HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2007-00024 Biological Evaluation - SHR Letters / Memos - 6/11/2007 v
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 12,2007
TO: Margie Schirato,WDFW
Marty Ereth,Skokomish Tribal Nation
FROM: Ryan Crater,Planner
RE: Shoreline Permit Application,SHR2007-00024,for your review and comment.The
applicant is North forty Transportation LLC for Hood Canal Marina.The proposal is the
replacement and reconfigure of floats and(21)piling.
NOTE:Please submit comments by Aug 10,2007,to the address above,Attn Ryan Crater.The public
hearing is scheduled for September 11,2007.
Please find enclosed Biological Evaluation(BE)for your review and comment.The Mason County
Resource Ordinance Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Chapter 17.01.110(section J2)provides
conditions which must be met when substituting a BE in place of a Habitat Management Plan. The Mason
County Resource Ordinance provides the opportunity for BE to be reviewed by local Tribes,Washington
State Dept of Fish and Wildlife,and other applicable state/federal agencies. A 28-day comment period is
provided but additional time is possible due to hearing date if necessary.Details of the project follow and
are attached.
SITE ADDRESS: 5101 E.State Route 106,Union,WA 98592.
APPLICANT:North Forty Transportation LLC for Hood Canal Marina
Legal Description: Quarter Section NW of NW,Section 32,Township 22N,Range 03 W
Parcel No.322325001001.
Project description:The Existing floating docks at the Union Marina shall be reconfigured and replaced.
The existing pier and ramp will remain. The existing float coverage is 4,864 sq.ft and the new proposed
float coverage is 4,862 sq.ft. The purpose of the proposed reconfiguration is to position the floats to be
waterward of the 0.0'MLLW to prevent grounding. The existing pilings shall also be replaced with 21 steel
pilings.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.I can be reached at 427-9670,ext 577.
Ryan Crater
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
mI � /
c ✓ 6 11
Mark Toy
P.O. Box 47824
Olympia, WA 98504-7824
Re: Union Marina— Shellfish Bed Closures
Mark,
I have included a copy of the Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Union Marina project in
Hood Canal. Contained in the BE is a figure of the current configuration of the floats as
well as the proposed re-configuration. Could you please do a preliminary closure
scenario for the proposed re-configuration, fuel pumping station, and septic pump out for
this project? I am trying to get an idea of how many shellfish bed owners will be effected
before I issue a SEPA determination. My intent is to compare the scenario closure with
the old closure zone to see if any new shellfish beds will be effected that weren't during
the old closure zone. Also, If you have a copy of the old closure zone could you please
provide me a copy?
I have not issued SEPA number SEP2007-00081 yet...once I do, you will be mailed a
copy in order to submit an official comment.
If you have any questions please give me a call at ext. 577.
Regards,
Ryan Crater
Planner
Mason County
a
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Union Marina
Union, Washington
For:
North Forty Ventures, LLC
22526 SE 641h Place, Suite 210
Issaquah,WA 98027
Prepared by:
Kim Schaumburg
Fisheries biologist, University of Washington, 1981
10112 Bay View Rd. KPN
Vaughn,WA, 98394
(253) 884-5776 or 225-2973
Email: kimberly035(dcenturytel.net
June l 1,2007
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 2
Table of Contents
I. Project Description
A. Project Location......................................................................... 4
B. Project Description..................................................................... 4-6
C. Action Area............................................................................... 6
11. Species and Habitat Information
A. Species and Habitat Information...................................................... 6
B. Federal Threatened and Endangered Species
Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum........................................................... . 7-8
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU....................................................... 8-9
Leatherback Turtle........................................................................... 9
HumpbackWhale............................................................................ 9
KillerWhale................................................................................... 10
StellerSea Lion.............................................................................. 10
BullTrout....................................................................................... 10-11
BaldEagle..................................................................................... 11-12
MarbledMurrelet............................................................................. 12
ForageFish.................................................................................... 13
C. Survey Results
Methods......................................................................................... 13-14
Results........................................................................................... 14-15
D. Existing Environmental Conditions.................................................... 15-16
I11. Effects of the Action
A. Direct Effects............................................................................. 16-19
B. Indirect Effects.......................................................................... 19-20
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects................................................... 20-21
D. Cumulative Effects...................................................................... 21
E. Take Analysis........................................................................... 21-22
F. Conservation Measures................................................................ 22
G. Determination of Effect................................................................ 22
IV. References...................................................................................... 23-25
4
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 3
List of Figures and Attachments
Figures
1. Project location............................................................................... 26
2. Site plan........................................................................................ 27
3. Cross Section.................................................................................. 28
4. Existing and proposed float layout overlay................................................ 29
5. Depth contours and tidal elevations......................................................... 30
6. Substrate types................................................................................. 31
7. Macro-algae species,distribution,and percent coverge.................................. 32
Attachments
1. Site photograph.............................................................................. 33
2. Site photograph.............................................................................. 34
3. Site photograph.............................................................................. 35
4. Site photograph.............................................................................. 36
5. Site photograph................................................... ........................... 37
6. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment........................................................ 38-39
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 4
I. Project Description
A. Project Location
Quarter Section NW of NW, Section 32,Township 22N,Range 03W
5101 E SR 106
Union, WA 98592(Figure 1)
Tax Parcel #322325001001
B. Project Description
This Biological Evaluation is being submitted on behalf of North Forty Ventures,LLC to comply
with U.S.Army Corp of Engineers Seattle District(USACE)permitting guidelines in order to
facilitate approval of a project at the Union Marina on the Hood Canal. The proposed project
involves the removal and replacement of the existing piling,floats,and fuel lines(Figures 2 &3),
plus the addition of an effluent line at an operating public marina. An existing pier shall be
utilized in the project. An existing,approximately 375-foot concrete bulkhead shall also remain
undisturbed. Over-water coverage of the proposed new floats will be 5,619.53 square feet,which
is approximately 2.5 feet less than the existing coverage(Figure 4). The number of slips(12)and
dock spaces(3)shall remain the same,but the layout shall be reconfigured in order to prevent
floats at the west end of the marina from grounding during low tides. New double-thick fuel lines
and an effluent pumpout line(that comply with U.S. Coast Guard regulations)shall be articulated
into the ramp and main float(Figure 5). The new construction shall consist of the following
additions to the site:
1) One main floating walkway, 10-ft(width)by 62-ft(length),which widens to
approximately 30-ft at the north end to accommodate a fuel-dispensing and waste
pumpout facility.
2) A floating walkway, 8-ft(width)by 167-ft(length).
3) Six 4-ft(width)by 40-ft(length)floating finger piers.
4) A floating walkway, 6-ft(width)by 63-ft 9-in(length).
5) A floating walkway, 8-ft(width)by 109-ft(length).
6) An 8-ft(width)by 80-ft(length)floating pier.
7) An 4-ft(width)by 40-ft(length)floating finger pier.
8) An 4-ft(width)by 30-ft(length)floating finger pier.
9) Twenty-three,ten-inch diameter steel piles,which may be coated with an epoxy coating
or hot-dip galvanized.
The ramp shall be fully grated. Grating on the replacement floating docks will allow light
transmission of at least 60 percent and will be orientated(the grating)for maximum light passage.
All floating docks and finger piers shall be grated with a centerline coverage of 50 percent. No
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 5
grating is proposed on the 10-ft by 30-ft fuel dispensing/waste pumpout area of the main float.
The float frames shall be constructed of ACZA(Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate)treated
Douglas fir lumber. All ACZA treated wood shall have undergone one or more BMP's to
minimize leaching of contaminants into the water. No chromated copper arsenate(CCA)treated
wood or oil-based preservatives such as creosote or pentachlorophenols will be used in this
project. The decking shall be constructed of a composite material.
To protect against erosion,fasteners or other hardware shall be made of galvanized and/or
stainless steel. The floatation will be constructed of foam-filled polyethylene tubs. The ramp and
floating docks shall be fabricated off-site,towed by boat to the proposed project site,and attached
to the piling.
A barge-mounted crane/pile driver shall be used to remove the existing piling at the site and to
install the steel piles for the floating docks. A vibratory hammer pile driver shall be utilized to
drive the piles. The piles shall be driven approximately 8 to 10 feet deep or to first refusal. The
actual driving time per pile is approximately 20 to 30 minutes,depending on weather and site
specific conditions. The following sound attenuation device shall be implemented during pile
driving if the piles utilized are greater than 10 inches in diameter: a bubble curtain that distributes
air bubbles around 100%of the perimeter of the piling over the full depth of the water column.
Habitat improvements include the installation of grated decks, steel piling, and the removal of 23
creosote treated piling. In addition,a sunken barge located immediately west of the project site
(along the length of the westernmost float,extending out approximately 30 ft.),which is a hazard
to marine life and boaters, shall be removed as part of an overall Marina upgrade. Required
permits and/or authorization from the USACE,the WSFW,the WSDE,and Mason County have
been issued for the barge removal. As a provision of a Mason County Shoreline Substantial
permit for a fuel storage tank addition to the site,a buffer of vegetation shall be planted directly
landward of the concrete bulkhead.
All equipment and materials for the proposed project will be barged to the site. Equipment
includes a shallow-draft,barge-mounted pile driver,a second barge for construction materials,a
small tugboat,and a 16-foot outboard powered workboat. All construction wastes shall be
removed from the site,along with the old floats and piling,which shall be disposed of at an
approved upland disposal site. The pile driver and barges shall not rest on the beach substrate at
any time. All construction work shall occur over tidal elevations of approximately—2 to—15 feet
(MLLW). The WDFW's HPA provisions and the appropriate Washington Administrative Code
provisions shall be strictly adhered to, including common saltwater technical provisions(WAC
220-110-270), saltwater piers,pilings,docks,floats,rafts, ramps,boathouses,and associated
moorings(WAC 220-110-300),and marinas in saltwater areas(WAC 220-110-330).
Construction on the proposed project, which shall take approximately one month to complete,
shall commence after the issuance of all required permits and approvals.
In order to maintain the present water quality of the Hood Canal during the project,Best
Management Practices will be implemented. BMP's are defined as physical, structural,and/or
managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water(WSDOE). The following
BMP's shall be adhered to during the construction process: 1)No heavy equipment shall access
the beach. 2)The contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom(if access to the site's
bathroom is not available)so that liquid or solid waste will not become a source of stormwater
pollution. 3)The contractor shall be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the
event of a hazardous spill. 4)The contractor shall be able to perform basic control, containment,
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 6
and/or confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and personnel protective
equipment available. In other words, small spills,such as paint or oil, shall be promptly and fully
collected and disposed of at a suitable disposal site. Spills in the water shall be reported to
WSDE.
C. Action Area
The `Action Area' is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action(50 CFR 402.02). The action area is
located at the proposed project site along the shoreline of the Hood Canal, in the footprint of the
replacement marina. The action area includes the terrestrial area within a one-mile radius of the
site in order to account for construction related noise that may affect species listed under the
Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as either endangered or threatened;
specifically,nesting or foraging eagles and/or foraging marbled murrelets, Steller sea lions,killer
whales,and humpback whales.
