The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRE19-00039 Biological Assessment'- r_v- -1-8 f I 1 1 > June 30, 2019 ��V Prepared for: �_ r Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Prepared by: Consulting Engineers 612 Woodland Square Loop SE, Suite 100 Lacey, WA 98503 (360) 292-7230 (360) 292- 7231 FAX r � ++�Arcsf` Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................3 2.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Project Location.............................................................................................................................4 2.2 Project Purpose.............................................................................................................................4 2.3 Site Information.............................................................................................................................4 3.0 Project Description......................................................................................................................5 3.1 Construction Project Details...................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Best Management Practices.......................................................................................................6 4.0 Work Window for Construction................................................................................................ 6 5.0 Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................................6 5.1 Physical Indicators....................................................................................................................... 6 5.1.1 Terrestrial Setting.................................................................................................................6 5.1.2 Nears hore/Aq uatic Setting.................................................................................................7 6.1.3 Wave Analysis......................................................................................................................... 7 5.1.4 Eelgrass....................................................................................................................................7 6.2 Water Quality and Chemical Indicators................................................................................... 8 6.3 Biological Indicators.................................................................................................................8 5.3.1 Habitat Access......................................................................................................................... 8 5.3.2 Forage Fish..............................................................................................................................8 6.3.3 Shorelines and Vegetation.................................................................................................. 8 6.0 Area of Potential Effect and Project Action Area ..... _ ......................................................... 8 6.1 In-Water............................................................................................................................................ 8 6.2 Terrestrial... ............................................................................................................ 9 6.3 Action Area..................................................................................................................................... 9 7.0 Affected Species and Critical Habitat.....................................................................................9 7.1 Birds..........................................................................................................,.....................................10 Northern Spotted Owl —Threatened .............................................................................................. 10 MarbledMurrelet—Threatened......................................................................................................11 Short -Tailed Albatross—Endangered...........................................................................................12 7.2 Salmonids and Char...................................................................................................................12 Puget Sound Chinook salmon—Threatened...............................................................................12 1IPage Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF Hood Canal Summer -Run Chum Salmon—Threatened............................................................13 Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout—Threatened............................................................................13 Puget Sound Steelhead—Threatened.......................................................................................,..14 7.3 Marine Mammals ........................................ .................................................................................. 15 Southern Resident Killer Whale—Endangered...........................................................................15 8.0 Analysis of Effects.....................................................................................................................16 8.1 Potential Direct Effects.....................................................,......,.................................................16 8.2 Potential Indirect Effects............................................,.....,.,..,.,....,........,...................................17 8.3 Effects from Ongoing Project Activities (Continued operation and maintenance) ...18 9.0 Conservation Measures............................................................................................................18 9.1 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................18 TimingLimitation..............................................................................................................................18 Shoreline and Habitat Enhancement .................................................. ,......................................... 18 10.0 Determination of Impacts for Listed Species.....................................................................18 10.1 Effect and Take Analysis of Listed Species.......................................................................18 NorthernSpotted Owl......................................................................................................................19 MarbledMurrelet..............................................................................................................................19 Short -tailed Albatross,.. ..............................................................................................................19 Puget Sound Chinook salmon .............................................. .............................. .....................20 Hood Canal Summer -Run chum and Coho Salmon...................................................................20 Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout.......................................................................... ............... 21 Southern Resident Killer Whale...................................................................................................- 22 10.2 For each species, Physical or Biological Features (PBFs) as needed ....................... 22 11.0 Essential Fish Habitat...............................................................................................................22 11.1 Background................................................................................................................................ 22 11.2 Identification of EFH.................................................................................................................23 11.3 Effects of Proposed Action....................................................................................................23 11.4 Cumulative EFH Effects...........................................................................................................23 12.0 References...................................................................................................................................24 13.0 Analyst........................................................................................................................................... 25 2 1 P a g e Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this biological assessment is to provide technical information and to review the proposed project in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed project may affect threatened, endangered, or proposed species. KPFF has prepared this biological assessment in accordance with 50 CFR 402, legal requirements found in Section 7 (a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act. The document presents technical information upon which later decisions regarding project effects are developed. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife proposes to construct public facility water access improvements and vegetation restoration at Pt. Whitney, Jefferson County approximately two (2) miles west from US Highway 101. The purpose of the project is to renovate the existing boat ramp by installing new concrete planks on top of the existing boat ramp. Articulated concrete mats will be installed around the perimeter of this new ramp for erosion protection. Approximately 1000 sq. ft. of shoreline beach will be restored at the northwest edge of the parking lot. In addition, two (2) piles will be removed from the lagoon. The Action Area, totaling about 83 acres (ac), lies in the western side of DaBob Bay at the entrance of Quilcene Bay in Puget Sound. Natural land in the Action Area is primarily beach, nearshore and the nearshore riparian area. Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) that could occur in the Action Area include Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis), Marbled Murrelet (Brachyrampus marmoratus), Short -tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Hood Canal Summer -Run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), Coastal —Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynuchus mykiss), and Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca); all species are listed as threatened under FESA. The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect these species. Puget Sound Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is present waterward of the Action Area. Because of its importance as an ecosystem component, eelgrass is designated a habitat of special concern by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and critical habitat by the Washington Department of Ecology. Proposed work involving the boat ramp will not affect, or have a negligible effect on the surrounding eelgrass habitat. The proposed project includes numerous avoidance and minimization measures for special status species and habitats to reduce the potential for adverse effects. However, temporary impacts to the natural communities that cannot be avoided are discussed below. Construction related disturbance could result in temporary increases in turbidity during the first tides due to loosened sediment but natural conditions should be quickly restored. Heavy equipment used in construction activities will refrain from being positioned on the beach and will be conducted with equipment positioned above the Ordinary High Water Mark. If within the OHWM, equipment will be positioned on the existing concrete ramp. Additionally, construction will result in temporary increased human activity - pedestrian and mechanical - that could result in disturbance near boat ramp and the adjacent shoreline. These construction impacts are expected offset through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. The project's permanent impact will be the extended width of the existing boat ramp with the new 12 ft. x 4 ft. x 6 in. precast concrete planks and the 4 ft. wide articulated concrete matting on both sides of the ramp. The existing boat ramp occupies approximately 1,320 sq. ft. The renovations will extend the existing boat ramp footprint by 1,320 sq. ft. (including the new precast concrete planks and the articulated concrete mats), which makes the new boat ramp footprint approximately 2,640 sq. ft. The area covered by the articulated concrete matting will have a temporary negative effect on established benthic habitat. However, due to the patterns 3 1 P a g e Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF of drift cell and sediment routing into the nearby embayment, the matting will highly likely be covered by new sediment within the first large storms of the upcoming winter. The energy -dissipating function of the articulated concrete mat will help stabilize the adjacent substrate, reduce scour and allow smaller gradations of sediment to accrete allowing macroinvertebrate communities to establish more readily. The ramp renovations will refrain boat trailer and vehicle traffic from impacting the finer, softer substrates in the nearshore. 