HomeMy WebLinkAboutBiological Evaluation and Addendum for Dock Redesign - PLN General - 6/13/2003 I
i
ADDENDUM
Revised Dock Design
Dated: October 27, 2003
To:
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Bent& Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project
Army Corps of Engineers Reference # 2003-00658
Dated June 13, 2003
For:
Edwina Bent&Gordon Kauhanen
24 Caribou Court
Monterey, CA 93940
Prepared by:
Marine Surveys&Assessments
521 Snagstead Way
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone: (360) 385-4073, Fax: (360) 385-1724
i
Revised Dock Design
The captions and page numbers below refer to those in the original BE
Page 3 under Project Description: See the attached figures f
ag , p gur or design changes
The revised structure will consist of a 6'by 50'pier, a 4'by 40'aluminum ramp and an 8'by 16' float. The
structure will extend 100'into Hood Canal. The pier will have two-foot wide grating installed down its middle
(60%open area). The float will have 50%of its area grated. Floatation will be installed so that it does not obstruct
the grating. Plastic strips will be installed on the pilings to prevent chafe. Float stops will be installed on the four
float pilings to support the float at least 12" above the seabed at low tides. The proposed structure will be
supported by ten ACZA treated pilings.
Three of the existing nine pilings at the site will be removed, cut into 4'lengths and disposed of at an approved
disposal site.
Page 9 under Zostera marina(fifth paragraph from the top):
Thirty-five shoots of eelgrass were found in a narrow band between 175'and 185'along transect 7. This location
is approximately 30'east of the proposed structure's centerline and approximately 75'waterward of the float. The
corrected depth ranges from-5.0'to-8.0'below MLLW.
Page 12 under Shading and crushing impacts:
Shading caused by overwater structures and float grounding can reduce or eliminate eelgrass, macroalgae and
other epibenthic organisms. As mentioned in the habitat survey,there is a scarcity of macroalgae at this site. Only
Polysiphonia pacifica(5 to 8%density)was found in densities greater than 3%. No macroalgae or eelgrass was
found in the proposed footprint of the 100'long structure. However, the proposed redesigned dock will improve
the existing baseline conditions at the site in the following ways:
• The old dock structure had an area of 1032 ft2.
The redesigned structure will have an area of 564 ft2(pier=300-ft2,ramp= 136-ft2 and float= 128-ft2), a
reduction in overwater area of 468-ft2.
• The old dock structure was composed of 6'wide floats with no grating.
The redesigned structure will have two-foot wide grating installed down the entire length of the 6'-wide
pier and 50%grating in the float(McNichols Fibergrate— 1-1/2" by 1-1/2" mesh—60%open area). The
ramp will be only 4'wide. Narrow overwater structures allow more light transmission under the structure,
especially during the morning and afternoon hours(Shafer and Lundin 1999).
l;yA,b.J oZ
1
• The old dock structure had no float stops or stub pilings.
The redesigned dock will be equipped with float stops, which will support the float at least 12" above the
seabed at low tides.
Page 14 under Conservation Measures:
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by pile driving and pile removal, construction
of this project should take place from July 16 to September 14 of any year. Construction during this time will
minimize direct impacts on migrating salmon, bull trout,wintering bald eagles and forage fish spawning
activities. Additional design changes and conservation measures will minimize indirect adverse effects of the
project. They include:
1. The overwater area of the redesigned structure will be 468-ft2 less than the old dock.
2. Two-foot wide grating will be installed in the 6'-wide pier and the float will have 50%of its area grated to
reduce shading impacts.
3. Float stops will be incorporated to remove float-grounding impacts.
4. The PRF will be oriented within 40'of a north-south orientation.
5. The float will be removed during the winter months.
6. Given the abundance of vegetation existing at the site, there is little room available for additional plantings
(Attachment 2 of the original BE).
Page 15 under Determination of Effects-7th paragraph:
Delete the following sentence: Grounding impacts will occur on only approximately 2.2 ft2 of the benthic
substrate.
Page 41 under Proposed Action:
The revised structure will extend 100'into Hood Canal,not 172' as stated in this section.
ey A, :t oZ
r -
r FIGURE 3 REVISED PLAN AND ELEVATION VIEWS
> 6'by 50'pier 4'by 40'ramp 8'by 16'float
d
MHHW MHHW
29
Float stops on
all float pilings MLLW
0.0'
1
100' NORTH
t
Existing pilings
will be removed
Sic e>dsting pilings
located between
135'and198'
2'-wide grating 50%grating
in float
1
ATTACHMENT 1 REVISED SCUBA SURVEY TRAN S
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
NORTH
All transects are
290'long and
10'apart. 35 shoots of Zostera
• • marina located
from 175'to
along this
� � ✓/ transerase ct. Corrected
depth ranges from
-5.0'to-8.01
.
•
•
Proposed wir to e
is 100'long
Beachlbluff
intersection
SR 106
FIGURE 2
REVISED SITE PLAN
NORTH
Proposed redesigned
9G dock
150'
Concrete _
bulkhead
Concrete
100' bulkhead
72' Natural shoreline
with overhanging 85'
vegetation 24'
SR 106
r
n
ED
NG
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Bent & Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project
Army Corps of Engineers Reference #
For:
Edwina Bent&Gordon Kauhanen
24 Caribou Court
Monterey, CA 93940
Prepared by:
Amy Leitman
Marine Surveys&Assessments
521 Snagstead Way
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone: (360)385-4073, Fax: (360)385-1724
June 13, 2003
C r&-r L3
List of Figures and Attachments
Figure Number Page
1. Project location.............................................................................................20
2. Site plan.......................................................................................................21
3. Plan and elevation views of proposed structure...........................................22
4. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map...............................................23
5. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map.................................................24
6. Surf smelt spawning beaches.......................................................................25
7. Sand lance spawning beaches......................................................................26
8. Pacific herring spawning grounds................................................................27
Attachment Number Page
1. SCUBA survey transect map................................. ...............28
.......................
2. Photographs of the site............................................................................29-31
3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list.............................................32-33
4. Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood
in Aquatic Environments........................................................................34-40
5. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment..........................................................41-44
Bent dt Kauhmen Dock Redesign Project•2
Bent & Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project
Biological Evaluation
I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.Project Location:
Section 30,Township 22N, Range 02W
11170 SR 106,Union, WA
Latitude: N 47.369821 Longitude: W 123.993960
The project location is seen in Figure 1.
B. Project Description:
The proposed project involves the redesign of an all-float dock structure to include a fixed pier and ramp. The
original dock structure consisted of a string of six-foot wide floats extending 172'into Hood Canal (Attachment
2). This dock structure was attached to 5 of 9 existing pilings. During a winter storm in 2002,most of the floats
were torn from their pilings and damaged as they were washed up on the shoreline. The pilings remain in their
original locations(Attachment 2).
The redesigned structure(Figures 2 and 3)will consist of a 6'x 60'pier, a 4'x 40'aluminum ramp and 4 floats
(3 floats will be 6'x 20'. the 4th will be 6'x 18).The structure will extend 172'into Hood Canal. It will be
attached to 7 new pilings and 3 replacement pilings. Five of the original 9 creosote-treated pilings will be
removed and disposed of in an approved landfill. As mentioned,3 of these 5 original pilings will be replaced by
new pilings. The 4 existing pilings located waterward of the new structure will remain in their original location
(Figure 3 and Attachment 2). The pier and floats will have two-foot wide grating installed down their centers
(McNichols Fibergrate— 1'/2" by 1%"grid—70%open area). Stub pilings will be attached to the floats to
prevent grounding at low tides. The floats will be removed from the site and stored in an upland location during
the winter months.
Douglas fir pilings, treated with ACZA(Chemonite) 1.5#retention, will be towed to the site by a motor-driven
barge. A barge-mounted crane will remove five of the existing pilings. They will be cut into four-foot lengths
and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The new, 10" diameter pilings will be driven with a 2,000 lb drop
hammer mounted on the same barge. Set-up time for each piling is generally 20 to 30 minutes,while actual
driving time is about the same, depending on the conditions. This work is always done during daylight hours at
high tide so that the barge does not ground out. The most landward pilings are driven first,those farther out are
driven as the ride goes out. The pile driver will be in operation for approximately 4 to 5 hours.
After the pilings are driven, the fixed pier will be built on the six pilings nearest land using conventional
construction methods.The floats will be built offsite, placed in the water at the Twanoh State Park boat ramp
(approximately 1.0 mile to the northeast), towed to the site and attached to the seaward pilings. The ramp will
be pre-assembled offsite, loaded on one of the floats at Twanoh State Park, towed to the project area and set in
place using the crane on the barge.
All framing materials for the pier and floats will be treated with CCA. All fastenings and hardware will be hot
dipped galvanized. The flotation will consist of polystyrene fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene resin tubes.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•3
3 4Y
All treated lumber used for this project will meet or exceed the standards established in"Best Management
Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments"developed by the Western Wood Preservers
Institute, revised July 1996 and amended April 17,2002(Attachment 4).
The following Best Management Practices(BMP)guidelines as enumerated by Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife(WDFW)will be followed during this project:
All sawdust,trimmings or drillings from the treated wood used in this project will be contained in such manner
to prevent them from entering the beach,bed or waters of the state.
All cut-offs,excess materials and other wastes will be retrieved and disposed of at an approved disposal site.
Design features will be incorporated to prevent or minimize the abrasion of treated wood.
No heavy equipment will be used on the beach.
Additional BMP guidelines may be required in the Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)and will be added to the
Biological Evaluation(BE)as an Addendum,when the HPA is issued.
C. Action Area:
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the proposed project location. This action
area includes the area(25'surrounding each piling)in which potential turbidity plumes generated by pile
removal and pile driving may impact the listed fish species. The action area will also include the area in which
pile-driving noise may affect nesting and wintering eagles,marbled murrelets and the listed fish species. .
The applicants have a 16'outboard that will be seasonally moored at the site.The action area should include the
area in which the listed species may be impacted by boat use. However, defining the extent of this area is
somewhat arbitrary,because no one can anticipate where the boat owner will operate the boat. For the purpose
of this BE the action area potentially impacted by boat use will be defined as one mile in all waterward
directions from the dock location, even though boat use may extend beyond that area.
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. Species Information:
In the project area, there are two salmon species, Hood Canal summer-run chum(Oncorhynchus keta)and
Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened
species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Federal Register, Vol. 64,Nos. 56 and 57).
NMFS also listed the Steller sea lion(Eumetopias jubatus) as threatened and both the humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae) and the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as endangered species that
may occur in Puget Sound. Bull trout(Salvelinus conjluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)in October of 1999. Bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)and marbled
murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1978 and
1992,respectively.
On April 30, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a NMFS consent decree
withdrawing the February 2000 critical habitat designations for the Hood Canal summer-run chum and Puget
Sound Chinook. The critical habitat designations will be re-issued after additional analysis.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•4
r
` According to the USFWS,no special management protection for critical habitat has been designated for the
bald eagle at this time. There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site(Federal
Register, Vol. 61,No. 102, 1996). The critical habitat designation for the bull trout was deemed"not
determinable"due to the meager understanding of the biological needs of the species at this time(Federal
Register, Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999). There is no designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions or leatherback sea
turtles in Washington and no designated critical habitat for humpback whales at this time.
