The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog139 e e State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 6 Office: 48 Devonshire Road - Montesano, Washington 98563-9618 - (360) 249-4628 August 4, 2002 Jefferson County Department of Community Development ATTENTION: Josh Peters, Associate Planner 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 [p) IE <<: E ~ WE fill ~U AUG" 6 2002 l1lJ Dear Mr. Peters: JEfFERSON COUNTY DEPT. Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENt SUBJECT: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Port Ludlow Associates Proponent, Port Ludlow Marina Expansion, Port Ludlow Bay, Tributary to Puget Sound~ Jefferson County, WRIA 17.9090 The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) document received on July 5,2002, and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered as the project progresses. Critical Resources The Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Biological Evaluation (Draft) and the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement identified several species of fishes and wildlife that are likely present in Port Ludlow Bay. Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum salmon are listed as "Threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act and juveniles are present throughout Puget Sound during the spring and summer, including Port Ludlow Bay. A Port Ludlow Bay stream, Ludlow Creek, supports spawning populations of chunl :md coho salmon, and cutthroat trout. Juveniles of each of these species utilize the nearshore environment. During their first spring, juvenile chinook, chum and pink salmon are heavily dependent on nearshore areas as a migration corridor, a refuge from predators, and a foraging area. Cutthroat trout, yearling chinook and coho salmon, and yearling steelhead are also present to some extent along the nearshore areas throughout the year. Bull trout are listed as "Threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act. Little is known regarding their presence in nearshore areas of Port Ludlow Bay, but they may be present occasionally at a low density. Contrary to the information stated in the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Biological Evaluation, WDFW has documented spawning by Pacific sand lance and surf smelt on the beaches at or near the proponent's location. The spawning habitat of both of these forage fish species is upper intertidal sandy-gravel beach L' 0....'." "(,3 .,,"__ , , "a ~- Mr. Peters August 4, 2002 Page 2 e e material. Spawning occurs at high tide, at which time the adhesive eggs commonly acquire a camouflaging coat of sand grains. Sand lance and surf smelt are schooling planktonic feeders. However, sand lance are unique in that they tend to feed in open water during the day and burrow in bottom substrates at night to avoid predation. Both species are an important component of diet of chinook and coho salmon, as well as other marine fishes, mammals, and birds. WDFW publishes a Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) list. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial and tribal importance. Priority species include those species designated as Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive by the State and Federal governments. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. It appears from the PHS map, the proponent's location is very close to an existing osprey and purple martin nesting areas. In addition, the PHS map shows estuarine habitat exists within Port Ludlow Bay. While the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement does address potential adverse impacts to several priority habitats and species, it doesn't address impacts to osprey, purple martin, or the estuarine habitat. Environmental review of the Marina Expansion as well as the Resort Plan should address potential impacts to all priority habitats and species in Port Ludlow Bay and adjacent uplands. Concerns It was evident that a great deal of focused effort went into preparing the Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. WDFW supports either Alternative 4: No Action or Alternative 2: Deep Water Expansion with additional mitigation. It appears from the description of both alternatives, that a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), to be issued by WDFW, will be required. The Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100) states, "In the event that any person or government agency desires to construct any form of hydraulic project or perform other work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or fresh waters of the state, such person or government shall, before commencing construction or work thereon and to ensure the proper protection of fish life, secure the written approval of the department of fisheries or the department of game as to the adequacy of the means proposed for the protection of fish life." "Bed" is further defined as the land below the ordinary high waterlines of state waters (WAC 220-110-020(3)). Any individual conducting any activity subject to the above-referenced RCW 75.20.100 without first obtaining an HPA from Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor (WAC 220-110-030(16)) and may be subject to legal action. L' l-\.<"'"<\ l.....-'-- ~.r. .,.1...:), ! I t: IV ..~.._~-J!ij ....-/:.)... ~~-.__. (.--. 'T~ ~._-.."",.....Uo,",- Mr. Peters August 4, 2002 Page 3 e e According to correspondence from Alan Rounds, an additional 900 units of polyurethane coated floatation, for a total of 3900 units, was installed at the marina this past winter. WDFW does not issue after-the-fact HPAs. It appears the installation ofthe floatation was done without an HPA. To comply with the Hydraulic code and avoid future legal action, the proponents should obtain a HP A prior to conducting maintenance activities in WDFW's jurisdiction. WDFW recognizes the several mitigation measures proposed in Alternative 2 will minimize adverse impacts on fish resources including: · Minimizing dock width to decrease under-dock shadow area · Pkcing docks in deepe:' wat~r to avoid grounding impa.cts to the intertidal · Inserting dock grating to allow under-dock light transmission across the sub-tidal · U sing steel or concrete pilings to reduce the adverse impacts on fish resources associated with creosote or arsenic treated wood. · Placing new structures in deeper water to preclude dredging However, Alternative 2 still has the potential to adversely impact fish resources. Thus, additional measures are needed to meet mitigation requirements to achieve no-net-Ioss of productive capacity of fish and shellfish habitat. Pile driving will result in a direct loss