ADDENDUM #2

60 Washington Ave. Ste. KITSAP TRANSIT 200 Bremerton, WA 98337 Invitation for Bids Phone: 360.479.6962 Annapolis Ferry Dock Fendering Project Fax: 360.377.7086

RFP #KT 21-714 www.kitsaptransit.org July 30, 2021

Note: All Proposers shall acknowledge the receipt of this Addendum on their Bid Form. This Addendum contains the following:

I. Clarification of Bid Documents II. Questions Asked and Answers Given III. Appendix III Annapolis Fender Permits

I. Clarification of Bid Documents

Section 2.25 Supplemental Bidder Responsibility states, “Exhibit B must be submitted with your Bid” but Exhibit B states, “This Exhibit Shall Only Be Completed Post-Bid By the Apparent Two Lowest Bidders”

Clarification: An updated Exhibit B is attached. Exhibit B should be submitted with your Bid.

II. Questions Asked and Answers Given

Question: How long is the new 1 ½” conduit run for the E-Fare Readers? Does it start at the joint between the gangway and approach pier?

Answer: Yes, it is about 125 feet long.

Question: Is there only one 1-1/2” conduit run to feed both E-Fare Readers?

Answer: Yes, only a single conduit is needed for both E-Fare Readers.

Question: The floatation polytubs specified for replacement and addition dock floatation are sealed and polystyrene filled. Can a different floatation billet be installed that is not polystyrene filled, One that can be internally flooded with water to decrease buoyance for installation then filled with air to dewater?

Answer: No, the required floatation polytubs are specified in the General Notes on Sheet G1.02 of the Plans.

Page 1 of 2 KT 21-714 Annapolis Ferry Dock Fendering Connecting Communities

ADDENDUM #2 III. Appendix III Annapolis Fender Permits

Appendix III Annapolis Fender Permits is attached. These permits are incorporated into the Invitation for Bids as if they were attached when the solicitation was released.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

END ADDENDUM 2

Please remember to acknowledge this addendum.

Page 2 of 2 KT 21-714 Annapolis Ferry Dock Fendering

IFB KT 21-714 SUPPLEMENTAL BIDDER RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA EXHIBIT B

DOCUMENTATION STATEMENTS

*** THIS EXHIBIT SHALL ONLY BE COMPLETED POST-BID OPENING BY THE APPARENT TWO LOWEST BIDDERS***

Criterion 2.30(E) – Public Bidding Crime

Statement of Bidder certifying it has not been convicted of a crime:

I, an authorized representative of , a Bidder on this Project known as ANNAPOLIS FERRY DOCK FENDERING PROJECT KT 21-714, do hereby certify and swear under penalty of perjury that has not been convicted of a crime involving bidding on Public Works Contracts within five (5) years from the Bid submittal date on this Project.

Subscribed and sworn to this of , 20__.

Company

Authorized Representative

Title

Criterion 2.30(F) – Termination for Cause or Default

Statement of Bidder certifying it has not been terminated for cause or default:

I, an authorized representative of , a Bidder on this Project known as ANNAPOLIS FERRY DOCK FENDERING PROJECT KT 21-714, do hereby certify and swear under penalty of perjury that has not had a government Public Works Contract terminated for cause by a government agency within five (5) years from the Bid submittal date on this Project.

Subscribed and sworn to this of , 20__.

Company

Authorized Representative

_ Title

Appendix III Annapolis Fender Project Permits And Annapolis Ferry Dock Original Permits

Federal Transit Authority

Kitsap Transit Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade Project Fender Upgrades Project National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Re-Evaluation Grant Nos.: 1746-2018-2

U.S. Department REGION X 915 Second Avenue Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 of Transportation Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Federal Transit 206-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) Administration

July 8, 2021

John Clauson Executive Director Kitsap Transit 60 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Bremerton, WA 98337

Subject: Kitsap Transit Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade Project Fender Upgrades Project National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Re-Evaluation Grant Nos.: 1746-2018-2

Dear Mr. Clauson:

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has received National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental re-evaluation documentation from Kitsap Transit dated May 21, 2021, related to changes to the Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade Project (Project) in Port Orchard, Washington. This letter addresses design modifications at the existing Annapolis Ferry Dock described in the May 21, 2021 documentation, referred to collectively as the Fender Upgrades Project. The Fender Upgrades Project changes the design of the Project as described in the NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) Confirmation issued by FTA on October 22, 2018.

Under FTA environmental regulations, changed conditions since the approval of the 2018 DCE, and the Fender Upgrades Project activities proposed by Kitsap Transit, make it necessary to re- evaluate the earlier NEPA determination (See 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 771.129(c)).

(c) After the Administration issues a combined final EIS/ROD, ROD, FONSI, or CE designation, the applicant must consult with the Administration prior to requesting any major approvals or grants to establish whether or not the approved environmental document

U. S. Army Corps Of Engineers Reverification/Modification Letter And Original NWS-2013-937 Permit

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SEATTLE DISTRICT P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755

Regulatory Branch July 2, 2021

Ms. Steffani Lillie Kitsap Transit 60 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Bremerton, Washington 98337

Reference: NWS-2013-937 Kitsap Transit (Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade)

Dear Ms. Lillie:

On March 22, 2021, your agent requested a modification to the scope of work for the above- referenced Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 verification issued to you on March 5, 2019. The work authorized was to remove an existing pier, gangway, and float structure and construct an approximately 4,470 square foot pier, gangway, and float structure in Sinclair Inlet at Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Washington. You requested a permit modification to add a raised loading platform between the dock and vessel, make minor changes to the fendering system, and add additional float tubs to the structure.

We have reviewed your request and verified that this NWP still authorizes this project provided you ensure that the work is performed in accordance with the enclosed approved modified plans dated March 2021.

This NWP verification supersedes the verification authorized by this office on March 5, 2019. All other terms and conditions contained in the original NWP verification remain in full force and effect. Our verification of this NWP authorization is valid until March 18, 2022, unless the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked prior to that date. If the authorized work has not been completed by that date and you have commenced or are under contract to commence this activity before March 18, 2022, you will have until March 18, 2023, to complete the activity under the enclosed terms and conditions of this NWP. Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of this NWP verification invalidates this authorization and could result in a violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. You must also obtain all State and local permits that apply to this project.

-2-

A copy of this letter with enclosures will be furnished to Ms. Anna Kopitov at [email protected]. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or by phone at (206) 764-6665.

Sincerely,

Jerald J. Gregory, Project Manager Regulatory Branch

Enclosures

cc: letter only via email to Washington Department of Ecology, Federal Permit Coordinator at: [email protected]

U.S. Department REGION X 915 Second Avenue Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 of Transportation Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Federal Transit 206-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) Administration

September 20, 2017

Kim Kratz Assistant Regional Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries 510 Desmond Drive SE Lacey, WA 98503

Subject: Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade Project Sinclair Inlet, Sections 24 and 25, Township 24N, Range 02E W.M. Informal Section 7 and Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

Dear Mr. Kratz:

Kitsap Transit (KT) proposes to upgrade the Annapolis Ferry Dock located in Sinclair Inlet along Beach Drive in Port Orchard, Washington. The proposed project would be funded with federal financial assistance made available through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and, as such, would constitute an action under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act. KT’s consultant, GeoEngineers, Inc., has prepared the Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade Project Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation, dated June 13, 2017, and the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, dated June 13, 2017, for the proposed project. Copies of these documents are enclosed with this letter for your review.

The proposed project consists of removing approximately 2,160 square feet of existing concrete pier decking (located between -4 feet and -6 feet Mean Lower Low Water [MLLW]), gangway, and concrete float (located between -6 feet and -11 feet MLLW) and 10 piles. The proposed pier, gangway, and float (to be located between -11 feet -27 feet MLLW) would be approximately 4,251 square feet, which would be a net increase of 2,091 square feet of new overwater structure. Impact minimization measures are included in the project design to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of the project on marine fish and wildlife species and their habitats, and mitigation is also proposed to offset unavoidable impacts. Mitigation includes intertidal debris removal and riparian shoreline enhancement. KT would remove approximately 2,103 square feet of artificial debris (i.e., concrete and angular rock) from the site, and enhance approximately 8,800 square feet of riparian shoreline habitat (i.e., removal of invasive species and installation of native vegetation).

Work which may potentially impact the aquatic environment includes the removal of 10 piles using vibratory methods and installation of 12 piles using vibratory and impact methods. The removal and September 20, 2017 Page 2 installation of piles would generate in-air and underwater noise and potentially disturb sediments. The solid decking of the existing portion of the structure to be removed would be replaced with a larger footprint composed of grated decking. This would result in a larger area of shading; however, it would allow additional light penetration under the structure. Mitigation actions would result in beneficial effects to intertidal and riparian shoreline habitats.

ESA Listed Species and Critical Habitat

The species of concern associated with the project, as defined on page 13 of the enclosed Biological Assessment (BA), include Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss), Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), boccaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus). Designated critical habitat that is associated with the Action Area includes Puget Sound chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, Southern Resident killer whale, bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish.

Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are not common in the Action Area and are not expected to enter the area during proposed activities. No impacts to this species are anticipated from the completed project. Based on the information presented in the BA, FTA finds the project would have no effect on Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout.

There are no records of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) nesting in Kitsap County and it is unlikely that marbled murrelets would occur in the Action Area. Marbled murrelets could fly over the Action Area, however, any such individuals are expected to avoid disturbance. Project activities are not expected to alter their typical behavior. Therefore, FTA finds that project would have no effect on marbled murrelets.

Puget Sound chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish may be present in the Action Area. Project actions have the potential to affect these species. However, the project would be completed within the approved in-water work window, noise attenuation Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other construction BMPs would be used to minimize potential impacts. Also, the proposed mitigation actions would provide a net gain in habitat functions and values at the site. Therefore, FTA finds that the project may affect, but would not likely adversely affect Puget Sound chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish.

Southern Resident killer whales and humpback whales may be present in the project Action Area. Marine mammal monitoring would be conducted during pile removal and installation to avoid construction impacts to these whale species. Other potential impacts to whales or their prey species would be minimized through implementation of BMPs. Project mitigation actions would provide a net gain in habitat functions and values for whale prey species habitat at the site. Therefore, FTA finds that the project may affect, but would not likely adversely affect Southern Resident killer whales and humpback whales.

The increase in shaded area from the expanded structure may have an impact to Puget Sound chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, Southern Resident killer whale, bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish critical habitat. Grated decking would reduce the shading impact associated with the expanded structure, and mitigation actions would improve critical habitat for these species. Based on this information, FTA finds that the project may affect, but would not likely adversely affect September 20, 2017 Page 3

Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, Southern Resident killer whale, bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish critical habitat.

Essential Fish Habitat

Appendix A of the enclosed BA provides an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Evaluation for the proposed project. The increase in shaded area from the expanded structure could affect groundfish and Pacific salmon EFH. However, using grated decking and locating the structure in deeper water would reduce the shading impact associated with the expanded structure, and mitigation actions (described above) would improve fish habitat for these species. No effects on the coastal pelagic EFH are anticipated from the project. EFH for coastal pelagic species does not occur in the project Action Area. Based on the information in the EFH evaluation, FTA finds that the proposed project will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, Pacific salmon or coastal pelagic EFH.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mark Assam at 206- 220-4465 or by email at [email protected]. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Amy Changchien Director, Office of Planning and Program Development

Cc: Jeff Davidson, Kitsap Transit

Enclosures: Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade Project Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation, June 13, 2017 Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, June 13, 2017

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97232 Refer to NMFS No.: WCR-2018-10181 October 4, 2018

Amy Changchien Director, Office of Planning and Program Development U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration 915 Second Avenue Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 Seattle, Washington 98174-1002

Re: Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for One Structure in Inland Marine Waters of Washington State: Annapolis Ferry Terminal Pier, Ramp, and Float Structure.

Dear Ms. Changchien:

Thank you for your June 6, 2018, letter requesting reinitiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action, in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.

The enclosed document contains a biological opinion (opinion) that analyzes the effects of your proposal to permit the removal of one pier, ramp, float (PRF) structure and the installation of one PRF structure. In this opinion, we conclude that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), PS steelhead (O. mykiss), or PS/Georgia Basin (GB) bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), PS/GB yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca), and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Further, we conclude that the proposed action will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitats.

This document also contains the results of the MSA Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) determined that the project will adversely affect Pacific salmon EFH. NMFS concurs with that determination and is, therefore, providing conservation recommendations pursuant to the MSA (Section 305(b)(4)(A)). The FTA must respond to those recommendations within 30 days (MSA Section 305(b)(4)(B)).

WCR-2017-10181

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Consultation History ...... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ...... 2 1.4 Action Area ...... 8 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ...... 10 2.1 Analytical Approach ...... 10 2.2 Rangewide Status of the Critical Habitat and Species ...... 11 2.2.1 Status of Critical Habitat ...... 13 2.2.2 Status of the Species ...... 18 2.3 Environmental Baseline ...... 23 2.4 Effects of the Action ...... 27 2.4.1. Effects on Critical Habitat ...... 27 2.4.2 Effects on Species ...... 32 2.5 Cumulative Effects...... 46 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ...... 47 2.6.1 Species Aggregate Analysis ...... 48 2.7 Conclusion ...... 50 2.8 Incidental Take Statement...... 50 2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take ...... 51 2.8.2 Effect of the Take...... 53 2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ...... 53 2.8.4 Terms and Conditions ...... 53 2.9 Conservation Recommendations ...... 54 2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation ...... 54 2.11 “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations ...... 55 2.11.1 Southern Resident Killer Whale ...... 55 2.11.2 Humpback Whales ...... 59 2.11.3 Yelloweye Rockfish ...... 60 2.11.4 Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat & Adult Bocaccio Critical Habitat . 60 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION ...... 60 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project ...... 61 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat ...... 62 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations ...... 63 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement ...... 63 3.5 Supplemental Consultation ...... 64 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW .... 64 5. REFERENCES ...... 66

WCR-2018-10181 -i-

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BMP Best Management Practices CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHART Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams CR Conservation Recommendation dB Decibel DPS Distinct Population Segment DQA Data Quality Act EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FR Federal Register FTA Federal Transit Administration GB Georgia Basin HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern HPA Hydraulic Project Approval HUC Hydrologic Unit Code Hz Hertz LW large wood MHHW Mean High Higher Water MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MPGs Major Population Groups MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHW Ordinary High Water Opinion Biological and Conference Opinion OWS Overwater Structures PBF Physical or Biological Features PCE Primary Constituent Element PRFs Piers, Ramps, and Floats PS Puget Sound PSP Puget Sound Partnership RL Received Levels SRKW Southern Resident Killer Whales SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation SEL Sound Exposure Level SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures TESC Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control TSS Total Suspended Solids TTS Temporary Threshold Shift U.S.C. United States Code VSP Viable Salmonid Population WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

WCR-2018-10181 -ii-

1. INTRODUCTION

This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below.

1.1 Background

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.

We also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action, in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.

We completed pre-dissemination review of this document using standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-554). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon Washington Coastal Area Office.

1.2 Consultation History

On September 20, 2017, we received a biological assessment from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) along with a letter requesting informal consultation on the potential effects of permitting the removal and installation of portions of public ferry terminal pier, ramp, float (PRF) in Sinclair Inlet, along Beach Drive in Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Washington. The FTA determined the action may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect, Puget Sound (PS) Chinook and their critical habitat, PS steelhead and their critical habitat, PS/Georgia Basin (GB) distinct population segment (DPS) bocaccio and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish and their critical habitats, Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) and their critical habitat, and Humpback whales.

NMFS, FTA, and the applicant, Kitsap Transit, participated in a conference call on November 20, 2017 to discuss the project and potential impacts to ESA listed species and critical habitat. We believe the project requires formal consultation. We responded by letter to the informal request on November 20, 2017, stating that NMFS did not concur with the FTA’s determination.

On December 8, 2017, FTA requested formal consultations on the above listed species. Formal consultation was initiated on December 12, 2017 and a Biological Opinion was issued on April 5, 2018 (refer to NMFS No.: WCR-2017-8482).

On June 6, 2018, the FTA notified NMFS that the project had been modified (change in pile driving plan and the amount of overwater coverage) which triggered a reinitiation. Reinitiation of this Biological Opinion began on June 28, 2018.

WCR-2018-10181 -1-

The FTA has determined that the proposed project revisions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the following listed species under NMFS management authority, nor critical habitat designated for any of these species:

• PS Chinook • PS steelhead • PS/GB bocaccio • PS/GB yelloweye rockfish • Southern resident killer whale • Humpback whale

NMFS agrees with the FTA’s determination that the revised proposed action is not likely to adversely affect:

• GB/PS adult bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) critical habitat, • PS/GB yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) or their critical habitat, • SRKW (Orcinus orca) or their critical habitat, • humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (Central America DPS and Mexico DPS).

Our concurrence is documented in the “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations Section (2.11).

We have determined that the revised proposed action remains likely to adversely affect PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead (O. mykiss), and juvenile GB/PS bocaccio as well as critical habitat for Chinook salmon and juvenile GB/PS bocaccio. Because the revised proposal includes additional effects that were evaluated in the original biological opinion and EFH consultation, NMFS provides this new consultation document.

1.3 Proposed Action

“Action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies (50 CFR 402.02).

The Annapolis Ferry terminal is 34 years old with a useful life of 40 years. The concrete pier is in above-average condition, but the float and ramp do not meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. The proposed improvements include removing a portion of the existing pier, installing a longer pier and ramp, removing the existing float and constructing a larger float in deeper water. Other improvements include pedestrian protection from the weather, new railing, lighting, potable water and fendering. The proposed work will improve the ferry operation, environmental conditions, over all experience for all passengers and provide equal access for elderly and disabled passengers. Impact minimization measures are included in the project design to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of the project on marine fish and wildlife species and their habitats. Mitigation is also proposed to offset unavoidable impacts.

The proposed project involves removing one PRF and replacing it with a new PRF. The Annapolis Ferry Dock currently consists of an 8-foot by 500-foot long fixed concrete pier with

WCR-2018-10181 -2-

concrete decking, a 4-foot by 50-foot metal ramp, and a 20-foot wide by 40-foot long float with a solid concrete decking. The pier is supported by 20 concrete piles and the float is secured in place with six steel piles.

Proposed removal: The proposed project consists of leaving approximately 400-feet concrete pier in place, removing an 8-foot by 50-foot and 16-foot by 50-foot section of pier, the 4-foot by 50-foot metal ramp, a 20-foot wide by 40-foot long float with a solid concrete decking, and four 16.6-inch concrete piles and six 18-inch steel piles. This equates to approximately 2,160 square feet of existing structures and 16 square feet of piles. This includes a solid concrete pier decking located between -4 feet and -6 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), a ramp, and solid concrete float located between -6 feet and -11 feet MLLW, and 10 piles.

Revised Element- Proposed New: This revised element increases the amount of overwater structure by expanding the float size by 219 square feet and while the revised proposal does not increase the number of piles, they are being driven deeper to hold a heavier dock which increases the number of necessary pile strikes from 800 strikes per day as originally evaluated to 2000 strikes a day, as well as increasing the duration of work from 10 days of pile work to 17 days.

The proposed PRF now consists of a fully grated 30-foot by 8-foot pier and 23-foot by 20-foot landing, a fully grated 120-foot by 5-foot ramp, a 50 percent grated 120-foot by 25-foot float, two pile frames and four pile hoops, and four 12-inch and eight 24-inch steel piles. The proposed new PRF equates to approximately 4,470 square feet of structures and 28 square feet of piles. This is a net increase of 2,310 square feet of new overwater structure. This proposal includes grated pier decking located between -3 feet and -11 feet MLLW, and a ramp, a concrete float located between -l1 feet -27 feet MLLW.

In order to increase the durability of the float structure, and to provide a more stable berth to accommodate a safe ADA-accessible berth for year-round use, the proposed float will be a prestressed concrete pontoon with a deep draft. This will provide more wave protection to the berth, and improve stability for loading and unloading operations during more severe weather events. The improved performance from an increase in float draft would result in larger forces on the pile anchors. Based on geotechnical data, the modified Project design assumes that each pile would require between 800 and 1,000 strikes per pile to reach the required embedment, and assumes up to two piles per day, for a total of up to 2,000 impact pile strikes per day. The project design assumes up to five days for pile removal, and up to 12 days for pile installation, for a total of up to 17 days for pile removal and installation. Placement of a 6-inch-thick piece of wood, mica, or similar material will be used between the hammer and pile. A bubble curtain will be employed during impact pile driving. Figure 1 shows the existing structure and proposes structure in approximate relation to each other. Table 1 breaks down the coverage.

Revised Element - Equipment and Methods: Equipment used during construction includes: support vessels (Skiffs, tug boats, etc.), crane, vibratory hammer, impact hammer, excavator, dump trucks and/or other heavy trucks (e.g., tractor-trailer with flatbed), and other general construction tools, including hand tools to perform various construction tasks. Pilings will be installed by impact hammer and vibratory hammer. To reduce sound levels, Kitsap Transit will use a bubble curtain on all impact-proofed piles.

WCR-2018-10181 -3-

WCR-2018-10181 -4-

Table 1. Project Coverage

Type Purpose Quantity Location Area1 Structure Removal 16.5-in. piles Pier removal 4 In-water -6 SF2 18-in. piles Float removal 6 In-water -10 SF2 In-Water Total: -16 SF2 Solid decking Pier and float removal 1 each Over-water -2,000 SF Minimal grating Ramp removal 1 Over-water -160 SF Over-Water Totals: -2,160 SF Structure Installation 12-in. piles Pier replacement 4 In-water +3 SF2 24-in. piles Float replacement 8 In-water +25 SF2 In-Water Total: +28 SF2 Full grated decking Pier and ramp 1 each Over-water +1,251 SF replacement Pile hoops and frames Stabilize piles 6 Above and around +219 SF piles 50% grated decking Float replacement 1 Over-water +3,000 SF Over-Water Totals: +4,470 SF Summary Net Change In-Water: +12 SF Net Change Over-water: +2,310 SF

Impact minimization measures are included in the project design to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of the project on marine fish and wildlife species and their habitats, and mitigation is also proposed to offset unavoidable impacts. Mitigation includes intertidal debris removal and riparian shoreline enhancement.

Revised Element - Proposed Intertidal debris removal: The intertidal zone in the vicinity of Annapolis Dock contains artificial debris primarily composed of angular riprap and concrete. This debris covers potential forage fish spawning habitat located in the upper intertidal area and extends down the shoreline into lower intertidal areas. An additional mitigation measure will include removal of the debris from the intertidal zone with a primary focus of removing debris within the +5 foot to +9 foot mean lower low water (MLLW) range to improve opportunities for forage fish spawning. Debris removal will also be conducted lower on the beach and will require the use of heavy equipment, such as an excavator, to remove the angular rock, concrete, and other artificial debris. The goal of the intertidal debris removal is to mitigate at as close to a 1:1 ratio for the net increase in overwater coverage as possible by removing approximately 2,322 square feet of artificial debris from the site. If the debris removal comes close to this goal after removing the available debris and is not able to fully achieve 2,322 square feet of debris removal, the remaining mitigation need will be accounted for through the approximately 8,600

WCR-2018-10181 -5-

square feet of shoreline enhancement plantings. Relative to the prior proposed action and analysis the new proposal increases the debris pick up by 219 square feet

Proposed Shoreline Enhancement: A 4-foot-wide gravel walkway is located along the north side of the parking lot. To the north of the walkway, a vegetated strip between 4 and 12 feet in width abuts the shoreline. In this strip vegetation consists of lawn grasses, invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and English ivy (Hedera helix), non-native decorative hedges, and several mature, deciduous trees and shrubs. One young, coniferous western red cedar (Thuja plicata) is also located in the western portion of the vegetated strip near the covered waiting area. Invasive and non-native shrub and vine species will be removed from the riparian strip between the walkway and the shoreline. This area will be replanted with native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species. Native tree species will also include coniferous species to provide shade on the shoreline throughout the year once the trees have matured. This will improve opportunities for forage fish spawning.

No eelgrass was identified in the vicinity of the proposed PRF, but submerged macroalgae was mapped in the location of the existing float and in deeper water within the footprint of the proposed float. In the upland, a gravel walkway and vegetated strip are located between the parking lot and the shoreline. Vegetation include lawns grasses with native and ornamental tree and shrub species. The shoreline is armored with riprap and intertidal substrate consists of a mix of cobbles, gravel and sand; with large angular rock and concrete scattered throughout.

Construction is planned to occur in 2018. Because project actions will occur below Ordinary High Water (OHW) in Sinclair Inlet, work must be completed during the in-water work windows for salmon, including PS Chinook and steelhead. Surf smelt spawning is documented along the shoreline of the project area by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species data1. The construction window for in-water work in Sinclair Inlet is July 2 to March 2 to protect salmon and “year-round” for surf smelt. A forage fish spawning survey may be required prior to construction.

Kitsap Transit proposes a marine mammal monitoring plan. This monitoring plan was developed to address potential impacts to marine mammals during certain construction activities (vibratory and impact pile driving). Marine mammal monitoring will be land and/or water based with one to two monitors during seas of Beaufort scale 2 or less. Additional monitors will be used as needed if seas reach a Beaufort scale of greater than 2. A final monitoring report will be prepared to document results of the monitoring and changes to the monitoring protocol, which may occur during construction. Further detail of the monitoring plan can be found in Section 2.11.

General Measures to Avoid and Minimize Effects of the Action

Best Management Practices (BMPs) and conservation measures will be employed throughout the execution of the project to minimize negative effects on the environment. BMPs and conservation measures are determined on a project-specific basis according to the project location and type of ecosystem present in the action area. These include but are not limited to the following measures:

1 http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/

WCR-2018-10181 -6-

• A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan will be developed and implemented as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System stormwater regulations for construction sites. Construction techniques will utilize BMPs such as those described in the 2016 version of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT’s) Standards and Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (WSDOT 2016) and Washington State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2014). TESC measures are required to prevent discharge of sediment-laden runoff from entering surface waters. Measures that will be employed to achieve this purpose may include silt fencing, straw bales/wattles, retention of runoff, and/or other similar BMPs that are determined to meet erosion control objectives.

• The contractor will prepare a construction Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan for this project. Any potential spills will be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not contaminate the surrounding area. Adequate materials and procedures to respond to unanticipated weather conditions or accidental releases of materials (sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, etc.) will be available on site. This will include materials necessary to cover stockpiles (e.g., tarpaulins), isolate pollutants from the environment (e.g., protective containers), and contain and absorb spills (e.g., disposable absorbent materials). The SPCC Plan will also ensure the proper management of oil, gasoline and solvents used in the operation and maintenance of construction equipment and that equipment remain free of external petroleum-based products prior to entering the work area and during the work, and for making any necessary repairs prior to returning the equipment to operation in the work area. The SPCC Plan will be consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 112.3 as well as the State of Washington Oil Spill Contingency Plan (WAC 173-182).

• An emergency spill containment kit must be located on-site along with a pollution prevention plan detailing planned fueling, materials storage and equipment storage. Waste storage areas must be prepared to address prevention and cleanup of accidental spills.

• To reduce the potential for spills and leaks, the barge will contain an adequate supply of materials (such as a vacuum pump, booms, diapers, and other absorbent material) to control and contain deleterious materials in the event of an accidental spill.

• The contractor will limit work at the site to daylight hours and comply with local, state and federal permit restrictions.

• All construction-related debris will be cleaned up daily. Proper conservation measures will be taken to ensure that debris will not contaminate the marine shoreline or marine waters.

• During impact pile driving, noise attenuation BMPs (i.e. bubble curtain or similar) will be utilized to reduce underwater sound pressures.

WCR-2018-10181 -7-

• All equipment used for construction activities will be cleaned and inspected prior to arriving at the project site, and daily thereafter prior to commencing work, to ensure no potentially hazardous materials are exposed, no leaks are present and the equipment is functioning properly. Fueling of land based equipment will be limited to upland areas on the street (southwest) side of the existing fire station building and will not be allowed immediately adjacent to or over the water.

• Waste materials, including riprap, derelict piles, miscellaneous garbage and/or other debris removed from the shoreline environment, will be transported off site for disposal in accordance with applicable regulations.

• Work will follow all other local, state and federal regulations and restrictions (e.g., WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), local Critical Areas Ordinance and land use regulations, Shoreline Master Plan, State Environmental Policy Act, and United States Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit (Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act).

Additional Construction Measures to Reduce Impacts to Species and Habitats

• The project will obtain and comply with conditions that will be outlined in the HPA permit issued for the project by WDFW and the Nationwide Permit issued by the USACE.

• All work below OHW will be conducted during the approved work windows for fish species that may occur in the project area.

• All debris resulting from construction shall be removed from the project area and prevented from entering the water.

• The barge will not contact the substrate of Sinclair Inlet. Work at high tide, low draft barges and/or other engineering controls will be employed.

• The contractor will limit construction impacts to the minimum area necessary to complete the project.

“Interrelated actions” are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. “Interdependent actions” are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). No interrelated or interdependent actions were identified for this consultation

1.4 Action Area

“Action area” means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02).

The project is located in Sinclair Inlet, within the limits of the City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Washington, (6th Field hydrologic unit code (HUC) 171100190704, Lat: 47.548369,

WCR-2018-10181 -8-

Long: -122.616310). Sinclair Inlet is a moderately developed pocket estuary with a U.S. Naval port on the north side of the inlet, the Port Orchard and Kitsap marinas on the south side of the inlet, and the recreational boat traffic and associated facilities. At the project site under this review, NMFS has determined the extreme high tide in Sinclair Inlet (i.e., the highest predicted tide in the 19 year tidal cycle) to be 13.8 feet, which is 2.1 feet above mean high higher water (MHHW), and will assess potential effects on designated critical habitat based on these numbers.

The action area is determined by the greatest extent of effects stemming from the project, in this case the action area is defined by both temporary and permanent effects. Temporary effects defining the short term action area result from the sound pressure emanating from the installation of 24-inch steel piles using a vibratory hammer. The temporarily affected area is estimated to its furthest reach at approximately five miles from the project area (Figure 2). The action area resulting from permanent effects is defined by the continuation of a degraded state caused by the overwater shading, reductions in forage, increases in predator populations, and effects from boating activity. We determined the extent of the action area by the likely geographic extent of the most extensive effect which is the pile driving associated with the proposed ferry terminal.

Figure 2. Project Action Area

The action area may be occupied by PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rockfish, PS/GB bocciaco, SRKW, and humpback whale. Portions of the action area are designated as critical habitat for PS chinook, PS/GB yelloweye rockfish, PS/GB bocciaco, and

WCR-2018-10181 -9-

SRKW. Sinclair Inlet is also EFH for Chinook, coho and pink salmon, as well as groundfish and coastal pelagic species2.

