HomeMy WebLinkAboutOriginal Townsite Block 4 - Biological Evaluation Northwest Maritime Center Dock ProjectBiological EvaluationNorthwest Maritime Center Dock ProjectArmy Corps of Engineers Reference #For:Northwest Maritime Center914 Washington St.Port Townsen4 WA 98368Prepared bYAmy Leitnan:Marine Surveys & Assessments52l SnagstoadWaYPort Tou,nsen4 WA 98368Phone: (360) 385-4073, Fan: (360)385'1724Septenrber 16,2002tttILLSeaa o! nfrt,n&4L*'*Eatffftr*ocT 1 5 ?tlttlfutding & (oinwrunliY DwoloPmeffiLiL,l
rList of F'igures & AttachmentsFigure Number1. Project location......2. Pfisfing and proposed site plan3. Enlarged existing and proposed site plan.....4. Elevation and plan views of proposed structure.....5. Section views of proposed structure6. Bathymetry7. Marbled murrelet sunmer aerial survey map13. Documented Pacific herring spawning areas ,.........Attachment Number1. Habitat Survey and Habitat Survey Transect Map2. Macroalgae percent coverage and disnibution...............3. MillerlHull Parhrership (Architects) computer model shading study4. Photographs of the site............5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species listfor the vicinity of the project6. Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Woodin Aquatic Environments .................7 . Essential Fish Habitat Assessment.......AddendumBattelle Eelgrass Restoration Planting PlanPage.......19,..'.,,202l,..,22....238. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map........... ....................269. Forage fish "summer" sampling sites........... ..........2710. Forage fish "winter" sarnpling sites............ ............2811. Documented surf smelt spawning beaches..2912. Documented sand lance spawning beaches...24.25^.........30..........3 IPage....32-39..,.......40....41-4s....46-4748-49s0-5354-57Page58-60rNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project. 2
r-.t'Biological EvaluationNorthwest Maritime Center Dock ProjectINTRODUCTIONThe Northwest Maritime Center (NWMC) plans to develop amaritime educatiorq heritage and resourcecenter on the recently purchased Thomas Oil site in Port Townsend, Washington (Figure 1). Part of thisproject involves the demolition of the existing Thomas Oil Dock (built in 1927) andreconstruction of a newdock, ramp and float structure in its place (Figures 2 - 5). The purpose of the NWMC is to furttrer an interest,understanding, and appreciation of marine life, maritime heritage and culture of the Pacific Northwest througheducational programs and workshops, on-the-water-activities, and enhanced shoreline public access. Key tothe educational programs, on-the-water activities and shoreline access is the removal of the existing,dilapidated dock and construction of the new sffucture incorporating the following goals:1) Redesign the new dock to avoid critical habitats and to foster the restoration of eelgrass bed connectivity.2) Reduce in-water and over-water covefage in critical environmental zones.3) Incorporate innovative light technologies in the new dock design.4) Add interpretive facilities and opportunities to promote public education and outreach activities (e.g., highschool monitoring of eelgrass beds).5) Meet the needs of educational user groups for on-the-water programs.The design and engineering of the dock has been firnded through NOAA's Community-based HabitatRestoration Program to create a "demonstration docK' project with scientific and educational merit. Thedesign and engineering pfocess brought together soientists, regulators, educators and users to design a dockthat enhances the marine resources at the site while stillusers ofthe dock. The process included representativesof Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, NOAA9 Battelle MarineCenter, among others.the educational programs andWashington State DepartmentNWMC dockBiological Evaluation, an eelgrass restoration planhas beenat the site (see Addendum). As part of this futureeelgrass restoration plan, several different technologies designed to decrease shading impacts will beincorporated into the proposed NWMC structure. A series of design meetings will take plaoe in September tofinalize details of the fight enhancing technologies that will be integrated into the structure. These willincludg but are not limited to, additional gratlng incorporated into the decking and light reflective panelsinstalled under the structure. The relative effectiveness of these technologies in decreasing shading impacts onthe planned eelgrass restoration area will be monitored by scientists and the general public as part of theeducational outreach program. An Addendum will be sent to the services upon completion of these meetings.I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONA. Project Location:Section 1, Township 30N, Range 01W914 Washington St., PortTownsend, WALatitude: 48o06.95' Longitude: 122o45.11The project location is seen in Figure 1.Port Townsend Marine Sciencel.-r'tr'r,ll -i+t.ia partNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project'3
B. Project Description:The existing Thomas Oil Dock consists of a 10'wide dock extending 233' from shore. Extending at rightangles from this dock at its waterward end is an additional 40' by 31' dock and a smaller 17'by 17' docksupporting a small shed. The structure is supported by 84 creosote-treated wooden pilings. Its total area(including the 12' by 12" caps) is approximately 4,161tr (Figures 2 &3).This existing structrne will be dismantled and removed from the site. The general demolition sequence will beas follows: A barge-mounted crane willlift dock sections and framing timbers from the pilings and depositthem on a disposal barge. The disposal barge will be equipped with baniers to prevent debris from falling intothe bay. The barges will be positioned using a small tug. This work will take place during high tides toprevent grounding or scouring impacts by the barges or tug. The pilings will be exffacted using a vibratorypile extractor (84 pilings at 12" + diameter). Those pilings that break will be out several feet below thesubsfiate line with an underwater hydraulic chain saw. The resulting holes will be filled with material thatmatches the existing subsfrate or material specified bly Washington Deparfrnent of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)in the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). The appropriate material will be placed in sacks, positioned directlyabove the holes and emptied into the holes. The creosote-treated pilings will be cut into the lengths requiredby the WDFW. The crane will move all pilings, old decking and framing timbers directly onto flucks or storethe material temporarily on-shore. This material will be taken to an approved disposal site. The demolitionphase of the proposed project is estimated to take approximately two weeks.The proposed new stucture will consist of a 10'wide dock/walkway extending 270' from shore (Figures 2 -5). Attached at right angles at its southwest waterward end will be a20'by 50' dock area. At approximately180' from shore, a 6'by 85' grated gangwey will connect the dock/walkway to two floats (17'by 50' and 10'by 43'). The two floats (including the removable swim steps) will have a combined area of 1,460 ft2. The totalarea of the new structure will be approximately 6,160 ft'? as compared to an area of 4,161 fli for the existingThomas Oil Dock. One foot wide grating will be installed along both edges of the l0'wide doclc/walkrvaysection (Figures 2 - 5), The two floats and ramp will be removed from the site and stored from mid-Septemberto early May. The proposed structure will extend 290' into Port Townsend Bay.Existing ProposedThomas Oil Dock I\WMC DockPitings Dock Pilings Dock Grated Ramp Seasonal Floats Total84creosote 4161tr 38 steel 4235tr 465tr 1460 ft'? 6160ffThifty-eight steel pilings will support the proposed stucture. The pilings will be brought to the site on trucksand off-loaded to a barge by crane. All pilings will be driven using a vibratory pile driver. An impact hammerwill be used for the final setting. The pile-driving phase is expected to take approximately three to four weeks.All pile driving will take place dwing high tides so that no grounding takes place.The galvanized steel caps (Figure 5) will be set on the pilings using the barge-mounted crane and welded intoplace. The stringers (ACZA treated Glu-Lam timbers) will be set using the bmge-mounted crane and bolted tothe steel caps. This phase will take approximately two weeks.T\e ACZAtreated decking, grating and handrails will be placed on the stringers (bolted and/or screwed)beginning at shore. This phase will take approximately three weeks.The floats will be fabricated off-site. They either will be trucked to the site and off-loaded or towed to the site.The floats will be floated into position and connected to the float pilings. The ramp will also be fabricated off-site, trucked to the site and moved into position using the crane and barge. Flotation for the floats will be fullyenclosed to prevent loss of flotation material into the waters of the state. This phase will take approximatelyone week.As required by the WDFW in the HPA, all treated pilings and lumber used for this project will meet or exceedthe standards established in "Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in AquaticEnvironments" developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, revised July 1996 and amended AprilLNorthwest Maritrme Center Dock Project ' 4
17, 2002 (Attachment 6).The following Best Management Practices (BMP) guidelines as dofined by WDFW will also be followedduring this project:All sawdust, fiimmings, or drillings from the treated wood used in this project will be contained in suchmanner to prevent them from entering the beach, bed, or waters of the state.No petroleum products or other deleterious materials shall enter surface waters.All cut-offs, excess materials and other wastes wilt be rehieved and disposed of at an approved disposalDesign features will be incorporated to prevent or minimize the abrasion of treated wood.No heavy equipment will be used on the beach. Project activities shall not degrade water quality to thedetriment of fish life.If a fish kill occurs or fish are observed in distress, the project activrty shall immediately cease and thedeparfment granting the HPA shall be notified immediately.Additional BMP guidelines may be required in the HPA issued by WDFW.$rt'.ri,:C. Action Area: e#The action area should include the mea within a one-mile radius of the proposed structure. The action areaincludes the area (25' surrounding each piling) in which potential turbidity plumes generated by pileextraction and pile driving may impact the listed fish species. This action area also includes the area in whichnoise may affect nesting and wintering eagles and the listed frsh species.Boat presence at the proposed structuro will consist primarily of small, non-motorized vessels, with theoccasional moorage of larger historic vessels. The action area should include the area in which the listedspecies and/or critical habitat will be impacted by boating activity. However, defining the extent of this area issomewhat arbitrary, because no one can anticipate where the boat owners will use their vessels. For thepurpose ofthis BE, the action area potentially impacted by boat use will be defined as one mile in allwaterward directions from the structure, even though boat use may extend beyond that area.tr. SPECMS AND HABITAT INFORMATIONA. Species fnformation:In the projectare4there are two salmon species, Hood Canal suurmer-run chum(Oncorhynchus l(etd) aurtdPuget Sound chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),listedunder the Endangered Species Act as threatenedspecies according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)(Federal Register, Vol. 64, Nos. 56 and57). NMFS also listed the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) as threatened and both the humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae) andthe Pacific leatherback frxtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as endangered speciesthat may occur in Puget Sound. Bull trout (Salvelinus contluentus) was listed as threatened by the UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in October of 1999. Batd eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) andmarbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmorqtas) have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since1978 and 1992, respectively.For the Hood Canal srrrnmer-run chum, the NMFS designated as critical habitat all marine, estuarine and riverreaches draining into the Hood Canal as well as Olynpic Peninsularivers between and including Hood Canaland Dwrgeness Bay, Washington. Also included are estuarine/mmine areas of Hood Canal, Admfualty Inlet,Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 5
