The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog001 - Fe bruary 1, 2(J()() File '\0. 24-l)l)-(J14-()()I-(Jl \11. Randy Kline Jefferson County Department of Community Development 1'12 I Sheridan Street Port TCl\vnsencL W;\ l)x3nX Subject: Port Ludlo\\ Marina Expansion Project Dear \1r. Kline: This is a follow up to my phone conversation and e-mails to you regarding the above referenced project. Port Ludlow Marina proposes to expand its existing 3S0-slip marina by adding I (J(J slips. We will be holding a site visit for this project on February 9,2000, from 10:45 a.m. to 12:3() p.m. at the Port Ludlow Marina. We will first view the site then move to a nearby conference space to discuss the project in greater detail. There is a ferry from Seattle to Bainbridge leaving at 9:25 a.m. that would allow you to arrive at Port Ludlow about ]()AS. From Edmonds, the 9:25 a.m. ferry will allow you to arrive at about l(U(J. We will meet at the Marina Offices. Driving directions from the Hoods Canal Bridge to Port Ludlo\N are enclosed. ALso, enclosed is a copy of the preliminary site plan and draft Biological Evaluation (BE) for your ITVIC\\. The BE document contains the project description, project location, and biological impacts associated with the proposed project. We will provide you with additional information about the project at our site visit. Please note these are all In preliminary form, subject to change based on the outcome of our conversation. There will be a pre-conference meeting for this project with the Corps of Engineers on Wednesday, February IS, 2(J(J(J, at 9:3(J a.m. SII1cerely, Reid Middleton, Inc. '\ ico Ie Faghin Senior Planner hjr\24 IIJ\L)l)\() 14ptludl()w\2_ l.d()l\mt Enclosures cc: Jon Rose Jon Houghton '-/ "'-'I ,..- In ~ il ,....... Pentec -- I.'" \..-' f5) Ie ~ le D \YJ [E rm lfU FEB - 3 2000 llV '-- JEfFERSON COUNTY OEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i..- '-" Port Ludlow Marina Expansion ....... Biological Evaluation '-' Preliminary Draft Report ...... Prepared for: ...... Reid Middleton, Inc. Prepared by: ..... Pentec Environmental i Project No. 007-040 l.... 120 Third Avenue S, Suite 110 Edmonds, W A 98020 ..,..., (425) 775-4682 February 1, 2000 ....... '-' L LOG ITEM "# ( Page ~of-1!L . . '- ',-, -- '--' Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Report Prepared for: "'-' '-' Reid Middleton, Inc. 728 - 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, W A 98204 Prepared by: Pentec Environmental Project No. 007-040 120 Third Avenue S, Suite 110 Edmonds, W A 98020 (425) 775-4682 February 1, 2000 i.,.'v \.,) rfE M # -- , ... ~~ Page ~Of-!t!L '- .'-" TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 I ntrod uction .... ........................ ........... ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ............ ........ 1 -- 2.0 Project Descri ption ..... ........ ..... ..... ..... ............... ......... ........ .... ...... ... ...... ...... ............ .3 2.1 Location and Description of Project Area ........................................................................ 3 2.2 Action Area................ ......... .......... ..... ....... .................... ............... ........... ....... ...... .......... '" 3 2.3 Project Description .............................. ............................................................................. 3 3.0 Species and .Habitat... ...... ..... .......... ........................ ....... ...... .... ....... .......... ..... ......... 7 -- 3.1 Species Information.......................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Chinook Salmon .................................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Coho Salmon.. .......... .......... ..... ......................... ....... ............... .......... .......... ......... 10 3.1.3 Chum Salmon ...... ..... ........... .......... ..................................... ..... ........ ....... ............. 11 3.1.4 Bull Trout....... ..... ...... ..... ...................... ............................... ............... .......... ....... 12 3.1.5 Bald Eagle....... ............ ........... ...... ...... .................... ~. ............... .......... ....... ........... 13 3.1.6 Marbled Murrelet........................ .... ........ ....... ........... ......... ..... ........ ......... ........ .... 15 3.2 Existing Environmental Conditions..... ...................'.. ...... ............ ........... ........ ........ ......... 17 3.2.1 Water Quality and Stormwater ............................................................................ 17 3.2.2 Sediment Quality.. ............... .................... ............... ............... .......... .............. ...... 19 3.2.3 Habitat....... ........ ..... ............. ..... ............ ......... ..... .............. .................. .......... ....... 20 3.2.4 Biota....... ..................... ......... ........ ............ ...... .......... ............... .......... ..... ....... ...... 22 '- 4.0 Effects of the Action ............................................................................................ 25 4.1 Effects Analysis.......... ........... ............ ...... ........ ..... ............ ........ ......... ................. ............ 25 4.1.1 Construction Disturbances............................. ............ .......... ................ .......... ...... 25 4.1.2 Water Quality.... ............................. ...... .............. .......... .... ...... ................... .......... 27 4.1.3 Sediment Quality......... .................... ........ ....... .......... ............ ... .............. ........ ...... 28 4.1.4 Habitat Conditions.... ............... ....... ...................... .................................... ........... 29 4.1.5 Biota............... .................................................. ...................... ................. ............ 29 4.1.6 Net Effects of Action ............................................................................................ 30 4.1.7 Cumulative, Interdependent, and Interrelated Effects ......................................... 31 4.2 Take Analysis ..... ....... ........... ............ ....... ..... ......... ..... ........ ............. ........... ...... .............. 31 4.3 Conservation Measures........ ......... ............... ..... ...... .......... ........... ........... ....... ......... ........ 32 4.4 Determination of Effects......... ............ ............ ....... ...... ...... ....... ............... ......... ........ ...... 32 4.4.1 Salmonids...... ............. ........... ................. ......... ...... .............. ............... ................. 33 4.4.2 Birds.................................................................................................................... 33 '- 5.0 References .................. ....... ..... ...... ...... ...... ........ .............. ..... ...... ...... ............. ........ 35 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page iii lOG JTEM Page (/ Of_tJc/ # ( ---=l-LL LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site vicinity map...... ....... ........ .......... ..... ................. ........ ........... ..... ....... ................ ........ 4 Figure 2 Plan view of proposed XXXX ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Timing of salmon freshwater life phases in the Quilcene Basin................................... 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Pathways and indicators for evaluating salmon habitat in the urban estuary.............. 18 Table 2 Summary of sediment metals concentrations (mg/kg) in Port Ludlow Marina sediments collected between 1987 and 1995 compared with their respective Sediment Quality Standards ..............................................................20 Table 3 Net effects of the action on relevant pathways and indicators.................................... 26 February 1, 2000 page iv 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res LOG ITEM # I ... , Page -S.._Of4!{ '---- '~/ Pentec PORT LUDLOW MARINA EXPANSION BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) formalized the listing of Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (0. keta) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on May 24, 1999, and March 25, 1999, respectively. NMFS has designated the coho salmon (0. kisutch) as a candidate for listing. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Puget Sound as threatened, effective December 1, 1999. Section 7 of the ESA requires that any action by a federal agency is "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any [listed] species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species...." The Port Ludlow Marina Expansion project qualifies as such an action. Under ESA Section 7(c), the lead federal agency, in this case the Corps, must prepare a biological evaluation (BE) of the potential influence of its action (permitting the expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina) on listed species or their critical habitat. Depending on the conclusion of the BE, the Corps may be required to confer formally with NMFS or USFWS regarding the project. This BE is being prepared for Corps review and possible submittal to NMFS and USFWS as an aid to ESA decision-making regarding the potential effects of the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion project. This BE addresses the potential effects of the proposed project on chinook salmon, coho salmon, and bull trout, and their habitat. In addition, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are federally listed threatened species that may occur in the project area and are addressed in this BE. Other threatened or endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound include the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus; threatened), the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae; endangered) and the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea; endangered). However, these species are extremely unlikely to occur in the project area (defined in Section 2.1) and are therefore not covered in this BE. February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 1 .,lOGITEM # ,Page ~Of-!i!i. ~ ("~ Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation page 2 ':~:~. LOG ITEM r ..