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

The ESA establishes a national program for conserving threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat upon which they depend. As required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitat. Per the requirements of the ESA, Federal action agencies consult with NMFS and section 7(b)(3) requires that, at the conclusion of consultation, NMFS provides an opinion stating how the agency’s actions would affect listed species and their critical habitat. If incidental take is expected, section 7(b)(4) requires NMFS to provide an incidental take statement that specifies the impact of any incidental taking and includes non-discretionary reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions to minimize such impacts.

2.1 Analytical Approach

This biological opinion includes both a jeopardy analysis and an adverse modification analysis.

The jeopardy analysis relies upon the regulatory definition of “to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species,” which is “to engage in an action that would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” (50 CFR 402.02). Therefore, the jeopardy analysis considers both survival and recovery of the species.

This opinion relies on the definition of "destruction or adverse modification", which “means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features” (81 FR 7414).

We use the following approach to determine whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat:

● Identify the rangewide status of the species and critical habitat likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. ● Describe the environmental baseline in the action area. ● Analyze the effects of the proposed action on both species and their habitat using an “exposure-response-risk” approach. ● Describe any cumulative effects in the action area.

2 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/fish_habitat/efh_consultations_go.html

WCR-2018-10181 -10-

● Integrate and synthesize the above factors to assess the risk that the proposed action poses to species and critical habitat. ● Reach jeopardy and adverse modification conclusions. ● If necessary, define a reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed action.

2.2 Rangewide Status of the Critical Habitat and Species

This opinion examines the status of each species that would be affected by the proposed action. The status is determined by the level of extinction risk that the listed species face, based on parameters considered in documents such as recovery plans, status reviews, and listing decisions. This informs the description of the species’ likelihood of both survival and recovery. The species status section also helps to inform the description of the species’ current “reproduction, numbers, or distribution” as described in 50 CFR 402.02. The opinion also examines the condition of critical habitat throughout the designated area, evaluates the conservation value of the various watersheds and coastal and marine environments that make up the designated area, and discusses the current function of the essential physical and biological features that help to form that conservation value.

One factor affecting the status of ESA-listed species considered in this opinion, and aquatic habitat at large, is climate change. Climate change is likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the abundance of ESA-listed species, and the conservation value of designated critical habitats, in the Pacific Northwest. Climate change is expected to make recovery targets for these species more difficult to achieve.

During the last century, average regional air temperatures increased by an average of 1.3°F. Warming is likely to continue and annual average air temperatures are predicted to increase 3°F to 10°F by 2070 to 2099 compared to 1970 to 1999. Temperature increases are expected to be largest in the summer (Melillo et al., 2014). Overall, about one-third of the current cold-water fish habitat in the Pacific Northwest is likely to exceed key water temperature thresholds by the end of this century (Karl et al., 2009). And in the interior western U.S., suitable habitat for salmon and steelhead is projected to decline an average of 47 percent by 2080 compared to 1978- 1997 (Melillo et al., 2014).

Forecasts for precipitation trends during the next century are less certain than for air temperature and vary depending on model assumptions and season. However, assuming continued growth in global heat-trapping gas emissions, summer precipitation in the Pacific Northwest is projected to decrease by an average of 10 percent during the remainder of this century (Melillo et al., 2014). Where snow occurs, a warmer climate will cause earlier snowmelt, resulting in increased late winter/early spring stream flows and reduced summer/fall flows (ISAB, 2007; Karl et al., 2009; Melillo et al., 2014).

Global warming projections show the highest risk for flooding in basins where rivers derive their water from both winter rainfall and spring snowmelt runoff (Melillo et al., 2014). Higher winter stream flows increase the risk that winter floods will damage spawning redds and wash away incubating eggs. Earlier peak stream flows will also flush some young salmon and steelhead from rivers to estuaries before they are physically mature, increasing stress and the risk of

WCR-2018-10181 -11-

predation. Lower stream flows and warmer water temperatures during summer will degrade summer rearing conditions, in part by increasing the prevalence and virulence of fish diseases and parasites (Karl et al., 2009). Other adverse effects are likely to include altered migration patterns, accelerated embryo development, premature emergence of fry, variation in quality and quantity of tributary rearing habitat, and increased competition and predation risk from warm- water, non-native species (ISAB, 2007).

The earth’s oceans are also warming, with considerable interannual and interdecadal variability superimposed on the longer-term trend (Bindoff et al. 2007). Historically, warm periods in the coastal Pacific Ocean have coincided with relatively low abundances of salmon and steelhead, while cooler ocean periods have coincided with relatively high abundances (Scheuerell and Williams, 2005; Zabel et al., 2006; Karl et al., 2009). Ocean conditions adverse to salmon and steelhead may be more likely under a warming climate (Zabel et al., 2006). This is supported by the recent observation that anomalously warm sea surface temperatures off the coast of Washington from 2013 to 2016 resulted in poor coho and Chinook salmon body condition for juveniles caught in those waters (NWFSC 2015). Changes to estuarine and coastal conditions, as well as the timing of seasonal shifts in these habitats, have the potential to impact a wide range of listed aquatic species (Tillmann and Siemann 2011, Reeder et al. 2013).

Moreover, as atmospheric carbon emissions increase, increasing levels of carbon are absorbed by the oceans, changing the pH of the water. Acidification also impacts sensitive estuary habitats, where organic matter and nutrient inputs further reduce pH and produce conditions more corrosive than those in offshore waters (Feely et al. 2012, Sunda and Cai 2012). Ocean acidification resulting from the uptake of carbon dioxide by ocean waters threatens corals, shellfish, and phytoplankton (e.g. foraminifera and coccolithophores) that form their shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate (Orr et al., 2005); (Feely et al., 2012). Such ocean acidification is essentially irreversible over a time scale of centuries (Royal Society, 2005). Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and dissolved carbonate ion concentrations, and thus calcium carbonate saturation. Over the past several centuries, ocean pH has decreased by about 0.1 pH units (an approximately 30 percent increase in acidity), and is projected to decline by another 0.3 to 0.4 pH units (approximately 100 to 150 percent increase in acidity) by the end of this century (Orr et al. 2005; Feely et al. 2012). As aqueous carbon dioxide concentrations increase, carbonate ion concentrations decrease, making it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms to form biogenic calcium carbonate needed for shell and skeleton formation. The reduction in pH also affects photosynthesis, growth, and reproduction. Further, the upwelling of deeper ocean water, deficient in carbonate, and thus potentially detrimental to the food chains supporting juvenile salmon has recently been observed along the U.S. west coast (Feely et al. 2008).

Acidification in Washington State coastal and estuarine waters is compounded by a combination of factors (Feely et al. 2012). Upwelling of carbon dioxide-rich offshore waters with naturally low pH from respiration processes exacerbates the effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Inputs of nutrients such as nitrogen, silicate, and phosphorus from upwelling and surface runoff stimulate the growth of marine algae, temporarily decreasing carbon dioxide and increasing pH. As these blooms die and decompose, carbon dioxide is released and pH is driven down in deeper waters. Similarly, carbon dioxide is released via bacterial respiration from decaying organic

WCR-2018-10181 -12-

matter delivered to coastal and estuarine waters from freshwater rivers and streams. All of these forces converge and interact at the coasts and estuaries, making these areas particularly sensitive to the impacts of climate change.

Finally, especially relevant to this consultation, sea level rise is a reality of climate change. Global sea level has risen about 7 inches during the 20th century and is projected to rise at a higher rate in the future. In the PS region sea level rise is expected to be moderated by tectonic uprising and range between about 3/5 and 11/5 inches per decade (Committee on Sea Level Rise in California et al., 2012). These changes will likely result in increased erosion and more frequent and severe coastal flooding, and shifts in the composition of nearshore habitats (Tillmann and Siemann 2011, et al. 2013). Estuarine-dependent salmonids such as chum and Chinook salmon are predicted to be impacted by significant reductions in rearing habitat in some Pacific Northwest coastal areas (Glick et al. 2007). Meanwhile, sea level rise is putting pressures on coastal regions to protect against flooding. New stressors generated by climate change, or existing stressors with effects that have been amplified by climate change, may also have synergistic impacts on species and ecosystems (Doney et al. 2012). These conditions will possibly intensify the climate change stressors inhibiting recovery of ESA-listed species in the future.

2.2.1 Status of Critical Habitat

Past critical habitat designations have used the terms primary constituent element (PCE) to identify important habitat qualities. However, the new critical habitat regulations (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016) replace those terms with physical or biological features (PBF). This shift in terminology does not change the approach used in conducting our analysis, whether the original designation identified PCE or PBF. For simplicity, we universally apply the term PBF in this Opinion for all critical habitat, regardless of the term used in the specific critical habitat designation

This section describes the status of designated critical habitat relevant to the proposed action by examining the condition and trends of the essential physical and biological features of that habitat throughout the designated areas. These features are essential to the conservation of the ESA-listed species because they support one or more of the species’ life stages (e.g., sites with conditions that support spawning, rearing, migration and foraging). Designated critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead does not include the action area, and so no analysis of effects to critical habitat for this species will be presented.

PS Chinook salmon critical habitat: Critical habitat for PS chinook includes 1,683 mi (2,709 km) of streams, 41 sq mi (106 sq km) of lakes, and 2,182 mi (3,512 km) of nearshore marine habitat in PS. The PS Chinook salmon ESU has 61 freshwater and 19 marine areas within its range. Of the freshwater watersheds, 41 are rated high conservation value, 12 low conservation value, and eight received a medium rating. Of the marine areas, all 19 are ranked with high conservation value. For salmon, NMFS’s critical habitat analytical review teams (CHARTs) ranked the watersheds within designated critical habitat at the scale of the HUC5 high, medium, or low based on the quantity and quality of habitat features, the relationship of the area compared to other areas within the species’ range,

WCR-2018-10181 -13-

and the significance to the species of the population occupying that area. Even if a location had poor habitat quality, it could be ranked with a high conservation value if it were essential due to factors such as limited availability, a unique contribution of the population it served, or serving another important role.

CHART for the PS recovery domain determined that only a few watersheds in the Whidbey Basin (Skagit River/Gorge Lake, Cascade River, Upper Sauk River, and the Tye and Beckler rivers) are in good to excellent condition with no potential for improvement. However, most HUC5 watersheds are in fair-to-poor or fair-to-good condition, with most of these watersheds having some or a high potential for improvement. The Snohomish River is considered to be in fair to good condition, with a high potential for improvement, whereas the Lower Green River (Upper Duwamish) is considered to be in fair to poor condition, with some potential for improvement.

Major tributary river basins in the Puget Sound basin include the Nooksack, Samish, Skagit, Sauk, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Lake Washington, Cedar, Sammamish, Green, Duwamish, Puyallup, White, Carbon, Nisqually, Deschutes, Skokomish, Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene, Elwha, and Dungeness rivers and Soos Creek. Critical habitat throughout the Puget Sound basin has been degraded by numerous activities, including hydropower development, loss of mature riparian forests, increased sediment inputs, removal of large wood (LW) from the waterways, intense urbanization, agriculture, alteration of floodplain and stream morphology (i.e., channel modifications and diking), riparian vegetation disturbance, wetland draining and conversion, dredging, armoring of shorelines, marina and port development, road and railroad construction and maintenance, logging, and mining. Changes in habitat quantity, availability, and diversity, and flow, temperature, sediment load and channel instability are common limiting factors of critical habitat throughout the basin.

Land use practices have likely accelerated the frequency of landslides delivering sediment to streams. Fine sediment from unpaved roads also contributes to stream sedimentation. Unpaved roads are widespread on forested lands in the Puget Sound basin, and to a lesser extent, in rural residential areas. Historical logging removed most of the riparian trees near stream channels. Subsequent agricultural and urban conversion permanently altered riparian vegetation in the river valleys, leaving either no trees, or a thin band of trees. The riparian zones along many agricultural areas are now dominated by alder, invasive canary grass and blackberries, and provide substantially reduced stream shade and LW recruitment (SSPS 2007).

Diking, agriculture, revetments, railroads and roads in lower stream reaches have caused significant loss of secondary channels in major valley floodplains in this region. Confined main channels create high-energy peak flows that remove smaller substrate particles and LW. The loss of side-channels, oxbow lakes, and backwater habitats has resulted in a significant loss of juvenile salmonid rearing and refuge habitat. When the water level of Lake Washington was lowered 9 feet in the 1910s, thousands of acres of wetlands along the shoreline of Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish and the Sammamish River corridor were drained and converted to agricultural and urban uses. Wetlands play an important role in hydrologic processes, as they store water which ameliorates high and low flows. The interchange of surface and groundwater

WCR-2018-10181 -14-

in complex stream and wetland systems helps to moderate stream temperatures. Forest wetlands are estimated to have diminished by one-third in Washington State (FEMAT 1993; Spence et al. 1996; SSPS 2007).

Loss of riparian habitat, elevated water temperatures, elevated levels of nutrients, increased nitrogen and phosphorus, and higher levels of suspended sediment, presumably from urban and highway runoff, wastewater treatment, failing septic systems, and agriculture or livestock impacts, have been documented in many Puget Sound tributaries (SSPS 2007).

Peak stream flows have increased over time due to paving (roads and parking areas), reduced percolation through surface soils on residential and agricultural lands, simplified and extended drainage networks, loss of wetlands, and rain-on-snow events in higher elevation clear cuts (SSPS 2007). In urbanized Puget Sound, there is a strong association between land use and land cover attributes and rates of coho spawner mortality likely due to runoff containing contaminants emitted from motor vehicles (Feist et al. 2011).

Dams constructed for hydropower generation, irrigation, or flood control have substantially affected PS Chinook salmon populations in a number of river systems. The construction and operation of dams have blocked access to spawning and rearing habitat (e.g., Elwha River dams block anadromous fish access to 70 miles of potential habitat) changed flow patterns, resulted in elevated temperatures and stranding of juvenile migrants, and degraded downstream spawning and rearing habitat by reducing recruitment of spawning gravel and LW to downstream areas (SSPS 2007). These actions tend to promote downstream channel incision and simplification (Kondolf 1997), limiting fish habitat. Water withdrawals reduce available fish habitat and alter sediment transport. Hydropower projects often change flow rates, stranding and killing fish, and reducing aquatic invertebrate (food source) productivity (Hunter 1992).

Juvenile mortality occurs in unscreened or inadequately screened diversions. Water diversion ditches resemble side channels in which juvenile salmonids normally find refuge. When diversion headgates are shut, access back to the main channel is cut off and the channel goes dry. Mortality can also occur with inadequately screened diversions from impingement on the screen, or mutilation in pumps where gaps or oversized screen openings allow juveniles to get into the system. Blockages by dams, water diversions, and shifts in flow regime due to hydroelectric development and flood control projects are major habitat problems in many Puget Sound tributary basins (SSPS 2007).

The nearshore marine habitat has been extensively altered and armored by industrial and residential development near the mouths of many of Puget Sound’s tributaries. A railroad runs along large portions of the eastern shoreline of Puget Sound, eliminating natural cover along the shore and natural recruitment of beach sand (SSPS 2007).

In designating critical habitat for PS Chinook in estuarine and nearshore marine areas, NMFS determined that the area from extreme high water extending out to the maximum depth of the photic zone (no greater than 30 meters relative to MLLW) contain essential features that require special protection. For nearshore marine areas, NMFS designated the area inundated by extreme high tide because it encompasses habitat areas typically inundated and regularly

WCR-2018-10181 -15-

occupied during the spring and summer when juvenile salmon are migrating in the nearshore zone and relying heavily on forage, cover, and refuge qualities provided by these occupied habitats. Degradation of the near-shore environment has occurred in the southeastern areas of Hood Canal in recent years, resulting in late summer marine oxygen depletion and significant fish kills. Circulation of marine waters is naturally limited, and partially driven by freshwater runoff, which is often low in the late summer. However, human development has increased nutrient loads from failing septic systems along the shoreline, and from use of nitrate and phosphate fertilizers on lawns and farms. Shoreline residential development is widespread and dense in many places. The combination of highways and dense residential development has degraded certain physical and chemical characteristics of the near-shore environment (HCCC 2005; SSPS 2007).

The degradation of multiple aspects of PS Chinook critical habitat indicates that the conservation potential of the critical habitat is not being reached, even in areas where the conservation value of habitat is ranked high.

PS Chinook Critical Habitat in the Action Area: The action area includes most of Sinclair Inlet (Figure 2), west of Bainbridge Island. Table 2 contains the estuarine and nearshore PBFs for critical habitat:

Table 2. PS Chinook, and corresponding life history events, critical habitat PBFs

Physical or Biological Features Life History Event Site Type Site Attribute Adult sexual maturation and “reverse Estuarine (Free of obstruction and excessive predation) smoltification” Water quality, quantity, and salinity Adult upstream migration and holding Natural cover Kelt (steelhead) seaward migration Forage Fry/parr/smolt growth, development, and seaward migration (Free of obstruction and excessive predation) Adult growth and sexual maturation Nearshore Water quality, quantity, and forage Adult spawning migration marine Natural cover Nearshore juvenile rearing

The attributes of the estuarine PBF, where they are present in the action area, are poorly functioning. Sinclair Inlet is a small, highly developed inlet that exhibits poorly functioning attributes of the estuarine and nearshore PBFs. Shorelines in Sinclair Inlet are dominated by armored/bulkheaded banks with very little riparian vegetation. The majority of upland areas in the action area consists of developed and impervious surfaces. Infrastructure within the steep, mid- to high-elevation intertidal zone includes many commercial piers, a U.S. Naval Base, and other overwater structures (OWS). Habitat in the immediate project area are poorly functioning, indicative of greater Sinclair Inlet.

WCR-2018-10181 -16-

PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat: Critical habitat for PS/GB bocaccio includes roughly 590 square miles of nearshore habitat and 414 square miles of deepwater habitat. Critical habitat is not designated in areas outside of United States jurisdiction; therefore, although waters in Canada are part of the DPSs’ ranges for this species, critical habitat was not designated in that area.

Based on the natural history of bocaccio and their habitat needs, NMFS identified two physical or biological features, essential for their conservation: 1) Deepwater sites (>30 meters) that support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; 2) Nearshore juvenile rearing sites with sand, rock and/or cobbles to support forage and refuge. Habitat threats include degradation of rocky habitat, loss of eelgrass and kelp, introduction of non-native species that modify habitat, and degradation of water quality as specific threats to rockfish habitat in the Georgia Basin.

Overall, nearshore critical habitat has been degraded in many areas by shoreline development. Both nearshore and deepwater critical habitat has been degraded by the presence of derelict fishing gear and reduced water quality that is widespread throughout Puget Sound. As of the late 1990s, shoreline development had impacted about 30 percent of the Puget Sound (Broadhurst 1998), and has increased since then (Cornwall and Mayo 2008). Shoreline development has been linked to reductions in invertebrate abundance and diversity, reduced forage fish reproduction, and reductions in eelgrass and kelp.

Thousands of lost fishing nets and shrimp and crab pots (derelict fishing gear) have been documented within Puget Sound. Most derelict gear is found in waters less than 100 feet deep, but several hundred derelict nets have also been documented in waters deeper than 100 feet (NRC 2014). Derelict fishing gear degrades rocky habitat by altering bottom composition and killing encrusting organisms. It also kills rockfish, salmon, and marine mammals, as well as numerous species of fish and invertebrates that are rockfish prey resources (Good et al. 2010).

Designated critical habitat for PS/GB bocaccio includes marine waters and substrates of the US in Puget Sound east of Green Point in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Nearshore critical habitat is defined as areas that are contiguous with the shoreline from the line of extreme high water out to a depth no greater than 98 feet (30 m) relative to mean lower low water. The PBF of nearshore critical habitat include settlement habitats with sand, rock, and/or cobble substrates that also support kelp. Important site attributes include: (1) Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and (2) Water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities.

PS/GB Bocaccio Critical Habitat in the Action Area: The action area includes most of Sinclair Inlet (Figure 2), west of Bainbridge Island. Table 3 contains the estuarine and nearshore PBFs for critical habitat:

WCR-2018-10181 -17-

Table 3. PS/GB bocaccio, and corresponding life history events, critical habitat PBFs

Physical or Biological Features Species Life History Event Site Type Site Attributes Nearshore habitats with Prey quantity, quality, and availability Juvenile settlement, growth, and substrate that supports kelp Water quality and sufficient DO development

The attributes of the estuarine PBF, where they are present in the action area, are poorly functioning. Sinclair Inlet is a small, highly developed inlet that exhibits poorly functioning attributes of the estuarine and nearshore PBFs. Shorelines in Sinclair Inlet are dominated by armored/bulkheaded banks with very little riparian vegetation. The majority of upland areas in the action area consists of developed and impervious surfaces. Infrastructure within the steep, mid- to high-elevation intertidal zone includes many commercial piers, a U.S. Naval Base, and other OWS. Habitat in the immediate project area are poorly functioning, indicative of greater Sinclair Inlet.

2.2.2 Status of the Species

For Pacific salmon, steelhead, and certain other species, we commonly use the four “viable salmonid population” (VSP) criteria (McElhany et al. 2000) to assess the viability of the populations that, together, constitute the species. These four criteria (spatial structure, diversity, abundance, and productivity) encompass the species’ “reproduction, numbers, or distribution” as described in 50 CFR 402.02. When these parameters are collectively at appropriate levels, they maintain a population’s capacity to adapt to various environmental conditions and allow it to sustain itself in the natural environment.

“Abundance” generally refers to the number of naturally-produced adults (i.e., the progeny of naturally-spawning parents) in the natural environment (e.g., on spawning grounds).

“Productivity,” as applied to viability factors, refers to the entire life cycle (i.e., the number of naturally-spawning adults produced per parent). When progeny replace or exceed the number of parents, a population is stable or increasing. When progeny fail to replace the number of parents, the population is declining. McElhany et al. (2000) use the terms “population growth rate” and “productivity” interchangeably when referring to production over the entire life cycle. They also refer to “trend in abundance,” which is the manifestation of the long-term population growth rate.

“Spatial structure” refers both to the spatial distributions of individuals in the population and the processes that generate that distribution. A population’s spatial structure depends on habitat quality and spatial configuration, and the dynamics and dispersal characteristics of individuals in the population.

“Diversity” refers to the distribution of traits within and among populations. These range in scale from DNA sequence variation in single genes to complex life history traits (McElhany et al. 2000).

WCR-2018-10181 -18-

For species with multiple populations, once the biological status of a species’ populations has been determined, we assess the status of the entire species using criteria for groups of populations, as described in recovery plans and guidance documents from technical recovery teams. Considerations for species viability include having multiple populations that are viable, ensuring that populations with unique life histories and phenotypes are viable, and that some viable populations are both widespread to avoid concurrent extinctions from mass catastrophes and spatially close to allow functioning as metapopulations (McElhany, 2000).

Abundance

Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Abundance across the PS Chinook ESU has generally decreased between 2010 and 2014, with only 6 of 22 populations (Cascade, Cedar, Mid-Hood Canal, Nisqually, Suiattle and Upper Sauk) showing a positive change in the 5-year geometric mean natural-origin spawner abundances (recent 5-year status review). However, all 6 of these populations have relatively low natural spawning abundances of < 1,000 fish, so these increases represent small changes in total ESU abundance. Fifteen-year trends in log wild spawner abundance (1990-2005 and 1999-2014) for each PS Chinook population were negative in the latter period for 17 of the 22 populations but for only 2 of the 22 populations (Elwha and Puyallup) in the earlier period. Thus, there is a stronger decline in wild spawner abundance across all major population groups (MPGs) in the recent 15 years compared to the previous 15 years (NWFSC, 2015). Combined spawner abundance for the ESU ranges around 40,000 Chinook3 (NOAA Salmon Population Summary SPS Database, Northwest Fisheries Science Center).

Puget Sound Steelhead. No abundance estimates exist for most of the summer-run populations; all appear to be small, most averaging less than 200 spawners annually. Summer-run populations are concentrated in northern PS and Hood Canal; only the Elwha River and Canyon Creek support summer-run steelhead in the rest of the DPS. Steelhead are most abundant in northern PS, with winter-run steelhead in the Skagit and Snohomish rivers supporting the two largest populations (approximately 3,000 and 5,000 respectively). From 2005-2009, geometric means of natural spawners indicate relatively low abundance (4 of 15 populations with fewer than 500 spawners annually) and declining trends (6 of 16 populations) in natural escapement of winter‐ run steelhead throughout PS, particularly in southern PS and on the Olympic Peninsula (Ford et al. 2011).

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio. There are no estimates of historic or present-day abundance of bocaccio across the full DPSs area. In 2013, the WDFW published abundance estimates from a remotely operated vehicle survey conducted in 2008 in the San Juan Island area (Pacunski et al. 2013). This survey was conducted exclusively within rocky habitats and represents the best available abundance estimates to date for one basin of the DPS. The survey produced estimates of 4,606 (100 percent variance) bocaccio in the San Juan area (Tonnes et al., 2016).

3 Combined Chinook spawner abundance for 2013 is 38,960.

WCR-2018-10181 -19-

Further, data suggest that total rockfish declined at a rate of 3.1 to 3.8 percent per year from 1977 to 2014 or a 69 to 76 percent total decline over that period. The three listed species declined over-proportional compared to the total rockfish assemblage. Therefore, long-term population growth rate for the listed species was likely even lower (more negative) than that for total rockfish. Finally, there is little to no evidence of recent recovery of total rockfish abundance to recent protective measures.

Productivity

Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon productivity in the PS ESU across the time period 1980-2015 has been variable. Across the PS ESU, 8 of 22 PS Chinook populations show natural productivity below replacement in all years since the mid-1980’s. However in many cases total spawning abundance was maintained through hatchery supplementation. The White River population in the Central/South Puget Sound MPG was above replacement from the mid 1980’s to early 2000’s, but has dropped in productivity consistently since the late 1980’s. In recent years, only 8 populations have shown productivities above zero. These are Cascade, Lower Sauk, Lower Skagit, Suiattle, Upper Sauk, Upper Skagit in the Whidby Basin MPG, and Mid-Hood Canal and Cedar River in the Hood Canal and Central/South Puget Sound MPG’s, respectively.

Puget Sound Steelhead. Since 1992 there has been a general downward trend in steelhead populations in this DPS. Busby et al. (1996) reviewed the 21 populations in the PS DPS and found that 17 had declining trends and four had increasing trends. Marked declines in natural run size are evident in all areas of the DPS. Even sharper declines are observed in southern PS and in Hood Canal. Throughout the DPS, natural steelhead production has shown a weak response to reduced harvest since the mid-1990s. Median population growth rates were estimated for several populations in the DPS, using the 4-year running sums method (Holmes 2001; Holmes and Fagan 2002). They estimated that the growth rate was less than 1 for most populations in the DPS, meaning the populations are declining.

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio. Mature females bocaccio produce from several thousand to over a million eggs annually (Love et al., 2002). In rockfish the number of embryos produced by the female increases with size. For example, female copper rockfish that are 20 cm in length produce 5,000 eggs while a female 50 cm in length may produce 700,000 eggs (Palsson, 2009). These specific observations come from other rockfish, not the three listed species. However, the generality of maternal effects in Sebastes suggests that some level of age or size influence on reproduction is likely for all species.

Spatial Structure and Diversity

Puget Sound Chinook salmon. One indicator of spatial structure and diversity is the proportion of natural-origin spawners; another is the distribution of a population across different life history strategies. Generally, populations with high natural-origin spawner contributions show higher spatial structure and diversity than populations with high hatchery-origin spawner contributions. For PS Chinook salmon, there is a declining trend in the proportion of natural-origin spawners across the ESU during the entire time period 1990-2014.

WCR-2018-10181 -20-

Individual members of stream and ocean-type Skagit River Chinook salmon exhibit a variety of alternative spatial and temporal life history strategies in their use of available habitat (Beamer, 2005). Four different alternative life history strategies based upon the size at estuarine entry and estuarine arrival time can be defined: fry migrants, delta migrants, parr migrants, and yearlings. Residence time in the Skagit River estuary was found to decrease as the size of the fish entering the estuary increased (Beamer, 2005). Fry migrants reared for only a short period in delta habitat and migrated into deeper water (Skagit Bay) early in the year, usually February and March at an average fork length of 39 millimeters. Some fry migrants take up residence in pocket estuaries (Beamer et al., 2003). Especially for these small fish, unobstructed nearshore passage to pocket estuaries is important for survival. In Skagit bay the growth rate is size dependent, larger juveniles exhibiting higher growth rates. Juveniles that reside the shortest in the Skagit delta, the fry migrants, show the smallest growth rate of all life history stages in Skagit bay. Furthermore, Beamish et al. (2004) find it likely that fry migrants survive poorly once they reach Skagit Bay. One reason for the poor bay survival of fry migrants is that the small size upon entry into the bay makes them susceptible to predation by predators like the ubiquitous staghorn sculpin (Beamer, 2007).

Even though these different life history forms have to date been studied most extensively in Skagit River Chinook salmon, Beamer et al. (2005) assume that they naturally occur in other populations, too. Further, Beamer et al. (2005) assume that the distribution within a population will depend upon environmental conditions. For example, the large number of fry migrants in the Skagit can be interpreted as a response to limited delta habitat.

In general, delta rearing Chinook salmon rear in the natal river delta one to two months before moving out into the bay. In the Skagit River, they reach an average size of 74 millimeter fork lengths at bay entry in May and June (Beamer et al., 2005). Parr migrants rear for a couple of months in freshwater to achieve a similar size as their tidal delta rearing cohorts over the same time period. Parr migrants do not reside in tidal delta habitats. They mainly migrate through the delta to adjacent nearshore areas. Yearlings rear in freshwater for over a year. Then they migrate quickly through the estuary and shallow subtidal areas. They quickly take up residence in deeper subtidal or offshore areas. A variable and small percentage of PS ocean type Chinook expresses the yearling life history type. For all but the small percentage of yearling life history type, the shallow marine nearshore habitat is important for early marine rearing.

Puget Sound Steelhead. PS steelhead are found in all accessible large tributaries to PS and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca (WDFG 1932). Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified nine PS steelhead stocks at some degree of risk or concern.

The WDF et al. (1993) identified 53 stocks within the DPS, of which 31 were considered to be of native origin and predominantly natural production. Of the 31 stocks, they rated 11 as healthy, three as depressed, one as critical, and 16 as unknown.

There are two types of steelhead, winter steelhead and summer steelhead. Winter steelhead become sexually mature during their ocean phase and spawn soon after arriving at their spawning grounds. Adult summer steelhead enter their natal streams and spend several months

WCR-2018-10181 -21-

holding and maturing in freshwater before spawning. The PS steelhead DPS is composed primarily of winter-run populations.