and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the international boundary and as far west as a sffaight line extending northfrom Dungeness Bay (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 32, 2000).For the Puget Sound chinook, the NMFS designated as critical habitat all marine, estumine and river reachesaccessible to chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound marine areas include South Sound, Hood Canal,and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer extent of the Sftait of Georgi4 Haro Strait and theStrait of Juan de Fuca to a straight line extending north from the west end of Freshwater Bay, inclusive(Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 32,2000).According to the USFWS, no special management protection for critical habitat has been designated for thebald eagle at this time. There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site (FederalRegister, Vol. 61, No. 102, 1996). The critical habitat designation for the bull trout was deemed "notdeterminable" due to the meager understanding of the biological needs of the species at this time (FederalRegister, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999). There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales, Steller sealions or leatherback sea turtles.Hood Canal Summer-run Chum:Chum salmon have the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any Pacific salmon (Groot andMargolis t99l), and historically may have been the most abundant of all the salmon species (Neave 1961). Inthe Puget Sound area the spawning glounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland sfreams. Summer,fall, and winter runs are present. Fall-run chum are most prevalent, but surnmer runs are found in the HoodCanal, the Strait of Juan de Fuc4 and in southern Puget Sound (WDFW 1994).ln the Hood Canal, thesunmer-run stocks spawn from early-september to mid-October, while spawning of the fall-run stocks beginsabout the third week in October and may continue into January (WDFW 1994).Juvenile chum in Washington begin migration downstream in late January and continue through May,although there is considerable variability in the onset of migration due to the large number of cues influencingmigration (Simenstad et al. 1982 and Salo 1991). The migration to the estuarine environment usually happensimmediately after emergence (Simenstad 1998), but juveniles have beenreported to remain in freshwatersteams for up to a month (Salo and Noble 1953; Bostick 1955; and Beall1972).Chum and ocean-type chinook spend more time in the estuarine envirorunent than other species of salmon@orcey et a7. 1978 and Healey L9SZ). Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with anaverage residence of 24 days (Simenstad l99S). Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in andaround eelgrass beds (harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods and isopods), but change their diet to driftinsects and plankton such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to50 - 60 mm. (Simenstad et d. 1982). Eelgrass beds are probably the main migration corridors for juveniles,providing both forage opportunities and refug6 from predation (Simenstad et al. 1982).As the spring and early sunmer season progress and plankton blooms and forage opportunities increase, themigration rate slows (Bax 1933). Simenstad and Salo (1932) found that as the food resources started todecrease in mid to late sunmer, juvenile chum tended to move offshore, suggesting a relationship betweenout migration and prey availability.Naturally spawning populations of summer chum exist in Chimacum Creek, which enters Port Townsend Bayapproximately 4.8 miles south of the project site.Puget Sound Chinook:Puget Sound chinoolg also called the king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by theirlarge size. Most chinook in the Puget Sound are "ocean-type" and migrate to the marine environment duringtheir first year (Myers et aL 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from Marchto May at a length of 40 mm., or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June oftheir fust year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey lgSZ). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed onemergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they growNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 6
r'and move into neritic habitats they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, andeuphausiids (Simenstad, et aI. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the mostdependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival. Most Puget Sound chinook migrate to the ocean assubyearlings and tend to migrate along the coast (Healey 1983).Chinook populations are found in the following eastern Jefferson County rivers: Big Quilcene(approximately 40 miles south by water), Little Quilcene (approximately 45 miles south), Duckabush(approximately 40 miles south) and Dosewallips Rivers (approximately 38 miles south) - all of these riversempty into Hood Canal.Bull Trout:Bull nout have ranged geographically from northern California (at present they are extinct in Califomia) tothe Bering Sea coast of Alaska" and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull troutare members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to Novemberin streams and migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring. For the eggsand juveniles to survive, they require exftemely cold water. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C' metfrought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). They live both in fresh and marinewaters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before returning tosmaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull tout) complete all of their life in the streams where they werereared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal-PugetSound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromousforms of bull hout in the contiguous United States (Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, L999)'The Skagit River supports the largest natural population ofbull trout/Dolly Varden in Puget Sound. All fourtypes exist in the watershed (approximately 25 linear miles norlheast of the site). The populations are allnati.ne and are maintained by nafural production (WDFW, 1998). Anadromous, fluvial and resident bull troutare also found throughout the Stillaguamish River basin (approximately 18 linear miles east of the site) andthroughout the Snohomish/Skykomish basins (approximately 2T linear miles east of the site).Bald Eagle:In1973, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagle was listed as threatened in Washington State.Currently, there are about six hundred nesting pairs of bald eagles in Washington. Each winter severalhundred additional eagles take up temporary residence on rivers and sffeams to feed on the spawned outcarcasses of salmon. Eagles are generally riparian, associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes. Nest selectionincludes three key elements: (1) proximity to water, and a clear flight path to the water, (2) they usually preferto find the largest tree in the are4 and (3) an open view of the surrounding area. An otherwise suitable sitemay not be used if there is excessive human activity in the mea. Birds are their primary food source, buteagles are opportunistic and will take a variety of fistr, small mammals, sea urchins, clarns, crabs, and carrionwhen they are available. ln Washington State, most nest-building activity occurs in January and February.Egg-laying occurs in March or early April and eaglets hatch after a 35-day incubation period (Stalmaster19S7). They remain in the nest for 10-12 weeks before attempting their frst flights in mid-July. They mayremain in the area for another month before disporsal (Anderson et al. 1986).There are no active nests within amile of the site (Wooden, pers. comm.). The nearest nesting tenitory is westof the site in Section 10, more than amile away. USFWS (Affachment 5) has indicated that wintering baldeagles may occur in this area.Marbled Murrelet:Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae fanrily. They spend most of thefu time at sea and onlyuse old $owth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has asignificant impact on the survival and conservation of the species $fDW 1993). Adult birds are found withinoiadjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smeltand other small schooling fish and invertebrates (Burkett 1995). There is no critical nesting habitat withinrtFrNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 7
fIIclose range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site (Wooden, pers. comm.). Annual aerialilrveys for marbled murrelets (Marine Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound AmbientMonitoring Program, WDFW) indicate that small numbers of marbled murrelets were seen in the area in pastsunmers (Figure 7). In past winters, more murrelets were seen, especially in the southern end of PortTownsend Bay (3 to 5 miles south of the site) and the norfiern end of Marrowstone Island approximately 2miles across Port Townsend Bay from the site (Figure 8).Forage Fish:Migrating salmon utilize bait fish such as Pacific hening (Clupea harengus pallasi), sandlance (Ammodyteshexapterus) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) as prey resources. These forage fish form a very importantftophic link between plankton r€sources and a wide variety of predatory marine organisms as well asproviding food for marbled murrelets, bald eagles and salmon. According to Penttila (1999), most surf smeltand sand lance spawning in eastern Jefferson County takes place during the winter months (mid-October toMarch), although surf smelt do spawn in the Port Townsend area during the summer months. Figures 9 and 10indicate shoreline sites that were sampled for spawning activrty during summer and winter periods from 1992to 1999. The numbers beside each dot indicate the number of times the sites have been sampled. As seen inthese figures, the project site shoreline has been sampled several times in both summer and winter. Figures 11and 12 indicate the sampling results for surf smelt and sand lance spawning activity. As seen in these figures,no sand lance or surf smelt spawning activity has been noted at the project site even though the site has beensampled in the past.The nearest documented surf smelt spawning beaches are approximately 6,000'north of the site (Penttila 2000- Figure 11). On these figures, a star indicates sites where a single egg was found during surveys. Based oncurrent WDFW criteri4 one egg is not sufficient to allow "documentation" of the site u a bona fide spawningbeach. Surf smelt require sand/gravel subsfiates in the upper intertidal zone on which to deposit their eggs.The nearest documented sand lance spawning beaches are approximatd 5,600' southwest of the site (Figure12). They deposit their adhesive eggs in the upper intertidal zone using pure sand substrates (Lemberg et al.IggT). Their spawning season usually lasts from mid-October to early March.The nearest Pacific herring spawning areas are located along the northern and western shore of lndian Island(approximately 2.3 miles south of the site - Figure 13, Penttila 1999). Herring usually deposit their adhesiveeggs on Zostera marina and/or macroalgae from mid-January to May. These areas are considered criticalmarine habitats by resource agencies (WDFW), and me fteated as such.Steller Sea Li.ons:Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from Califonriato Alaska. Breeding colonies do not exist on theWashington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon (Osborne et al. 1988). There are nodocumented haulouts or rookeries in the project area (Jeffries et al. 2000), although sea lions are seen in thePuget Sound in the winter (Ootober - May) where their visits are ffansitory.Humpback Whales:Due to exc,essive whaling practices in the past, humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound, even thoughin the past they were much more prevalent (Angell and Balcomb 1982). Some have been seen recently nearVictoria" but it is highty unlikely that these whales would be present in the project area (Jeffries, pers.comm.).Leath erb ach S ea Turtle :There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington, even though they are occasionally seen alongthe coast (Bowlby etal. 1994).They are rarely seen in Puget Sound (McAllister, pers. cofirm.). Again, itseems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found in the near the project site.Northwesf Maritime Center Dock Project' 8
rB. Survey Results:The Habitat Suwey is the compiled data recorded by Battelle Marine Services Laboratory divers and MarineSurvey and Assessments (MSA) divers on September 10 - 11 and 18, 2001. The following survey methodswere followed: Because the Battelle divers were primarily concerned with surveying the existing eelgrassmeadows at the site, their survey area was defined by the extent of the meadows. The Battelle diversestablished a baseline tape perpendicular to the existing dock and 30.7m (100.7') from the seaward side of theconcrete foundation at the top of the beach (Attachment l). Eleven transects were established as seen inAttachment l. The transect nunrbers correspond to meter marks along the established baseline tape describedabove. At each transect, the divers began swimming seaward, parallel to the existing dock, setting a transecttape as they progressed. The divers swam approximately 5m beyond the end of the eelgrass along eachtansect to deteffrine the edge of the eelgrass bed. The divers then began the survey from the point 5m beyondthe outer extent of the eelgrass and proceeded back toward the landward baseline, surveying as they swatn.Eelgrass density, bathymetry, subsfiate, macroalgae percent cover, species and debris data was recorded at 5m(16.4') intervals. Beoause the eelgtass meadow ended at different points, each transect started at a differentdistance from the landward baseline tape. The transect lengths ranged from approximately 135' to 175' fromthe landward baseline (or 235'to275'from shore).MSA divers surveyed two areas outside of the eelgrass meadow. The first arga was located between theconcrete wall and the Battelle baseline tape at 30.7m (100.7'). The second area began at the waterward edgeof the existing dock and extended out approximately 105' (approximately 45'beyond the waterward edge ofthe proposed structure). The fransects established by the Battelle divers were used by the MSA divers. Thecombined length of the fransects was approximately 335'.The complete Habitat Suwey is given in Attachment 1. The percent coverage by all macroalgae is seen inAttachment 2. Computer model shading studies developed by Miller/Flull Architects of Seattle are given inAttachment 3. These studies indicate the projected shading patterns in relation to the proposed structureduring the equinox in March and the solstice in June. Habitat Survey datarelating to potential shadingimpacts of the proposed structure are discussed below.Lominoria was the predominate macroalgae found in the area within 15'beyond the existing Thomas OilDock (230' to245'from shore - see MSA data points 0 - 15' along all transects). The percentage cover rangedfrom 10% to 7 5o/o. (Jlva, Costaria and Cryptosiphonia were found in much lower densities ( I % to 20o/o) nthis area. In the area from 15' to 30' beyond the existing dock (245' to 260'), Laminaria was again thepredominate macroalgae, but the percentage cover decreased - the range was from l0o/oto 40%. Note that thelarger dock and float sections of the proposed structure will begin beyond this area atapproximately 270'from shore. In this area under the proposed larger dock and float sections (270' to 290'), the percentage coverfor all macroalgae decreased dramatically (see MSA dataat 30'- 45' and45'- 60'waterward of the existingThomas Oil Dock along all transects). The densities range from 1% to 5%o, with only Laminaria noted at 107oalong Tl5. The seabed in this area ranges from 19.9' to 30.5' in depth at MLLW (Figure 6).Note that Laminaria 7o coverage is low to moderate under fwo sections of the proposed structure - the 10'wide docVwalkway section leading out to the large dock and the 10'wide smaller float section.Shell hash was found under the Thomas Oil Dock and to the northeast and southeast of the dock (see Battellesubsfrate data for transects T10.5, T15, T18, T2l andT24).C, Environmental Baseline:Discussed below are some of the parameters that are identified in the Endangered Species Act Section 7Consultation Handbook as critical for the listed species. As mentioned, the pathways and indicators willundoubtedly be divergent for this biological evaluation since the proposed action area is in the marine, notfreshwater, environment.rrNorlhwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 9