- February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res Page -'1_0f.$!f- '-'" -- Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation '--/ Preliminary Draft Pentec '-' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA The "project area" is where the proposed action will take place. In this case, Port Ludlow Marina is located in Port Ludlow Bay, Jefferson County, Washington (Township 28 North, Range 01 East, Section 16) (Figures 1 and 2). Port Ludlow Bay, located on the west shore of Admiralty Inlet at the mouth of Hood Canal, is a 2.2-mP, J-shaped tidal basin. The bay extends from the mouth of Ludlow Creek 3.5 mi to Admiralty Inlet. The eastern approach to the bay is characterized by a submerged sill having an average depth of 24 ft mean sea level (MSL). This sill forms a submerged basin open to the north. The average depth at the mouth of the bay is 82 ft. From this point, the bottom of the basin slopes upward for a distance of 0.5 mi to a depth of 50 to 60 ft. From here, the depth of the bay remains fairly uniform between 50 and 60 ft throughout most of its length to within 0.5 mi of Ludlow Creek. The innermost 0.5 mi of the bay has an average depth of 16 ft MSL (Jefferson County 1993). '-' 2.2 ACTION AREA The "action area" includes all areas at and around the project that would be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action. In this case, the action area is defined as the entire Port Ludlow Marina, which is open to Port Ludlow Bay. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Port Ludlow Marina has 300 slips in its current configuration and can accommodate vessels up to 170 ft in length. Under the proposed marina expansion, 100 slips will be added, with slips varying in length from 35 to 60 ft. Approximately 40 to 60 concrete or steel piles will be installed using a barge-mounted pile driver. It is anticipated that the work will begin in the fall of 2001 and will require about 4 to 6 months to complete. February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00) ,doc: res LOG rreM #_~-( Page ~Of-!!..:j page 3 5 ~ Cy ~ '::) ~ "V Map prepared from USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Port Ludlow, Washington APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ~------ O' 1000' 2000' 4000' Pentec Port Ludlow Marina Expansion BE Port Ludlow, Washington for Reid Middleton" 0 Figure 1 Site vicinity map. ENWIONIIENrAL 01/24/00 Fig_1.FH8 _Of -..'irL Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation ''-' '.........-' Preliminary Draft Pentec Insert Figure 2 (see attached figure) '- February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res i~_'4JGITEM # I ._ . page 5 Page ...L!Lof-!f:f '.~ \..~' Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec 3.0 SPECIES AND HABITAT 3.1 SPECIES INFORMATION '-- The action area has been defined as the entire Port Ludlow Marina. Although no studies have been conducted on the river of origin of juvenile salmonids in Port Ludlow, it expected that salmonid use of Port Ludlow is extensive. The listed Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon are known to use the area and Puget Sound chinook salmon likely use Port Ludlow (Cameron, R., WDPW, pers. comm., 2000). Port Ludlow is located at the mouth of Hood Canal; thus, chinook salmon, coho salmon, and summer-run chum from a number of river basins within the Hood Canal basin may likely use Port Ludlow. The larger rivers within the Hood Canal basin with summer-run chums, chinook salmon, and/or coho salmon include the Skokomish, Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, Dosewallips, and Qui1cene River system. The river basin that is closest to Port Ludlow that contains both Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon is the Qui1cene River system, located roughly 38 mi south of Port Ludlow, draining to Qui1cene Bay on the Hood Canal. The river contains runs of fall chinook, coho, and summer-run chum salmon (Williams et al. 1975). For purposes of this assessment the Qui1cene River system is considered to be a representative source of chinook salmon, summer-run chum salmon, and coho salmon that' occur in the action area. '- Surveys conducted in the Big Qui1cene River indicate that there is not a distinct bull trout/Dolly Varden (see Section 3.1.4.2) stock in the river (WDPW 1998a). Hood Canal bull trout/Dolly Varden are currently separated into three distinct stocks, all located within the Skokomish River basin (WDPW 1998a). Thus, any bull trout that may occur in Ludlow Bay originate in rivers other than the Qui1cene River system. In addition to chinook and coho salmon and bull trout, the bald eagle and marbled murrelet may also occur in the project vicinity. The life histories and stock status of these avian species is also discussed. '- February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 7 LOG \TEM "# 1---- ".- Page~Of...!{.:{. Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation 3.1.1 Chinook Salmon 3.1.1.1 Life History Chinook salmon prefer to spawn and rear in the main stem of rivers and larger streams (Williams et al. 1975, Healey 1991). In the Quilcene River system, the Big Quilcene River is the only system containing sufficient flows during the late summer-early fall spawning migration period to accommodate a sustained run of fall chinook. Occasionally a few chinook are observed spawning in the Little Quilcene River, although it is felt that these are strays from the run destined for the Big Quilcene. This is an introduced stock of chinook and a large portion of adult returns is attributed to hatchery production (Williams et al. 1975). The adult chinook spawning migration begins in early September and continues into mid-October. Spawning commences in mid-September and terminates early in November. The Federal Fish Hatchery at river mile (RM) 2.8 at the mouth of Penny Creek is the upper limit of salmon migration. The lower 2 mi of the river provide excellent spawning habitat and is used extensively by chinook spawners. Following incubation and subsequent emergence, the majority of chinook fry rear in the system from 90 to 120 days before entering the estuary, with the major outmigration between April and June (Figure 3) (Williams et al. 1975). In watersheds with an unaltered estuary, chinook smolts spend a prolonged period (several days to several weeks) during their spring outmigration feeding in saltmarshes and distributary channels as they transition gradually into more marine waters (Simenstad et al. 1982). Chinook fry and subyearlings in saltmarsh and other shallow habitat predominantly prey on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans such as gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans. As chinook mature and move to neritic habitat, they feed on small nekton (decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, and euphausiids) and neustonic drift insects (Simenstad et al. 1982; see also detailed life history review by Healey 1991). 3.1.1.2 Stock Status No stock status information was found for the Quilcene River system fall chinook stock. Because hatchery stocks have been mixed with wild chinook populations within the Hood Canal basin, Hood Canal chinook have been combined into a single stock for the purposes of stock page 8 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res LOGlTEM # .r ~ Page --.1.1c..oc.!:f.!