The action area also includes the marine environment within a 2-mile radius(Figure 1), in order
to account for littoral drift during construction and potential increased boat usage in the area.
The Skokomish and Tahuya Rivers,which are approximately 1.5 and 1.7 miles to the south and
northeast,respectively,are included in the action area. The action area is designated as EFH for
several salmonid species including the Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),Puget Sound coho
salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch),and the pink salmon(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha).
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. SPECIES INFORMATION
In the proposed project area,there are ten species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as either Endangered or Threatened: the humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae),the killer whale(Orcinus orca),the bull trout(Salvelinus
confluentus),the bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus),the marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus
marmoratus marmoratus),the Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),the
Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta),the Steller sea lion(Eumetopias
jubatus),the Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss),and the leatherback turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea).
WDFW data revealed that three other species of anadromous salmonids on the State's PHS list
may be found within the action area:the Puget Sound coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch),the
pink salmon(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha),and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat(Oncorhynchus
clarki clarki). The Puget Sound coho salmon is also an ESA listed Species of Concern. Species
of Concern are not species that are being actively considered for listing under the ESA by the
NMFS(National Marine Fisheries Service)or FWS. They have been identified as Species of
Concern because of concerns or great uncertainties regarding biological status and threats. These
three salmonid species will not be discussed in this assessment. Three PHS listed species of
forage fish will be discussed,due to their importance in the food chain.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 7
B. Federal Threatened or Endangered Species
HOOD CANAL SUMMER-RUN CHUM
In Puget Sound, chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)populations have developed three genetically
distinct stocks—summer,fall,and winter chum. Fall-run chums are the most prevalent,but
summer runs are found in the Hood Canal,the Strait of Juan de Fuca,and in southern Puget
Sound(WDFW 1994). Summer chum are the earliest returning chum salmon stocks in the Hood
Canal, spawning from mid-August through September. Chum salmon spawn in the lowermost
reaches of rivers and streams, generally in small to medium sized streams or tributaries to larger
rivers. Like Chinook and coho,chum are semelparous, spawning once,then dying. Unlike most
other anadromous salmonids,chum migrate almost immediately to marine waters after hatching.
Chum,therefore,are more dependent on estuarine and marine habitats. Eelgrass beds are
probably the main migration corridor for juveniles,providing both forage opportunities and
refuge from predation(Simenstad et al. 1982).
The migration to the estuarine environment usually happens immediately after emergence
(Simenstad 1998). Upon release,hatchery chum salmon juveniles,in inside waters(of Hood
Canal and Puget Sound)actively disperse,many across open water to the opposite shore,and then
passively migrate close to shore at rates that vary annually and seasonally(4-14 km per day),
depending on residual surface-water outflows(Bax 1982, 1983a). Summer-run chum fry emerge
as early as the first week in February and immediately commence downstream migration to
estuarine areas(WDFW 2005). Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around
eelgrass beds,but change their diet to drift insects and plankton as their size increases to 50-60
mm.(Simenstad et al. 1982). Species that outmigrate at such small sizes have a strong reliance
upon shallow-water habitats,especially those vegetated with algae and eelgrass, for important
prey resources and shelter from predation(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001).
Historically,native chum salmon were present in nearly all coastal Washington streams. They
have the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any Pacific salmon(Groot and
Margolis 1991). NOAA Fisheries has identified 4 ESUs of chum salmon in Washington,Oregon,
and California. The Hood Canal Summer-Run ESU was listed as threatened on March 24, 1999
(64 FR 14508). This ESU,which consists of 16 historically quasi-independent populations,nine
of which are presumed to be extirpated, includes chum populations in Hood Canal, in the streams
of Discovery and Sequim bays on the Straight of Juan de Fuca,and in the Dungeness River;
although,the existence of the latter run is uncertain(NMFS 2003). While Hood Canal Fall-Run
chum stocks are generally rated healthy at this time(WDFW 2002), Summer-Run stocks reveal a
continuing pattern of chronically low escapements. The Tahuya River stock,which reported no
escapements in 2001,2002,or 2003, is considered extinct,as is the Dewatto River stock.The
Duckabush stock,which is a native stock with wild production,has shown modest improvement
in recent years,although its 2002 status rating was Depressed. Lilliwaup and Hamma Hamma
stocks were rated Critical and Depressed,respectively; although,hatchery supplementation
programs using Lilliwaup and Hamma Hamma Summer-Run chum as broodstock have likely
contributed to a slight improvement in recent escapement numbers. The Union River stock was
rated Healthy in 2002. In 2000,a hatchery supplementation program was begun with the intent of
increasing the abundance of Union River Summer chum to allow for transfers of fish in order to
reintroduce summer chum to the Tahuya River(WDFW 2002). The Union River is
approximately 7.75 miles from the proposed project site.
NMFS designated Critical Habitat for the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum(Figure 5)on
September 2,2005,which includes approximately 377 miles of near-shore marine habitat in
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 8
Puget Sound and 79 stream miles. Eight of those miles are unoccupied stream reaches,because
they are essential for the conservation of the ESU(NOAA 2005). Critical habitat includes all
nearshore marine areas of Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan del Fuca from the line of extreme
high tide out to a depth of 30 meters(70 FR 52739). Critical Habitat in the Action Area includes
the nearshore area west of the proposed project site,which supports marine vegetation(eelgrass)
that provides rearing, foraging and migration salmonid habitat. Therefore, it is possible that adult
and/or juvenile Summer-Run Chum may be found in the action area.
PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON
Puget Sound Chinook salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act by
NOAA Fisheries in March of 1999(64FR 14308). In April of 2002,critical habitat designation
for the species and 18 other ESU's(evolutionarily significant units)of Pacific salmon and
steelhead was withdrawn--until further analysis of the economic impacts on affected businesses,
communities,and individuals--after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved
a NOAA Fisheries consent decree. A lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Association and other plaintiffs,alleging that NOAA Fisheries Service failed to
designate timely critical habitat for the 19 ESU's for which critical habitat had been vacated.
Ultimately,NOAA Fisheries agreed to file final critical habitat designations with the Federal
Register by August 15, 2005. The designations include approximately 2,182 miles of near-shore
habitat in Puget Sound and 1,683 stream miles(Federal Register 2005).
The boundaries of the Puget Sound ESU correspond generally with the boundaries of the Puget
Lowland ecoregion. Chinook salmon are found in most of the rivers in this region. The ESU
includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing
into the Puget Sound, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Elwha River eastward,
including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound,North Sound,and the Strait
of Georgia in Washington State. The majority of Chinook salmon in this area exhibit an ocean-
type life history and migrate to the ocean within their first year,as compared to the stream-type
Chinook that reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence(Gilbert 1912,Healey
1983).
Due to their early outmigration to estuarine waters,ocean-type Chinook more extensively utilize
estuaries and coastal areas for juvenile rearing(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). The majority
of benthic/epibenthic prey items such as amphipods that juvenile Chinook consume are associated
with eelgrass and other macroalgae. In estuaries,Chinook fry are generally shoreline oriented,
spending most of their time within 20 meters of shoreline(Weitkamp 2000). They have been
observed utilizing nearshore areas including areas along shoreline structures, such as riprap,piers,
and log rafts(Kask and Parker 1972;Ledgerwood et al. 1990;Meyer et al. 1980; Weitkamp et al.
1981; Weitkamp and Schadt 1982;Taylor and Willey 1997). Adults in marine waters forage on a
large array of fish species,especially herring and sand lance(Scott and Crossman 1973).
In most streams within the Puget Sound ESU,the overall abundance of indigenous Chinook
salmon has declined substantially from historical levels. Factors contributing to this downward
trend include widespread migratory blockages and degradation of freshwater and marine habitat,
with many upper watersheds affected by poor forestry practices and the mid-and lower-
watersheds affected by agriculture and urbanization. Commercial and recreational fishing are
also partly responsible for the decline in native Chinook abundance,along with predation by non-
native species,marine mammal or bird predation in areas of dwindling salmon run-size,
y
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 9
competition from hatchery fish,and natural environmental conditions such as floods and droughts
that reduce already limited spawning, rearing,and migration habitat.
A Technical Recovery Team(TRT)was formed by NOAA Fisheries to assist recovery planning
efforts for the chinook salmon. In 2001 and 2002,the TRT released technical reports describing
independent populations of chinook salmon in Puget Sound(Ruckelshaus et al. 2001,2002). To
date the TRT has identified 22 independent chinook populations: the North Fork Nooksack
River, South Fork Nooksack River, Lower Skagit River,Upper Skagit River, Lower Sauk River,
Suiattle River,Upper Sauk River,Cascade River,North Fork Stillaguamish River, South Fork
Stillaguamish River, Skykomish River, Snoqualmie River,North Lake Washington,Cedar River,
Green/Duwamish River, Puyallup River, White River,Nisqually River, Skokomish River,
Dosewallips River,Dungeness River,and Elwha River. Some naturally spawning aggregations
of chinook were not recognized as part of these populations(e.g.,the Deschutes River in South
Puget Sound). The TRT has concluded that chinook salmon using smaller streams in south and
central Puget Sound probably did not occur there in large numbers historically and may be
occupied due to hatchery releases. It has been theorized that few, if any, South Sound chinook
are of strictly native origin(Hershberger 2000).
The WDFW reports that summer/fall spawning chinook spawn in Hood Canal. The Mid-Hood
Canal stock was rated Critical due to chronically low escapements. Spawning occurs in the
Hamma Hamma,Duckabush,and Dosewallips watersheds. The Skokomish Chinook stock status
in 2002 was rated Depressed due to chronically low natural escapements. Spawning occurs in
the mainstream Skokomish,the lower North and South forks of the Skokomish,and in Purdy,
Vance, and Hunter creeks. Hatchery spawning takes place at George Adams Hatchery. Critical
Habitat includes all near-shore marine areas of the Strait of Georgia,Puget Sound,Hood Canal,
and the Strait of Juan de Fuca(to the western end of the Elwha River delta)from the line of
extreme hi t high tide out to a depth of 30 meters(70 FR 52688). The Skokomish River delta is
approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed project site. Critical Habitat along the nearshore area
of the proposed project site reveals rearing,foraging,and migration habitat. The nearshore area
supports marine vegetation(eelgrass)that provides prey resources and shelter for salmonids,so it
is possible that adult and/or juvenile Chinook may be found in the action area.
LEATHERBACK TURTLE
The Leatherback is listed as endangered throughout its range(Federal Register,June 2, 1970).
There are no nesting sites in Washington State,though leatherbacks have been reported feeding
as far north as British Columbia(NMFS 1998). There is no critical habitat for the species in
Washington State. The most pelagic of sea turtles, it is unlikely that leatherbacks will be found in
the action area.