Steelhead habitat has been dramatically affected by a number of large dams in the PS Basin that eliminated access to habitat or degraded habitat by changing river hydrology, temperature profiles, downstream gravel recruitment, and movement of large woody debris.

In the lower reaches of rivers and their tributaries, urban development has converted natural areas (e.g. forests, wetlands, and riparian habitat) into impervious surfaces (buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.). This has changed the hydrology of urban streams causing increases in flood frequency, peak flow, and stormwater pollutants. The hydrologic changes have resulted in gravel scour, bank erosion, sediment deposition during storm events, and reduced summer flows (Moscrip and Montgomery 1997; Booth et al. 2002).

Agricultural development has reduced river braiding, sinuosity, and side channels through the construction of dikes and the hardening of banks with rip-rap. Constriction of rivers, especially during high flow events, increases gravel scour and the dislocation of rearing juveniles. Much of the habitat that existed before European immigration has been lost due to these land use changes (Beechie et al. 2001; Collins and Montgomery 2002; Pess et al. 2002).

In the mid-1990s, WDFW banned commercial harvest of wild steelhead. Previous harvest management practices contributed to the decline of PS steelhead (Busby et al. 1996). Predation by marine mammals (principally seals and sea lions) and birds may be of concern in some local areas experiencing dwindling steelhead run sizes (Kerwin 2001).

Ocean and climate conditions can have profound impacts on steelhead populations. Changing weather patterns affect their natal streams. As snow pack decreases, in-stream flow is expected to decline during summer and early fall (Battin et al. 2007).

The extensive propagation of the Chambers Creek winter steelhead and the Skamania Hatchery summer steelhead stocks have contributed to the observed decline in abundance of native PS steelhead populations (Hard et al. 2007). Approximately 95 percent of the hatchery production in the PS DPS originates from these two stocks. The Chambers Creek stock has undergone extensive breeding to provide an earlier and more uniform spawn timing. This has resulted in a large degree of reproductive divergence between hatchery and wild winter-run fish. The Skamania Hatchery stock is derived from summer steelhead in the Washougal and Klickitat rivers and is genetically distinct from the PS populations of steelhead. For these reasons, Hard et al. (2007) concluded that all hatchery summer- and winter-run steelhead populations in PS derived from the Chambers Creek and Skamania Hatchery stocks should be excluded from the DPS. NMFS included two hatchery populations that were derived from native steelhead, the Green River winter-run and the Hamma Hamma winter-run, as part of the DPS (72 FR 26722).

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio. Most bocaccio within the DPS may have been historically spatially limited to several basins. They were historically most abundant in the Central and South Sound (Drake et al. 2010) with no documented occurrences in the San Juan Basin until 2008 (WDFW 2011). Positive signs for spatial structure and connectivity come from

WCR-2018-10181 -22-

the propensity of some adults and pelagic juveniles to migrate long distances, which could re- establish aggregations of fish in formerly occupied habitat (Drake et al. 2010). The apparent reduction of populations of bocaccio in the Main Basin and South Sound represents a further reduction in the historically spatially limited distribution of bocaccio, and adds significant risk to the viability of the DPS (NMFS 2016a).

Size-frequency distributions for bocaccio in the 1970s indicate a wide range of sizes, with recreationally caught individuals from 9.8 to 33.5 in (25 to 85 cm). This broad size distribution suggests a spread of ages, with some successful recruitment over many years. A similar range of sizes is also evident in the 1980s catch data. The temporal trend in size distributions for bocaccio also suggests size truncation of the population, with larger fish becoming less common over time. By the decade of the 2000s, no size distribution data for bocaccio were available. Bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin may have physiological or behavioral adaptations because of the unique habitat conditions in the range of the DPS. The potential loss of diversity in the bocaccio DPS, in combination with their relatively low productivity, may result in a mismatch with habitat conditions and further reduce population viability (Drake et al. 2010).

2.3 Environmental Baseline

The “environmental baseline” includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02).

The State of the Sound biannual report produced by the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) (Partnership et al., 2015) summarizes how different indicators of health of the PS ecosystem are changing4. Their assessment can be summarized to a few key points: (1) development pressure continues to impact habitat in the marine and freshwater portion of the range; (2) improvements in human use patterns are slow at best; and (3) few of the 2020 improvement targets identified by the PSP will be reached. While this report refers to all of Puget Sound, the key point also apply to Hidden Cove. In more detail, this most recent report points out the following issues:

● Chinook salmon: ongoing decline. PSP Target: Stop the overall decline and start seeing improvements in wild Chinook salmon abundance in two to four populations in each biogeographic region. ● Herring stocks: declining ● Loss of non-federal forested land cover to developed land cover: continuing. Loss of 1,196 acres of non-federal forested land per year between 2006 and 2011. ● Shoreline armoring: Stable between 2011 and 2014. No recent net increase, restoration actions balance out increase from private shoreline armoring. However, this could be related to poor economic conditions. More years of data are needed to determine trend.

4 The Puget Sound Partnership tracks 21 different metrics (vital signs) to measure progress toward different PS recovery goals. The recovery goals most relevant for this Opinion include: Thriving species and food webs, Protected and Restored Habitat, Healthy Water Quality and Quantity.

WCR-2018-10181 -23-

● Accelerated conversion/loss of vegetation cover on ecologically important lands: 0.36 percent loss for 2006-2011. This is even more loss than the cautious 2020 Target: Basin- wide loss of vegetation cover on ecologically important lands under high pressure from development does not exceed 0.15 percent of the total 2011 baseline land area over a 5- year period. ● Marine water Quality: Overall, trends have been getting worse with closures of beaches and shellfish harvest in some bays. While there has been some increase between 2011 and 2014 in the amount of shellfish beds open to harvest, about 19 percent are still closed. PCB levels in fish5 are still high. ● Native Eelgrass (Z. marina) abundance seems stable comparing 2011 to 2013 data to baseline from 2000 to 2008. This does not account for losses that occurred prior to 2000. ● Human Sound Behavior Index: No change in average behavior. Thus, an increase in population is likely to continue to degrade habitat quality. (The Sound Behavior Index tracks 28 human use practices6 that likely affect habitat and water quality and quantity). ● OWS: not assessed by PSP. Current percent of nearshore coverage is 0.63 percent for all of PS, as detailed below.

The PSP concludes the overall decline in habitat conditions and native species abundance in the PS has been caused by development and climate change pressures. Over the last 150+ years, 4.5 million people have settled in the PS region. With the level of infrastructure development associated with this population growth the PS nearshore has been altered significantly. Major physical changes documented include the simplification of river deltas, the elimination of small coastal bays, the reduction in sediment supplies to the foreshore due to beach armoring, and the loss of tidally influenced wetlands and salt marsh (Fresh et al., 2011). In addition to beach armoring, other shoreline changes including OWS, marinas, roads, and railroads reduce habitat quality. The amount of these changes varies, and their source, varies by region, generally correlating with development, but overall is staggering (Simenstad et al., 2011). The simplification of the largest river deltas has caused a 27 percent decline in shoreline length compared to historical conditions. Of 884 historic small embayments, 308 have been eliminated. About 27 percent of PS’s shorelines are armored and only 112 of 828 shoreline segments remain in properly functioning condition. The loss of tidal wetlands in the largest deltas averages 26 percent (Fresh et al., 2011). Each of these habitat changes is related to development and overall reduces the quality and quantity of PS Chinook and steelhead habitat in the PS foreshore and nearshore.

Shoreline armoring often results in increased beach erosion waterward of the armoring, which, in turn, leads to beach lowering, coarsening of substrates, increases in sediment temperature, and reductions in invertebrate density (Fresh et al., 2011;Morley et al., 2012; Dethier et al., 2016). New shoreline armoring continues to reduce the suitable habitat for Pacific sand lance and surf smelt spawning and may reduce their numbers. Fresh et al. (2011) write “We can only surmise how much forage fish spawning habitat we have lost because we lack comprehensive historical data on spawning areas.” Considering that these forage fish are an essential food source for

5 Monitored species Pacific herring. 6 Human use practices include among others: (a) Number of residents with native vegetation on banks of waterways; (b) number of residents using pump stations for boat wastewater; (c) residents using herbicides and pesticides, and (d) pasture practices for residents with livestock.

WCR-2018-10181 -24-

salmon, the beach armoring has multiple negative effects on salmon including reductions in prey and reductions in access to shallow water rearing habitat and refuge.

The distribution and sizes of OWS in the nearshore4 are detailed further in Schlenger et al. (2011) and (Simenstad et al., 2011). The South Central PS sub-basin in which the action area is located has the highest number (2,040), density (4 per km), and area of OWS (6.8 km2) of all sub-basins (Table 4).

More than one-third (67) of marinas in PS are in the South Central sub-basin, and they cover over 3 square kilometers, which is nearly half of the total PS area covered by marinas (Schlenger et al., 2011). More than 1 percent of the nearshore zone area of the South Central PS sub-basin is covered by marinas.

Table 4. Number and Area of OWS in PS Sub-basins, Schlenger et al. (2011) & Simenstad et al. (2011)

Puget Sound Number of Number of Area of Total Area of Nearshore Percent of Sub-basins Overwater Structures Overwater OWS Area (km2) Nearshore Area (see Figure 3) Structures Per Structures5 including Coverage for (And Kilometer of (Marinas) marinas OWS & Marinas Marinas) Shoreline (km2) (km2) combined

South Central 2,040 (67) 4.1 3.7 6.78 262.9 2.6 Puget Sound (3.1) Puget Sound 6,927 (171) 2.3 6.45 12.78 2,035.8 0.63 Basin6 (6.3)

4 The nearshore area includes the area from the deepest part of the photic zone (approximately 10 meters below Mean Lower Low Water [MLLW]) landward to the top of shoreline bluffs, or in estuaries upstream to the head of tidal influence (Clancy, M., et al., 2009). 5 OWS include large industrial/commercial docks, family residence docks, floating docks, fixed piers, bridges, floating breakwaters, moored vessels, but not marinas. Marinas are listed in parentheses. 6 The Puget Sound Basin number and area of OWS is not a summation of the contributing subbasins, because the sub-basins overlap in shared divergence zones at sub-basin margins.

WCR-2018-10181 -25-

Figure 3. Puget Sound Sub-basin Boundaries

The effects of climate change and increased population and development also have impacted the freshwater portion of the salmonid habitat. Habitat in tributary watersheds continues to be disconnected, lost, and degraded by diking, operation of hydropower facilities, flow regulation, timber harvest, land conversions, effects of transportation infrastructure, and growth-related commercial and residential development (Beechie et al., 1994; Hough-Snee 2010). Further, water quality reductions, from multiple pollutant sources - stormwater, municipal and industrial discharges, agricultural and non-point source conveyances - continue to compromise water quality in freshwater and marine portions of PS (Ruckelshaus and McClure 2007). Other activities occurring as a baseline condition within the action areas are both ferry traffic and other vessel traffic, which create chronic background noise in aquatic habitat, and episodic generalized disturbance (e.g. waves and visual disturbance).

WCR-2018-10181 -26-

The project site is located within Sinclair Inlet, across the waterway from Bremerton. The system is tidally influenced with limited wave action and low to moderate freshwater input (highest in winter and spring). These habitat characteristics define Sinclair Inlet as a “Pocket Estuary”. Pocket estuaries within Puget Sound are unique with defining features of; complex shape, small size and relative isolation from one another (Fetherston and Abbe 2001). Their definition relies less on the presence or absence of freshwater input and therefor can include habitats with significant salinity dilution (estuaries) and habitats with little to no salinity change (lagoons) (Shipman 2008). The key attribute of any pocket estuary is the protection provided to young life stages of out-migrating and rearing fish species (Beamer 2003).

2.4 Effects of the Action

Under the ESA, “effects of the action” means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.

The effects of these actions include those resulting from the construction, maintenance, and presence of the structures in the aquatic environment. Future use of the PRF is interrelated, but because the vessel traffic associated with this proposed action exists as a baseline condition and is not planned to increase as a design goal of the repairs and expansion of the facility. Vessel traffic to and from the ferry terminal, will however, continue to as an effect on aquatic habitat and species over additional coming years, as it is associated with the extended design-life of the structure.

As introduced in Section 1.3, we consider the 1) pile driving effects such as sound and turbid conditions, 2) shading from OWS, and 3) changes in the physical features of aquatic habitat related to the in-water structures as direct effects of the action. We analyze these effects on features of critical habitat first, and then we identify the multiple lifestages of listed species that will encounter these effects, because different lifestages of a species can respond in different ways to the same habitat perturbations. This effects analysis presents anticipated species responses to the habitat modifications including changes in fish behavior, injury, or death of individual fish.

2.4.1. Effects on Critical Habitat

The proposed action has effects in shoreline areas, shallow water, and deeper water. Designated critical habitat within the action area for ESA-listed salmon and bocaccio consists of estuarine and marine rearing sites, migration corridors, and their component PBFs, such as water quality, adequate forage, natural cover, and safe passage conditions. Effects of the proposed project within critical habitat are reasonably certain to include: (1) Obstruction of the migratory pathway, (2) reduction in forage and natural cover, and (3) a habitat enhancements to mitigate these effects. The Critical Habitat analysis that follows addresses salmonid and juvenile bocaccio habitat only. The features of SRKW, adult bocaccio, and adult and juvenile yelloweye, habitat

WCR-2018-10181 -27-

are only ephemerally affected, and we construe these effects to be insignificant. Accordingly, the review for these critical habitats is presented in Section 2.11, Not Likely to Adversely Affect.

Obstruction of Salmonid Migratory Pathway and Safe Passage

Permanent effects of replacement and new in-water structure: The proposed placement of the PRF structure in aquatic habitat will alter outmigration routes of juvenile PS Chinook salmon. Juveniles will likely alter their migratory route to navigate around the proposed structures, and move into even deeper water. When juveniles leave the shallow nearshore it increases their migration route and will likely increase their risk of predation, see below 2.4.2. Therefore, we expect this project to degrade the quality of the migratory corridor and impair safe passage.

Temporary effects of increased sound: The proposed action will increase cause sound waves that disrupt the aquatic habitat. The sound pressure levels from pile driving and extraction will occur contemporaneous with the work, and radiate outward; the effect attenuates with distance. Cumulative SEL is a measure of the sound energy integrated across all of the pile strikes. The Equal Energy Hypothesis, described by NMFS (2007), is used as a basis for calculating Cumulative SEL. The number of pile strikes is estimated per continuous work period. This approach defines a work period as all the pile driving between 12-hour breaks. NMFS uses the practical spreading model to calculate transmission loss, and define the area affected. Both vibratory noise and impact noise can create sufficient disturbance that the action area is impaired as a migratory area, but this persists only for the duration of the pile driving or removal. Because work ceases each day, migration values are re-established during the evening, night, and early morning hours.

Sound will also occur with the interrelated ferry use of the PRF via engine operation. Vessel noise is not expected to exceed that which already occurs at the baseline level in the action area, but is expected to be a corollary effect that exists episodically for the 40-year life of the structure. Engine noise from vessels is a low frequency sound which will extend throughout the action area, but is not expected to alter the suitability of the migratory pathway from the baseline condition, and the critical habitat is expected to continue to function with a comparable level of safe passage.

Temporary effects on water quality: Turbidity and suspended sediment are expected to occur during pile removal and pile driving. Pile driving causes pulses of turbidity and total suspended sediment, at each location where pile installation or extraction occurs, but each instance is short- term and localized. When these occur in migration areas, it can delay or alter migration behavior, slightly reducing the migration values of the habitat.

Effects on Salmonid Forage and Cover

Permanent effects of replacement structures and additional overwater structure/shade: PRF structures can adversely affects primary productivity and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) if present in the shadow zone of the OWS. In the case of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal PRF, the closest documented SAV is approximately ¾ of a mile away, exiting Sinclair Inlet, towards the Sound. Although SAV is not documented in the area, there is a high likelihood that SAV patches

WCR-2018-10181 -28-

will come and go within the action area within the life of the PRF, and therefore will be discussed. SAV is important in providing cover and a food base for juvenile PS Chinook. PRFs shade SAV for the life of the structure (Kelty and Bliven, 2003).

Fresh et al. (2006) researched the effects of grating in residential floats on eelgrass, a substrate for herring spawning, a Chinook salmon forage species documented in the action area. They reported a statistically significant decline in eelgrass shoot density underneath six of the 11 studied floats in northern PS. Grating explained 22 percent of the variation in the relative amount of change in shoot density. Although results indicated that using grating (16 to 50 percent) did not avoid impacts to eelgrass, there may have been some beneficial effect from the use of grating. Within the grating range tested (16 to 50 percent), the authors did not find a relationship between the percentage of grating on the float and the change in eelgrass density. The authors hypothesize that there are likely other variables influencing eelgrass density and that there may be a threshold effect when it comes to light under the float; grating up to a certain amount would have had no effect, but losses would be reduced above this threshold value. The authors conclude with the recommendation that, “because of the high level of uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of changes in any one attribute, managers should take all possible steps to maximize the amount of submarine light to reduce risks to eelgrass” (Fresh et al. 2006).

The NMFS could not find studies examining the effect of OWS on SAV other than eelgrass and kelp (Mumford, 2007). However, the physiological pathways that result in the reduction in shoot density and biomass from shading applies to all SAV. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that shading from OWS adversely affects all SAV. A reduction to the primary production of SAV beds is likely to incrementally reduce the food sources and cover for PS Chinook salmon and steelhead. The reduction in food source includes epibenthos (Haas et al., 2002) as well as forage fish.

In addition to reduced SAV biomass and shoot density, shading also has been shown to be correlated with reduced density of the epibenthic assemblage under ferry terminals compared to a control site (Haas et al., 2002). With few exceptions (insignificant decrease for non-salmonid- prey taxa), the significant differences suggest adverse impacts for salmon from reduced epibenthos density under these ferry terminals. While the reduction in light and SAV were likely a cause for the reduction in epibenthos, changes in grain size due to boat action and current alteration also may have contributed (Haas et al., 2002). The likely incremental reduction in epibenthic prey associated with the PRF projects, including the project, will likely adversely affect the forage for PS Chinook.

Herring, another food source for listed PS Chinook, has a documented spawning location in the action area. Thus, it is important to avoid, minimize, and offset all impacts of PRFs on the SAV that support herring spawning. Spawning areas for PS herring are largely limited to depth at which SAV will grow with herring using several species of macroalgae as spawning substrate. In shallower areas, Zostera marina is of primary importance, and in slightly deeper areas, Gracilaria spp. predominates (Penttila, 2007). An essential element of herring spawning habitat appears to be the presence of perennial marine vegetation beds at rather specific locations (Penttila, 2007). While across the PS region native eelgrass (Zostera marina) is of primary importance as spawning substrate, other SAV is used locally. In some parts of PS, algal turf,

WCR-2018-10181 -29-

often formed by dozens of species of red, green and brown algae, is used by spawning herring (Millikan and Penttila, 1974). In deeper water and in areas where native eelgrass beds do not predominate, herring spawn on the mid-bottom-dwelling red alga Gracilariopsis sp. (referred to as Gracilaria in some sources) (Penttila, 2007). In Wollochet Bay WDFW documented spawning mainly on Ulva sp.

Forage fish such as Pacific herring, Pacific sandlance and surf smelt are present in Sinclair Inlet and the action area, but spawning locations are few. We assume that some adverse impacts to documented spawning substrate and epibenthic prey as a result of shading will result as part of the proposed action. All PRFs are likely to result in a reduction of epibenthic prey and most in some reduction of SAV. In addition, the PRFs in areas with herring spawning are likely to result in reduced numbers of herring. All salmon exposed to these changed conditions are likely to experience a reduction in their individual growth, fitness, survival, and abundance. In general, early marine juvenile growth is dependent on ample food supply and has been shown to be linked to overall salmonid survival and production (Beamish et al., 2004) (Tomaro et al., 2012). Rapid growth of PS Chinook salmon during the early marine period is critical for improved marine survival (Duffy and Beauchamp, 2011). In summary, the PBFs of early marine rearing will be permanently negatively affected by the action through a relatively small reduction in forage and cover.

Habitat Water Quality Reductions for salmonids and Juvenile PS/GB Bocaccio

Impact to prey species and water quality are the only impacted rockfish PBFs by the proposed action. Pile driving causes short-term and localized increases in turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) as the bottom materials are displaced during the intrusion of the pile structures, and from the percussive effect of the driving. This affects water quality and benthic prey communities.

Water Quality Impairment To estimate the magnitude of suspended sediment associated with the proposed pile driving, NMFS reviewed results from a vibratory pile removal project near the mouth of Jimmycomelately Creek in Sequim Bay (Weston Solutions, 2006). Because the character of vibration is the same for both installation and removal, the analysis of sediments for removal provides a reliable review of likely suspended sediments from installation. In that study, TSS concentrations associated with activation of the vibratory hammer to loosen the pile from the substrate ranged from 13 to 42 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and averaged 25 mg/L. During the pile driving, elevated levels of TSS averaging 40 mg/L were recorded near the pile and 26 mg/L at the sensors located 16 to 33 feet from the pile. Concentrations during extraction ranged from 20 to 82.9 mg/L and were sometimes visible in the water column as a 10- to 16-foot diameter plume that extended at least 15 to 20 feet from the actual pulling event. Although concentrations decreased after pile extraction, the time interval was unavailable due to tug movement as soon as the pile cleared the water’s surface.

Sediment will also be disturbed, impairing water quality, with pile removal. A total of 10 existing piles (four 16.5-inch concrete piles and six 18-inch steel piles) will be removed by vibratory extraction. We anticipate multiple episodes of suspended sediment daily for 17 days of

WCR-2018-10181 -30-

piling work, with each pile extraction and installation, creating a small, temporary, turbidity plume at each site.

Benthic and Prey Communities/Forage Base Pile removal and installation activities, with disruption of the sediment will create at least partial loss of the community in the affected area. There will be some minor loss of encrusting species (e.g., mussels) on the piles removed from the existing pier. The benthic communities in the footprints of the new piles (28 square feet) will be eliminated when the piles are installed. A total of 16 square feet of piles will be removed, for a net conversion of 12 square feet of benthic habitat. There will be some disturbance to sediments and benthic community from pile removal and vessel anchors, but there will be little potential disturbance from propeller wash and no potential for barge grounding due to the water depths at the site. The potential area that will be disturbed by construction activity was estimated by adding the area within 150 feet of the proposed structure to the structure footprint (WDOE 2016). For marine waters, the point of compliance for a temporary area of mixing shall be at a radius of one hundred fifty feet from the activity causing the turbidity exceedance

Marine macroinvertebrates and other organisms have a demonstrated ability to recolonize disturbed substrates (Dernie et al. 2003); most of the benthic habitat, with the exception of very small areas displaced by piles, will begin to recover within months after construction is completed. Previous studies of dredged, sediment capped, and other disturbed sites show that many benthic and epibenthic invertebrates rapidly recolonize disturbed bottom areas within 2 years of disturbance (Romberg et al., 1995; Parametrix, 1994, 1999; Vivan et al., 2009). Many benthic organisms lost due to turbidity and bottom disturbances by barges, tugboats, and anchors recolonize the construction areas quickly, for example, mobile species such as crabs and short- lived species such as polychaetes and become reestablished over a 3-year period after sediment disturbance at the site has ceased. Less mobile, longer-lived benthic species such as clams can take two to three years to reach sexual maturity (Chew and Ma, 1987; Goodwin and Pease, 1989) and may require five years to recover from disturbance such as smothering by sediment. Therefore, shellfish communities under the ferry terminal impacted by construction are expected to recover within approximately five years after construction. Ecological productivity will be reduced during the five-year recovery period. Any geoduck or other clams lost in the pile footprints during construction will no longer be available to contribute as seed stock for future generations

The only forage fish species with documented spawning habitat occurring along the shoreline near the action area is the Pacific sand lance and surf smelt, which is documented to occur near the project site. Temporary increase of suspended solids during pile driving and other in-water construction activities (debris removal) would be expected. However, due to strong nearshore currents and nearshore wind waves, the small portion of suspended fine sediments that would settle out of the water column onto intertidal beaches are not expected to be high enough to adversely impact the spawning success of the nearest forage fish spawning habitat near the project site.

Forage fish that occur in the immediate project vicinity during in-water construction will be exposed to increased levels of turbidity. It is reasonable to assume that forage fish, primarily

WCR-2018-10181 -31-

sand lance and surf smelt, utilize the shoreline at the project site. In Tidal Reference Area 5, the forage fish have potential so spawn year round, which means that the in-water work will be conducted during the sand lance and surf smelt spawning period. Therefore, forage fish could be present and potentially affected by construction activities. In general, behavioral response including shoreline avoidance from visual stimuli of nearshore-occurring pre-spawn adult sand lance would not be expected from the offshore construction activity. Additionally, increase in vessels activity could have minor effects to distribution and behavior of adult and larvae forage fish.

Habitat Enhancement/Minimization/Mitigation

The proposed action incorporates a number of minimization measures to avoid, reduce, and minimize the adverse effects of the action on PBFs including forage and cover. These minimization measures include maximization of grating to pass light through the structure. This element reduces, but do not eliminate, the extent of the project’s permanent negative shading effects on the aquatic environment.

To offset the remaining negative habitat effects, Kitsap Transit proposes to remove debris from the intertidal zone with a primary focus of removing debris within the +5 foot to +9 foot MLLW range to improve opportunities for forage fish spawning. Debris removal will also be conducted lower on the beach and will require the use of heavy equipment, such as an excavator, to remove the angular rock, concrete, and other artificial debris.

Additionally, Kitsap Transit proposes approximately 8,600 square feet of shoreline enhancement plantings. Invasive and non-native shrub and vine species will be removed from the riparian strip between the walkway and the shoreline. This area will be replanted with native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species. Native tree species will also include coniferous species to provide shade on the shoreline throughout the year once the trees have matured. This will improve slightly, but permanently, opportunities for forage fish spawning, as well as provide a source of detrital prey inputs.

2.4.2 Effects on Species

As described in Section 1.3, all work would occur between July 2nd and March 2nd in any year the permit is valid. This work window is designed to minimize juvenile salmonid exposure to construction effects. However, they will not completely avoid exposure to construction effects, exposure to long-term effects from the existence of the structure will remain. Additionally, surf smelt spawning may occur year-round in Sinclair Inlet, as forage fish spawning is documented to occur near the project site. NMFS recommends forage fish surveys prior to construction (Section 2.9 Conservation Recommendations).

Presence and Exposure

Juvenile Salmon. Juvenile PS Chinook and salmon will be exposed to both construction effects, and the long-term effects of habitat modifications caused by over-water structures. Juvenile Chinook salmon are nearshore oriented (Fresh, 2006) and have been found in PS neritic waters

WCR-2018-10181 -32-

between April and November (Rice et al., 2011). Once constructed, the structure is expected to remain in Sinclair Inlet, for the life of each structure (approximately 40 years7). Thus, juveniles will experience the long-term habitat modifications associated with the presence of this structure.

Steelhead Smolts. PS steelhead yearlings migrate quickly, within weeks, through PS into the Straights and open Ocean. After entry into the estuary, they quickly move into off-shore waters (Goetz et al., 2015). However, steelhead smolts have been found in low abundances in the marine nearshore, outside of their natal estuary, between May and August (Brennan, 2004) (Fresh, 2006). Thus, steelhead smolt exposure is mostly limited to construction effects and effects from boat use in deeper water.

As steelhead smolts are not nearshore-dependent, leave PS quickly, and are larger and more mobile than PS Chinook, we expect the permanent habitat effects from the structures to be of little importance to steelhead smolts because their exposure is expected to be only episodic and generally brief.

Adult Salmon and Steelhead. Adult PS Chinook salmon can reside in PS year-round. PS Chinook usually inhabit water much deeper than where the proposed structures will be located. Two general life history types of steelhead co-exist in PS, winter-run and summer-run steelhead. Adult winter-run steelhead typically return to their natal river November through May; summer- run steelhead return between April and October. Their presence in Sinclair Inlet will overlap with the construction windows. Like PS Chinook adults, steelhead occupy deep water, generally deeper than the location where the structures are proposed. Thus, we expect the direct habitat effects from the structures to be of little importance to PS Chinook and steelhead adults as they do not frequent the nearshore. We expect varying levels of behavioral responses from no change, to mild awareness, or a startle response during the installation (Hastings and Popper, 2005), but we do not believe that this response will alter the fitness of any adults.

Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio. Rockfish fertilize their eggs internally and extrude the young as larvae (Love et al. 2002). Inflation of the swim bladder has been shown to generally occur within 48 hours after release (McConnell Chaille, 2006). Larval rockfish appear in the greatest numbers during the spring months (Moser and Boehlert 1991; Palsson et al. 2009). However, PS/GB rockfish have been reported to extrude larvae as late as September (Beckman et al 1998). Rockfish larvae are typically found in the pelagic zone, often occupying the upper layers of open waters, under floating algae, detached seagrass, and kelp. Rockfish larvae are thought to be mostly distributed passively by currents (Love et al. 2002). Juvenile bocaccio are known to settle onto rocky or cobble substrates in the shallow nearshore at 3 to 6 months of age in areas that support kelp and other aquatic vegetation, and then move to progressively deeper waters as they grow (Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 2002; Palsson et al. 2009). Juvenile bocaccio also recruit to sandy zones with eelgrass or drift algae (Love et al. 2002). As reported, rockfish larvae presence can overlap with the work window (July through September) so their exposure to construction effects is likely. Adult bocaccio occupy deeper water areas where we do not expect any of the effects of the project to be discernible.

7 Estimated lifespan of a PRF (pers. com Marine Floats and Thomson Pile Driving).

WCR-2018-10181 -33-

Due to the habitat characteristics of Sinclair Inlet, the closest adult ESA-listed rockfish are likely several thousand feet away from the Annapolis Ferry Terminal, within waters deeper than 120 feet. If any juvenile and sub-adult bocaccio are within the action area, they would be expected to be found near benthic areas with steep slopes, rock, or kelp beds; there is kelp habitat along some sections of Sinclair Inlet nearshore which may be seasonally used by juvenile and sub-adult bocaccio. It is unlikely that juvenile yelloweye rockfish will occur within kelp habitats of the action area because they do not use the nearshore for rearing. It is possible that larval bocaccio occur within the action area during project activities. Larval rockfish likely remain within the basin they are released (Drake et al. 2010) but may be broadly dispersed from the place of their birth (NMFS 2003) and could occur within the action area during project activities. An effect exists, regardless of their magnitude, even if only one individual or habitat segment may be affected.