(: Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec assessment (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). As of 1992, the stock status of the Hood Canal chinook salmon stock was rated as healthy (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). There is no critical habitat designated for Puget Sound chinook salmon. Critical habitat is currently proposed by NMFS, though not yet granted specific protection. Proposed critical habitat includes all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Puget Sound. ~ Figure 3 Timing of salmon freshwater life phases in the Quilcene Basin. Freshwater Species Life Phase J F M A S 0 N 0 Spring Chinook Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. outmigration Summer-Fall Upstream migration Chinook Spawning - Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. outmigration Coho Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop, Juvenile rearing -- Juv. outmigration Chum Upstream migration Spawning Intragravel develop. Juvenile rearing Juv. outmigration 00007\04O\figure3,xls -- February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 9 LOG ITEM # I Page ~Of-$fl Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation 3.1.2 Coho Salmon 3.1.2.1 Life History All accessible streams and tributaries draining the upper Hood Canal-Straits basin are utilized by coho salmon. Spawning occurs in almost every stream area where suitable spawning habitat and conditions permit, including the mainstem of the Big Qui1cene River up to the diversion dam barrier at RM 9.4, and in the mainstem Little Qui1cene River up to the City of Port Townsend diversion dam at RM 7.1 (Williams et al. 1975). Mature coho begin entering the basin streams in early October, with the peak of migration occurring in early November; spawning extends over the period from later October until the end of December. The fry emerge from the gravel starting in early March and generally remain in the system for more than a year. The normal outmigration occurs in the second year of freshwater existence from late February to mid-April (Figure 3) (Williams et al. 1975). Because of their larger size when entering saltwater, coho are generally considered less dependent on estuarine rearing than chinook or chum salmon (Simenstad et al. 1982). Coho tend to move through estuaries more rapidly, using deeper waters along shorelines. Feeding is primarily on planktonic or small nektonic organisms, including decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, and euphausiids (Miller et al. 1976, Simenstad et aI. 1982). Coho also eat drift insects and epibenthic gammarid amphipods,especially in turbid estuaries (see detailed life history review by Sandercock 1991). 3.1.2.2 Stock Status The status of the Hood Canal-Qui1cene/Dabob Bays coho stock was considered depressed as of 1992 (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). No critical habitat has been proposed for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. page 10 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res 1,~0G ITEM # /,_,,-:- Page -f:(_Of-!:{!f.. '-/ ,,-,I Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec 3.1.3 Chum Salmon 3.1.3.1 Life History '-" Chum salmon spend more of their life history in marine waters than other Pacific salmonids. Chum salmon, like pink salmon, usually spawn in coastal areas, and juveniles outmigrate to seawater almost immediately after emerging from the gravel (Johnson et al. 1997). This ocean-type migratory behavior contrasts with the stream-type behavior of some other species in the genus Oncorhynchus (e.g., coho salmon and most types of chinook and sockeye salmon), which usually migrate to sea at a larger size, after months or years of freshwater rearing. It is believed that survival and growth in juvenile chum salmon depend less on freshwater conditions than on favorable estuarine conditions (Johnson et al. 1997). Chum salmon may enter natal river systems from June to March, depending on characteristics of the population or geographic location (Johnson et al. 1997). Of primary focus is the Hood Canal summer chum salmon, with spawning runs occurring between early September and mid-October (Johnson et al. 1997). In the Quilcene River basin in upper Hood Canal there are two distinct runs of spawning chum salmon. The early run (summer) enters the system in later September and spawns from October 1 to 20, while the late-run (fall) spawners move upstream into the system the first week of November and spawn from mid-November to mid-December (Figure 3) (Williams et al. 1975). <>,4 - Chum salmon juveniles, like other anadromous salmonids, use estuaries to feed before beginning long-distance ocean migrations. However, chum and ocean-type chinook salmon usually have longer residence times in estuaries than do other anadromous salmonids. The period of estuarine residence appears to the most critical phase in the life history of chum salmon and appears to playa major role in determining the size of the subsequent adult run back to fresh water (Johnson et al. 1997). - Simenstad et al. (1982) summarized the diets of juvenile salmonids in 16 estuaries and concluded that small (S 50- to 60-mm fork length [FL]) juvenile chum salmon fed primarily on such epibenthic crustaceans as harpacticoids copepods, gammarid amphipods, and isopods, whereas large juveniles (> 60-mm FL) in neritic habitats fed on drift insects and on such plankton as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and hperiid amphipods. However, the early diet of juvenile chum salmon at localities also consists exclusively of neritic zooplankton. February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res page 11 LOG ITEM ~ I, ~... Page ((" --Of-!{!f Pentec Prelimin, Draft Port Ludlow Mal,) Biological Evaluation 3.1.3.2 Stock Status No stock status information was found for summer-run chum salmon specific to the Quilcene River system, but instead the stock status for the entire Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon stock was assessed. Hood Canal summer chum spawn primarily in the Big Quilcene, Dosewallips, Duckabush, and Hamma Hamma Rivers. As of 1992, this stock was classified as critical (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). No critical habitat has yet been designated for Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon. 3.1.4 Bull Trout 3.1.4.1 Life History Newly hatched anadromous bull trout emerge from the gravel in the spring (WDFW 1998b). They typically spend 2 years in fresh water before they migrate to saltwater, the mainstem of rivers, or reservoirs, although there are populations of bull trout that do not exhibit this behavior; these trout spend their entire lives in the same stretch of headwater stream. These fish may not mature until they are 7 to 8 years old, and rarely reach sizes greater than 14 inches in length. (WDFW 1998b). Bull trout typically use pristine headwater areas to spawn (WDFW 1998b). Spawning begins in late August, peaks in September and October, and ends in November. Fish in a given stream spawn over a period of 2 weeks or less. Almost immediately after spawning, adults begin to work their way back to the mainstem rivers, lakes, or reservoirs to overwinter. Some of these fish stay in these areas while others move into saltwater in the spring. Bull trout will spawn a second or even third time. Kelts feed aggressively to recover from the stress of spawning (WDFW 1998b). Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, eating aquatic insects, shrimp, snails, leeches, fish eggs, and fish. Early beliefs that these fish are serious predators of salmon and steelhead are generally not supported today (WDFW 1998b). page 12 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res LOG ITEM # ( Page ((p _oCr#- ~ ~ .'. ~,=,~."..,:~~ ;')- ;..:...~_..::',;"':",:,.,;~~,;..;-,\;.~.~__,' '. -~-v.'-:.,n;: i;,/;:.,:--:,,:;;:;~-<>::~.::.:::.- '-- ~ Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec Any bull trout that may occur in the action area likely originate from rivers other than the Qui1cene River system, which does not have distinct stock of bull trout/Dolly Varden (WDFW 1998a). 3.1.4.2 Stock Status The status and occurrence of anadromous populations of bull trout in Puget Sound are subject to some scientific debate; separation of anadromous bull trout from the closely related anadromous Dolly Varden char (S. malma) is very difficult and can only be accomplished using electrophoretic techniques (Leary and Allendorf 1997). Until further resolution is possible, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has made a decision to manage all Puget Sound stocks as if they were a single bull trout/Dolly Varden complex (Washington Department of Wildlife [WDW; now WDFW] 1993). The USFWS has not established or identified critical habitat for coastal bull trout in Puget Sound. 3.1.5 Bald Eagle 3.1.5.1 Life History ..... Bald eagles historically ranged throughout North America except extreme northern Alaska and Canada and central and southern Mexico. The bald eagle's habitat includes estuaries, large lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. In Washington, resident bald eagle populations occur primarily near large bodies of water west of the Cascade Mountains (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Bald eagles are known to occur in the Puget Sound area. Nest trees are typically, but not always, tall conifers with most nest trees located within 1 mi of large bodies of water with adequate food supplies (Anthony et al. 1982). '-" The diet of bald eagles at a site in Puget Sound (Discovery Park) has been studied by watching birds as they hunt and return with prey to an active nest site (Parametrix 1992-1995 and 1996). Marine and freshwater fish were identified as the preferred prey of these eagles during five seasons of observation, comprising over 84 percent of all captures and deliveries. Birds contributed a much smaller proportion (7.3 percent) of the eagles' diet. Fish species that were identified visually when the adult eagles were observed feeding their young included salmonids, February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 13 i".V\';'; 'ITEM '# { ..- Page 12-ofS!l- - Pentec Prelimina. 'I Draft Port Ludlow Marma Biological Evaluation catfish, pollock, cod, rockfish, carp, dogfish, sculpin, perch, and hake. Eagle foraging is best described as opportunistic, as they will take advantage of whatever prey is easiest to obtain. Bald eagles generally begin courtship activities in November. Copulation occurs from December to March, with egg laying and incubation during March. Eggs usually hatch in April and brooding occurs through June. Eaglets generally fledge in June or July. Adults often depart from the nesting area in August. They return the following fall to commence the nesting cycle. Time fluctuations in breeding activity can be attributed to weather changes affecting foraging or nest success (Parametrix 1992-1995 and 1996). 