HUMPBACK WHALE
Exploitation of humpback whales from commercial whaling continued until 1966, leaving their
numbers severely depleted. Listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act,a North
Pacific stock is known to occur seasonally off the Washington Coast(Calambokidis et al. 2000,
2001). Humpbacks occasionally venture into Puget Sound. Three years ago,alone whale was
spotted in the waters between Point Defiance and Vashon Island(Calambokidis 2004);however,
it is unlikely that any humpback whales will be found in the action area during the project
construction. Presently,there is no designated critical habitat for the humpback whale.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 10
KILLER WHALE
On November 15'h,2005 the Southern Resident Killer whale population was listed as an
endangered species. The population,which currently stands at 89 whales,experienced a 20%
decline in the 1990's and is still at risk from vessel traffic,toxic chemicals,and limited prey
availability,namely salmon. Recent studies reveal that killer whales are among the most
contaminated marine mammals in the world. Chemical contamination leaves the whales more
susceptible to disease and may cause reproductive failure.
Orcinus orca is the largest member of the dolphin family. Their life span in the wild is between
30 and 50 years. Males average 23 feet in length and weigh 7 to 10 tons. Females average 21
feet and 4 to 6 tons. They are found in all oceans of the world,but are most common in the
Arctic and Antarctic or on the west coast of Canada and the United States. Orcas are highly
social and travel in pods that usually consist of 5 to 30 whales. Pods are lead by females.
On November 29,2006,NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat for the Southern Resident
Pod distinct population segment(DPS). Critical habitat includes the Summer Core Area in Haro
Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands,Puget Sound, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The
total area comprises approximately 2,560 square miles, including all marine waters relative to a
contiguous shoreline delimited by the line at a depth of 20 feet(6.1 m)relative to extreme high
water. The Hood Canal has not been designated as critical habitat. A transient pod has visited
Hood Canal several times over that past few years and consumed large numbers of harbor seals,
so it is possible that they may be found foraging in the action area.
STELLER SEA LION
Steller sea lions are distributed throughout the rim of the North Pacific Ocean from California to
northern Japan(Loughlin et al. 1984). In 1990 National Marine Fisheries Service listed the
species as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In 1997 the population west of Cape
Suckling Alaska was reclassified as Endangered. There are no documented rookeries for Steller
Sea Lions in Puget Sound,nor have any critical habitat areas been established for the species in
Washington State. The Steller sea lion is a transitory visitor to Puget Sound, so it is possible that
the species could be found foraging in the action area.
BULL TROUT
Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family and are native to the Pacific
Northwest and western Canada. On November 1, 1999,the Coastal-Puget Sound population was
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout
population segment encompasses all Pacific coast drainages within Washington, including Puget
Sound. On September 23,2005,the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for
the bull trout,which in Washington State includes over 1,519 miles of streams and 966 miles of
near-shore marine shoreline(70 FR 56304).
Bull trout and Dolly Vanden look very similar and were once considered the same species.
Morphological analysises have confirmed the distinctive'ness of the two species in their different,
but overlapping geographic distributions(Haas and M tl 1991),but because the two species
are difficult to visually differentiate,the WDFW curreli#y manages bull trout and Dolly Vanden
together as"native char." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified subpopulations for which
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 11
status,distribution, and threats to bull trout were evaluated. Thirty-five subpopulations were
identified in the Coastal-Puget Sound.
Bull Trout reach sexual maturity between four and seven years of age and have been known to
live as long as 12 years. Water temperature above 15 degrees Celsius is believed to limit bull
trout distribution,as eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Bull trout are
also vulnerable to degraded stream habitat,poor water quality,dams and other stream blocking
structures,and predation by non-native fish. Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life-
history strategies(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout complete their entire life
cycle in the tributary(or nearby)streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout
spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish remain for one to four years before migrating to
either a lake(adfluvial),river(fluvial),or to saltwater(Fraley and Shepard 1989;Goetz 1989).
The latter anadromous bull trout are the only form relevant to this assessment.
The WDFW indicates that three bull trout subpopulations occur in the Skokomish River basin in
the Hood Canal analysis area:the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River,the upper
North Fork Skokomish River,and the Cushman Reservoir. Bull trout in the latter are restricted to
an adfluvial life-history form,due to the Cushman Dam on the north fork of the Skokomish river.
The South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation is considered depressed,while
the remaining two subpopulations are listed as Unknown because insufficient information is
available.
Critical habitat includes the near-shore marine area of Hood Canal from the line of extreme high
tide out to a depth of 30 meters(70 FR 56304). Critical Habitat along the nearshore area of the
proposed project site reveals rearing,foraging,and migration habitat. The nearshore area
supports marine vegetation(eelgrass)that provides prey resources and shelter for salmonids, so it
is possible that adult and/or juvenile bull trout may be found in the action area.
BALD EAGLE
In 1978 the bald eagle was listed as threatened in Washington State. Subsequent to World War
II,the use of the pesticide DDT to control mosquitoes became widespread along coastal and
wetland areas,which are prime eagle habitat. As a result of foraging on contaminated food,the
species' population plummeted to the brink of extinction. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, it
was determined that DDE,the principal breakdown product of DDT,built up in the fatty tissues
of adult females,preventing the calcium release necessary to produce strong egg shells,which
resulted in reproductive failure. Despite protective measures,the decline of the bald eagle
continued until DDT was banned from use in the United States in December of 1972.
Prior to European settlement of Washington State,the summer population of bald eagles was
estimated at about 6,500 birds(Stinson et al.2001). By 1980,this population had declined to
only 103 pairs in western Washington. Due to the ban of DDT and increased protection,there are
currently over 600 nesting pairs of bald eagles in Washington. Puget Sound shorelines also
annually support between 400 to 600 wintering birds from Alaska and Canada(Taylor 1989).
The bald eagle has made such a remarkable recovery that USFWS has proposed removing the
species from the List of Endangered and Threatened species(Federal Register 1999). Personal
communication with WDFW Biologist Greg Shirato revealed that there are four documented
eagle nests on the ridge,approximately one mile south of the proposed project site. Construction
of the proposed project is unlikely to create noise exceeding noise common to an urban
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 12
commercial neighborhood that is located on a State Highway. It is probable that resident eagles
are acclimated to such noise.
MARBLED MURRELET
In September of 1992,USFWS listed the marbled murrelet as threatened Under the Endangered
Species Act. A small,diving seabird in the family Alcidae,the marbled murrelet forages for
small fish and invertebrates almost exclusively in nearshore marine waters,while nesting inland
in old-growth or mature conifer forests. The primary threat to the species is the loss of nesting
habitat due to the harvesting of old-growth forests. A life history strategy involving a relatively
long life span,delayed sexual maturity,and low annual reproductive potential is also a problem.
Beissinger(1995)suggests that productivity is below levels required to sustain the listed
population.
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated in May of 1996,but it is not located
within close range of the project site on Hood Canal. The listed population size in Washington,
Oregon, and California was estimated at 18,550 to 32,000 birds(Ralph et al. 1995,Nelson 1997).
Marbled murrelet populations in those three states may be declining at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per
year. USFWS indicates that marbled murrelet may occur in Puget Sound. Personal
communication with WDFW Biologist Greg Shirato revealed that there are no documented
nesting sites or populations of marbled murrelet within close range of the action area. Aerial
surveys during 1992-99 indicate that small numbers of marbled murrelet may forage in the action
area in the winter(WDFW 1993).
PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD
On May 7 h 2007,the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Puget Sound Steelhead as
Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Covered under the listing are naturally spawned
steelhead from river basins in the Puget Sound,Hood Canal,and the eastern half of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca, including more than 50 stocks of summer-and winter-run fish. The listing also
covers two winter-run hatchery stocks: the Green River and the Hamma Hamma River.
The steelhead,(Oncorhynchus mykiss),has the most complex life history of any Pacific salmon.
Known as a rainbow trout if they remain in freshwater, steelhead usually spend two to four years
in their home stream before heading to marine waters. They remain in saltwater for
approximately three years,then return to their home stream to spawn. Steelhead do not die after
spawning. Some will spawn a second or third time.
NOAA Fisheries has identified 15 ESUs of steelhead in Washington,Oregon, Idaho, and
California. The WDFW reports that the status of the Skokomish,Hamma Hamma,Duckabush,
and Dosiwallips summer and winter steelhead were rated as Unknown and Depressed,
respectively, in 2002. There is presently no designated critical habitat for the Puget steelhead
ESU. It is possible that rearing,foraging,or migrating adult and/or juvenile steelhead may be
found in the action area.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 13
FORAGE FISH
Forage fish represent an important link in the food chain between herbivores and predatory
marine species. Pacific herring(Clupea harengus pallasi),Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes
hexapterus),and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus)are the foundation of fish prey supporting
piscivores(consumers of fish)in Puget Sound(West 1997). These three species are also
important food sources for most of the above-mentioned Endangered or Threatened species.
Furthermore, surf smelt is the target of valuable commercial and recreational fisheries,while
herring are an important source of commercial and sport fishing bait. Historical fishing by Indian
tribes for herring and surf smelt has also been well documented(Stewart, 1977),and it remains an
important part of their culture.
Surf smelt spawn throughout the year,depositing semitransparent adhesive eggs on mixed sand-
gravel beaches in the upper intertidal zone generally higher than+7 feet in tidal elevation.
Overhanging vegetation helps egg development by providing shade that controls temperature and
moisture on the beach(Pentilla 2001). Sand lance spawn in November to February, depositing
adhesive eggs the size of sand grains in the upper intertidal zones of gravel-sand beaches. Pacific
herring spawn in January to April,depositing transparent adhesive eggs on objects such as
eelgrass,kelp,or rocks,predominantly in shallow water between 0 and—10 feet in tidal elevation.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated and mapped critical spawning
habitat for herring, sand lance, and surf smelt. The maps indicate that the shoreline at the
property site is not a spawning beach for surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus),Pacific herring
(Clupea harengus pallasi),or Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus). The nearest spawning
beach for surf smelt is approximately .5 miles to the east and west,while the nearest spawning
beaches for sand lance and herring are approximately .7 and 3 miles to the west,respectively
(Figure 4). There is a herring holding area approximately.3 miles north of the proposed project
site.
C. Survey Results
METHODS
A preliminary field investigation was made on May 19,2007 during a tidal elevation of—3.3 ft.
Two surveys and one site visit were conducted in June of 2007. The surveys were conducted as
per WDFW Intermediate Eelgrass/Macro Algae Habitat Survey Guidelines. NOAA Tidal
datums for Union,Washington were utilized. All data is corrected to MLLW(0.00). MHHW at
site is 11.85 ft. Transects reference a concrete bulkhead that runs the length of the shoreline at
the proposed project site.
On June 3`d at approximately 1:00 p.m.the area was surveyed visually on foot. The upper and
lower intertidal zone will receive minimal impact from the project, since construction at the site
will take place in subtidal habitat,with depths ranging from—2.0 to—15 ft(MLLW). The weather
was sunny with the temperature around 80 degrees Fahrenheit,the wind calm. A slack ebbing
tide with a tidal elevation of—2.4 mean lower low water(MLLW)exposed the upper and lower
intertidal area at the proposed project site(Attachment 1). Thirteen,24-foot wide transects,
running perpendicular to the bulkhead,were demarcated using a tape measure. Substrate type,
macro-algae species and densities,animal species,and other habitat features were recorded. The
waterline was located approximately 125 feet from the west end of the bulkhead,75 feet from the
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 14
center(beneath the existing pier),and 140 feet at the east end. An underwater survey of the
submerged area of the transects using a high resolution,color video camera attached to a 15
-ft. pole was aborted,due to poor visibility from green micro-algae(the visual consistency of
bright green ketchup)that commenced approximately 5 ft.beneath the surface throughout the
site.