Species Response to Migratory Pathway Obstruction

Shade and migration behavior: PRFs create a sharp edged shadow. Based on the findings of numerous studies, we are reasonably certain that the placement of PRFs in shallow water will adversely affect juvenile salmonid migration. Juvenile salmon in the marine nearshore as well as in freshwater have been reported to migrate along the edges of shadows rather than through them (Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001; Southard et al., 2006; Celedonia et al., 2008a; Celedonia et al., 2008b; Ono, 2010; Moore et al., 2013; Munsch et al., 2014). In freshwater, about three- quarters of migrating Columbia River fall Chinook salmon smolts avoided a covered channel and selected an uncovered channel when presented with a choice in an experimental flume setup (Kemp et al., 2005). In Lake Washington, actively migrating juvenile Chinook salmon appeared to change course when they approached a structure, swimming around structures through deeper water rather than remaining in shallow water and swimming underneath a structure (Celedonia et al., 2008b). Structure width, light conditions, water depth, and presence of macrophytes appeared to influence the degree of avoidance, with juvenile Chinook salmon appearing less hesitant to pass beneath narrower structures. Finally, juvenile Chinook salmon appeared to move into deeper water to travel beneath or around structures (Celedonia et al. 2008b).

In the marine nearshore, there is also substantial evidence that OWS impede the nearshore movements of juvenile salmonids with fish stopping at the edge of the OWS and avoiding swimming into the shadow or underneath the structure (Heiser and Finn 1970; Able et al., 1998; Simenstad 1988; Southard et al., 2006; Toft et al., 2013; Ono 2010). In the PS nearshore, 35 millimeter to 45 millimeter juvenile chum and pink salmon were reluctant to pass under docks (Heiser and Finn 1970). Southard et al. (2006) snorkeled underneath ferry terminals and found that juvenile salmon were not underneath the terminals at high tides when the water was closer to the structure, but only moved underneath the terminals at low tides when there was more light penetrating the edges. Ono (2010) reports that juveniles tended to stay on the bright side of the shadow edge, two to five meters away from the dock, even when the shadow line moved underneath the dock. These findings suggest that overwater-structures can disrupt juvenile migration in the PS nearshore. Increased energy expenditure during migration can impair growth and fitness at a time when juveniles are maturing for their ocean life history phase.

WCR-2018-10181 -34-

Of further concern, studies have shown that swimming around OWS not only lengthens the salmonid migration route but is correlated to increased mortality. For example, migratory travel distance rather than travel time or migration velocity has been shown to have the greatest influence on survival of juvenile spring Chinook salmon migrating through the Snake River (Anderson et al., 2005).

Shade and predation risk: An implication of juvenile salmon avoiding OWS is that some of them will swim around the structure (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). This behavioral modification will cause them to temporarily utilize deeper habitat, thereby exposing them to increased piscivorous predation. Typical piscivorous juvenile salmonid predators, such as flatfish, sculpin, and larger juvenile salmonids, being larger than their prey, generally avoid the shallowest nearshore waters that outmigrant juvenile salmonids prefer—especially in the earliest periods of their marine residency. The project as revised will now replace an existing 2,160-square-feet of an existing structure with a 4,470-square-foot structure. The continued presence of the new structure may continue to disrupt juvenile PS Chinook migration and result in juvenile PS Chinook mortality. NMFS assumes that the increase in migratory path length from swimming around the float will increase exposure to piscivorous predators in deeper water and result in proportionally increased juvenile PS Chinook mortality. When juvenile salmonids temporarily leave the relative safety of the shallow water, their risk to being preyed upon by other fish increases. This has been shown in the marine environment where juvenile salmonid consumption by piscivorous predators increased fivefold when juvenile pink salmon were forced to leave the shallow nearshore (Willette, 2001). Juvenile salmon are present in the action area from March through December, and most numerous from May through August (Dorn and Best 2005; SSPS 2007), and, therefore, may be adversely affected by the presence of overwater structure. Lastly, juveniles hesitating upon first encountering the structure, as discussed, are also exposed to avian predators that may use the floating structures as perches.

Shade and visual reduction: he reduced light regime under OWS is also likely to result in temporarily decreased visual ability and decreased feeding success for those juveniles that do swim under floats in PS. In freshwater laboratory studies, schools of Pacific salmon disbanded and stopped feeding when light dropped below the rod8 threshold (Ali, 1959). Juvenile chum and pink salmon take 30 to 40 minutes to fully adapt to dark conditions, and 20 to 25 minutes to adapt to increased light conditions. During the adaptation period to the new light regime the visual acuity is diminished, depending upon the magnitude of the light intensity contrast. The adverse effects of temporarily decreased visual ability and resulting decreased feeding success are considered reasonably likely to occur from the long term operation of the proposed PRF. While the short-term decreased feeding success will likely result in a minor sub-lethal response of incrementally reduced growth, the decreased visual ability can lead to increased susceptibility to predation, as mentioned above.

Species Response to Sound

The new project’s revised schedule for pile driving is expected to cause temporary underwater noise. Fishes with swimbladders are sensitive to underwater impulsive sounds (i.e., sounds with

8 Rods are photoreceptors in the retina of the eye responsible for peripheral and night vision.

WCR-2018-10181 -35-

a sharp sound pressure peak occurring in a short interval of time) such as those produced by impact pile driving. When a fish with a swim bladder is exposed to impulsive energies, including pile driving, the swim bladder acts like an air bubble that vibrates with sufficient magnitude to cause damage to tissues and organs within close proximity as well as to the swim bladder itself (Casper 2012, Halvorsen 2012). Fishes with a physoclistous (closed) swim bladders, such as salmon and rockfish, are incapable of decreasing the volume of gases fast enough to avoid sustaining more severe injuries. The injuries caused by such pressure waves are known as barotraumas. They include the hemorrhage and rupture of internal organs, damage to the auditory system, and death for individuals that are sufficiently close to the source (Abbott et al. 2002; Caltrans 2009). Death can occur instantaneously, within minutes after exposure, or several days later.

A multi-agency work group identified criteria to define sound pressure levels where effects to fish are likely to occur from pile driving (Hydroacoustic Working Group, 2008). Keep in mind these thresholds represent the initial onset of injury, and not the levels at which fish will be severely injured or killed. A single strike generates peak noise levels greater than 206 dBpeak where direct injury or death of fish can occur. Besides peak levels, sound exposure levels (SEL) (the amount of energy dose the fish receive) can also injure fish. These criteria are either 187 dBSEL for fish two grams or larger or 183 dBSEL for fish smaller than two grams for cumulative strikes (Hydroacoustic Working Group, 2008). In addition, any salmonid within a certain distance of the source (i.e. the radius where the root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level will exceed 150 dBRMS) will be exposed to levels that might change the fish’s behavior or cause physical injury (i.e. harm). The result of exposure could be a temporary threshold shift (TTS) in hearing due to fatigue of the auditory system, which can increase the risk of predation and reduce foraging or spawning success (Stadler and Woodbury, 2009). When these effects take place, they are likely to reduce the survival, growth, and reproduction of the affected fish.

Adverse effects on survival and fitness can occur even in the absence of overt injury. Exposure to elevated noise levels, which can be caused by both impact and vibratory driving, can cause a TTS, decreasing sensory capability for periods lasting from hours to days (Turnpenny et al. 1994; Hastings et al. 1996). Popper et al. (2005) found TTS in hearing sensitivity after exposure to Cumulative SELs as low as 184 dB. TTS’ reduce the survival, growth, and reproduction of the affected fish by increasing the risk of predation and reducing foraging or spawning success. To discern the duration and intensity of species exposure, we consider specific elements of the proposed project.

Previous studies on salmonid distribution in the nearshore indicate a low likelihood for Chinook salmon or steelhead presence during in-water work. Fry first enter estuaries around 50-millimeter fork length, weighing less than two grams (Fresh 2006). As salmonids grow in size (to two grams or larger), the water depth and habitat diversity used by rearing juvenile salmonids may change (Fresh 2006). There are streams that support salmon spawning in Sinclair Inlet. Most juvenile salmonids are likely two grams or larger. Beach-seining surveys conducted in the shore zones of Bainbridge Island indicate that juvenile Chinook salmon are most numerous from May through August, but may be present in the action area from March through December (Dorn and Best 2005; SSPS 2007). Steelhead are less common in the shallow nearshore (Rice, unpublished data). Forage fish spawn in Sinclair Inlet year-round, increasing the probability of

WCR-2018-10181 -36-

occurrence of Chinook salmon and steelhead during in-water activity. Forage fish spawn in the action area, and may be less than two grams or two grams and larger.

Adult forage fish two grams or larger, and juveniles and larval forage fish smaller than two grams, may be exposed to injurious levels of underwater noise as forage fish spawn year- round in and close to the action area. Thus, we expect a one-time, small-scale, construction- related reduction in salmonid forage. Considering the larger extent of forage fish spawning in Puget Sound (266 miles of known surf smelt spawning beaches and 118 miles of known sand lance spawning beaches9), this small-scale, one-time reduction likely results in a is relatively minor reduction of forage for salmonids.

We used the following assumptions for estimating the effects of the pile driving component of the proposed action on juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead and juvenile bocaccio:

• PS Chinook salmon juveniles in the vicinity of pile driving activity during the work window will weigh more than two grams. This is based on fork length data of juvenile salmonids passing through the PS nearshore (Rice, 2011). After July 2 juvenile Chinook can be expected to be longer than 80 mm fork length (FL). Weight of 80 mm FL Chinook ranges above 4 grams (McFarlane and North, 2002).

• The density of steelhead smolts in the vicinity of pile driving is extremely low and all steelhead smolts in PS are larger than two grams.

• Larval and juvenile listed bocaccio may be present in the nearshore during impact pile driving. Exposure of adult rockfish to construction effects is discountable since they do not occupy the nearshore.

• In-water work window in Tidal Reference Area 5 *which includes Sinclair Inlet) is July 2 to March 2.

• Adults of listed salmonids may be present during piling installation.

• If an impact hammer (e.g., drop, hydraulic, or diesel) is used to drive or proof steel pilings, one of the following sound attenuation methods will be employed:

• Placement of a 6-inch-thick piece of wood, mica, or similar material between the hammer and pile.

• Use of a bubble curtain that distributes air bubbles around 100 percent of the perimeter of the piles over the full depth of the water column.

9 https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/12/dec0916_12_presentation.pdf

WCR-2018-10181 -37-

Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal

Vibratory Removal. The applicant’s contractor would use a vibratory extractor to remove ten piles. The applicant assumes 10-hours of continuous vibratory work per day. Twenty-five to 30 minutes of vibratory work is typically required to extract a pile, with extended periods without vibratory work occurring between piles. It is possible that the contractors would be able to extract all 10 piles in a single work day. However, that is very unlikely given that the piles are installed as components of two different structures. Kitsap Transit proposes to remove two piles a day for five days.

Vibratory Driving. To the maximum extent possible, the contractors would use a vibratory driver to install 12 steel pipe piles. They would install two piles per day, with up to 1000 impact strikes required per pile to complete the driving and/or to proof the piles. As above, the assumption that 10-hours of continuous vibratory work would be required each day is excessive. Forty-five to 60 minutes of vibratory work could be required to install a pile, with extended periods without vibratory work occurring between piles. This assessment is based on the expectation that two piles would be installed per day, and that up to 60 minutes of vibratory work (and 1000 impact strikes) may be required per pile, for a daily total of two hours of vibratory installation (and 2000 pile strikes). Construction is planned for 2018, and would require about eight weeks of work during the July 2 to March 2 work window for the area. PS Chinook salmon and steelhead present in the action area are unlikely to be less than two grams during this work window.

Information about the sound levels for driving and extracting various pile types and sizes is somewhat limited, and variability often exists between the reported received levels (RL) for identical piles that are driven by the same driver at a given project site. The California Department of Transportation Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data (Compendium, CalTrans 2009) provides detailed information about in-water RL for numerous pile types and sizes, under a wide range of situations. It is a reference commonly used to help estimate in-water noise levels that may result from pile driving projects where site-specific and/or action-specific information is not available.

Table I.2-2 in the Compendium reports 10-meter RL of 171 dBpeak, and 155 dBRMS and dBSEL for un-attenuated vibratory driving 12-inch diameter steel pipe piles in about 5-meter deep water. No specific information was given for vibratory driving 24-inch steel pipe piles. The available information suggests that the received sound levels for vibratory driving steel pipe piles increases with increased pile size, but the relationship appears to be non-linear (Table 5).

Table 5. RL at 10 meters (m) for vibratory driving steel pipe piles in shallow (~5 m deep) water

Pipe Pile Dia. “ Water Depth m dBpeak dBRMS dBSEL 72 ~ 5 195 180 180 36 ~ 5 185 175 175 13 5 171 155 155 12 < 5 171 155 155 All data were taken from Tables 1.2-2 and 1.2-3 in the 2012 Compendium. All sound levels are in-water.

WCR-2018-10181 -38-

Multiplying the estimated rates of sound increase by the 12-inch size difference between 12- and 24-inch piles, then adding those values to the typical 10-meter RL for 12-inch piles in Table 5 (rounded to the nearest whole number) suggests that the 10-meter RL for vibratory driving 24- inch pipe piles in shallow water would be about 178 dBpeak, and 165 dBRMS/dBSEL.

Response to Vibratory Driver. Vibratory hammers have not been observed to cause injury or death to fishes or other aquatic organisms. This may be due to the slower rise time (the time taken for the impulse to reach its peak pressure) and the fact that the energy produced is spread out over the time it takes to drive the pile. We anticipate that vibratory pile driving will cause only minor behavioral effects to adults but may cause behavioral changes in juvenile steelhead, juvenile Chinook, and juvenile bocaccio that can lead to predation. We expect varying levels of behavioral responses, from no change, to mild awareness, or a startle response (Hastings and Popper, 2005), but we do not believe that this response will alter the fitness of any adults. However, a small number of juvenile salmonids and bocaccio may exhibit a behavioral response from pile driving that can lead to changes in feeding behavior or movement to a location where they are predated on, meaning the behavioral response of juveniles is an effect that may kill or injure a listed juvenile.

Impact Pile Driving

NMFS currently uses two metrics to estimate the onset of injury for fish exposed to high intensity impulsive sounds: 1) exposure to 206 dBpeak; and 2) exposure to 187 dB SELcum for fish 2 grams or larger, or 183 dB SELcum for fish under 2 grams. The distance from a pile driver where the RL for single-strike dBSEL drops to background noise is considered the maximum distance from a pile that fishes can be affected by that noise, regardless of how many times the pile is struck (Stadler and Woodbury 2009). Therefore, when there is a difference between the ranges to the isopleths for effective quiet and Cumulative SEL, the shorter range shall apply.

The available information for impact driving steel pipe piles (Table 6) supports the understanding that sound level increases non-linearly with pile size. However, when graphed, there is near-linear rise in sound level for piles up to 20-inches, after which the curve flattens.

Table 6. RL at 10 meters (m) for impact driving steel pipe piles in shallow water (2 to 6 m deep) Pipe Pile Dia. “ Water Depth m dBpeak dBRMS dBSEL 66 4 210 195 --- 60 < 5 210 195 185 48 2 205 195 185 36 < 5 208 190 180 30 4-5 205 190 --- 30 3 210 190 177 24 ~ 5 203 190 177 20 3-4 208 187 176 20 3 204 161 -- 13 5 185 170 --- 12 < 5 192 177 --- 12 2 177 165 152 Data were taken from Tables 1.2-1, 1.2-2, 1.2-3 in the 2012 Compendium. All sound levels are in-water RL measured at 10 meters from the source.

WCR-2018-10181 -39-

Response to Impact Driver. Using the worst-case scenario of the 24-inch pile sound levels (largest piles with highest expected sound levels), dBpeak is 207, dBSEL is 178 and dBRMS is 194. Proper implementation of a bubble curtain is anticipated to reduce noise levels by a minimum of 6 dBRMS at 10 meters, however the applicant preferred to be more conservative and run the numbers without a noise attenuation device. NMFS uses a Sound Pressure Exposure spreadsheet or calculator to estimate the area around each pile where fish would be considered at risk of injury or behavioral disruption during pile driving using the measurements 207 dBpeak, 178 dBSEL, and 194 dBRMS. Table 7 lists the expected sound levels that could be generated by the largest proposed steel pile driving associated with the project.

Table 7. Expected sound levels with attenuation reduction Onset of Physical Injury Distance (m) to threshold Cumulative SEL dB Fish ≥ 2 g Fish < 2 g Peak dB: 206 187 183 Distance: 12 m 399 m 736 m

Using this calculation, the 24-inch pile sound, and assuming an estimated 2,000 strikes per day, the maximum distance to the 206 dB peak injury threshold is calculated to 12 meters or less. We would expect the pile driving noise to carry for 8.5 km. The maximum distance to the 187 dB (fish ≥ 2) and 183 dB (fish < 2 g) cumulative SEL thresholds is calculated to 399 meters and 736 meters, respectively.

Cumulative SEL is intended as a measure of the risk of injury from exposure to multiple pile strikes. A sound exposure formula based on the Equal Energy Hypothesis is used to calculate cumulative SEL exposure:

Cumulative SEL = Single-strike SEL + 10*log (number of pile strikes) Cumulative SEL = 178 + 10*log (2000) Cumulative SEL = 178 + 10*33 Cumulative SEL = 211

The Cumulative SEL for this project is 211 dB at 10 meters.

The above discussed criteria specifically address fish exposure to impulsive sound. No consideration of non-impulsive sounds is given, and the discussion in Stadler and Woodbury (2009) makes it clear that the thresholds likely overestimate the potential for impacts on fish. Further, non-impulsive sounds have less potential to cause adverse effects in fish than impulsive sounds. Impulsive sources cause short bursts of sound with very fast rise times and the majority of the energy in the first fractions of a second. Whereas, non-impulsive sources cause noise with slower rise times and sound energy that is spread across an extended period of time; ranging from several seconds to many minutes in duration. Therefore, any application of these criteria to non-impulsive sound is likely to overestimate the potential for effects in fish.

WCR-2018-10181 -40-

The proposed action states that a bubble curtain or other noise attenuating devices will be used to attenuate the effects of impact proofing steel piles. However, a bubble curtain may not bring the sound pressure levels below the threshold where physical harm is likely. Thus, we expect that some death or injury of ESA-listed salmonids and rockfish is likely to occur. Although the proposed steel pile driving is scheduled to occur at a time when most salmonid species are not actively migrating through the action area, we expect some salmon and steelhead to be present during this time period and these are reasonably certain to be injured or killed if they are within 158 meters of construction. Likewise, adult and juvenile bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish may be in the action are during this time period as an effect exists even if only one individual or habitat segment may be affected.

Vessel Noise. The existing float and gangway will be removed via barge. Tugboat operation to position the barge may increase the amount of noise before and after the construction of the new PRF, but it will be short term. Tugboats will be deployed once to position the barge, and once to remove it once construction is complete. The barge will only serve as a work platform. Additionally, ferry traffic to and from the facility will continue to create noise comparable to that which already occurs at the sited, and we expect this to occur for the design-life of the project – roughly an additional 40 years. The noise related to vessel traffic may also affect salmonids. Because few studies on the response of salmonids to vessel noise exist, we infer from other species’ response to sound. Increased background noise has been shown to increase stress in humans (Hattis and Richardson 1980) and other mammals (Owen et al. 2004), and several studies support that the same is true for fish (Mueller 1980; Scholik and Yan 2002; Picciulin et al. 2010). Recreational boat noise diminished the ability of resident red-mouthed goby (Gobius cruentatus) to maintain its territory (Sebastianutto et al. 2011). Depending on speed and proximity to nests, boats caused spawning long-eared sunfish to abandon their nests for varying periods in order to find shelter (Mueller 1980). Xie et al. (2008) report that adult migrating salmon avoid vessels, within seven meters of the fish, by swimming away. Graham and Cooke (2008) studied the effects of three boat noise disturbances (canoe paddling, trolling motor, and combustion engine (9.9 horsepower) on the cardiac physiology of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Exposure to each of the treatments resulted in an increase in cardiac output in all fish, associated with a dramatic increase in heart rate and a slight decrease in stroke volume, with the most extreme response being to that of the combustion engine treatment (Graham and Cooke 2008). Recovery times were the least with canoe paddling (15 minutes) and the longest with the power engine (40 minutes). Graham and Cooke (2008) postulate that the fishes’ reactions demonstrate that the fish experienced sublethal physiological disturbances in response to the noise propagated from recreational boating activities. Even though NMFS did not find studies exploring the physiological effects of increased noise from vessel traffic specifically on salmon, it is reasonable to assume that juvenile and adult salmon, in addition to avoiding boats (Xie et al. 2008), experience sublethal physiological stress at levels above background noise (effective quiet). However, construction- related vessel traffic will be limited to a few tugboat trips, and is not likely to significantly disrupt feeding, predator avoidance, or other behaviors.

WCR-2018-10181 -41-

Species Response to Water Quality Reductions (Turbidity and Suspended Sediment) from Pile Driving

Pile driving causes short-term and localized increases in turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS). The effects of suspended sediment on fish increase in severity with sediment concentration and exposure time and can progressively include behavioral avoidance and/or disorientation, physiological stress (e.g., coughing), gill abrasion, and death—at extremely high concentrations. Newcombe and Jensen (1996) analyzed numerous reports on documented fish responses to suspended sediment in streams and estuaries, and identified a scale of ill effects based on sediment concentration and duration of exposure, or dose. Exposure to concentrations of suspended sediments expected during the proposed pile driving could elicit sublethal effects such as a short-term reduction in feeding rate or success, or minor physiological stress such as coughing or increased respiration. Studies show that salmonids have an ability to detect and distinguish turbidity and other water quality gradients (Quinn, 2005; Simenstad, 1988), and that larger juvenile salmonids are more tolerant to suspended sediment than smaller juveniles (Servizi and Martens, 1991; Newcombe and Jensen, 1996).

Very little data exists regarding the temporary increase in suspended sediment associated with pile removal and driving. To estimate the magnitude of suspended sediment associated with the proposed pile driving, NMFS reviewed results from a vibratory pile removal project near the mouth of Jimmycomelately Creek in Sequim Bay (Weston_Solutions, 2006). In that study, TSS concentrations associated with activation of the vibratory hammer to loosen the pile from the substrate ranged from 13 to 42 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and averaged 25 mg/L. During the pile driving, elevated levels of TSS averaging 40 mg/L were recorded near the pile and 26 mg/L at the sensors located 16 to 33 feet from the pile. Concentrations during extraction ranged from 20 to 82.9 mg/L, and were sometimes visible in the water column as a 10- to 16-foot diameter plume that extended at least 15 to 20 feet from the actual pulling event. Although concentrations decreased after pile extraction, the time interval was unavailable due to tug movement as soon as the pile cleared the water’s surface.

To consider how the TSS generated from vibratory pile driving might affect juvenile PS Chinook, NMFS used the Weston Solutions (2006) data as an estimate for the range of expected TSS and Newcombe and Jensens (1996) ‘scale of ill effects’ to determine likely associated biological responses. For an exposure duration of up to two hours and an increase in TSS over background of up to 240 mg/L, the calculated severity of ill effect for juvenile salmon does not exceed a behavioral effect of short-term reduction in feeding rates and feeding success (the fish is startled, experiences reduced vision, stops feeding to reorient, and may swim away). The maximum increase in TSS reported in Weston Solutions (2006) is 83 mg/L. Even if the pile driving that is part of this proposed project would result in double the TSS as reported for vibratory pile driving in Weston Solutions (2006), the likely level of TSS is well below levels and durations that could result in injurious physiological stress. Further, any elevations in turbidity and TSS generated by the pile driving will be localized, short-term and similar to the variations that occur normally within the environmental baseline of the marine nearshore— which is regularly subject to strong winds and currents that generate suspended sediments. Thus, the juvenile salmonids likely will have encountered similar turbidity before. In summary, the short duration of the proposed pile driving (a few minutes per piling), generally low level

WCR-2018-10181 -42-

expected increase in TSS, and small affected area renders the effects of the increased TSS on juvenile salmonids not meaningful.

Species Response to Habitat Enhancement/Minimization/Mitigation

The following mitigation actions will be conducted to offset unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed upgrade project. Overwater Structure, Float, and Pile Removal. The existing pier and float decking is solid, which does not allow light penetration and casts a wide shadow into intertidal and subtidal habitats. The existing gangway contains a small amount of grating, which is designed to improve traction on the steep gangway, but does not appreciably improve light transmission through the gangway surface. The project will remove approximately 2,000 square feet of existing solid surface float and pier, 160 square feet of gangway, and 10 piles. Salmonids in the action area for the foreseeable future will still respond to shade and structure in their migration and rearing areas by expending more energy to avoid/ navigate around the structures, locate more productive feeding areas, and as a corollary, incur greater exposure to predation risk, decreasing growth and survival.

Invasive Species Removal and Native Riparian Plantings. A 4-foot-wide gravel walkway is located along the north side of the parking lot. To the north of the walkway, a vegetated strip between four and 12 feet in width abuts the shoreline. In this strip vegetation consists of lawn grasses, invasive Himalayan blackberry and English ivy), non-native decorative hedges, and several mature, deciduous trees and shrubs. One young, coniferous western red cedar (Thuja plicata) is also located in the western portion of the vegetated strip near the covered waiting area.

Invasive and non-native shrub and vine species will be removed from the riparian strip between the walkway and the shoreline. This area will be replanted with native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species. Native tree species will also include coniferous species to provide shade on the shoreline throughout the year once the trees have matured. This will improve opportunities for forage fish spawning, and be a future source of detrital input of prey, together incrementally but permanently improving preybase for rearing and migrating salmonids in this location, increasing growth and fitness.

Intertidal Debris Removal. The intertidal zone in the vicinity of Annapolis Dock contains artificial debris primarily composed of angular riprap and concrete. This debris covers potential forage fish spawning habitat located in the upper intertidal area and extends down the shoreline into lower intertidal areas. An additional mitigation measure will include removal of the debris from the intertidal zone with a primary focus of removing debris within the +5 foot to +9 foot MLLW range to improve opportunities for forage fish spawning. Debris removal will also be conducted lower on the beach and will require the use of heavy equipment, such as an excavator, to remove the angular rock, concrete, and other artificial debris. If forage fish spawning re- establishes after the debris removal, then this would also be a permanent incremental improvement in prey abundance for salmonid rearing and migration in this location, increasing growth and fitness.

WCR-2018-10181 -43-

The goal of the intertidal debris removal is to mitigate at as close to a 1:1 ratio for the net increase in overwater coverage as possible by removing approximately 2,322 square feet of artificial debris from the site. An initial survey conducted on February 22, 2017 revealed that there is likely sufficient material to meet or exceed this goal. Kitsap Transit is dedicated to improving the intertidal and shoreline conditions of the site. However, if the debris removal comes close to this goal after removing the available debris but is not able to fully achieve 2,322 square feet of debris removal, the remaining mitigation need will be accounted for through the approximately 8,600 square feet of shoreline enhancement plantings.

Habitat Enhancement/Minimization/Mitigation Summary. The project will remove approximately 2,160 square feet of existing solid concrete pier, gangway, and solid concrete float and 10 piles. The proposed pier, gangway, and float is approximately 4,470 square feet, which is a net increase of 2,379 square feet of new overwater structure, most of which is in deeper water. To mitigate this impact, Kitsap Transit will remove approximately 2,322 square feet of artificial debris from the site and enhance approximately 8,600 square feet of riparian shoreline habitat. Detriments to prey and forage may be offset or more than offset by the mitigation elements of the proposed action, however detriments associated with increased energy expenditure and predation risk will not be offset. Table 8 summarizes the mitigation actions proposed to compensate for unavoidable impacts.

Table 8. Project Impact and Mitigation Summary

Activity Area1 Pile installation -28 SF2

Pile removal +16 SF2

In-Water Net Total: -12 SF Pier and ramp installation -1,251 SF

Float installation -3,219 SF

Pier, gangway, and float removal +2,160 SF

Over-Water Net Total: -2,310 SF

Intertidal debris removal +2,322 SF (approx.)

Riparian enhancement +8,600 SF

Lighting modification NA

Other Mitigation Totals: +10,922 SF

Notes: 1) negative (-) denotes impact to habitat and positive (+) indicates habitat improvement 2) impact area for piles is given as cross-sectional area

WCR-2018-10181 -44-

Summary of Effects to Salmonid Population Viability

We assess the importance of habitat effects in the action area to the ESUs/DPS’ by examining the relevance of those effects to the characteristics of VSPs. The characteristics of VSPs are sufficient abundance, population growth rate (productivity), spatial structure, and diversity. While these characteristics are described as unique components of population dynamics, each characteristic exerts significant influence on the others. For example, declining abundance can reduce spatial structure of a population; and when habitats are less varied, then diversity among the population declines.

Abundance. In addition to the construction-related effects that will affect only those cohorts of fish present during the work, the placement of the PRF has long-term effects on the marine nearshore environment that multiple cohorts of fish will experience over the life of the project. These long-term effects result in obstruction of fish movement, potential reduction in SAV density and food supply, and disturbance from boating activity and noise. The species is most likely to be repeatedly/ chronically exposed to these conditions are juvenile PS Chinook which migrate or rear in the nearshore area. We have no information that any effects other than the reduction in food supply would affect juvenile bocaccio. These long-term habitat changes, which will persist for the 40-year duration the structures are in place, result in an incremental increase in stress, reduction in foraging success, alteration of migration patterns (forcing juveniles to leave the nearshore), and impairment of predator avoidance. Effects to individual fish will occur among an undetermined percentage of all future cohorts of all populations that use the action area. We anticipate that a small number of juveniles of each species will be injured or killed because of reduced habitat suitability for listed species and increased predation resulting from the action. We expect these decreases to be proportional to the relatively small amount of habitat adversely affected, but that PS Chinook populations that rely on this action area will incur the greatest level of exposure and detrimental response.

Productivity. The new structure will permanently and incrementally degrade nearshore habitat conditions. In response to these habitat changes, we expect changes in behavior of juvenile salmonids including reduced foraging success, changed migratory pathway due to the obstruction from OWS, and increased energy expenditure. All these effects, independently or in combination, are likely to lead to proportional decreases in individual fitness and survival. The long-term changes to the nearshore environment are expected to exert a sustained downward pressure on nearshore habitat function in the PS and, proportionally to the relatively small amount of nearshore habitat affected, reduce the rearing and foraging capacity of the action area. The habitat impacts from the proposed authorization of the PRF will likely contribute to the decreases in productivity of early marine life-history stages in PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and bocaccio already inherent to the baseline. However, the proposed mitigation (plantings and debris removal) will simultaneously improve the current nearshore habitat conditions. On balance, the incremental decrease in abundance among the juvenile cohorts over time is expected to be difficult to impossible to discern among returning adult cohorts, and any downward pressure on productivity from a decrease in adult spawners will not be able to be attributed to the proposed action.