3.1.5.2 Stock Status After World War II, bald eagle populations declined significantly, largely as a result of the use of organochlorine pesticides and loss of nesting habitat (USFWS 1999). In 1963, only 417 nesting pairs of bald eagles were known to occur in the lower 48 states. In 1978, the bald eagle was listed as an endangered species in the continental United States, except in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, where it was listed as threatened (USFWS 1986). Due to recovery efforts, there are now an estimated 5,478 nesting pairs in the continental United States (USFWS 1999). As a result, biologists believe that the bald eagle may no longer require special protection under the ESA. In July 1999, the USFWS proposed toremove the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species. A final decision on deli sting is expected in July 2000. 3.1.5.3 Preliminary Effects Determination Proposed project activities will be confined to limited intertidal and subtidal 'areas and will not significantly affect eagle foraging areas or prey. Thus, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to directly or indirectly adversely affect, bald eagles that may occur in the project vicinity. Also, no interrelated or interdependent actions are expected to affect bald eagles. No further discussion of the effects of the project on the species is warranted or inc.1uded in this document. page 14 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res LOG ITEM #- I , . ... Page Ji......of-!t:{ \ ~" , \"'--'/ Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec 3.1.6 Marbled Murrelet 3.1.6.1 Life History The marbled murrelet, a small seabird that nests in the coastal, old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, inhabits the Pacific coast of North America from the Bering Sea to central California. In contrast to other seabirds, murrelets do not form dense colonies, and may fly 70 Ian or more inland to nest, generally in older coniferous forests. They are more commonly found inland during the summer breeding season, but make daily trips to the ocean to gather food, primarily fish and invertebrates, and have been detected in forests throughout the year. When not nesting, the birds live at sea, spending their days feeding and then moving several kilometers offshore at night (SEI 1999). The breeding season of the marbled murrelet generally begins in April, with most egg laying occurring in late May and early June. Peak hatching occurs in July after a 27- to 30-day incubation. Chicks remain in the nest and are fed by both parents. By the end of August, chicks have fledged and dispersed from nesting areas (Marks and Bishop 1999). The marbled murrelet differs from other seabirds in that its primary nesting habitat is old-growth coniferous forest within 50 to 75 mi of the coast. The nest typically consists of a depression on a moss-covered branch where a single egg is laid. Marbled murrelets appear to exhibit high fidelity to their nesting areas, and have been observed in forest stands for up to 20 years (Marks and Bishop 1999). Marbled murrelets have not been known to nest in other habitats including alpine forests, bog forests, scrub vegetation, or scree slopes (Marks and Bishop 1999). Marbled murrelets are presumable long-lived species but are characterized by low fecundity (one egg per nest) and low nesting and fledging success. Fledging success has been estimated at 45 percent. Nest predation on both eggs and chicks appears to be higher for marbled murrelets than for other a1cids, and may be cause for concern. Principal predators are birds, primarily corvids (jays, ravens, and crows) (Marks and Bishop 1999). At sea, foraging murrelets are usually found as widely spaced pairs. In some instances murrelets form or join flocks that are often associated with river plumes and currents. These flocks may contain sizable portions of local populations (Ralph and Miller 1999). February 1 , 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 15 LOG ITEM #_-( Page ~ot!{!:L . ' Pentec Prelimin . Draft Port Ludlow Ma a Biological Evaluation 3.1.6.2 Stock Status The total North American population of marbled murrelets is estimated to be 360,000 individuals. Approximately 85 percent of this population breeds along the coast of Alaska. Estimates for Washington, Oregon, and California vary between 16,500 and 35,000 murrelets (Ralph and Miller 1999). In British Columbia, the population was estimated at 45,000 birds in 1990 (Environment Canada 1999). In recent decades the murrelet population in Alaska and British Columbia has apparently suffered a marked decline, by as much as 50 percent. Between 1973 and 1989, the Prince William Sound, Alaska, murrelet population declined 67 percent. Trends in Washington, Oregon, and California are also down, but the extent of the decrease in unknown. Current data suggest an annual decline of at least 3 to 6 percent throughout the species' range (Ralph and Miller 1999). The most serious limiting factor for marbled murrelets is the loss of habitat through the removal of old-growth forests and fragmentation of forests. Forest fragmentation may be making nests near forest edges vulnerable to predation by other birds such as jays, crows, ravens, and great-homed owls (USFWS 1996). Entanglement in fishing nets is also a limiting factor in coastal areas due to the fact that the areas of salmon fishing and the breeding areas of marbled murrelets overlap. The marbled murre let is especially vulnerable to oil pollution; in both Alaska and British Columbia, it is considered the seabird most at risk from oil pollution. In 1989, an estimated 8,400 marbled murrelets were killed as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Marks and Bishop 1999). Marbled murrelets forage in nearshore waters where recreational boats are most often found. Disturbance by boats may cause them to abandon the best feeding areas (Environment Canada 1999). 3.1.6.3 Preliminary Effects Determination Proposed project activities will be confined to limited intertidal and subtidal areas and will not significantly affect murrelet foraging areas or prey. Thus, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to directly or indirectly adversely affect, marbled murrelets that may occur in the project vicinity. Also, no interrelated or interdependent actions are expected to affect marbled murrelets. No further discussion of the effects of the project on the species is warranted or included in this document. page 16 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res LOG ITeM # / , Page '?v _of ..!1.'f 4 ~- .".. ''''', ... ""~~- :.. _.~,., -", .~.': """',' ~'_"., .:':".;":"."-,-;7.~.._':' ~~w~ _"."7:~.~''';-.';~ .,'.";;:-:..---::::'-~~"-:: ,-.',: ......: .~,e';;:c;~-;..:;' ':~"':." "'''.''- );~'" ,;;.".\,';".~,':".','~::."'o<;'':.;.': '-~' "'-, Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec 3.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS '-' The existing habitat in the action area is described in this section in the context of a series of "pathways" and "indicators" (NMFS 1999). Pathways represent groups of environmental attributes important to anadromous fish and their habitats. Indicators may be either metric (numeric) or descriptive and are measures of how near-optimal the habitat is for the pathway and species in question. Within the context of this BE, the concept of pathways and indicators is useful to frame discussions of how the proposed project will influence (improve, maintain, or degrade) each indicator. A list of pathways and indicators considered in this BE is provided in Table 1. Relevant pathways and indicators are discussed in the following sections. 3.2.1 Water Quality and Stormwater -- The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has classified all waters of Port Ludlow as Class AA. Water quality monitoring of Port Ludlow Bay since 1984 has demonstrated that overall water quality in Port Ludlow Bay is excellent, consistent with its Class AA designation (Jefferson County 1993). A program to monitor nonpoint sources of pollutants to Port Ludlow Bay was initiated by Pope Resources, developers of the Port Ludlow Marina. Monitoring has continued since 1989, with the objectives of (1) establishing baseline water quality conditions, (2) evaluating the impacts of development activities and related nonpoint sources, (3) evaluating the effectiveness of nonpoint source controls such as stormwater management systems, and (4) monitoring long-term trends of bay water quality (Berryman & Henigar 1999). '- A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point-source monitoring program for the Port Ludlow Wastewater Treatment Plant was conducted from 1989 through 1997. This monitoring program documented water quality in Port Ludlow Bay during the environmentally critical months of May through October. The results of the point-source monitoring demonstrated continued excellent water quality in Port Ludlow Bay. The point-source monitoring program is no longer required by Ecology and was discontinued in 1998 (Berryman & Henigar 1999). A nonpoint monitoring program has been in place SInce 1989, with the most recent monitoring occurring in 1998. The nonpoint-source monitoring program was designed to assess February 1 , 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 17 LOG ITEM Page U # (, ~Of~ Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Table 1 Pathways and indicators for evaluating salmon habitat in the urban estuary. Pathway Construction Disturbances Water Quality Stormwater Sediment Habitat Conditions Biota Indicator Noise Entrainment Stranding Turbidity Chemical contam ination/nutrients Temperature Dissolved oxygen Stormwater quality/quantity Sedimentation sources/rates Sediment quality Fish access/refugia Depth Substrate Slope Shoreline Riparian conditions Flow and hydrology/current patterns/saltwater-freshwater interface Overwater structures Disturbance Prey-epibenthic and pelagic zooplankton Infauna Prey-forage fish Aquatic vegetation Nonindigenous species Ecological diversity long-term trends in water quality during baseflow and stormflow conditions in the major tributaries to Port Ludlow Bay. Baseflow conditions were generally measured May through October, while stormflow conditions were measured during storm events. During the 1998 monitoring program, stormflow water quality was measured during December. Stations were page 18 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res LOG ITEM # I Page ~-z.,_Of$ - ,....... "-./ \..-) Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec monitored for flow, fecal coliform, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and temperature. During some years, some stations were monitored for metals and pesticides. No long-term upward or downward trends in constituent concentrations are evident for any of the monitoring stations, with the exception of conductivity. Constituent concentrations, for the most part, have not been increasing along with the increased population density of the watershed. Concentrations of most constituents, for example fecal coliform, have been higher during storm events than during baseflows, which is consistent with the findings of other watershed studies (Berryman & Henigar 1999). Concentrations of dissolved and total metals continue to be low during storm events and very low during baseflows (Berryman & Henigar 1999). Nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) concentrations in the freshwater tributaries are in the typical range for rural watersheds during both baseflow and stormflow. Overall, nutrient loading to Port Ludlow Bay from these tributaries is extremely low (Berryman & Henigar 1999). Based on the results of the nonpoint-source monitoring program, water quality conditions in Port Ludlow Bay do not appear to be adversely impacted by watershed activities (Berryman & Henigar 1999). 3.2.2 Sediment Quality As part of the nonpoint-source monitoring program, sediment samples have been collected from the bay at locations where stormwater discharge is known to occur. Samples were analyzed for a variety of constituents, including oil and grease, total metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Results of sediment quality monitoring have demonstrated sediment quality to be excellent within Port Ludlow Bay. Pesticides and PCBs were not detected, as were mercury, selenium, and silver. Of those metals that were detected, concentrations were well below Washington's Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) (Jefferson County 1993). Sediment samples collected within Port Ludlow Marina between 1987 and 1995 had concentrations of metals that were well below their respective SQS (Table 2) (Vasey Engineering 1995). February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res page 19 LOG ITEM # ( Page~Of-S!f- .. --.. Pentec Preliminc. Draft Port Ludlow Mar. ..4 Biological Evaluation Table 2 Summary of sediment metals concentrations (mg/kg) in Port Ludlow Marina sediments collected between 1987 and 1995 compared with their respective Sediment Quality Standards (Vasey Engineering 1995). Metal 1995 1993 1991 1987 SQS Arsenic 2.8 1.5 2.8 2.7 57 Cadmium 0.46 0.93 0.3 0.3 5.1 Copper 11.2 9.32 7.0 7.0 390 Lead 4.76 2.56 <10 <10 450 Mercury 0.074 0.053 <0.05 <0.05 0.41 Zinc 20.3 22.8 25.0 25.0 410 3.2.3 Habitat 3.2.3.1 Access/Refugia Juvenile salmonids have largely unrestricted access to and through the action area. Port Ludlow Marina has overwater structures that may provide refuge for juvenile salmonids using nearshore areas in the vicinity. Studies by Pentec (1997), Salo et al. (1980), and Ratte and Salo (1985) have shown evidence that migrating juvenile salmonids use overwater structures as cover when they are disturbed by overhead activities. These studies also found no evidence that overwater structures in Puget Sound concentrate predators on juvenile salmonids. 3.2.3.2 Substrate Sediments under the marma are relatively fine-grained native sediments (Echelon Engineering 2000). Sediment samples collected in 1995 near the western end of C-dock were described as being black and anoxic and composed primarily of sand and shell fragments (Vasey Engineering 1995). Substrate available to organisms is modified by growth of green algae (Vlva spp.) and probably several other species on cobbles in the middle and lower intertidal zone. No eelgrass has been reported in the action area. Eelgrass is generally present on suitable substrates (sand/silt) at depths between mean lower low water (MLLW) and about -18 ft MLLW in the central Puget Sound region; however, an underwater survey conducted on December 10, 1999, found no eelgrass under the existing marina or in areas that would be directly affected by the project (Echelon Engineering 2000). Existing pilings of the dock provide an additional page 20 February 1 , 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res t"OG ITEM '#~ -~. / Page 1-:1...._ of_'::/5i --- -.,," '.' --~...~_,~',::~c~"'~o;.-'_;:~:.. ;'-"'" '. -:::'-' ~.. "_',_'l "':.'" u~r'~../":-,"'.~':~-;l~',"", ',,:',:.:_"-:" ,....._-;,:(,,~..... '-' "- Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec substrate type that supports a dense epibiota dominated by barnacles and mussels in the intertidal zone. Hydroids, tubeworms, and anemones are expected to be the dominant piling organisms below about MLLW (e.g., Kozloff 1987). 3.2.3.3 Slope The Port Ludlow Marina was constructed in the late 1970s, and the boat basin was created by dredging. The slope of the substrate beneath the marina was created as a result of the initial dredging. From the vertical riprap wall that borders the shoreward side of the marina, the beach slopes at an approximately 6 percent grade. At the seaward extent of the marina, the slope decreases, with depths at the outer margin of the marina between 35 ft and 40 ft. From this point, there is a gradual slope to the middle of Port Ludlow Bay where bottoms depths vary between 50 and 60 ft. Most of the marina expansion will occur along the outer margin of the marina in water depths of 35 to 40 ft. 3.2.3.4 Flow/Current Patterns The location, geometry, and orientation of Port Ludlow Bay is such that the strong offshore ebb and flood tidal currents in Admiralty Inlet create a large eddy in the outer portion of Port Ludlow Bay that appears to reverse direction with each tidal stage. Waters from Admiralty Inlet are drawn into the bay under a wide variety of tidal conditions. Current measurements, drogue observations, and salt balance calculations made in 1984 and 1986 indicated that the outer bay eddy is accompanied by a complex pattern of currents that exert influence into the central portion of the bay. Significantly more water is circulated into and out of the bay due to eddies and currents than would be the case if only a simple flood/ebb pattern existed. As a consequence, the bay may be better mixed and better flushed than many bays within Puget Sound. Mixing is further enhance by vertical currents and upwelling at the entrance and head of Port Ludlow Bay (Jefferson County 1993). Flushing of the bay is caused by tidal currents, fresh water from streams and rainfall, wind mixing of the surface water, and local vertical mixing. Salt balance calculations indicated that the volume of water exchanged daily between Port Ludlow and Admiralty Inlet average 39 percent per day and vary from 20 percent to 50 percent of the total volume of the bay, dependent upon the time of year and prevailing tidal range. The time to exchange the water volume of the bay, including the innermost reaches, was estimated to be between 2 to 5 days. February 1 , 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res page 21 '- LOGtTEM # 1 ""{)e ZJ:.of~ Pentcc Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Localized portions of the bay may have longer or shorter flushing rates. The flushing time for the outer bay has been estimated to be 9 hours on average (Jefferson County 1993). 3.2.4 Biota 3.2.4.1 Prey-Epibenthic Zooplankton Epibenthic zooplankton, primarily crustaceans, along with terrestrial insects are important prey for juvenile chinook salmon in estuaries (Simenstad et al. 1988, Healey 1991). Several of the habitat indicators listed above are important in determining the productivity and composition of the epibenthic community. No studies have been conducted within the action area that have examined benthic and epibenthic biota. 3.2.4.2 Prey-Pelagic Zooplankton Calanoid copepods are often abundant in the diet of juvenile chinook salmon in urban estuaries (Weitkamp and Schadt 1982). Production of calanoids and other potential pelagic prey of salmonids is largely dependent on water-column processes in Central Puget Sound. Pelagic zooplankton productivity is dependent on the presence of adequate light and nutrients to stimulate phytoplankton and is not influenced greatly by conditions along shorelines or in deeper water in the vicinity of the Port Ludlow Marina. 