A second survey was conducted on June 8 during a slack ebbing tide with a tidal elevation of
approximately+7.0 feet MLLW. The weather was sunny,the temperature around 70 degrees
Fahrenheit,and the wind calm. The video camera was used to survey(from a small motored boat
and from the existing docks)the area of the transects that was not exposed during the—2.24 tide
on June 3. Visibility was approximately 15 to 20 feet. A laser distance-measuring device was
used to measure the distance 25 ft.waterward of the most waterward project features. Substrate
type,macro-algae species and densities,animal species, and other habitat features were recorded
by noting their location in reference to the existing floats and piles. Transects were plotted onto
the subtidal area by extending the waterward end points of the transects that were previously
demarcated in the intertidal area(Figure 5).
During both surveys, depths were taken from numerous points using a weighted tape measure.
After observing documented tidal elevations, depth contours were plotted(Figure 5). All tidal
elevations were corrected to MLLW. In addition, MHHW(11.85)was measured off the
bulkhead on June 6 h at approximately 11:00 p.m.during a+11.7 tide. On the west side of the
existing pier,MHHW is located approximately 2 ft.4 in.above the toe of the concrete bulkhead.
RESULTS
Substrate types in the upper intertidal area,(from+11.85 to approximately—2 ft.tidal elevations),
consist of sand, gravel,and cobble,with shell hash. The slope at the west end of the site is gentle
and changes to silty mud approximately 140 ft. from the bulkhead face. A moderate quantity of
ground(fresh)water was observed seeping onto the mid-intertidal zone in this area. The slope at
the center of the site and the east end is moderate, and the substrate changes to silty mud
approximately 90 to 110 ft.from the bulkhead face. Substrate in the subtidal area consists of silty
mud with shell hash in the vicinity of the floats and piles. Substrate types are mapped in Figure
Six.
Macroalgae coverage and distribution is illustrated in Figure Seven. In the intertidal zone at the
east end of the site,the upper beach area supports a 16 to 18 ft.band of pickleweed(Salicornia
virginica). Sea Plantain(Plantago maritime)was also observed in this area. Rockweed(Fucus
sp.)was observed growing along the bulkhead toe and on cobble in upper intertidal areas. Ova
and the red algae Gracilaria were observed on the east side of the site in the mid-intertidal area,
predominantly as drift algae with coverage less than 5%. At the west end of the site,the beach
substrate 30 to 50 ft. from the bulkhead face(approximately+9 to+3 ft in tidal elevation)has a
40 to 60%cover of sea lettuce(Ova sp.), less than half as drift algae. In the same area,a patchy
distribution of eelgrass(Zostera marina)was observed 73 to 155 ft. from the bulkhead face with
coverage averaging approximately 15 percent. High coverage(80 to 90%)was observed to
commence 155 to 186 ft.from the bulkhead face until the western edge of the sunken barge that
is located along the length of the westernmost float. The closest eelgrass to the existing floats in
the intertidal area was 34 ft. in Transect 2 with coverage of less than 5 percent.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 15
In the subtidal areas,macroalgae coverage was extremely low and consisted of a patch of sea
lettuce at a tidal elevation of—3 ft. and 4 eelgrass turions at—4 ft. in Transect 3, and 4 eelgrass
turions at—9 and—10 ft. in Transect Five.
Animal species observed at the site include the following: Kingfisher(Ceryle alcyon),blue heron
(Ardea herodias),pile perch(Rhacochilus vacca),shiner perch(Cymatogaster aggregata),sole
(Pleuronectes sp.), Dungeness crab(Cancer magister),hairy shore crab(Hemigrapsus nudus),
sunflower star(Pycnopodia helianthoides),jellyfish(Aurelia labiata and Cyanea capillata),
various sea anemones and sponges(undetermined species),barnacles(Balanus glandula),
mussels(Wilus sp.),horse clam shells(Tresus nuttallii),moonsnail egg cases(Polinices
lewish),and Pacific oyster(Crassostrea gigas).
D. Existing Environmental Conditions
The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions,to which the effects of the
proposed action are then added. The environmental baseline is defined as"the past and present
impacts of all Federal,state,and private actions and other human activities in the action area,the
anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already
undergone formal or informal section 7 consultation,and the impact of state or private actions
which are contemporaneous with the consultation process"(50 CFR 402.02). The proposed
project site is located on a 1.00-acre property zoned urban commercial with approximately 375
feet of waterfront on the Hood Canal. State Highway 106 accesses the site and is within
extremely close proximity to the shoreline in the area. There is an existing marina at the
proposed project site,which includes a 6,000 sq. ft.commercial building that houses several
businesses. A restaurant and a small grocery store are within short walking distance. A public
boat ramp is located adjacent to the west end of the property. The town of Union is a few blocks
west of the site. The majority of the shoreline action area has been developed with single-family
residences that have bulkheads and docks. Besides shoreline hard-armoring, it can be assumed
that the existing environmental conditions in the area have also been degraded by organic and
inorganic pollutants,deforestation,fishing,and other anthropogenic changes that accompany
urbanization.
The Hood Canal is a glacial-carved fjord that runs 63 miles from its mouth at Admiralty Inlet to
Lynch Cove at Belfair. It averages 3.8 miles in width and 500 feet in depth(Johnson et al. 1997).
Several factors, including the canal's great depth,poor water circulation,and the input of
nutrients have resulted in its lowest concentrations of dissolved oxygen in recorded history.
Algae appears to be a primary culprit. Huge algae blooms fueled by warm weather and nutrients
from leaking septic tanks,dairy waste,and fertilizer runoff,etc.,eventually die then decompose,a
process that consumes significant amounts of oxygen. In October of 2003 large fish kills were
reported in the Hood Canal(USGS 2006). WDFW biologist Margie Shirato reported that a fish
kill had occurred recently(June `07)near Dewatto,which is approximately 6.5 miles north of the
proposed project site.
The Hood Canal is on the WSDE's(Washington State Department of Ecology)2004 Water
Quality 303(d)List as an impaired waterbody for the following parameters in the vicinity of
Union: dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform(WSDE 2004). The results of a recent multiple
parameter assessment of the current status of eelgrass(Z. marina)in the Hood Canal region
suggests that there are factors causing negative impacts(WDNR 2007). There is evidence that
low dissolved oxygen is linked to seagrass mortality(Lapointe it al. 1994)and specifically Z.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 16
marina declines(Holmer and Bondgaard 2001;Koch 2001;Greve et al. 2003; Kemp et al. 2004).
Repeated anoxic events will cause depletion of rhizome and root carbon reserves(Kraemer and
Alberte 1995),an increase in sediment sulfide production(Koch 2001)and eventual plant die-off
(Terrados et al. 1999; Greve et al. 2003). Recurring low light levels,due to high concentrations
of microalgae in the Canal would also be expected to decrease photosynthesis rates of eelgrass,
which might contribute to the recent declines by making the plants more vulnerable during anoxic
events.
Documented drift cells in the area,MA-7-3 and MA-7-4,reveal that drift at the proposed project
site is northerly and easterly(WSDE 2002). Shore-drift appears to be influenced by flow from
the Skokomish River delta(WSDE 2002),which is located approximately 1.5 miles to the
southwest. It is expected that the proposed project area is subjected to regular turbidity and
sedimentation when the Skokomish River floods or when winds agitate the shallow waters of the
delta. The Tahuya River,which is approximately 1.7 miles to the Northeast,transports a much
smaller volume of water than the Skokomish,as it does not receive snowmelt from either the
Olympics or the Cascades;however, it is possible that flooding events from the Tahuya may also
contribute to turbidity and sedimentation at the site.
III. Effects of the Action
A. Direct Effects
Direct effects are the immediate effects of the project on the listed species and their habitats
(FWS &NMFS 1998). The direct effect to the project site on the Hood Canal will be the addition
of new piles, grated floats,and fuel and effluent lines,and the removal of the existing creosote
coated piling and ungrated floats in an area that is Critical Habitat for four previously discussed
salmonid species. Direct effects to the shoreline and marine environment include the loss of
subtidal benthic habitat from the installation of the 23 replacement piles,shading from the
replacement floats, and contamination from the leaching of wood preservatives. The new float
structures will decrease the overwater coverage at the site by approximately 2.5 feet. Since the
existing pier and ramp are to remain,the upper shoreline littoral habitat will only be subjected to
temporary direct effects as a result of the construction(installation)process. In addition,the
layout has been reconfigured so that the west end of the marina will be located in deeper water to
prevent grounding of the floats and lessen impacts to benthic and epibenthic habitat.
Some benthic aquatic invertebrates at the project site will be impacted by substrate disturbance
and displacement when the new piles are installed,which could result in reduced feeding
opportunities for juvenile salmonids. However,the footprint of the new piles will occupy the
same square footage as the existing piles. Steel piling will be used to replace the existing
creosote coated piles,which is a substantial habitat improvement. It is expected that the
replacement piles will be quickly colonized with invertebrate species that will provide food
resources for a variety of species that may constitute prey for juvenile salmonids in the area.
Aquatic invertebrates can recolonize disturbed locations quickly(Allan 1995)and adapt to new
features in their environment.
Direct effects of the overwater structures include shading and contamination from the leaching of
wood preservatives. Piers,ramps,floats,and pilings cause a reduction in light to the underlying
marine environment,which can have significant impacts on the health and productivity of
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 17
eelgrass and other macroflora. Overwater structures also create a light/dark boundary that may
give piscivorous species an advantage over their prey. However,there is little empirical evidence
to support this conclusion. Simenstad et al.(1999)found no studies attributing predation
mortality to overwater structures. In another study, sea perch and pile perch were found to be the
most abundant fish under docks(Ratte 1985). At the proposed project site,the most abundant
fish observed during the underwater survey were pile perch and shiner perch. Neither species are
potential predators of juvenile salmon. In addition, grated PRF's produce a mottled shade that is
similar to shading from trees.
Shade can also affect migrating salmonids. Schools of out-migrating chinook have been
observed swimming around piers,presumably because of the change in light level and/or
presence of predators(Tabor and Piaskowski 2001). Tabor and Piaskowski also found that larger
juvenile chinook avoided overwater structures both at night and during the day. Other studies
suggest that juvenile salmonids may utilize docks for protective cover. Roni and Weitkamp
(1996)found that juvenile chum were likely passing under the Manchester Naval Fuel Pier,while
Taylor and Willey(1997)documented that juvenile salmon appeared to migrate through Pier 66
on the Seattle waterfront using a fish passage opening,the shoreline,and the edges of dock
structures. While the effects of shade on migrating juvenile salmonids is unclear,there is no
empirical evidence of mortality. The significance of predation to migrating populations has never
been empirically assessed(Simenstad et al. 1999). No studies have examined mortality due to
predation much less that mortality is attributable to overwater structures(Nightingale&
Simenstad 2001). Therefore, shade created by the proposed PRF is expected to have
discountable and insignificant direct effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon,Hood Canal
summer-run chum,bull trout,or P.S. steelhead that may be in the action area.