of benthic habitat and shellfish. The loss of bivalves and benthic habitat requires a mitigation plan. In addition, there will be impacts from construction such as increased turbidity from pile driving which may reduce primary productivity, interfere with fish respiration, reduce bottom habitat diversity, and smother benthic organisms. Furthermore, a biological opinion issued by National Marine Fisheries Service for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project states that underwater sound pressure waves, created when the hammer contacts the top of a steel pile, have the potential to adversely affect fishes including listed salmonid species. Potential adverse effects of underwater shock waves cited include instantaneous or delayed mortality from barotraumas associated with drastic changes in pressure, acoustic stunning, structural damage to the inner ear, and agitation resulting in disruption of behavior. A mitigation ratio of greater than 1: 1 for direct loss of benthic habitat will be required to mitigate for both the direct and indirect loss habitat and fish life from pile driving. WDFW does not agree with the conclusions in the submitted documents regarding the negligible impact of the proposed structure for shading effects on epibenthic organisms and macroalgae. For past projects involving overwater structures (once minimized in size), WDFW has accepted a mitigation ratio of 50% of the new overwater structure to offset losses for epibenthos and macroalgae. Until new research with conclusive results yields information to the contrary, ~"'"~- ~ -; ~ >:::~~:2:'~~'~"'''-~-''- Mr. Peters August 4, 2002 Page 4 e e WDFW prefers a conservative approach that gives the benefit of doubt to fish resources and thus will continue to require mitigation for impacts from overwater structures. Although, floats and upper portions of pilings may provide additional substrate that supports production of some epibenthic zooplankton preferred as prey by juvenile salmonids, these structures also provide surface area for encrusting communities of mussels and other sessile organisms such as sea stars that prey upon shellfish attached to the structures. This predation results in large depositions of shellhash on the bed near the structures and changes the biotic communities associated with the bed. WDFW has evaluated the application for the proposed marina expansion under RCW 77.55.100 which outlines a clear mitigation sequence of: 1. avoidan.cc of ii.::pacts i.:; the highest mitigation priority then, 2. minimization of impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and lastly, 3. compensation of unavoidable impacts through restoration, creation and enhancement or a combination. The goal ofRCW 77.55.100 is no net loss of habitat functions and values and net gain through restoration, creation and enhancement. Since adverse impacts from pile driving and increased overwater structure to subtidal habitat cannot be avoided or minimized sufficiently to achieve no net loss of habitat functions or values, a mitigation plan should be submitted for review by WDFW. Mitigation plan should include the following: · Baseline data · Estimate of impacts · Mitigation measures for the life of the structures · Goals and objectives · Detailed implementation plan · Adequate replacement ratio · Performance standards to measure whether goals are being reached · Maps and drawings of proposal · Operation and maintenance plans (including who will perform) · Monitoring and evaluation plans (including schedules) · Contingency plans, including corrective actions that will be taken if mitigation does not meet goals and objectives. · Performance bonds, mitigation agreement or other guarantees that the proponent will fulfill mitigation, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and contingency plan. Mitigation measures are an integral part of a construction project and should be completed before or during project construction. WDFW recommends the removal of piling in the vicinity and/or restoration of the lagoon or beach area by bulkhead/fill removal. ,_._J.2,~"" ."~..L-1,. "~-""-/:-' ...4 ~.,,;,~~~~,.~.__~< . Mr. Peters August 4,2002 Page 5 e e ~ " Recommendations 1. To protect juvenile salmon residing in nearshore areas, work waterward of the ordinary high water line should not be permitted from February 15 through July 14. 2. Due to the lengthy spawning period of surf smelt in this portion of Puget Sound, work waterward ofthe ordinary high water line from October 15 through January 31 should not be permitted unless a WDFW representative confirms a lack of spawn during a site inspection. 3 . To protect spawning Pacific sand lance, work waterward of the ordinary high water line shc)llld not be permitte(l from October 15 through March 1. 4. Pile driving and new overwater structure will result in a both direct and indirect loss subtidal benthic habitat for epibenthic organisms, bivalves and macro flora. WDFW recommends removal of piling in the vicinity and/or restoration or creation of subtidal, intertidal, or upper intertidal beach or salt marsh habitat as compensatory mitigation. A mitigation plan should be submitted to WDFW for review, 5. To attenuate the effects of sound pressure waves on fishes from pile driving, a bubble curtain should be required for driving of all in-water piles. To maintain the integrity of the bubble curtain, no barges, boat traffic, or other structure or equipment should be allowed to penetrate the curtain during pile driving activities. 6. To avoid attracting fishes with lights during nighttime pile driving operations, pile driving should be limited to daylight hours. 7. WDFW is concerned about potential impacts to bed from prop scour and impacts to nearby beaches supporting forage fish spawning from boat wakes. To reduce impacts, WDFW recommends the fuel dock and boat sewage pump be moved to deeper water. 8. Upland storage for kayaks and dinghies should be considered to minimize the need for overwater structures. 9. Environmental review of the Marina Expansion as well as the Resort Plan should address potential impacts to all priority habitats and species including but not limited to osprey and purple martin. ,,-..tll ~ 'M."..~._. -...i,L 01'!J- <""''''''''~''''''''~'< " -" ,.-- Mr. Peters August 4, 2002 Page 6 e e """ , Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 895-6123. Sincerely, mmcd' /' .ff~ Randi Thurston Area Habitat Biologist RL T:rltSP-E7804-03 cc: SEP A Coordinator, WDFW SEP A Coordinator, Ecology Project Reviewer, USACE Project Reviewer, NMFS Project Reviewer, USFWS DNR Olympic Peninsula Mark Dorsey, Port Ludlow Associates _,",,_..._l ?J~t.____~_ -,---.Ll_. ._,.U.__