3.2.4.3 Prey-Forage Fish Larval, juvenile, and adult herring (Clupea harengus), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) are important forage fish for juvenile, subadult, and adult salmonids (Healey 1991). Alteration of spawning habitat for these species may directly affect the abundance of forage for a range of age groups of chinook salmon. Surf smelt and sand lance spawn within Port Ludlow; however, there are no data that spawniI1g occurs within the project area (Bargmann, G., WDFW, pers. comm., 2000). 3.2.4.4 Vegetation Eelgrass beds are recognized as habitats of statewide significance due to their high production rates of prey for salmonids and other fishes, for the structural diversity they provide, page 22 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r {2-1-00),doc:res LOG ITEM #~ ( Page Z Y oH.,~_~ , , '- \,--j Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec and as a site for herring spawning (e.g., Simenstad et al. 1988). Macroalgae also are recognized as a contributor to habitat complexity and primary productivity. In contrast to eelgrass, macroalgae readily colonizes all appropriate rocky, cobble, or artificial substrates. Particular macroalgal beds (e.g., kelp forests) have more specific habitat needs. Aquatic vegetation occurs in the action area primarily attached to intertidal cobbles, docks, and pilings. No eelgrass or macrophyte beds occur within the action area (Echelon Engineering 2000). 3.2.4.5 Ecological Diversity Ecological diversity is an abstract concept relating to the variety of habitats and assemblages present in a given area. A greater ecological diversity is often considered to reflect a more stable, productive, and/or healthy ecosystem, although the tie to habitat quality for salmon is theoretical, not empirical. No studies have been conducted within the action area investigating ecological diversity. February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res page 23 '- LOG ITEM # I Page 2..1....of1Y Pentec Prelimin; Draft Port Ludlow Mai j Biological Evaluation page 24 LOG ITEM # I February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res Page ~.._oLti. ~- _'..r._..;__,.,.~."__".___,..___. _. .,..~_ ,..._._".,~... _ __ _._~,_ .... L' .. ~ Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation '0 Preliminary Draft Pentec 4.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION '- 4.1 EFFECTS ANALYSIS This section discusses short-term and long-term, direct and indirect effects of the Port Ludlow Marina expansion project activities, as well as the net effects of those activities on salmonids listed and proposed for listing under ESA. Only those pathways and their associated indicators that are likely to be affected by the project in some way are discussed in this section. A primary factor reducing the risk of impact to juvenile salmonids is the restriction of inwater activities to periods when few juveniles will be present in the work area. No reports have been found that suggest that adult salmonids would be vulnerable to impact or take from the types of activities included in the proposed action. '- Net effect is considered to be the overall effect on the species and habitat in the long term. The net effects of the proposed project on each indicator are summarized in Table 3. 4.1.1 Construction Disturbances 4.1 .1 .1 Short-Term Effects '- Direct Effects-Approximately 40 to 60 concrete or steel pilings will be installed as part of the marina expansion project. Piles will be installed using a barge-mounted pile driver. Feist et al. (1996) investigated the impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink and chum salmon behavior and distribution in Everett Harbor, Washington. The authors reported that there may be changes in general behavior and school size, and that fish appeared to be driven toward the acoustically isolated side of the site during pile driving. However, the prevalence of fish schools did not change significantly with and without pile driving, and schools were often observed about the pile-driving rigs themselves. No impacts on feeding were reported. The study concluded that any effects of pile-driving noise on juvenile salmonid fitness would be very difficult to measure quantitatively. Because the proposed inwater construction would occur outside of time periods when significant numbers of juvenile salmonids are expected to be present, no significant effect or take is expected from project construction activities. '-- '- February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res page 25 '- LOG ITEM # ( Page ~of!i.:L. ..... - Pentec Prelimin, "Draft Port Ludlow Ma~ .8 Biological Evaluation Table 3 Net effects of the action on relevant pathways and indicators. Indicators Noise Entrainment Stranding Water Quality Turbidity Chemical contamination/nutrients Temperature Dissolved oxygen Stormwater quality/quantity Sedimentation sources/rates Sediment quality Fish access/refugia Depth Substrate Slope Shoreline Riparian Conditions Flow and hydrology/current patterns/ saltwater-freshwater mixing patterns Overwater structures X Disturbance X Prey-epibenthic and pelagic zooplankton X Infauna X Prey-forage fish X Aquatic vegetation X Nonindigenous species X Ecological diversity X 1 Action will contribute to long-term improvement, over existing conditions, of the indicator. 2 Action will maintain existing conditions. 3 Action will contribute to long-term degradation, over existing conditions, of the indicator. Pathway Construction Disturbances Stormwater Sediment Habitat Conditions Biota page 26 Effects of Action Improve1 Maintain2 Degrade3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X February 1 , 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res LOG ITEM # I Page .2f?_oc!iY-. . ._~ c .-...',-:0 - :~,..':<~"~_ ~ --'_"'0-;.: -.:7__~ ~:-~~'.::'~",;':"..;;.:' _~ -'~~.::.~~;;;'-"",-~'.; ~:c~:-...: -1-.,.:)-_.."_~:f':'$"'~;:::':l~ '.~;;..':,. :;......:_~, .,~: '~i,~,?x.:c c ., ~?';~-~.;~:: .~_:: "-,~ Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec Indirect Effects-No short-term indirect effects due to construction disturbances are anticipated. 4.1.1.2 Long-Term Effects No long-term direct or indirect effects due to construction disturbances are anticipated. 4.1.1.3 Net Effects Pile driving will result in a brief period of increased noise during the Port Ludlow Marina expansion project, possibly causing salmonids and other species to avoid certain areas in the vicinity of the marina during active pile driving. This possible impact is only temporary and will not persist beyond the construction period and will not result in significant or measurable take of juvenile salmonids. Therefore, the net effect of pile driving and removal is to maintain noise levels in the project area (Table 3). 4.1.2 Water Quality 4.1.2.1 Short-Term Effects Direct Effects-Pile driving may produce temporary and localized impacts to water quality. Elevated turbidity plumes are likely to occur in the immediate vicinity of the pile driving. However, the majority of the pile-driving activities will occur at water depths of 35 to 40 ft, away from intertidal areas that are used predominantly by juvenile salmonids. Because of the depth of the water where pilings will be installed, it is unlikely that any increased turbidity due to pile driving will affect area frequented by juvenile salmonids. Pile-driving activities are not expected to appreciably affect dissolved oxygen concentrations in the project area. Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidities (e.g., Servizi 1988), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a,b). Feeding efficiency of juveniles is also impaired by turbidities in excess of 70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon homing to spawning areas has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mg/l suspended sediments). However, chinook salmon exposed to 650 mgll of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res page 27 LOGtTEM # I Page SLot 'fC{ Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation water (Whitman et al. 1982). Based on these data, it is unlikely that the locally elevated turbidities generated by the proposed action would directly affect juvenile or adult salmonids that may be present. Sediment chemistry data from the marina indicate that sediments beneath the marina do not contain elevated concentrations of any organic chemicals or metals. Pile driving, therefore, will not compromise water quality by the resuspension of contaminants in the water column. Indirect Effects-Few, if any, juvenile salmonids are expected in the action area during construction activities; also, few adult chinook salmon or bull trout are expected in the project area during construction. Short-term and localized decreases in dissolved oxygen or increases in turbidity due to project construction may result in avoidance of immediate work areas. Should this avoidance occur, it would have only insignificant and unmeasurable effects on salmonids. 