Shade from overwater structures can negatively impact the growth of macroalgae and other plant
life such as epibenthic algae and phytoplankton. Simenstad(1979, 1980)found that migrating
juvenile chum in Hood Canal selectively preyed on the harpacticoid copepod, an aquatic
invertebrate found in very high densities in eelgrass beds. It has been repeatedly documented
that vegetation assemblages associated with eelgrass, support increased magnitudes of juvenile
salmonid epibenthic prey(Thom et al. 1988, 1990; Simenstad et al. 1980, 1988a).
The survey revealed that there are dense eelgrass beds in the shallow water to the west of the
proposed project site. Eight eelgrass turions were also observed growing in deeper water that
ranged from—4 to—10 in tidal elevation. A 2005 WDNR submerged vegetation monitoring
report revealed that the absolute maximum depth for eelgrass in Hood Canal was—7.3 feet
(WDNR 2005). All eight turions were observed to be growing beneath the outer edge of a float's
overwater coverage or in close proximity to that area. Recurring low light levels,due to high
concentrations of microalgae in the Canal(such as was encountered on 6-3-07—see survey
results)would also be expected to decrease photosynthesis rates of eelgrass,which might
contribute to the recent declines by making the plants more vulnerable during anoxic events,
killing them outright,and/or impeding their spread to deeper water. The grating of the
replacement floats will allow for light penetration that is lacking in the existing floats,which is
expected to be a significant habitat improvement. Since a small amount of eelgrass is already
growing under the existing floats and at an atypically deep tidal elevation, it is possible that
eelgrass will spread throughout the marina with the addition of grated floats. At the very least,
the removal of the sunken barge and the reconfiguration of the west end of the existing marina
will allow eelgrass to colonize approximately 4300 sq. ft. of intertidal and subtidal benthic
habitat.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 18
The leaching of wood preservatives is the most common contaminant-related issue with pier,
ramp,and floats. Laboratory studies by Weis et al.(1991, 1992)have shown that leaching
decreases by about 50%daily once the wood is immersed in seawater. Given that all ACZA
treated wood used in the proposed project shall have undergone one or more USACE's
recommended BMP's to minimize leaching of contaminants into the water, it is unlikely that
leaching from treated wood will have a noticeable impact on marine life at the proposed project
site. In addition,during calm weather conditions,no wood structures(i.e.the framing)will be
immersed in the water.
Temporary direct effects caused by the construction process include noise; increased
sedimentation and turbidity in Hood Canal due to disturbed substrate from the installation of the
replacement piling; and the potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel,oil,or other
contaminants. The main source of construction noise will be the operation of heavy equipment.
The proposed project site is located in a neighborhood zoned urban commercial, so it is expected
that the noise from heavy equipment will not be more excessive than noise normal to the
neighborhood. All pile driving shall be done with a vibratory hammer. Vibratory hammers
utilize a rapid repetition rate to produce sounds of lower intensity,which may be less harmful to
fish and less disruptive to terrestrials. Ten-inch diameter piles should create lower sound pressure
levels than larger diameter piles(NMFS 2005). The pile driving noise could also potentially
disturb listed birds and mammals. There are four, documented eagle nests located one mile to the
south,on the ridge above the proposed project site. The hillside is heavily forested,which should
act as a noise buffer and lessen the impact. There is also substantial development in the area, so it
is probable that eagles have adapted to the presence of noisy humans in the area.
The increases in turbidity will be temporary and are expected to have discountable and
insignificant effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon,Hood Canal summer-run chum,bull trout,
and P.S. steelhead,their critical habitat,and EFH in the action area. Turbidity will be generated
from piling installation for only a few days. Driven piles have the least impact. Salmonids have
been observed to move laterally and downstream to avoid turbidity plumes(Sigler et al. 1984,
Lloyd 1987, Scannell 1988). Increased turbidity and sedimentation might effect the migration of
juvenile salmonids along the shoreline by creating a temporary barrier in the upper littoral zone
that abuts the bulkhead. Juvenile salmon are mobile,so it is possible that they will avoid the area
of disturbance and not be impacted, as it seems reasonable to assume that they are subject to
encountering turbidity that results from natural sediment recruitment processes. It has also been
suggested that turbidity can be used by juvenile salmon as a protective cover(Gregory and
Northcotel993). In order to minimize the adverse effects,the proposed project will not take
place between February 16th and July 15th,when juvenile salmonid migration activity is high.
Additional timing provisions in the WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval shall be strictly adhered
to.
Potential water pollution from accidental release of fuel,oil,or other contaminants is another
possible temporary direct effect of the proposed project. As previously discussed, BMP's will be
implemented during construction in order to maintain the present water quality of Hood Canal
and prevent pollution.
In order to properly analyze the effects on designated critical habitat,a logical framework must be
utilized. In determining what areas are critical habitat,agency regulations require the NMFS to
focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements that are essential to the
conservation of the species. The regulations identify Primary Constituent elements(PCEs)as
including,but not limited to: "roost sites,nesting grounds, spawning sites,feeding sites,seasonal
wetland or dryland,water quality or quantity,host species or plant pollinator,geological
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 19
formation,vegetation type,tide,and specific soil types(69 FR 71888)." In 2003 NMFS
biologists developed a list of PCEs specific to salmon,based on a decision matrix(NMFS, 1996)
that describes general parameters and characteristics of most of the essential features under
consideration when critical habitat is designated. There are six specific types of sites essential to
support one or more life stages of an ESU(sites for spawning,rearing,migration,and foraging).
Each site names physical or biological features(PCEs)essential to the conservation of salmonids.
One of the listed sites,number 5, is nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality
and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth
and maturation;and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulder,and side channels(69 FR 71888). The Puget Sound
nearshore,which is designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook,bull trout,Puget Sound
steelhead,and Hood Canal summer-run chum(in Hood Canal),has a conservation value that is
rated high by the NMFS(NMFS 2005). Therefore,the direct effects on the designated critical
habitat of Puget Sound Chinook,Hood Canal Summer-Run chum, and bull trout,have been
analyzed using the appropriate PCEs for nearshore marine areas.
Unobstructed passage—passage may be altered for several days,during construction,although
there will be no machinery accessing the beach.
Water Quality—project construction will cause temporary turbidity and possible sedimentation,
but the affect on water quality is expected to be minimal and short-term.
Water Quantity the project will not have any direct affect on water quantity.
Forage—foraging opportunities for juvenile Chinook,chum,bull trout,or steelhead will be
temporarily affected during the duration of construction,and the diversity and abundance of
available invertebrate prey at the site will be temporarily affected by the removal of the existing
creosote coated piling. Invertebrate species are expected to quickly colonize the replacement
piles.
Natural Cover—Eelgrass beds to the west of the site provide natural cover for juvenile salmonids
in the area. Temporary turbidity and sedimentation produced by the removal and installation of
the replacement piles is expected to have no greater impact on the eelgrass beds than turbidity and
sedimentation from the nearby Skokomish River.
B. Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and are
later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur(50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects from this
proposed project include a potential increased motorized boat presence in the area as boaters are
drawn to the updated marina facilities. Fuel spills from powerboats can contaminate water
quality and potentially affect listed salmonids directly or indirectly through their prey source
(NMFS 2005). Powerboats also create amplified wave action that can erode the shoreline. Prop
scouring can erode benthic habitat.
While it is probable that an updated marina will increase the motorized boat presence in the area,
the addition of fuel and pumpout services are expected to have a beneficial impact on the water
quality of the Hood Canal by decreasing the possibility of potential pollution(spillage)from
boaters who fuel with gas cans and/or illegally dump effluents. The reconfiguration of the floats
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 20
on the west end and the removal of a finger pier on the east end should reduce prop scouring by
placing the footprint of the marina floats in deeper water. Powerboats also provide some
oxygenation of surface waters, although the extent is probably negligible at best.
The indirect effects on the designated critical habitat of Puget Sound Chinook,Hood Canal
Summer-Run chum,bull trout,and Puget Sound Steelhead have been analyzed using the
appropriate PCEs for nearshore marine areas.
Unobstructed passage—Although the existing pier and ramp, and replacement floats may alter
the migration pathway of adult or juvenile Chinook,chum,bull trout, or steelhead,the effects of
shade on migrating juvenile salmonids is unclear. The addition of grated floats will be a
beneficial habitat improvement.
Water Quality—the project will benefit water quality by replacing creosote-coated piles with
steel piles.
Water Quantity--the project will not have any indirect affect on water quantity.
Forage—the project is expected to have a beneficial affect on foraging opportunities for
Chinook,chum,bull trout,and steelhead. The reconfiguration and grating of the replacement
floats is likely to encourage the spread of eelgrass and other benthic macroalgae,which will have
a beneficial impact on juvenile Chinook, chum, bull trout,or steelhead foraging opportunities.
Natural Cover—Eelgrass beds to the west of the site provide natural cover for juvenile and/or
adult Chinook, chum,bull trout,or steelhead in the area. The reconfiguration and grating of the
replacement floats will allow eelgrass to colonize approximately 4300 sq. ft. of intertidal and
subtidal benthic habitat. Since there is already a few shoots of eelgrass growing beneath the outer
edge of existing floats, it is possible that the grating will allow it to spread further.
C. Effects of Interrelated/Interdependent Actions/Activities
Interrelated and interdependent effects are described as the effects of the action under
consultation analyzed together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated to,or
interdependent with,that action. An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed
action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an
activity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation(FWS&NMFS
1998). The Union Marina is currently undergoing an upgrade to the existing facilities at the site
that includes the addition of a double-walled,above grade fuel storage tank(permits have been
obtained),a below grade 1,200 gallon sewage storage tank,double-walled fuel and effluent lines,
septic system improvements including an alarm to prevent overloading of the drainfield and a
system to reduce nitrogen and increase oxygen levels of effluents,and an oil separator to filter
used water at an existing boat washing area(as approved by an NPDES permit). Parking areas
located immediately landward of the bulkhead shall be relocated 20 to 30 feet landward. A
vegetative buffer consisting of native shrubs and ground cover shall be planted between the
bulkhead and the parking area. No landfilling will occur. As previously mentioned,a sunken
barge that appears to impede the growth of eelgrass and is dangerous to boaters and marine life
shall be removed from the intertidal area.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 21
The new owners of the site are particularly concerned with making changes to the existing marina
that are beneficial to the environment. Most of the above-mentioned planned improvements to
the existing marina are contingent upon the proposed project occurring.
The interrelated and interdependent effects on the designated critical habitat of Puget Sound
Chinook, Hood Canal Summer-Run chum,bull trout,and Puget Sound Steelhead have been
analyzed using the appropriate PCEs for nearshore marine areas.
Unobstructed passage the project will not have any interrelated or interdependent effects on
unobstructed passage.
Water Quality—the planting of a vegetative buffer of native shrubs and ground cover between
the bulkhead and the parking area,will have a beneficial effect on water quality by intercepting
and filtering stormwater(runoff treatment BMP). Improvements to an existing septic system and
a boat washing area will also benefit water quality(see above).
Water Quantity--the project will not have any interrelated or interdependent effects on water
quantity.