Hood Canal Summer-run Chum:
Chum salmon have the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any Pacific salmon(Groot and
Margolis 1991), and historically may have been the most abundant of all the salmon species(Heave 1961). In
the Puget Sound area the spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams. Summer, fall
and winter runs are present. Fall-run chum are most prevalent,but summer runs are found in the Hood Canal,
the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in southern Puget Sound(WDFW 1994). In the Hood Canal,the summer-run
stocks spawn from early-September to mid-October, while spawning of the fall-run stocks begins about the
third week in October and may continue into January(WDFW 1994).
Juvenile chum in Washington begin migration downstream in late January and continue through May, although
there is considerable variability in the onset of migration due to the large number of cues influencing migration
(Simenstad et al. 1982 and Salo 1991). The migration to the estuarine environment usually happens
immediately after emergence(Simenstad 1998),but juveniles have been reported to remain in freshwater
streams for up to a month(Salo and Noble 1953; Bostick 1955;Beall 1972).
Chum and ocean-type chinook spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon
(Dorcey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982).Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an
average residence of 24 days(Simenstad 1998). Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around
eelgrass beds(harpacticoid copepods,gammarid amphipods and isopods),but change their diet to drift insects
and plankton such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans p pepo , and h eriid am hi ods as their size increases t 0-YP P P o 5 60
mm. (Simenstad et al. 1982).Eelgrass beds are probably the main migration corridors for juveniles,providing
both forage opportunities and refuge from predation(Simenstad et al. 1982).
As the spring and early summer season progress and plankton blooms and forage opportunities increase, the
migration rate slows(Bax 1983). Simenstad and Salo(1982)found that as the food resources started to decrease
in mid to late summer,juvenile chum tended to move offshore, suggesting a relationship between out migration
and prey availability.
Summer chum escapements in Hood Canal have generally experienced a continuous decline for the past 30
years. However, in 1995 - 1996 there was a dramatic increase in escapement, especially in some rivers on the
western arm of Hood Canal such as the Big Quilcene, the Duckabush and the Dosewallips. Streams on the
eastern side of the canal continued either to have no returning adults(Big Beef Creek, Anderson Creek, and the
Dewatto River)or no increases in escapement(Tahuya River)(Johnson et al. 1997). The dramatic escapement
increases of 1995 - 1996 were not seen in 1997. For example,in the Dosewallips,the 1996 escapement rose to
almost 7000 fish, but declined to under 100 in 1997(Bernthal et al. 1999).In 1999, summer chum escapement
in the Dosewallips was 351 (Johnson,pers. comm.). However, chum returns in the fall of 2001 increased to 700
to 800 in the Dosewallips, Duckabush and the Hamma Hamma rivers. The return to Big Beef Creek increased
to 600 fish from 20 in 1999.
The situation is more critical for the Hood Canal summer-run chum populations in southern Hood Canal
(Skokonush River northeast to the Union River). Summer-run chum have existed in the past in the Tahuya
River, which enters Hood Canal approximately 3.5 miles from the site, but that run may be extinct at this time
(Bernthal et al. 1999). The same situation exists in the Skokomish River, which enters Hood Canal
approximately 7.0 miles southwest of the project area. The Union River enters the Hood Canal approximately
8.6 miles northeast of the project area at Belfair, and supports a summer-run chum population. In contrast to
other summer-run chum populations in southern Hood Canal, this stock has shown a general increase during the
last 15 years (Bernthal et al. 1999),but is still thought to be below historic levels.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•5
i
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 fiy from March to May
at a length of 40 mm., or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first
year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey 1982). Chinook fiy in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and
epibenthic crustaceans(gammarid amphipods,mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into neritic
habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and euphausiids(Simenstad et al.
1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species
on estuaries for survival.
Summer/fall-run chinook have spawned in the Skokomish,Union,Tahuya, Duckabush, Dosewallips and
Hamma Hamma Rivers in the past-all of these rivers empty into the Hood Canal. Escapement is currently
strong in the Skokomish River,but much weaker in the other rivers given the.available productive habitat.For
example, in the Tahuya there were no returning chinook in 1999 according to the Salmon Spawning Ground
Survey Data from WDFW(Egan,pers. comm.). In the Duckabush River in 1999, the spawner escapement was
just 92 chinook(Johnson,pers. comm.). A large number of the naturally spawning chinook in the Skokomish
are derived from hatchery strays from Hoodsport and George Adams hatcheries(WDFW 1994). Chinook of
hatchery origin have been released in the Tahuya and Union rivers, and the generic impacts are unknown.These
fish are considered a stock of mixed origin(a stock whose individuals originated from commingled native and
non-native parents)with composite production(a stock sustained by both wild and artificial production)(Myers
et al. 1998 and WDFW 1994).
Bull Trout.
Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct
in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and
Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from
August to November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations)takes place in the
spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival.Temperatures in excess of about 15
degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). They live both in fresh and
marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers(fluvial),lakes(adfluvial), or saltwater(anadromous)before
returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others(resident bull trout)complete all of their life in the streams where
they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the
Coastal-Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only
anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States(Federal Register,Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999).
There are three bull trout subpopulations in the Skokomish River Basin. There is an isolated population in Lake
Cushman(due to the construction of a dam on the North Fork Skokomish River), a second subpopulation
occurs in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and a third subpopulation occurs in the upper
North Fork Skokomish River above Staircase Falls(Staircase Falls is assumed to be a barrier to migration of the
Lake Cushman stock into the upper North Fork Skokomish). The first two populations are considered
"depressed"(with fewer than 500 spawners in each population), and the third population is considered
"unknown"because of insufficient information(Federal Register, Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999).
Marty Ereth, a Habitat Biologist for the Skokomish Tribe,has reported fisherman catching bull trout in the
lower Skokomish from fall to spring(pers comm.). According to Ereth, "it is not known whether these bull trout
are fluvial Skokomish bull trout dropping down in to the floodplain to overwinter, if they are a local
anadromous form or if they are an anadromous population from another area foraging and overwintering in the
lower Skokomish River.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project-6
r Y t4 b ct r3 171u�
Bald Eagle:
In 1973,the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagle was listed as threatened in Washington State.
Currently, there are about six hundred nesting pairs of bald eagles in Washington. Each winter several hundred
additional eagles take up temporary residence on rivers and streams to feed on the spawned out carcasses of
salmon. Eagles are generally riparian, associated with coasts, rivers and lakes. Nest selection includes three key
elements: (1)proximity to water, and a clear flight path to the water, (2)they usually prefer to find the largest
tree in the area, and(3)an open view of the surrounding area. An otherwise suitable site may not be used if
there is excessive human activity in the area. Birds are their primary food source,but eagles are opportunistic
and will take a variety of fish, small mammals, sea urchins, clams, crabs and carrion. In Washington State,most
nest-building activity occurs in January and February. Egg laying occurs in March or early April and eaglets
hatch after a 35-day incubation period(Stalmaster 1987). They remain in the nest for 10-12 weeks before
attempting their first flights in mid-July.They may remain in the area for another month before dispersal
(Anderson et al. 1986). According to USFWS,there are no active nests within a mile of the site, although
wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity(Attachment 3).
Marbled Murrelets:
Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family.They spend most of their time at sea and only
use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a
significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or
adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other
small schooling fish and invertebrates.There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are
no nests close to the project site. Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Marine Bird and Mammal
Component of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, WDFW)indicate that marbled murrelets do
make use of nearshore foraging habitat in this part of the Hood Canal in the winter(Figure 5). However,they
are rarely seen in this area in the summer(Figure 4).
Forage Fish:
Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring(Clupea harengus pallasi), sand lance(Ammodytes
hexapterus)and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus)as prey resources. These forage fish form a very important
trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of predatory marine organisms as well as providing
food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles.
There are documented surf smelt spawning beaches at and adjacent to the site(Figure 6,Penttila 1999). They
require sand/gravel substrates in the upper intertidal zone(the area between+7'above MLLW and 1'above
MHH )on which to deposit their eggs. Egg deposition occurs between September 15 and March 1 in the Hood
Canal area.
The nearest sand lance spawning beaches are approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the site(Figure 7).
According to Penttila, spawning takes place primarily on fine-grained sand substrates, although spawning can
occur on sand-gravel substrates as well as gravel up to 3 cm in diameter. Spawning can take place on sheltered
beaches, current-swept beaches on tidal passages and on exposed wave-swept beaches. They deposit their
adhesive eggs in the upper intertidal zone(the area between+5' above MLLW and MHHW). Sand lance spawn
from October 15 to March 1.
There are Pacific herring spawning and holding areas adjacent to the site(Figure 8, WDFW 2000). Herring
usually spawn from January 15 to April 1 on Zostera marina, Gracilariopsis and other macroalgae.
These areas are considered critical marine habitats by resource agencies(WDFW), and are treated as such.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project-7
Steller Sea Lions:
Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska. Breeding colonies do not exist on the
Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon(Osborne et al. 1988).There are no
documented haulouts or rookeries in the Hood Canal area(Jeffries et al. 2000), although sea lions are seen in
the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May)where their visits are transitory.
Humpback Whales:
Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound,even though
in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982).According to Osborne et al. (1988),
there were only three sightings of humpback whales in Puget Sound from 1976 to 1988. It is highly unlikely
they would be present near the Hood Canal project area(Jeffries,pers. comm.).
Leatherback Sea Turtle:
There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington, even though they are occasionally seen along
the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994).They are rarely seen in Puget Sound(McAllister,pers. comm.). Again, it seems
highly unlikely that these turtles would be found in the Hood Canal near the project site.
B. Survey Results:
A SCUBA survey was done at the Bent/Kauhanen site on February 1,2003. The dive was done between 2:20
PM and 3:20 PM at a tidal elevation of+10'to+11'MLLW. Seven transects were run to identify flora, fauna,
substrate type, substrate at depth and other qualitative information relative to the BE. These seven transects
were run perpendicular to shore for 290'and began approximately 30'west of the centerline of the proposed
structure. They continued to the east for a total length of 60'.
The SCUBA survey map(Attachment 1)shows the location of each transect within the project area. All depths
are corrected to MLLW. Below are the collected data from the survey
Location: The transects ran perpendicular to shore and began in the west and continued to the east. All transects
ran 290'in length and were located 10'apart. T 1 was located approximately 30'west of the center of the original
dock structure. The transects continued to the east.The final transect(T7)ran approximately 30'east of the
structure.
Surface Substrate Characterization:The substrate area within a ten foot swath of T1-T7 in both the east and
west direction was predominately a matrix of cobble and gravel for the first 140'. However, by 120', the oyster
cover was so dense,that no other substrate could be seen. By 155'the oysters diminished and sand,mud and a
small amount of shell become the main substrate types.The substrate changed at approximately 210'along the
transect and gravel was intermixed within the matrix of sandy mud.This substrate remained to the end of the
survey area.