WCR-2018-10181 -45-

Spatial Structure. We do not expect the proposed project to affect the spatial structure of any of the three affected ESUs/DPS’. Salmonid populations spread across the nearshore and mix when they enter PS (Fresh et al., 2006). This one PRF will likely not disproportionately affect any one population and thus no diminishment in spatial structure will be attributable to the proposed action.

Diversity. Salmon have complex life histories and changes in the nearshore environment will have a greater effect on specific life history traits that make prolonged use of the nearshore. The proposed action will concentrate the effects on PS Chinook delta fry. After emergence, delta fry quickly migrate downstream through the estuary into the marine nearshore and pocket estuaries such as Sinclair Inlet (Beamer, 2005). Over time, selective pressure on one component of a life- history strategy tends to eliminate that divergent element from the population, reducing diversity in successive generations and the ability of the population to adapt to new environmental changes (McElhany et al., 2000). The subset of juvenile salmonids that extensively utilize the nearshore, delta fry, are likely to be killed or injured at a higher rate than other life history forms which use the marine nearshore for a shorter amount of time. These delta fry that experience increased mortality from the proposed action will have their life history strategy selected against. This will likely result in a slight, proportional to the limited habitat alteration, decline in PS Chinook diversity by differentially affecting specific populations that encounter PRFs in greater frequency during their early marine life history. We are not aware of any effects that would result in a reduction in diversity to PS steelhead.

2.5 Cumulative Effects

“Cumulative effects” are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.

The action area, Sinclair Inlet, is influenced by actions in the nearshore, along the shoreline, in deeper parts of the harbor, and also in tributary watersheds of which effects extend into the action area. Actions in the nearshore and along the shoreline of Sinclair Inlet are mainly commercial development, a U.S. Naval Base, shoreline modifications, road construction and maintenance, but also include some agricultural development. Federal actions dominate current and future impacts in the action area because the vast majority of activities that may affect listed species in the action area will require an approval under the Clean Water Act. Future federal actions will be subject to the section 7(a)(2) consultation under the ESA.

These actions, in the nearshore as well as in tributary watersheds, will cause long-lasting environmental changes and will continue to harm ESA-listed species and their critical habitats. Especially relevant effects include the loss or degradation of nearshore habitats and pocket estuaries (the action area is a pocket estuary). We consider human population growth to be the main driver for most of the future negative effects on salmon, steelhead, bocaccio and their habitat.

WCR-2018-10181 -46-

Future private and public development actions are very likely to continue in and around Sinclair Inlet. As the human population continues to grow, demand for agricultural, commercial, and residential development and supporting public infrastructure is also likely to grow. We believe the majority of environmental effects related to future growth will be linked to these activities, in particular land clearing, associated land-use changes (i.e., from forest to impervious, lawn or pasture), increased impervious surface, and related contributions of contaminants to area waters. Land use changes and development of the built environment that are detrimental to salmonid habitats are likely to continue under existing regulations. Though the existing regulations could decrease potential adverse effects on salmon habitat, as currently constructed and implemented, they still will allow substantial degradation to occur. Over time, the incremental degradation, when added to the already degraded environmental baseline, will likely result in reduced habitat quality for at-risk salmon, steelhead, and bocaccio.

In addition to these growth-related habitat changes, climate change has become an increasing driver for infrastructure development and changes to protect against sea level rise in coastal areas. These changes to nearshore habitat can include sea walls like the one currently being constructed in Venice, Italy and considered for many major US cities including New York (Marshall, May 2014). Regardless of the environmental effects, the cost of flooding has been predicted to be higher than the cost of building such sea walls (Lehmann, February, 2014) which increases the likelihood of more flood protection projects coming to PS in the future. These flood protection projects will likely include, filling, raising of habitat, dikes, dunes, revetments, flood gates, pump stations, and sea walls; all habitat modifications that will be detrimental to salmon.

In June 2005, the Shared Strategy presented its recovery plan for PS Chinook salmon to NOAA Fisheries who adopted and expanded the recovery plans to meet its obligations under the ESA. Together, the joint plans comprise the 2007 PS Chinook Recovery Plan. Several not for profit organizations and state and Federal agencies are implementing recovery actions identified in these recovery plans. Notwithstanding the beneficial effects of ongoing habitat restoration actions, the cumulative effects associated with continued development are likely to have ongoing adverse effects on salmon and steelhead population abundance and productivity. Only improved low-impact development actions together with increased numbers of restoration actions, watershed planning, and recovery plan implementation would be able to address growth related impacts into the future. To the extent that non-Federal recovery actions are implemented and offset on-going development actions, adverse cumulative effects may be minimized, but will probably not be completely avoided.

2.6 Integration and Synthesis

The Integration and Synthesis section is the final step in our assessment of the risk posed to species and critical habitat as a result of implementing the proposed action. In this section, we add the effects of the action (Section 2.4) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.3) and the cumulative effects (Section 2.5), taking into account the status of the species and critical habitat (Section 2.2), to formulate the agency’s biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to: (1) Reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution; or (2) reduce the value of designated or proposed critical habitat for the conservation of the species.

WCR-2018-10181 -47-

2.6.1 Species Aggregate Analysis

The current status of each of the three affected ESUs/DPS’ is poor, which is the reason for their continued listing as threatened with extinction.

Salmonids: The PS Chinook salmon ESU and PS steelhead DPS are each at moderate risk of extinction. The threatened status of PS Chinook and steelhead is a result of insufficient abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and/or diversity to persist in the wild. These pressures derive from habitat conditions and other pressures, including factors in the environmental baseline. In general, baseline habitat conditions in the PS region have been degraded chiefly by human development.

Relevant habitat modifications include the channelization and diking of rivers, increase of impervious surfaces in most watersheds, simplification of river deltas, elimination of small coastal bays, reduction in sediment supply due to beach armoring, and loss of tidal wetland (Fresh et al., 2011). In addition to beach armoring, other shoreline changes including OWS, marinas, roads, and railroads reduce marine nearshore habitat quality (Simenstad et al., 2011). As human population growth has increased upland development has continued to cause chronic systemic habitat degradation. The extent of these habitat changes significantly impairs several aspects of critical habitat and puts its function for listed salmonids at risk, which is revealed in habitat trends. Abundance across the PS Chinook ESU has generally decreased between 2010 and 2014, with only 6 small populations of 22 total populations showing a positive change in natural-origin spawner abundances. Abundance of adult steelhead returning to nearly all PS rivers has fallen substantially since estimates began for many populations in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Natural steelhead spawners indicate similar low abundance and declining trends continue in approximately half of the populations throughout Puget Sound, particularly in southern Puget Sound and on the Olympic Peninsula (NWFSC 2015).

In estuaries and Puget Sound, the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan (NMFS 2006) identifies actions for several key factors to support salmon recovery: (1) Protect key fresh- and saltwater processes and habitats from physical or biological disruptions; (2) restore estuarine processes and habitat; (3) restore marine shorelines (including freshwater inputs) outside major deltas; (4) protect and restore fresh- and saltwater quality; (5) protect and restore freshwater quantity; (6) reduce the risk and damage from catastrophic events; and (7) reduce risk and damage from non-indigenous species and other changes to food webs. Similarly, listed rockfish abundances continue to decline with little to no signs of any effects of recent protective measures.

Climate change is likely to exacerbate several of the ongoing habitat issues, especially increased summer temperatures and decreased summer flows in the freshwater environment and ocean acidification and sea level rise in the marine environment. While the net balance of shoreline armoring seems to be somewhat stable at present, with new armoring being offset by restoration actions (Puget Sound Partnership 2017), sea level rise adds pressure to increase future armoring in Puget Sound. More shoreline armoring, along with other infrastructure projects designed to protect against flooding, will likely further reduce habitat quality for salmonids.

WCR-2018-10181 -48-

While some effects of the proposed action will not likely result in any measurable effect on listed salmon, or steelhead (such as construction vessel traffic and increased turbidity), two construction-related effects are likely to have negative effects: (1) Sound effects from impact driving steel piles and (2) benthic impacts from increased in-water structure. The chronic effect of the project’s continued and expanded structure in aquatic habitat is also negative. We cannot quantify the number of individual salmonids that will be injured or killed from such impacts, however, because the precise distribution and abundance of adult and juvenile fish within the action area are not a simple function of the quantity, quality, or availability of predictable habitat resources within that area. Nonetheless, the adverse effects related to construction activities, and the presence of the structures, are likely to kill or injure fish in the action area. When the detrimental effects of the action are considered in the context of: (1) The species threatened or endangered status, (2) the baseline, and (3) likely cumulative effects, the project effects on abundance affect too few fish from any one population to influence any population’s viability characteristic for productivity, and, in turn, are insufficient to distinguish any change in trends for spatial structure or diversity among the affected species, and it is impossible to conclude that the project will alter the viability trends of the three species. Effects of the action do not limit any of the estuarine and marine key factors identified in the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.

We also evaluate the effects of the project on features and functions of salmonid critical habitat in an aggregate analysis, adding them in the context of conservation value and roles of habitat. Critical Habitat throughout the designated area for salmonids is diminished spatially and qualitatively by anthropgenic changes, and the features within the action area are also impaired in several ways. As described above cumulative effects likely will continue to adversely affect critical habitat, and climate change is likely to aggravate those impacts. When we add the adverse effects of the proposed action, the construction effects are too brief to be meaningful to the features or function of habitat, and negative effects on forage will be mitigated or potentially slightly improved. The permanent effect on safe salmonid migration are negative, but are at too small a scale to substantially reduce the value of the critical habitat for migration purposes in the estuarine and marine environment, and they ostensibly do not preclude reestablishing properly functioning conditions at the action area scale. Thus, when added to the baseline and considering the cumulative effects, the effects of the action on critical habitat do not significantly affect the conservation value of critical habitat for salmonids.

Rockfish: PS/GB bocaccio abundance and productivity is a fraction of historic abundance. Boccacio abundances continue to decline with little to no signs of any effects of recent protective measures. One of the main factors for their poor status and low abundance and productivity is past practices of overharvesting and a life history that does not allow for fast recovery. Rockfish are long-lived, mature late, and highest fecundity occurs in older and larger fish which largely have been harvested. Climate change is likely to exacerbate several of the ongoing issues for listed rockfish critical habitat, mainly the reduction in available quality nearshore rearing habitat.

On top of the poor abundance, productivity, and nearshore habitat conditions for rockfish, three effects resulting from the proposed action are likely to have measurable adverse effects on bocaccio and its critical habitat: (1) Sound effects from impact driving steel piles and (2) benthic impacts from increased in-water structure. The effects are of the same nature and magnitude as described above for salmonids.

WCR-2018-10181 -49-

Even though aspects of the baseline are degraded, mainly through nearshore development, and cumulative effects likely will continue to adversely affect the nearshore portion of bocaccio critical habitat, the added adverse effects of the proposed action are too small on a DPS-level to substantially reduce the conditions of critical habitat or preclude re-establishing properly functioning conditions. Overall, when added to the baseline and cumulative effects, the effects of the action on bocaccio critical habitat do not significantly affect the conservation value of critical habitat at the designation scale.

For effects to species, we expect a very small number of larval and juvenile rockfish to experience measurable adverse effects as the result of the construction and existence of the proposed structures. Even when we consider the current poor status of the populations and degraded environmental baseline within the action area, the proposed action itself is not expected to affect abundance, distribution, diversity, or productivity of any of the component populations of the ESA-listed species, nor to further degrade baseline conditions or limiting factors. The effects of the action will be too small in scale and too minor to have a measurable impact on the affected populations. Because the proposed action will not significantly reduce the productivity, spatial structure, or diversity the affected populations, the action, when combined with a degraded environmental baseline and additional pressure from cumulative effects, will not appreciably affect the status of listed rockfish.

2.7 Conclusion

After reviewing and analyzing the current status of the listed species and critical habitat, the environmental baseline within the action area, the effects of the proposed action, any effects of interrelated and interdependent activities, and cumulative effects, it is NMFS’ biological opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and PS/GB bocaccio or destroy or adversely modify PS chinook and juvenile bocaccio designated critical habitats.

2.8 Incidental Take Statement

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. “Take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined by regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). “Incidental take” is defined by regulation as takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.02). Section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) provide that taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA if that action is performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.

WCR-2018-10181 -50-

2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take

While NMFS expects species exposure to effects of the proposed action, NMFS cannot estimate the number of individuals that will experience adverse effects because the presence of species varies over time, by cohort, and depending on a variety of environmental factors that cannot be fully predicted, such as stream and ocean temperatures. When take cannot be quantified, we provide an “extent of take” a measure of the habitat area in which conditions are modified by the project resulting in injury or death among species (i.e., “harm”).

Impact pile driving will occur episodically throughout the in-water work season. As mentioned above, NMFS cannot predict the number of individual fish that will be exposed. Furthermore, not all exposed individuals will experience adverse effects. Therefore, NMFS will use the physical and temporal extent of aquatic habitat in which we expect injurious levels of underwater sound to occur, as a surrogate for the number of fish that could be injured. This location is that area in which fish would be exposed to a sound at a level that can cause injury as a response, and this location is also one that can be monitored to discern whether or not injurious sound exceeds the anticipated area, and if so, serve as a trigger for re-initiation.

Assuming an estimated 2,000 strikes per day, the maximum distance to the 207 dBpeak injury threshold is calculated to 12 meters or less. The maximum distance to the 187 dB (fish ≥ 2) and 183 dB (fish < 2 g) cumulative SEL thresholds is calculated to 399 meters and 736 meters, respectively.

The numbers of fish likely to experience take will be larger than we have evaluated in the foregoing analysis and the take surrogate will be exceeded if sound exceeds 211 dB at 10 meters (cumulative SEL of 178 dBSEL at 10 m). There is a causal link between this surrogate and the take because as sound increases over 211 dB SELcum at 10 meters the likelihood of harm increases and the bigger the area within which sound over that measurement occurs and the greater the number of fish that will exposed to injurious sound levels.

Proper implementation of a bubble curtain is anticipated to reduce noise levels by a minimum of 6 dBRMS at 10 meters. Using the Sound Pressure Exposure spreadsheet or calculator to estimate the area around each pile where fish would be considered at risk of injury or behavioral disruption during pile driving using the measurements 201 dBpeak, 172 dBSEL, and 188 dBRMS. Again assuming an estimated 2,000 strikes per day, the maximum distance to the 201 dBpeak injury threshold is calculated to five meters or less. The maximum distance to the 187 dB (fish ≥ 2) and 183 dB (fish < 2 g) cumulative SEL thresholds is calculated to 159 meters and 293 meters, respectively.

Incidental take in the form of harm, (increased predation through obstruction of juvenile migratory pathway obstruction, reduced salmonid vision, and reduced fitness and survival through reduced food source) also cannot be estimated as a number of ESA-listed individuals. For take resulting from response to detrimental habitat modifications, we will use the area of over water coverage from the PRF: 4,470 square feet, as it causes the negative habitat conditions to which the fish exposed will respond. The surrogate measure is proportional to the amount of take considered to result from the action, (summarized in Table 11) because if the size of the

WCR-2018-10181 -51-

structure were to change, the numbers of fish harmed would also change correspondingly, and thus is equivalent to the maximum amount of take considered in our jeopardy analysis. Therefore, if the size of the structure built exceeds the size described in the consultation document, the amount of take will be exceeded, and reinitiation of consultation with the FTA will be required as the funding entity has continued jurisdiction over the appropriate expenditure of its funds received.

An “extent of take” is readily observable and, therefore, suffices to trigger reinitiation of consultation, if exceeded and necessary (see H.R. Rep. No 97-567, 9th Cong., 2d Sess. 27 [1982]).

NMFS summarizes the incidental take expected to occur in the following table:

Table 9. Take Summary

Life Type of Description of Take Maximum Numbers Affected Species Stage Take Mechanism or Area Affected Puget Sound Juvenile Harm Exposure to cSEL cumulative SEL of 211 dB at 10 m Chinook above harm threshold salmon Long-term habitat 4,470 square feet of nearshore overwater modification that structure will be degraded by overwater and in- reduces fitness and water structure for the expected life of the survival structures. Puget Sound Juvenile Harm Exposure to cSEL cumulative SEL of 211 dB at 10 m steelhead above harm threshold Long-term habitat 4,470 square feet of nearshore overwater modification that structure will be degraded by overwater and in- reduces fitness and water structure for the expected life of the survival structures. PS/ Georgia Juvenile Harm Exposure to cSEL cumulative SEL of 211 dB at 10 m Basin DPS above harm threshold bocaccio Harm through long- 4,470 square feet of nearshore overwater term habitat structure will be degraded by overwater and in- modification that water structure for the expected life of the reduces individual structures. fitness and survival through reduced food supply.

In conclusion, NMFS exempts take for the following:

1. Cumulative SEL of 211 dB at 10 m as calculated using the single strike Peak, SEL, and noise levels, the number of strikes per day, and transmission loss according to the practical spreading model, over a period of 17 days; and

2. The permanent presence of 4,470-square-foot of in and overwater structure in migratory and rearing habitat.

WCR-2018-10181 -52-

2.8.2 Effect of the Take

In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that the amount or extent of anticipated take, coupled with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures

“Reasonable and prudent measures” are nondiscretionary measures that are necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of the amount or extent of incidental take (50 CFR 402.02).

To minimize the impact of incidental take of listed Chinook, steelhead, and bocaccio species from the proposed action (50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)), the FTA must:

1. Ensure completion of a monitoring and reporting program to confirm that the take exemption for the proposed action is not exceeded, and that the terms and conditions in this incidental take statement are effective in minimizing incidental take from permitted activities.

2.8.4 Terms and Conditions

The terms and conditions described below are non-discretionary, and the FTA or any applicant must comply with them in order to implement the reasonable and prudent measures (50 CFR 402.14). The FTA or any applicant has a continuing duty to monitor the impacts of incidental take and must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species as specified in this incidental take statement (50 CFR 402.14). If the entity to whom a term and condition is directed does not comply with the following terms and conditions, protective coverage for the proposed action would likely lapse.

The following terms and conditions implement the reasonable and prudent measure:

1. In order to monitor the take exemption the FTA shall ensure that Kitsap Transit prepares a monitoring report identifying any incidental take associated with project activities and describing conservation measures implemented to minimize take. The report shall include a description of construction activities conducted and duration of activities to ensure take was not exceeded. The report shall be submitted to NMFS at [email protected] and [email protected], within 6 months of completion of construction. The report shall summarize the compliance with the project description and conservation measures and the level of exempted incidental take during the implementation of the project that year. a. The report shall include the following: • Final ferry terminal size and grating. • Results of the marine mammal monitoring during construction. • Results of the acoustic monitoring during pile driving activities. Acoustic monitoring is to identify and confirm pile driving noise levels.

WCR-2018-10181 -53-

• If sound exceeds cumulative SEL of 211 dB at 10 meters, NMFS thresholds identified in Section 2.4 of this opinion, then the amount of take authorized by the Incidental Take Statement will have been exceeded. • Dates of construction related activities such as: o Removal of the steel and concrete piles. o Installation of new steel piles. • Description of pile driving activities such as: o Number and method of piles removed. o Number of piles installed with an impact pile driver. o Number and duration of strikes per pile and throughout the day.

2. Confirm that all work occurs within work window (all in water work would only occur from July 2 through March 2).

3. Use a bubble curtain or other noise attenuating device during all impact pile driving.

4. Confirm that three years post-planting, the native plants have 80 percent survival. Replace any dead plantings with comparable species in the following autumn planting season.

5. The ATF shall notify the NMFS immediately if the results of this program trigger any of the relevant reinitiation requirements specified in the Reinitiation of Consultation section of this opinion (Section 2.10).

2.9 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and endangered species. Specifically, conservation recommendations (CR) are suggestions regarding discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information (50 CFR 402.02).

1. Conduct forage fish spawning surveys for evidence of surf smelt and sand lance spawning within 72 hours prior to the start of in-water activities to minimize the impact on spawning forage fish. If forage fish are observed spawning prior to in-water work, in- water work must be delayed until the area is clear of forage fish spawn. Additional forage fish spawning surveys can be conducted at regular intervals (e.g., every 1 to 2 weeks) to determine when in-water work may begin.

2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation

This concludes formal consultation for reinitiation of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal Upgrade.

As 50 CFR 402.16 states, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species

WCR-2018-10181 -54-

or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion, (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

2.11 “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations

The applicable standard to find that a proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat is that all the effects of the action are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects on the species or critical habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur.

Based on this analysis, NMFS concurs with the FTA that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the subject listed species:

2.11.1 Southern Resident Killer Whale

Status of SRKW and Critical Habitat

The SRKW DPS was listed as endangered under the ESA in 2005 (70 FR 69903, November 18, 2005). In December 2016, NMFS finalized a 5-year status review under the ESA, which provided an update to the status of the SRKW DPS and the progress toward meeting the recovery criteria identified in the recovery plan. The status review recommended that the classification for the DPS remain the same: Endangered. Limiting factors described in the final recovery plan for the SRKW DPS include quantity of prey. Data collection and analysis indicate a strong preference for Chinook salmon throughout their geographical range (NMFS 2008; Hanson et al. 2010).

Critical habitat for the SRKW was designated in 2006 (71 FR 69054, November 29, 2006). Critical habitat consists of three specific areas: 1) the Summer Core Area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Island; 2) Puget Sound; and 3) the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These areas encompass approximately 2,560 square miles of marine habitat. Based on the natural history of SRKWs and their habitat needs, NMFS identified the following PBFs essential to conservation: 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 3) passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging. On February 24, 2015, NMFS announced a 12-month finding to revise the critical habitat designation for the SRKW DPS. NMFS will proceed with a revision to critical habitat and will develop a proposed rule (80 FR 9682, February 24, 2015).

Effects on SRKW Critical Habitat

Most of the action area is within designated SRKW critical habitat. Pile driving will temporarily affect the underwater baseline noise level (a water quality PBF) and prey species PBFs through

WCR-2018-10181 -55-

noise generation. Vibratory pile driving will produce in-water continuous noise that exceeds the 124 dBRMS background/disturbance threshold for cetaceans (NMFS 2016b). However, the vibratory pile driving will be of short daily during duration, will be ameliorated by the implementation of a marine mammal monitoring plan to pause vibratory pile driving when SRKW are present in the action area, and habitat conditions will return to baseline conditions immediately following the completion of pile installation. Therefore, NMFS concludes that the project effects on the aquatic habitat will be insignificant.

The project will result in a net increase of 2,310 square feet of overwater coverage with negative impacts to PS Chinook salmon. The project also includes mitigation for the footprint increase, resulting in long-term incremental beneficial effects on the SRKW prey species. On balance the effect on PS Chinook, as a feature of SRKW critical habitat, is a single construction period causing a small decrease in abundance from construction effects, and a small, permanent, but indiscernible diminishment in migration conditions for PS Chinook, insufficient to increase the risk of jeopardy. Based on the short duration, small area, and low level of the expected construction effects, and the limited area of permanent habitat effects, we do not expect effects on SRKW prey to have any effect on the distribution or abundance of SRKW prey species in the action area in either the short or long term. Therefore, NMFS concludes that project effects on SRKW critical habitat will be insignificant.

Effects to SRKW

The range of SRKWs during the spring, summer, and fall includes the inland waters of Washington and British Columbia, including Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the southern Georgia Strait. SRKWs also occur in coastal waters from southeast Alaska to California. Most sightings of SRKWs occur in the summer in inland waters of Washington and southern British Columbia. Satellite tagging and acoustic recorder studies have provided new data about the SRKWs’ coastal habitat use (Hanson et al. 2010). The data indicate the J pod’s limited occurrence along the outer coast and its extensive occurrence in inland waters, particularly in the northern Georgia Strait. The J pod has also only been detected on one of seven passive acoustic recorders positioned along the outer coast; it does not appear to travel to Oregon or California like the K and L pods do (Hanson et al. 2010). Detection rates of the K and L pods on the passive acoustic recorders indicate the whales occur with greater frequency off the Columbia River and Westport and are most common in March (Hanson et al. 2010). The K and L pods use the coastal waters along Washington, Oregon, and California during non-summer months.

SRKWs may be present in the action area but they are not common in Sinclair Inlet. Within the last five years, SRKW have only been sighted once, April 2016, in the action area (Orca Network 2018). These sighting do not overlap with the in-water work window of July 2 to March 2.

Therefore, even though pile driving will produce in-water continuous noise that exceeds the 124 dBRMS background/disturbance threshold for cetaceans (NMFS 2016b), since no SRKW sightings have occurred in the action area during the proposed in-water work window over five years, the chance of the SRKWs entering the action area during the 10 days of pile driving

WCR-2018-10181 -56-

over the entire work window is low, making exposure discountable. If SRKW did occur in the action area, it would have to be within the 10-day period of driving in order for exposure to occur, but the marine mammal monitoring to be conducted during pile-driving activities to further reduce the likelihood of exposure, with stop work protocols on the condition of marine mammal sighting. Accordingly, NMFS concludes it is unlikely and, thus, discountable that SRKW will be exposed to noise from pile driving.

Kitsap Transit will use tugboats and a barge to construct the project. The barge will provide a work platform during construction. The tugboats will position the barge for overwater construction and will remove the barge when the construction is complete. Noise from tugboat operation will be short term, will be approximately 171 dB when operating at 18 km/hr (Earth Island 2018), and will not rise above the noise level of ferry traffic in the action area. Noise from tugboats, therefore, is not likely to affect SRKW.

Tugboats will operate close to shore, in water depths where SRKW are unlikely to occur. Tugboats are slow moving (less than 18 km/hr), which allows more time for the vessel to react if a whale is observed in the area, and follow a predictable course. Vessel strikes are extremely unlikely to occur, and we consider this risk to also be discountable.

Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan

The objective of a MMMP is to observe for marine mammals within the area of potential sound effect and stop or not start work while a marine mammal is within the area of potential sound effect. Marine mammals could be injured or disturbed by underwater sound pressure generated by in-water construction activities during vibratory and impact pile driving. Assumptions used in calculating the distances underwater sound pressure levels will travel above the injury and disturbance thresholds for marine mammals include:

• Impact pile driving for 24-inch steel piles produces single-strike sound levels of 207 dBPEAK, 194 dBRMS, and 178 dBSEL when measured at 10 meters (32.8 feet) from the source (WSDOT, 2017). Impact pile driving for 12-inch steel piles produces single-strike sound levels of 207 dBPEAK, 189 dBRMS, and 173 dBSEL when measured at 10 meters (32.8 feet) from the source (WSDOT 2017). Eight (8) 24-inch-diameter piles and four (4) 12-inch-diameter piles are proposed for the project. Impact pile installation calculations assumed up to 2000 pile strikes per day (1000 strikes/pile and 2 piles/day) for both 12- and 24-inch steel piles. • A bubble curtain will be employed during impact pile driving. Proper implementation of a bubble curtain is anticipated to reduce noise levels by a minimum of 6 dBRMS at 10 meters. However, the following noise calculations did not incorporate reduced underwater noise values from bubble curtain sound attenuation. • Vibratory pile removal and installation will have an underwater noise level of 175 dBRMS for 24-inch steel pipe (typical) piles (Data was only available for 36-inch diameter piles, which was used as a surrogate for 24-inch steel pipe piles) and 155 dBRMS for 12-inch steel pipe piles. Vibratory injury calculations for marine mammals were conservative and assumed a 10-hour continuous work duration within a 24-hour period. Therefore, vibratory hammer underwater noise should attenuate to baseline conditions (120 dBRMS)

WCR-2018-10181 -57-

within less than 0.29 miles (464 meters) and 28.8 miles (46,416 meters) from the project site for 12- and 24-inch steel pipe piles, respectively.

Monitoring will only occur in the vicinity of in-water construction activities that may produce underwater sound pressure levels above the disturbance threshold of 160 dBrms for impact driving and 120 dBrms for vibratory pile driving. No monitoring is necessary during out-of- water construction.

Locations. Monitoring will occur in the vicinity of all in-water construction activities that may produce underwater noise levels in excess of 120 dBrms for vibratory pile driving and 160 dBrms for impact driving as shown on Figure 2. Shore based views of the monitoring zone are available from the project site, Bremerton, and Manette shorelines. Monitoring conducted by boat will provide rapid monitoring of the entire area using less monitors. Construction will only occur when weather conditions are suitable for effective visual monitoring of the action area.

Monitoring Techniques. Two monitoring method options are proposed to meet the marine mammal monitoring requirements. One or both of these methods will be used during pile installation and will be determined in the field based on the current weather conditions and forecast for each day, as well as the likelihood of encountering marine mammals during the construction time-frame. The first option includes one or more qualified observer(s) positioned at on-shore vantage points at the project site or Bremerton Marina. The second option will require one or more monitors patrolling the disturbance areas in a boat. The final monitoring path may be adjusted during construction, but monitoring methods will allow for a complete view of the monitoring zone. The monitoring method and number of monitors may be adjusted based on site specific weather conditions and visibility.

The monitoring area is defined as the area in which marine mammals could be disturbed by in- water pile driving noise. For the project site, the area of potential disturbance for cetaceans and pinnipeds is defined as the distance at which underwater sound attenuates to 160 dBrms for impact driving and 120 dBrms for vibratory pile driving. For 12-inch piles, this attenuation is expected to occur within 1,522 feet (464 meters) for vibratory installation and within 1.33 miles (2,154 meters) for impact installation. 24-inch pile installation underwater sound is expected to attenuate to below disturbance thresholds within 28.8 miles (46,416 meters) for vibratory pile installation and 1.15 miles for impact installation. If the sea state exceeds a Beaufort level 2, additional monitors may be needed to effectively cover the monitoring zone.

The Orca Network website will be accessed each morning prior to in-water construction activities that may produce noise levels above the disturbance threshold. The Orca Network website identifies the most recent opportunistic sighting locations of Southern Resident killer whales and other ESA-listed marine mammals, which can assist in identifying potential presence within the monitoring zone. Using scopes and binoculars, the monitors will search for marine mammals within the monitoring zone. If no ESA-listed marine mammals are within the disturbance zone, the monitors will notify the construction superintendent to begin pile driving.