Forage—the project will not have any interrelated or interdependent effects on foraging
opportunities for salmonids.
Natural Cover—the project will not have any interrelated or interdependent effects on natural
cover.
D. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are defined as"those effects of future state or private activities,not involving
Federal activities,that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the action subject
to consultation"(50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative impacts are difficult to access. Continued growth
and urbanization is likely to detrimentally impact fish and wildlife resources. Global warming
could raise the water level of Puget Sound, leaving many waterfront properties underwater.
Over-fishing may deplete stocks of salmon,even as restoration of habitat in the watershed
furthers their likelihood of survival.
E. Take Analysis
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species,"take"being defined in
Section 3 as to harass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,trap, capture,or collect listed species,or
attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant habitat
modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed species by"significantly impairing
behavioral patterns such as breeding,spawning,rearing,migrating,feeding,and sheltering"(50
CFR 222.102). "Harass"is further defined as an intentional or negligent act which creates the
likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
behavior patterns which include,but are not limited to,breeding, feeding,or sheltering(50 CFR
17.3). In regards to the proposed project and the existing development activities,it is extremely
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 22
unlikely that any "take"will occur. The following conservation measures(some previously
discussed)will further insure the likelihood that no"take"will occur.
D. Conservation Measures
1. No Construction to take place during the prohibited work window(February 16'b to
July 15th), for the protection of juvenile salmonids. This timing restriction will also
provide protection for bald eagles during nesting season.
2. The WDFW's HPA provisions(specific to the proposed project)to be strictly
adhered to.
3. Construction shall cease if any marine mammals come within 300 feet of the
construction zone. Work shall not resume until the marine mammals have departed
the 300-foot construction buffer.
E. Determination of Effect
A determination of May affect, not likely to adversely affect is the appropriate conclusion when
effects on the species or their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or
insignificant After reviewing the appropriate data and survey information,I have concluded that
the proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or
Threatened species if the previously discussed conservation measures are implemented. In my
most honest and professional opinion,while the proposed project may impact individual
Endangered or Threatened species in the project area, it is not likely to adversely affect or
jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their habitat. The determination of effect
for each of the listed species is:
1. Puget Sound Chinook and their critical habitat May affect, not likely to adversely affect.
2. Hood-Canal Summer-Run chum and their critical habitat--May affect, not likely to
adversely affect.
3. Leatherback turtle—No effect.
4. Humpback whale—No effect.
5. Killer whale---May affect, not likely to adversely affect.
6. Steller sea lion--May affect, not likely to adversely affect.
7. Coastal/Puget Sound Bull trout and their critical habitat--May affect, not likely to
adversely affect.
8. Marble murrelet--May affect, not likely to adversely affect.
9. Bald eagle--May affect, not likely to adversely affect.
10. Puget Sound steelhead--May affect, not likely to adversely affect.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 23
IV. References
Individual
I would like to thank the following individuals for their help:
Greg Bargmann, WDFW,Marine Fish and Pelagic Fish Manager,Olympia, WA.
Bruce Sanford,WDFW, Fish and Wildlife biologist,Olympia, WA.
Margie Schirato, WDFW,Fish and Wildlife biologist, Shelton,WA.
Greg Schirato,WDFW,Fish and Wildlife biologist,Olympia,WA.
Literature
Angell,T. and K.C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget
Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Brodeur,R.D.,K.W.Myers,and J.H.Wells. 2003. Research Conducted by the United States on
the Early Ocean Life History of Pacific Salmon. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Comm. Bull. 3:
89-131.
Druehl,L. 2000. Pacific Seaweeds. Harbour Publishing,Madeira Park,BC Canada.
Federal Register/Vol. 70,No.170/September 2,2005 /Rules and Regulations
Federal Register/Vol. 70,No.185/September 26,2005/Rules and Regulations
Federal Register/Vol.63,No. 111 /June, 10, 1998/Proposed Rules
Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 128/July, 6, 1999/Proposed Rules
Federal Register/Vol. 65,No. 1 /January 3,2000/Proposed Rules
Finlayson,D.and H. Shipman. 2003. Puget Sound Drift Cells: The importance of waves and
wave climate. Puget Sound Notes,Issue No.47,September 2003.
Gilbert,C.and Williams J. 2002. National Audubon Society Field Guide to Fishes, Alfred A
Knopf,Inc.New York.
Groot,C. and L.Margolis(eds.) 1991. Life history of Pacific salmon. UBC Press,Vancouver,
British Columbia.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 24
Harbo,R. 1997. Shells&Shelffish of the Pacific Northwest,Harbour Publishing,Madeira Park,
British Columbia.
Hart,J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada,Fisheries Research Board of Canada,Ottawa.
Kelty,R.A. and S. Bliven. 2003. Environmental and Aesthetic Impacts of Small Docks and
Piers, Workshop Report: Developing a Science-Based Decision Support Tool for Small Dock
Management,Phase l: Status of the Science. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis
Series No. 22. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 69pp.
National Geographic. 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic
Society, Washington,D.C.pp. 62, 108, 226,272.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Biological Opinion for the Port of Kennewick Marina
Expansion Project. Endangered Species Act—Section 7 Consulataion. NMFS Northwest
Region.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Biological Opinion for the Strosahl/Niven new pier
and overwater deck and the Tosti new pier on Lake Washington. Endangered Species Act—
Section 7 Consulataion. NMFS Northwest Region.
Nightingale,B.and C. Simenstad. 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. Washington
Departments of Fish and Wildlife,Ecology,and Transportation. Olympia, Washington. 177 p.
NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Preliminary findings of NOAA Fisheries' Critical Habitat Analytical
Review Team for Puget Sound and Ozette Lake ESUs. NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources
Division,Portland,Oregon. Unpublished report.
NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Biological Opinion for the Duhon New Bulkhead and Stairs Project,
Jefferson County, Washinton. Unpublished report for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Fisheries agency lists Puget Sound killer whales as endangered.
Internet report. Website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2533.htm
NOAA Fisheries. 2006. Proposed critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales. Internet
report. Website: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/Whales-Dolphins-Porpoise/Killer-
Whales/ES...
Osborne,R.,J. Calambokidis,and E.M. Dorsey. 1988. A guide to marine mammals of greater
Puget Sound. Island Publishers,Anacortes, WA. 191 p.
Penttila,Daniel E. 1995. Spawning areas of the Pacific herring(Clupea), surf smelt
(Hypomesus),and the Pacific sand lance(Ammodytes)in,central Puget Sound, Washington.
Wash. Dept.of Fish and Wildlife Manuscript Report.
Pentilla,Daniel E. 2001. Effects of shading upland vegetation on egg survival for summer-
spawning surf smelt on upper intertidal beaches in Puget Sound. Washinton Department of Fish
and Wildlife,Marine Resources Division,La Conner,WA.
Poston,T. 2001. Treated Wood Issues Associated with Overwater Structures in Marine and
Freshwater Environments. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 25
Rodrick,E. and R. Milner(technical editors). 1991. Management recommendations for
Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife,Wildlife
Management,Fish Management,and Habitat Management Divisions, Olympia, Wa. 17pp.
Stiffler, L. 2003. Hood Canal marine life struggling for oxygen. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
Seattle WA.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Biological evaluation regional general permit for
modification and construction of residential overwater structures in inland marine waters of
Washington state. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers,Seattle. 89p.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Shoreline Armoring Effects on Coastal
Ecology and Biological Resources in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management
Studies,Volume 7.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2002. Net Shore-Drift in Washington State. WSDE,
Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Critical spawning habitat for herring, surf
smelt, sand lance,and rock sole in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared by Fish Program,
Olympia, WA. pp.3,4; map 125.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Salmon Stock Inventory of Hood Canal.
Internet report. Website:http://wdfw.wa.gov/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Species of Concern in Washington State.
Internet report. Website:http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Puget sound submerged vegetation
monitoring project,2005 monitoring report. Nearshore Habitat Program. Olympia, WA. 47 p.
Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marble murrelet
Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpublished Report. Department of Wildlife.
Olympia, WA.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 26
Figure 1
The Action Area showing the location and scope (2-mile radius).
yaks pd rt �
- m++ _-
Potlatch R
i
" r hors d
huya 4A
H o o d C a n a / 4m
_-- 2.00 mi
101
atlnion Union Marina N^
n] 5101 East SR 106
Skokomish Indian Reservation
� r
101 106 j �
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 27
Figure 2
A Site Plan of the proposed float layout.
NU)t: LEGEND
W"IM Or IEASL WM MEA.MX*0110.A;UGS AND WW Or WWTAN N(AS SN09N ON
A"RC IANO "M NIX 20-01 M4 AS WC131 OEM WIKR AIXIn i TNL NO P?Wra•,RECORDS AiON BAR M^N.ASIIC .uauTr OW R/Y 000"
or YASW CONYT fA "Mw)ARE MR EtuSmviir MAM NE OWS Or AM YAr NOT an=? ipyoM CAP gT
LIRaGIT COIpNO6 OWN 01firm E NOTED .E ZW"POD MM
C .WM PIPE AS SHOW ON .RV"W-W NDir WPM
IMICCUIOtD SORKT or .EAdMO MIER ILRR
LVA 011 OAILD MOT i9Ba IR O"ROAR
IREESS ORERSiSC N07ED _.UNOEROROIREI lQlIR4t
SF%Ac aEAN-our -e'CVMOW FrMCE
-oNV—�oitwcAD uiuRcs -
9 1150.
F 00 IiON rME RErERRLD TO AS YCAN)ER CMER
IM AND U�rRWM sW1 'Or PLAM AWIFT a4XV W
Ion
C yo ti9`
P+4'O
hL O�_69
BLOCK A
AL ST. no or
lei h
ACATEDJ _--
1 v¢
OC 11
I 0
t
-CK 2 0 4 g j 2
ti
CHIC cou+DT 1 '.�
\`\ cn
.% I
I FIRST WE
JJ _ SET BAR t CAP 171T S
(VACAIW) �v 't, or a'CVCWW FVCE
YrN BLOCK 18
3 2
21 OW A•W AS VQW
oN SLOWY Bx.is IAOE 166
NT.nu.o3 S 4H
E:9939)A.31
06
31 Arc AS 3mm SCALE:w
DN SIAITWT BN 12 PAGE M QQ�!
0 20 10 813
,.-so'
^--_DRAWN FOR THE USE OF
MARINE FWA'[5 CORP.
ANY OTHER USE OR
"]••3905] G(� SITE PLAN KITH PROPOSED FLOAT LAYOUT REPRODUCTION IS PROHIBITED
E:99395].19
Scale 1"-80' SeeNW32 T 22N R 3W Lat/Long 47.213N/122-051W Corps Reference•
Purpose Private use recreational dock MARINE FLOATS Proposed To replace and reconfigure floats,
and Boat Moorage Tacoma WA(253)383-2740 Install(23)steel piling with fuel
Datum 0.0 station.Existing float coverage is
Job Adjacent Property Oa-ncrs Name Hood Canal Marina. Ire Hood Canal
(1) Julie Saari Job Add 5101 E State Route 106 At: Puget Sound
5001 E State Route 106 Union WA 98592
UnionWA98592 County: Mason State WA
(2) William W Lomen Mail Add: 22526 SE 64th Place Suite 210 3912 S Avenue N Appl by: North Forty Transportation
rtatbn LLC
Tacoma WA�7 Issaquah WA 98027
Date 6/18/07 Page 4 of 7
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 28
Figure 3
A Cross Section view of the proposed float layout.