Substrate Characterization at Depth:Underneath the surface matrix were predominately gravel, cobble and
oyster shells for the first 160'to a minimum depth of eight inches. After that point, sand,mud and gravel
became the predominant material at depth to the end of the transects.
Depth Contour:T1 -T7 extended for 290'from the beach/bluff interface, seaward. The depth reached 39'
MLLW(corrected depth)at the end of the transects.The beach had a moderate slope for the first 160'and then
became steeper. The 3'depth drop per 10'linear distance continued to the end of the transects.
Turbidity4lisibility: Approximately 30'visibility was present for the entire survey.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•8
Macroalgae/Eelgrass:
Polysiphonia pacifica:this finely branched red alga was noted on the oyster and mussel shells found during the
survey. The density was moderate and the algae were attached to approximately 5%-8%of the oysters and
mussels.
Desmarestia aculeata: This wiry alga(Witch's Hair)grows on rocks was found in the subtidal areas in low
quantities. Approximately 3%was the highest density found. This alga was found between 130'and 155'.
Chondracanthus exasperatus: This stiff thick blade of dark red was noted between 200' and 260'. It was found
intermittently in small densities of approximately 1-2%.
Porphyra sp.: These thin bladed epiphytes were found in the last 70'of the transects in extremely low quantities
(1-2%).
Zostera marina: Thirty-five shoots of eelgrass were found in a narrow band between 175'and 185'along
transect 7. This location is approximately 30'east of the centerline of the proposed structure. The corrected
depth ranges from a-5.0'to a-8.0'below MLLW.
No other algae were found within this survey area.
Invertebrate/Vertebrate Species:Along the upper littoral zone between 30'and 110'were barnacle(Balanus
glandula)encrusted oysters(Crassostrea gigas),mussels(Mytilus eduhs) shore crabs(Hemigrapsus sp.) and
periwinkles(Lirularia sp.)intermixed with the gravel.At the edge of this oyster/mussel zone, a few species of
invertebrates were found and continued beyond this area to approximately 220'.These invertebrates,Pisaster
ochraceus (Ochre sea stars), Pisaster brevispinus (Short spined sea stars), Dermasterias imbricata (Leather sea
star),Pycnopodia helianthoides (Sunflower sea stars), Cancer productus (Red rock crab)and Cancer gracilis
(Graceful crab)were found. All species except for the sea stars were found in low quantities.The seas stars
however,were found in extremely high quantities, especially at the edge of the oyster beds,were they are
thought to delineate that zone due to predation.Between 2 10'and 240', horse clams(Tresus nuttallii)were
found within the sandy mud substrate in moderate quantities.
No vertebrate species were found whatsoever within the survey.
Photographs of the site are seen in Attachment 2.
In addition to this survey, discussions with the local biologists in that area from the WDFW(Kelly McAllister,
Steve Jeffries, Dave Nysewander, Dan Penttila helped provide local information and knowledge. Barbara
Nightingale provided much appreciated knowledge and references concerning the effects of overwater
structures on migrating juvenile salmon.
C. Environmental Baseline:
Listed below are some of the parameters that are identified in the Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation Handbook as critical for the listed salmon. As mentioned, the pathways and indicators will
undoubtedly be divergent for this BE since the proposed action area is in the marine, not freshwater,
environment.
Habitat Elements:
In the marine environment, one component that is very important for ocean going salmon is the forage habitat.
Maintenance of available prey species, and in turn, their habitat requirements are critical. Eelgrass(Zostera
marina)beds are well-documented forage areas for juvenile salmon(Simenstad and Salo 1982). It has been
shown that the dominant prey species for outmigrating smaller juvenile chum salmon consist of benthic
organisms such as harpacticoid copepods and gammarid amphipods(Simenstad et al. 1982)usually associated
with eelgrass beds. Thirty-five shoots of Zostera marina were found at the site in a narrow band from 175'to
185' along transect 7.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•9
Yhrl�,f Y/YY
Water Quality:
For poikilothermic organisms, including salmon,whose body temperature is determined by the ambient water,
temperature is a critical environmental factor. Numerous biological and physical mechanisms, such as digestion
rate,metabolic rate, appetite, predatory-prey interactions, growth rate and cues for migration just to name a few,
are inextricably linked with the temperature of the water where they live. It seems unlikely that the redesigned
dock will cause measurable temperature changes in the area.
Sediment/turbidity episodes have also been identified as critical to the incubating eggs of salmon. Without
proper aeration, the eggs have the potential of suffocating. However,there is no spawning habitat in the project
area for the listed salmon.
To alleviate degradation of water quality in the area during construction, all the proposed project components
will be constructed within the WDFW Best Management Practices recommendations as discussed in the
"Project Description"section.
An additional pathway by which water quality might be degraded by the proposed project is the leaching of
copper,arsenic, and/or zinc out of the treated pilings and framing timbers used. It is known that copper, arsenic
and zinc present in ACZA(Chemonite)treated wood products are toxic to aquatic organisms at varying
concentrations(Brooks 1997). However,Brooks has shown that when used in moderately well circulated bodies
of water, the levels of these three chemicals resulting from the use of ACZA treated wood products are well
below regulatory standards and will produce levels far below those causing either acute or chronic stress in
marine life. All the treated wood used in this project will meet or exceed the standards established in"Best
Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments" developed by the Western Wood
Preservers Institute(Attachment 4).
Watershed Condition:
A shoreline survey revealed the following structures and vegetation:
For approximately 1400'southwest of the site, approximately 89%of the shoreline is armored with concrete or
rock bulkheads. Houses are common between SR 106 and the shoreline and many of these extend out into the
upper intertidal area. Overhanging vegetation is dense in a thin band between SR 106 and the beach along the
approximately 11%of natural shoreline. Little overhanging vegetation is seen along the residential, armored
shoreline. Seven pier, ramp and float(PRF)structures exist along this shoreline segment.
For approximately 1300'northeast of the site, approximately 80%of the shoreline is armored with wood,rock
and concrete bulkheads. Again,houses are found between the bulkheads and the road,but few of these
residential lots contain any overhanging vegetation.Two PRF structures and four single moorage floats were
noted.Approximately 20%of this shoreline consists of natural beach with shrubs and trees growing in the
narrow band between the road and the beach.
According to Schwartz and Wallace(1986), the project site is located in a drift cell that begins approximately
3.7 miles southwest of the site and terminates approximately 1 mile northeast of the site at the Twanoh State
Park boat ramp. Virtually the entire length of this drift cell is armored in some manner, which limits the supply
of sediment available for beach nourishment. The direction of the net shore-drift is from the southwest to
northeast, and the amount of sediment deposited at the boat ramp is 215 cubic meters per year. Of the 26 sites
studied by Schwartz and Wallace, 31%had drift rates between 100 and 1,000 cubic meters per year. Forty-two
percent had higher rates and 27%had lower rates. These surveyed sites were located in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and Puget Sound.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project• 10
M. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
A.Direct Effects:
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided.The proposed project has been
described and the action area defined. A habitat survey has been provided. When reviewing all the data, the
potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should
be considered.
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project will
immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the
construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to pile removal and pile driving.
Pile driving noise.
Feist et al. (1.992)reported that sahmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000'
from the source. Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport, these researchers concluded that pile driving did
alter the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon.Noise from pile driving may mask the
approach of predators.The impacts of pile driving noise depend upon the number of fish present in the area,the
distance of the fish from the site and the duration of the pile driving process. Pile driving noise at this site will
probably have short-term impacts on the listed fish species. The pile driver will be in operation for
approximately 4 to 5 hours and pile driving will take place during an approved work window(discussed below),
which will minimize contact with the listed fish.
Marbled murrelets spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical
nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and
conservation of the species(WDW 1993). There are no critical nesting habitats within close range of the project
and no nests(Federal Register, Vol. 61,No. 102, 1996). Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Figure 4)
indicate that no murrelets have been seen near the Hood Canal project area in the summer months. Because of
this, construction during the work window mentioned above would cause no significant impacts on murrelet
foraging. In the marine environment of the proposed project,forage fish abundance could affect survival of the
murrelets(Ralph et al. 1997). Construction will be limited to periods outside the forage fish spawning periods,
thereby eliminating any significant impact to the murrelets' food supply.
Pile driving noise will not impact eagle-nesting activity because there are no active nests within a mile of the
site.
Turbidity:
Increased turbidity caused by pile removal and pile driving could have adverse effects on salmon and bull trout.
The impact level depends on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity, the life stage during the increased
exposure and the options available for the fish to avoid the plumes. The effects can be discussed in terms of
lethal, sublethal or behavioral(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 a and Simenstad, editor, 1988). For this project,
turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief. The area where turbidity impacts may affect the listed
fish has been defined by the Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)as a 25'radius around each piling. To minimize
the adverse effects of increased noise and/or increased turbidity on migrating salmonids,bull trout, forage fish
spawning activities and wintering bald eagles, pile driving should take place during the work window from July
16 to September 14. Work during this period will reduce the possibility of contact with these species.
Due to the scarcity of Steller sea lions, humpback whales and leatherback sea turtles in the action area, it is
concluded that the proposed project construction and its presence will have no effect on these three species.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project• 11
B. Indirect Effects:
Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might include
alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon migratory pathways,increase in salmonid predation, reduction in prey
resources and refugia due to shading or crushing of the epibenthic substrate by the structure, degradation of the
adjacent marine habitat due to leaching of chemicals from treated wood into the water and increased boat use.
Migratory pathway alteration:
It is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter migration behavior of juvenile salmon(though the
effects may vary rydepending on the design and orientation
entation of the structure degree of shading, and the presen
ce
of artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources and refugia by shading aquatic plant life Simenstad et al.
aq p (
1999• Nightingale and S' e 0 Simenstad 2 Olb). However,the significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad
et al. state, "We found no studies that described empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of
juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats was reflected in changes in survival."Nightingale and Simenstad
(2001b)state,"Presently, although we know that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or
otherwise alter their shoreline movements when encountering an overwater structure, the conditions under
which this behavioral modification is significant to the fishes' fitness and survival is relatively unknown."
Increased predation:
At this time, there is no evidence of docks aggregating salmonid predators in the Puget Sound(Ratte&Salo
1985;Cardwell et al. 1980;Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b).Dock associated structures, such as
breakwaters,may serve as marine mammal haulout areas,but there is no scientific literature that states that
these mammals are particularly targeting small outmigrating juveniles. It might be assumed that birds would be
interested in small migrating juveniles,but there is no evidence that docks provide an aggregation site for
predatory birds(Taylor and Willey 1997). Therefore, it cannot be stated,based on existing research,that the
predation rates of juvenile salmonids will be altered due to the presence of the structure.
Shading and crushing impacts:
Shading caused by overwater structures and float grounding can reduce or eliminate eelgrass,macroalgae,and
other epibenthic organisms. As mentioned in the habitat survey, there is a scarcity of macroalgae at this site.