rWater Quality:Piling removal and installation may temporarily resuspend sediment contaminated with polyaromatichydrocarbons (PAHs) present in the creosote-treated pilings. The magnitude of PAH contamination at the siteis unknown. The impact area for turbidity plumes caused by pile extraction and pile driving has been definedby the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) as the area within a 25' radius arormd each piling.Sedimenlturbidity episodes have been identified as critical to the incubating eggs of salmon. Without properaeratiorq the eggs have the potential of suffooating. However, there is no spawning habitat in the project areafor the listed salmon. In addition, consfuction during the allowed work window (discussed below) willreduce the possibility that migrating salmonids and bull frout will be present in the area during theconstruction period.Habitat Elements:In the marine environment, one component that is very imporhnt for ocean going salmon is the forage habitat.Maintenance of available prey species, and in turn, their habitat requirements are critical. Eelgrass beds arewell-documented forage areas for juvenile salmon (Simenstad and Salo 1982). It has been shown that thedominant prey species for outnigrating smaller juvenile chum salmon consist of benthic organisms such asharpacticoid copepods and gammarid arnphipods (Simenstad et al. 1982) usually associated with eelgrassbeds. The proposed struoture has been extended beyond the existing Thomas Oil Dock in order to minimizeshading impaots on the existing eelgrass meadow (see Figures 2 and3 and Attachment 3).Channel Condition and Dynamics / Flow and Hydrologt / Watershed Condition:The shoreline to the west of the site includes the main business disftict of Port Townsend and is a highlydeveloped urban shoreline with bulkheadg several large pier and float sffuctures, a Washington State Ferrytemrinal and a large marina. lnmediately east of the site is a jetty walkway protecting the entrance to thePoint Hudson Marina. Beyond the marina entrance, the shoreline curves to the norttr. For approximately1,700', the shoreline is low bank and unarmored with no structures waterward of the MHIIWL. Beyond thisthe low bank changes to medium and high bank and remains unarmored. A large pier is located at FortWorden State Park approximately 1.25 miles north of the Point Hudson Mmina.According to Keuler (1938), the proposed project site is adjacent to an depositional area resulting from a driftcell originating at a divergence zone at Old Fort Townsend State Park. There is no infonnation concerning therate of net shore-drift at the site. However, at the Port Townsend Marina (Boat Haven - located approximately1.2 miles southwest of the site), Schwartz and Wallace (1936) have calculated a net shore-drift rate of 1,190cubic meters per year. This material is accreting south of the southern side of the breakwater proteoting themarina. The breakwater extends out from shore and intemrpts the northeastern littoral drift toward the projectsite.Of the 26 sites studied by Schwartz and Wallace,3lo/o had drift rates between 100 and 1,000 oubic meters peryear. Forty-two percent had higher rates and ZTo/ohadlower rates. These sites were located in the Strait ofJuan de Fuca and Puget Sound.III. EFFECTS OF THE ACTIONA. Direct Effects:The status ofeaoh ofthe listed species in the actiqn area has been provided. The proposed project has beendescribed and the action area defined. A habitat survey has been provided. When reviewing the dat4 thepotential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat shouldI!IiNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project' l0
T-r-be considered.When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project willimmediately remove or desfroy the listed species andlor their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused bythe consffuction process include increased noise and tubidity due to pile extraction and pile driving.Feist et al. (1992) reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000'from the source. Based on the studies at the Everett Homeporf these researchers concluded that pile drivingdid alter the disfribution and behavior ofjuvenile pink and chum salmon. It is also possible ttrat noise frompile driving will mask the approach of predators. The reported Everett Homeport results may not be entirelyapplicable to the proposed project, because a vibratory pile driver will be used predominantly in the proposedproject - a diesel powered compression hammer was used in the Everett study. As stated in the Feist report,"It would be reasonable to say that juvenile salmonids might respond differently to the sounds of a vibratoryhammer, compared to that of a diesel compression hamner." In the proposed project an impact hammer willbe used only to "set" the pilings.Increased turbidity caused by pile extraction and pile driving could, under certain circumstances, have adverseeffects on salmon and bull trout. The effects depend on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity andthe life stage of the salmon during the increased exposure. The effects can be disoussed in tenns of lethal,sublethal, or behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a and Simensta{ editor, 1988 ). As mentionedabovg turbidity effects are oxpected to be localized (the area of tqbidity effects defined by the ACOE is a25'radius around each pitng). To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migratingsalmonids and bull trou! pile rernoval and pile driving should take place during the approved work windowfrom July 16 to October 3 I of any year when those species are less likely to be in the project area.One concern biologists have for construction projects near eagle territories is the excessive noise concurrentwith wintering and/or nesting activities. Watson and Rodrick (1998) stated that "humao activities such as treecutting, use of heavy machinery pile driving, and blasting have a greater potential for disturbance beyondvisual effects because they create noisg and should be avoided within 800 ft. of nests." Bottorffet al. (1987)found that noise produced by pile driving was considered inconsequential to eagle behavior beyond 1,300 ft.in the San Juan Islands. Because there are no active nests within a mile of the site, pile extraction and piledriving should have no impacts on eagle nesting activities. However, construction should take place duringthe work window me'ntioned above in order to minimize noise impacts on bald eagle winter foraging activitiesin the area.As seen in Figure 7, a small number of murrelets have been noted in the area during the summer. Themurrelet activity seems to be concentrated on the northern section of Marowstone Island approximately twomiles across Port Townsend Bay from the site. Ft. Flager State Park occupies that region on MarrowstoneIsland and the area is much more rural than the wban area swrounding the projeot site. The noise caused bypile removal and pile driving may oause murrelets and their forage resources to avoid the Action Areatemporarily. However, the project is not expected to have long-term impacts on marbled mu:relets or theirforage base.B. Indirect Effects:Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this projec! indirect effects might includealteration of nemshore juvenile saknon migratory pathways, reduction in prey resources and reftgia due toepibenthic shading, leaching of metals into the water and sediment from treated wood and increased boatingactivity.It is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter migration behavior ofjuvenile salmon (though theeffects may vary depending on the design and orientation of the structure, degree of shading, and the presenceof artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resolrces and refugia by shading aquatic plant life (Simenstad etal. L999:Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b). However, the significance of these effects is not clear. AsNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 11
T'ISimenstad et al. state, "We found no studies that described empirical evidence supporting or refuting thatmodification ofjuvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats was reflected in changes in survival."Nightingale and Simenstad (2001b) state, "Presently, although we know that under some conditions smalljuvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline movements when encountering an overwaterstructure, the conditions under which this behavioral modification is significant to the fishes' fitness andsurvival is relatively unknown."In a study by Dames & Moore and Biosonics (1994), it was noted that salmon moved under the ManchesterFuel Pier to eelgrass beds located on either side. It was concluded that the migration pattern was dependent onthe prey resources in tlie eelgrass beds. The shade caused by the pier was evidently not a deterrent tomigration under the pier to roach the prey resouroes. A similar situation exists at the proposed project site - adock/walkway separating two eelgrass beds. It is possible that the salmon migration behavior will be similarto that noted in the Manchester Fuel Dock study.Shading caused by overwater structures can reduce or eliminate eelgrass, macroalgae and other epibenthicorganisms. The proposed structure will have total area of 6,160 ff as compared to an uea of 4,161 fii for theexisting Thomas Oil Dock. There are several design elements of the proposed project that will minimize,though not totally remove, shading impacts on eelgrass and macroalgae. These elements include thefollowing:1) The larger dock section and the two floats will be moved into deeper water and beyond the existingeelgrass beds. As noted in the habitat survey, there are eelgrass beds on either side of the existing structure.The extension of the proposed structure beyond the oxisting Thomas Oil Dock will decrease shading impactson these beds. It is possible that eelgrass will recolonize the area previously impacted by shade from the oldThomas Oil Dock (especially the area northeast of the existing structure). Suoh recolonizationhas beenreported by Gayaldo et aL. Q002). The habitat survey also revealed that there exists very little macroalgae inthe area under the proposed larger dock and floats (with the exception of an area under the smaller float - seeAttachment 2).2) The l0'wide dock/walkway is oriented within 30o ofnortlr/south. Burdick and Short (1999) found thatdock height, dock orientation and dock width are the major faotors affecting shading impacts on marinevegetation. They diitermined that dock height is the most important factor, followed by dock orientation anddock width. As seen in the shading model results for the srunmer solstice (Attachment 3), the proposedstructure will only shade the eelgrass beds for approximately one hour from 9:00 to 10:00 AM and forapproximately one hour from 7:00 to 8:00 PM. In the area under and adjacont to the 10' wide dock/walkway(the mea of possible eelgrass recolonization and future replanting efforts), the shade will not rsmain in oneare4 but will navel across the seabed during the day. The shade pattern generated by the larger dock andfloats will also move across the seabed during the day. At MLLW, The larger dock section will be 15'-4"above the water's surface (Figure 4). At MLLW, the depth under the larger dock section will range from 23.5'to 30.5'. Therefore, the larger dock section will be approximately 38'to 45'above the seabed. This heightabove the seabed will allow more light to penetrate under the structure than if the dock were closer to theseabed. At MLLW the lmger float will be approximately 20'above the seabed. The landward end of thesmaller float will be approximately 7.0' above the seabed.3) The 6'by 85' atuminum raurp will be grated and one-foot wide grating will be installed along both edges ofthe 10' by 270'docVwalkway. Additional technologies designed to provide more light to the seabed will beincorporated into ttre construction of the NWMC structure. A series of meetings will take place duringSeptember to deterrnine the specific design details. This additional infomration will be supplied to theservices as an Addendum.4) The ramp and two floats will be removed from the site from mid-September to early May.5) The proposed NWMC structure will have 46 fewer pilings than the existing Thomas Oil Dock. Fewerpilings will allow more light to penetrate under the dock, especiafly during the morning and afternoon hours.An additional consequence of fewer pilings will be a decrease in the amount of shell hash accumulating at theNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 12
