessments. Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 40 Bearing 95' 0-84 Cobble with some Pea Dry creek bed, Barnacles Gravel and Sand 84-94 Rocks/Cobble/Pea Barnacles stop at 84ft Gravel Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 94 Sand/Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 94ft(2:04PM) Cystoseira 5%, 110 Channel with Pea Gravel/ Fucus 2%, Sand/Mud Eastern Water's edge Water's edge (Channel) at 110ft (2:04PM) 110-118 Cobble with some Pea Barren Gravel and Sand 118-137 Cobble with some Pea Barren Gravel and Sand 137 OHWM/Wrack line Slope starts at OHWN Starting GPS Coordinates: 47.38578°N, 123.11413°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38565°N, 123.11362°W Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 41 T13 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae (estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-86 Cobble with some Pea Dry creek bed, Barnacles Gravel and Sand 86-121 Rocks/Cobble/Pea Barnacles stop at 84ft Gravel Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 121 Water's edge (Channel) Sand/Mud at 121ft(2:09PM) Starting GPS Coordinates: 47-------N, 123-------W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38559°N, 123.11337°W T14 Distance in feet along transect starting from Macroalgae(estimated western edge of Substrate and Other percent of area proposed dredge area Features Noted covered/square meter) and Other Biology Bearing 95' 0-89 Cobble with some Pea Dry creek bed, Barnacles Gravel and Sand 89 128 Rocks/Cobble/Pea Barnacles stop at 84ft Gravel Channel with Pea Gravel/ Western Water's edge 128 Sand/Mud Water's edge (Channel) at 128ft(2:12PM) Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 42 Starting GPS Coordinates: 47-------N, 123------°W Ending GPS Coordinates: 47.38575°N, 123.11369°W Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 43 Attachment 2. Habitat Survey Transect Map . n e • r r V wM • ti %%low 14 Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 44 Attachment 3. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Steelhead Project description: Maintenance Dredge Applicant: Basin and Channel Property Owners Association (c/o Linda Sollars) COE reference: Unknown at this time NMFS reference: Unknown at this time The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead are: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is in the marine environment Effects to PCE: None (2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is in the marine environment Effects to PCE: None (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Existing Conditions: There is a fish bearing stream(Rendsland Creek) in the action area. Effects to PCE: Dredging activities may temporary impact water quality due to localized and short-term siltation. The sediments at this dredge site are not known to be contaminated, thus there should be no release of contaminants during the dredge. Siltation impacts can be mitigated and minimized by following the suggested best management practices (see Biological Evaluation). Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 45 (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: There is very little macroalgae at the site, additionally no eelgrass is present. The site is near potential forage fish spawning area. Effects to PCE: The project will impact the low area coverage of macroalgae at the site, however the macroalgae that is present(Ulva, Fucus and Cystoseira) is of low ecological value. (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: There is potential for documented forage fish spawning habitat in the action area. Effects to PCE: Dredging activities may temporary impact forage fish spawning habitat and nearshore water quality due to localized and short-term siltation. However this impact can be mitigated and minimized by following the suggested work windows and best management practices (see Biological Evaluation). (6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the site is in a nearshore marine environment Effects to PCE: None Determination of Effect: May affect, not likely to adversely affect Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahu a Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 46 Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound Bull Trout Project description: Maintenance Dredge Applicant: Basin and Channel Property Owners Association (c/o Linda Sollars) COE reference: Unknown at this time NMFS reference: Unknown at this time The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) are: (1)Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 °F(0 to 22 °C) but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 °F(2 to 15 'Q. These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence. Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from designation. Existing Conditions: The project is in a marine environment Effects to PCE: Not applicable (2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in-stream structures. Existing Conditions: See 1 above Effects to PCE: See 1 above (3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter. Existing Conditions: See 1 above Effects to PCE: See 1 above Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 47 (4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout,or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation: This rule finds that reservoirs currently operating under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides management for PCEs as currently operated. Existing Conditions: See 1 above Effects to PCE: See 1 above. (5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity as a cold-water source. Existing Conditions: See 1 above Effects to PCE: The project will have no impacts on springs, seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface water at the site. (6)Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows. Existing Conditions: There is a fish bearing stream (Rendsland Creek) in the action area. Effects to PCE: Dredging activities may temporary impact water quality due to localized and short-term siltation. The sediments at this dredge site are not known to be contaminated, thus there should be no release of contaminants during the dredge. Siltation impacts can be mitigated and minimized by following the suggested best management practices (see Biological Evaluation). (7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. Existing Conditions: There is potential for documented forage fish spawning habitat in the action area. Effects to PCE: Dredging activities may temporary impact forage fish spawning habitat due to localized and short-term siltation. However this impact can be mitigated and minimized by following the suggested work windows and best management practices (see Biological Evaluation). (8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited. Existing Conditions: See 1 Above Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 48 Effects to PCE: See 1 above Conservation Measures: Work within forage fish work windows. Determination of Effect: May affect, not likely to adversely affect Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 49 Attachment 5.Assessment of Impacts to Proposed Critical Habitat for Georgia Basin (Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye) Rockfish. Project description: Maintenance Dredge Applicant: Basin and Channel Property Owners Association (c/o Linda Sollars) COE reference: Unknown at this time NMFS reference: Unknown at this time The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of Georgia Basin (Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye) Rockfish are: (1) Spawning and rearing sites Existing Conditions: There is no habitat suitable for Georgia Basin Rockfish spawning or rearing in the action area(see further information below). Effects to PCE: Not applicable (2) Forage sites and prey habitat. • Existing Conditions: Although there are no suitable forage sites (kelp beds) for Georgia Basin Rockfish in the action area(see further information below), there is potential for documented forage fish spawning habitat in the action area. Effects to PCE: Dredging activities may temporary impact forage fish spawning habitat due to localized and short-term siltation. However this impact can be mitigated and minimized by following the suggested work windows and best management practices (see Biological Evaluation). (3) Habitat. Existing Conditions: No kelp, kelp beds, or artificial structures that maybe suitable habitat for Georgia Basin Rockfish are in the action area(see further information below) Effects to PCE: Not applicable (4) Water quality. Existing Conditions: There are currently no anthropogenic activities in the action area that may affect the water quality for Georgia Basin Rockfish. There is a stream(Rendsland Creek) in the action area that supplies fresh water to the action area, lowering salinity in the area. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 50 Effects to PCE: Dredging activities may temporary impact water quality due to localized and short-term siltation. The sediments at this dredge site is not known to be contaminated, thus there should be no release of contaminants during the dredge. Siltation impacts can be mitigated and minimized by following the suggested best management practices (see Biological Evaluation). Effects Determination for: Georgia Basin rockfish : "May effect,not likely to adversely affect" Further Information Bocaccio Rockfish: Bocaccio are found from Stepovac Bay on the Alaska Peninsula to Punta Blanca in central Baja California. They are most common from Oregon to California and were once common on steep walls in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002). Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface, occasionally associated with drifting kelp mats . Bocaccio bear live young and the larvae and pelagic juveniles remain close to the surface and are occasionally associated with floating kelp beds(Love et al. 2002). Most bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months but some will remain pelagic for up to 5.5 months before settling into littoral zones.They prefer rock or cobble substrates with kelp beds and/or kelp canopies as well as artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms. Research by Love et al. (2006)revealed: In 2003, using a manned research submersible,we conducted fish surveys around eight oil and gas platforms off southern California as part of an assessment of the potential value of these structures as fish habitat. From these surveys,we estimated that there was a minimum of 430,000 juvenile bocaccio at these eight structures. We determined this number to be about 20%of the average number of juvenile bocaccio that survive annually for the geographic range of the species. Another interesting observation made by the researchers was that: By comparison,juvenile bocaccio recruitment to nearshore natural nursery grounds, as determined through regional scuba surveys,was low in the same year. This research demonstrates that a relatively small amount of artificial nursery habitat may be quite valuable in rebuilding an overfished species. According to Palsson et al. (2009),bocaccio rockfish: ......were once caught in localized areas in South Sound(Washington 1977)but they have not appeared in recent research or recreational catches. Bocaccio were always infrequent in the recreational fishery,with a few erratic occurrences in North Sound but more consistent,low occurrences in South Sound. Bocaccio has never been observed during WDFW bottom trawl,video,or dive surveys in Puget Sound. In a personal communication(Email,October 7, 2010)Palsson(WDFW) stated, "Young of the year(YOY)bocaccio and canary rockfishes have not been identified in surveys conducted in Puget Sound." Palsson et al. (2009)also observed that: Overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes is the leading cause of decline to yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. The evidence is clear that historic overfishing has played a major role in the declines of rockfish in the Puget Sound region. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 51 Yelloweye Rockfish: Yelloweye rockfish range along the US and Canadian west coast,with individuals recorded from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands.The major portion of the abundance is found central California to Alaska and they are rare in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002). Yelloweye rockfish juveniles settle primarily in shallow,high relief zones,crevices and sponge gardens(Love et al. 1991). There is no consistent trend for the presence of yelloweye in Puget Sound.The frequency of yelloweye occurring in the recreational rockfish catch data indicated frequencies of less than one percent were seen in the 1960s, which increased to 3%in the 1990s(Federal Register 2009). In terms of the depths at which yelloweye have been found in Puget Sound,Palsson noted, (Email,July 26, 2010), "The upper depth limit of yelloweye is less known,but we have only detected them as shallow as 60'." Canary Rockfish: Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett,Baja California, and the Western Gulf of Alaska.Within this range,canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon. The larvae and pelagic juveniles of canary rockfish are found in the upper 100 m of the water column(Love et al. 2002). Estimates of larval duration range from 1-2 months to 3-4 months(Love et al. 2002).Juveniles prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas(Love et al. 2002).During this settlement they consume on crustaceans(e.g., harpacticoids)barnacle cyprids, and euphasiid eggs and larvae. According to information found in the Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas and the Habitat Survey,there are kelp beds (Laminaria,flat Dermasterias and Costaria) along the project site shoreline. According to the Federal Register(2009): In Puget Sound Proper,canary rockfish occurred at frequencies above 2 percent of the total rockfish catch in the 1960s and 1970s,but by the late 1990s had declined to about 0.76 percent. Relying on the estimate of Palsson et al.(2008) of 40,683 rockfish in Puget Sound Proper, a 0.76—percent frequency rate would mean there are about 300 individual canary rockfish in Puget Sound Proper. Impacts of Overwater Structures: As noted above,the main reason for the decrease in the abundance of these three rockfish has been the historic overfishing of these populations. This overfishing has reduced not only the number of these fish in Puget Sound,but also has reduced the proportion of larger females, which harms the overall productivity of these populations. Adult bocaccio, canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish are typically associated with rocky habitats. According to Palsson et al. (2009), such habitat is extremely limited in Puget Sound,with only 10 square km of such habitat in Puget Sound Proper(i.e., south of Admiralty Inlet),and 207 square km2 in Northern Puget Sound. Adult yelloweye rockfish are commonly found in waters 300'to 590'in depth. Canary rockfish usually in habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160'and 820'(Federal Register, 2009).Therefore,it seems likely that the adults are not impacted by construction of overwater structures. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 52 Because juveniles settle in more shallow water than adults,impacts to juveniles would be limited to the brief noise associated with pile driving. These impacts would only occur if the juveniles happened to be in the area. As noted above, YOY bocaccio and canary rockfish have not been detected in Puget Sound recently and yelloweye have only been detected at depths of 60'or deeper. Therefore,it seems unlikely that pile driving noise impacts will actually occur. The existence of pier,ramp and float structures might provide a long term positive impact on juvenile rockfish as mentioned above. The study by Love et al(2006) showed that drilling rigs provided a habitat for juvenile rockfish. It is possible that pier and dock structures could provide the same kind of habitat. Impacts of the proposed project on the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of juvenile bocaccio,canary and yelloweye rockfish: (1) Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival,reproduction, and feeding opportunities. ortunities. Impacts: According to the Federal Resister(Federal Resister/Vol 78, No 151 /Tuesday, August 6, 2013 /Proposed Rules): Juvenile settlement habitats located in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp (families Chordaceae, Alariaceae, Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, and Laminaricea) are essential for conservation because these features enable forage opportunities and refuge from predators and enable behavioral and physiological changes needed for juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats. As noted in the Habitat Report for this project, there is a paucity of macroalgae at this site, which could be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, it is unlikely that juvenile rockfish would even be present in the area. (2) water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities. Impacts: Dredging activities may have temporary turbidity impacts on water quality. However, these impact occur only every six to seven years. It is likely that the juveniles would avoid the area during these temporary increased turbidity conditions. Effects Determination for: Juvenile bocaccio, yelloweye and canary rockfish : "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 53 References: Federal Register/Vol. 74,No. 77/Thursday,April 23,2009/Proposed Rules. Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 81 /Wednesday,April 28,2010/Rules and Regulations. Love, M. S.,M. Carr, and L. Haldorson. 1991.The ecologyof substrate-associated juveniles of the genus Sebastes. Env. J Bio. Fish. 30:225-243 Love,M.S.,M.M. Yoklavich,and L.Thorsteinson.2002.The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press,Berkeley,California. Love,M. S.,D. M Schroeder,W.Lenarz,A MacCall,A. S. Bull and L. Thorsteinson. (2006). Potential use of offshore marine structures in the rebuilding an overfished rockfish species.bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis).Fish. Bull. 104:383-390. Palsson,W.A.,Tien-Shui Tsou,Greg G. Bargmann,Raymond M. Buckley,Jim E.West, Mary Lou Mills,Yuk Wing Cheng, and Robert E. Pacunsk. September 2009.The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound.Fish Management Division,Fish Program,Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 54 Attachment 5. Sample and Analysis Plan Memo CENWS-OD-TS-NR MEMORANDUM FOR: RECORD March 6, 2014 SUBJECT:TIER 1 SUITABILITY OF TAHUYA BASIN HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE DREDGING, HOOD CANAL,WA,WITH DISPOSAL ON ADJACENT SPIT AND DEWATERING TO HOOD CANAL. 1) Project. The Tahuya Basin Home Owners Association proposes maintenance dredging of accurnulated sediment in an access channel to homeowner docks(Figure 1). The proposal consists of dredging,via excavator at low tide,approximately 1166 cubic yards of sediment,with placement on an adjacent spit. 2) Evaluation. Under DMMP guidelines, projects in areas of low"concern with less than 8,000 Cy of material and with little reason to believe that unacceptable adverse effects are possible meet the'no testi designation. An EIM query showed that some sediment data has previously been collected from near the project area,all with no detections of chemicals of concern. The site is in an undeveloped area and no potential local sources of contamination were identified_ With this inforimation,the DMMP considered the proposed project to be of low concern,and thus appropriate for consideration under small project no-test guidelines_ 3) Tier 1 Deterrrdnation. This project is located in an area of low concern,with proposed adjacent intertidal disposal. It meets DMMP small project"no-test"guidelines and therefore no further sediment characterization is required. This determination does not constitute final agency approval of the project. During the public comment period that follows a public notice, resource agencies will provide input on the overall project.A final decision will be made after full consideration of agency input, and after an alternatives analysis is done under section 404(b)(1)of the Clean Water Act. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 55 4) Slgnaturem Daea L ran Cale Warner- Seattle Distre Corps of Engineers Da Justl Barton -Environmental Protection Aaency OVA n - ate I Laura Inouye, Ph.D. •Washington Dizktrnent of Ecology DaW Celia Barton -Washington Department of Natural Resources Copies Furnished: [barren Hubel, Corps Regulatory Laura Inouye, PhD., Ecology Juedfte Barton, EPA Celia,Barton, DNR DMMO Fide Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 56 '�nci�tty Map•Tahuya H�m�o'anc��r��soc �r�.•1 _ r Figure 1. Vicinity Map. i of .. ti d A* Figure 2. Proposed project dredging and placement area. Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 57 VW�ASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT($630 o 38 w/other permit) Mason County Permit Center Use: CONDITIONAL USE($1520) MEP 26 J ' - "/D ❑ HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW($445) e�_ 3 a014 Date Rcvd APR 2 3 426 W -FLAP,--PnAP ,-4 , MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mason County Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC) ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32,36.70A,39.34,58.17,76.09,84.33,84.34 and 90.58 RCW PLEASE PRINT 1.PROPERTY OWNER Name: L/t4V4 $c>Lt-AR 5 Mailing Address: 2.`Z If D Z &(c tJ 4VE W E5T-, AOU1 i LA-1c.4-7 WA W o� Work Phone: Email Address: j Il COI r1 O I q(5 C OPVI ,t1 eT Home/Cell Phone: Fax#: If an a ew is acting-la the pro erty owner during the permit process,complete#2. 2.AUTHORIZED AGENT Name: MA-R114c SuRv YS Z r15S E5SMFt�TS Mailing Address: 5 Z 1 5 Nit G-5TC A b tAIA Y� P0jgT TD40 5EM0, LWA 9133(of; Work Phone: 3�i0, 3 3 3 Email Address: Mar�,0. 5LVVPY5. i V1C (-lma7 (.Oct{ Home/Cell Phone: ( 3k Ol '30 1 ` OZ(o Z Fax# 3.PROJECT SITE Site Address: eg 1 NE 1i1aQ7H 5Noi2E i2b•) J mLAYA, WA 705 66 Parcel#: 3 2 L 19 - 51 - 00©O f Legal Description: rrw SFC 17t I T ZLN 1 R0 Directions to Site: F120 M Sme DN 'TAle-E WA -2.A) Tb wA -3oo w. i Att t. t4A- 30o W Tib tJC ivoRTri St-PtZF. RD D2W1,7-- FAR 15 M 1 614 N�-i M42ki StbOS-r2D Attach a site plan showing the following: Lot Dimensions,Flood Zones,Existing Structures,Fences, Water Lines,Driveways,Drainage Plans,Shorelines,Septic System,Topography,Proposed Improvements,Easements,North Arrow,and Scale. Also draw a separate topography diagram. 1 4. State which section requires permit: ❑ Long Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17 10.060 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Landslide Hazard Area,Chapter 17,01,100 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Area,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑ Erosion Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.104 E!/Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter ❑ In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 17,01.1 10 ❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 5. Identify current use of the property with existing improvements: 51NGLE_ FAm1 Ly' RQ'51 t7IF1144 ANi� Sc A (TF. eE.j) PI j�Z" 12A P 6. Identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods, principle dimensions,and other pertinent information(attach additional sheets,if needed): iii� a ask Dki- - cat= t (HO Cia tM ikH -" 11#2f1 S Ft V--;Ik ALON6- ME tWro4VI ColuNrcT1NG -1A00AYA P,*A*I ViC, Itoob c A C Q P W1 E Lr Eh D«R 1 vG ArJ e- - C. MC- '.')t D1 LS WILL C- PL , re-b aN P 13ANW- aR>rrrl Y �zaccr�t "I ti E , SE- %.11 T5 V1 Lk- C anti I µu C 'u fv"14s if W 54eAE 12tt- G9i SC-.r— 8l0 UCAC AL-FVAtuA-1110r-1 7 Describe why the action requiring this permit cannot be avoided. �s� T�� �rl ANrvF�-• �rtrRrt,�c E t 5 N a•i� D.;1��tXsED . P+�P><rr�;"d>,trrlr�S t dU-kW,�C- t4A LL nW LO r-16.2-AL HAVE A MR A 4J5 e,E AC[knS 70 711E 3tYbI d. t 8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area(circle one)? Yes 6:- 9. Identify any surface water on or adjacent to property(circle one), Saltwater' Lake Stream Pond Wetland Drainage Ditch 10. Identify existing septic/sewer connection(circle one): If septic is located on project site,include records. Connected to Septic Connected to Community Septic IE.S N-OT Appi_Y` 11. Identify existing water supply(circle one): Public Water Supply Well �NE5 xim- APPt ( 11. Type of Job(circle one): New Add Alteration Repair Demolition Other: /uA'il~iTCN"<.C- _. LIPtda- Sa l t'� ors L;�4 4ff� ,�yrs /--/ Print Name Signature Date