Only Polysiphonia pacifrca(5 to 8%density)was found in densities greater than 3%. However,the proposed
redesigned dock will improve the existing baseline conditions at the site in the following ways:
• The old dock structure had an area of 1032 fl.
The redesigned dock will have an area of 964 ft2(pier=360 ft2, ramp= 136 Wand floats=468 ft2); a
reduction in overwater area of 68 ft2.
• The old dock structure was composed of 6'wide floats with no grating.
The redesigned dock will have two-foot wide grating installed down the entire length of the 6'-wide pier
and the 6'-wide floats(McNichols Fibergrate— 1-1/2"by 1-1/2"mesh—70%open area). The ramp will
be only 4'wide.Narrow overwater structures allow more light transmission under the structure,
especially during the morning and afternoon hours(Shafer and Lundin 1999).
• The old dock structure had no float stops or stub pilings.
The redesigned dock will be equipped with both float stops and stub pilings. Consequently, grounding
impacts will only occur under the four float-mounted stub pilings(an area of approximately 2.2 ft2,
assuming a stub piling diameter of 10").
In contrast to the possible negative impacts shading can have on marine vegetation, Penttila(2000)reported
increased survival in summer spawning surf smelt eggs located on shaded shorelines. The shade in the Penttila
study was provided by overhanging vegetation. However, It is conceivable that shade produced by overwater
structures could have the same positive impacts on surf smelt egg survival.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project• 12
Eyh�b�,`�j ��, ,,
Treated wood impacts:
There is little disagreement in the literature that copper and zinc in treated wood are leached into the water
when the wood is immersed or exposed to rainfall. However,there is some dispute as to the impacts resulting
from this process. In field studies using CCA-treated bulkheads, Weis et al. (1993)demonstrated accumulation
in and deleterious effects on organisms that settled on the treated bulkheads.Adverse effects on benthic
organisms adjacent to treated bulkheads were also noted, especially in areas with low tidal flushing action
(Weis, et al 1998). Other investigators have arrived at somewhat different conclusions. Lebow and Tippie
(2001) conclude that, "Although treated wood does contain chemicals that are potentially toxic, studies indicate
that there are no measurable impacts on aquatic organisms if the wood is properly treated and installed."In a
paper on the impacts of treated wood used in the construction of a boardwalk constructed over a wetland(Forest
Products Laboratory 2000), it was reported that, "With few exceptions,elevated environmental concentrations
of preservative components were confined to within close proximity to the boardwalk. These levels of
environmental accumulation did not appear to have any measurable biological impact. Although seasonal
fluctuations in insect populations were noted, none of the invertebrate taxa evaluated were significantly reduced
in number in the wetlands surrounding any of the types of treated wood."
Adverse effects caused by ACZA treated pilings can result from sediment contamination and impacts to aquatic
organisms that contact the treated surface. However, the impacts on the adjacent water column are minimized
by dilution and decrease rapidly with age-leaching of metals decreases significantly within 10 days after
immersion(Poston 2001).The leached metals are ultimately deposited in the sediment near the treated pilings.
In the field studies reviewed by Poston,the leached metals were concentrated in sediments within 10'or less of
the source. As mentioned above,the exposed CCA treated lumber(used on the pier and floats)may continue
leaching metals during each precipitation episode. However,Poston states,"This review of several field studies
did not turn up one study where sediment impacts(as indicated by increases in metal concentration in the
sediment)were supported by adverse biological impacts."According to Postin, salmon are most susceptible to
treated wood impacts during egg larval incubation and freshwater juvenile migration. Concerning later life stage
impacts,Postin states, "Once juvenile salmon enter larger rivers or engage in an open-water life stage,the
potential to be adversely impacted by treated wood contaminants is very low."
Boating impacts.
A 16'powerboat will be moored at the redesigned dock during the summer. Boating activity can cause damage
to the aquatic habitat due to prop scour and increased turbidity.
In several studies, aquatic vegetation and benthic organisms were found to be absent or greatly reduced in areas
where boat traffic was high and the propellers were within one foot of the bottom(Chumra and Ross 1978;
Ogilvie 1981).Langler(1950)found that propellers within approximately 14" of the bottom removed all plants
and silt within a swath approximately 5'wide. Conversely,boat use over deeper water can actually stimulate
aquatic plant growth by increasing the dissolved carbon dioxide and increasing water circulation(Warrington
1999).
It is assumed that most boating activity adjacent to the floats will be at slow speeds. It is possible that at low
tides,boat traffic to and from the floats will cause some scouring impacts on the macroalgae present at the site.
The magnitude of these impacts depends on such factors as boat speed, frequency of boat use at low tides,time
of year of boat use, etc. As mentioned above, boat use over deeper water can actually stimulate aquatic plant
growth by increasing the dissolved carbon dioxide and increasing water circulation(Warrington 1999). Given
the number of unknown variables, the overall impact on the listed fish species caused by boating impacts to
macroalgae is difficult to predict.
Pollution from exhaust can have indirect adverse effects on the listed fish. Warrington(1999)concluded from
his study of the literature that, "There is no significant effect of outboard exhaust on zooplankton,
phytoplankton,periphyton or other aquatic invertebrates in the bulk water."However, he also concluded that
there are no acceptable works on exhaust effects on salmonids.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project- 13
"'Xfy
Fuel spills are another potential source of pollution. Crude oil and petroleum produce behavioral changes in fish
at low concentrations, with physiological impacts occurring at higher concentrations(Warrington 1999).
Warrington concludes that salmonids may face toxic conditions in areas with low flushing rates and heavy
marina concentrations due to petroleum pollution. The project site is not located near a marina. If refueling
takes place at a marine fueling station, and not at the proposed dock structure, the possibility of fuel spills at the
site is remote. If refueling takes place at the proposed structure, the possibility of fuel spills is also remote.
Hand carried fuel tanks are usually filled at a service station, sealed with their cap, and taken to the boat. Once
in the boat, the fuel line from the engine is connected to the fuel tank. The fuel tank cap remains secured; hence,
there is little chance for a fuel spill.
Concerns have been expressed about impacts on Pacific herring in their holding areas caused by boating
activity. Herring tend to congregate in holding areas 3-4 weeks prior to spawning which takes place beginning
in late January(boat usage will be non-existent in the winter). Dan Penttila(pers. comm.)has stated that herring
remain near the seabed during daylight hours and only move close to the surface at night(within 10 fathoms).
Based on these observations, it seems highly unlikely that boating activity would have any significant impact on
Pacific herring in the holding area.
C.Interrelated/Interdependent Effects:
Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise
occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect
species regulated under ESA will occur because of this project.
D. Take Analysis:
The ESA(Section 3)defines "take" as to"harass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot, wound,trap,capture, collect or
attempt to engage in any such conduct."The USFWS further defines"harm"as"significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral
patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering." It is likely that no"take"will result from this project.
E. Conservation Measures:
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by pile driving and pile removal,
construction of this project should take place from July 16 to September 14 of any year. Construction during
this time will minimize direct impacts on migrating salmon,bull trout, wintering bald eagles and forage fish
spawning activities. Additional design changes and conservation measures will minimize indirect adverse
effects of the project. They include:
1. The overwater area of the redesigned dock will be 68 ft2 less than the old dock.
2. Two-foot wide grating will be installed in the 6'-wide pier and the 6'-wide floats to reduce shading impacts.
3. Float stops and stub pilings will be incorporated to minimize float-grounding impacts.
4. The PRF will be oriented within 401 of a north-south orientation.
5. The floats will be removed during the winter months.
6. Given the abundance of vegetation existing at the site, there is little room available for additional plantings
(Attachment 2).
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project- 14
F.Determination of Effect:
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the determination of effect is:
1. Puget Sound chinook- "May affect,not likely to adversely affect"Puget Sound chinook.
2. Hood Canal summer-run chum-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect'Hood Canal summer-run chum.
3. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect'bull trout.
4. Marbled murrelet-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"marbled murrelets and their designated
critical habitat.
5. Bald eagle-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect'bald eagles.
This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be
beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting construction work to the approved work window will reduce
direct impacts on the listed species. No forage fish spawning activity will be affected because of work closures
during spawning activity. Grounding impacts will occur on only approximately 2.2 ft2 of the benthic substrate.
There is very little macroalgae present at the site to serve as a prey substrate or refuge for the listed fish species.
Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the conservation measures discussed above.
The availability of forage fish for bull trout, salmon, marbled murrelets and eagles will not be impacted.
6 Steller sea lion -"No effect'on Steller sea lions and their designated critical habitat.
7. Humpback whale-"No effect'on humpback whales.
8. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect'on leatherback sea turtles and their designated critical habitat.
These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project- 15
Lr���♦ �3 �SKY
References
In addition to the literature review, several people contributed information to this study. Regional scientific
knowledge aided the understanding of important ecological systems within the project area. The individuals
referenced are listed below.
Egan, Ron. WDFW. Marine Resources Division. Fish Biologist, Olympia, WA.
Jeffries,Steve. WDFW, Senior Research Scientist,Marine Mammal Investigation Division, Olympia, WA.
Johnson, Thom. WDFW, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Fish Management Division,Port Townsend, WA.
McAllister,Kelly. WDFW, Regional Habitat Biologist, Olympia, WA.
Nysewander, Dave. WDFW,Project Leader,Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Marine Birds and
Mammal Biologist, Olympia, WA.
Penttila,Daniel. WDFW, Marine Resources Division,Fish Biologist, La Conner,WA.
Literature
Anderson, B.,J. Frost, K. McAllister, D.Pineo, and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald eagles in Washington. Wash.
Wildl. 36(4): 13-20.
Angell,T. and K. C. Balcomb Ill. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books.
University of Washington Press, Seattle,WA, 146 pp.
Bax,N.J. 1983.The early marine migration of juvenile chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)through Hood Canal
-its variability and consequences. Ph.D. thesis. UW, Seattle, WA. 196 pp.
Beall,E. P. 1972. The use of predator-prey tests to assess the quality of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keia) fry.
M.S. thesis. UW, Seattle, WA.
Bernthal, C. Coordinator. 1999. Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat Recovery
Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,WA.
Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments. Revised July 1996. Western
Wood Preservers Institute, Vancouver,WA.
Bostick,W. E. 1955. Duwamish River seining studies.In: Puget Sound stream studies, pp. 5-6. Wash. Dep.
Fish. Olympia, WA.
Bowlby, D. E.,G.A. Green, and M.L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of
Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35.
Brooks,Kenneth M. 1997. Literature review and assessment of the environmental risks associated with the use
of ACZA treated wood products in aquatic environments. Prepared for Western Wood Preservers Institute.
Unpublished, Vancouver, WA.
Burkett,E. A. 1995. Marbled murrelet food habits and prey ecology.In: Ralph, C. J., G. L.Hunt, M. G.
Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, tech. Eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-GTR-152. Pacific Southwest Research Station,USDA Forest Service. Albany, Calif.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project• 16
Cardwell R.D., S.J. Olsen, M.I. Can and E.W. Sanborn. 1980. Biotic,water quality and hydrologic
characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. TechRep. 54, Washington Dept. of Fisheries.