Ibase of the pilings. Shell hash is the product of seastar predation on shellfish that inhabit the piling surfacearea. A decrease in piling surface area will mean less area for shellfish to accumulate. Shell hash subsffate caninhibit eelgrass recolonization and replanting success (Nightengale and Simentstad 2001b).The two floats will not ground out at this site. Consequently, grounding impacts will not occur.At this time, there is no evidence of docks aggregating salmonid predators in the Puget Sound (Ratte & Salo1985; Cardwell et al. 1980; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b). Dock associated structures, such {$breakwaters, may serve as marine mammal haul-out areas but there is no scientific literature that states thatthese mammals are particularly targeting small outnigrating juveniles. It might be assumed that birds wouldinterested in small migrating juveniles, but there is no evidence that docks provide an aggregation site forpredatory birds (Taylor and Willey 1997>. Therefore, it cannot be stated, based on existing researctL that thepredation rates ofjuvenile salmonids will be altered due to the presence of the pier, ramp and float sffucture.The ACZA-freated deck-framing mernbers will be exposed to precipitation and to seawatsr in exfreme stormand tidal events. According to Postin (2001), leaching of metals from immersed ffeated wood will decreasesignificantly within 10 days after immersion. Leaching of metals from treated wood that is exposedperiodically to water will continue until the pool of leachable metals is depleted. However, in either case, theimpacts on the adjacent water column are minimized by dilution and decrease rapidly with age (Poston). Theleached metals are ultimately deposited in the sediment near the treated material. In the field studies reviewedby Poston, the leached metals were concentrated in sediments within 10' or less of the source. However,Poston states, "This review of several field studies did not turn up one study where sediment impacts (asindicated by increases in metal concenfiation in the sediment) were supported by adverse biologicalresponse." Postin also reports, o'No adverse biological impacts from either sediment toxicity or in situcommunity changes were reported in the field studies reviewed." According to Postin, salmon are mostsusceptibli to ffeated wood impacts during egg larvat incubation and freshwater juvenile migration.Concerning later life stage impacts, Postin states, "Once juvenile salmon enter larger rivers or engage in anopen-watei life stagg thi potential to be adversely impacted by treated wobd contaminants is very low."The large dock and float at the end of the proposed structure will provide occasional, temporary moorage forsail training and historic vessels. The smaller l0'wide float will be used for moorage and launching of smallnon-motorized vessels such as kayaks and rowing shells. Because of the depth at the waterward end of thestructure (approximately 30' at MLLW), it seems unlikely that the larger vessels will cause scouring orincreased trlrbidity impacts on the benthic environment. Only non-motorized small vessels will use theshallower area adjacent to the small 10' wide float (approximately 7.0' and deeper at MLLW). ConsequentlSprop scour and increased tffbidity impacts should not occur in that area.C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects :Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwiseoccur without its completion. Therefore, no additionat interrelated or interdependent actions the could affectspecies regulated under ESA will occur because of this project.D. Take Analysis:The ESA (Section 3) defines "take" as "to harass, harrn, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, ffap, capture, collect orattompt to engage in any such conduct." The USFWS further defines 'ohanrl" as "significant habitatmodification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairingbehavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering." In regard to the proposed project it is likely thatno o'take" will occur.Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 13
E. Conservation Measures:1) One-foot wide grating witl be installed down both edges of the 270'longdock/walkway and the ramp willbe 100% grated. Additional technologies designed to decrease shading impacts will be incorporated into theconstruction of the NWMC structure. Details will be provided in an Addendum.2) The two floats and ramp will be removed from the site for approximately 8 months each year.3) Eighty-four ueosote-treated pilings will be replaced with 38 steel pilings.4) The larger dock section and the two floats will be located in deeper water than the existing structure andbeyond the existing eelgrass and in an area with little macroalgae.5) To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids and bull trout, pileremoval and pile driving should take place during the approved work window from July 16 to October 31 ofany year when those species are less likely to be in the project area.Additional measures, as mentioned in the "Project Description" section, will also be taken to minimizeadverse effects ofthe project.F. Determination of Effect:After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the determination of effect is:1. Puget Sound chinook - "May alfecg not likely to adversely affect" Puget Sound chinook and theirdesignated critical habitat.2. Hood Canal summer-run chum - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" Hood Canal swnmer-runchum and their designated critical habitat.3. Bull trout - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" bull rout.4. Bald eagle - "May affec! not likely to adversely aJfect" bald eagles and their habitat.5. Marbled murrelet - 'oMay affect, not likely toaffect" marbled murrelets and their designatedcritical habitat.The proposed NWMC sffuoture will belarger than the existing Thomas Oil Dock itwill replace. However, the new structure couldenvironmental baseline condition in thefollowing ways:1) The proposed structure will have less shading impact on the existing eelgrass at the site and may allowfor eelgrass recolonization in the area currently occupied, and shaded by, the Thomas Oil Dock. Even ifonly partial recolonization does occur, the preferred eelgrass migration corridor for salmonids will beenhanced. This potential recolonization could occur apart from any replanting programs planned for thefuttre.2) The larger dock section and floats will be in deeper water where macroalgae is sparser than closer toshore.3) The two floats and ramp will be out of the water for approximately 8 months of each year.4) Eighty-four creosote treated pilings will be replaced by 38 steol pilings allowing more light to penetrateunder the structues during morning and afternoon hours6. Stetler sea lion - "No effecf' on Steller sea lions.7. Humpbackwhale - "No effect" on humpback whales.8. Leatherback sea turtle - "No effect" on leatherback sea turtles.These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area..1999INorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 14
rReferencesIn addition to literature review, the following people contributed infonnation to this study. Their scientificknowledge aided with the understanding of important ecological systems within the project area. Theindividuals are listed below:Heida Diefenderfer. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA.Steve Jeffries. WDFW, Senior Research Scientist, Marine Mammal Investigation Division, Olynpia WA.Thom Johnson. WDFW Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Fish Management Division, Port Townsend, WA.Perry Gayaldo. NOAA, Restoration Ecologist, Seattle, WAKelly McAllister. WDFW, Regional Habitat Biologis! Olympia WA.Dave Nysewander. WDFW, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Project leader, Marine Birds andMammals, Olympia WA.Daniel Penttila. WDFW, Marine Resources Division, Fish Biologist, La Conner, WA.Anne Shaffer, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist, Port Angeles, WA.Jeftee Stewart. Washington State Deparftnent of Ecology, Shorelines and Environmental Assistance, Lacey,wA.Robin Wooden,. WDFW, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Olympia WA.LiteratureAnderson, B., J. Frost, K. McAllister, D. Pineo, and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald eagles in Washington'IIrash. Wildl. 36(4):13 -20Angel|, T. and K. C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine Birds andMammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books.University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA" 146 pp.B3>L N. J. 1983. The early marine migration ofjuvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) through HoodCanal - its variability and consequences. Ph.D. thesis. UW Seattle, WA. 196 pp.Beall, E. P. L972. The use of predator-prey tests to assess the quatity of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus l<eta)fiy.M.S.thesis. UW.Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments. Revised July 1996.Western Wood Preservers Institute, Vancouver, WA.Bostick, W. E. 1955. Duwanrish River seining studies. In:Paget Sound sffeam studies, pp. 5-6. Wash. Dep.Fish. Olympis, WA.Bottorff, J., J. Schafer, D. Swanson, A. Elston, and D. Anderson. 1987. Noise disturbance study on baldeagles at Orcas and Shaw Island Ferry Terminals San Juan County, Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash.Dept. Trans., Olympi4 WA, 12 pp.Bowlby, D. E., G. A. GreerU and M. L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore ofWashington and Oregon. Northwestem Naturalist 75:33'35.Burdick, D. M. and F. T. Short. 1999. The effects of boat docks on eelgrass beds in coastal waters ofMassachusetts, Environmental Management 23 :231-240.Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 15
Burkett, E. A. 1995. Marbled murrelet food habits and prey ecology../n: Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt, M' G.Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, tech. eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep'PSW-GTR-|S2. Pacifrc Southwest Research Statioq USDA Forest Service. Albany, Calif.Cardwell R.D., S.J. Olsen, M.I. Carr and E.W. Sanborn. 1980. Biotic, water qualrty and hydrologiccharacteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. TechRep. 54, Washington Dept. of Fisheries.Dames & Moore lnc. and Biosonics. 1994. Salmon migration study: Manchester Naval Fuel Pier, ManchesterWashington. March 1993 - June 1993. Rep. To U. S, Navy, Seattle WA'Dorcey, A. H. J., T. G. Northcote, and D. V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser River marshes essential to salmon?Westwater Research Center, Lecture 1, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.Feist, Blake E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) saknonbehavior and distribution. FRI-UW-9603, Fish.Res.Inst., UW, Seattle, WA.Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 I May 24,1996 / Rules and Regulations'Federal Register I Yol, 64,No. 56 / Maroh 24, L999 / Rules and Regulations.Federal Register I Yol. 64, No. 57 / March 25,1999 / Rules and Regulations.Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / Noveurber l, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 32 I February 16,2000 / Rules and Regulations.Gayaldo, P. F., S. Wyllie-Esheverria and K. Ewing. 2002. Transplanting and alteration of submarineenvironment for restoration of Zostera marina (Eelgrass): a case study at Curtis Wharf (Port ofAnacortes). Proceedings of the 2001 Puget Sound Research Conference. T. Droscher, editor. Puget SoundWater Quality Action Team. Olympia WA.Grool C. and L. Mmgolis (eds.). 1991. Life history of Pacffic salmon, UBC Press, Vancouver, BritishColombia.Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 '341. In:Y.5.Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.Healey, M. C. 1983. Coastwide distribution and ocean migration patterns of stream- and ocean- type chinooksalmon, Oncorhynchus ts hawyts cha. Can. Field-Nat. 97 :427'433 .Jefties, Steven J., Patick J. Gearin, Harriet R. Huber, Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Sealand Sea Lion Haulout Sites in ll'ashington Washington Deparhrent of Fish and Wildlife, WildlifeScionce Divisiorq Olympia WA" pp. 150.Johnson, Orlay W., W. Stewart Grant, Robert G. Kope, Kathleen Neely, F. William Walflritz, and Robin S.Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept' ofCommer., NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 pp.Keuler, R. F. 1988. Map showing coastal erosion, sediment supply, and longshore transport in the PortTownsend 30. by 60-minute quadrangle, Puget Sound Regton" Washington. U. S. Geological Survey,Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1198'8, scale 1:100000.Lemberg, Norm A., Mark F. O'Toole, Daniel E. Penttil4 and Kurt Stick. 1997. 1996 Forage Fish Stock StatusReport. WDFW Stock Status Rpt No. 98-1.F_!ItNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 16
IVIyers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T.C.Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W.Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon fromWashington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA TechMemo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.Neave, F. 1961. Pacific salmon: ocean stocks and fishery developments. Pac. Sci. Congr. Proc. 1957(10):pp.59-62.Nightingale, Bmbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted toWashington Depmtment of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Deparlrnent of Ecology, and Washington StateDeparhnent of Transportatioa Olyrpiq WA, 144 pp.Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structues: marine issues. Submitted to WashingtonDeparfinent of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Deparftnent of Ecology, and Washington State Departrnentof Transportatio4 Olympia" WA, pp. 177.Osbonre, R., J. Calambokidis, and E. M. Dorsey. L985. A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound.Island Fublishers, Anacortes, WA" 191 pp.Penttila Daniel E. 1999. Surveys for surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat in Eastem Jefferson County,WA, by WDF/IVDFW,1992-1999. WDFW, Marine Res. Div., La Conner, WA.Penttil4 Daniel E. 2000. Documented spawning areas of the Pacific hening (Clupea), surf smelt Qlypomesus)and the Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes) in E. Jefferson County, WA. Ms. Rpt. WDFW, Marine Res. Div.,La Conner, WA.Poston, Ted. 2001. Treated wood issues associated with overwater structures in marine and freshwaterenvironments. Submitted to Washington Departnnent of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Deparhnent ofEcolory and Washington Department of Transportation.Rattq L. and E. O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecolory ofjuvenile Pacific salmon in Commencement Bay. Reportto Port of Tacom4 FRI-UW-8508, Fish. Res. Inst. UW, Seattle, WA.Rienman, B. E. and J. D. Mclntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of BullTrout. Gen. Tech. Rpt.U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Statiorq Ogden, UT. 38 pp.Salo, E. O. and R. E. Noble. 1953. Chum salmon upsfream migration. Minter Creek Biological Station Prog.Rep. (Sept. - Oct. 1953). Wash. Dept. Fish., Olympia, WA.Salo, E. O. 1,99L. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta).In: C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.).Pacific Sqlmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Colombia.Schwartz, Maurice L. and R. Scott Wallace. 1986. Quantif;cation of net shore-dffi rates in Puget Sound andthe Stait of Juan de Fuca. Washington Departrnent of Ecology, Olympia WA.Simenstad, C.A. and E. O. Salo. 1982. Foraging success as a determinant of estuarine and nearshore carryingcapacity of juvenile chum salmo n (Oncorhynchus keta) in Hood Canal, Washington , pp. 2t'371. "In: B. R.Melteff and R. A. Veve (eds.), Proceedings of the North Pacific Aquaculture Symposium, Alaska SeaGrant Rpl-82-2.Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastalestuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S. Kennedy,(ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NYSimenstad, C. A. (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacifio coast fishes, Workshop proceedings,Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.Simenstad, Charles A., Coordinator. 1998. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan deFuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 17
Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals onjuvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowledge.Report to WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903, Task A2, 116 pp. + appendices'Stalmaster, M. V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New Yorl NY,227 pp.Taylor, W. S. and W. S. Willey. 1997. Port of Seattle fish migration study. Pier 64/65 short-stay mooragefacility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beck Consultants, Inc. Draft reportto the Port of Seattle.Washington Deparhnent of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. l4rashington State Salmonid Stock Inventory.Appendix, Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. Olympia WA.Washington Departrnent of Fish and Wild1ife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead StockInventory, Appendix One, Puget Sound Stocks, HoodCanal and Sftail of Juan de Fuca. Olyrnpia WA.Washington Depmhnent of Wildlife. 1993. Status of the marbled munelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) nWashington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Ol5a4pia" WA.Watson, J. W. and Elizabeth A. Rodrick. 1993. Bald Eagle Qtatiaeetus leucocephalus) in Volume IV: Birds.Washington Deparfrnent of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia WA.t::Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project . l8
Figure 1. Project location6-,LchB"o'34Tro!{Project siteq?COAST G{JATI}RESiSITVATIONPctint Hudsonti;t-.t.-d.{tIt.o'A,rt!tpoI{'f:pbtti.oD ;?"{ o\"1'ry VrrherfaScale. 1 inch equals 2000 feet,t:Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, lnc.Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 19
IIILlt.t-tt[,Lttt,Figure 2. Existing and proposed site plan(AREA CALCU LATIONS--EXISTI NG VSTOTAL4161Ilsricreosote84ste380seaward side ofEelgrass beds to deePwater18ol",IstesteO.H.W. to seaward sideof Eelgrass bedscreosote8016381 1IisflIstecreosote4Land to Ordinary HighWater Mark (o.H.W.)4350i"'pilespilesdockin-waterstructurein-watetstructuno\er-waterstructureEXSTINGihd;as oit6dC(Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 20
If:tFigure 3. Enlarged existing and proposed site plan+\-\'s.11o"-as$sI.**"'- --1lO-,)-wlrlrr.We,%ewt_t-44Northwest Maritime Centor Dock Project'2l
60'NEW FLOAT6rx85' GANGWAYANEW ,IOI WIDE WALKWAY WITH GRATINGcNEW 5Orx2O'DOCK W/ DOCKINGFENOER950FTorf)30r-0ilTYP. BENTsPACINGrtT201!oeFl(DAl!(Ds)oD)oFD(D{tttots'+)rdooV)(Dott)-ioEr-i(Dol')0r025zo{(Do?='(DooooofFu€.oc)t\)N)HANDRAILDECKNEWFENDERSY5lEMT.O. DoCK+EL.-oEXISTINGGRADE,APPROX.SIEEL PILECAPo171STEEL PII.E
Figure 5. Section views of proposed structureVARIEg16r to 24rlFLOATSECTION A-A18rro gTL PIPEPlt-E, TYP.FLOATEXTENSION,TYP.'lolHANDRAIL,TYP,4x TIMBEROECKSECTION B-BGRATINGTIMBER DECKJOlgTr TYP,9TEEL PILE CAP16tr0 STEEL PIPEPILE, TYP.ELEV. .15.01ELEV. .8.5' VMHHWHANORAILIELEV. +15.01gTL PILE CAPELEV. "8,5IVMHHW =2014x TIMBERDECKTIMBERDECK JOISTg16[0 STEEL PIPEPILE, TYP.!6tr0 9TEEL PIPEBATTER PILE,TYP.FENDER9Y9TEMsEcrloN c-cNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 23
l)u.3-1.61.3 1'41.5Thomas Oil DockPort Townsend, Washington2.2 2.83.7i.5 +I.| 2.92.52.6s.2 3.94.62.42.71.53.92.43.s 3.64.2 3.95.63.72.54.93.42.43.6 3.7+ 5.3 4.e + 6.7++3.44.67.93.44.75.77.3 6.910.74.4 4'54.69.9s.7 7'815.75.55.614.8+5.4++8.89.8+19.87.57.512.822.87.512.911.5111.5 11.614.516.6' rrlo+22.5. Bathymetry (feet MLLW)lF:!iil-!:l Proposed dockN+++Data Sources:Battelle Marine Scfences Lab: Shore to 10 m pastthe outer extent ofthe existing dock orthe outerlimit of eelgrass (whichever farther); Sep 10-1 1 , 18I100+1020 MetersStateNAD 1983'LJ0qrttDo\Eg$tItqiJ(Dr-tzotdv('oool,oarFOe.tDot)5
rIIr-tit_,Figune 7. Marbled murrelet surnmer aerial survey mapMarhled Murrelet Observations(Onr and Off TransectlSummer 92-99 Aerial SurveysPSAMB WDFWo 5 10 162025 303540KILOMETERSI Aru"u Sarnpledo 1- 2 birdsD 3-4 birdsA s-o birdss7 - 8 birds9 - 11 blrds12403Q',OO"4700c'qo'47 03o',OOF_F48oot"\\,t-tt' ,ql-nghamMt Vornsnkoject siteirgY(rJrl')'trr,.+lllU+-SheItol'+.1-Olympial_I123qOO',OO'122096'.OO''t23030'00"Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project " 25It-
Figure 8. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey mapMarbled M urrelet Observations(On Transect)Winter 93-99 Aerial SurvoYsPSAMP, WDFWo 5 10 152025 303540KILOMETEHSfl Ar"." Sampledo 1-2 birdsn 3-4 birdsA s-6 birds@ z-8 birds{&s-10 birds*tt -24 birdsProject site124030'OO"47 "OO',qO"47.30',00F.F48ot)t-Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project'26
Figure 9. Forage fish "summer" sampling sitesf'-(f''t,..l'/t)IProject sitea36,,tAq\v.aCumulative disbibution of IBSBSP "summer"(April-September) forage fish spawning beachsampling sites in the northern part of eastemJefferson Co., WA, 1994-1995. Numbersbeside dot-syrnbols indioate of the number ofstations undertaken within the cjuarter-mile ofshoreline occupied by the symbol.9It-Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 27
Figure 10. Forage fish "winter" sampling sitesrrIrtt-,i(l)thoject sitea,,,35AqD\vg.-{Cumdlative distribution of IBSBSP *winter"(October-March) forage fish spawning beachsampling sites in the northern part of easternJefferson Co., WAn I992-L999. Numbersbeside dot-symbols indicate &e number ofstations undertaken within the quarter-mileof shoreline occupied by the symbol.?t-Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project'28
Figure 11. Documented surf smelt spawningbeaches6UARor-L-,. (..t,/\-.=IJIIl-i'aI^!tt2\,'ii'*'.,o.)Project siteIIIII\i... .....P.T TOV/NSEnilDI/_/i| ..iii.F.Toil24 000{c{oIII(.-.I.35lllPr/.c?Pro!lt000Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project'29:t-
r/.):z.zzLIn')i:11t;:i^-:l'.1LFigure 12. Documented sand lance spawning beachesCUARCATIO}aoTud5onProiect siteRT TOWNSENDSCALE 1:24 000J000 i0005000 6000TOOO FEEI7 /26/e5I\II'6SLt+I HITEP;1.:P!ecr Mill10000l,lDFlll Baitfish UnitNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project'30I
r-Figure 13. Documented Pacific herring spawning areasKILISUT HARBOR HERRING STOCKOVERVIEWThe Kilisut Harbor hening stock is a small south/central Puget Sound stock. Most of the spawningactivig appears to take place inside Kilisut Harbor and not in the Port Townsend Bay portion of thedocumented grounds.SPAWNING GROUNDDocumented spawning grouodSPA!\NING TIMINGJanFebAprMayJuneJulyAugSeptOctNovDecMarIfl.lf Prespawner holding area11oe-+*0,oat?3o-+aScolc l:150,000SLotvl. lli 1..PorlIown s e nd{-(oProjeot sitee/,-/^,9t,Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project'31
r-fr-Attachment 1. Habitat Survey Transect MapIITotal distancealong transects - ftTTloli---tl2040608010012014016018020022024026A27A290300320335MSA survey areaBattelle survey areaMSA survey area-\@LUtT15 T2l T27 T33T10-5 T18, T24 T301Transectslt/o,t Itl.i +lllER twr-6'*<-*tshtadq$Ab"'' %*,'loTO T6T3Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 32
J!lDlstEncsAlongTransectLocalion Northwest Marltlme center, Porl TofftsendTransectNumberMSA Survey ResultsMrcroalgao 70 cov6rU=UlvB: L=Laminaria: G=GrecilariopslsE=Enteromorphs P=Porphyra Ac=AgarumA=Alaris Gi=Gigartina o=D6smeretiaN=Noreocystis l=lridaea 0=CoslariaP2o/oSubstrsteG = gravel; HP = hardpan; M -- mud;M/C = mlxed coarse; M/F = mixsd flnesS = s€ndi S/H = shell hash C = cobbleMSA survey area0 to 100'Tlde levelAverageEelgrassShoots/m2Dominant Avsrage % coverDaleMrtSubstrateOther9/tO/01 p.K,A.L. O-30 T0 O 6.4 S,G,S/H wooddsbrls,LwDddbhepprox. 1-5mbeW.'l'G30'9/10/01. p.K., A.L. 30-60 TO O 6.4 S,G,M/C almost Gxduslw lend,sl 60'9/10/o.t p.K, A.L. 60-75 To .t 6.4 E2o/.,Olalom266 s,g,i,l/c mostly grryol, Xercrpe! luc@m9/10/ol p.K., A.L. 7$.90 T0 3 6.,t E2%, DiElom2% S,G,M/C rhostlv gravel,9/10/01 p.K., A.L. 9o-io5 T0 5 5.1 E2%, Distom266 S'G,M/C mosllygravel9/10/01 p.K., A.L. 1OS-12O _, T0 'lO 6.5 E29/o,Oialom2.h S,G,M/C moslly grsvel, tran!?cl €nded st 2nd lapq9/10/Ol P.K..A.L. O-30 79/10,O'! P.K., A.L.s/10/01 P.K., A.L.9/t0/01 P.K., A.L9i10/01 P.K;, A.L30-606G7575.9090.1 05T3T3T3T3T30I37106.56.56.50.56.5s,G,M/Cs,G,M/Cs,G,M/CS,G,[,VCs,G,M/Calmosl cxclusivE sand at 60'moslly grevelmoslly grav6lmo3lly gravelmortly graval, lrans.cl rnded at 2nd lape8:0012:00 4:009/10/01 PA.L. 105-'t209/10i019/10/01sl10to19/10/01st1u019i 10/0:lP.K., A.L.P.K.. A.LP.K.. A.L.P,K., A,L.P.K., A.L.P.K.. A,Ls30 T63G60 T660-75 T675.90 T690-105 T6'105-120 T600135'106.56.56.66.6P1%,E20s,G,M/Cs,G,M/Cs,c,M/cs,G,9wood debrls, LWDWdbh approx. 1.5m between10-14'almost oxclulive sand et 6qmoltly gravelmqsllygravel. ,dialom tllm on Ell rocks9/1 0/01A.L. O-3030-6060-7575-go.i90-105T10.5T10.5T10.5T10.5T10.5P1V.,E20/.o0135l06.66.66.88.6.6.66.6lransrc,t ends12s'S,G,S/H wd debrls, LWD w,ldbh approx.lm under dock between O-25', moslly sands,G,M/CS,G,M/C mostly gravel, barn€cle! on pilo!s,G,M/c mostly gravslS,G,c dlatom lilm on all rocks9i10/01 P.K., A,L.9/10i01 P.K.,A.L.9/10/O'1 P.K.,A.L.9/10/01 P.K, A.L.zooa(Doo6tUoo,lEs.oo(f)911ota19l1WO19/10/019/10/019t10t019/10/019i 10/01P.K., A.L.P.K., A.L.P.K, A.L.P.K., A.LP.K., A.L.P.K., A.L.9/10/01 P.K, A.L.9/10i01 P_K, A.L.9/10/01 P.K.,A.L.9/10/0r P.K.,A.L.9n0l01 P.K., A.L.9/10/01 P.K., A.LA.L. 10s-120 T10.50-3030-6060-7575-9090-105105-120T15T15T't5T't5T15T15000.53470o.234I6.66.66.66.66.66.6b.b6.65.66.66.6b.bT18T18T18T18T18Tt8s,c,vHs,G,M/Cs,G,M/CS,G,M/Cs,G,cs,G,cs,g,s/nS,G;M/Cs,G,M/Cs,G,M/Cs,G,cs.G.clrehsec!LWD Wdbh epprdx.l m bltwcenssnd, Dunegrass, Rubus discolor, Grindelia slseno, uunegGss, Kuous orscoror, urilloenaelmort rxcluslv€ sand el 60moltly gravelmoslly senddiEtom lilm on Ell rock!, moslly eandlransoc,t cnd! @ 12O, dlalom lilm on all rocks, mostly sandmosllyP10/.,E20P1o/r, E2',toP1%,e2%P1Vo,E26h:Pie9r+:zo.\LYVU WODn approx. tm Oeween zu-Jcalmoit rxclusivc aand al 60moslly gravelmoslly sand, lew boulder!dlatom lilm on all rock3, mGlly sandtransoct.nds @ 120', dlalom tilm on all tocks, moslly land0-3030-6060-757$909G t05105-120
))Dlst!nceAlongTransectMrcroalgae % CovarU=Ulva; L=Leminaria; G=GracilariopsisE=Enteromorpha P=Porphyra AG=AgarumA=Alaria Gl=Gigartina D=D€smaretial=lridaea C=CostariaAverageEelgrassShoots/m2Dominant Avsrage % CoverSub3tratsc = greval; HP =hardpan; M= mud;M/C = mixed cctars€; M/F = mix€d finesS = sand; S/H = shell hash C = cobbleTransectNumberTide levelDaleOthernclude& lnYertebratePisaster ochraceus, Bal€nus 3p., Parsstlchopus californicus, Metrldium senilePandalus sp.Trosus nuttullil, Sebastes caurinus, Pugettia producta, Mekidium senile, Sparlingia pertusaPycnopodia heliantholdes, CancB; gracilis'ITresus nuttullilP.ochrac€us, C€lllostoma sp., C.megist€r, C.gracilis, Balanus sp., Melrium sanile'Pisaster ochraceus, calliostoma sp., Cancer magister, Cancer gracilis, Baianus sp.9/18/019t18tO19/18/019/18/Ol9t18tO19/1 8/0'l9/18/0 10-'t 515€030-4545-6060-7575-S01.G., A.L:1.G., A.L.1.G., A,L.1.G., A.L.L.G,, A.L.1.G,, A.L,L750h115%UlVo Q2o/oDiatoms,M,sh,cs,M,shs,M,shS,M,Shs,M,shS,M,Sh,C121r21r21r211210.80.80.80.80.80.80.815222A35414852crytopsiphonial%8:o012:OOA,LP. ochrac€us, Balanus sp.,P. califomicus, Pandslus sP.,sP.,sp.T. nuttullll, Sebastss caurinus, H. de€grammus,P. producta, M.senile, Sparllngia pertusaPycnopodia helianthoides, Cancar gracilisTresus nutlulliiPlsaster ochrac€us, Calliostoma sp., C. magister, C.gracilis, Balanus sp., M€trlum senileP. ochraceus, Calllostoma sp., C.magister, C. gracilis, Balanus sp., juv OPhiodon elongatus9/18/019/18/019/18/019l't8t019/18/019/18/019/18/O'rr24T24T24r24r24't24T241.G., A.L.1.G., A.L,1.G., A.L,1,G., A.L.1.G., A.L.1.G., A,Ll0-1515-30304545€060-7575-9090-105s,M,shS.M,ShS,lvl,ShS,M,Shs,M,sh,cs,M,sh,c0.80.80.80.80.80.815222935414852L20%Ulah Q29/oDlatomD 170 DiatomCrylopsiphonia 1%9/18/01 1.G., A.L,9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/01 1.G., A.L]9/1S/01 1.G., A,Ll9/18/01 1.G., A.Ll9/18/01 1.G., A.Ll9/18/019/18/01 1.G., A.L,9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/Ol L.G., A.L,9/18/01 1,G., A.L.9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/01 1.G., A.L,9/18/ol 1.G., A.L.0-1515-30304545-6060-7575-900_80.80.80.80.80.80.80.90.90.90.90.90.90.915232935424A5215232935424852r27r27T27I27T27r27T30T30T30T30T30T30T30T27L20o/ou2.kL30kAg'l% DlatomDietomS,M,Shs,M,shs,M,shS,M,Shs,M,sh,cs,M,sh,cPisaster ochraceus, Balanuscalifornicus, Pandalus sp,, PanoP€ generos€sp.,T. nuttullii, S€bastes csurinus, H.decagrammus,P. producta, M. senile, SPatlingla PertusaPycnopodia helianthoides, Cancer gmcilisTresus nuttullllPisasier ochraceus, Calllostoma sp., C, magistsr, C.gracilis, Balahus sp., Metrium senile.P. ochraceus, qafliostoma sP., C.magister, C.gracilis, Balanus sp., Juv Ophiodon BlongatusP. ochracous, Balanus sp.,P. callfomicus, Pandalus sp, Panope generosa,D.imbricatalvltsulururrr sErilE rqrlscrvr -P.T. nuttullii, Sabastes caurinus, H. decagrammus,P.producta, M. senile, Sparlingla pertusaPycnopodia h€llantholdes, Canc€r gracilisTresus nuttullilP. ochraceus, cailiostoma sp., c.magist€r, c. gracilis, Balanus sp., M senile,P. ochraceus, Calllostoma sP., C. magister, C.gracills, Balanus sp., iuv OPhlodon €longatiisP. ochraceus, Balanus sp., P. californicus, Pandalus sp., Panope generosa, D imbricatao5z,on(Da$HC'C)ooUoO,ig.ooso-1515-30'30-45456060-7575-9090-105L10%QZ'/oDlatomDiatoms,M,shS,M,ShS.M,Shs,M,shs,M,sh,S,M.Sh,