4.1.2.2 Long-Term Effects No long-term direct or indirect effects to water quality are anticipated for any of the construction activities proposed in the project area. 4.1.2.3 Net Effects Short-term effects resulting from increased turbidity may be expected during pile driving, but these effects due to sediment resuspension are expected to be only temporary, with no long-term effects. Therefore, the net effect of pile driving and installation is to maintain water quality in , the project area (Table 3). 4.1.3 Sediment Quality 4.1.3.1 Short-Term Effects No short-term direct or indirect effects to sediment quality from pile-driving activities are anticipated in the project area. page 28 February 1 . 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res . LOG ITEM #_( Page !iLoc1-t. --.-' '-" Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation '\J Preliminary Draft Pentec 4.1.3.2 Long-Term Effects No long-term direct or indirect effects to sediment quality from pile-driving activities are anticipated in the project area. 4.1.4 Habitat Conditions 4.1.4.1 Short-Term Effects No short-term direct or indirect effects to habitat conditions from pile driving or other marina expansion activities are anticipated in the project area. 4.1.4.2 Long-Term Effects No long-term direct or indirect effects to habitat conditions from pile driving or other marina expansion activities are anticipated in the project area. The square footage of overwater coverage in the Port Ludlow Marina will be increased as part of the expansion project. Approximately 100 slips will be added to the existing marina facilities. Studies by Pentec (1997), Salo et al. (1980), and Ratte and Salo (1985) have shown evidence that migrating juvenile salmonids use overwater structures as cover when they are disturbed by overhead activities. These studies also found no evidence that overwater structures in Puget Sound concentrate predators on juvenile salmonids. 4.1.4.3 Net Effects The Port Ludlow Marina expanSIOn will not impact fish access, fish refugia, substrate, shoreline, riparian conditions, flow and hydrology, current patterns, or saltwater-freshwater mixing patterns, nor will it result in other habitat disturbances (Table 3). 4.1.5 Biota 4.1.5.1 Short-Term Effects '-- No short-term effects to biota from the Port Ludlow Marina expansion are expected in the project area. February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 29 LOGtTEM # , . Page ~of.fL ......'.. Pentec Prelimina. (/ Draft Port Ludlow Marl..d Biological Evaluation 4.1.5.2 Long-Term Effects Direct Effects-The installation of 40 to 60 concrete or steel pilings in the project area at water depths of 35 to 40 ft will result in the destruction of benthic habitat within the footprint of each piling. Assuming that each piling is approximately 60 cm in diameter, the area covered by the foot of each piling is about 0.283 m2, or about 11.3 to 17 m2 for 40 to 60 pilings. Benthic habitat within the footprint of each piling will be permanently destroyed. However, the pilings will provide additional surface area for colonization by marine plants and animals. Colonization by marine algae will, in turn, provide additional habitat for juvenile fish and invertebrates. Expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina will result in an increase in the area of overwater structure within the project area, which will in turn result in increased shading of predominantly subtidal habitats beneath the structures, although a limited area of intertidal habitat may also be shaded. Under existing conditions, the action area does not provide substantial habitat for aquatic vegetation. Increased shading of underlying substrates may result in minor decreases in microalgae and benthic productivity in the area directly beneath the new floats; however, the floats will also provide additional surface area for colonization by aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. Indirect Effects-No adverse long-term, indirect effects on biota are expected to result from the proposed action. 4.1.5.3 Net Effects The expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina will result in biota in the project area being maintained in their current condition (Table 3). 4.1.6 Net Effects of Action The net effect of the proposed Port Ludlow Marina expansion will be to maintain all of the indicators for each of the six pathways in their current conditions. Short-term, localized, and minimal water quality degradation during pile driving will not impact habitat for juvenile salmonids because of seasonal work restrictions; thus, current water quality conditions will be maintained in the long term. page 30 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res # LOG ITEM ! Page 2:LottJ!L. '''- \..-/ Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec 4.1.7 Cumulative, Interdependent, and Interrelated Effects 4.1 .7.1 Interdependent and Interrelated Effects Expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina to 100 additional slips will likely result in an increase in the number of vessels moored in the marina, as well as increased human activity and vessel traffic within the marina. Increasing the number of vessels moored in the marina will also increase the area of substrate beneath the vessels that is shaded; however, increased shading is not expected to adversely affect habitat or biota in the project area. Because substantial boating activity already occurs within Port Ludlow and the marina, the expected increase in boat traffic is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts to listed species in the project area or in Port Ludlow Bay. The increase m boating traffic within the marma will increase the potential for water pollution from boating-related activities (e.g., oil, transmission fluid, gasoline, and diesel spills). Ecology and the US Coast Guard (USCG) regulate activities (including those that could negatively impact water quality) of commercial and recreational vessels operating in coastal waterways. These regulations include prohibiting bilge and sewage discharge, and requiring that any hazardous material spilled (i.e., diesel, gasoline, oil, and transmission fluid) be reported to marina authorities, Ecology, and the USCG. In the event a hazardous material is spilled into the marina, the marina has a hazardous-spill response plan and the appropriate equipment to contain and cleanup any spills (Port Ludlow Marina 1999). 4.2 TAKE ANALYSIS Section 3 of the ESA defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering," and "harass" as "actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to breeding, feeding or sheltering" (NMFS 1999). There is no critical habitat designated for the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Puget Sound chinook salmon or the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU, nor has the USFWS -- February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 31 lOG ITEM # ( ~;.,---, Page $JOf...:!::L Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation established or identified critical habitat for bull trout; therefore, no critical habitat for either chinook salmon or bull trout has been identified in the project area. The proposed Port Ludlow Marina expansion project is unlikely to significantly modify or degrade habitat in the action area and is unlikely to impair or disrupt normal behavior patterns involving breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Therefore, the proposed Port Ludlow Marina expansion project is not expected to result in the taking of chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, coho salmon, or bull trout. 4.3 CONSERVATION MEASURES No significant or measurable effects are predicted from the proposed action. However, a number of conservation measures have been incorporated in the marina expansion project. Concrete or steel pilings will be used instead of treated wood pilings to prevent the introduction of any chemical contaminants that could leach from treated wood pilings. Furthermore, construction activities will occur when juvenile salmonids are not likely to be present in the project area. The existing water and sediment quality monitoring plan, which monitors water and sediment quality in the marina and throughout Port Ludlow Bay, will continue after the marina expansion project. Water and sediment quality data collected since 1989 indicate that water and sediment quality throughout Port Ludlow meet or exceed state standards. Continued monitoring will provide a means to assess future trends in environmental quality within Port Ludlow Bay. 4.4 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS NMFS/USFWS guidelines for the preparation of BEs states that a conclusion of "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" is the".. . appropriate conclusion when the effects on the species or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects...." Insignificant effects, in the NMFS/USFWS definition, ".. . relate to the size of the impacts and should never reach the size where take occurs... [One would not expect to]...be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects." Based on the analyses in this BE, this is the expected nature and level of impact of implementation of the proposed project. page 32 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res "'" "-' '.,J I i c.hll' "~ dc.l I '#,'_ Page ~__.oLLL # "",-,' '~) Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec 4.4.1 Salmonids - The Port Ludlow Marina expansion project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, juvenile chinook, Hood Canal summer~run chum salmon, coho salmon, or bull trout, or their critical habitats. While the conclusion is focused on chinook salmon and chum salmon, it is applicable to coho salmon and bull trout as well; however, because of their presumed lesser dependence on nearshore habitat, these species will be less affected by both the negative and positive aspects of each project component. No measurable effects and no take of salmonids are expected. 