2.0 Introduction Pt. Whitney is a public fishing and shell fishing spot that includes a boat launch, parking area, and general public recreation to DaBob Bay. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife desires to add elevation and width to an existing boat launch at Pt. Whitney. The Boat launch access shares the same access road and parking as the Pt. Whitney shellfish lab. The boat launch, parking area, and beach area is a popular public recreation area and Puget Sound access point. Many users utilize the ramp for crabbing, shrimping, and salmon fishing and users harvest shellfish along the beach. 2.1 Project Location Figure 1: Pt. Whitney Boat Ramp The project is the Pt. Whitney boat ramp, which is located at 1000 Point Whitney Road in Brinnon, WA, Jefferson County. From Quilcene, head southwest on US-101 toward bee mill road and turn left onto Bee Mill Road. Continue on Bee Mill Road to Point Whitney Road and follow Point Whitney road to site (See Appendix A, Map 1). 2.2 Project Purpose The primary purpose of this project is to renovate the Pt. Whitney boat ramp to address surface water runoff, beach erosion, damage to boat ramp and increase safe user access. Other on -site improvements include improving ADA facilities and habitat improvements. 2.3 Site Information Figure 2: Pt. Whitney Shoreline The boat ramp is on the western shoreline of Dabob Bay in Puget Sound. The existing boat ramp is located on a short section of northward -facing gravel beach along a coastline that is dominantly east -west oriented. The shoreline exhibits a left to right drift cell direction and within about 600 ft. west of the boat ramp meets a divergence zone combining a right to left drift cell and alluvial fan formed by a low energy lagoon outlet and small tributaries. The boat ramp is located on a barrier spit that is continually recharged by the gravel and sand supply that moves northerly along Pt. Whitney Tide Lands Beach to the east. Incoming tidal 4 1 P a g e Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF action and substantial wave height experienced by North Puget Sound beaches (Finlayson, 2006) keep importing an abundance of gravel that feeds the barrier spit (Please see Appendix A, Maps 2-3). 3.0 Project Description Due to sediment accrual, the Pt. Whitney boat ramp is currently requiring a high amount of maintenance and causing increased beach disturbance. The proposed project includes work on the ramp and the associated mitigation. Concrete planks will be overlaid on the existing ramp to form a new, wider ramp. Rods will be placed to level and raise the new ramp and voids will be filled with crushed rock. The new planks are 12 ft. x 4 ft. x 6 in. Existing planks are 10 ft. x 14 in. Four (4) ft. wide articulated concrete mats will be placed on both sides of the ramp and at the foot to provide erosion control to reduce the risk of undermining the ramp. All concrete is pre -cast and keyed into the substrate. The ramp will not be above the grade of the beach at highest use times and will be approximately 6-10 inches above the grade of the current ramp. This current depth of sediment on the ramps is being monitored regularly by staff to determine the best fit grade of the new ramp. Figure 3: Signs of erosion around the existing boat ramp The mitigation work includes the restoration of the western edge of the "point' at the west side of the project. Parking area and fill will be removed to match the existing grade of vegetation on the site (See Plan Set Sheet 9). The area is expected to revegetate naturally with grasses and low vegetation. The picnic table will be moved and a make -shift fire ring will be removed from the site. Fencing panels (2 at 8 ft. each) will be TM _ . removed and grading will not interfere with the rip rap on the south side of the "point." Figure 4: Proposed restoration area at end of spit In summary, the work includes: • Parking lot improvement • Installation of new precast concrete planks on top of existing boat ramp and placement of articulated concrete mats on both sides ■ Mitigation in the form of vegetation enhancement in a 900 sq. ft. area to the north of the boat ramp • Mitigation by removing 2 creosote piles from inside the lagoon 5 1 P a g e Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF 3.1 Construction Project Details Project components that may affect ESA -listed aquatic species include waterborne noise generated pile removal in case of a vibratory head use and potential water and sediment quality effects caused by plank and articulated concrete matting installation. The current ramp will stay in place. New 12 ft. x 4 ft. x 6 in. concrete planks will be installed on top of the existing ramp. The articulated concrete matting will be placed around the ramp — matting is 4 ft. wide and 20% open space. All concrete is precast (Please See Appendix D for full project plan set). Additional construction details of these activities are presented below. 3.2 Best Management Practices To avoid or minimize negative effects the following Best Management Practices will be applied: • Heavy equipment used for vegetation restoration will be land -based. All heavy equipment used for boat ramp improvements will be situated on the existing boat ramp. This minimizes disturbance, compaction and degradation of beach habitat and minimizes risk of oil leaks on beach. • Barge mounted pile removal with placement on barge for transport to boat ramp for removal is intended. This eliminates the potential for scour by placing a piling directly on the beach. • Upland coir logs, or other sediment control devices that trap and/or filter overland runoff placed for stormwater overland flow diversion and management during construction period. This will eliminate the potential for overland runoff of sediment or contaminant -laden waters into the beach area during construction period. • Other marine area BMPs to be determined by HPA. 4.0 Work Window for Construction The approved work window for the marine areas of Puget Sound is July 16 to September 30. This project is contained within Tidal Reference Area 3 (South Puget Sound) with considerations for salmon, bull trout, surf smelt and sand lance. For this proposed project, WDFW would complete all work subject to tidal influence within the specified work windows. However, work could be completed after September 30 and before February 15 following a negative forage fish survey. 5.0 Existing Conditions 5.1 Physical Indicators 5.1.1 Terrestrial Setting Adjacent uplands include forested areas amidst single-family residences. The beach upland ecotone is nearly continuous -forested or well -vegetated. Within 2 miles of the project area there a few small steep -gradient tributaries creating alluvial fans. The immediate uplands contain a parking lot partially paved and partially graveled. The paved area drains out 6 1 P a g e Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF through the boat launch access. There is minor erosion once the surface run-off engages the beach, but does not appear to affect beach habitat (Please see Appendix B for site photos). 5.1.2 Nears hore/Aq uatic Setting The shoreline to the south of Pt. Whitney is dominated by a gravel beach that terminates at approximately the high tide line in a steep bluff extending to approximately 50 ft. to 80 ft. above sea level. The average beach slope is 12.5%. Slope increases at the upper portions of the beach. Substrate size increases down slope. The shoreline exhibits a left to right drift cell direction and within about 600 ft. west of the boat ramp meets a divergence zone combining a right to left drift cell and alluvial fan formed by a low energy lagoon outlet and small tributaries. The material here is relatively coarse, ranging in size Figure 5: Pt. Whitney shoreline, south of boat ramp, from gravel to boulders. The northward facing actively transporting drift beach interacts with an outlet of a tidal lagoon to the west (Inc., 2018). The material in the lower portion of the bluffs is relatively resistant interbedded sands and gravels that tilt towards the north. The shoreline directly adjacent to the boat ramp is documented to be much finer than the rest of the shoreline (Please see Appendix B for site photos). 5.1.3 Wave Analysis Results from a wave analysis study conducted by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (Inc., 2018) indicate that when offshore winds are from the NNW and N directions, waves reach the shore approximately head on and result in cross -shore transport. When the offshore winds are from the NE and southerly directions (SSW, S, and SSE), waves refract and diffract around Pt. Whitney and travel along the shore from east to west. When waves approach the shore at an angle, a longshore current will be generated. On this shoreline, east to west sediment transport during the southerly storm event is the dominant factor in the ongoing sand deposition onto the boat ramp. 5.1.4 Eelgrass Eelgrass and other seagrasses play a key role in the nearshore ecosystem environments by providing habitat for a wide range of organisms across multiple life stages. Eelgrass beds also help prevent erosion and increase shoreline stability by anchoring seafloor sediment (Resources, 2019). Eelgrass is a federally -designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a Habitat of Particular Concern (HPC) under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996. GeoEngineers completed a seagrass delineation and identified a continuous eelgrass bed near the waterward extent of the boat ramp (GeoEngineers, Point Whitney Eelgrass Delineation Report, 2018) (Please see Appendix A, Map 4). In Puget Sound, the maximum depth to which eelgrass grows ranges from approximately 1.3 m below the low tide line (MLLW) to greater than 9 m deep. At Pt. Whitney boat ramp area the eelgrass beds elevation extent is from -2 ft. to -14 ft. tidal datum. 