During pile driving operations, monitors will continue to scan the area for marine mammals. All monitors will have two-way radios to allow for effective communication during pile driving. If

WCR-2018-10181 -58-

ESA-listed marine mammal species are seen within the monitoring zone during pile driving, the monitors will immediately notify the construction superintendent and he/she will stop pile driving. Pile driving will not resume until ESA-listed marine mammals have left the disturbance zone. If non-ESA-listed marine mammals move into the disturbance zone during pile driving, the monitors will observe and record the animal’s behavior but pile driving will not be ordered to stop.

Summary

SRKWs may occur within the action area during in-water work but the chances that SRKWs are in the action area during the pile driving are low. If present during pile driving, the short duration of vibratory pile driving decreases the likelihood for significant exposure. Additionally, marine mammal monitoring will further reduce the likelihood of exposure because vibratory pile driving will pause while SRKWs are in the disturbance zone and will not resume until they have left. Noise from tugboats will be no louder than existing noise levels, and the use of tugboats is highly unlikely to increase the risk of vessel strike.

The use of the salmonid in-water work window and the low level of effects on salmonids associated with vibratory pile driving will reduce effects on SRKW prey, and we do not expect a reduction in available forage. Therefore, we also do not expect a reduction in foraging success, reproductive success, or increase in risk of injury or mortality for any individual. NMFS concludes that the project effects on SRKWs are discountable due to low likelihood of exposure to project construction impacts, and effects on SRKW prey base will be insignificant to SRKW.

2.11.2 Humpback Whales

After completing a comprehensive status review, on September 8, 2016, we reclassified humpback whales as 14 DPSs rather than a single listed species, and listed the Mexico DPS as threatened and 4 DPSs as endangered, including the Western North Pacific DPS and the Central America DPS. (81 FR 62018). The two DPSs that could occur within the action area are Mexico, and Central America.

Humpback whales are baleen whales, filtering their food through the baleen from the water. They feed on tiny crustaceans (mostly krill), plankton, and small fish and can consume up to 3,000 pounds (1,360 kg) of food per day. Factors which may be limiting humpback whale recovery include entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships, whale watching harassment, subsistence hunting, and anthropogenic sound (NMFS 1991).

Since 2000, humpback whales have been sighted with increasing frequency in the inside waters of Washington (Falcone et. al. 2005). In 2014 and 2015 sightings sharply increased to around 500 each year (Orca Network). Potential effects from the proposed action include exposure to sound/disturbance from pile driving. While humpback sightings in PS occur during the proposed work window, the likelihood for exposure to vibratory pile driving is discountable because of the proposed conservation measures including marine mammal monitoring protocols which states that, should humpback whales occur offshore of the project site and within the disturbance zone

WCR-2018-10181 -59-

during pile installation activities, all work will stop until the whales leave the identified disturbance zone. For more information on proposed plan, see above.

Above, we indicate that all of the effects of the proposed action will be discountable to humpback whales. This conclusion is made at the level of an individual whale. Since none of the effects of the proposed action will be meaningful to individual animals, the proposed action will result in no population-level impacts to humpback whales. Therefore, our conclusion for the current single listed species would be the same for any of the proposed DPSs and we do not foresee the need to reinitiate this consultation when we finalize our rule to reclassify humpback whales.

2.11.3 Yelloweye Rockfish

Adult and juvenile yelloweye rockfish typically occupy waters deeper than 120 feet and are very unlikely to occur within the action area because of its shallow depth. Furthermore, larval rockfish are largely absent from the action area between September and February when the in-water work activities will occur. Therefore, NMFS concludes that project effects on the yelloweye rockfish will be discountable.

2.11.4 Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat, and Adult Bocaccio, Critical Habitat

PBFs essential to the conservation of adult bocaccio rockfish, and adult and juvenile yelloweye rockfish include benthic habitats or sites deeper than 98 feet that possess or are adjacent to areas of complex bathymetry consisting of rock and or highly rugose habitat. Several attributes of these sites determine the quality of the habitat including (1) quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities, (2) water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities, and (3) the type and amount of structure and rugosity that supports feeding opportunities and predator avoidance.

Rockfish nearshore and deep water critical habitat are present within the action area. In-water impulsive noise, turbidity do not extend into bocaccio and yelloweye deep water critical habitat. The area of affect for turbidity and contaminants will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the pile (150-foot radius per pile). Based on the short duration, small area, and low level of the expected increase in turbidity, we do not expect the effects on adult bocaccio and adult and juvenile yelloweye rockfish to exceed behavioral modification and expect the overall effect on the distribution and abundance of these fish in the action area to be insignificant. Therefore, NMFS concludes that project effects on the GB/PS DPS adult bocaccio and GB/PS adult and juvenile yelloweye critical habitat will be insignificant.

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION

Section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA (section 3) defines EFH as “those

WCR-2018-10181 -60-

waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality or quantity of EFH, and may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the waters or substrate and loss of (or injury to) benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects on EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of it and may include site-specific or EFH-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). Section 305(b) also requires NMFS to recommend measures that can be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH.

This analysis is based, in part, on the EFH assessment provided by the Kitsap Transit and descriptions of EFH for Pacific coast groundfish (PFMC 2005) and Pacific coast salmon (PFMC 2014) contained in the fishery management plans developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce.

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project

The proposed action and action area for this consultation are described above in Sections 1.2 (Proposed Action) and 1.3 (Action Area). The action area includes areas designated as EFH for various life-history stages of 31 species of Pacific coast groundfish and three species of Pacific salmon (Table 10).

Sinclair Inlet is a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), based on importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat. The environmental effects of the proposed project may adversely affect a maximum of 4,470 square feet of EFH for Pacific coast groundfish and Pacific coast salmon in the HAPC for these species. These 4,470 square feet of nearshore habitat will be impacted by shading form OWS and associated reduction in SAV density, prey abundance, and productivity. The proposed mitigation will offset some of the habitat impacts to EFH for these species.

WCR-2018-10181 -61-

Table 10. EFH species and life history stage associated with shallow nearshore water in PS.

Scientific Name Common Name Adult Juvenile Larvae Egg Groundfish Species Anoplopoma fimbria Sablefish X X X X Citharichthys sordidus Pacific sanddab X Eopsetta jordani Petrale sole X Glyptocephalus zachirus Rex sole X Hexagrammos decagrammus Kelp greenling X X Hippoglossoides elassodon Flathead sole X Hydrolagus colliei Spotted ratfish X X Isopsetta isolepis Butter sole X Lepidopsetta bilineata Rock sole X Merluccius productus Pacific hake X X Ophiodon elongates Lingcod X Parophrys vetulus English sole X X Platichthys stellatus Starry flounder X X Psettichthys melanostictus Sand sole X X Raja binoculata Big skate X Raja rhina Longnose skate X X X Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Cabezon X X X X Sebastes auriculatus Brown rockfish X Sebastes caurinus Copper rockfish X X Sebastes diploproa Splitnose rockfish X X Sebastes entomelas Widow rockfish X Sebastes flavidus Yellowtail rockfish X Sebastes maliger Quillback rockfish X X Sebastes melanops Black rockfish X X Sebastes mystinus Blue rockfish X X X Sebastes nebulosus China rockfish X X Sebastes nigrocinctus Tiger rockfish X Sebastes paucispinis Bocaccio X X Sebastes pinniger Canary Rockfish X X Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish X Squalus acanthias Spiny dogfish X Pacific Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook salmon X X Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon X X Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink salmon X X

3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

The effects of the proposed project on salmon are described in Section 2.4., above. The same mechanisms of effect are likely to affect all Pacific coast groundfish and Pacific coast salmon to varying degrees. These adverse effects include:

• Elevated underwater sound. • Water quality impacts from increased turbidity and suspended solids during construction. • Shading of SAV, and resulting reduction in SAV density and abundance and related primary production from the PRF.

WCR-2018-10181 -62-

• Reduction in quality of nearshore habitat through disturbance associated with OWS and boat use and human activity.

3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations

Fully implementing these EFH CRs would protect, by avoiding or minimizing the adverse effects described in Section 3.2, above, approximately 4,470 square feet of designated EFH for Pacific coast salmon and Pacific coast groundfish.

1. The applicant should: a. Allow only 4,470 square feet of overwater structure b. Work within work window: All in water work would only occur from July 2 through March 2 in any year the permit is valid. i. If work is occurring between September 1 and February 15, a qualified biologist must confirm, in writing, that no forage fish are spawning in the area. If the biologist confirms that no forage fish are spawning in the project area, then from the date of the inspection all work below MHHW must be completed within two weeks. If forage fish are found to be spawning in the project area, work may not occur until a new survey has been conducted and it is confirmed that no forage fish are spawning in the project area.

2. Kitsap Transit has designed a mitigation program that will offset effects to EFH. NMFS recommends that the FTA incorporate the following measures to improve this mitigation program and fully address adverse effects listed in Section 3.2, above: a. Monitor to ensure the as-built conforms with size, grating and work window criteria, and report back to NMFS whether all parameters are met b. If all parameters are not met, contact the NMFS to determine an appropriate adjustment the amount of mitigation, and adjust this rate as monitoring data on success of mitigation become available.

3.4 Statutory Response Requirement

As required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA, the FTA must provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS within 30 days after receiving an EFH CRs. Such a response must be provided at least 10 days prior to final approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS’ EFH CRs unless NMFS and the Federal agency have agreed to use alternative time frames for the Federal agency response. The response must include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the CRs, the Federal agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects (50 CFR 600.920(k)(1)).

WCR-2018-10181 -63-

In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many CRs are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, we ask that in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this consultation, you clearly identify the number of CRs accepted.

3.5 Supplemental Consultation

The FTA must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS’ EFH CRs (50 CFR 600.920(l)).

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW

The Data Quality Act (DQA) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the opinion addresses these DQA components, documents compliance with the DQA, and certifies that this opinion has undergone pre-dissemination review.

4.1 Utility

Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. The intended users of this opinion are the FTA and Kitsap Transit. Other interested users could include: pier-ramp and float applicants and their agents, affected tribes, industry, municipalities and county jurisdictions, recreational boaters and fishers. Individual copies of this opinion were provided to the FTA. The format and naming adheres to conventional standards for style.

4.2 Integrity

This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix III, ‘Security of Automated Information Resources,’ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act.

4.3 Objectivity

Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan

Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They adhere to published standards including the NMFS ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA regulations, 50 CFR 402.01 et seq., and the MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 CFR 600.

WCR-2018-10181 -64-

Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available information, as referenced in the References section. The analyses in this opinion and EFH consultation contain more background on information sources and quality.

Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly referenced, consistent with standard scientific referencing style.

Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in ESA and MSA implementation, and reviewed in accordance with West Coast Region ESA quality control and assurance processes.

WCR-2018-10181 -65-

5. REFERENCES

Abbott, R., E. Bing-Sawyer, and R. Blizard. 2002. Assessment of Pile Driving Impacts on the Sacramento Blackfish (Orthodon Microlepidotus). Caltrans.

Able, K.W., J.P. Manderson, and A.L. Studholme. 1998. The distribution of shallow water juvenile fishes in an urban estuary: The effects of manmade structures in the lower Hudson River. Estuaries. 21:731-744.

Ali, M.A. 1959. The Ocular Structure, Retinomotor and Photo-Behaviroal Responses of Juvenie Pacific Salmon. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 37.

Anderson, J.J., E. Gurarie, and R.W. Zabel. 2005. Mean free-path length theory of predator-prey interactions: Application to juvenile salmon migration. Ecological Modelling. 186:196- 211.

Battin et al., 2007. J. Battin, M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, H. Imaki. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104 (16) (2007), pp. 6720-6725

Beamer, E.M. 2007. Juvenile Salmon and Nearshore Fish Use in Shoreline and Lagoon Habitat Associated with Ala Spit, Skagit System Cooperative Research Department

Beamer, E.M., A McBride, C. Greene, R. Henderson, G. Hood, K. Wolf, K. Larsen, C. Rice, and K Fresh. 2005. Delta and nearshore restoration for the recovery of wild Skagit Chinook salmon: Linking estuary restoration to wild Chinook salmon populations. Skagit River System Cooperative.

Beamer, E.M., A. McBride, R. Henderson, and K. Wolf. 2003. The Importance of Non-Natal Pockent Estuaries in Skagit Bay to Wild Chinook Salmon: An Emerging Priority for Restoration, Skagit System Cooperative Research Department

Beamish, R.J., C. Mahnken, and C.M. Neville. 2004. Evidence That Reduced Early Marine Growth Is Associated with Lower Marine Survival of Coho Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 133:26-33.

Beckam, A.T., D.R. Gunderson, B.S. Miller, R.M. Buckey and B. Goetz. 1998. Reproductive biology, growth, and natural mortality of Puget Sound Rockfish, Sebastes emphaeus (Starks 1911). Fish. Bull. 96: 352-365

Beechie, T., E. Beamer, and L. Wasserman. 1994. Estimating coho salmon rearing habitat and smolt production losses in a large river basin, and implications for habitat restoration. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 14:797-811.

WCR-2018-10181 -66-

Beechie T. J., B. D. Collins, and G. R. Pess. 2001. Holocene and recent geomorphic processes, land use and salmonid habitat in two north Puget Sound river basins. Pages 37-54 in J. B. Dorava, D. R. Montgomery, F. Fitzpatrick, and B. Palcsak, editors. Water Science and Application Volume 4: Geomorphic processes and riverine habitat. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., USA.

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A. Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations: Oceanic climate change and sea levelIn: Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (editors). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York.

Booth, D. B., D. Hartley, and R. Jackson. 2002. Forest cover, impervious-surface area and the mitigation of stormwater impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:835-845.

Brennan, J.S., K. F. Higgins, J. R. Cordell, and V. A Stamatiou. 2004. Juvenile salmonid composition, timing, distribution and dies in Marine Nearshore waters of Central Puget Sound in 2001-2002. WRIA 8 and WRIA 9 Steering Committees and King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. 167.

Burgess, W.C., S.B. Blackwell, and R. Abbott. 2005. Underwater Acoustic Measurements of Vibratory Pile Driving at the Pipeline 5 crossing in the Snohomish River, Everett, Washington. Emergency Water Transmission Pipeline Repairs Construction Project – City of Everett Project No. UP 3148, URS project No. 33756899. Greeneridge Report 322-2. February 3, 2005. 40 pp.

Busby, P.J, et al. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS- NWFSC-27

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 2009. Final Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. Including the Oct 2012 update to the Appendix 1 - Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data. Prepared for: California Department of Transportation 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 94274. Prepared by: ICF Jones & Stokes 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95818 And: Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 505 Petaluma Blvd. South Petaluma, CA 94952. February 2009. 367 pp.

Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, S. Damm, D.W. Lantz, T.M. Lee, Z. Li, J.-M. Pratt, B.E. Price, and L. Seyda. 2008a. Movement and Habitat Use of Chinook Salmon Smolts, Northern Pikeminnow, and Smallmouth Bass Near the SR 520 Bridge, 2007 Acoustic Treacking Study. U.F.a.W. Service, editor. 139.

WCR-2018-10181 -67-

Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, D.W. Lantz, and I. Grettenberger. 2008b. Movement and Habitat Use of Chinook Salmon Smolts and Two Predatory Fishes in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal, Western WS Fish and Wildlife Office Lacey, WA.

Chew, K.P., and A.P. Ma. (1987). Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest): common littleneck clam. USFWS Biological Report 82(11.78), USACE TR EL-82-4. Prepared by University of Washington School of Fisheries Division of Fishery Science and Aquaculture, Seattle, WA. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development, National Wetlands Research Center, Washington, DC; Coastal Ecology Group, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. August 1987.

Clancy, M., I. Logan, J. Lowe, J. Johannessen, A. MacLennan, F.B. Van Cleve, J. Dillon, B. Lyons, R. Carman, P. Cereghino, B. Barnard, C. Tanner, D. Myers, R. Clark, J. White, C. Simenstad, M. Gilmer, and N. Chin. 2009. Management Measures for Protecting and Restoring the Puget Sound Nearshore. In Prepared in support of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Collins, B. D., D. R. Montgomery, and A. D. Haas. 2002. Historical changes in the distribution and functions of large wood in Puget Lowland rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:66-76

Committee on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington; Board on Earth Sciences and Resources; Ocean Studies Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present, and Future. ISBN: 978-0-309-25594-3

Dernie, K.M., M.J. Kaiser, E.A. Richardson, and R.M. Warwick. 2003. Recovery of soft sediment communities and habitats following physical disturbance. Journal of experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 285-286: 415-434.

Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, and H.D. Berry. 2016. Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 175:106-117.

Doney, S. C., M. Ruckelshaus, J. E. Duffy, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, C. A. English, H. M. Galindo, J. M. Grebmeier, A. B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, and L. D. Talley. 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 4: 11-37.

WCR-2018-10181 -68-

Drake J. S., E. A. Berntson, J. M. Cope, R. G. Gustafson, E. E. Holmes, P. S. Levin, N. Tolimieri, R. S. Waples, S. M. Sogard, and G.D. Williams. 2010. Status of five species of rockfish in Puget Sound, Washington: Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Greenstriped Rockfish (Sebastes elongatus) and Redstripe Rockfish (Sebastes proriger). U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-108, 234 pages.

Dorn, P., and P.N. Best. 2005. Integration of Joint City of Bainbridge Island/Suquamish Tribal Beach Seining Results into Shoreline Management and Salmon Recovery Efforts in Kitsap County, Washington. Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference.

Duffy, E.J., and D.A. Beauchamp. 2011. Rapid growth in the early marine period improves the marine survival of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Puget Sound, Washington. Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences/Journal canadien des sciences halieutiques et aquatiques. 68:232-240.

Earth Island. 2018. Chart of comparable airborne and underwater noise sources. Accessed February 15, 2018. .

Falcone, E., J. Calambokidis, G. Steiger, M. Malleson, and J. Ford. 2005. Humpback whales in the Puget Sound/Georgia Strait Region. Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference.

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, R.H. Byrne, F.J. Millero, A.G. Dickson, R. Wanninkhof, A. Murata, L.A. Miller, and D. Greeley. 2012. Decadal changes in the aragonite and calcite saturation state of the Pacific Ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 26:15.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993-793-071. U.S. Gov. Printing Office.

Fetherston, K., T. Abbe, and L. Ellis. 2001. Reference Site Study and Conceptual Design Alternatives for Restoration of Miller Creek estuary in King County. Unpublished report, King County and Puget Sound Restoration Fund, Bainbridge Island, Washington 39 p.

FHWG. 2008. Agreement in Principal for Interim Criteria for Injury to Fish from Pile Driving Activities. Memorandum of Agreement between NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest and Southwest Regions; USFWS Regions 1 and 8; California, Washington, and Oregon Departments of Transportation; California Department of Fish and Game; and Federal Highways Administration. Fisheries Habitat Working Group. June 12.

Ford, M.J.e. 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. 281 p.

WCR-2018-10181 -69-

Fresh, K., M. Dethier, C. Simenstad, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C.D. Tanner, T.M. Leschine, T.F. Mumford, G. Gelfenbaum, R. Shuman, and J.A. Newton. 2011. Implications of Observed Anthropogenic Changes to the Nearshore Ecosystems in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Fresh, K.L. 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. In Valued Ecosystem Components Report Series.

Fresh, K.L., T. Wyllie-Echeverria, S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and B.W. Williams. 2006. Using light- permeable grating to mitigate impacts of residential floats on eelgrass Zostera marina L. in Puget Sound, Washington. Ecological Engineering. 28:354-362.

Glick, P., J. Clough, and B. Nunley. 2007. Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Habitats in the Pacific Northwest: An analysis for Puget Sound, southwestern Washington, and northwestern Oregon. National Wildlife Federation, Seattle, WA.

Goetz, F.A., E. Jeanes, M.E. Moore, and T.P. Quinn. 2015. Comparative migratory behavior and survival of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) smolts in riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats of Puget Sound, Washington. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 98:357-375.

Goodwin, C.L., and B. Pease. (1989). Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fish and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest): Pacific geoduck clam. USFWS Biological Report 82(11); USACE TR EL-82-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Ecology Group, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development, National Wetlands Research Center, Washington, DC. December 1989.

Graham, A.L., and S.J. Cooke. 2008. The effects of noise disturbance from various recreational boating activities common to inland waters on the cardiac physiology of a freshwater fish, the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 18:1315-1324.

Haas, M.E., C.A. Simenstad, J.R. Cordell, D.A. Beauchamp, and B.S. Miller. 2002. Effects of Large Overwater Structures on Epibenthic Juvenile Salmon Prey Assemblages in Puges Sound, WA.

Hanson, B., R.W. Baird, J.K.B. Ford, J. Hempelmann-Halos, D.M. Van Doornik, J.R. Candy, C.K. Emmons, G.S. Schorr, B. Gisborne, K.L. Ayres, S.K. Wasser, K.C. Balcomb, K. Balcomb-Bartok, J.G. Sneva, and M.J. Ford. 2010. Species and stock identification of prey consumed by southern resident killer whales in their summer range. Endangered Species Research, 11:69–82.

WCR-2018-10181 -70-

Hard, J.J., J.M. Myers, M.J. Ford, R.G. Cope, G.R. Pess, R.S. Waples, G.A. Winans, B.A. Berejikian, F.W. Waknitz, P.B. Adams. P.A. Bisson, D.E. Campton, and R.R. Reisenbichler. 2007. Status review of Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-81. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Hastings, M.C., A.N. Popper, J.J. Finneran, and P. Lanford. 1996. Effects of low-frequency underwater sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3):1759–1766.

Hastings, M.C., and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. Prepared by Jones and Stokes for the California Department of Transportation.

Hattis, D., and B. Richardson. 1980. Noise, general stress responses, and cardiovascular disease processes: Review and reassessment of hypothesized relationships. EPA 550/9-80-101, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Heiser , D.W., and E.L. Finn 1970. Observations of Juvenile Chum and Pink Salmon in Marina and Bulkheaded Areas. State of Washington Department of Fisheries.

Holmes, E.E. 2001. Estimating risks in declining populations with poor data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 98(9): 5072-5077.

Holmes, E.E. & Fagan, W.F. (2002). Validating population viability analysis for corrupted data sets. Ecology, 83, 2379–2385.

Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC). 2005. Hood Canal & Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon recovery plan. November 15.

Hough-Snee, N., and R. Pond. 2010. The Stillaguamish Big Trees Project: Watershed-Scale Riparian Restoration (Washington). Ecological Restoration (North America). 28:243.

Hunter, M.A. 1992. Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: A review of the biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Washington Department of Fisheries. Technical Report No. 119. Olympia, Washington.

Hydroacoustic Working Group, F. 2008. Agreement in Priciple for Interim Criteria for Injury to Fish from Pile Driving Activities.

ISAB. 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

Karl, T.R., J. Melillo, and T.e. Peterson. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press.

WCR-2018-10181 -71-

Kelty, R., and S. Bliven. 2003. Environmental and aesthetic impacts of small docks and piers. In Decision Analysis Series No. 22. N.C.O. Program, editor.

Kemp, P.S., M.H. Gessel, and J.G. Williams. 2005. Seaward migrating subyearling Chinook salmon avoid overhead cover. Journal of Fish Biology. 67:10.

Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar - Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA

Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environmental Management 21(4):533-551.

Laughlin, J. 2004. Underwater Sound Levels Associated With Construction of the SR 240 Bridge on the Yakima River at Richland. Washington State Department of Transportation Office of Air Quality and Noise 15700 Dayton Avenue North, P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710. September 2004. 36 pp.

Lehmann, E. February 4, 2014. Research suggests that flooding from sea level rise will prove more costly than building barriers to protect coastlines. ClimateWire and Scientific American.

Love, M. S., M. H. Carr, and L. J. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus Sebastes. Environ. Biol. Fishes 30:225–243.

Love, M.S., M Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press.

Marshall, C. May 5, 2014. Massive Seawall May Be Needed to Keep New York City Dry. ClimateWire and Scientific American.

McConnell Chaille, Peter. 2006. Characterization of Developmental Changes During the Establishment and Progression in Viviparous Nearshore Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) and the Determination of Patterns of Post-Natal Growth. Dissertation UC Santa Barbara. UMI Number: 3233011

McElhany, P. 2000. Estimating minimum viable population sizes for Pacific salmonids.

McFarlane, B.R., and E.C. North. 2002. Physiological ecology of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) at the southern end of their distribution, the San Francisco Estuary and Gulf of the Farallones, California. Fisheries Bulletin. 100:13.

Melillo, J., T. Richmond, and G. Yohe. 2014. Climate Changes Impacts in the United States: Third National Climate Assessment. U.S.G.C.R. Program, editor. 841.

WCR-2018-10181 -72-

Millikan, A. and D. Penttila. 1974. Puget Sound baitfish study, July 1, 1973-June 30, 1974. Washington Department of Fisheries Progress Report. 32 p

Moore, M.E., B.A. Berejikian, and E.P. Tezak. 2013. A Floating Bridge Disrupts Seaward Migration and Increases Mortality of Steelhead Smolts in Hood Canal, Washington State. PloS one. 8.

Morley, S.A., J.D. Toft, and K.M. Hanson. 2012. Ecological Effects of Shoreline Armoring on Intertidal Habitats of a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts. 35:774-784.

Moser, H. G., and G. W. Boehlert. 1991. Ecology of pelagic larvae and juveniles of the genus Sebastes. Environ. Biol. Fishes 30(1– 2):203–224.

Mueller, G. 1980. Effects of Recreational River Traffic on Nest Defense by Longear Sunfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 109:248-251.

Mumford, T.F. 2007. Kelp and Eelgrass in Puget Sound In Valued Ecosystem Component Reports Series. Washington Department of Natural Resources.

Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, and E.E. Morgan. 2014. Effects of Seawalls and Piers on Fish Assemblages and Juvenile Salmon Feeding Behavior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 34:814-827.

Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16:34.

Nightingale, B., and C.A. Simenstad. 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. University of Washington, Washington State Transportation Center. 133.

NMFS. 1991. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS. 2006. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. Submitted by the Shared Strategy Development Committee, adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service January 19, 2007.

NMFS. 2007. Rationale for the Use of 187 dB Sound Exposure Level for Pile Driving Impacts Threshold. Unpublished memorandum. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

NMFS. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.

WCR-2018-10181 -73-

NMFS. 2016a. Draft Rockfish Recovery Plan: Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) and bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, Washington.

NMFS. 2016b. Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing: Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55. 178 pp.

NWFSC. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 2015. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest.

Ono, K. 2010. Assessing and Mitigating Dock Shading Impacts on the Behavior of Juvenile Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.): can artificial light mitigate the effects? In School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. Vol. Master of Science. University of Washington.

Orca Network. 2018. Orca Network Sightings Archives. Orca Network. Accessed February 15, 2018. www.orcanetwork.org/Archives

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I.J. Totterdell, M.-F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature. 437:681-686.

Owen, M.A., R.R. Swaisgood, N.M. Czekala, K. Steinman, and D.G. Lindburg. 2004. Monitoring stress in captive giant pandas: behavioral and hormonal responses to ambient noise. Zoo Biology 23(2): 147-164.

Pacunski, R.E., Palsson, W.A., and H. Gary Greene. 2013. Estimating Fish Abundance and Community Composition on Rocky Habitats in the San Juan Islands Using a Small Remotely Operated Vehicle. WDFW. FPT 13-02.

Palsson, W.A., T. Tsou, G. G. Bargmann, R. M. Buckley, J. E. West, M. L. Mills, Y. W Cheng, and R. E. Pacunski. 2009. The biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 208.

Parametrix. (1994). Metro North Beach epibenthic operational monitoring program, 1994 surveys. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, WA. Prepared for King County Department of Metropolitan Services, Seattle, WA.

Partnership, P.S., N. Hamel, J. Joyce, M. Fohn, A. James, T. J., A. Lawver, S. Redman, and M. Naughton. 2015. 2015 State of the Sound: Report on the Puget Sound Vital Signs. 86.

WCR-2018-10181 -74-

Penttila, D. 2007. Marine Forage Fishes in Puget Sound. In Valued Ecosystem Components Report Series. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 30.

Pess, G. R., D. R. Montgomery, T. J. Beechie, L. Holsinger. 2002. Anthropogenic alterations to the biogeography of salmon in Puget Sound. Pages 129-154 in Montgomery, D. R., S. Bolton, D. B. Booth. (Eds.) Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998. Description and identification of essential fish habitat for the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Appendix D to Amendment 8 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. December.

PFMC. 2005. Amendment 18 (bycatch mitigation program), Amendment 19 (essential fish habitat) to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington groundfish fishery. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. November.

PFMC. 2014. Appendix A to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan, as modified by Amendment 18 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan: Identification and description of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. September 2014. 196 p. + appendices.

Picciulin, M., L. Sebastianutto, A. Codarin, A. Farina, and E.A. Ferrero. 2010. In situ behavioural responses to boat noise exposure of Gobius cruentatus (Gmelin, 1789; fam. Gobiidae) and Chromis chromis (Linnaeus, 1758; fam. Pomacentridae) living in a Marine Protected Area. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 386:125-132.

Popper, A.N., M.E. Smith, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, A.O. MacGillivray, M.E. Austin, and D.A. Mann. 2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117:3958–3971.

Puget Sound Partnership. 2017. 2017 State of the Sound. Olympia, Washington. November 2017.

Quinn, T.P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. UW Press.

Reeder, W.S., P.R. Ruggiero, S.L. Shafer, A.K. Snover, L.L Houston, P. Glick, J.A. Newton, and S.M Capalbo. 2013. Coasts: Complex Changes Affecting the Northwest’s Diverse Shorelines. In Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities, edited by M.M. Dalton, P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover, 41-58. Island Press, Washington, DC.

WCR-2018-10181 -75-

Rice, C.A., C.M. Greene, P. Moran, D.J. Teel, D.R. Kuligowski, R.R. Reisenbichler, E.M. Beamer, J.R. Karr, and K.L. Fresh. 2011. Abundance, Stock Origin, and Length of Marked and Unmarked Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Surface Waters of Greater Puget Sound. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 140:170-189.

Romberg, P.G., C. Homan, and D. Wilson. (1995). Monitoring at two sediment caps in Elliott Bay. In: Puget Sound Research Conference 1995. January 12-14, Bellevue, WA. 289-299. Royal Society, T. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide contents.

Royal Society, T. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide contents.

Ruckelshaus, M.H., and McClure, M.M., eds., 2007, Sound science—Synthesizing ecological and socio-economic information about the Puget Sound Ecosystem: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Springs, Md., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Seattle, Wash., Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Scheuerell, M.D., and J.G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries Oceanography 14:448–457. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2007. Puget Sound salmon recovery plan. Volume 1, recovery plan. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. Seattle, Washington.