DlattnceAlongTrangectolQuadratonTransectLocalion Norlhwest Malitlm€ Csnter. Porl Towts€ndBattelle survey arearransect 100'to 135'- 175'Number /DistancecorrectedTlde level Oepth (ftBattelle Survey ResultsMrcroalgar % CoYerU=Ulvsl L=Lsminaria; G=GracilariopsisE=Enteromorpha P=Poryhyra AG=AgarumA=Alada Gl=Glgartina D=O€sm€retlaN=Nereocystis t=lridbea C=CostariaAverageEelgrassShoots/m2Domlnant Average % Cover0.028.38.350.05.814.20.86.711.75.0SubstrrtsG = gravel; HP = hardpan; M = mud;M/C = mlx€d cdars€; M,lF = mlxed linesS. sand; s/H = shell hash C = cobblsDale9t10lo19/'10/019/10/019/J0/019/10/019/10/019/10/019/10t019/10/019/10/019/1 0/0 19/10/019/10/019/10/0 19/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/019t10to19/10/019l10lo'ls/10/019/10/019/10/O'19/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/019/'10/0'19t'1110'l0.25o.250.25o.25o.250.25o.25o.250.25o.250.25o.250.250.25o.250.250.?50.25o.250.250.25o.25ro-asiro44T0-3ST0-34T0-29r0-24TO-.'19T0-14T0-9TO-4T0-0Mtt6.466.426.476.516.566.596.596.626.626.666.6626.517.6't 1.57.55.44.43.43.42.41,30.3MacroaOtherVertebrale &Hexegremmld (kelp greenllng), Lower edgB of €elgrass b€djuvenils Cymatogaster aggregsta (C.8.)Cancar msgistet epiphytic 6lgae (on eelgrass), iuv. CymatogasterUpp€r edgs of selgrass bed, dietoms and Smithora (on edlgrass)dlaloms, horseclamdiatoms, sncer magister, horseclamtiny (<0.25m) Z. marlna patch @14.5m, horseclamhorseclamhoFeclam, Girnnel sp. (Pholidides)ubiquitous brown filamsntous algas, horseclamshinerperch (1), bssslepa et40.1C. gracills, sea cukekelp crebs, smithora, kelp graenllnghorse clam, macroalgae is polysiphonla/pteroslphonia, z.m. ended @27.5mhorse clamssmall fish (gresnlingJike)bernacles on rocks, some empty shellsbrown algae on rockssanddab-8" gunnel, -4" sculpin, 3 small pil€ perch, diatomslarge pycnopodia, bes€ tep€ @40.8, csncer magisternudibrsnch, 2 unidantifisd tub€shorsd clam, small sculpln, 2 polychaeteghors€ clams, 4 uriidentified tubes, cancer magisler1 pilo perch, diatoms, horse clamsdiatoms1 gunn€|, €nc€r productusD,H3321181412111010IIGWGWGWGWGWGWGWGWGWGWGW0l0I2400o00006't322300.0.8000011173500000000111325000n00LUULUUUU03645si00t1000N/AGGMMs/MM/FM/FM/F .M/FM/FM/FM/C, cobbleG, cobbloSB/GWSB/GWSBiGWSB/GWSB/GWSB/GWSB/GWSB/GWSB/GWselcwSB/GWT3-43.5T3-40.1T3-35.'lT3"30.1T3-25.1T3-20.1T3.15.1T3-10.1T3-5.1T3-2.5T3-0T6-53T6-48T6-43T6-40.8T6-36.0. T6-31T6-26T6-2'1T6-16T6-1 1T6-6GGLGs€e commsntsUUU/GU/UGUU23.18'141211109II7-r"292118.14'12111110I716.611.67.55.54.53.42.42.41.40.4-1.6s.426.446.466.486.516.566.566.576.596.66.620000o13172800000000203500o00o0008300000614l8o0nI2300I.197213100.039.757.322.O50.89.02.59.022.O2.59.0M/FM/FM/FM/FM/FM/FM/FM/Fs,cG,CG,CMMM/FM/FM/FM/FM/FM/rM/FM/FG,C0.250.25o.250.25o.250.25o.250.250.250.25o.25GWGWHOHDHDHDHDHDHDHDHDzo{o@?j.oooototl,oo(,6.546.556.546.56.476.446.46.376.346.316.6830.522.5'14.511.55.64.64.63.72.70.3NANAG/U/LG/EL/G. L/GU/L/DU/GLN/GIA/L/OU/A/G0.00.024.212.586.750.89.237.571.735.80042'l21.0000000000008:0012:00 4:00
Localion l\lorthwest Maritlme center, Port TownsendMtcroalgae 7o CoYerU=Ulvs; L=Laminaria; G=GracilariopsisE=Enteromorpha P=Porphyra AciAgarumGl=Gigartlne D=Oesmsretlal=lridaea C=CostatiaAYerageEelgrassDomlnant Avsrage%Covers75;o16.316.338.3'75.022.82.547.014.7SubstrateG = gr6vel; HP = hardpan; M = mud;M/C = mixed cciarse; M/F = mlxed lin€sS = sand; S/H = shell hash C = cobblESubstrateOtherdebris,QuadratTransectNumber /DlsianceonTransect& lnvertebrateDaleSizeCorrectedTide level Depth (tt6.176.,1,16.426.16.376.366.346.336.329/10/019/10/01g/10/ol9/10/0'l9/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/0'l0.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.25GWGWGWGWGWGWbwGWGWT'10.5-15T10.!40T10.5-35T10.5-30T10.5-25T10.5-20T't0.5-t5T10.5-10Tt0-5-521't614121'lt0I9714.59.67.45.64.63.62.72.7o-7n00000000000000000000000000G00000oL,U, GD,LcLD,LD.GLhash hlgh curcnts, juv. Rf, ca (c. sggrcgata), 6doe of dockat41 m, C. productusjuv, c.4,, lubesnout, horscclamtubes;ouls, Metridium, Pagurus sp., Cencer productus, horseclamPycnopodia, tubosnouls, C.s., hoBeclamgrcenling, piJaster, Cancor productus, horseclamCancor grEcilis, hoBoclamjuv. Unld cottid, hoEoclemgunnol, nudibranch-orgnge^flhits ciri (@rrata), horseclamfi|. Alga./dlatomss, s/Hs/Hs/Hs/Hs/Hs/Hs/HS,GS,G,Clilamenlous12:00ss8:0oG/ULbull kelpGILLUUUUGUU2.557.3'15.s9.015.575.015.59.09.02.52.5s/H &barnaclca on a rcck, largedebds (1 log)S/H & tdlF BIG Laminarl8S/H & M/F lubssnoul & shinrr Perch, old metal ladder' baseline '12 7mS/H & M/F 2 sculpin, ancmoneG . C 2 melal pipcs - B'diam' old shollsG bamades on mck!S, 1 big rock 1 3culPln, I gumboot chltonS 'l dead C' magiltorS/G cEnccrp@ductusG/S diaioms on rccksG/s dlEloms on rocks9t10to19/10/019/10/019i1 0i0't9/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/019/10/019/10i01T15.51T15-16T1s-il1T15-36T15-31T15-26T15-21Tl5.t6:r15-'tlTt!627l914l210II86520.1'12.57.55.53.52.5).s1.5't.5-0.56.586.556.556.536.526.5,|6.56.56.478.476.170.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.25:SBs8SBSBSBSBSBSBSBSB0o00000000000000000G0000000000o000o009I1/019/1 1/019/'t 1/019/1'ti019/11/019/1 1/019/1 1/019/1 l/019/1 1/0'l9/1 1/01HDHDHDHDHDHDHDHDHDHDHD0.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.25o.2526l9'151211l010II7512.98.85.74.73.63.52.5'1.50.4-t.86.07.6.1'l6.26.296.316.396.465.,176.526.576.6000000.0000000000000000q0000000000000b:.-U;G,De,PNAGP.UNAG,LDe, Lu,GU,GUU0.00.80.80.00.825.02.s2.518.316.70.EM/F, S/HM/F, S/HM/F, S/HM/F, S/HM/F, S/HM/FM/fGChorseclam, dialomspile perch, tube snouls, horsoclam, dlstoms, basetape=42 0horseclam, green snenomeem6ll sculpln, lE go pycnopodia' hoFeclEmsmall sculpln, horseclamhoF.clam, dialomshoBsclam, dialomshorseclam, diatom3thick diatomsdlalomsT18-,15T18-10T18-35T l 8-30T18-25T18-20T18-'t5TlEIOT1E-5o.250.250.250.250.250.259,2s0.250.250.250.25SBSgSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBzo(Dqs(Dc)oo4Uoa)€.oo(,019/t 1i019i I 1/019/1 1i019/11/019/'il/019/11/01ell1lo1g/il/019/11/019/1 1/019t11t01T21-19.1T21-45.4T21-41.4T21-36.4T21-3,l.4r21-26.1!?1:,?!,arzi-16.1T21-11.4721-6.4721-1.4261916t412t010I8750.00.00.032.350.07.3z.g'22.O7.37.3GN/ALLLL/Gt/u/PUUU19.912.89,87.83.73.62.60.5-1.66.1 r6. t86.256.296.336.996.446.5is.546.560000000000000000000o00'o000000000o00000on0sH/sSH/SsH/sS/SHSH/SsM/CM/C, Cbemad6s on a lew shellsbas! tape; nearby rcckwilh bamecle! 8nd Enemonesi steep slopsC. productu!; rcck wilh -7 Moln'd,'un anemoneslarEe woody dgbris (LWD): 8-in dlametet log w/ Meldium' !LWD, lculpin, Pisesleii bamacles on LWD1 gunnel, severel shiner Perchlots ot ssnd kick€d up by div€r next lo meshort ulve and dialomsi a little porphyralots of diatoms on rocks and gravellols of diatoms on rccks and gravsl
l-ocalion Northwest Maritlme Center, Port TownsendMrcroalgae % CoverU=Ulva; L=LaminEria; G=GracilariopsisE=Enleromorphe P=Porphyra AG=AgarumA=Alaria Gl=Gigartina D=D€smeretiaN=Nsr€ocystis l=lridaea C=CostariaAverageEelgrassShoots/m2Dominant Average % coverSub3tratsG= gravel; HP= hardpan; M = mud;M/C = mlxed cdars6; M/F = mixed fin€sS = send; S/H = shell hash C = cobbleSubstrate9t11n19t11n19t1'1019n 1/01el11t019t11t019t11tO19t1'IO19/t 1/019t11tO1g/1 1/01f21-48izt-csr24-10r24-35T21-30r21-25T24-20T21-15T2+10f21-5T24-0SBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBTransectNumber /DistanceonTransectQuadratS ize0.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.2500070b-000000000000000000000000000d000000000LULUUU,A,LA,UU0000000000000000000000000000007514331CorrectedTide level Depth (ft6.666.686.76.746.716.786.796.66.836.845.86LG-likc bul thickerUGG-likq bul lhicksrLLUNUU/PUtt57.37.322.O7.37.357.37.339.722.O11.70.019.312.3 t9.37.35.31-23.22.21.2.0.8-'t.96.91.93.9.3.9.-2.82.80.6SH/SSH/SsH/sSH/SM/C, CsssM/C, CM/C, CVertebrale & lnverlebrateI gob!,'l dunnel, "lubo sters'base tapc; 1 shiner p€rchbarnacl8s on r@ks and old shells, 'l sculpin2 ditferent sculpin species, 1 gunnel, shiner perchbamacle3, !@lpinbarnacles, clams ere smaller with rud {hile siphonssmall ansnomes in bamacle shell (urlicina spp.)red rcck dab, nudibEnch on Lamlnarla (Phldi6na crassicornlg)diatoms, 5 polychacles, onr l6rgo urtlcino sPp.eclgrss3 ltarts imm€dialely to polndido: narow linqer of eelgrass crosses lransecl al 23m'hoReclamconcrete pipo with algal grcwlhlow lidr, exposed, thereforc no siphons/crabgt18to1 HO 0.25 T27-41 10 0.18 9.8 0 o o 0 L,G 2339/18/019t18/O19/tE/019/1 8/019118t019/'t 8/019/18/019/18/01HDHOHOHDHOHDHOHD0.250.25o.250.250.250.250.250.25T27-36.|.27-31r27-26f27-21I27-16f27-11f27-5t27-00.1 50.,l50.150.150.180.250.36,15.00.8?5.020.0't1-760.0I 1.75.0M/F S/HM/F S/HM/FM/FG/CG/C9/18/019/1E/019/18/019/18/019/18i019/18/019i 18/019t1At9'l9/t 8i0 I9/18101T30-50T30-45T30-40T30-35T30-30T30-25T30-20T30-15T30-10T30-5T30-00.'t80.180.150.150.150.150.t50.170.r80.4433.311.710.016.720.015.020.021.711.7,l.0s/H, ss/H, ss/H, sJsss/cs/cG/C22.81,1.89.97.94.93.9to2.8t.80.60.250.25o.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.25o.25GWGWGWGWGWGWGWGWGWGWcLUUUUUUUU000409700000000011100000000002S00000000014350000Cymatogasteraggr€gata (C.8.), hoEoclamOeepcst edE? otZ.m. patch @42m, C.E.Z.m, prosenl lo norlh approx. 1 m, horseclamPymopodla, z.m. cpiphyto load heaYy (smithom)Z.m. epiphytes: Smlthor. and distoms, hoGeclamZ.m. upper llmil22.2m, horseclemsurf zon6, lw tlde€xposed at low tld.patch lo N=lowet.dga of z.m.@45mbas6 tEp€ @41.6, soulpin3triped surfporch, .milhorasmithora, distom!, hors€clamdiatoms on eelgrassdiEtomhoBeclamG,SG,SsSsMlFMlFM/FM/FG/Csic13.315.03.36.70.015.015.0'11.75.00.0GG,GiUN/AU.GUUil19.815.710.76.75.64.63.72.8,l.3-0.2NA000532104000000000517000000041129000000000I32u00000.250.29o.320.340.3E0.37o.270.250.250.410.192016tl765431.50.25NA9/18/019t18tO19/1 8/019/18/019/18/019/'t8/019/18/019/1E/019/18/019/1E/019t18101T3$50T3945T33-40T33-35T33-30T33-25T33-20T33-15T33-'t0T395T33-O0.250.250.290.250.2s0.250.250.250.250.25o25GWGWGWGWGWHDHDHOHDHDHDzo(DaI(DoootsUo,f(DC)(,){exposed to air
IData for this deep-water portion of the MSA strrvey was collectedduring two dives.The first dive took place on 9/l8l0l'The sscond dive took place on 818102Mrcroalgae % CoverU=Ulva; L=Lamlnetlai G=GracilariopsisE=Enteromorpha P=Porphyra AG=AgarumSubslrstoG = gravel; HP =hardpan; M = mud;M/C = mixed cciarse; M/F = mixed finesS = sand; S/H = shell hash C = cobbleGl=Gigartina D=O€smBretlal=lridaea C=CostarlaDominant Avsrago 7o Cover110%C5%c5%Ulo/oL2ol6, DlatomDiatomMSA Survey ResultsOtherVertebraPlsaster ochraceus, Balanus sP 'Metridlum senileT. nuttullll, Sebast€s ceurlnus, H€xsgrammos decagrammus'P prcducta'M6tridium senileDlstanseAlongTlansect0-151S.3030-4545-8060-7575-90Transect, NumberMSA survey area230'to335'Tide level'AYerageEelgrassshoots/m2SubstraleL2:008:OODale9/18/0'l L.G., A,L9/18i01 L_G., A.L9/18/01 1.G., A.L9/18/01 1.G., A.Ls/18/01 1.G., A.L9i18/01 1.G., A.L0.40.40.40,40,40.40.4't62430364247TOTOTOTOTOTOTOs,MS,Ms,Ms,M,shs,M,shs,M,sh,cS,M,Sh,C.:'Pycnopodia hellanthoides, Cancer gracllisTresus nuttullllP. ochrac€us, Calllosloma sp , C. magister, Cancor gracills' Balanussp.,Metrium sdiliLoiPisaster ochraceus, Calliostoma sp., Cancer magister' Cancergracilis,Ealanus sp,A.L9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/01 L.G., A.L,9/18/01 1.G,, A.L.9/16/01 1.G., A.L9/18/01 L.G., A.L90-1'1625313743480-15'15-3030-4545-6060-7575-90T3T3T3T3T3T30.50.50.50.50.50.5c50/oCryptosiphonia 1%DlatomAg2%s,Ms,Ms,M,Shs,M,Shs,M,sh,cP.ochracEus, BalenugPandalus sP.Panopg generoSasp.,spT. nuttullli, Ssbastes csurlnus' H. decagrsmmus,Pugettla Producta'M.senile,AnlhoPleura sIPycnopodla helianthold€s, Cancst grsclllsTrssus nuttulliiPlsaster ochrac€us, Celliostoma sp., Cancer magisier' cancer grecllls'Balanus sp. .-P.ochracaus, Calllostoma sp., C.magist€r, Cancsr gracilis' Balanus sp 'L€pidopselta billnerPandalusPlsaster ochraceus, Balanus sP.'ParastichoPus elilomicus,Metridium senile9/18/019/18/019/18/0'l9/18/019/'18/0'lL.G., A.L1.G,, A.L1.G.. A,L1.G., A,L1.G., A,L,U2o'/oL1O%VSohlso/bL2% DlatomDlstomD 10,6,S,M,ShS,M,Shs,M,Shs.M,shs,M,sh,cA.L0-1515-3030-4545-6060-7575-90T6T6T6T6T6T60.50.50.50.50.50.6172531384449T. nuttullli, Sebastes caurinus, H decagrammus'P'producta' Metridium s€nllePycnopodia helianthoides, Cancsr draclllsTrssus nuttulliiP.ochrac€us,celtlostomasp.,c.megister,csncergracills,Bslenussp.'MetilumsenllEPisasterochraceus'calliostomasP',canc€rmagist€r,cancergracilis,.Balanussp.BalanugPandalusPanopeP.A.L.1.G., A.1.,1.G., A.LL.G,, A.L.1.G., A.L,1.G.. A.L.015,'15-3030-4545-6060-7575-90T10.5T10.5Tlo.5T10.5T10.5L150u5%15%s,M,shs,M,shs,M,shs,M,shS,M,Sh,CochrEceus,sp.,ParastlchopusT. nuttullii, Sgbastes caurinus, H. de€grgmmus,PugettiaPymopodis hellanthoides' Cancer gracillsTresus nuttullilPlsaster ochracaus, CslllostomaP.ochrsceus, Calliostoma sP., C.sp., C. magister, C. gracitis, Balanus sp, Metrium senile'msgister, C. gracilis, Balanus sp., Lepldopsetta bilirleataproducta, M. senile,Pandalus sAnthopleur€9/18/019/'18/019/ t 8/0'19/18/019/18/019/18/012430434.852o.70.7o.70.7C1% DiatomDlstomo.7T,Izo(D@23to364248T15T15T15Tl5T15A.L9/18/01 1.G., A.L9/'18/01 1.G., A.L9/18/01 L.G.. A.L9/18/0'1 L.G., A.Ls/18/0'l 1.G.. A.L9/18/01 L.G., A.L0.s,M,sh,cS,M;Sh.CS,M;Sh,CS.M,Sh,CS,M,Sh,CPlsastsrBalanugPandalusc6lllornlcus,T. nutlullii, Ssbastes caurinus, H.decagrammus,Pugettia producta'Metrldlum senilePycnopodla hellantholdes, Cancer gracilis.Tresus nuttullilP. ochraceus. CalliostomaP. ochraceus, Calliostomasp., C. magisler, C. gracill6, Balanus sp , Metrlum senile'sp., C. magister, C.gracilis, Balanus sp , LePldops€tta bilineata0-'1515-3030-4545-6060-7575-90o.70.70.7o.7o.70.7L40ahU5oloL10%L3%.Dlatomc1% DiatomPBalanusPandalusT. nuttullii, Sebastes caurlnus, H. decegrammus,Pugettie producta'Metridium senile9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/01 1.G., A.L.9/18/O1 1.G., A.LT18T18J18T18T18Tl80.80.80.80.80.80.8222935424a52L250/ou30/,,L26/tAg'lo/oDiatomolaloms,M,sh,cS,M;Sh,Cs,M,sh,cs,M,sh,cs,M,sh,cs.M_sh.cPycnopodla hBliEnthoides, Cancer gracilisTr€sus nuttulliiP.ochraceus.celliostomasp.'c.magister,c.gracills,qalanussP.'Metdumsenile,P. oohraceus, calliostoma sp, c magist€r, c gracilis' Balanus sp ' Lepidopsetla billn€atrplsastgr ochraceus, Balanus sp.,Parastichopus califomicus' Pandalus sp ' Panope qenelUJ@T1o(Dooox0-1515-3030-4545-6060-7575i9090-'t05