7 1 P a g e Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF 5.2 Water Quality and Chemical Indicators Quilcene-Dabob Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC), which ran from December 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, had a goal to restore and protect surface waters for shellfish harvest, recreational use, and aquatic life habitat. Marine algal blooms can occur in the Dabob Bay and in 2014 the highest levels of paralytic shellfish poison biotoxins was measured in Washington oysters (Health, 2017). Septic system leakage remains a problem in Hood Canal contributing to nutrient loading. Sediment quality was measured in 2004 by the Washington State Department of Ecology as part of the Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program (PSAMP). The areas closest to Pt. Whitney were found to be intermediate/high quality and intermediate/low quality sediments (Long, Weakland, Dutch, & Partridge, 2004). For a critical areas map from Jefferson County please see Appendix C, Report 2. 5.3 Biological Indicators 5.3.1 Habitat Access Some riprap may affect migration between upland and the beach (see Appendix B, Photo 3). On the back side of the spit, fencing may affect transient wildlife desiring to migrate between the beach and lagoon. To a limited extent, openings in the fence accommodate these foraging behaviors and 16 ft. of fencing will be removed in this project. The foreshore gradient is about 10 — 12% towards the upper beach and decreases westward approaching the lagoon alluvial fan. Upland habitats are generally available through forested lands that comprise most of the habitat type above MHHW. 5.3.2 Forage Fish The pea gravel/sand mix in the upper tidal elevation of the beach provide ideal spawning habitat for surf smelt (Hull, Lee, & Joyce, 2014). Herring spawning habitat is documented at the project site and southward through Pt. Whitney Tideland Beach. The eelgrass beds provide a key substrate for herring spawn (See Appendix A, Map 4). 5.3.3 Shorelines and Vegetation Shoreline is rock/gravel substrate transitioning into mudflats moving seaward. Shoreline vegetation is minimal —most of the upland area is part of the boat ramp and existing parking lot and facilities. Substrate shows a segregation by particle size —the further inland, the smaller the particle size. Pt. Whitney also supports clam and oyster beds as a part of its shoreline. 6.0 Area of Potential Effect and Project Action Area 6.1 In -Water The area of direct effect includes the dimension of the existing boat ramp footprint, which is approximately 1320 sq. ft (area of new concrete apron). The indirect area of effect includes the beach on both sides of the boat ramp. Longitudinal sediment transport may be affected by the proposed boat ramp as sediment may accumulate on one side higher than the other. There is an adequate supply of sediment that any temporary changes to sediment elevation levels will soon be replenished by subsequent tides or storms. 8 1 P a g e Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF 6.2 Terrestrial The area of direct effect for terrestrial habitat includes the swales and ditches that exist for managing the current surface water runoff. Adjacent riparian resources will not be affected. 6.3 Action Area Potential project impacts are sedimentation resulting from newly placed material used for boat ramp grading and regrading of mitigation area, and noise from equipment. Supplemental gravel used to level the surface for positioning the new concrete mat and or placement of the fill may be a source of lost sediment potentially suspended at post -project wave and tidal action before settling of sediment occurs. Heavy equipment accessing and using the uplands parking area may produce increased noise levels and spill risks associated with heavy equipment use. The action area extends into and beyond the lagoon where a vibratory hammer will be used for creosote piling removal. NOAA Fisheries has adopted the following Interim Criteria for injury and disturbance thresholds for fish (Stadler & Woodbury, 2009): v 206 decibels (dB) Peak re: 1 micropascal (pPa) for all fish; v 187 dB accumulated sound exposure level (SEL; 1 micropascal squared seconds [pPa2 sec]) for fish greater than 2 grams; and v 183 d6 SEL re: 1 pPa2 sec for fish less than 2 grams. Vibratory hammers, in particular in soft sediment and in extraction, will not approach these criteria. Equipment use on the uplands and boat ramp could potentially carry a noise effect for'/2-mile upland. Where direct or indirect effects of the proposed action may occur encompasses % mile up and down the beach and waterward % mile. Please see Appendix A, Map 1 for Action Area map. 7.0 Affected Species and Critical Habitat The following species list and sensitive areas were derived by accessing: • Priority Habitat Species Online Map (Wildlife W. S., 2019)(Please see Appendix C, Figure 1 for full report) ■ Essential Fish Habitat Online Map (Association, 2017) Species Pacific Sand Lance Ammod tes hexa terus Priorlilftrea Breeding Area Surf Smelt (Hff omesus retiosus) Breeding Area Pandalid shrimp Para andalus narvao Presence Dungeness Crab Metacarcinus magisteo Presence Pacific Herrin (Geor is Basin DPS)(Clu ea pallaso Breeding Area Geoduck Pano ea enerosa Presence Estuarine and Marine Wetlands Critical Habitat Subtidal Hardshell Clam Presence Oyster Beds Presence Hardshell Clam Mercenaria mercenaria) Presence Pacific Salmon Freshwater EFH Critical Habitat Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat Critical Habitat Table 1: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species present at the Pt. Whitney Project location 9 1 P a g e Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF Birds _Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis Fish/Aquatic Invertebrates Puget Sound Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), Finfish (multiple species), Groundfish (multiplespecies) Mammals (Marine and Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Leatherback Sea Terrestrial) Turtle (Dennochelys coriacea), Stellar Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus), American mink (Neovison vison) Table 2: Species of Likely Occurrence --species that are not listed as Threatened or Endangered but may be in the area affected by the Pt. Whitney Project S ias - Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) Sta T USFWS Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat No designated habitat in AA Marbled Murrelet Brach ram hus marmoratus T I USFWS Marbled Murrelet critical habitat No designated habitat in AA Short -tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) E I USFWS Short -tailed albatross critical habitat No designated habitat in AA Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshaw scha) T I USFWS Puget Sound chinook salmon critical habitat LAA Hood Canal Summer -Run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) T I USFWS Hood Canal Summer -Run chum salmon critical habitat LAA Coastal — Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus conf/uentus) T I USFWS Coastal — Puget Sound bull trout critical habitat LAA Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus m kiss T I USFWS Puget Sound steelhead critical habitat LAA Southern Resident Killer Whale Orcinus orca E I USFWS Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat No designated habitat in AA Table 3: United States Endangered Species Act listed species that may be affected by the Pt. Whitney Project 7.1 Birds Northern Spotted Owl —Threatened The Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) was listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1990 ( 55 FR 26114 26194) (Service, Species Profile for the Northern Spotted Owl, 2019). The spotted owl inhabits structurally complex forests from southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains and coastal ranges in Washington, Oregon, and California, as far south as Marin County. Past habitat loss and current habitat loss are some of the major threats to the spotted owl, even though loss of habitat due to timber harvest has been greatly reduced on Federal lands over the past two decades. Many populations of spotted owls continue to decline, especially in the northern parts of the subspecies' range, even with extensive maintenance and restoration of spotted owl habitat in recent years. Managing sufficient habitat for the spotted owl now and into the future is important for its recovery. 101Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl was designated originally in 1991 (56FR 50701 50704) (Service, Species Profile for the Northern Spotted Owl, 2019) and a revised designation was finalized in 2012 (77FR 71875 72068) (Service, Species Profile for the Northern Spotted Owl, 2019). Currently 9,577,969 acres in 11 units and 69 subunits across California, Oregon, and Washington are designated as critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl. Scientific research and monitoring indicate spotted owls generally rely on mature and old - growth forests because these habitats contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Although spotted owls can disperse through highly fragmented forested areas, the stand -level and landscape -level attributes of forests needed to facilitate successful dispersal have not been thoroughly evaluated or described. Marbled Murrelet—Threatened Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marrnoratus) were listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1992. Marbled murrelets are year-round residents on Washington marine waters. These birds forage in sheltered waterways and harbors generally within 1.2 miles of shore, selecting feeding areas that are closer to shore than other alcid seabirds that forage in Washington waters. Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) is the primary prey species of marbled murrelets, constituting over 65% of their diet, especially during the breeding season. Other prey species include pacific herring (Clupea harengus), seaperch (Cymatogaster aggregate), euphausiids, and other marine invertebrates. Marbled murrelets breed from April 1 to September 15 and nest in mature and old growth forests within 60 miles of marine waters. Potential threats to marbled murrelet populations include loss of old -growth forest, disturbance during nesting, nest predation, oil spills, entanglement in gill nets, and disturbance during foraging. Marbled murrelets forage and winter in marine habitats in the Salish Sea in relatively low densities with the highest numbers generally observed in fall. There are no appropriate marbled murrelet nest sites in the Action Area; however, these birds likely forage nearby. Critical Habitat Critical Habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated in 1996 to protect nesting areas with the physical or biological features (PBFs) described as (1) trees with potential nesting platforms and, (2) forested areas within '/z mile of the potential nest trees with a canopy height of at least'/ of the site potential tree height (81 FIR 51348 51370) (Service, Marbeled Murrelet Species Profile, 2019). Marine forage areas are not specifically designated as critical habitat however, forage habitat is implied as important through general PBFs including but not limited to the following: • Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; • Food, water, air, light, minerals or other nutritional or psychological requirements • Cover or shelter; • Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; and Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species. 