Schlenger, P., A. MacLennan, E. Iverson, K. Fresh, C. Tanner, B. Lyons, S. Todd, R. Carman, D. Myers, S. Campbell, and A. Wick. 2011. Strategic Needs Assessment: Analysis of Nearshore Ecosystem PRocess Degradation in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshor Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Scholik, A.R., and H.Y. Yan. 2002. Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 63:203-209.

Sebastianutto, L., M. Picciulin, M. Costantini, and E.A. Ferrero. 2011. How boat noise affects an ecologically crucial behaviour: the case of territoriality in Gobius cruentatus (Gobiidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. 92:207-215.

Servizi, J.A., and D.W. Martens. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 48:493-497.

Shipman, H. 2008. A Geomorphic Classification of Puget Sound Nearshore Landforms. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2008-01. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.

WCR-2018-10181 -76-

Simenstad, C.A. 1988. Summary and Conclusions from Workshop and Working Group Discussions. Pages 144-152 in Proceedings, Workshop on the Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes, Seattle, Washington, September 8-9, 1988. C.A. Simenstad, ed., Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Simenstad, C.A. 2001. Estuarine Landscape Impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon and Recommended Actions. In Summer Chum Conservation Initiative. Vol. Appendix Report 3.5.

Simenstad, C.A., M. Ramirez, B.J. Burke, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C. Tanner, Toft J., B. Craig, C. Davis, J. Fung, P. Bloch, K.L. Fresh, S. Campbell, D. Myers, E. Iverson, A. Bailey, P. Schlenger, C. Kiblinger, P. Myre, W.I. Gertsel, and A. MacLennan. 2011. Historical Changes and Impairment of Puget Sound Shorelines. In Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Southard, S.L., R.M. Thom, G.D. Williams, T.J. D., C.W. May, G.A. McMichael, J.A. Vucelick, J.T. Newell, and J.A. Southard. 2006. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Movement along Puget Sound Shorelines. Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services, Inc. Corvallis, Oregon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

SSPS. 2007. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, Shared Strategy Development Committee. Plan adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service January 19.

Stadler, J.H., and D.P. Woodbury. 2009. Assessing the effects to fishes from pile driving: Application of new hydroacoustic criteria. 8 pp.

Sunda, W. G., and W. J. Cai. 2012. Eutrophication induced CO2-acidification of subsurface coastal waters: interactive effects of temperature, salinity, and atmospheric p CO2. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(19): 10651-10659

Tillmann, P., and D. Siemann. 2011. Climate Change Effects and Adaptation Approaches in Marine and Coastal Ecosystems of the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative Region. National Wildlife Federation.

Toft, J.D., A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, J.R. Cordell, and E.E. Flemer. 2013. Ecological response and physical stability of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shoreline. Ecological Engineering. 57:97-108.

WCR-2018-10181 -77-

Tomaro, L.M., D.J. Teel, W.T. Peterson, and J.A. Miller. 2012. When is bigger better? Early marine residence of middle and upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 452:237-252.

Tonnes, D.M., M. Bhuthimethee, J. Sawchuk, N. Tolimieri, K. Andrews, and K. Nichols. 2016. Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), and bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. 5-Year Review.

Turnpenny, A.W.H., K.P. Thatcher, and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. The effects on fish and other marine animals of high-level underwater sound. Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratory, Ltd., Report FRR 127/94, United Kingdom. October.

Vivan, J.M., T.C.M. de Almeida, and M. Di Domenico. (2009). Effects of dredged material disposal on benthic macrofauna near Itajaí Harbour (Santa Catarina, South Brazil). Ecological Engineering. 35(10): 1435-1443.

Washington Department of Fisheries and Game (WDFG). 1932. Fortieth and forty-first annual reports of State Department of Fisheries and Game. Division of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2016. “Standards and Specifications for Road, Bridge ad Municipal Construction.” http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M41-10.htm

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012, Amended in 2014. “Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.” http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/manual.html

WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries), and WWTIT (Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SASSI). Internal Report to Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington Wash. Dep. Fish Wildl., Olympia, WA, 212 p. plus 5 regional volumes.

WDFW. 2011. Unpublished catch data from 2003 – 2009. On file with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Sandpoint Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.

WSDOT. 2017. Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Overhead Loading Structure Replacement Project: Washington State Ferries Capital, Repair and Maintenance Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation.

Weston_Solutions. 2006. Jimmycomelately piling removal monitoring project, Final Report. Prepared for Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Port Townsend, Washington. 109.

Willette, T.M. 2001. Foraging behaviour of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and size-dependent predation risk. Fisheries Oceanography. 10:110-131.

WCR-2018-10181 -78-

Williams, G.D., R.M. Thom, and N.R. Evans, 2004. Bainbridge Island Nearshore Habitat Characterization and Assessment, Management Strategy Prioritization and Monitoring Recommendations. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. November 2004. Available from: http://www.ci.bainbridgeisl. wa.us/ documents/N earshoreRpt02_F orematter. pelf.

Xie, Y.B., C.G.J. Michielsens, A.P. Gray, F.J. Martens, and J.L. Boffey. 2008. Observations of avoidance reactions of migrating salmon to a mobile survey vessel in a riverine environment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 65:2178-2190.

Zabel, R.W., M.D. Scheuerell, M.M. McClure, and J.G. Williams. 2006. The Interplay between Climate Variability and Density Dependence in the Population Viability of Chinook Salmon. Conservation Biology. 20:190-200.

WCR-2018-10181 -79- WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval Modification (HPA) And Original HPA

State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mailing Address: PO Box 43234, Olympia, WA 98504-3234, (360) 902-2200, TDD (360) 902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia, WA

May 6, 2021

GeoEngineers, Inc. Joe Callaghan 1101 Fawcett Ave, Ste 200 Tacoma, WA 98402

Dear Joe Callaghan:

SUBJECT: YOUR APPLICATION FOR ANNAPOLIS FERRY DOCK UPGRADE PROJECT, WDFW APPLICATION ID: 17425

On February 21, 2019, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) first received your application materials for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for the project referenced above.

Your request for a minor modification of your existing HPA has been approved. This modification authorizes minor changes to the fendering system and installation of float tubs in accordance with the plans entitled "Kitsap Transit Annapolis Ferry Dock Fenders 90% Review Submittal," dated March 2021, provided the float tubs are not installed beneath dock sections with grated decking.

All other provisions in the HPA still apply.

Please attach this letter to your HPA on-site.

If you have any questions, please call me at 360-620-3601.

Sincerely,

Brittany Gordon Habitat Biologist Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Issued Date: July 12, 2019 Permit Number: 2019-6-287+01 Project End Date: February 15, 2023 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 17425

PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR Kitsap Transit GeoEngineers, Inc. ATTENTION: Steffani Lillie ATTENTION: Joe Callaghan 60 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 1101 Fawcett Ave, Ste 200 Bremerton, WA 98337 Tacoma, WA 98402

Project Name: Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade Project Project Description: This project is for improvements to the existing Kitsap Transit ferry terminal in Port Orchard, Washington, including expansion of the existing pier, ramp, and float. The proposed plan consists of removing approximately 2,176 square feet of existing concrete float (located between -6 feet and -11 feet Mean Lower Low Water [MLLW]), concrete pier (located between -4 feet and -6 feet MLLW), metal gangway, and 16 square feet from ten piles (six 18-inch steel float piles and four 16.5-inch concrete pier piles) (See Photographs 1 and 2). The proposed float (to be located between -11 feet and -27 feet MLLW), pier, and gangway will be approximately 4,470 square feet and eight 24-inch steel float piles and four 12-inch steel pier piles will occupy approximately 28 square feet, which is a net increase of 2,322 square feet. Mitigation will include up to 2,322 square feet of intertidal debris removal and enhancement of approximately 8,600 square feet of riparian shoreline.

PROVISIONS

AUTHORIZED WORK TIMES 1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: Due to the distance waterward and depth of water from potential forage fish spawning, installation of the float and float pilings is authorized from August 1st through February 15th of any calendar year.

Work that does not break the surface of the water or contact the beach or bed, and that does not require grounding of a barge may be conducted at any time. This does not include pile driving, debris removal, or float installation.

Due to the year around spawning period for surf smelt in this portion of Puget Sound and other fish and shellfish habitats present at the job site, work waterward of the Ordinary High Water Line will be allowed from August 1st through October 15th of any year if a biologist approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife does not detect surf smelt eggs during a beach survey. Work must begin within seventy-two hours of survey and you must complete the work within two weeks of the survey. The biologist must follow the department-approved intertidal forage fish spawning protocol and use the standard department data sheets when conducting forage fish spawning beach surveys. A list of certified biologists, the approved protocol and data sheets are available on the department's web site http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/technical_assistance.html . The biologist must submit the completed, data sheets to the department within seventy-two hours of completing the survey to WDFW by e-mail at [email protected]; mail to Post Office Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234; or fax to (360) 902- 2946. In addition, the biologist must preserve the winnowed portion of the sediment samples and retain them for a minimum of four weeks. The sediment samples must be provided to WDFW staff upon request. 2. APPROVED PLANS: Work must be accomplished per plans and specifications submitted with the application and approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, entitled "Kitsap Transit Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade,"

Page 1 of 7 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Issued Date: July 12, 2019 Permit Number: 2019-6-287+01 Project End Date: February 15, 2023 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 17425 dated March 2019, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. You must have a copy of these plans available on site during all phases of the project construction. 3. MITIGATION 4. As included in the project proposal and approved plans, mitigation for the project consists of removing a minimum of 2,322 square feet of non-native debris (including but not limited to concrete, asphalt, and non-native angular rock) and enhancement of 8,600 square feet of riparian vegetation with native species. Native, rounded igneous rocks and boulders and untreated logs must be left on the beach. NOTIFICATION 5. PRE- AND POST-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION: You, your agent, or contractor must contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife by e-mail at [email protected]; mail to Post Office Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234; or fax to (360) 902-2946 at least three business days before starting work, and again within seven days after completing the work. The notification must include the permittee's name, project location, starting date for work or date the work was completed, and the permit number. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife may conduct inspections during and after construction; however, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will notify you or your agent before conducting the inspection. 6. FISH KILL/ WATER QUALITY PROBLEM NOTIFICATION: If a fish kill occurs or fish are observed in distress at the job site, immediately stop all activities causing harm. Immediately notify the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife of the problem. If the likely cause of the fish kill or fish distress is related to water quality, also notify the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258-5990. Activities related to the fish kill or fish distress must not resume until the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife gives approval. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife may require additional measures to mitigate impacts. STAGING, JOB SITE ACCESS AND EQUIPMENT 7. Establish the staging area (used for activities such as equipment storage, vehicle storage, fueling, servicing, and hazardous material storage) in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants like petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state. 8. Limit the removal of native bankline vegetation to the minimum amount needed to construct the project. 9. Retain all natural habitat features on the beach larger than twelve inches in diameter including trees, stumps, logs, and large rocks. These natural habitat features may be moved during construction but they must be placed near the preproject location before leaving the job site. 10. Check equipment daily for leaks and complete any required repairs before using the equipment in or near the water. 11. Clearly mark the edge of the seagrass and/or kelp habitat adjacent to the project during construction activities. Remove markers upon project completion. 12. Operate vessels with minimal propulsion power and in adequate water depth to prevent impacts from grounding and propeller wash to seagrass, kelp, and forage fish spawning beds. 13. Do not deploy anchors or spuds in seagrass or kelp. 14. Maintain anchor cable tension, set and retrieve anchors vertically, and prevent mooring cables from dragging to avoid impacts to seagrass and kelp. 15. Relocate vessels moored over seagrass between March 21 and September 21 every 4th day to minimize shading of seagrass. 16. Do not stockpile construction material waterward of the ordinary high water line. 17. Do not allow equipment to drive or excavation to occur on the beach (in the intertidal zone) when the work area is

Page 2 of 7 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Issued Date: July 12, 2019 Permit Number: 2019-6-287+01 Project End Date: February 15, 2023 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 17425 inundated by tidal waters. Pile driving is authorized to occur during tidal inundation. FERRY TERMINAL 18. Remove the existing pier, ramp and float and associated materials from waters of the state. Do not relocate the structure within waters of the state without written authorization from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 19. Prior to construction, re-establish the pier, ramp, and float centerline using the same methodology used to establish the centerline during the seagrass/macroalgae habitat survey. This will ensure mitigation adequately compensates for impacts to existing macroalgae. 20. The approved structure dimensions consist of: -Expanding the existing pier to include a 24 ft, 4 inch long by 8 ft wide pier extension -Addition of a 23 ft long by 15 ft, 6 inch wide pier platform -Addition of a 120 ft long by 6 ft wide gangway (ramp) -Addition of a 120 ft long by 25 ft wide float, incorporating an ADA-accessible ramp elevated over the float. -Addition of two float pile frames covering 115 square feet per each for 230 total square feet. 21. The structure must include functional grating, as shown in the approved plans. The grating material's open area must be at least forty percent. a. Grating installed parallel to the length of the pier must extend the length of the pier and cover one hundred percent of the deck area. b. The ramp must have one hundred percent of the entire deck surface covered in functional grating. c. The float must have at least fifty percent of the entire deck surface covered in functional grating. Orient grating so the lengthwise opening maximizes the amount of light penetration. Flotation must be located under the solid decked area only. d. The ADA ramp must have one hundred percent of the entire deck surface covered in functional grating. The ADA ramp may be located over functional grating on the float. This is expected to reduce light penetration through the float grating and has been included as an impact in the mitigation review 22. The bottom of the float must be at least one foot above the substrate so that the structure will not rest on the bottom. 23. Fully enclose and contain flotation for the structure in a shell (tub). The shell or wrap must prevent breakup or loss of the flotation material into the water. The shell or wrap must not be readily subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation and abrasion. 24. Do not construct skirting, including batter fencing, around piers, docks or floats. 25. Use of treated wood for decking is not authorized, but may be used for structural elements. Treated wood subject to abrasion by vessels, floats, or other objects must incorporate approved design features such as rub strips to minimize abrasion of the wood. Use of tires is not approved unless proper post-treatment for aquatic environments is performed. PILE REMOVAL, DRIVING 26. Remove the 10 existing piling and dispose of them in an upland area above extreme high tide waters unless the material is approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for reuse in the project. 27. This HPA authorizes installation of eight (8) 24-inch diameter and four (4) 12-inch diameter steel pilings. 28. Do not use wood treated with oil-type preservative (creosote, pentachlorophenol) in any hydraulic project. Wood treated with waterborne preservative chemicals (ACZA, ACQ) may be used if approved by the Western Wood Preservers Institute for use in the aquatic environment. Any use of treated wood in the aquatic environment must follow guidelines and best management practices available at www.wwpinstitute.org. 29. Incorporate features, such as steel, plastic or rubber collars, fendering or other systems to prevent or minimize the abrasion of the treated wood by floats, ramps or vessels. Do not use rubber tires for the fender system. 30. Attach rubbing strips made of ultra high molecular weight (UHMW) type plastic, or high density polyethylene

Page 3 of 7 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Issued Date: July 12, 2019 Permit Number: 2019-6-287+01 Project End Date: February 15, 2023 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 17425

(HDPE) type plastic to the replacement fender system. Do not use rubber tires for the fender system. 31. Fit all pilings with devices to prevent perching by fish-eating birds. 32. The use of both a vibratory and/or an impact hammer is authorized for piling installation under this Hydraulic Project Approval, however a vibratory driver is preferred. 33. Use appropriate sound attenuation when driving or proofing steel piling with an impact hammer. a. For driving or proofing steel piling greater than 10 inches in diameter, install a bubble curtain around the pile during piling impact driving operations that distributes air bubbles around 100% of the perimeter of the piling over the full depth of the water column. 34. If impact pile driving is used, set the drop height to the minimum needed to drive the piling. 35. To avoid attracting fish to artificial light at night, limit impact pile driving to daylight hours whenever feasible. 36. Piling removal: a. Vibratory or direct pull extraction is the preferred method of pile removal. b. Place the piling on a construction barge or other dry storage site after the piling is removed. The piling must not be shaken, hosed off, left hanging to dry or any other action intended to clean or remove adhering material from the piling near waters of the state. c. If a treated wood piling breaks during extraction, remove the stump from the water column by fully extracting. If the stump cannot be fully extracted, remove the remainder of the stump with a clamshell bucket, chain, or similar means, or cut it off three feet below the mudline. Cap all buried cut stumps and fill holes left by piling extraction with clean sediment that matches the native material. d. When removing creosote piling, containment booms and absorbent booms (or other oil absorbent fabric) must be placed around the perimeter of the work area to capture wood debris, oil, and other materials released into marine waters as a result of construction activities to remove creosote pilings. All debris on the bed and accumulated in containments structures must be collected and disposed upland at an approved disposal site. e. Submit post-project surveys (e.g., underwater video, photos at low-tide) along transects within the project area to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife within two weeks of pile removal to verify debris removal. DEMOBILIZATION/CLEANUP 37. Remove all trash and unauthorized fill in the project area, including concrete blocks or pieces, bricks, asphalt, metal, treated wood, glass, floating debris, and paper, that is waterward of the ordinary high water line and deposit upland. 38. Reshape beach area depressions created during project activities to preproject beach level upon project completion. 39. Remove all debris or deleterious material resulting from construction from the beach area or bed and prevent from entering waters of the state.

LOCATION #1: Site Name: Annapolis Ferry Terminal 1076 Beach Drive E, Port Orchard, WA 98366 WORK START: July 12, 2019 WORK END: February 15, 2023 WRIA Waterbody: Tributary to:

15 - Kitsap Wria 15 Marine Puget Sound 1/4 SEC: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County:

Page 4 of 7 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Issued Date: July 12, 2019 Permit Number: 2019-6-287+01 Project End Date: February 15, 2023 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 17425

24 24 N 01 E 47.549179 -122.616308 Kitsap

Location #1 Driving Directions

APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS

This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW. Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be necessary for this project.

This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the person (s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work.

This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass.

The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval.

Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued under RCW 77.55.021 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions, or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that changed conditions require such action. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right to appeal those decisions. Procedures for filing appeals are listed below.

Page 5 of 7 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Issued Date: July 12, 2019 Permit Number: 2019-6-287+01 Project End Date: February 15, 2023 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 17425

MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS HPA: You may request approval of minor modifications to the required work timing or to the plans and specifications approved in this HPA unless this is a General HPA. If this is a General HPA you must use the Major Modification process described below. Any approved minor modification will require issuance of a letter documenting the approval. A minor modification to the required work timing means any change to the work start or end dates of the current work season to enable project or work phase completion. Minor modifications will be approved only if spawning or incubating fish are not present within the vicinity of the project. You may request subsequent minor modifications to the required work timing. A minor modification of the plans and specifications means any changes in the materials, characteristics or construction of your project that does not alter the project's impact to fish life or habitat and does not require a change in the provisions of the HPA to mitigate the impacts of the modification. If you originally applied for your HPA through the online Aquatic Protection Permitting System (APPS), you may request a minor modification through APPS. A link to APPS is at http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/. If you did not use APPS you must submit a written request that clearly indicates you are seeking a minor modification to an existing HPA. Written requests must include the name of the applicant, the name of the authorized agent if one is acting for the applicant, the APP ID number of the HPA, the date issued, the permitting biologist, the requested changes to the HPA, the reason for the requested change, the date of the request, and the requestor's signature. Send by mail to: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234, or by email to [email protected]. You should allow up to 45 days for the department to process your request.

MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS HPA: You may request approval of major modifications to any aspect of your HPA. Any approved change other than a minor modification to your HPA will require issuance of a new HPA. If you originally applied for your HPA through the online Aquatic Protection Permitting System (APPS), you may request a major modification through APPS. A link to APPS is at http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/. If you did not use APPS you must submit a written request that clearly indicates you are requesting a major modification to an existing HPA. Written requests must include the name of the applicant, the name of the authorized agent if one is acting for the applicant, the APP ID number of the HPA, the date issued, the permitting biologist, the requested changes to the HPA, the reason for the requested change, the date of the request, and the requestor's signature. Send your written request by mail to: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234. You may email your request for a major modification to [email protected]. You should allow up to 45 days for the department to process your request.

APPEALS INFORMATION

If you wish to appeal the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends that you first contact the department employee who issued or denied the HPA to discuss your concerns. Such a discussion may resolve your concerns without the need for further appeal action. If you proceed with an appeal, you may request an informal or formal appeal. WDFW encourages you to take advantage of the informal appeal process before initiating a formal appeal. The informal appeal process includes a review by department management of the HPA or denial and often resolves issues faster and with less legal complexity than the formal appeal process. If the informal appeal process does not resolve your concerns, you may advance your appeal to the formal process. You may contact the HPA Appeals Coordinator at (360) 902-2534 for more information.

A. INFORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-660-460 is the rule describing how to request an informal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete informal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule.

Page 6 of 7 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL PO Box 43234 Olympia, WA 98504-3234 (360) 902-2200 Issued Date: July 12, 2019 Permit Number: 2019-6-287+01 Project End Date: February 15, 2023 FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A Application ID: 17425

A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request an informal appeal of that action. You must send your request to WDFW by mail to the HPA Appeals Coordinator, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234; e-mail to [email protected]; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand-delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. WDFW must receive your request within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. If you agree, and you applied for the HPA, resolution of the appeal may be facilitated through an informal conference with the WDFW employee responsible for the decision and a supervisor. If a resolution is not reached through the informal conference, or you are not the person who applied for the HPA, the HPA Appeals Coordinator or designee may conduct an informal hearing or review and recommend a decision to the Director or designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of the informal appeal, you may file a request for a formal appeal.

B. FORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-660-470 is the rule describing how to request a formal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete formal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule.

A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request a formal appeal of that action. You must send your request for a formal appeal to the clerk of the Pollution Control Hearings Boards and serve a copy on WDFW within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. You may serve WDFW by mail to the HPA Appeals Coordinator, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234; e-mail to [email protected]; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand-delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, you may request a formal appeal within 30 days from the date you receive the Director's or designee's written decision in response to the informal appeal.

C. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS: If there is no timely request for an appeal, the WDFW action shall be final and unappealable.

Habitat Biologist [email protected] for Director

Brittany Gordon 360-895-4756 WDFW

Page 7 of 7 City of Port Orchard Permit # 19-238 Extension and Original Permit

SEPA Exemption

Shoreline Determination BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD

In the Matter of the Application of ) No. LU19-SH SDP-01 ) No. LU19-SH VAR-01 ) Steffani Lillie, on behalf of Kitsap Transit ) Annapolis Ferry Dock Upgrade ) For a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, And Shoreline Variance ) AND DECISION

SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) to remove approximately 2,176 square feet of an existing float, pier, and, gangway, including 10 piles (six steel float piles and four concrete pier piles), and to construct 4,268 square feet of new float, pier, and gangway, including 12 piles, as part of the renovation of the Annapolis Ferry Dock at 1076 Beach Drive East, is APPROVED. In addition, the request for a shoreline variance (SVAR) to allow the ramp and pile dimensions to exceed allowed limits under Section 7.10 of the City of Port Orchard’s Shoreline Master Program is APPROVED. Conditions are necessary to mitigate specific project impacts and ensure compliance with federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations.

SUMMARY OF RECORD Hearing Date: The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on July 11, 2019.

Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:

Stephanie Andrews, Associate City Planner Joe Callaghan, Applicant Representative Jeff Davidson, Kitsap Transit Brad Wiggins, Deputy Fire Marshall Shawn Mahugh, GeoEngineers, Inc. Robert McGee

Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record:

1. Initial Application Materials, received March 1, 2019, including: A. Master Permit Application, dated February 28, 2019 B. Shoreline Permit Application, dated February 29, 2019

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 1 of 21

C. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form, dated November 14, 2018 D. Project Narrative, dated October 24, 2018 E. Revised Project Mitigation Summary, dated November 5, 2018 F. Legal Description G. Title Report H. Notice & Consent to Assignment of Agreement, dated October 18, 2016 I. Determination of Nonsignificance, Kitsap Transit, dated November 21, 2018 J. National Environmental Policy Act Letter, Federal Transit Administration, dated October 22, 2018 K. Site Plans (45 sheets) L. Property Report & Map 2. Transmittal Letter, dated March 5, 2019 3. Email Transmittal of Partial Application Package to Suquamish Tribe, Department of Fish & Wildlife, and Department of Ecology 4. Notice of Incomplete Application, dated March 29, 2019 5. Revised Application Materials, received April 2nd, 2019, including: A. Comment and Response Form, dated March 29, 2019 B. Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation, dated June 13, 2017 C. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Letter, Federal Transit Administration, dated September 20, 2017 D. Biological Opinion, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, dated October 4, 2018 E. Cultural Recourses Report, Lithic Analysts, dated July 2013 F. Archaeological Assessment, Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, dated August 11, 2016 G. NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion Confirmation Letter, Federal Transit Administration, dated October 22, 2018 H. Nationwide Permit 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions) Letter, Army Corps of Engineers, dated March 5, 2019 I. Revised Site Plans (46 sheets) 6. Transmittal Letter, dated April 3, 2019 7. Determination of Technical Completeness, dated April 16, 2019 8. Email from Stephanie Andrews to Joe Callaghan, dated April 24, 2019 9. Affidavit of Posting (Notice of Application), dated April 25, 2019 10. Affidavit of Mailing (Notice of Application), dated April 26, 2019 11. Email from Shawn Mahugh to Stephanie Andrews, dated May 9, 2019, with email string 12. Affidavit Publication (Notice of Application), The Port Orchard Independent, dated May 28, 2019 13. Affidavit of Mailing (Notice of Hearing), dated June 21, 2019 14. Affidavit of Posting (Notice of Hearing), dated June 21, 2019 15. Affidavit of Publication (Notice of Hearing), The Port Orchard Independent, dated June

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 2 of 21

21, 2019 16. Staff Report, dated July 11, 2019

The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing:

FINDINGS Application and Notice 1. Steffani Lillie, on behalf of Kitsap Transit (Applicant), requests approval of an SSDP to remove approximately 2,176 square feet of an existing float, pier, and gangway, including 10 piles (six steel float piles and four concrete pier piles), and to construct approximately 4,268 square feet of new float, pier, and gangway, including 12 piles, as part of the renovation of the Annapolis Ferry Dock facility. The new float, pier, and gangway would involve a net increase of new overwater structures of approximately 2,108 square feet. The new facility would be built to meet accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and would provide ADA access to the float throughout the tidal range. To mitigate for project impacts, the Applicant would remove 2,108 square feet of intertidal debris and enhance 8,600 square feet of riparian shoreline adjacent to the project site. The Applicant also requests an SVAR to allow the ramp and pile dimensions to exceed limits allowed under Section 7.10 of the City of Port Orchard’s Shoreline Master Program. The project is located at 1076 Beach Drive East, adjacent to the Kitsap Transit park-and-ride lot.1 Exhibit 1.A; Exhibit 1.B; Exhibit 1.K; Exhibit 16, Staff Report, page 1.

2. The City of Port Orchard (City) determined the application was complete on April 16, 2019. On April 25, 2019, the City posted notice of the application at the project site. The next day, the City mailed or emailed notice of the application to owners of surrounding property, interested parties, and reviewing government departments and agencies, in accord with City ordinances. On April 26, 2019, the City published notice of the application in the Port Orchard Independent. On June 21, 2019, the City published notice of the open record hearing associated with the application in the Port Orchard Independent and posted and mailed notice of the hearing. The City did not receive any public comments in response to its notice materials. Exhibit 7; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 13; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 16, Staff Report, pages 2 and 10.

State Environmental Policy Act 3. Kitsap Transit acted as lead agency and analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposal, as required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C

1 The property is identified as tax assessor parcel No. 4689-004-004-0008. Exhibit 16, Staff Report, page 1. A legal description of the property is included with the initial application materials. Exhibit 1.F.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 3 of 21

Revised Code of Washington (RCW).2 Kitsap Transit reviewed available information, including a determination by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that the proposal would qualify as a “Documented Categorical Exclusion” (DCE) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and an “Incidental Harassment Authorization” and a “Biological Opinion” (BiOp) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and determined the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Accordingly, Kitsap Transit issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposal on November 21, 2018, with a comment deadline of December 5, 2018. The DNS was not appealed. Exhibit 1.I; Exhibit 1.J; Exhibit 5.B; Exhibit 5.C; Exhibit 5.D; Exhibit 16, Staff Report, page 10.

Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 4. The property is designated Public and Community Spaces under the City’s Comprehensive Plan. City staff analyzed the proposal and determined that it would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The property is zoned for Public Facilities (PF). The intent of the PF district is to provide for public facility uses that serve the City and which may not readily assimilate into other zoning districts. Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) 20.37.030. The PF district is intended to accommodate buildings of a public nature, such as police, fire, or EMS stations and government offices. POMC 20.37.030. Civic uses, including any “building, structure, or use owned and operated by the federal government, state, county, the city, port, utility district, or other municipality, or any authority, agency, board, or commission of the above governments that is necessary to serve a public purpose” are permitted in the PF zoning district under POMC 20.39.240(6). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2.

Existing Property 5. The existing project site is operated as a passenger-only ferry terminal and also provides water access for recreation, including fishing. The upland portion of the site includes a gazebo located at the south end of the dock and a parking lot in the southeastern portion of the site. A gravel walkway and vegetated strip are located between the parking lot and the shoreline. Vegetation includes lawn grasses with native and ornamental tree and shrub species. Invasive species along the shoreline include Himalayan blackberry and English ivy. Beach Drive borders the property to the south, along with Retsil Veterans Home and other residences. There is a wastewater treatment plant southeast of the

2 The first agency receiving an application for, or initiating, a nonexempt proposal must determine the lead agency for that proposal, unless the lead agency has been previously determined, or the agency receiving the proposal is aware that another agency is determining the lead agency. The lead agency is determined by using the criteria in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-926 through 197-11-944. WAC 197-11-924(1). When an agency initiates a proposal, it is the lead agency for that proposal. WAC 197-11- 926(1).

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 4 of 21

project site. Areas to the west are developed with residential and commercial buildings. Sinclair Inlet borders the property to the north and east. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2.

6. Existing structures on the subject property include a 500-foot-long concrete pier, a metal gangway that spans 30 feet overwater, and a 40-foot-long concrete float. These structures occupy a total of 5,360 square feet of overwater coverage. Macroalgae species including Turkish towel, red algae, and sea lettuce were observed as a continuous east- west oriented band in the vicinity of the project. No eelgrass (Zostera marina), however, was observed within the project area. Sub-tidal substrate consists primarily of sand with shell fragments and silt. Intertidal substrate range from silt and sand to large boulders and hard-pan, with large amounts of angular rock and areas of concrete debris. The upland interface is armored with additional angular rock and concrete debris. Exhibit 16, Staff Report, page 2.