4.4.2 Birds The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, bald eagles or marbled murrelets, or their critical habitat. ..... February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbeJ {2-1-00),doc:res page 33 LOGlTEM # I Pa~ ~Of..!L:L r" Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation page 34 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res LOG 'TEM # f Page .!l2-,. VI ,-'1:1.- !lr-r"~ ''"-.......... '~' Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec 5.0 REFERENCES ....... Anthony, RG., RL. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:332-342. Berryman & Henigar. 1999. Port Ludlow non-point monitoring program, 1998 report. Prepared for Olympic Real Estate Development, Poulsbo, Washington, by Berryman & Henigar, Seattle, Washington. Bisson, P.A., and RE. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:371-374. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987a. The influence of turbidity on juvenile marine fishes in estuaries. Part 1: field studies at Lake St. Lucia on the southeastern coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 109:53-70. Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987b. The influence of turbidity on juvenile marine fishes in estuaries. Part 2: laboratory studies, comparisons with field data and conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 109:71-91. ..... Echelon Engineering, Inc. January 11, 2000. Letter from S.D. Sommerfeld, Echelon Engineering, Inc., Seattle, Washington, to S. Kinsella, Reid Middleton, Inc., Everett, Washington. -- Environment Canada. 1999. Marbled murrelet [online report]. Environment Canada, Quebec. URL: <http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/Species/English/SearchDetail.cfm ?SpeciesID=39>. '- Feist, RE., J.J. Anderson, and R Miyamoto. 1996. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (0. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-9603, Seattle. ....... "'- February 1 , 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 35 ..... LOG1TEM # (, __ Page~Of~,", Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-394 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. 1993. Final environmental impact statement for the Inn at Port Ludlow and the Port Ludlow development program. Jefferson County, Port Townsend, Washington. Johnson, O.W. W.S. Grant, RG. Cope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and RS. Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-32, Washington, DC. Kozloff, E.N. 1987. Marine invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Leary, RP., and P.W. Allendorf. 1997. Genetic confirmation of sympatric bull trout and Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:715-720. Marks, D., and M.A. Bishop. 1999. Interim report for field work conducted May 1996 to May 1997: habitat and biological assessment Shepard Point Road Project - status of the marbled murrelet along the proposed Shepard Point Road corridor [online report]. US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Copper River Delta Institute, Cordova, Alaska. URL: <http://www.pwssc.gen.ak.us/-shepard! docs/reports/interim/96mur .html>. Miller, B.S., B.B. McCain, RC. Wingert, S.P. Borton, and K.V. Pierce. 1976. Ecological and disease studies of fishes near Metro operated sewage treatment plants on Puget Sound and the Duwamish River. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-7608, Seattle. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. A guide to biological assessments. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington Habitat Conservation Branch, Lacey, Washington. Parametrix. 1992. Bald eagle monitoring, 1989-1991. 1991 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. page 36 February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res ,", ",;\~b ITEM # { Page .1.!?-._ot.-:{'i .,..--~ '-, \--- Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec Parametrix. 1993. Bald eagle monitoring, 1992. 1992 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Parametrix. 1994. Bald eagle monitoring, 1993. 1993 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Parametrix. 1995. Bald eagle monitoring, 1994. 1994 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Parametrix. 1996. Bald eagle monitoring, 1995. 1995 Annual report to Metro. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. ...... Pentec (Pentec Environmental, Inc.). 1997. Movement of juvenile salmon through industrialized areas of Everett Harbor. Prepared for Port of Everett, Washington. Port Ludlow Marina. 1999. Best management practices handbook. Port Ludlow Marina, Port Ludlow, Washington. Ralph, c.J., and S. Miller. 1999. 1994 research highlight: marbled murrelet conservation assessment [online report]. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California. URL: <http://www.pswfs.gov/highlights/94 murrelet.html> . Ratte, L.D., and E.O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, FRI-UW -8508, Seattle. ~;...l Rodrick, E., and R. Milner, technical editors. Washington's priority habitats and species. Olympia. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington State Department of Wildlife, "-' Salo, E.O., N.J. Bax, T.E. Prinslow, c.J. Whitmus, B.P. Snyder, and c.A. Simenstad. 1980. The effects of construction of naval facilities on the outmigration of juvenile salmonids from Hood Canal, Washington, final report. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW -8006, Seattle. February 1, 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 37 -- l..OG1TEM # ( page ~Of '{I( -- Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Sandercock, S.K 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 397-445 in C Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada. SEI (Sustainable Ecosystem Institute). 1999. Endangered species: marbled murrelet [online report]. SEI, Portland, Oregon. URL: <http://www.sei.org/murrelet.html>. Servizi, J .A. 1988. Sublethal effects of dredged sediments on juvenile salmon. Pages 57-63 in CA. Simenstad, editor. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific Coast fishes. University of Washington, Seattle. Simenstad, CA., J.R. Cordell, R.C. Wissmar, KL. Fresh, S. Schroder, M. Carr, and M. Berg. 1988. Assemblages structure, microhabitat distribution, and food web linkages of epibenthic crustaceans in Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Washington. NOAA Technical Report Series OCRM/MEMD, FRI-UW-8813, University of Washington, Seattle. Simenstad, CA., KL. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pages 343-364 in V.S. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Recovery plan for the bald eagle. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Primarily federal lands identified as critical for rare seabird; minimal effects predicted from habitat designation [online report]. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. URL: <http://www.r1.fws.gov/news/9625nr.htm>. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. The bald eagle is back [online report]. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC URL: <http://www.fws.gov>. Vasey Engineering. July 6, 1995. Letter from A. Law, Vasey Engineering, Seattle, Washington, to L. Mueller, Pope Resources, Poulsbo, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998a. 1998 Washington salmonid stock inventory: appendix - bull trout and Dolly Varden. WDFW, Olympia. page 38 February 1 . 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res LOG \TEM # t----- Page .!ik.., ot..':t't., \._~.! \,--,,' Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation Preliminary Draft Pentec WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). [online report]. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. outreach/fishing/char .htm>. 1998b. Washington's native chars URL: <http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/ WDFW and WWTIT (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 1994. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Appendix One: Puget Sound stocks. WDFW and WWTIT, Olympia. WDW (Washington State Department of Wildlife). 1993. Bull trout/Dolly Varden: management and recovery plan. WDW, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia. Weitkamp, D.E., and T.H. Schadt. 1982. 1980 juvenile salmonid study. Prepared for the Port of Seattle, Document No. 82-0415-012F, by Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Whitman, RP., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon, 1982. Influence of suspended volcanic ash on homing behavior of adult chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111 :63-69. - Williams, RW., RM. Laramie, and 1.1. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, volume 1, Puget Sound region. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia. February 1 , 2000 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00).doc:res page 39 'LOG 'TEM # ( yage !:f3.....ot!ff. Pentec Preliminary Draft Port Ludlow Marina Biological Evaluation February 1, 2000 page 40 00007\040\portludlowbe_r (2-1-00),doc:res LOG ITEM 4~ (. '''-''- Page -.:1<( Of_tC{ ~-.-" : ) \...! i-J .... .... -' 1..0.1 .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... """" "-'