Chumra, G. L. and N. W. Ross. 1978. The environmental impacts of marinas and their boats. A literature
review with management implications, Marine Advisory Service,University of Rhode Island. Narragansett,
RI.
Dorcey, A. H. J., T. G.Northcote, and D. V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser River marshes essential to salmon?
Westwater Research Center, Lecture 1,University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 102/May 24, 1996/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 57/March 25, 1999/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations.
Feist, Blake E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)and chum(O. keta)salmon behavior and distribution. FRI-UW-9603,Fish. Res.
Inst.,UW, Seattle,W.A.
Forest Products Laboratory. 2000. Environmental impact of preservative-treated wood in a wetland boardwalk.
Res. Pap. FPL-RP-582. Madison, WI: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory, 126p.
Groot, C. and L. Margolis(eds.). 1991.Life history of Pacific salmon, UBC Press, Vancouver, British
Columbia.
Healey, M. C. 1982.Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system,pp. 315-341.In: V.S.
Kennedy(ed.),Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY.
Jeffries, Steven J., Patrick J. Gearin, Harriet R. Huber, Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett. 2000.Atlas of Seal
and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science
Division, Olympia, WA, 150 pp.
Johnson, Orlay W., W. Stewart Grant,Robert G. Kope,Kathleen Neely,F. William Waknitz, and Robin S.
Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 pp.
Langler, K. F., A. S. Hazzard,W. E. Hazen and W. A. Tompkins. 1950.Outboard motors in relation to fish
behavior, fish production and angling success. Transactions of the 15th Annual North American Wildlife
Conference. pp. 280-303.
Lebow, Stan T. and Michael Tippie. 2001. Guide for minimizing the effect of preservative-treated wood on
sensitive environments. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPOL-Gtr-122. Madison, WI: U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 18p.
Myers, J.M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D.Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W.
Waknitz,K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS NWFSC-
35, 443 pp.
Neave, F. 1961.Pacific salmon: ocean stocks and fishery developments.Pac. Sci. Congr. Proc. 1957(10):pp.
59-62.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State
Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project- 17
Nightingale,B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures:marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department
of Transportation,Olympia, WA, 177 pp.
Ogilvie, M. A. 1981. The mute swan in Britain, 1978. Bird Study. 28: 87 - 106.
Osborne,R.,J. Calambokidis, and E. M.Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals ofgreater Puget Sound.
Island Publishers, Anacortes,WA, 191 pp.
Penttila, Daniel E. 1999. Documented Spawning Beaches of the Surf Smelt(Hypomesus), and the Sand Lance
(Ammodyies)in Hood Canal, WA.Ms Rpt. WDFW,Marine Res. Div., La Conner, WA.
Penttila, Daniel E. 2000.Impacts of overhanging shading vegetation on egg survival for summer-spawning surf
smelt,Hypomesus, on upper intertidal beaches in northern Puget Sound, WA. State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Division. LaConner, WA.
Poston,Ted. 2001. Treated wood issues associated with overwater structures in marine and freshwater
environments. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of
Ecology and Washington Department of Transportation.
Ralph, C. John, Sherri J. Miller, Linda L.Long,Brian P. O'Donnell, Michelle McKenzie, and Kim Hollinger.
1997.Annual Report.Marbled murrelet and landbird research.Redwood Sciences Laboratory,U. S.D.A.
Forest Service.
Ratte,L. and E. O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in Commencement Bay. Report
to Port of Tacoma,FRI-UW-8508,Fish. Res. Inst.UW, Seattle,WA.
Rienman, B. E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull
Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S.Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,UT. 38 pp.
Salo,E. O. and R. E. Noble. 1953. Chum salmon upstream migration.Minter Creek Biological Station Prog.
Rep. (Sept. -Oct. 1953). Wash. Dept. Fish., Olympia, WA.
Salo,E. O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta).In: C. Groot and L. Margolis(eds.).
Pacific Salmon life histories. UBC Press,Vancouver, British Colombia.
Schwartz, Maurice L. and R. Scott Wallace. 1986. Quantification of net shore-drift rates in Puget Sound and
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Washington Department of Ecology,Olympia,WA.
Shafer,Deborah and J. Lundin. 1999. Design and construction of docks to minimize seagrass impacts. WRP
Technical Note VN-RS-3.1.U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,Vicksburg, MS.
Simenstad, C.A. and E. O. Salo. 1982.Foraging success as a determinant of estuarine and nearshore carrying
capacity of juvenile chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)in Hood Canal,Washington,pp.21-371.In:B. R
Melteff and R. A. Veve(eds.),Proceedings of the North Pacific Aquaculture Symposium,Alaska Sea Grant
Rpt. 82-2.
Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. O. Salo. 1982.The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries
in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364.In: V. S.Kennedy, (ed.),
Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY.
Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings,
Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.
Simenstad, Charles A., Coordinator. 1998. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de
Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project- 18
Simenstad,C.A., B.J.Nightingale, R.M. Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile
salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to
WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903,Task A2, 116 pp. +appendices.
Stalmaster,M. V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York,NY, 227 pp.
Taylor, W. S. and W. S. Willey. 1997. Port of Seattle fish migration study. Pier 64/65 short-stay moorage
facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beck Consultants,Inc. Draft report to
the Port of Seattle.
Warrington, P. D. 1999. Impacts of outboard motors on the aquatic environment.
www,nalms.org/bclss/iinpactsrecreationboat.htm
Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead
Stock Inventory, Appendix One, Puget Sound Stocks, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Volume,
Olympia,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2000. Critical Spawning Habitat for Herring, Surf
Smelt, Sand Lance, and Rock Sole in Puget Sound Washington. Olympia,WA.
Weis, P., Weis, J. S. and E. Lores. 1993.Uptake of metals from chromated-copper-arsenate(CCA)-treated
lumber by epibiota. Mar. Pollut. Bull 26,428-430.
Weis, J. S., Weis, P. and T. Procter. 1998.The extent of benthic impacts of CCA-treated wood structures in
Atlantic coast estuaries. Arch Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 34 313-322.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project• 19
l�g �`��w =fi' yya�m T�� Mm�,��F,{r ,``�`Y.�• fir..
l � �--• ..,dip,' �.
�, ,i2'Y, 'fir at'�. 1'�-�.'"t`` xa.• T,�'"..' �f:t tRl
y y W - t
#F.a''F
J
t- w \. ,a.cam l t kk
ll
' t-aki
i ":t ` `�
.11
11-11-1111-1
V,
-NN",lk�. + a te i lr�1e `�E #'4 11< 4 1 at al Pam+• a
.f- n, -'Fiq— x3f1 tip tit l .-,
ILI
gIN gem cy��,� r" r
NOE
gy
�' �
at e✓" 6 ter¢'
��-q a�f � r y 4• ta1aY
�{pp{ ,'"$ ' .v, 3�` \fir��y✓"r`,�+,p�'��:-- -�y�u�.y ♦ a��yk� ,4
17
i � \�� [//.�, , �7 irk_ J 1� t' t$��• �+_ ..
��� �"� .�_•, ' -^� r-�"��! fit\
$Fv F . 111ra
.. •
Figure 2. Site plan
N
a
o
n
fA ...
"C!
O •
A _q
4 y b11
0
0
U.o
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•21
198,
172'
6'by 60'
pier 4'by 40' Four floats,each
f ramp 6'wide,total
length=78' MHw
10�8'
New footing ———— 8' ZD
MHW w
MLLW „b
stab pilin
attached to
floats
Q..
SR 106 co
CD
C
tv
Existing pilings p'
C
Bluff/beach
intersection
0
Fh
15' Existing pilings Two-foot wide
Existing pilings '
to be removed to bee laced grating C
Go _
`
Two-foot wide Float stops on Stab ilin ; O C
Ong these pilings P g
a cD
NORTH
0.
N
N
Figure 4. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map
;:..i.•..s,xA m.:.rn.;3;??'.:` :%;9:e!uiii�':r:a5.., •t'.�...x<�� {-��,w.,,d ':=;;K;' __— _—J:,iy1N,,;{:Y'.^��l}j��`.:o S�',;k• i.i'..;`,;.
'�`f'i, "5-,r♦ t r 'ei °c ". r ,30., a! '� 3p:;t �kJ' ".
1 t w r C a Sx.t �2 ..V t +1 �. [- 7✓Y '3 3.
+ i' r,,�F +°f�r.'"�Fz•� }�'i�`x t�1� ...•a�x.�.
r: g * - 5 bt ' Miss xrt"� " t
(�.,�.':�' s t .tat tt, ,,
�`'t'�b +�.4y�F�,,t"fT � ''r kt 4r ar.l l'J rr ���X(i LEA F 1' .c r3!.,.. Wi l` i'let'F' 1✓ �i.`!'S Z{
q if its'L t 1 r X S � k y. YF ar• Lx tq n 7
' ,�ati ) T"'{v .is ` "�•,Y�P'•
k:Y `��la �` �Y`{,zfald.'\f F� �a`'3`L'� 7r xN 2�- S,i,.:+. ..,ft i SIL}j.1 'lttl." t• �y ddr �;
1 f- 1*'cIS' , xriF "o�'rfi+`
4,-�, ergr—
+i iC`f� ry, +�"9}e�i�t';#f bs .� � �.. � dP���`:r ,;n'.:•. '�rjRL n b� 3'" t�, r,4'Arr'��"
' � ';'� �pp�kk�y'� � x j� ✓ Z1J q� .'S ��k 44 5� �n
� Y+{ .S YY1 L N-•y tir�'t
@4.c\
�h':4i11 ' ?f'
`K •st'Y.o f v it 'ziW)�`ra rF� y O 1 '� �GY ate.
210,
Kai # u k a ey x q f
; r. SAY 'W '.7f�yxJst 'i ` ''. ihR VSiLl. ._' iZ ,s•X •' ''Y �' .
21e
a�:9- 1 "h} „�<s t �i'czhy�• r r f` E+11.yt� q X.� hl x 1 0. G,b"" )a' .
a+ °*`7"ft+a, U '� 4��5 't
tr y����} 'Y' �mu�,,�c �c fir' ,��.:a t• '�i`� �'� �.�s,R° e ;t. � nm,����.,,i§ '7"`..�'�.
tN.k'r,
" sv- ti`k•v. ('�ry','�'R f � 'S r'y" �;{ ir` A ' '`,•.
I?�.rf:>.�x1 �. cam,:Ara-41'�a�...!�r i -�M• Y 4
.v �.f���' ���# 7r7c��T'�.���t"."z f2'63t4�3i�'k �s(� x � r � ?' "r"tS�sM1:'_ nA 3 '•�...+}k' T'
v�� r:,t''x� • a 'lE���'�"'�`t"� iX�""¢ 'H:;�'r n€^6�^z,,}^. r, ����' .N 7@ � �u., m_ ��`�;
aka "'_'cKx K'[r,�4�'i--'• 'Y'�'hyr�. .:A,�.:rr � u�„�..�"i�"�>���}'��`�tyy� �i(�t"'< t,c "v�r�/�'��ai �6,.Marbled MurreletObservations ,�r
(On and Off Transect) �
5.\Jka
Summer 92-99 Aerial Surveys ;�`� r5{k�Nt , < � `L �Ke
St !