Location Northwest Maritlms Cente( Port Totl|li€ndDlst!ncaAlongTransectMrcrorlgao % CovrrU=Ulvsi L=Laminatiei G=GracilariopsisN=NerBocystis l=lridaea C=GostarlaAverage. Eelgrassshoots/m2Domhant Avarago % CoverSubstratoc = gravgl; HP = hardpan; M = mud;M/C = mixed cdarsei M/F = mlxed lin6sS = sand; S/H : shell hash C = @bbl€OtherVettebtate &TransectNumber,'". ,irDaleTlde levelMtr9/10/019/10/0194O0'19110to19/,10/01P.K., ALP,K, A.L,P.K, ALP.K,A.LP.K., A.Lcilo3&6060'7575-909G'105r21T2'lT21'121T21000.22466.66.66.68.56.76.7s,o,sil}ls,G,wc-.s,G,cs,G,ci,VC,G,cM/C,G,Colhqr (lndud6 Vsrlcb.ate E lnvcrtcbEte SPp.)wood drbrls, LWD wdbh applx 1.5m betw. I'G3Omostly grewl, Xcrlrp$ tlmmmoslly gEval,moswgml12:00 4:0oEXlas,G,s/Hs,G,M/Cs,G,cs,G,cM/C,G,Cir/c,G,cwood debrb, LWD wrdbh apprcx. l.5m between 10"14'almost rxclWfus srd at 60mGIly gravclmolw gEvelmostly gEvrl9/10/01 P.K.,A.L.9/10/0,1 P.K, AL9/10D1 P.K.,A.L.910/01 P.K, A.L.9/10/01 P.K, A.L.0.3030-606G757$9090't05105.120T24r24J24T24w4000.42466.76.76.76.76.76.iP't h,E2%s,G,M/Cs,G,cs,G,ctvl/C,G,C,SM/C,c,Cmosllywod debtis, LWDddbh apprq 1.5m betwern 10-14almosl oxd$lw !8nd at 6dmostt grav.lmoslly grav€ldialom tilm on 8ll rcck39/10/01 P.K., A.L.9/10/01 P.K, A.L.9/10/0r P.K, A.L9/1001 P.K, A,L9/10/0,t P.K, A.LG3030606G757$9090-105T27rnT27T271211270oD.22475.76.76.7f.i6.79/10/0't P.K.,9/10/01 P.K., A.L9/10/01 P.K., A.L:9/10/01 P.K., A.L9/10/01 P.K, A.L9/10/01 P.K., A.1,,0-30 T303o€o T3060-75 T3075-90 'li|o90-105 T30105-120 T300t00.3'2+76.76.76.76.76.76.7.zo€oo$rDotaItagooFEe.o()(,)\oP1%,elohP1%,E1%s,c,s/Hs,G,M/Cs,G,cs,G,cM/C,G,C,SM/C,G,Ctransecl ends @ 123'wood debrls, LWD Wdbh approx.lm under dock b€twe€n O-25', mGtly sandalmost sxcluslve send at 60'moEtly graval, barnaclgs on Pilesmostly gravelmostly gftNd
n r - t- lT l- l- r- l-.: r: l-: :-: -: lTl i-t -t -l -T -taIa.laarqaoaatThomas Oil Dock++Port Townsend, Washi ngtonl*iit* Assetsm*nt5*ptemlier 1 0-'iB, 2001. Fatt*ile fl,ilai"in* 5*ienc-*s LabAugu:-rlfi, t002. o htlariire ,5urue",'r & Frrs*ssments-'t- T+++I+a+a+tIaaaItaaaaaIao1..aao*#IaaIao+Iatrlatlat++saFoFFIb,)soos)ocl$)o€(Do(Doo(!E)(F}tD$)go(t)dtroaaaIIoIaaaaaat+++Macroalgae percent cover (2002 Survey]+ None _L +' . Low (1-25olo ) 'r Moderate (26-65%)t High {>650/o)Macroalgae percent cover (2001 Survey)o None. Low {1-25o/o }r Moderate (2S65%).. O High (>65o/o) + +' Eliliiliflil Proposed dockIi*ffiil Existing dock200aataoaItaaxaazoidtaas(DootaIUoo*tstg.oo5oaaIac.a+"+,t+oa+S20 MetensFmjection: State Plane. WEshington Horth, HAII 1883 (US Feer)
IrlrIrrIIt-rIt'Attachment 3. Miller/Hull Partnership (Architects) oomputer model shading studyProposed IYWMC DockSummer Solstice - 6121The irregular green patches on either side of the dock represent the the existing eelgrass bedst-LLLLLNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 4l
- --- -- _-_ --'\Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project " 42
FIIr-TliI{ILtlitt.-Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 43
IPnoposed IdWl\4C DocncFanl Equimox - 9/2]1"l'.lt'r,\ -lt',' \ \#-li'"I h.-ii IlttI1.':Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project " 44
/tnIIr"rIiIrt-IIlILLLIt-Lt)l.t''/t'1i \..ltl:) 1/ {)0Northwest Maritime Center Dock hojoct ' 45
:'r!l,IrrcIIt-t-t"It-Attachment 4. Photographs of the siteLooking west from the proposed NWMC dock siteLooking east at the existing Thomas Oil DockL1LLLtLtNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project'46
'ri -'' :''=':.:tljai'-aa:i'-'.ir::;['ir:1+Port Townsend Bay and the Thornas Oil DockI"l:..,.--:. ,..i'l ti : '_:Thomas Oil DockNortlrwest Maritime Center Dock Project " 47
Attachment 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species listfor the vicinity of the projectFebruary 2512002LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AI\D THREATENED SPECIES, CRITICALHABITAT, CA}IDIDATE SPECfES, AND SPECIES OF'CONCERN THATMAY OCCURWITHIN THE YICIMTY OF TIIE PROPOSEDNORTITWEST MARITIME CENTER PIER, RAMP AND FLOAT PROJECTIN JEFFERSON COIJNTY, WASIIINGTON(T30NRlW S11)FWS REF : l-3-02-SP-0722LISTEDThereisonebaldeagleQlaliaeetus leucocephalzs)nestingtenitory located in the vicinity ofthe projectat T30N RlW S10. Nesting activities occur from January I through August 15.Winterihg bald eagles may occur in the vicinity ofthe project. Wihtering activities occur from Octqber 3 Ittrough March 31. :Bull trout (Salvelinils confluentus) occur in the vicinity of the projectForagingmarbledmurrelets (Bracl4tramphusmarmorafas)mayoccurinthe oceanwatersadjacenttoyour project.Majorconcems thatshouldbe addrbssed inyourbiological assessmentofthe projeCt impacts to listedspecies include:1 . Level of use of the project area by listed species,Effect oftheprojectonlisted species'primary food stocks, prey species, and foragingareas in all areas.influenced by the project, andImpacts from project construction (i.e., habitat loss, increased noise levels, increasedhuman activity) thatmay result in disturbanceto listed species and/ortheir avoidance oftheproject area.PROPOSED)JNoneNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 48
CANDIDATENoneCRITICAL IIABITATNoneSPECTES OF CONCERNThe following speoies ofconcem have been ddcumented in the county where the proj ect is located. Thesespecies or their habitat could be located on or near the projgct site. Species in boldwere specific occurences located on the database within a 1 mile radius of the project site.California wolverine (Gylo gulo luteus)Cascades ft o g (Rana c as c adab)Destruction Island shrew (Sorex trowbridgii destructioni)Long-eared myotiS (Myotis evotis)Long-legged my6tis (Myotis volans) : :Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentitis)Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cotoperi)blympic torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton olynpic.uii)Pacific lamprey (Lampetr a tridentata)Pacific frsher (Martes pennanti pacifica)Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi)Tailed frog (Ascaphus tr4ei)Van Dyke's salamander (Pletho don vandykei)Western toad (Bufo boreas)Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 49
Attachment 6. Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Woodin Aquatic EnvironmentsApril17,2002BMP Amendment #{Amendment to the Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in AquaticEnvironments; USA Version - Revised July 1996 - Western Wood Preservers lnstitute.Effective this date the BMPs for ACZA and ACA are amended and the revised BMP shall supplantthe 1996 edition and be governing. The modifications to the BMP consist of:A. Removal of all references to ACA (Ammoniacal Copper Arsenate) as this treatment is nolonger commercially produced and will be removed from the AWPA Book of Standards in 2003B. The addition of a fourth Post Treatment Procedure option:Aqua-ammolia steaminq Cvcle: Following the normalposf-pressurc peiod vacuum to drawexcess preseruative solution from the wood, the mateial is subjected to a post treatmentammonia steam-conditioning process. The heating coils are covered with a minimum 2o/osolution of ammonia in water, which is heated for about 3 hours. A minimum temperature of190' - 200'F shall be maintained for at least 1.5 hours. The heating process is followed by afinal vacuum of 2 hours, then an hour of drawing frcsh air through the retoft to remove excessammonia vaporc and to coolthe surface of the mateial.Best Management Practices for ACZAUSES AND SPECIFICATIONS: ACZAAcZ{(Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate )is accepted for a full range of salt and fresh water applications inthe American Wood-Preservers' Association (AWPA) Book of Standards. Because of its ability to freatDouglas Fir (as well as other species) ACZA is the most prevalent on the west coast. The specific commoditystandmds that should be used to specifr the preparation and use of various ACZA freated products used in andabove aquatic environments are:C 2 Lumber, Timbers, Bridge Ties and Mine Ties, Pressure TreafrnentC 3 PilesC 14 Wood for Highway ConstuctionC 18 Material in Marine ConstructionBEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESThe BMPs for ACZA are to ensure that fixation occurs prior to the material leaving the tredting facility, Inorder to assure fixation, the following BMPs shall be followed:Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 50
TrTreatment ProceduresTreat using chemicals specified by AWPA Standard P5 for Waterborne Preservatives.Follow good housekeeping practices to minimize sawdust and other surface residues on the wood productsprior to treaffiient.After fieatment by either the Bethel (full cell) process or the Lowry (modified empty cell) process, a finalvacuum of 22" shall be applied for a minimum of two hours. The retort should be heated to between 180' Fand 201" F during the vacuum process. Note: If the Lowry (modified empty cell) process can be used toobtain the specified product retention, it is the prefened process for products to be used in aquaticenvironments.After removal from the retort, the materials shall remain on the drip pad until all drippage has ceased.Post Treating ProceduresPrior to shipment material for aquatic applications shall be processed under one or a combination of thefollowine procedures:Minimum Planf Holding Time - Products (with teating stickers in place for sawn and plywood products)shall be held in a storage area with free air circulation for a minimum of three weeks at ambient temperaturesequal to or exceeding 60" F. If the ambient temperatures are less than 60" F, kiln drying or another source ofattificial shall be used to achieve the 60"F requirement.Post Treatment Kiln Drying - Products shall be kiln dried to a maximum oven dry basis moisture content of30% in the specified ffeated zone employing a kiln cycle of 120' F to 160" F dry bulb temperature. ASTMMethod D442-84, using increment boring, shall be used to determine that the moisture content requirementhas been met.In-Retort Ammonia Removal Plus Plant Holding Time - Plants equipped to follow this procedure willfind it a highly effective method for ensuring fixation. After the final vaouum period, with heat, the retort doorshatl be opened and ambient air drawn through the treated wood charge from the door to tlre rear of the retortto a scrubber at arate of 250 cfrn, minimurn, for a period of three hours. The treated wood product is thenhandled in the same manner as under "minimum plant holding time" described above except the minimumholding time is one week at ambient temperatures of 60o or more rather than three weeks.Aqua-ammonia steaming Cycle: Following the normal post-pressure period vacuum to draw excesspreservative solution from the wood, the material is subjected to apost freament ammonia steam-conditioning process. The heating coils are coveredwith 4minimum 2% solution of ammonia in water, whichis heated for about 3 hours. A minimum temperature of 190o - 200oF shall be maintained for at least 1.5hours. The heating process is followed by a final vacuum of 2 hours, then anhour of drawing fresh airthrough the retort to remove excess ammonia vapors and to cool the surface of the material.Maximum Chemical LoadingTreating shall be conducted in such a manner as to seek to minimize the amount of chernical placed into ttrewood while assuring conformance with the AWPA retention and penetration requirements.Vbual InspectionT\e ACZAtreated product shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the treatment plant to insure that noexcessive residual materials or preservative deposits exist.Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 5l
TECHNICAL NOTESBecause of its ability to treat Douglas Fir (as well as other species), ACZA is most prevalent on the west coastfor use in piling and aquatic applications.*Fixation" is the term applied to the chemical reaction in which the active ingredients within the waterborneheating solution become fixed within the wood cells resulting in leach resistance and durability of theproduct. Failure to have achieved fixation at time of installation increases the potential for the treatingchemicals to leach into the aquatic environment.The key to the treating process for ACZA is the ammoni4 which facilitates carrying the active ingredientsinto the cell structure of the wood during the treatment process. When the ammonia is evaporated out of theproduct the remaining ingredients become frxed and opportunity for leaching is minimized. If too muchammonia remains in the product when it is placed into an aquatic environment then chemicals can be releasedinto the surrounding environment. The BMP procedures are designed to aocelerate the removal of theammonia and minimize the opportunity for chemical leaching.MAXIMUM CHEMICAL LOADING - Earlier efforts to set precise maximum chemical loading levels haveproven technologically unachievable able due to the inherent variability found in wood including cellstructure and amount of sap versus heartwood. Industry remains focused on conducting the necessary researohto reduce required chemical levels in the AWPA standards consistent with maintaining the needed protectionprovided by heating.EI\-VIRONMENTAL RISKSASSOCIATED WITH ACZA TREATED WOODAmmoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA) is an improved presewative that replaces half of the arsenic inACA with zinc. This preservative is suitable for teating difficult woods such as Douglas Fir. The naturallyoccurring msenic, copper and zinc metals used in ACZA are fixed to the wood fibers following evaporation ofan ammonia carrier. However, small amounts ofmetal do leach from preserved wood during the early stagesof immersion. The ACZArisk assessment clearly shows that copper is the metal of concern in aquaticenvironments. While copper is not a human toxicant (the water pipes in our homes are made of copper), it canbe toxic at levels as low as six parts per billion to the embryos of sensitive bivalves and echinodemts. Anexhaustive review of the published literature indicates that the EPA's fresh and marine water quality criteriafor copper are adequate to protect all aquatic life.Unlike the sediment concerns with PAHs found in oreosote, dissolved copper presents the highest risk toaquatic organisms. Literature reviews and the predictions made by the ACZARISK computer model suggestthat if water column levels of copper me maintained below EPA water qualrty copper criteria then sedimentlevels of copper, zinc and arsenic will be well below thresholds associated with sfress or disease.Slightly more copper is lost from ACZA teated wood during the first week to 10 days that is lost from CCAtreated piling. However, metal losses decline more quickly in ACZA treated wood and reach vory low valuesin less than two weeks. The ACZA model predicts that minimum current speeds (measured three hours beforeor after slack tide on an exchange to mean low water) of 1.0 cm/sec are sufficient to insure that copper lossesfrom a single AczLffeated piling do not elevate marine water copper concenfrations by an amount equal tothe EPA marine water quality criteria (2.9 ppb). In constantly running water, such as rivers, a minimumcurrent speed of 0.5 cm/sec is required to meet ERA fresh water quality criteria (assuming background copperlevels are at 1.5 ppb). Very few rivers and sffeams have current speeds this slow. Even backwater estuariestypically have Current Speeds gtreater than three or four centimeters per second. The 1.5 ppb Backgroundcopper level is typical of western rivers Such as the Columbia River.Bulkheads treated with ACZA pose a different problern and the models predict that EPA water qualityrt-itiLiNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 52