111 Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF Short -Tailed Albatross —Endangered The short -tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) was federally listed as endangered throughout its range, including the United States, on July 31, 2000 (65 FR 147:46643-46654). Prior to that, it had been listed as endangered throughout its range except within the United States and its territorial waters. The short -tailed albatross is a large pelagic bird with long narrow wings adapted for soaring just above the water surface. The bill, which is disproportionately large compared to the bills of other northern hemisphere albatross, is pink with a bluish hooked tip and a conspicuous thin black line around the base. Like all birds in the Order Procellariiformes (tube -nosed marine birds), the short -tailed albatross' beak has conspicuous external nostrils. Critical Habitat At the time of listing, designation of critical habitat was determined to be not prudent. The short -tailed albatross forages at sea and there have been sightings in Jefferson County so they are being included in this biological assessment. 7.2 Salmonids and Char Puget Sound Chinook salmon —Threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) was listed as Threatened under ESA (64FR 14308) on August 2, 1999 and a recent five-year review of this listing completed on August 15, 2011 concluded that Puget Sound chinook salmon should remain listed as Threatened (76FR 50448). Spawning populations of Chinook salmon are distributed along the Pacific Coast of North America from the Ventura River in southern California to Point Hope and Alaska (Wydoski and Whitney, 2003). Chinook salmon can be found throughout the year in the Salish Sea. Factors leading to the decline of Chinook salmon populations in Puget Sound include: • Degradation of spawning and rearing habitat due to human activities • Limited access to historic spawning habitat due to development activities • Altered stream flow regimes and water temperatures ■ Loss of riparian vegetation and soils that alter hydrologic and erosion rates • Increased sedimentation • Decreased large woody debris (LWD) in rivers and loss of potential recruitment of LWD ■ Filled estuarine rearing area • Channelizing and diking of rivers leading to loss of rearing and spawning habitat ■ Dams blocking access to historic spawning and rearing channels and altering hydrologic regimes, water temperature and sediment transport Critical Habitat The final designation of critical habitat for Puget Sound evolutionary significant unit of Chinook salmon was published on September 2, 2005 (70FR 52630) (Service, Chinook salmon Species Profile, 2019). PBFs of the nearshore marine critical habitat include: 121Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF • Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. Hood Canal Summer -Run Chum Salmon —Threatened The Hood Canal Summer Run (Oncorhynchus keta) Chum is one of the two evolutionarily significant units of chum salmon that are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act, which was listed on August 2, 1999 (59FR 46808) (Service, Chum salmon Species Profile, 2019). Chum salmon have a complex life history that includes spawning and incubation in rivers and upon emergence, followed by nearly immediate migration to saltwater to feed, grow, and mature before returning to freshwater to spawn. They are vulnerable to many stressors and threats including blocked access to spawning grounds and habitat degradation caused by dams and culverts. ■ Degradation of spawning and rearing habitat due to human activities • Limited access to historic spawning habitat due to development activities ■ Altered stream flow regimes and water temperatures • Loss of riparian vegetation and soils that alter hydrologic and erosion rates • Increased sedimentation • Decreased large woody debris (LWD) in rivers and loss of potential recruitment of LWD • Filled estuarine rearing area • Channelizing and diking of rivers leading to loss of rearing and spawning habitat • Dams blocking access to historic spawning and rearing channels and altering hydrologic regimes, water temperature and sediment transport Critical Habitat Critical habitat was designated in the Federal Register as a final rule for the Hood Canal summer chum salmon ESU on February 16, 2000 (65 FR 7764) (Service, Chum salmon Species Profile, 2019). Critical habitat designated in the Federal Register Notice includes all river reaches accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine areas and tributaries) draining into Hood Canal as well as Olympic Peninsula rivers between and including Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay, Washington. Also included are estuarine/marine areas of Hood Canal, Admiralty Inlet, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the 106 international boundary and as far west as a straight line extending north from Dungeness Bay. Excluded are areas above Cushman Dam in the Skokomish River Basin or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers in the above, defined area (i.e. natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout —Threatened Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout was listed as Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1998 (Service, Bull Trout Species Profile, 2019). Bull trout in the Coastal -Puget Sound interim recovery unit exhibit anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial, and resident life history 13 1 Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF patterns. The anadromous life history form is unique to this unit. This interim recovery unit currently contains 14 core areas and 67 local populations (USFWS 2004b). Bull trout are distributed throughout most of the large rivers and associated tributary systems within this unit. With only a few exceptions, bull trout continue to be present in nearly all major watersheds where they likely occurred historically within this unit. Generally, bull trout distribution has contracted and abundance has declined especially in the southeastern part of the unit. The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is attributed to the adverse effects of dams, forest management practices (e.g., timber harvest and associated road building activities), agricultural practices (e.g., diking, water control structures, draining of wetlands, channelization, and the removal of riparian vegetation), livestock grazing, roads, mining, urbanization, poaching and incidental mortality from other targeted fisheries, and the introduction of non-native species Critical Habitat Critical habitat for Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout was originally designated in 2005 (70FR 56212 56311) (Service, Bull Trout Species Profile, 2019) and revised in 2010 (75FR 63898 64070) (Service, Bull Trout Species Profile, 2019). As of 2010, there is 19, 729 miles of streams (which includes 754 miles of marine shoreline) as critical habitat for bull trout in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. The final designation of critical habitat for Puget Sound evolutionary significant unit of Chinook salmon was published on September 2, 2005 (70FR 52630) (Service, Chinook salmon Species Profile, 2019). PBFs of the nearshore marine critical habitat includes: * Colder water temperature —they typically prefer water temperatures between 5 and 15 degrees Celsius * Cleanest stream substrates for spawning and roaring * Complex habitats —streams with riffles and deep pools, undercut banks, lots of large wood/logs for shelter and foraging * Habitat connection—rivers/lakes/oceans that connect to headwater streams for annual spawning and feeding migrations Puget Sound Steelhead—Threatened The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2009 (50 CFR 223.102) (Service, Puget Sound Steelhead Species Profile, 2019) as a distinct population segment (DPS). Steelhead are similar to some Pacific salmon in their life cycle and ecological requirements. They are born in fresh water streams, where they spend their first 1-3 years of life. They then emigrate to the ocean where most of their growth occurs. After spending between one to four growing seasons in the ocean, steelhead return to their native fresh water stream to spawn. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead do not necessarily die after spawning and are able to spawn more than once (iteroparous). Steelhead trout are a unique species. Individuals develop differently depending on their environment. All steelhead trout hatch in gravel -bottomed, fast -flowing, well -oxygenated rivers and streams. Some stay in fresh water all their lives, as resident rainbow trout. Steelhead trout that migrate to the ocean typically grow larger than those that remain in freshwater. They utilize the nearshore area in preparation for Puget Sound and northward 141Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF seaward migrations but have an early offshore movement (Goetz 2016). After various times spent in the marine areas by different stock they return to freshwater to spawn, their various timings lending to their life history diversity. Steelhead trout are vulnerable to many stressors and threats including blocked access to spawning grounds and habitat degradation caused by dams and culverts. Critical Habitat The specific areas designated for Puget Sound steelhead include approximately 2,031 mi (3,269 km) of freshwater and estuarine habitat in Puget Sound, WA. The final designation of critical habitat for Puget Sound evolutionary significant unit of Steelhead was published on September 2, 2005 (70FR 52630) (Service, Puget Sound Steelhead Species Profile, 2019). The Project Action Area is within the nearshore marine critical area (Unit 19). This includes all nearshore zones of the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca from extreme high water out to a depth of 100 ft. PBFs of the nearshore marine critical habitat include: Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation • Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. 7.3 Marine Mammals Southern Resident Killer Whale —Endangered The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed southern resident killer whales as endangered under the ESA on November 15, 2005 (70 FIR 69903) (Service, Southern Resident Killer Whale Species Profile, 2019). The listing became effective on February 16, 2006 and a five-year review published in January 2011 hound that the status should remain as endangered. Eastern Norther Pacific killer whale populations are classified as one of three distinct forms: residents, transients, and offshores. The southern resident killer whale population in distributed in the Pacific coastal waters from central California to the Queen Charlotte Islands, and may be a subspecies or Orcinus orca (Krahn et al. 2004). The southern resident population is comprised of about 90 animals within a single clan (J) which is composed of three pods (J, K, and Q. Since the late 1990s, the three (3) southern resident killer whale pods have spent much of the year in the inland waters of Washington and British Columbia, Canada. This geographic region is bounded by Race Rocks at the southern end of Vancouver Island and Port Angeles on the Olympic Peninsula, the Fraser River Delta in British Columbia the San Juan Islands, and the north end of the Quimper Peninsula in Washington. Southern resident killer whales typically arrive in this region along major corridors of migrating Pacific salmon by late spring (May -June) and depart during winter (December -February). During the early fall, southern resident killer whales expand their routine movements into Puget Sound to likely take advantage of chum and chinook salmon runs (Wiles 2004). Southern resident killer whales face a number of potential threats including: 1. Reductions of quality and quantity in prey availability; 2. Exposure to environmental contaminants, and; 3. Disturbance by whale -watching vessels and underwater noise (Wiles 2004) 151Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF Critical Habitat Proposed critical habitat for southern resident killer whale was published on June 15, 2006 (71 FR 34571) (Service, Southern Resident Killer Whale Species Profile, 2019) that specific three (3) areas for designation: • The summer core area in Haro Strait, Strait of Georgia, and waters around the San Juan Islands • Puget Sound • Strait of Juan de Fuca Physical or biological features of Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat are: 1. Water quality to support growth and development; 2. Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality and availability to support individual growth, reproduction and development, as well as overall population growth; and, Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting and foraging. 8.0 Analysis of Effects 8.1 Potential Direct Effects Summary of potential effects: Construction ele Potentlai Effect ■ Temporary increased turbidity due to installation of new materials • Subsurface macroinvertebrate Ramp renovation disturbance • Decreased wave energy • Noise/acoustic impacts • Temporary loss of surface substrate replaced by concrete apron Shoreline restoration Wildlife use • Shoreline stabilization ■ Localized sediment disturbance • Underwater sound Piling removal ■ Increase benthic habitat functionality • Gain in aquatic habitat area • Improved local water uality During ramp renovation construction activities heavy equipment will be operated within the existing footprint of the boat ramp. Although there will be some disturbance of sediment that is removed from on top of the boat ramp to prepare for the new structure, negative effects will be minimal. There may be some additional disturbance from noise while project work is being completed, but this is not anticipated to cause any permanent effects. Shoreline restoration activities will be short and temporary in duration. Native vegetation is anticipated within one season. 161Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF The planned piling removal with a vibratory extractor is expected to have adverse effects to salmonids due to high levels of underwater noise (The use of the term noise is to represent unwanted sound. Sound and ambient background are not considered adverse) The scenario here at Pt. Whitney suggests conditions and application of the vibratory hammer will be less impacting to salmonids and birds than is typical of pile driving, hammer or vibratory. Some noise path reduction attenuating factors include non -reflective soft sediments, high elevation and dense vegetation in the riparian area and increased topography away from the shoreline breaking line of sight. NMFS considers using vibratory hammers to be less harmful to fish and this application involves pulling two (2) pilings from soft sediments. This application lacks the impulsive sound source with high intensity and rapid rise time known to injure or kill fish experienced by impact hammers in denser substrates. The barge mounted application with pilings staged on the barge and transferred to land out of water minimizes exposure of the previously buried pile portions. The Action Area may experience localized disturbance of sediment as well as sediment plumes as each of the pilings is removed or cut. The negative effects of these actions will be minimal, with local turbidity returning to normal conditions within an hour of the completed work. 8.2 Potential Indirect Effects rridirect Effect Patentrall Effect Ramp renovation . Height increase of new ramp will temporarily alter longitudinal transport of sediments. ■ Foreshore slope may increase due to accretion of sediment at the upper end of the beach • The beach west of the new ramp may be deprived of sediment or may have its routing altered. Shoreline restoration ■ Enhance shorebird use • Stabilizes the point bar of the spit Piling removal • Localized sediment disturbance V Increase benthic habitat functionality • Gain in aquatic habitat area ■ Improved local water qualit The ramp renovation will be an increase to the existing ramp footprint and the addition of new materials may cause a change in sediment transport because of the height increase. The planned shoreline restoration could enhance shorebird use by increasing diversity of species of the plant community and providing additional plants as additional habitat in the area. Additionally as the supplemental plants mature, they will add increased stability to the point bar of the spit. Piling removal will eliminate the negative effects on water quality by removing a long term source of contamination. 171Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF 8.3 Effects from Ongoing Project Activities (Continued operation and maintenance) One of the goals of this project is to lessen the need for regular maintenance of the boat ramp. Any post project work will be conducted from the same ramp. Post project impacts are negligible. 9.0 Conservation Measures 9.1 Mitigation Measures Timing Limitation In -water work will only be allowed from July 1 to August 31 for the protection of salmon and bull trout. All work below the MHHW will occur in the allowable work window. Shoreline and Habitat Enhancement A portion of the area to the west of the boat ramp will be part of a mitigation plan. WDFW will relocate one picnic table; remove one (1) fire pit and two (2) 8 ft. sections of chain link fences. The edge of the area will be excavated to match the elevation of the top of the beach. Approximately 900 sq. ft. will be designated a part of this mitigation area. Additionally, two (2) creosote pilings will be removed from the lagoon area. 10.0 Determination of Impacts for Listed Species 10.1 Effect and Take Analysis of Listed Species Measures taken during the proposed work to minimize impacts associated with air and water quality, clearing of vegetation, and size of the construction footprint will reduce the potential for incidental take. Measures will be taken to avoid and minimize impacts to federally listed species and their habitats. Due to the nature of the proposed project work, no take is expected. Conservation windows, including construction windows and water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed to minimize negative impacts within the Action Area and minimize the possibility of incidental take. See Section 3 for BMP list. Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis NE I None Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat NE Marbled Murrelet (Brach ramphus marmoratus) NLAA I None Marbled Murrelet critical habitat NE Short -tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus NLAA I None 181Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF Short -tailed albatross critical habitat NE Puget Sound Chinook salmon Oncorh yflchus tshaw scha NLAA None Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat LAA Hood Canal Summer -Run Chum salmon Oncorh nchus keta NLAA I None Hood Canal Summer -Run Chum salmon critical habitat LAA Coastal — Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) NLAA None Coastal — Puget Sound bull trout critical habitat LAA Puget Sound steelhead Oncorh nchus m kiss NLAA I None Puget Sound steelhead critical habitat LAA Southern Resident Killer Whale Orcinus orca) NLAA None Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat NE NLAA: Not Likely to Adversely Affect, LAA: Likely to Adversely Affect, NE: No Effect Table 4: Determination of Effects to ESA listed species and their Critical Habitat Northern Spotted Owl The proposed Pt. Whitney projects will have no effect on designated critical, habitat or populations for the northern spotted owl; though there is critical habitat listed in Jefferson County, there is no critical habitat in the action area. Air -borne noise may disturb feeding northern spotted owls in the action area. The proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the population of northern spotted owl. Critical Habitat Effects Determination The Action Area associated with the proposed Pt. Whitney projects will involve increasing the boat ramp footprint, but it does not include designated critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl. The Project would therefore have no effect on critical habitat for Northern spotted owl. Marbled Murrelet The proposed Pt. Whitney projects may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect populations of the marbled murrelet. Air -borne noise may disturb feeding marbled murrelet in the action area. Disturbance of marine vegetation may alter the area for herring spawning which may temporarily affect a main food source for marbled murrelets in/near the project area. However, marine algae will become reestablished within one (1) or two (2) growing seasons and any effects from the project will be short-lived. Critical Habitat Effects Determination The Action Area associated with the proposed Pt. Whitney projects will include increasing the boat ramp footprint, but does not include designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. The Project would therefore have no effect on critical habitat for marbled murrelet. Short -tailed Albatross The proposed Pt. Whitney projects may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect populations of the short -tailed albatross. Though there is not currently a record of critical habitat listed, there have been sightings of these birds in Jefferson County. Air -borne noise may disturb feeding short -tailed albatross in the action area. Disturbance of marine vegetation may alter the area for herring spawning which may temporarily affect a main food source for short -tailed albatross in/near the project area. However, marine algae will become reestablished within one or two growing seasons and any effects from the project activities will 191Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF be short-lived. The proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the population of short -tailed albatross. Critical Habitat Effects Determination Currently there is not any critical habitat designated for the short -tailed albatross, therefore these projects should have no effect on critical habitat for the short -tailed albatross. Puget Sound Chinook salmon The proposed projects at Pt. Whitney may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon are known to occur in eelgrass beds and may utilize the Action Area for cover, refuge and forage areas. During construction, there may be a temporary decrease in water quality due to sediment disruption. However, with the wave energy in the nearshore habitat this sediment should disperse quickly and not cause any permanent adverse effects to the eelgrass beds or surrounding nearshore habitat. Critical Habitat Effects Determination The Action Area associated with the proposed Luhr's Landing projects does include critical habitat for juvenile and adult Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The ramp renovations may temporarily disturb nearshore substrates and increase turbidity. Additionally, some benthic/nearshore habitat will be lost with the expansion of the boat ramp. The shoreline enhancement may temporarily increase sedimentation due to removal of material and native plant installation. Additionally the removal of two (2) pilings from the lagoon area may temporarily increase localized turbidity in addition to adding more benthic habitat. Though there will be adverse effects to the Chinook salmon habitat, all effects are expected to be temporary or minimal. Physical or Biological Features (PBFs) Determination The PBFs for Puget Sound Chinook salmon include: estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and saltwater; Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage; Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage. The increased footprint (additional 1320 sq. ft.) of articulated concrete apron will cover benthic habitat in the nearshore environment. Though there will be adverse effects to this PBF in its baseline amount, the direct and indirect effects of the project and its restoration elements will have a positive net benefit to Chinook juvenile foraging. The ramp height increase may alter the foreshore slightly adjacent to the ramp providing some beach stability adjacent to the boat ramp. This will allow perennial establishment of sub surface macro -invertebrates that may otherwise be routed on a regular basis due to the high drift cell load. The effect of the ramp will be temporary regarding effects of juvenile chinook foraging. When natural structures occur on the beach such as logs or rock outcrops, juvenile salmon may navigate around or use incoming tide heights to increase surface water above the structure before foraging upshore. Hood Canal Summer -Run chum and Coho Salmon The proposed Pt. Whitney projects may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, Hood Canal summer -run salmon or Coho salmon. Juvenile salmon utilize nearshore environments 201Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF like those in the Action Area for cover, refuge, and foraging during their marine transition. However, project work will occur during the allowable work window and although juvenile salmon may be present, it is unlikely that fish will be harmed. Critical Habitat Effect Determination The proposed project activities will affect salmonid critical habitat by reducing water quality due to topsoil disruption, however, any increased sedimentation in the nearshore environment will dissipate. Additionally, some benthic/nearshore habitat will be lost with the expansion of the boat ramp. Therefore, the proposed projects will affect the critical nearshore habitat for salmon but these effects will be either temporary or minimal. Physical or Biological Features (PBFs) Determination The PBFs for Hood Canal summer -run Chum include: estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and saltwater; Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage; Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage. The increased footprint (additional 1320 sq. ft.) of articulated concrete apron will cover benthic habitat in the nearshore environment. Though there will be adverse effects to this PBF in its baseline amount, the direct and indirect effects of the project and its restoration elements will have a positive net benefit to juvenile Chum foraging. The ramp height increase may alter the foreshore slightly adjacent to the ramp providing some beach stability adjacent to the boat ramp. This will allow perennial establishment of sub surface macro -invertebrates that may otherwise be routed on a regular basis due to the high drift cell load. The effect of the ramp will be temporary regarding effects of juvenile Chum foraging. When natural structures occur on the beach such as logs or rock outcrops, juvenile salmon may navigate around or use incoming tide heights to increase surface water above the structure before foraging upshore. Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout The proposed Pt. Whitney projects may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout. The Action Area contains habitat that is preferable for juvenile bull trout: cold water, cover, and coarse substrate material (cobbles/gravel). Additionally adult bull trout are known to use nearshore marine habitat during migration back to their native stream for cover, refuge, and foraging. Work will be completed during the allowable work window and although bull trout may be present, it is unlikely that any will be harmed. Critical Habitat Effects Determination The proposed project activities will affect bull trout critical habitat by reducing water quality due to beach sediment disruption during construction, however any increased sedimentation in the nearshore environment will dissipate. Additionally, some benthic/nearshore habitat will be lost with the expansion of the boat ramp. Therefore, the proposed projects will affect the critical nearshore habitat for Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout, however the effects will either be temporary or minimal. Physical or Biological Feature (PBFs) Determination The PBFs for Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout include: estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and saltwater; Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water 211Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF quality and quantity conditions and forage; Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage. The increased footprint (additional 1320 sq. ft.) of articulated concrete apron will cover benthic habitat in the nearshore environment. Though there will be adverse effects to this PBF in its baseline amount, the direct and indirect effects of the project and its restoration elements will have a positive net benefit to Bull Trout foraging. The ramp height increase may alter the foreshore slightly adjacent to the ramp providing some beach stability adjacent to the boat ramp. This will allow perennial establishment of sub surface macro -invertebrates that may otherwise be routed on a regular basis due to the high drift cell load. The effect of the ramp will be temporary regarding effects of Bull Trout foraging. When natural structures occur on the beach such as logs or rock outcrops, juvenile salmon may navigate around or use incoming tide heights to increase surface water above the structure before foraging upshore. Southern Resident Killer Whale The project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Southern Resident killer whales. Killer whales may be present in the action area on occasion but underwater sound will be minimal and will not disturb marine mammals beyond the 0.5-mile action area. Critical Habitat Effects Determination The Action Area associated with the proposed Pt. Whitney projects does include listed critical habitat for Southern resident killer whales. The construction work may disrupt nearshore substrate, which may, in turn affect localized water quality. However, any effects will be minimal and temporary and therefore will not permanently adversely affect Southern resident killer whale habitat. 10.2 For each species, Physical or Biological Features (PBFs) as needed Puget Sound chinook Hood Canal Summer -Run chum Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout Puget Sound chinook Hood Canal Summer -Run chum Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout Puget Sound chinook Hood Canal Summer -Run chum Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout 11.0 Essential Fish Habitat 11.1 Background or Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and saltwater. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage. The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (MSA 305(b) (2)). The 1996 amendments to the MSA resulted in a new emphasis on the sustainability of the nation's fisheries and established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for those species regulated under a Federal fisheries 221Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF management plan (FMP). Essential fish habitat is defined as "those waters and substrate fish need for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 38 to maturity" (Association, 2017). The objective of this EFH assessment is to describe potential adverse effects to designated EFH for Federally -managed fisheries species within the proposed Action Area. It also describes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed project. 11.2 Identification of EFH The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery. The Pacific salmon management unit includes chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary for salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem" (PFMC, 1999). Chinook, chum, sockeye, and Coho salmon have listed essential fish habitat (for juveniles and adults) and finfish, krill, coastal pelagic species and groundfish for all life stages are listed in the project area t Pt. Whitney. The PFMC also identifies the estuarine and seagrass habitats located at Pt. Whitney. 11.3 Effects of Proposed Action The Pt. Whitney project (which includes ramp renovations and shoreline mitigation) is within the nearshore and estuarine habitat is identified as EFH for several species for foraging and breeding habitat. This project will not substantially alter the existing environmental conditions or biological communities, will not permanently alter substrate and will not permanently impact water quality. The eelgrass beds adjacent to the boat ramp will not be impacted and the marine algae community will become reestablished within one or two growing seasons. Water quality will have a short-term impact due to increased turbidity during ramp renovations but once the project work is complete, water quality will not be altered from pre -project conditions. 11.4 Cumulative EFH Effects The ramp renovation construction will cause a temporary increase in turbidity and temporary loss of natural substrate by initial covering of sediment on the apron footprint. Additionally the removal of creosote pilings will also cause temporary increased turbidity in the nearshore habitat due to loosened substrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to minimize these effects during construction. Despite these effects occurring, the turbidity will dissipate and critical nearshore conditions will return to normal. In addition to increased turbidity, the removal of the creosote pilings will diversify local benthic habitat for many fish and invertebrate species as well as remove a potential source of pollutants. There will be minimal effect to designated critical habitat PBFs due to the indirect and direct effects of the proposed project. The site experiences significant sediment routing effects that will re-establish as the dominant process masking the short-term impacts of the elevated boat ramp and benthic habitat effects. The site should quickly re-establish a stable baseline condition of gently sloped beach and diverse sediment classes from the nearshore, foreshore to backshore environments. Migratory and foraging behaviors will be minimally impacted in the long term since the boat ramp edge is expected to have a contoured edge transition or buried in natural substrate; a condition expected to be reached quickly after some winter storms and newly recruited sediment. 231Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF 12.0 References Association, N. O. (2017). National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation and Protection. Retrieved from Essential Fish Habitat: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.html Finlayson, D. (2006). The geomorphology of Puget Sound beaches. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington. GeoEngineers. (2018). Luhr's Landing Eelgrass Delineation Report. Tacoma: GeoEngineers. GeoEngineers. (2018). Point Whitney Eelgrass Delineation Report. Tacoma: GeoEngineers. Health, J. C. (2017). Jefferson County Public Health Clean Water Projects. Retrieved from Quilcene-Dabob PIC Project: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1151/Quilcene-Dabob-PlC- Project Hull, D., Lee, T., & Joyce, J. (2014). Intertidal Forage Fish Spawning Surveys in the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve: Final Monitoring Report. Olympia: Nisqually Reach Aquatic Rserve Citizen Stewardship Committee. Inc., N. H. (2018). Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations. Seattle: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. Long, E., Weakland, S., Dutch, K. W., & Partridge, V. (2004). Sediment Quality Assessmet of Puget Sound's Hood Canal Region. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology. Resources, W. S. (2019, June). Nearshore Habitat Eelgrass Monitoring. Retrieved from Aquatic Science: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/aquatics/aquatic- science/nearsh ore- habitat-eeig rass-mon itoring Service, U. F. (2019). Bull Trout Species Profile. Retrieved from Environmental Conservation Online System: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=EO65 Service, U. F. (2019). Chinook salmon Species Profile. Retrieved from Envionmental Conservation Online System: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=EO6D Service, U. F. (2019). Chum salmon Species Profile. Retrieved from Enviornmental Conservation Online System: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=EO9Q Service, U. F. (2019). Marbeled Murrelet Species Profile. Retrieved from Environmental Conservation Online System: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=BO8C Service, U. F. (2019). Puget Sound Steelhead Species Profile. Retrieved from Environmental Conservation Online Service: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=EO8D Service, U. F. (2019). Southern Resident Killer Whale Species Profile. Retrieved from Enviornmental Conservation Online System: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=AOIL 241Page Biological Assessment Point Whitney I KPFF Service, U. F. (2019). Species Profile for the Northern Spotted Owl. Retrieved from Enviornmental Conservation Online System: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=BO8B Stadler, J., & Woodbury, D. (2009). Assessing the effects to fishes from pile driving: Application of new hydroacoustic criteria. 38th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, 23-26. Wildlife, W. S. (1998). Salmonid stock inventory, bull trout and Dolly Varden.. Olympia: WDFW Fisheries Management Division. Wildlife, W. S. (2019). PHS on the Web. Retrieved from Priority Habitat Species: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/ 13.0 Analyst Larry Dominguez, MES, has over 28 years of professional experience in salmon, freshwater, wetland, and nearshore ecology. He has held positions with USFWS as restoration biologist, NMFS as ESA consulting biologist, and for the majority of that period as biologist and scientist in the Washington Department of Natural Resources State Lands, Forest Practices, and Aquatic Lands Divisions developing Habitat Conservation plans and conducting effects analysis on WDNR terrestrial and aquatic land use practices. 251 Page a� c i Appendix A --Maps Map 4: Eelgrass Bed Delineation Appendix B--Photos Photo 1: Image from the north side of the beach looking inland. Overview of site, approximate boat ramp location shown in yellow. The image portrays the abundant sand and gravel load the site is ex osed to. ^ L r V yid ref * r .� Photo 2: Taken on the east side of the boat ramp looking west. Overview of the site. Yellow outline shows the approximate extent of the buried boat ramp. �, 6T I i &-� As EWA A. 1pr ey .-.7P�� .,. _ --low MA 21 - O ■ jr IF - - x0- F Am - - '_■_ - 1 - i = C t - 1 ii 4;.: ein - - e - - ■_ ■ F - F _ _ i F _414 F � � Cl) .Q @ CL CO � % � � M 2 : .� � � 0 CL m � «ƒ w£ 8 E 4 8 2 m o / \ ƒ 2 c o w S§ < Z0 kJ z/ k g.2 k§f 7 )®i Mn fk? «< CO LLma zz n- LL \ D % J % 9 t C) a 2 / � o / < TW co / :2k U) �2 c LL § 8E§ / j a) CL)\d{ƒ)w r) 022 z 2 Z < �W 0 C < kw ƒ 2 @� m E E U Z - §0J0 k / §§§ \/ �k )A 0 23/ Cl) < Z A \ 0_ U / § E k \F- zz / x .DE Ea 0 2 /I §2 k CDof 0 n z a CL CL « § / Z> z < $ < j z z 0- < z § } k � k 2 } < f \ < zz k � § w I § k � z 2 ] < < } z z CL z S S a \ Mn a cc ƒ c Q 7 .2 0) ] �) ? ( w CL ) / � z 2 z / z z f $ / k / d k \ { / 7 / 2 7 ± # f @ E E J E E 2 S S W } ) ) } r c CU§ 0) CD 0) to £ I 6 < ££ 2 £ a CL z \ \ co E E coƒ m §� )A 0 0 Ik k] o- o£ +) #$ D co k 0 0 a) �i (: - )$ )$ 0 § k z < ) Ma < # m z L) a- k k _ tm -0 0 (D \ m = _ / 3 a 2 � � d k 0 L C a) u Y a) QL " O N p N U C O c O O_ O) C O O N y ELu y y c°i� N o co �,� c E p p 07 >❑> C LL C>) C (LL LL� C ( O C O C /sLL p ns� p `� C O co ci > J > J y J Z J Z J y C y I L O N O =3 O O > O C C w j N 2 O C a] o a �0 y O N aCL E D0 E 0 0) ALL p m o LU a W a ui a a W a W a LU � ' C o a, ° �+ .Z 7 O c ni y Q Q Q Q Q Q Q y_ 42 � (A Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q z Q z Q Z Q �„ o o a) Y C t <a 0 � o c 3 �oa°))� c N a) a) a) a) a) n a) O a] Em ° 7 c y L_ > y 7 y IiJ n U) Q. U) n U) n U) a-U U) Co O L N [n N a) a) N a) a) U) a) a) a) y T C U y J y J J y J J y J (n J V) J a) y a) O ti N fD V) Q Q V) Q Q (1) Q Q (1) Q Q U) Q Q U) Q Q U) Q U) C° y LL 60 d Z Z d Z Z d Z z d z z d Z z d Z Z d _Q z z d C j V a) w 'y C .— E � -0 n� c E w. LLmou> ❑ L U y Q z Z z z Z y Z z c o m°mw= y «' > J O LL c o o ° ? N N a 0 O O L E �O N H cc E a7 O O a) a) O O a) a) O O a) a) O O a) a) O O O T $ Q a) Q a3� Q a) Q a) Q a) O L N n C a7 m tm 0) 0) U) 0) ,�, ❑ C� � E E Q) a) () a) a) a) N a) a) a) y y U) U)O a3 > 7 O O) N N N N N N N N N N N N Q N N �Q E O y (L 0 X. 2 m m no in m In m m m In a s z a IL z t o c y o a? m c > U) C — L Y t � T•3 a) N a) M N M a) C � w= d 0 N Z r' Z (o Z LO h Z Cl) I- Z Cl)N N C U N a)U) a I m - a�(! 1 rn 00 a 1 m - a`>Lo 1 of N wU) n I o N E E E E ° 3 ow m c o tc v E L E r E r _0 E N E y > > E mc y y (0 FG ❑ w ❑ 7 N Z LL O 7 .N z LL O ] .N z LL O N O .— z LL f� O ] M z LL O U) C C U) I m C �O L a) O m Z c NI O m Z a] c a)I o tm Z a) c NI o O) Z' a) c a)I O 0) M Z a7 c a)I p O) M Z Co > w w 43) % Ur N w Cal))C C aJ — a) CO O C— C L`6 W 7 C •— L`0 YC to 7 c •— Ice)`6 N a0 c ld a0 a) p O ❑ UI) U) O) U) LL CO ' (n LL co ' U) LL f� ' U) LL U) LL Z Cl) z U) U a) U y C O o N 7 7 7 E p n N 7 n E 7 7 a] y N j En d cu n C❑ a) n C a) a) a C a) m a C a) a) n C C) - N y o F r J O O J O O a) O a) O a) n E 7 0, O On ro) -D 'D ` o SG L0 Z Z y a) y a) y a) y a) 7 Ll)n o y o o ) ) )U) _0 76 N 00 CO L)O CO CO m L° OE E E O 14 - C T C C F U10C CL 5cu V/ LL 0 Y -2 a W (D O 'L C �vi N 00 N � 40 N Cps 77 M O W r C yj 10 W Z �LD n (`I p �N N g a O O S2 ffi Q N O O �7 W A :T 0 N v N C 7 7 a F- C1 a CO O 0 w a a Q U Q z O F- L) w U m N Q _a U 0 a 0 CO a a � Appendix C--Critical Areas Reports Report 2: Jefferson County Critical Area Map for Point Whitney Appendix D--WDFW Plans N PT WHITNEY PROJECT LOCATII VIPINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ,n .o .CTIONS FROM OUILCENE, HEAD SOUTHWEST ON US-101 TOWARD BEE MILL ROAD. TURN LEFT ONTO BEE MILL ROAD. CONTINUE ON BEE MILL ROAD TO POINT WHITNEY ROAD. FOLLOW POINT WHTTNEY ROAD TO SITE. ENG. PROJECT NO..JN.A6330871.......................I Po"k 41,1.?WK*,S7..................... DRAWN BY: _D.HENNING REFERENCE NUMBER: PROJECT L �AbDRESS]: PROPOSED PROJECT: APPLICANT: DINT WHITNEY POINT WHITNEY WASHINGTON DEPT. of FISH do WILDLIFE 1 00 POINT WHITNEY ROAD ACCESS REDEVELOPMENT 600 CAPITOL WAY N. BRINNON, WA 98320 OLYMPA. WA 98501-1091 IN: DABOB BAY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER: LAT/LONG: 47.45'42.03W/122.51'04.33W NEAR/AT: POINT WHITNEY 1. DATUM: TIDAL DATUM COUNTY: JEFFERSON 2 SHEET 1 OF 9 DATE:03/27/2019 STATE: WA G N O m MLLW 0.00 PNT# 2019 FOUND 2 1/2' ALUMINUM CAP NARKED 'GPS PT WHIT 2 2000' -1: • x. -15 ........ ASS EOGE N: 254468.60 E: 11431S59.78 _ . - . - a`� -'' -' ...... ELEV . 14.24 (TIDAL DATUM) �_ ::�PHTj 1500 FOUND 1/2' REBAR AND CAP (NO MARKINGS) `- _" OHw 11.55�� N: 284467,44E 11438 1.53 4,1 ELEV - 14.90 (TIDAL DATUM) �_= CONTROL roINT wHlf s • - _ N-. 28 w/ 48 E: CAP - GRAVEL N: 28- 15.18 E: 1144 ATOM) ELEV . 15. i 3 (TIDAL DATUM) �! '-- SEE SHEET 3 VEGETATION LINE IENG. PROJECT N0, BAi'FEREO APPROX. .'.AT TTO �- --TRAILER GENERATOR HOUSE BLDG - EDGE OF I ^� MLLW 0.00 PARKING LOT RAMP = GRAVEL �I ROAD L� LAGOON EDGE •RACEWAY i CENTER / ' r,• AND RESTRODM \ 1 1 I C' CH1 II FENCE 11 / I I MVrTE PLAN�si/ �e �ZA za ?5 3 xo G SCALE: 1' - 10D' ■ �� REFE f1� APPL Acc LOCA l _ DRAwN Err; D. HENNING SHEE APPROX. 1&2' VEGETMM UK -,EDGE OF ASPHALT ,,PAVEMENT N\,1,\ N ENO. PROJECT NO. AtLLW 0.DO STRAW WATTLES DABOB BAY T PICNIC TABLE TO -� BE RELOCATED - LINE OF Ora STOPS IYP VEGETATION LINE �: ' ..� �� r•....... �� ` MHHW 11.55 CO�ION f I TO BEREMOVED L111RS I I GRAVEL PARKING LOTS 1 BARRIER LOG - TYP fr� _EDGE /PARRKING !0'T MLLW 0.00 - REMOVE (2) H FOOT SECTIONS OF CHAIN , �• - LINK FENCE E80SION AND DEMOLITION SITE PLAN _ SCALE: 1' - 40' SCALE: 1' - 40' 18-1 �C V V DRAWN By.. D. HENNING REFERENCE NUMBER: APPLICANT NAME: WASHINGTON DEPT. of FISH & WILDLIFE PROPOSED PROJECT: ACCESS REDEVELOPMENT LOCATION: POINT WHITNEY SHEET 3 OF 9 DATE:03/27i2019 CONSTRUCTION 5PFCIFIC6TIONS: 1. PREPARE THE SLOPE BEFORE THE WATTLING PROCEDURE IS STARTED. 2. SHALLOW GULUES SHOULD BE SMOOTHED AS WORK PROGRESSES. 3. DIG SMALL TRENCHES ACROSS THE SLOPE ON CONTOUR. TO PLACE ROLLS IN. THE TRENCH SHOULD BE DEEP ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE HALF THE THICKNESS OF THE ROLL WHEN THE SOIL IS LOOSE AND UNCOMPACTED, THE TRENCH SHOULD BE DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY THE ROLL 2/3 OF ITS THICKNESS BECAUSE THE GROUND WILL SETTLE. 4. IT IS CRITICAL THAT ROLLS ARE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO WATER MOVEMENT, PARALLEL TO THE SLOPE CONTOUR. 5. START BUILDING TRENCHES AND INSTALL ROLLS FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SLOPE AND WORK UP. 6. CONSTRUCT TRENCHES AT CONTOUR INTERVALS OF 3-12 FEET APART DEPENDING ON STEEPNESS OF SLOPE, THE STEEPER THE SLOPE, THE CLOSER TOOMER T1LE TRENCkES. 1:1-10' 2:1-20' 3:1-30' 4.1-46' 7. LAY THE ROLL ALONG THE TRENCHES FITTING IT SNUGLY AGAINST THE SOIL MAKE SURE NO GAPS EXIST DETWEEN THE SOL AND THE STRAW WATTLE. B. USE A STRAIGHT BAR TO DRIVE HOLES THROUGH THE WATTLE AND INTO THE SOIL FOR THE WILLOW OR WOODEN STAKES. 6. DRIVE THE STAKE THROUGH PREPARED HOLE INTO SOIL. LEAVE ONLY 1 OR 2 INCHES OF STAKE EXPOSED ABOVE ROLL 10, IF USING WILLOW STAKES REFER TO LIVE STAKING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. 11.INSTALL STAKES AT LEAST EVERY 4 FEET APART THROUGH THE WATTLE ADDITIONAL STAKES MAY BE DRIVEN ON THE DOWNSLOPE SIDE OF THE TRENCHES ON HIGHLY EROSIVE OR VERY STEEP SLOPES. 12. INSPECT THE STRAW ROLLS AND THE SLOPES AFTER SIGNIFICANT STORMS. MAKE SURE THE ROLLS ARE IN CONTACT WITH THE SOIL 13. REPAIR ANY RILLS OR GULLYS PROMPTLY. 14. RESEED OR REPLANT VEGETATION IF NECESSARY UNTIL THE SLOPE 15 STABILIZED. ENG. PROJECT NO. JN;A633:18-1 DRAWN 13Y: D. KENNING BATTERED PILING APPROX LOCATION AT BOTTOM MLLN 0100 SEE MITIGATION PLAN SHEEP HEET 9 - *NM STOPS 71P ---z--ZfAHHW 1145 PICNIC TABLE GRAVEL GENERATOR MLLW 0.00 CHAIN UNK FENCE, f"Lm SIM HOUSE EDGE OF PARKING, LOT ENG. PROJECT NO. /allm VOOON ' RACEWAY AND RESTROOM II I PR PqS D 11TE PLAN SCALE:1' - 100' REFERENCE APPLICANT WASHII PROPOSED ACCESS LOCATION: DRAWN By.. D. HENNING SHEET 5 NOTE A SIGN WILL BE PLACED ON THE INTERPRETATIVE BOARD STATING THAT 'NO MOTOR VEHICLES ALLOWED ON THE BEACH. EMPTY BOAT TRAILERS ARE AUTHORIZED- DABOB BAY sEitim E - --- Eft - - DOE 1. 13.2' LINE I ADMIN BUILDING ENG. PROJECT NO. JNrA633:18— — IULW 0.00 �`� fig• Y • - _ 1 .INSTALL (33) 4'X12'X6" RAMP PLANKS TO , -� APPROX. ELEVATION -2.0 CONCRETE BOAT RAMP TO REMAIN MHHW 11 55 ARTICULATED CONCRETE MAT J� NAVY DEPARTMENT MONUMENT CORNER NUMBER USA 1351 BELOW 1 SURF GRtAI ,moo PMP SITE ELAN 4ub 130 OMNI za REFERENCE n APPLICANT �f WASHIh l PROPOSED ACCESS ■ LOCATION: I (� DRAWN sy.