3 L
PSAMP.WDFW ¢ Qy
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40v�Qtn,t �t,� ti
A
KILOMETERS
•u c z4x`a-s"�n,F�'8•.�n rs,�5'vn'Fr wrt �.r�L<",
.� c'ty'�J s`..Y''X'"$'ry f[C�Y ✓:i`i�,y.4 �" 7 .�.,;
a Areas Sampled
® 1 -2 birds RAN
O 3-4 birds
® 5-B birds
7-8 birdsq
YIN itp PrOJect SIfC $5, f),a ✓ r.
9-11 birds YI M�'[`.�n fi 1, i L wk i
) _ Yr
Y•ti�i lr","t``v ",M. 3i'h
F r gA� {�1 �r7 h°eh f���f1�91nF otr�hfih S ° �'
� SO'
IN
�a
y x any+ N � t dt * a�i o-4 " �c s rd wok i4
`� 1�'"�'�!„h� �. F �n�n .�f�'t,� t';v ti rrnry��.�',� tl�,''�F 3 n �" '• !�'��.`r ' ' ��
' 0� � '' a� � "�+ a'Y ,�'� ,y rtxq. 'A V�. 1 ^hv t v>•Str �. ,
Z ti �,t E i 3 �.'�. 3g t x k •fits A,�e�
,� Q 5�°" 4�,.B�f•Y'f,'� a ' w f FZ�>� a titj f�'+ , 1'} "4t� �J %� h r'�1 1 a}�^� t �"' �FY
�• 'k kf y il7 C~a 4'bs i r iry t 4 f �`SJ YY,hY,yy,�'j�.� ��yyCyv
di {)C �',�. s SF�L,' >Fk � e ,- � SFr l 3 L� b tT $�'p`i'o��`h N'aS�:1 Z�S "'dv�ly,•
Y. K� lry.�j w���k��'`hi•� � '+PC'�.h'hi�J�'� ,.^ t'� �� �A+t�� �1 J .ft S) Wj�i
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•23
I I
Figure 5.Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map -
h:1F;.. '.:'}.' ,.h. •W J'."'<r '.b,: V 'r':t'_A<.:rt.��::�:��::ti~"�a,4..::�:J:::�' �y5,fit;
p+t:>.f:�a�.,,n'.`+4:(': :%�!'�.: I':.r ,':✓:• p a'i�:. ..wY;;1:Fy 'mod. .�.+::?';.:•.'.
../fix al'/,y�:: rij.�.b:'Yy` •.�tt. Y!�':S' Yaf..W,'!4 rvr:�'�! +We t
4d!f.^:•n..xl �'zk•`l� �' y'�'1'.',ra ✓ '.',,,j•?.5�.: .x:,V•` ,N,�r7,tW. ml;rY:ei` ?'F.t'5� �i'�})q „`+'..�k y:
h w'" Ir.!:Z.L. '`:r ,''r...l ',;g,j'aa\'Q,b t \ s' 7 •:r'y3'�. ;�„'<- r d..s� ..;`n.•.
�ly',r4'ti: "r'c('4:�.r,�'y,3" 1�. .,�`e' �''¢�t�j -T'i:� `a'�' I� ���'1r'.•'..�3ri] i 1 'rt• ''4 t. �'A�` >
hNl" ,X-Y'7Y"` ,+, yFrt��£>v k'�y,,'YY:?N� '•;r�`. ��`,'�/%w � .�}n';t:3 ifr�,i S::�F'd a..IF>. L�„w.,('i
`'-::?,F.f� cm,'•9i"nar' su{':fit?aft,.-7 :IRto�-'."x',....,:'N' r? "r''s;. :r '���.r'•"t'�•, ar;F .;j%L�'�y- cr:
�Tt.C:,�• 1.p;fo. e.`+..r.,:,r�:.�.�_-•e:t.�*.; K.S?',.; txT'}.;.`Y r.#y:;. ,�;1:: _u°'...,� � .Maip:'"y�'( �'A-ttu..
FS.,�' ^:,�a;�,°���., 7}y,),�b?.✓x tr Va..ty x ;�.��,•.`'-t�U `' I •{^, ^a R,f +.�'t '*""v 4 t 1�'i; •
1`�.'Xi'�rr1t" �• '}�r- - �' �•e`�''¢'":�'..'��?�'l.r��,.}�aa�xn'_Y �d". .r'.° j i 7a"rfr.e"5��22Ck^r r,� ! ..
FF,J`5y ,J� �'�„ xy+e '. yh t� +a 7 aF'.r•.�': :.';; .�yy .;yam. fy, p_ ,,.
`b t � r b d.��}� ex'C rq��,(<}y�,�:Ml..�"t.r':at} '� ^y�i�r�}'�•p .:c�:�' `Io-itT•s•4' 5 ��,✓� � .st�t.�' .a !`�r�'��!.
.,.w su"
S �x vb'•S t t Cr:yx✓Y 5 S t✓
`pf,rr�,�rt t `s' �. , �Es�`f1,r,' ` y
kht:w -1 x.+r.•19kt"N+S- £may,.,, i;�ap.r,.'. w:,�>F-1` E}''s a f•jy` r-Y l#'P ° 4 .,+2r fi' •-��`.:
r'X>r t�J yy,s�'�F'Y3'.4`t`�i FN'r 7�.Ta"'* i��--��5�ati:x}�y+�, spy a•' ,.�ti +�,R•J�. ,
Nd'+ gi S'r:•n. d.¢%f r' e' �'°s�.,.•S'�' ',��'rt.'L�..1»{ er
�x'','''4:-` `x [,h. 'kt` u`.�'r'"ir),,<`BFkL °$'K+ei fir'+. ' ✓,("tX 3,y �x. 3i D e j,. ,`\'" ,.6i„1`� tk `"t','`:
3.�574�''FN ,'�•'}•�'i t';i kr� �.>n,.t.. ` �i�'�4 fS{'k-i s. �,n 3 kt$.r. J tde � ��'a�;.
k.,;a.�� a�, ,s i j' �a �yv z x `K`S �' �• �rt�t�r � ';'1,4 ..'srr uf`� r���xr4��r�.d+a
�Ia fi y=•�J�an'�e'¢t�'3`n'>< »✓ �'M1x�`�uh. a r��?3.N, � u r � �„'.S '�ilr`/✓ otz a�!z s�� ;,ems�'}*, 3
t6kmi.•- e r f
IV
4 ,�.�(q�tya r!';i�}`�°�'��}''t Sr ��y•�' ,'-a'.�t`�,Ma°�r�.vrk,�,�h`�i ��'T v "�r'��1'�'��.7{�F�'..
' *�,"'�.VY: a'�tr .y..(rh,�°�'t€�`gr y�•'N'° ,,. a �y"•�'r,�"", F ,�„s•.,,�".�ty ..a'� ,, �', �}r � s „�,, �',,,f�.;�{,,.�r,
4 * :�Y` r• £ r °' �{6� T'S� iEirtjra-c •.d.zr cey� ,q,?rr x"3'c � r'�'" c4' "sl.r t Y�� c .��"''- .>°�I k• .t'�°�kA' ..+.`s..r A� v `A *`}r t T+ �; "',�3�' t, +) t t mh :.•Yy`t5„'�,�r�:, i''�,,,< "}'t
� ��`t-s� � `��j � ;�,. stet, �� �'�� T t �;" � • � ��r��k� r.::
°�.F ,�' �"' 3.tf�S 1't•. r S 4H•� r =� � Sa ty'rr '{fi 3-'b3
(l
nK..' M.. lt' h ry. { PM, B kY J fry`+f
ENV , 7 + •3e ,+ - fi Y �"�4`k' =. ri.
^stev +,�t'
5c-.3 .'€f ,�"' F r+W uc. r . yam k` s ,q, k�. a�k.
x-••: t �✓a > "'.!"�i`?rl' s� xk' f3 X'rr r t't •�'a►ti �-* ice• -r,P+r''` 3 S ... :hr' :�q%�,s.
�t
e:
t ».c Y•- ro^` r .x. ivy.. .e. ,r � "'e
a u- %i y'-'te z s>..sw• ,,,-n,yday4''�"' 'Or e 3,t` vF z" (-�"r �t .7`'' ''r- ir. aua
zr � '+w , ��-' � r,�r''s a ��•t,y S rm .#yr k.r .'� a. �Y r��,;
if� `a•�> �"�5��+�`� �,�y"1�4. ...+_..����r6 ���`s£.�Y�' 7 ��-7�sti w rs3 Vf`4"-f�..
r .,,r•t.;'_ w ,q:l.' ?: .Fe,... 4 {:.y..} s A -,A*.b �- +{• S' .l °_,'�.�ea7�+ xY £._
Y
^z•r �'- 1`a' a^s
Marbled Murrelet Observations
;a s,
4 =�x 'ST} F�
ak y`y u +ut�P-t
p
?K`t�.ri v t5,y�u+�fi'OrY pR �ty
IOnTransectl � � a Yt
rc,• OWinter
S t, a.a s 93-99 Aerial Surveys ; (;�} S°P` f+
PSAMP,WDFWk
0 6 10 16 20 26 30 35 40 t,
a, P s+w.t'�°''".•mow x-rxn�t` h+- `,�4 t� { s r r c s� k'',4
za f� a wvv t� vi`xra c x c *,;,10, ,.
If
',
KILOMETERSqu ( # 3,. A f: y33
Areas Sampled :.,��f^ �r
m ti s3 1 v crr k�F F y r erg9�O11 p ` 4 -
® 1 -2 birds �.�,;��ie" ��4�K
F:f3y'drt�yG`• .�sue_y} �,'� .� f�.4•Y -Kr"�GfS4a ,l�1� �l�p� :t.`�e•E
Yk�:X {a Y t ax�$fi`�� zw eA +3�Fr v fl r of
3-4 birds ��rNVA�
5 -6 birds
1t,y •Scfitis 'yr'v}t y,}L 4� s"t
® ",�, _;� � .� M ,
7-8 birds ;, g'
y J PF�J glO�CCt site
9-10 birds4:
F�Y�C���'S:4�V)•h i��4�C�j,°"`t.. ,�K ��`�4. "�3 �k :: �'l.y r�t ��
11 -24 birds
I � �,4;,.�`�f1e t�Q��. „v3 � , �' yr.; 5st 51� � .��'✓��+ n�9`�t,,2t• .