EXISTING PIER AND RAM TO REMAIN
NKHWL 85'
4'CONCRETE BULKHEAD
NHHVL 2-4. 11P (D OF (21) STEEL PILING -14.0'
DRIVEN TO REFUSAL.
SEE FIGURE 4 ON BIOLOGICAL
EVALUATION FOR DATUM.
SECTION VIEW AT HIGH AND LOW WATER
DRAWN FOR THE USE OF
MARINE FLOATS CORP.
ANY OTHER USE OR
RBPRODIICITON 15 PROHIBITED
Scat-. I'-30 Sec NW32 T 22N R 3W latA-ong 472I3N/122.051W Corps Reference
Purpose Private use recrcatin�l dock MARINE FLOATS Proposed:To replace and reconfigure floats,
and Boat Moorage Tacoma WA(2253)383-2740 install(23)steel piling with fuel
Dat— 0.0 station.Exlsting float coverage is
fl
Adjacent Property Owners Job Name Hood Canal Marina Ire Hood Canal
(1) Julie
EE State Route 106 Job Add: 5101 E State Route 106 At: Puget Sound
Union WA 98592 Union WA 98592 Count Mason
(2) William W Lxnen Mail Add: 22526 SE 64th Place Suite 210 R State WA
39I2 Sunnys��enue N Issaquah WA 98(127 Appl by: North Forty Transportation LLC
Tarnma WA Date 6/I8/07 Page 7 of 7
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 29
Figure 4
The existing and the proposed float layout overlay.
x
IQ2 \
I \
,to �
poi \
GOVE`T�AN—DER LINE \ /
a
r>tizc \
-EXISTING FLOAT COVERAGE IS 5622 SO.FT.
-(23)EXISTING CREOSOTE PILING \
TO K REPLACED WITH STEEL.
-PROPOSED NEW FLOAT COVERAGES IS 5619 SO.FT. \ OF
®
0 ID 25 so DRAWN FOR THE USE OF
MARINE FLOATS CO
SCALE,1'•50' NY A OTTIER USE ORS
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOAT LAYOUT OVERLAY REPRODUCTION IS PROHIBITED
Scale 1'=59 Sec NW32 T 22N R 3W Lat/L.ong 47213N/122.051 W Corps Reference
Purpose Private use recreational dock MARINE FLOATS Proposed:To replace and reconfi*re floats,
and Boat Moorage Tacoma WA(253)3B3-2740 install(23)steel piling with fuel
Datum 0.0 station.Existing float coverage is
Job Name KxA Canal Marina
Adjacent Property Ow•rcrs: fre Howl Canal
(1) Julie Saari Job Add: 5101 E State Route 106 At. Puget Sound
5001 E State Route 106
Union WA 98592 Union WA 98592 County Mason State:WA
(2) William W Lomen Mail Add: 22526 SE 64th Place Suite 210
3912 Sunnyside Avenue N Appl by: North Forty Transportation LLC
Tacoma WA 98407 Issaquah WA 98027 Date 6/I8/07 Page 6 of 7
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 30
FIGURE 5
Depth contours(in feet MLLVV),tidal elevations,and location of
survey transects. The proposed marina replacement is drawn in red.
O
' O
11 12 13
;L� 1 INGCR
8
ORDINARY HIGH
WATER MARK
6
5
MHHW IS LOCATED 2'4"UP
THE BULKHEAD FACE
i
;L 4
EXIsnNG APPROXIMATE LOCATION
CONCH OF FUEL AND EFFLUENT
3 BULKHEAD LINES TO BE INTEGRATED
INTO EXISTING PIER&RAMP,
r0 AND NEW FLOATS.
O 2
NOAA TIDAL ELEVATIONS FOR UNION.VVA
MHHW 11.85
1 MHW 10.87
MLLW 0.00
MLW 3.01 `GALE 1"=W
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 31
FIGURE 6
Substrate types.
0
; 5b
r.
i
T ) 1
EXISTING
BULKHEAD
SAND&GRAVEL(VARIOUS SIZES)-
SAND,GRAVEL,&COBBLE-M
O SILTY MUD
f_
/ SHELL HAS
AND GRAVEL
I Np SILTY SAND
L�
N
SCALE 1•=W
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 32
FIGURE 7
ApproAmate species,distribution,and percent coverage
of macro-algae.
n
5b
^ti
I /
i
i
O
ro
EEL GRASS(ZOSTERA MARINA)over 80%-m
fj EEL GRASS(ZOSTERA MARINA)25-50°
APpROMpTE EEL GRASS(ZOSTERA MARINA)less than 5% 0
LOCATION of Lug
SUIJKFN BARGE EEL GRASS(ZOSTERA MARINA)one turion l
SEA LETTUCE(ULVA SP)&RED
ALGAE(GRACILARIA)less than 5%-■
I
SEA LETTUCE(ULVA SP.)40 to 60%-
€ I ROCKWEED(FUCUS SP.)less than 5°6
i
PICKLEVVEED(SALICORN/A VIRGINICA)80°�
� I
I I,
I �
I
—� LI
SCALE 1"=60'
—_
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 33
Attachment 1
A central view of the proposed project site.
_ _ ._- t
L -
-
+4
y
" r
-
a„
-
: e-r►
i
5
s
r r a
r y• �=�� ir•- x� � .-`''^ ..,N..sr(,. ,!,",,� ry r� x - aL.
e• '`�,df� '� ��•'' r as •. _ • .ya:<
.� t,+t- �,y"-' �/`hi• t Y`4 � yam,,
9 �..` w-L" 1',5�;ram,, •;a, r l".
a �
r
ti
tf�,r..!;� �� •si. � t rwr �a��, �.f.xe; �,H i1 s � y�js �b �,xrfrf e•saC � � �� :, �1/„
- 1 r A '� .yt�"1 ..t '1� .a;� l'�''1t�.e r„Zrr� °�, � SJrk•3�'.•
r 24.
- y _
�b
.ra.
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 36
Attachment 4
The west end of the proposed project site.
'I _ � •• -mot ."e - �`� �-'''.` .,;, j,�'.
i
Ji_ fAVAZ
tow
pt
lip
40
Aw
I .r 4op M
w Union Marina Biological Evaluation 38
Attachment 6
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act was signed into law on April 13,
1976. Under provisions of the Act,eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were
established to prepare FMP's in conformance with national standards published in 50 CFR Part
600.305-340. The Magnuson Act was renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act in a 1996
appropriations bill. On October 11, 1996,the Sustainable Fisheries Act,which amended the
Magnuson-Stevens Act,was signed into law. Provisions included a mandate that the Councils
amend each FMP to include a description of Essential Fish Habitat, including adverse impacts on
EFH and conservation measures to protect EFH. Essential Fish Habitat is defined as those waters
and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,breeding,feeding,or growth to maturity.
The Pacific Fisheries Management Council has designated EFH for federally-managed species on
the Pacific West Coast, including 82 species of groundfish, 5 coastal pelagic species, and 3
species of salmon. The following species may occur in Puget Sound during some period of their
life history: Spiny dogfish(Squalus acanthias),Big Skate(Raja Binoculata),California Skate
(Raja inornata),Longnose Skate(Raja rhina),Ratfish(Hydrolagus colliei),Lingcod(Ophiodon
elongatus),Kelp greenling(Hexagrammos decagrammus),China Rockfish(Sebastes nebulosus),
Copper rockfish(Sebastes caurinus), Pacific cod(Gadus macrocephalus),Brown Rockfish
(Sebastes auriculatus), Canary rockfish(Sebastes pinniger),Black rockfish(Sebastes melanops),
Cabezon(Scorpaenichthys marmoratus),Bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis), Darkblotched rockfish
(Sebastes crameri), Sablefish(Anoplopoma fimbria),Greenstriped Rockfish(Sebastes elongatus),
Quillback rockfish(Sebastes maliger),Redbanded rockfish(Sebastes babcocki),Redstripe
rockfish(Sebastes proriger),Rosethorn rockfish(Sebastes helvomaculatus), Rosy rockfish
(Sebastes rosaceus),Rougheye rockfish(Sebastes aleutianus), Sharpchin rockfish(Sebastes
zacentrus), Stripetail rockfish(Sebastes saxicola), Shortspine Thornyhead(Sebastolobus
alascanus),Tiger rockfish(Sebastes nigrocinctus), Yelloweye rockfish(Sebastes ruberrimus),
Yellowtail rockfish(Sebastes jlavidus),Vermillion rockfish(Sebastes miniatus),Arrowtooth
flounder(Atheresthes stomias),Butter sole(Isopsetta isolepis), Curlfin sole(Pleuronichthys
decurrens),Dover sole(Microstomus pacificus),Pacific whiting(Merluccius productus),English
sole(Parophrys vetulus), Flathead sole(Hippoglossoides elassodon), Pacific sanddab
(Citharichthys sordidus),Petrale sole(Eopsetta jordani),Rex sole(Glyptocephalus zachirus),
Rock sole(Lepidopsetta bilineata), Sand sole(Psettichthys melanostictus), Starry flounder
(Platichthys stellatus),Northern anchovy(Engraulis mordax),Pacific sardine(Sardinops sagax),
Pacific Mackerel(Scomber japonicas),Market Squid(Loligo opalescens),Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),Coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch),and Pink salmon
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha).
Union Marina Biological Evaluation 39
B. Essential Fish Habitat
The designated EFH for Pacific salmon species is identified using U.S.Geological Survey
(USGS)hydrologic units as well as habitat association tables and life history descriptions of each
life stage(PFMC 1999). In estuarine and marine areas EFH for salmon extends from the
nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state waters out to the full extent of the
exclusive economic zone(PFMC 1999). 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(PFMC 1998a, 1998b).
C. Proposed Action
The proposed project,which is the replacement of the floats at an existing marina on the Hood
Canal, is discussed in detail in the attached BE.
D. Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of the proposed project on designated EFH are expected to be comparable to the
effects described in the attached BE.
E. Conservation Measures
The conservation measures and BMP's discussed in the attached BE will be implemented to
minimize any adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat.
F. Conclusion
The proposed project is likely to have no significant impact on designated EFH for groundfish,
coastal pelagic fish, or Pacific salmon.
G. References
NOAA,2006. Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;Essential Fish Habitat. Internet report. Website:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/finalenvironmentalassessmentandfiindingofno.htm
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1999. Fisheries Management Plans for
groundfish,coastal pelagic fish, and Pacific salmon. Internet reports. Website:
www.pcouncil.org/
Ex ��6t+
NOTES DESCRIPTION OF SURVE ' UPLAND PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY
SEE PREVIOUS SURVEY OF RECORD BOOK 27, LOTS I 2, J AND 4, BLOCK 1, ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF
NOTE. PAGE 169. AUDITOR'S FILE NO, 1755754, IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR FOR MASON COUNTY, WASHING"ON, VOLUME 2 OF PLATS. PAGE 21.