rstandards can be exceeded during the first few clays following installation when steady state current speedsme less than 18.5 crn/sec in fresh water and when maximum tidal currents are less than 13 cm/sec in marineenvironments. These are typical current speeds in open rivers and marine environments. However, currentsslower than these can be encountered in quiet riverine baclwaters and protected marine embayments. Werecommend a site-specific risk assessment whenever an ACZA bulkhead is proposed for use in the water.Leaching data indicates that metal losses from ACZA treated wood are time dependent and that losses arevery small after one or two weeks. When large surface area ACZA projects are proposed at poorly ciroulatedsites, the project should be constructed during that time of year when sensitive aquatic species, 1t"fudingmigrating salmon, are not present (usually in winter). ln addition, these are generally seasons of increasedwater circulation due to wind and wave action.SUMMARYIt is the view of the Western Wood Preseryers' Institute and the Canadian Institute of Treated Wood that,based on the best available scientific infonnation, the combination of the AWPA treating standards and BMPsfor Creosotg CCA" ACZA, ACQ, Copper Naphthenate and Pentachlorophenol will produce products thatprovide excellent environmental performance in most open aquatic environments. Projects calling for largevolumes of treated wood immersed in (i.e., below the splash zone) poorly circulating bodies of water shouldbe evaluated oil an individual basis using risk assessment procedures. The Institutes will assist ffeated woodusers in deterrnining when a risk assessment is needed and in providing documentation to assist in thecompletion of a risk assessment, when required.Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 53
Attachment 7. Essential Fish Habitat AssessmentA. BackgroundThe Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the SustainableFisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities thatmay adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the relevant species. According to the MSA,EFH means "those waters and substrate necessary to fistr for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth tomaturit5r." For the Pacific West Coast, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) has designatedEFH for federally-managed groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC 1998b) and Pacific salmonfisheries (PFMC 1999). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in theirlife-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Attachment.The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to detemrine the effects of the proposed project on *te EFH for therelevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize of otherwise offset adverseeffects on EFH.B. Identification of EFHThe designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean highwater line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregonand Californi4 seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic zone (370.4l<rn) (PFMC 1998a1998b). The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for salmon species extends from the nearshore andtidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the firll extent of the exclusive economiczone (370 .4 lfln) offshore of Washington, Oregon and Califomia north of Point Conception to the Canadianborder PFMC, 1999).C. Proposed ActionThe details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the attached BE. Theproject involves the removal of the existing Thomas Oil Dock and the construction of anew pier, ramp andfloats shuctureD. Effects of the Proposed ActionAs described in detail in the Effects Analysis section of the original BE, the project may result in ternporaryincreases in turbidity and noise due to piling removal and piling installation during construction. Moving theproposed structure beyond the existing Thomas Oil Dock will actually decrease shading impaots on theexisting eelgrass beds. No pennane,lrt adverse effects on EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics, Pacific salmon,or their prey resouces will result from this project.E. EFH Conservation MeasuresThe conservation measures and the BMP guidelines mentioned in the BE will be implemented to minimizeany possible adverse effects to EFH.F. ConclusionThe project is not likely to adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics or Pacific salmon.t,Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 54
G. Additional ReferencesPFMC @acific Fishery Manageurent Council). 1999. Amendmenrt 14 to the Pacifio Coast Salmon Plan.Appendix A: Desoription and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat Adverse Impacts andRecommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999).PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific CoastGroundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998).PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Managerrent Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998).Northwest Maritime Center Dock Projoot . 55
l"-FISpecies of fishes and iife-history stages witli designated EFH in the waters of Puget Sound.XxXButter SoleYXXArrorvtooth Flounderx,)xYellorvtail RockfishxYelloweye Rockfishx,)xVermilion RockfishxXTiger RockfishXStripetail RockfishXxSplitnose RockfishxXShortspine Thornyhead,)xSharpchin Rockfish2XRougheye Rockfish?Rosy RockfishxxRosethorn Rockfish i?Redstripe RockfishxRedbanded Rockfish?xxQuillback RockfishxXPacific Ocean PerchGreenstriped RockfishxxDarkblotched Rockfish?XXCopper RockfishXYChina Rockfishx,)?Canary Rockfishx?2XBrorvn RockfishXX?xBocaccioXXBlack rockfishXXSablefishXXPacific Whiting (Hake)XYxxXPacific CodxXxXXKelp GreenlingY,)xxXCabezonxXXYXLingcodYXRatfishXXLongnose SkateXCalifornia SkatexXxXBig SkatexXxXSpiny DogfishEggs/parturitionLarvaeJuvenileSparvning/matingAdultSpeciesNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 56
:rtrtrItIt-It.It"IIt_LLLLLLtxMarket squidxPacific mackerelxPacific sardinexxxxxNorthern anchovyCoastal Pelagic SpeciesxX!qg"t Sound,pink salmonxXCoho salmonx(xsalmonSpeciesPacific SalmonXXxxxStarry FlounderXxxand SoleXxXSoiexXXXRex SoiexxPetrale SolexYXxSanddabXxXthead SolexxXYxSolexXXSoleYCurlfin SoleNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project . 57
IL-tt-Addendum: Battelle Eelgrass Restoration Planting PlanEelgrass Restoration Planting PlanNorthwest Maritime Center (NWMC) Thomas Oil DockCommunity-Based Habitat RestorationBattelle Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL) Project #42546Submitted to the Northwest Maritime Center March 8,2002Eelgrass (Zostera marinal.) restoration at the Northwest Maritime Center Thomas Oil Dock isprofosedio occur during the summer of 2003. According to recent dive surveys, eelgrass beds""*"tfy exist at the proposed site approximately 12 ft (3.66 m) to the northeast and a ft Q.22 m)to the southeast from the existing dock structure (37 ft [11.3 m] and 4 ftll.22ml, respectivelyfrom the proposed dock) (Diefenderfer 2001). Eelgrass will be planted at the site in an areacovering approximately 4300 ft2 (400 m2), essentially connecting the two existing beds. Thepropor"-d ptr"ri"g includes a portion of the area in the footprint of the dock slated for removal.fnii effort will take three to five divers three to five days to complete.Figure 1 shows the existing eelgrass beds on both sides of the dock and the area proposed forptinting. The area outlined in purple shows the area between the beds at the appropriate depthand slope for planting, while the area outlined in red is the proposed area for planting in aconfiguration conducive to both planting and monitoring (i.e., square and measurable distancesfrom the dock).NW Maritime Center Thomas Oil DockEelgrass Restoration AreasProposed planting areaPotential area for restorationProposed dockExisting EelgrassExisting Dock808 MetersN'#.IIFigure l. Proposed eelgrass restoration arcaatthe Thomas Oil Dock, Port Townsend, WA.Within the proposed 4300 ft2 1+OO m2) plantin g arca some areas will not be planted due to thehigh proportiotr of rh.ll hash present in the substrate. According to dive surveys in the fall ofZO1t^,the highest concentrations of shell hash were located beneath the existing dock structure,IL\-Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 58
rrrhowever, observations of shell were noted throughout most of the planting area (Diefenderfer2001). In addition, planting will occur only in areas without existing eelgrass. Visibleorganisms (e.g., clams and macroalgae) will also be avoided during the planting process. Whilethe exact areas for planting will be determined by divers during a pre-planting site assessment, apreliminary schematic of the planting plan is presented in Figure 2. Given the 2-year spanbetween initial surveys on which maps were based, and the expected date of planting, eelgrassbeds are expected to have shifted somewhat.NW Maritime Center Thomas Oil DocksEelgrass Restoration AreaI Proposed planting areal--l Primary planting areal-- I Coarse substrate areasProposed dockExisting EelgrassExisting Dock08 Meters#EFigure 2. Preliminary schematic of eelgrass planting areas.The primary planting area to the east of the dock(474 ftz143 m21; and the primary planting areato the west of the AoiU 1Z++Z # lZZl m'1; have few-er instances of coarse substrate and shellhash and will be planted at a density of 16 shootslmz (4 shoots per planting unit [PU] and 4eU/m2) where feasible. Fonseca and others (1998) recommended plantingZ. marina on 0.5 mcenters, which is equivalent to 4 Puhrf. In the Pacific Northwest, Thom and others (2002)havereported successful eelgrass restoration using planting densities ranging from 12 to 24 shoots/m''Planting the two areas on either side of the dock at this density will require approximately 4250shoots. The remainingarea(1410 ft2 1t:l m']), located under aportion of the proposed dock,witl be planted as feasible, avoiding pilings and areas of coarse substrate andlor deep shell hash.The goal is to plant approximately one third of this area at the same density discussed above,resulting in a shoot requirement of 750 shoots.Donor material for the planting will come from eelgrass cultured at the Battelle Marine SciencesLaboratory (MSL). This culture is funded in part through the Washington State Department ofTransportation, which has agreed to donate 5000 shoots to this project. The general plantingprocedure will involve removing eelgrass ftom the MSL stockpile tank with intact rhizomes,assembling planting units, and placing the units in transplant plots as outlined by Thom andothers (2001).r-flFLf'-tItt-t":iNorthwest Maritime Center Dock Project' 59
itrOnce eelgrass donor material is collected, it will be held in cool seawater and only removed forshort periods to construct the planting units and to place the units on slates for the divers. Eachunit will consist of four eelgrass shoots attached at their rhizome to a6 in (15 cm) wire turfstaple using a paper-wrapped wire twist tie. Thirty units will be attached to each 12-in x 15-in(30-cm x 38-cm) Plexiglas slate using rubber surgical tubing and transported by the divers to thetransplant plots. The slates will be placed in a cooler and floated over the subtidal plantinglocation. Meter-square quadrats and tapes will be temporarily placed within the study area todetermine density spacing. Divers will plant each unit by carefully inserting a trowel to a depthof 4-6 in, angling the trowel to create an opening in the sediment, and inserting the stapleperpendicular to the sediment surface (rhizome parallel to sediment surface). The sediment willthen be pushed back to its original grade over the rhizomes and tamped down lightly by hand tosecure the units.ReferencesDiefenderfer, H.L. 2001. Thomas Oil Dock Community-Based Habitat Restoration ProjectField Survey Letter Report and Maps: Eelgrass Density, Macroalgae Cover, Bathymetry, andSubstrate. Submitted by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA, to NorthwestMaritime Center, Port Townsend, WA. November 14,2001.Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation andRestoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. U.S. Department ofCommerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminishation.Thom, R.M., G.D. Williams, A.B. Borde, J.A. Southard, S.L. Blanton, and J. Cordell. 2002.Habitat Mitigation Monitoring at the Clinton Ferry Terminal, Whidbey Island. Annual ReportNumber 5. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. Battelle, PacificNorthwest Division, Richland, Washington.Northwest Maritime Center Dock Project ' 60