,i,` 4 fri 1�u`A•'�:� f
,1` z � A F fir^ r�, °✓f ty w St sy kiR3 j E T• F rxti r� 4[ cue§:
,�} 1 f( f ���,rst� (r.{ � vM"'��HT'. ��, r� '"�.r: R. 4 � � d�"�,��:t✓} '�(C r41�'.c(r�
ikt '�}:
`h- �"I �4 j{ sq r, ro-sR fy k +�Ca�F,•i",. t ad -. M
r�„
k'ea•:a » x ' t 4a��i k w tp
kv� ;?{„1 s f a US'Isa l} 4 K o:s�
i�rt p s*trvyd,�y •�.t�� �r
**tt
� fAn ", ' o�
^'l���� {�5L � �,�'S1 'fX+4t�,. 'm !t r, .,� f 3.,j� h.��. Wy �- * .tt"+d ''�1",k'r�.k.�i✓t'�` '4iar � .� &h
r�aR�
�'2 Y'`�,,;t r } �` �it V' H � hL $ tv1•' r '� J`�g n
MOW�aB.�1"� 'x•'k�h � n x t4r k»'�yn",�'$ q f`�¢`N"ny ��'�4t
,y, �(._`a�'..
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•24
Figure 6. Surf smelt spawning beaches
^' •` V.pin
.�
E�
> �...
f+
ri 't9
Bent Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•25
Figure 7. Sand lance spawning beaches
• tea' .', \`I t`-_.�<+ .',r•''t, •..
• �! It i Z
�tlA., li� �.''''•°': 'G a •�'
Rio •. `.•.. y J r ee .•�-: !� O•�, �;�. �.+ •otz
kf
• � -•.t . .�• �._�:cam._. `•r,. _. �.� �!%• +� R.��
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•26
r �P-Rull 01,09, 11ki fwpw�mu
I VON
y \
Zol
19
fit
1 1 1 „ . . . 1
MN ,.
Attachment 1. SCUBA survey transect map
HOOD CANAL
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
NORTH
All transects are
290'long and
10'apart. 35 shoots of Zostera
marina located
from 175'to
/1 sS along this
• � � ✓/ transect. Corrected
depth ranges from
-5.0'to-8.0'.
Proposed structure
is17T long
Beach/bluff
intersection
SR.106
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•28
vkd'r a2d�y�
Attachment 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list
February 4,2003
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES,
CRITICAL HABITAT, CANDIDATE SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED
BENT AND KAUHANEN PROPERTY PIER, RAMP, AND FLOAT REPAIR
PROJECT IN MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
(T22N R2W S30) FWS REF: 1-3-03-SP-0661
LISTED
Wintering bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)may occur in the vicinity of the project. Wintering activities
occur from October 31 through March 31.
Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) may occur in ocean waters adjacent to the project.
Foraging marbled muirelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus) may occur in the ocean waters adjacent to your
project.
Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological assessment of the project impacts to listed species
include:
1. Level of use of the project area by listed species;
2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species, and foraging areas in all areas
influenced by the project; and
3. Impacts from project construction(i.e.,habitat loss, increased noise levels, increased human activity)that
may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area.
PROPOSED
None
tin Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project-32
CANDIDATE
None
CRITICAL HABITAT
None
SPECIES OF CONCERN
The following species of concern have been documented in the county where the project is located. These
species or their habitat could be located on or near the project site. Species in bold were specific occurrences
located on the database within a 1-mile radius of the project site.
California wolverine(Gulo gulo luieus)
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)
Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans)
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooper!)
Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus)
Pacific fisher(Maries pennanti pacified)
Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata)
Peregrine falcon (Faico peregrinus)
River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei)
Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei)
Western toad (Bufo boreas)
Botrychium ascendens(trianglelobe(upswept)moonwort)
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•33
3,11
Attachment 4. Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood
in Aquatic Environments
April 17, 2002
BMP Amendment#1
Amendment to the Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic
Environments;USA Version - Revised July 1996 -Western Wood Preservers Institute.
Effective this date the BMPs for ACZA and ACA are amended and the revised BMP shall supplant
the 1996 edition and be governing. The modifications to the BMP consist of:
A. Removal of all references to ACA (Ammoniacal Copper Arsenate) as this treatment is no longer
commercially produced and will be removed from the AWPA Book of Standards in 2003.
B. The addition of a fourth Post Treatment Procedure option:
Aqua-ammonia steaming Cvc/e:Following the normal post pressure period vacuum to draw
excess preservative solution from the wood, the material is subjected to a post treatment
ammonia steam-conditioning process. The heating coils are covered with a minimum 2%solution
of ammonia in water, which is heated for about 3 hours. A minimum temperature of 190°-200OF
shall be maintained for at least 1.5 hours. The heating process is followed by a final vacuum of 2
hours, then an hour of drawing fresh air through the retort to remove excess ammonia vapors and
to cool the surface of the material.
Best Management Practices for ACZA
USES AND SPECIFICATIONS: ACZA
ACZA (Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate)is accepted for a full range of salt and fresh water applications in
the American Wood-Preservers' Association(AWPA)Book of Standards. Because of its ability to treat
Douglas Fir(as well as other species)ACZA is the most prevalent on the west coast. The specific commodity
standards that should be used to specify the preparation and use of various ACZA treated products used in and
above aquatic environments are:
C 2 Lumber, Timbers,Bridge Ties and Mine Ties, Pressure Treatment
C 3 Piles
C 14 Wood for Highway Construction
C 18 Material in Marine Construction
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project-34
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The BMPs for ACZA are to ensure that fixation occurs prior to the material leaving the treating facility. In
order to assure fixation, the following BMPs shall be followed:
Treatment Procedures
Treat using chemicals specified by AWPA Standard P5 for Waterborne Preservatives.
Follow good housekeeping practices to minimize sawdust and other surface residues on the wood products prior
to treatment.
After treatment by either the Bethel(full cell)process or the Lowry(modified empty cell)process, a final
vacuum of 22" shall be applied for a minimum of two hours. The retort should be heated to between 180' F and
201° F during the vacuum process.Note: If the Lowry(modified empty cell)process can be used to obtain the
specified product retention, it is the preferred process for products to be used in aquatic environments.
After removal from the retort, the materials shall remain on the drip pad until all drippage has ceased.
Post Treating Procedures
Prior to shipment material for aquatic applications shall be processed under one or a combination of the
following Drocedures:
Minimum Plant Holding Time—Products(with treating stickers in place for sawn and plywood products)
shall be held in a storage area with free air circulation for a minimum of three weeks at ambient temperatures
equal to or exceeding 60° F. If the ambient temperatures are less than 60° F,kiln drying or another source of
artificial shall be used to achieve the 60"F requirement.
Post Treatment Kiln Drying—Products shall be kiln dried to a maximum oven dry basis moisture content of
30%in the specified treated zone employing a kiln cycle of 120°F to 160° F dry bulb temperature. ASTM
Method D442-84,using increment boring, shall be used to determine that the moisture content requirement has
been met.
In-Retort Ammonia Removal Plus Plant Holding Time—Plants equipped to follow this procedure will find
it a highly effective method for ensuring fixation. After the final vacuum period,with heat, the retort door shall
be opened and ambient air drawn through the treated wood charge from the door to the rear of the retort to a
scrubber at a rate of 250 cfin,minimum, for a period of three hours. The treated wood product is then handled
in the same manner as under"minimum plant holding time"described above except the minimum holding time
is one week at ambient temperatures of 60°or more rather than three weeks.
Aqua-ammonia steaming Cycle: Following the normal post-pressure period vacuum to draw excess
preservative solution from the wood, the material is subjected to a post treatment ammonia steam-conditioning
process. The heating coils are covered with a minimum 2% solution of ammonia in water, which is heated for
about 3 hours. A minimum temperature of 1901- 200°F shall be maintained for at least 1.5 hours. The heating
process is followed by a final vacuum of 2 hours, then an hour of drawing fresh air through the retort to remove
excess ammonia vapors and to cool the surface of the material.
Maximum Chemical Loading
Treating shall be conducted in such a manner as to seek to minimize the amount of chemical placed into the
wood while assuring conformance with the AWPA retention and penetration requirements.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•35
risuaI Inspection
The ACZA treated product shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the treatment plant to insure that no
excessive residual materials or preservative deposits exist.
TECHNICAL NOTES
Because of its ability to treat Douglas Fir(as well as other species), ACZA is most prevalent on the west coast
for use in piling and aquatic applications.
"Fixation"is the term applied to the chemical reaction in which the active ingredients within the waterborne
treating solution become fixed within the wood cells resulting in leach resistance and durability of the product.
Failure to have achieved fixation at time of installation increases the potential for the treating chemicals to leach
into the aquatic environment.
The key to the treating process for ACZA is the ammonia, which facilitates carrying the active ingredients into
the cell structure of the wood during the treatment process. When the ammonia is evaporated out of the product,
the remaining ingredients become fixed and opportunity for leaching is minimized. If too much ammonia
remains in the product when it is placed into an aquatic environment then chemicals can be released into the
surrounding environment. The BMP procedures are designed to accelerate the removal of the ammonia and
minimise the opportunity for chemical leaching.
MAXIMUM CHEMICAL LOADING—Earlier efforts to set precise maximum chemical loading levels have
proven technologically unachievable able due to the inherent variability found in wood including cell structure
and amount of sap versus heartwood. Industry remains focused on conducting the necessary research to reduce
required chemical levels in the AWPA standards consistent with maintaining the needed protection provided by
treating.
ENVIItONMENTAL RISKS
ASSOCIATED WITH ACZA TREATED WOOD
Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate(ACZA)is an improved preservative that replaces half of the arsenic in
ACA with zinc. This preservative is suitable for treating difficult woods such as Douglas Fir. The naturally
occurring arsenic, copper and zinc metals used in ACZA are fixed to the wood fibers following evaporation of
an ammonia carrier. However, small amounts of metal do leach from preserved wood during the early stages of
immersion. The ACZA risk assessment clearly shows that copper is the metal of concern in aquatic
environments. While copper is not a human toxicant(the water pipes in our homes are made of copper),it can
be toxic at levels as low as six parts per billion to the embryos of sensitive bivalves and echinoderms. An
exhaustive review of the published literature indicates that the EPA's fresh and marine water quality criteria for
copper are adequate to protect all aquatic life.
Unlike the sediment concerns with PAHs found in creosote, dissolved copper presents the highest risk to
aquatic organisms. Literature reviews and the predictions made by the ACZARISK computer model suggest
that if water column levels of copper are maintained below EPA water quality copper criteria, then sediment
levels of copper, zinc and arsenic will be well below thresholds associated with stress or disease.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•36
EY 4,( J ,31%r
Slightly more copper is lost from ACZA treated wood during the first week to 10 days that is lost from CCA
treated piling. However,metal losses decline more quickly in ACZA treated wood, and reach very low values in
less than two weeks. The ACZA model predicts that minimum current speeds(measured three hours before or
after slack tide on an exchange to mean low water)of 1.0 cm/sec are sufficient to insure that copper losses from
a single ACZA treated piling do not elevate marine water copper concentrations by an amount equal to the EPA
marine water quality criteria(2.9 ppb). In constantly running water, such as rivers, a minimum current speed of
0.5 cm/sec is required to meet ERA fresh water quality criteria(assuming background copper levels are at 1.5
ppb). Very few rivers and streams have current speeds this slow. Even backwater estuaries typically have
Current Speeds greater than three or four centimeters per second. The 1.5 ppb Background copper level is
typical of western rivers Such as the Columbia River.