LOCATION OF LEASE, DOCK AREA, PIER, RAMP, PILINGS AND EDGE OF VEGETATION (AS SHOWN ON BLOCKS 'A'AND "D"AS SHOWN AREA ALL OF BLOCKS 'A"AND 10, MCREAWS SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF UNION CITY, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED
AQUATIC LAND LEASE NO, 20-012691, AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE N0. 1755754, RECORDS PORTION OF AND -DYS SKIP OWN A E PLAT PLAT THEREOF IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR FOR MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, VOLUME 3 OF PLATS
OF MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON) ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT REFLECT OF!ANION CITY VOLUME 3 LF PLA15, PAGE )O PAGE IO
CURRENT CONLXTIONS. ALL THAT PORTION OF VACATED CANAL STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY ABUTTING
BLOCKS 1, ?AMA AND VACATED CANAL SAO BLOCK I, THEREOF ON THE NORTH, AND ABUTTNG ANY PORTION O'BLOCK "A'. SAID McREAVYS
SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL PLATT OF UNION CITY
STREET AND VACATED SEATTLE STREET ARE AS SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF UNION CITY ON THE SOUTNL
VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 21, ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THAT PORTION LK VACATED EAST 250 FEET OF FIRST
THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE SECOND- STREET 1N SAID ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY, LYING NORTHER-Y OF THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-Or-WAY LINE OF
CLASS TIDELANDS IS THE EAST LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 10 AND SOUTHERLY OF THE SOViHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 1, OF SAID ORIGINAL.
SEATTLE STREET. PLAT OF UNION CITY,
,p ALL TIDELANDS OF THE SECOND-CLASS, AS CONVEYED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SENATE IN FRONT OF,
ADJACENT TO OR ABUTTING UPON THAT PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT MEANDER UNE IN FRONT OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH. RANGE 3 WEST, WIN., MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
,C- MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
Y BEGINNING AT THE MEANOER CORNER BETWEEN SECTIONS 31 AND JZ TOWNSHP 22 NORTH, RANGE 3 NEST,
t 9p W.M.: THENCE FOLLOWING SAID MEANDER LINE IN AN EASTERLY )WC770N AND SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION TO
C/ THE INTERSECTION OF SAID MEANDER UN£ WITH THE SOUTH LINT OF BLOCK 1, ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY,
G"9j� �`'^G,,� ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF IN THE OFFICE OR THE AUDITOR OF MASON COUNTY,
C WASHINGTON, EXTENDING EAST.
EXCEPTING ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING *EST OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF ALDER STREET ON THE
ORIGINAL PLAT Of-UNION CITY, EXTENDED NORTHERLY, AND ALS)EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION
THEREOF EXTENDING TO THE LINE OF EXTREME LOW TIDE AND LYING EAST OF THE EASTERLY LNE OF SEATTLE
STREET, (ALSO KNOWV AS SKOOKUW STREET) EXTENDED NORTH, AS SAID STREET IS DESIGNATED ON THE SAIO
ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY.
Eby n
o, 9/ EXCEPTING RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 106.H�4,*. <
�O� '4sy� TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AN:)RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
FOUND IRON PIPE REFERRED TO AS MEANDER C R „ �^ 0! ye
ON PLAT OF *ONDER WC VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, PA
139, AND UNRECORDED SURVEY BY SWIFT DATED MA O /�1965 (�L OCK A
l �
Q---------____
!-0-i'_FRNMf-N7 MEANDER LnvE
CANAL V A L S T. EDGE OF VEGETATION , IN �y4, L id
(VACATED) LEGEND
Y ananuin,a®
BLOC
� J5 IRON BAR */PLASTIC - UTILITY POLE W/2"QNNDUIT&METER
, � I 1 YELLOW CAP SET
BL 0 C
s \ � UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED - EXISTING POWER ME7EF �W
N a " \ O O - IRON PIPE AS SHOWN ON - RV HOOK-UP POST W/PONER t WATER 12
i Q7
BLOCK ` � t / 1 �p� 11{ \� LLl UNRECORDED SURVEY BY -
EXISTING WATER METER
JOHN SWIFT DAZED MAY t965 2~
J �I O UNLESS OTHERWSE NOTED a UNDERGROUND POWER
Q <g \ 1T� a UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE ,�
_� �--, Q SEPTIC CLEAN-OUT
SW EAVE CORNER 'J e SEE ; ' ` U z : x w 8'CYCLONE FENCE U
0.16 S, 0,77 E.. OF Q \ N Q j -OHU OVERHEAD UTX17XS �
CALL. CORNER _` E DET,gII W
,G FIRST VI NIT
( 1 SET BAR&CAP aw,s.
NPK 3o'
8(VACATED) NCI \ ,� OF 5'CYCLUVE FENCE
BOCK 30'
3
31 2 \
Aq!SON PIPE AS SHOfw O \ }q�
ON SURVEY BK, 18 PALE 166
N:747244.03 [E,
fr 99597L52 J` 1���`�
Marine Floats
3/4"IRON PIPE AS SHOWN
1208 East D St-Tacoma-WA 98421-253-383-2740
ON SURVEY SK, 12 PAGE 201 \�
~'scacE SCALE: 1 °=801 APPROV:D BY: DRAWN BY
-,- ,.�: 1��
0 20 40 BO s DATE. 5/25/07 REVISED
N:744590.57 T"=80' ' 111
E:995967.29 „� rj SITE PLAN WITH PROPOSED MARINA LAYOUT
�O A`t
DRAWN FOR THE USE OF
MARINE FLOATS CORP. NORTH FORTY LODGING DRAWING NUMBER
ANY OTHER USE OR
REPRODUCTION IS FROHIB=
NOTES DESCRIP PON OF SURVEY' UPLAND PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY
LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF
N O TE. SEE PREVIOUS SURVEY OF RECORD BOOK 27, IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR FOR MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON. VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PACE 21.
PAGE 159, AUDITOR'S FILE NU 1755754.
ALL OF BLOCKS "A"AND "D', McREAVYS SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF UMON CITY, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED
T LOCATION OF LEASE, DOCK AREA, PIER, RAMP, PILINGS AND EDGE OF VEGETATION(AS SHOWN ON BLOCKS "A'AND "D"AS SHOWN ARE A PLAT THEREOF IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR FOR MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, VOLUME 3 OF PLATS,
ADUATIC LAND LEASE NO. 20-012091, AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.. 1755754. RECORDS PORTION OF MCREAVYS SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT PAGE 10.
OF MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON) ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT REFLECT OF UNION CITY VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PALE iQ
CURRENT CONDITIONS. ALL THAT PORTION OF VACATED CANAL STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY ABUTTING
L BLOCKS 1, 2 AND M AND VACATED CANAL SAID BLOCK 1, THEREOF ON THE NORTH, AND ABUTTING ANY PORTION OF BLOCK "A", SAID WREAVYS
STREET AND VACATED SEATTLE STREET ARE AS SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF UNION CITY ON THE SOUTH.
SHOWN ON THE ORILTNAL PLAT OF UNION CITY s
VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 21.
� ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THAT PORTION OF VACATED EAST 250 FEET OF FIRST
BOIMIDAR�Of THE SECOND- STREET IN SAID ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
THE EAST
s aat� CLASS BON05 THE EAST CO OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 10 AND SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 1, OF SAID ORIGINAL
PLAT OF UNION CITY.
SEATTLE STREET. K
ALL TIDELANDS OF THE SECOND-CLASS, AS CONVEYED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SITUATE IN FRONT OF,
"4ry ADJACENT TO OR ABUTTING UPON THAT PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE IN FRONT OF
'9 GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 3 NEST, WM„ MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 9
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
T BEGINNING AT THE MEANDER CORNER BETWEEN SECTIONS 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH,RANGE 3 WEST
WM.: THENCE FOLLOWING SAID MEANDER LINE IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION AND SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION TO
a T �0tt, O THE INTERSECTION OF SAID MEANDER LINE MOTH THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 1, ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY,
WASHINGTON,ONT EXTENDING THERECORDED
PLAT THEREOF IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR OF MASON COUNTY,
ST
EXCEPTING ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WEST OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF ALDER STREET ON THE
S� ORIGINAL PLAT OF UNION CITY, EXTENDED NORTHERLY, AND ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION
THEREOF EXTENDING TO THE LINE OF EXTREME LOW TOE AND LYING EAST OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SEATTLE
�O4wyy l� ORIGINAL(ALSOT KNOWN
NON S�OOKUM STREET)EXTENDED NORTH, AS SAID STREET IS DESIGNATED ON THE SAID
b., I y gggR
EXCEPTING RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 106.
k \� TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
rCI FOUND IRON PIPE REFERRED TO AS MEANDER
CO'
R
ON PLAT OF WONDERVUE VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, -At
139, AND UNRECORDED SURVEY BY SWIFT DATED MA /�
L OCK A
RAMP w
1965. 6 Y �
4 34
EDUCE OF VEGETATION W \ L+
CANAL ST.
(VACATED)
V) 2 i 1 \\ V)
4 C,4 3 2
2
BLOCK ��
SW EAVE CORNER 2 g SEE , r• \\ '� I- ca, +; I
0kCS, 0.17R., QF Q DETgIL \` � LEGEND
_ BAR
IN
~` \ YELLOW CAP SEASTIC a ELECTRICAL BREAKER BOX 0
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED - UTILITY POLE W/2"CONDUIT METER
Kay FIRST U /TEL BOX
- IRON PIPE AS SHOWN ON - EXISTING POWER METER KJ
I \
O E
5 v H - V,ER WATER
UNRECORDED SURVEY BY - R HOOK
UP POST W/P0.
tl / �SET BAR t CAP aw S JOFIN SWIFT DATED MAY t96
-. --^ SET! (VACATED) N 1 OF B'CYdOfi FENCE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED - EXISTING WATER METER n�
--uC-F-- UNDERGROUND POWER Z�°D
Q \ - SEPTIC CLEAN-OUT UNDEI?l,R011111D TELEPHONE O QQ
BLDICK v \\ �� �, GAS PUMP x x x- B'CYCLONE FENCE 2 2
3 -OHU-- OVERHEAD UTILITIES
7"IRON PIPE AS SHOWV •~.�'�p'�/ •,
ON SURVEY BK, IB PAGE 166-"� ,' '9�` '•`
N:747244.03 .�.�`t+ �••
E:995971.52Nhc)Q414'
Marine Moats
06;' �� \
1208 East D St-Tacoma-WA 98421-253-M3-2740
3/4"IRON PIPE A5 SHOWN \�
ON SURVEY BK. 12 PAGE 201
SCALE: 1��c80t
SCALE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY
1.
DATE: Z 7 REVISED
5 5
0 20 ao so � �0
1„^80,
N-744590.57 SITE PLAN WITH EXISTING MARINA LAYOUT
m E:995967.29
l O P.
DRAWN FORMARINE FL OATTS CORP. NORTH FORTY LODGING E USE OFDRAW tVG NUMBER
ANY OTHER USE OR
REPRODUCTION IS PROHIBUED