Shoreline Management Act Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 7. The proposal is within the City’s shoreline jurisdiction and therefore subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), Chapter 90.58 RCW, and the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Port Orchard SMP; RCW 90.58.030(2)(f). The primary goal of the SMA is to protect the public interest in the state’s shorelines through a coordinated development process. One purpose of the SMA is to protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, vegetation, wildlife, and waters, and preserving the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the natural shoreline to the greatest extent feasible. Permitted uses in the shoreline must be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and to minimize any interference with the public’s use of the water. RCW 90.58.020. The City’s SMP is intended to carry out the City’s responsibilities under the SMA; promote uses and development of the City’s shoreline consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, while protecting and restoring environmental resources; and promote the health, safety, and general welfare by providing a guideline and regulation for future development of the City’s shoreline resources. City SMP, Part I, Introduction, § 1.2, at 11. Exhibit 16, Staff Report, page 4.

8. Any “substantial development” within the shoreline requires approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Substantial development is any development in which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $7,047, or any development that materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state.3 RCW

3 Development includes construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of pilings; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature that interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this chapter at any state of water level. RCW 90.58.030(3)(a).

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 5 of 21

90.58.030(3)(e). The proposed project is within 200 feet of Sinclair Inlet and would cost more to develop than $7,047. Exhibit 16, Staff Report, page 8.

9. The City identified the proposed project area as within the “High-Intensity” shoreline environment. The purpose of the High-Intensity environment is to provide for high- intensity water-oriented commercial, mixed-use, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions. SMP, Sec. 4.3.1. Sinclair Inlet is designated an “Aquatic” shoreline environment. The purpose of the Aquatic environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. SMP, Sec. 4.7.1. Water-dependent and water-related transportation facilities, boating facilities (including public marinas), and accessory parking facilities, are permitted in the High-Intensity environment. SMP, Sec. 7.1. Exhibit 16, Staff Report, page 2.

10. Sinclair Inlet, the body of water the proposed project would border, is designated a shoreline of statewide significance. All development within shorelines of statewide significance must: (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. RCW 90.58.020. SMP, Sec. 1.5.

11. The master goal for the City SMP is to plan for shoreline uses that enhance, promote, and protect the balance between the sensitive ecology of the city’s shoreline and its urban development. SMP, Sec. 5.1. The City SMP sets out a number of other goals. From these, City staff identified as relevant those goals directed at:  Public Access. Including enhancing public access to city shorelines, preserving views of the water while maintaining safety and respect for adjacent private property, and providing the general public the ability to reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge as well as to travel on the waters of the state.  Recreation. Including improving and maintaining the publicly owned shorelines dedicated to public recreation and develop their potential for visitors and citizens while recognizing the importance of existing park, trail and recreation areas.  Transportation. Including achieving safe, convenient, and diversified circulation systems to provide public access to the shoreline, efficient movement of people and goods, with minimum disruption to the shoreline environment and minimum conflict among shoreline uses and between shoreline users and abutting upland areas, while maintaining vital shoreline road and ferry links.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 6 of 21

 Shoreline Use. Including coordinating the regulation for a variety of shoreline uses that result in long-term rather than short-term benefits.  Conservation. Including preserving, protecting, and restoring shoreline vegetation and wetlands, as practical, to optimize the support of wild, botanic, and aquatic life, as it exists today, with the goal of achieving no net loss of ecological function. SMP Secs. 5.3 through 5.7. Exhibit 16 Staff Report, pages 4 and 5.

12. The SMP also stresses that critical saltwater habitats provide important ecological functions and, therefore, require a higher level of protection. Although Sinclair Inlet does not have known kelp or eelgrass beds, it does have spawning and holding areas for forage fish such as smelt and sandlance, as well as migratory routes for salmon. City staff identified several management policies applicable to critical saltwater habitats, including: ensuring all development within areas identified as critical saltwater habitats for anadromous fish habitat complies with state and federal regulations (Policy SMP-GP-7); allowing for the repair and reconstruction of existing legal structures and facilities within critical saltwater habitats provided that adverse impacts are mitigated to encourage no net loss of ecological function (Policy SMP-GP-8); and ensuring development protects, enhances, and potentially restores habitat areas when proposed on property that includes tidelands or submerged land designated as critical saltwater habitat (Policy SMP-GP-9). The Applicant provided information addressing these policies and noted that the project would follow local, state, and federal mitigation sequencing and would be consistent with the SMP’s management policies for critical saltwater habitats. In addition, locating the proposed float further into subtidal areas would minimize impacts to critical nearshore habitats and the use of grated decking on the replaced portion of the pier, ramp, and float would minimize impacts from shading. Unavoidable impacts would be mitigated by the proposed restoration of intertidal and shoreline riparian habitats at the site. Exhibit 1.C; Exhibit 1.D; Exhibit 1.E; Exhibit 5.B; Exhibit 16, Staff Report, pages 4 and 5.

13. Development Regulation G-DR-5 dictates that structures, development, and uses, including marinas, docks, piers, and mooring areas, may not be built over critical saltwater habitat unless the applicant can demonstrate that: (a) an alternative alignment or location is not feasible; (b) the project is designed to minimize its impacts on critical saltwater habitats and the shoreline environment; (c) impacts to critical saltwater habitat functions can be mitigated to result in equal or better ecological function; and (d) the facility is a public facility and is in the public interest. The Applicant provided a response addressing these issues, in detail, specifically noting:  The existing alignment and location of the facility would be maintained. The float would be extended into deeper water on the same alignment as the current structure. An alternative alignment would generate additional new impacts beyond those described in the project permitting documents. Also, the current alignment is oriented in a north-south fashion. This orientation minimizes the

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 7 of 21

effects of hard shadows on benthic habitat and can reduce effects of shading on submerged aquatic vegetation.  The project includes impact minimization measures including the use of grated decking; relocation of the float to deeper water; lighting modification; maintaining the existing north-south orientation; and construction within the approved in-water work window. The replaced portions of the pier and ramp would contain grated decking with a minimum of 60 percent light transmission. The float would be constructed with grated decking with 60 percent light transmission over 50 percent of the deck surface. By increasing light transmission through the decking as compared to baseline conditions, the project would reduce the avoidance response of juvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and other salmonids due to less shading under the structure. Additional light transmission would also increase juvenile salmonid feeding response and maintain greater prey abundance.  The new float would be located in deeper water than the existing float. Placing the float in deeper waters is expected to have the following beneficial effects: minimizing impacts to substrate and marine flora/fauna from prop scour during docking and departure; preventing the new float from grounding during extreme low tides; minimizing impacts to juvenile Chinook and other salmonids; minimizing shading impacts to existing macroalgae communities; and improving ferry navigation at lower tides.  Artificial light can attract predators of juvenile salmonids and alter the feeding, migration and other behavioral patterns of juvenile salmonids. A minimum number of new lights would be required to maintain safety of the structure. New lights would be equipped with shrouds or other light reduction mechanisms to minimize the amount of artificial light cast onto the water at night. The north- south orientation of the existing structure would be retained to reduce the duration of sustained shading on the marine substrate and associated macroalgae. This orientation minimizes the effects of hard shadows on benthic habitat and can reduce effects of shading on submerged aquatic vegetation.  In-water work would be completed within the approved in-water work period for Endangered Species to minimize impacts to juvenile salmonids and other marine species.  Project impacts would be mitigated through several project actions, including structure removal, shoreline restoration, and intertidal debris removal. The project would remove 2,160 square feet of existing solid-surface float and pier and approximately 10 piles (six steel float piles and four concrete pier piles). Invasive and non-native shrub and vine species would be removed from the 8,600 square foot riparian strip between the walkway and the shoreline. This area would be replanted with native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species. Native tree species would also include coniferous species to provide shade on the shoreline throughout the year once the trees have matured. This would improve

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 8 of 21

opportunities for forage fish spawning. The goal of the intertidal debris removal is to mitigate at as close to a 1:1 ratio for the net increase in overwater coverage as possible by removing approximately 2,322 square feet of artificial debris from the site. An initial survey conducted on February 22, 2017, revealed that there is likely sufficient material to meet or exceed this goal. Kitsap Transit is dedicated to improving the intertidal and shoreline conditions of the site. However, if the debris removal comes close to this goal after removing the available debris and is not able to fully achieve 2,322 square feet of debris removal, the remaining mitigation need would be accounted for through the approximately 8,600 square feet of shoreline enhancement plantings.  The facility is a mixed-use public facility. Public uses include the ferry dock, fishing access and general water access. Exhibit 1.C; Exhibit 1.D; Exhibit 1.E; Exhibit 5.B; Exhibit 16, Staff Report, pages 4 and 5.

14. Development Regulation G-DR-7 provides that, except as a habitat improvement or restoration measure, aquatic herbicide treatments, mechanical removal of vegetation and aquatic pesticide treatments may not be used on critical saltwater habitats and that use of such treatments is to be discouraged. Development Regulation G-DR-8 provides that sand, gravel, or other materials may neither be added nor removed from critical saltwater habitats except as part of an approved restoration project. The Applicant provided information addressing both of these regulations, noting that vegetation removal would be conducted as habitat restoration of the shoreline and that invasive and non•native shrub and vine species would be removed from the riparian strip between the walkway and the shoreline, consistent with SMP requirements, and replanted with native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species. The project would not remove sand and gravel. The intertidal zone in the vicinity of Annapolis Dock contains artificial debris primarily composed of angular riprap and concrete. This debris covers potential forage fish spawning habitat located in the upper intertidal area and extends down the shoreline into lower intertidal areas. An additional mitigation measure would include removal of the debris from the intertidal zone with a primary focus of removing debris to improve opportunities for forage fish spawning. Debris removal would also be conducted lower on the beach and would require the use of heavy equipment, such as an excavator, to remove the angular rock, concrete, and other artificial debris. Exhibit 1.C; Exhibit 1.D; Exhibit 1.E; Exhibit 5.B; Exhibit 16, Staff Report, pages 4 and 5.

15. Chapter 7.10 of the SMP includes several management policies and development regulations specifically related to moorage facilities, including docks, piers, and mooring buoys. These regulations, including responses provided by the Applicant, are summarized below:

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 9 of 21

 SMP-SU-37. Docks, piers and mooring buoys, including those accessory to single family residences, should avoid locations where they will adversely impact shoreline ecological functions or processes, including currents and littoral drift. Applicant Response: The proposed upgrades will occur 380 feet from the shoreline in subtidal habitat. Removal of intertidal debris and installation of native shoreline vegetation will restore more natural shoreline processes along the shoreline of the project area.  SMP-SU-38. Moorage should be spaced and oriented in a manner that minimizes hazards and obstructions to public navigation rights and corollary rights thereto such as, but not limited to, fishing, swimming and pleasure boating, as well as private riparian rights of adjacent land owners. Applicant Response: By maintaining the existing north-south alignment, the project will not create a new hazard or obstruction to navigation or rights of private land owners.  SMP-SU-39. Moorage should be restricted to the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed use. The length, width and height of piers and docks should be no greater than that required for safety and practicality for the primary use. Applicant Response: The proposed float is the minimum size necessary to meet ADA requirements and the needs of Kitsap Transits passenger ferry service while maintaining mixed-use fishing and water viewing recreation uses.

 SMP-SU-40. Pile supports are preferred over floats because piles do not displace water surface and intertidal or aquatic habitat and are removable and thus more flexible in terms of long-term use patterns. Floats may be less desirable than pile structures where aquatic habitat or littoral drift are significant. Applicant Response: The pier is supported by piles. However, the proposed float is required for operation of the ferry service.

 SMP-SU-43. Vessels should be restricted from extended mooring on waters of the state unless authorization is obtained from the DNR and impacts to navigation and public access are mitigated. Applicant Response: No changes to vessel moorage are proposed as part of the ferry dock upgrade project.

 SMP-SU-44. Piers and docks should be constructed of materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals in the long term.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 10 of 21

Applicant Response: Steel pipe piles and grated decking are proposed to avoid water quality impacts and minimize adverse impacts to aquatic plants and animals.

 SU-DR-39. No creosote, chromate copper arsenate, or pentachlorophenol treated wood, or other comparably toxic compounds may be used as part of the in-water decking, pilings, or other components of any structures such as docks, wharves, piers, marinas, rafts, floats or terminals. Treated wood may only be used for above water structural framing and is discouraged to be used as decking, pilings, etc. During maintenance, existing treated wood should be replaced with alternative non-toxic materials. Applicant Response: These materials will not be used.

 SU-DR-40. Tires are prohibited as part of above or below water structures or where tires could potentially come in contact with the water. Existing tires used for floatation should be replaced with inert or encapsulated materials such as plastic or encased foam, during maintenance or repair of the structure. Applicant Response: Tires will not be used.

 SU-DR-41. All foam material must be encapsulated within a shelf that prevents breakup or loss of the foam material into the water and is not readily subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation or abrasion. During maintenance, existing un- encapsulated foam material should be removed or replaced. Applicant Response: Foam materials will not be used.

 SU-DR-42. To prevent prop scour, boat mooring areas for new docks, marinas, shipyards and terminals, mooring buoys, rafts and floats should be located where the water will be deeper than 2 meters (7 feet) at the lowest low water, or where it can be shown that prop scour will not adversely impact aquatic vegetation or increase suspended sediment loads. Applicant Response: The proposed float will be located in deeper water than the existing float to minimize the potential for prop scour. At a depth of -3 feet of the mean lower low water (MLLW) tide, the float will be in waters deeper than 2 meters.

 SU-DR-43. The design, location, and construction of docks, floats, and piers, as well as their subsequent use, should minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife, water quality, and geohydraulic processes. Applicant Response: The north-south orientation of the existing structure will be retained to reduce the duration of sustained shading on the marine substrate and

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 11 of 21

associated macroalgae. This orientation minimizes the effects of hard shadows on benthic habitat and can reduce effects of shading on submerged aquatic vegetation.

 SU-DR-44. Docks, piers, and floats should be designed, located and operated to minimize interference with adjacent water uses. The maximum length of a pier or dock should be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage. Applicant Response: The proposed float is the minimum size necessary to meet ADA requirements and the needs of Kitsap Transit’s passenger ferry service while maintaining mixed-use fishing and water viewing recreation uses. Exhibit 16, Staff Report, pages 7 and 8.

Shoreline Variance 16. As noted above, the Applicant is requesting an SVAR because the ramp and pile dimensions of the replacement structure would exceed allowed limits under Section 7.10 of the City SMP. The SMP provides six criteria that must be met for an upland variance to be granted. City SMP, Section 8.7.2.1. City staff identified the proposal for consistency with these criteria and determined that each would be met. The criteria, along with staff’s analysis, are summarized below:

 That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property. City Response: The proposed improvements that have warranted the variance request are the minimum necessary to allow construction of the ramps, floats, and associated pilings. The structure is designed to serve a large population, not just for the residents of the City of Port Orchard.

 That the hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s own actions.

City Response: The Annapolis pier/ramp/float was originally constructed in 1970. The current construction of the facility is too shallow during extreme low tidal events to provide functionality and accessibility for those persons that cannot traverse the steep ramp. The extension of the pier and floats further into Sinclair Inlet will allow the facility to reach depths that are suitable for passengers of the ferry system.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 12 of 21

 That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment.

City Response: The Annapolis Dock is an existing public facility that serves the residents of the City of Port Orchard and Kitsap County as part of the public transportation system, and the proposed upgrades will make the facility more usable to the public and have greater environmental benefits than the current condition.

 That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area.

City Response: This project will improve and enhance public access, and as such will not constitute a "grant of special privilege" to any one particular user group other than the general public.

 That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief. City Response: The facility has been designed and engineered to provide the minimum bulk and dimensional standards necessary to construct a facility that provides the public with a safe, functional transit system that is usable during tidal events.

 That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. City Response: The public interest will benefit from the project by providing increased accessibility to all passengers of the Kitsap Transit transportation system. Exhibit 16, Staff Report, pages 8 and 9.

17. The SMP also has two additional criteria that must be met for overwater variances: that the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; and that the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the proposal. City SMP, Section 8.7.2.2. The Applicant provided information responding to these criteria, noting:  The upgraded features include a fully grated replaced portion of the pier and a fully grated gangway with a clear walking path five feet in width to accommodate movement in both directions on the ramp. This is necessary to allow ferry passengers and recreational users to move in both directions simultaneously and to improve ADA accessibility on the ramp. The proposed float will be located in deeper water to prevent grounding and minimize prop scour. The float will

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 13 of 21

require eight 24-inch-diameter piles to provide a more stable and safer ADA accessible berth for year-round use.

 The Annapolis Ferry Dock is, and will remain to be, a mixed-use public facility that provides passenger-only ferry service to Bremerton as well as fishing and other water-based recreational opportunities. The proposed upgrades will improve the safety of the facility and provide ADA accessibility on the proposed gangway and float. The proposed float is larger than the existing float and will be in deeper water; but will not adversely affect public navigation in the area because Sinclair Inlet is approximately one mile wide in the vicinity of the dock. Shoreline and intertidal restoration will enhance the environmental conditions at the site and will not adversely affect public use of the shoreline. Exhibit 1.C; Exhibit 1.D; Exhibit 1.E; Exhibit 5.B; Exhibit 16, Staff Report, pages 9 and 10.

Testimony 18. City Associate Planner Stephanie Andrews testified generally about the application, the history of the site, and how City staff reviewed the proposal for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinances, and the City’s Shoreline Master Program. She stressed that the proposal would enhance public access to the shoreline, especially by providing ADA-access to the facility, that a similar request was granted to improve the DeKalb Street Pedestrian Pier in 2016, and that the project would meet the requirements for protecting Sinclair Inlet, a shoreline of statewide significance. Ms. Andrews noted that the project has undergone extensive review by other agencies. This includes review by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Washington State Department of Archeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and review by the Suquamish Tribe. Ms. Andrews testified that the Applicant would be required to comply with all recommendations and requirements of these reviewing entities. Testimony of Ms. Andrews.

19. Applicant Representative Joe Callaghan testified that the Applicant agrees with the City’s assessment of the proposal. He provided further detail on the environmental review that occurred, including review under NEPA, and explained that the Applicant has already obtained a Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Corps for work that would occur, and that necessary lease agreements with DNS have been obtained. Mr. Callaghan also explained that the Applicant would perform extensive mitigation as part of the proposal to ensure that it has a net ecological benefit on the shoreline. Testimony of Mr. Callaghan.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 14 of 21

20. Robert McGee testified that he owns property adjacent to the proposal. He inquired about several project details, including: the scope of the work; whether the vessels serving the site would also be ADA-compliant; potential parking impacts; how mitigation would work; whether the bulkhead associated with the facility would be replaced; and whether appropriate fire protection would be provided for the facility. Testimony of Mr. McGee.

21. Jeff Davidson, of Kitsap Transit, responded to Mr. McGee’s testimony. He noted that the updated facility would provide safer docking of vessels in rough water; that the vessels serving the facility (including the Carlisle II and the Admiral Pete) have ADA-accessible facilities on board; that it would be possible to dock larger vessels at the new facility but there are no current plans to do so; Kitsap Transit intends on expanding its park-and-ride facilities in the vicinity to ensure adequate parking serves the site; ferry employees would be trained to ensure the new facility operates smoothly, including ensuring safe ingress and egress of those with disabilities; and there are no current plans to replace the bulkhead. Testimony of Mr. Davidson.

22. Shawn Mahugh, of GeoEngineers, Inc., provided additional information on the mitigation proposal in response to Mr. McGee’s testimony. Testimony of Mr. Mahugh.

23. Deputy Fire Marshall Brad Wiggins testified that appropriate fire protection facilities would be required but that any such requirements would not have major design impacts on the proposal. Testimony of Mr. Wiggins.

Staff Recommendation 24. City staff reviewed the application and determined that the proposal is consistent with the City SMP, the City Comprehensive Plan, the Port Orchard Municipal Code, and all other applicable City and state regulations. Ms. Andrews testified that City staff recommends approval of the SSDP and SVAR, and would support a condition of approval requiring that the Applicant comply with all recommendations and requirements of other reviewing departments and agencies. Mr. Callaghan testified that the Applicant would comply with all such recommendations. Exhibit 16, Staff Report, page 10; Testimony of Ms. Andrews; Testimony of Mr. Callaghan.

CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold a hearing on shoreline substantial development permits and shoreline variance applications. Based on the evidence in the record, the Hearing Examiner may grant, modify and grant, or deny the applications. Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) 2.76.080; POMC 2.76.100, -.110.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 15 of 21

Criteria for Review Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW The policies underlying the SMA are codified at RCW 90.58.020. Applicable policies include those to foster “all reasonable and appropriate uses” and protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, vegetation, and wildlife. Permitted shoreline uses must be designed to “minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public’s use of the water.” RCW 90.58.020.

In promulgating the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, the legislature recognized that “ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development” of the state’s shorelines.” RCW 90.58.020. The legislature also determined that “unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest.” RCW 90.58.020. Accordingly, the Shoreline Management Act requires local governments to develop a master program to regulate shoreline uses consistent with its guidelines. RCW 90.58.080(1).

Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Substantial development permits (“SSDPs”) are required for all developments (unless specifically exempt) that meet the legal definition of “substantial development.” SSDPs are reviewed and processed by local governments and subsequently sent to the Department of Ecology (DOE) for filing. Under WAC 173-27-150, substantial development permits cannot be approved unless they are consistent with policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act, DOE rules, and the local master program. Local government may condition the approval of permits if needed to ensure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. “Substantial development” shall mean any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds the amount currently established and in effect per WAC 173-27-040(2)(a) or its successor, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. City SMP, Sec. 8.5.

The Applicant has the burden of proof to establish that the development is consistent with the SMA, the SMP, and any other applicable City policies and regulations. Upon consideration of the evidence offered at the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a decision containing findings of fact and conclusions describing the manner in which the decision is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the SMA, and the SMP. POMC 2.76.090; POMC 2.76.110(3).

The Department of Ecology shoreline regulations are located in Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 173-26 WAC sets forth procedures and guidelines for local adoption of shoreline master programs that are not applicable to the Applicant’s permit request. Chapter 173-27 WAC sets forth permitting procedures and permit criteria. The Hearing Examiner reviews the application under the following criteria: (1) A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with:

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 16 of 21

(a) The policies and procedures of the act; (b) The provisions of this regulation; and (c) The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Provided, that where no master program has been approved for an area, the development shall be reviewed for consistency with the provisions of chapter 173-26 WAC, and to the extent feasible, any draft or approved master program which can be reasonably ascertained as representing the policy of the local government. (2) Local government may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. WAC 173-27-150.

Thus, the Hearing Examiner must review the application in light of the goals and policies found in the SMA and the City’s SMP.

Shoreline Variances Development that requires a shoreline variance must demonstrate that the development meets all of the criteria below: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; 2. That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. 3. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; 4. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; 5. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and 6. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. City SMP, Sec. 8.7.2.1

Overwater variances may be granted provided that they meet criteria 2 through 6 in Sec. 8.7.2.1 above, as well as the following: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; 2. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. City SMP, Sec. 8.7.2.2.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 17 of 21

The criteria for review adopted by the Port Orchard City Council are designed to implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to ensure consistency with City development regulations considering the type of land use, the level of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040.

Conclusions Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 1. The proposal would be consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. Applicable policies of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) include those to foster all reasonable and appropriate uses, protect against adverse effects to the public health and to the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and give priority to single-family residences and appurtenant structures in authorizing alterations to the natural condition of the shoreline. Permitted shoreline uses must be designed to “minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public’s use of the water.” RCW 90.58.020. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the SMA because the proposed project would not interfere with the public’s use of the water or result in damage to the ecology or environment of the shoreline area. To mitigate for project impacts, the Applicant would remove 2,108 square feet of intertidal debris and enhance 8,600 square feet of riparian shoreline adjacent to the project site. In addition, the proposed project would enhance public and recreational access to Sinclair Inlet, including ADA-access to the regional ferry system. The proposal would be consistent with Chapter 173-27 WAC and the SMA implementing regulations.

The proposal has undergone extensive review by other agencies. This includes review by the Federal Transit Administration, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the Washington State Department of Archeology & Historic Preservation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and review by the Suquamish Tribe. The Applicant would comply with all requirements and recommendations of these reviewing entities.

The Applicant provided reasonable notice of its Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under SEPA, and the DNS was not appealed. The City provided reasonable public notice of the application and the associated open record hearing. The City received no public comments in response to its notice materials and the Applicant and its representatives responded to public testimony received at the open record hearing. Findings 1 – 24.

2. The proposal would be consistent with applicable City permit regulations. Civic uses, including any “building, structure, or use owned and operated by the federal

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 18 of 21

government, state, county, the city, port, utility district, or other municipality, or any authority, agency, board, or commission of the above governments that is necessary to serve a public purpose” are permitted in the PF zoning district under POMC 20.39.240(6). The Applicant would also obtain all other necessary local, state, and federal permits in advance of construction. Findings 1 – 24.

3. With conditions, the proposal would be consistent with the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The project would be constructed within the City SMA jurisdiction with a total value that requires an SSDP under the SMA. The City provided reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposal. The City identified the proposed project area as within the “High-Intensity” shoreline environment. The purpose of the High-Intensity environment is to provide for high-intensity water-oriented commercial, mixed-use, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions. SMP, Sec. 4.3.1. Sinclair Inlet is designated an “Aquatic” shoreline environment. The purpose of the Aquatic environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. SMP, Sec. 4.7.1. Water-dependent and water-related transportation facilities, boating facilities (including public marinas), and accessory parking facilities, are permitted in the High-Intensity environment

The SMP stresses that critical saltwater habitats provide important ecological functions and, therefore, require a higher level of protection. Although Sinclair Inlet does not have known kelp or eelgrass beds, it does have spawning and holding areas for forage fish such as smelt and sandlance, as well as migratory routes for salmon. City staff identified several management policies applicable to critical saltwater habitats, including: ensuring all development within areas identified as critical saltwater habitats for anadromous fish habitat complies with state and federal regulations (Policy SMP-GP-7); allowing for the repair and reconstruction of existing legal structures and facilities within critical saltwater habitats provided that adverse impacts are mitigated to encourage no net loss of ecological function (Policy SMP-GP-8); and ensuring development protects, enhances, and potentially restores habitat areas when proposed on property that includes tidelands or submerged land designated as critical saltwater habitat (Policy SMP-GP-9). The project would follow local, state, and federal mitigation sequencing and would be consistent with the SMP’s management policies for critical saltwater habitats. In addition, locating the proposed float further into subtidal areas would minimize impacts to critical nearshore habitats and the use of grated decking on the replaced portion of the pier, ramp, and float would minimize impacts from shading. Unavoidable impacts would be mitigated by the proposed restoration of intertidal and shoreline riparian habitats at the site. The City also reviewed the proposal for consistency with specific development regulations and management policies applicable to saltwater habitats and moorage facilities, including docks and piers, and determined the proposal would be consistent with these policies and regulations.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 19 of 21

Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant complies with all recommendations and requirements of other reviewing government departments and agencies and that construction does not begin until 21 days from the date of filing with the Department of Ecology, per WAC 173-27-190. Findings 1 – 24.

Shoreline Variance 4. With conditions, the proposal would meet the criteria for a Shoreline Variance under Section 8.7.2 of the Shoreline Master Program. The proposed improvements that have warranted the variance request are the minimum necessary to allow construction of the ramps, floats, and associated pilings. The structure is designed to serve a large population, not just for the residents of the City of Port Orchard. The Annapolis pier/ramp/float was originally constructed in 1970 and the current construction of the facility is too shallow during extreme low tidal events to provide functionality and accessibility for those persons that cannot traverse the steep ramp. The extension of the pier and floats further into Sinclair Inlet will allow the facility to reach depths that are suitable for passengers of the ferry system. The Annapolis Dock is an existing public facility that serves the residents of the City of Port Orchard and Kitsap County as part of the public transportation system, and the proposed upgrades will make the facility more usable to the public and have greater environmental benefits than the current condition. The project will improve and enhance public access, and as such will not constitute a “grant of special privilege” to any one particular user group other than the general public. The facility has been designed and engineered to provide the minimum bulk and dimensional standards necessary to construct a facility that provides the public with a safe, functional transit system that is usable during tidal events; and the public interest will benefit from the project by providing increased accessibility to all passengers of the Kitsap Transit transportation system.

The SMP also has two additional criteria that must be met for overwater variances: that the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; and that the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the proposal. City SMP, Section 8.7.2.2. These criteria would be met because: the upgraded features include a fully grated replaced portion of the pier and a fully grated gangway with a clear walking path five feet in width to accommodate movement in both directions on the ramp, which is necessary to allow ferry passengers and recreational users to move in both directions simultaneously and to improve ADA-accessibility on the ramp; the proposed float will be located in deeper water to prevent grounding and minimize prop scour; the float will require eight 24-inch-diameter piles to provide a more stable and safer ADA accessible berth for year-round use; the Annapolis Ferry Dock is, and will remain to be, a mixed-use public facility that provides passenger-only ferry service to Bremerton as well as fishing and other water-based recreational opportunities; the

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 20 of 21

proposed float is larger than the existing float and will be in deeper water, but will not adversely affect public navigation in the area because Sinclair Inlet is approximately one mile wide in the vicinity of the dock; and shoreline and intertidal restoration will enhance the environmental conditions at the site and will not adversely affect public use of the shoreline.

Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant complies with all recommendations and requirements of other reviewing government departments and agencies and that construction does not begin until 21 days from the date of filing with the Department of Ecology, per WAC 173-27-190. Findings 1 – 24.

DECISION Based on the above findings and conclusions, the request for a shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) to remove approximately 2,176 square feet of an existing float, pier, and, gangway, including 10 piles (six steel float piles and four concrete pier piles), and to construct 4,268 square feet of new float, pier, and gangway, including 12 piles, as part of the renovation of the Annapolis Ferry Dock at 1076 Beach Drive East, is APPROVED. In addition, the request for a shoreline variance (SVAR) to allow the ramp and pile dimensions to exceed allowed limits under Section 7.10 of the City of Port Orchard’s Shoreline Master Program is APPROVED. These approvals are subject to the following conditions:

1. Construction pursuant to this permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty- one (21) days from the date of filing with the Department of Ecology, per WAC 173-27- 190.

2. The Applicant shall comply with all the requirements and recommendations of other reviewing government departments and agencies.

DECIDED this 25th day of July 2019.

ANDREW M. REEVES Hearing Examiner Sound Law Center

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner Kitsap Transit SSDP and SVAR Nos. LU19-SH SDP-01; No. LU19-SH VAR-01

Page 21 of 21

WDNR

Placeholder