Bulkheads treated with ACZA pose a different problem and the models predict that EPA water quality
standards can be exceeded during the first few clays following installation when steady state current speeds are
less than 18.5 cm/sec in fresh water and when maximum tidal currents are less than 13 cm/sec in marine
environments. These are typical current speeds in open rivers and marine environments. However, currents
slower than these can be encountered in quiet riverine backwaters and protected marine embayments. We
recommend a site-specific risk assessment whenever an ACZA bulkhead is proposed for use in the water.
Leaching data indicates that metal losses from ACZA treated wood are time dependent, and that losses are very
small after one or two weeks. When large surface area ACZA projects are proposed at poorly circulated sites,
the project should be constructed during that time of year when sensitive aquatic species, including migrating
salmon, are not present(usually in winter). In addition, these are generally seasons of increased water
circulation due to wind and wave action.
SUMMARY
It is the view of the Western Wood Preservers'Institute and the Canadian Institute of Treated Wood that,based
on the best available scientific information, the combination of the AWPA treating standards and BMPs for
Creosote,CCA,ACZA, ACQ, Copper Naphthenate and Pentachlorophenol will produce products that provide
excellent environmental performance in most open aquatic environments. Projects calling for large volumes of
treated wood immersed in(i.e., below the splash zone)poorly circulating bodies of water should be evaluated
oil an individual basis using risk assessment procedures. The Institutes will assist treated wood users in
determining when a risk assessment is needed and in providing documentation to assist in the completion of a
risk assessment,when required.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•37
Best Management Practices for CCA
USES AND SPECIFICATIONS: CCA
CCA(Chromated Copper Arsenate)is accepted for a full range of salt and fresh water applications in the
American Wood-Preservers' Association(AWPA)Book of Standards. The specific commodity standards that
should be used to specify the preparation and use of various CCA treated products used in and above aquatic
environments are:
C2 Lumber, Timbers, Bridge Ties and Mine Ties, Pressure Treatment
C3 Piles
C 14 Wood for Highway Construction
CI5 Material in Marine Construction
Specifiers and installers should follow the guidance in the CCA treated wood Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS)and hazard labels as required by OSHA and use the product in conformance with the Consumer
Information Sheet for Inorganic Arsenical Pressure Treated Wood.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The BMPs for CCA are to assure that fixation Occurs prior to the material leaving the treating facility. In order
to assure fixation, the following BMPs shall be followed:
Treatment Procedures
CCA-C treating solutions should be used in accordance with AWPA Standard P5, C2, and C3 for Waterborne
Preservatives.
Follow good housekeeping practices to minimize sawdust and other surface residues on the wood products prior
to treatment.
Treat according to AWPA Standard C- 1.
Post Treatment Procedures
Apply appropriate post treatment procedures to achieve fixation. Achieving fixation using one of the following
technologies is a function of time, temperature and humidity and must be adjusted based on the characteristics
of the material and the process.
Air Seasoning
Kiln Drying
Steaming
Hot Water Bath
The best available technology for confirming fixation in CCA treated material is use of the Chromotropic Acid
Test(AWPA Standard A3-11 [19951). If testing shows that fixation has not been completed, the material
should be withheld from shipment and/or installation until fixation is confirmed.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project-38
r h,6 cif ,3 J rl
Maximum Chemical Loading
Treating shall be conducted in such a manner as to seek to minimize the amount of chemical placed into the
wood while assuring conformance with the AWPA retention and penetration requirements.
Visual Inspection
The CCA treated product shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the treatment plant to insure that no
excessive residual materials or preservative deposits exist.
TECHNICAL NOTES
CCA is considered an excellent treatment for many western softwoods including Hem-Fir, Western Hemlock
and Ponderosa Pine. Achieving the required penetrations in Douglas Fir may be extremely difficult. CCA is not
recommended for Douglas Fir marine piling(except as the first treatment in"dual treatment")or for treatment
of interior Douglas Fir.
FIXATION- In the CCA treating process, water is the carrier to move the metals or active ingredients into the
wood where they become fixed to the wood. Once the chemical reaction called"fixation"occurs, the active
ingredients become highly insoluble.
While a complex reaction, fixation essentially involves the reduction of the hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium with the formation of a complex mixture of insoluble chromates. In the process, insoluble arsenates
of copper and chromium are also precipitated in the treated wood. Fixation is a function of temperature and
time. It can be achieved in several hours in a high temperature environment( 176°F)but can take several weeks
at a low temperature(40°F). Studies show that at 77°F, 98%fixation can be achieved in 120 hours.
Chronic acid or Chromium VI is the fixative in the CCA process. An absence of Chromium VI indicates that
the reaction is complete. This relationship is the basis for the Chromotropic Acid test for evaluating fixation.
The procedure can detect Chromium VI at concentrations of 15 parts per million or less. Material passing the
test(i.e., no detection of Chromium VI)for use in aquatic environments will be 99.5 to 99.95%fixed. The
Chromotropic Acid test is a rigid qualitative procedure specifically for CCA treated wood.
MAXIMUM CHEMICAL LOADING--Earlier efforts to set precise maximum chemical loading levels have
proven technologically unachievable due to the inherent variability found in wood including cell structure and
amount of sap versus heartwood. Industry remains focused on conducting the necessary research to reduce
required chemical levels in the AWPA standards consistent with maintaining the needed protection provided by
treating.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CCA TREATED WOOD
The waterborne preservative CCA relies on copper and arsenic to protect wood. These naturally occurring
metals are fixed in the wood fibers by the presence of chromium. However, small amounts do leach from
preserved wood during the early stages of immersion. The CCA risk assessment clearly shows that copper is the
metal of concern in aquatic environments. While copper is not a human toxicant(the water pipes in our homes
are made of copper), it can be toxic at levels as low as six parts per billion to the embryos of sensitive bivalves
and echinoderms. An exhaustive review of the published literature indicates that the EPA's fresh and marine
water quality criteria for copper are adequate to protect all aquatic life.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project-39
Unlike the sediment concerns with PAHs found in creosote,dissolved copper in the water column presents the
highest risk to aquatic organisms. Literature reviews and the predictions made by the CCARISK computer
model suggest that it water column levels of copper are maintained below 2.9 parts per billion,then sediment
levels of copper, chromium and arsenic will be well below thresholds associated with stress or disease.
The CCA piling risk assessment model indicates that water column copper levels associated with the use of a
single CCA piling are approximately 25%of the EPA criteria when maximum currents are as slow as 0.5
cm/sec. Maximum currents this slow are rarely encountered in open aquatic marine environments. Projects
located in constantly flowing rivers pose even less risk and steady state current speeds as slow as, 0.1 cm/sec
are sufficient to protect aquatic life. Therefore. in nearly all open environments, we can predict that CCA
treated piling will have little or no impact on aquatic resources.
Bulkheads treated with CCA se po a different problem and the models predict that the EPA marine quality
copper standard can be exceeded when maximum tidal currents are less than 4.0 cm/sec. Maximum currents this
slow can be encountered in residential canals and other poorly circulated bodies of water. We recommend site
specific risk assessments when bulkheads are proposed in a poorly circulated body of water. However,when
maximum current speeds are greater than 5.0 cm/sec, or in open waterbodies with significant wave action, CCA
treated bulkheads will not lose enough copper to exceed EPA water quality criteria, even during the first few
days after installation.
Leaching data from a variety of sources accumulated over the last 28 years indicates that copper losses from
CCA treated wood are time dependent and that losses are very small after 90 days. Recently completed
leaching, studies on piling that had been previously immersed in sea water for 16 months have confirmed
previous predictions that long term copper losses are approximately 4%of the initial losses upon which
environmental risks are based.
Where large surface area proposed at poorly circulated sites.the project should be constructed during that time
of year when sensitive bivalve and echinoderm larvae are not present(usually in late fall and winter). In
addition. these are generally seasons of Increased water circulation due to wind arid wave action.o .
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•40
J �%°y
Attachment 5. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act(MSA), as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267),requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that
may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat(EFH)for the relevant species. According to the MSA,
EFH means"those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity."For the Pacific West Coast,the Pacific Fisheries Management Council(Council)has designated EFH
for federally managed groundfish(PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic(PFMC 1998b)and Pacific salmon fisheries
(PFMC 1999). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-
history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment.
The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the
relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid,minimize of otherwise offset adverse
effects on EFH.
B. Identification of EFH
The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high
water line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon
and California, seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic zone(370.4 km)(PFMC 1998a,
1998b). The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for salmon species extends from the nearshore and
tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone
(370 .4 km)offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border
PFMC, 1999).
C. Proposed Action
The details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the attached BE.The project
consists of the redesign of an all-float structure with a new PRF structure extending 172'into Hood Canal.
D.Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the
Effects Analysis section of the attached BE. The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH
designated for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink
salmon) due to noise and turbidity impacts from pile removal and pile driving.
E. EFH Conservation Measures
The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached BE will be implemented to minimize any
possible adverse effects to EFH.
F. Conclusion
The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon,
but will not produce long-term adverse effects on EFH for the above species.
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•41
G.Additional References
PFMC(Pacific Fishery Management.Council), 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan..
Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended
Conservation Measures for Salmon(August 1999).
PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan(October, 1998).
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8(December, 1998).
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•42
Species of fishes, and life-stages with designated EFH in the waters of Puget
Sound. (? = uncertain)
Species Adult Spawning/ Juvenile Larvae Eggs/
Mating Paturition
Groundfish
Spiny D fish X X
Big Skate X Ix X X
California Skate X
Lon nose Skate X X
Ratfish X X
Lin cod X X X X
Cabezon X
Kelp Greenling__ X
Pacific Cod X X X X
Pacific Whiting Hake X X
Sablefish X X X X
Black Rockfish X X
Bocaccio X ? X ?
Brown Rockfish
Canary rockfish ? ? X
China Rockfish X X
Copper Rockfish X X ?
Darkblotched Rockfish X X
Greenstri ed Rockfish X X
Pacific Ocean Perch X X
Quill-back Rockfish, X X ?
Redbanded Rockfish X
Redstriped Rockfish ?
Rosethorn Rockfish X X
Rosy Rockfish ?
Rou he a Rockfish X ?
Shar chin Rockfish X ?
Shorts pine Rockfish X X
Stripetail Rockfish x
Tiger Rockfish X X
Vermillion Rockfish X ? X
Yellowe a rockfish X
Yellowtail Rockfish X ? X
Arrowtooth Flounder X X
Butter Sole X X
Curlfin Sole X
Dover Sole X X X
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•43
English Sole X X X X X
Flathead Sole X X X X
Pacific Sanddab X X
Petrale Sole X X
Rex Sole X X X X
Rock Sole X X X
Sand Sole X X
Starry Flounder X . X X
Coastal Pelagic
Species
Northern Anchovy X X X X
Pacific Sardine X X X X
Pacific Mackerel X X X X
Market Squid x ? ? ?
Pacific Salmon
Coho Salmon X X
Chinook Salmon X X
Bent&Kauhanen Dock Redesign Project•44
� a �Y
r3