- D. HENNING SHEEP 6 p O N N 0 O N 1 I i I tj ' I1 I} ll;l 11' lill li � � 1I l Zvi- ELEV. APPROX icx( NO GROUND � 1.I0 I , I END OF EXISTING RAMP 1 I fi END OF NEWRAMP Ill I'; QI.O 5TA 11+E9.pOf I��I li�l li I I� �I III �� ;li f � � 11 I,'�I•�I' rR'C g �E)ZnYG CONCRETE BOAT lRAMP TO RaM ELEV. APPROX. 5.421 GRADE BREAK ' 1i I II I 1 I INSTALL 3 RAILS I I t I �I INSTALL AND LEVEL l jI ❑ NEW RAMP PLANKS. SIZE TO BE DETERMINED AT A I + LATM DATE. , i I �f I Lo-tt leo INSTALL (28) 4'XT2'X5" RAMP III ' I I I •k . PLANKS TO IEV EA�ION -2.0. II I f I 'I I�1',�, +av ELEV. _ 13.59 BEGINNING OF NEW RAMPi II III 11 I I il�! ;I'.:II� ELEV. - 15.21 Il rs BEGINNING OF NEW ASPHALT F0% RAMP INSTALL ' 3 � 8 i .OL g R o m o n o n 1 I \V1V, REFERENCE NUMBER: O,V APPLICANT NAME:, WASHINGTON DEPT. of FISH do WILDLIFE G c PROPOSED PROJECT: ,V POINT WHITNEY ACCESS C� LOCATION: POINT WHITNEY ENG. PROJECT NO. JN:A633:1$--1 DRAWN BY: D. HENNING SHEET 7 OF 9 DATE:03/27/2019 IM �i Ij -s t` Is . ! 1W MFNO L� Li Lem r.ir�I, i i i i ■ ■ ■ ■ r r „ I�II�ii Mar}I:� i7l�l' 11:I�AIIi11C f �I 0 WITCH EXISTING SOY PARKING AREA WHEEL STOPS 7YP ELEVATION OF RESTWMTT011 SET 6Y MATCHINO THE TOP GR• + • -RELOCATED P AVETjVE0ETa ` AITON LINE I PICNIC TABLE LINE OF ; • • + VEGETATION LINE • + • . • . r . �� _ • . . B00 SF. � GRAVEL PARKING • MRIGATION�AREA • AREA EXCAVATE TO EXISTING ELEVATION • �° • �, ` 20• BARRIER LOG--____ SLOPE 1RW TTIGN AT CORNER. TILL MOM SHALL NOT MIT LIAO ANY EXISTING RIP RAP 6' CHAINLINK^� 1 FENCE MLLW 0.00 MHHW 11.55 � P MITI TION PLAN - 2O a a { T SCALE: 1• - 20' ENG. PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: D. HENNING Appendix E--Creosote Piling Removal Best Management Practices (BMPs) Washington Department of Natural Resources Derelict Creosote Piling Removal Beta Management Practices For Pile Removal & Disposal The hallowing Best Management Practices (BMPs) are adapted from EPA guidance (2005), Washinglon State Department of Ttnn%portalion (WSDOT) metliods and conservation aciivitica as included in Joint Aquatic Resources Protection Application (DARPA) 2005. and WaLshington State Department (Yf Resources (WADNR) "Standard Practice for the Use and Removal of Treated Woad and Pilings on and from State -Owned Aquatic Lands" 2005, as well a.% WAI?NR `s practical experience throrntgh managing piling removal projects since 2006, The purpose of these BMPs is to control turbidity and sediments re-entering the water column during pile removal, and prescribe debris capture and disposal oi'removed piles and debris, BMP 1. PILE REMOVAL Crane operator shall be experienced in pile removal. Piles will be removed slowly. This will minimize turbidity in the water column as well as acdinrent disturbance, Pulled pile shall be placed in a containment basin to capture any adhering sediment_ This should be done immediately after the pile is initially removed from the water. A, Vibratory extraction 1) This is the preferred method of pile removal. Vibratory extraction shall always be employed first unless the pile is too decayed or short for the vibratory hammer to 1pip. Mier consultation with WADNR, the alternative. options listed below may he used. 2) The vibratory hatnmer is a large mechanical device (5-16 team) that is suspended from a crane by a cable. The hammer is activated to loosen the failing by vibrating as the piling is pulled up. The hammier is Shut off when the end of the failing MaCheS the mudline. Vibratory extraction takes approximately 15 to 30 minutes per piling depending on piling length and sediment condition_ 3) Operator will "Wake up" pil? to break up bond with sediment. Vibrating breaks the: skin 11riciion bond between pile; and soil. + Band breaking avoids pulling out a large block of soil possibly breaking Gaff the pile in the process. Usually there is little or no sediment attached tea the skin of the pile during withdrawal, In sonic cases material may be attached to the pile tip, in line with the pile. B_ Direct Pull 1) This method is optional if the contractor determines it lobe appropriate for the substrate type, pile length, and structural integrity of the piling, Vibratory extractor must be; attempted first unless there is risk of greater disturbance of sediments. Updal d L 25f?Ce17 2) Pilings are wrapped with a choker cable or chain that is altached at the top to a crane. The crane pulls the piling directly upward, removing the piling from the sedimenl. C, Clamshell Removal 1) Broken and damaged pilings that cannot he removed by either the vibratory hammer or direct pull may be rerntwed with either a clamshelI bucket or environmental clamshell. 2) A clamshell is a hinged steel apparatus that operates like a set of ~tool jaws. The bucket is lowered from a crane and the jaws grasp the piling stub as the Crane pulls up. 3) The size of the clanishell bucket %hall be minimized to reduce turbidity during piling removal. 4) The clanishell bucket shall be emptied of material onto a contained area on the barge before it is lowered into the water, D. Cutting l) is required if the pile breaks at or near the existing substrate and cannot be removed by other methods. 2) if a pile is broken or breaks during extraction. all of the methods listed below should be used to cut the pile. a. piles located in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas that are leis than .10 feet deep ,%4LI_W shall be cut at least 2 feet below the rnudline. b. In subudal areas that are greater than -10 feet deep MLLIAI. piles shall be cut at leant 1 foot below the mudline, c, Piles shall be cut off at lowest practical tide condition and at slack water. This is intended to reduce turbidity due to reduced flow and short water column through which pile must be withdrawn. d. No hydraulic jetting devices shall be used to move sediment away from piles, Fxcavation of sedimenl in subtidal areas to expose broken piles shall be accomplished by divers using hand tools. e. The contractor shall prcovide the location of all the broken and cut piles using a GPS, BMP 2. BARGE OPERATIONS, WORK SURFACE, CONTAINMENT A. Barge grounding will not be permitted. 13, Work surface on barge deck or pier. or upland staging area shall include a containment basin for all treated materials and any sediment removed during pulling. Creosote shall be prevented from re-entering the water, Uncontaminated water run-off can return to the waterway. Lipdatcd Ii25-,201 1) Containment basin shall be constructed ofdurable plastic sheeting with ccmunuous sidewalls supported by hay bales, ecology blocks, father non-c tin laminated material~. or support structure to contain all sediment and creosote. Containment basin shall be lined with oil absorbent boom, 2) Work surface on barge deck and adjacent pier shall be cleaned by disposing ofsediment or other residues along with cut off piling as described in 13' 415 #4.13. 3) Containment basin shall be removed and disposed in accordance with BMP #4.B fir in another manner complying with applicable federal and state tcgulations. 4) Upon removal from substrate the pile shall be moved cxpeditiously from the water into the containment basin. The pile shall not be shaken, hosed -toff, left hanging to drip or any other action intended to clean or remuve adhering material from the pile. BMP 3. DEBRIS CAPTURE IN WAFER A. A floating surface boom shall be installed to capture floating surface debris, The floating boom shall be equipped with absorbent pacts to contain any oil sheens, Debris will he Collected and disposed ol`along with cut off piling as described in BMP #4. 13. The boom may be anchored with four or fewer :�- ecology block s or a similar anchoring device. These anchor-; must be removed once the project is complete. The anchor system shall he located to avoid damage from vessel props to eelgrass, kelp, and other significant macroalgae species_ The line length between the anchor and surface fivai shall not exceed the water depth as measured at extreme high tide plus a maximum of 20 percent additional line for weape. The buoy system shall include a subsurface float designed to keep the line between the, anchor and Surface float from contacting the bottom during low, tide cycles. The subsurface float shall be located off the bottom a distance equal to 113 the line length C. The buoin shall be located at a sufficient distance from all sides of the structure or piles that are being removed to ensure that contaminated materials are captured_ The boom shall stay in its original location until any sheen prescnl from removed pilings has been absorbed by the boom. BMP #311 may be used to peep the boom in its original location. DP Debris contained within boom shall be removed at the end of each work day or immediately if water% are rough and there is a chance that debris may escape the boom. F. To the extent possible- all sawdust shall bt prevented trom contacting beach, bed, or waters of the state. FOt Cxarnple. sawdust on top of decking should be removed immediately OCT sawing operations. F Any sawdust that enters the water shall be collected imirtediateiy and placed in (lie containment basin. G. Piles removed horn the water shall be transferred to the containment basin'eiihout let+ving the hoonted area to prevent creosote from dripping outside of the boom Updated 1325r'2017 BMP 4. DISPOSAL OF PILING, SEDIMENT AND CONSTRUCTION RESIDUE A, Piles shall be cut into lengths as required by the disposal company. B, C111 up filing, sediments, absorbent padsp'b )om. construction residue and plastic: shGcting f in containment basin shall be packed into container. For disposal. ship to all approl.ed Subtitle D Landfill, C, Creosote-Ireated materials shall not be reused. BMP 5. RESUSPENSIONFTURBIDITY A, Crane operator shall be trained to remove pile froin sediment slt)wly_ B. Work shall be done in line water and loin current, to the extent possible. C. Removed piles shall be placed in a containment facility. D. Sediments spilled on work surfaces shall he contained and disposed of with the pile debris at permitted upland disposal site. 1i. Holes remaining afler piling removal shall not be tilled. BMP 6. PROJECT OVERSIGHT A. WADNR will have a project manager or other assigned personnel on site. Oversight responsibilities may include, but are not limited to the following. 1) Water quality monitoring to ensure turbidity levels remain within required parameters 2) Ensure contractor follows BMi's 3) Ensure contractor is in compliance with contract and pernitt requirements 4) Ensure correct structures arc removed 5) Maintain contact with regulatory agencies should issues or emergencieti arise BMP 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. In the elrent that artifacts (other than the pilings or materials attached to them) Ihat appear to be 30 years old or older are found during the project, the WADNR Aquatics archaeologist must be notified in order to evaluate the find and arrange fior any necessary consultation and mitigation required by law. B. If human remains or suspected human remains are found during the project, work in the vicinity will be halted immediately, and the County Coroner must he notified immediately, if Updated I�25f_1U17 the remains are determined to be non -forensic, then da W ADNR Aquatics archaeologist will be notified to begin tribal and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation consultations required by law. C. If sediment exceeding 1 cubic meter is removed, the'WADNR Aquatics archaeologist will be notified and given the opportuMty to examine the sediment for cultural materials befvote it is removed from the containment area. Updated 112512017