In Reply Refer To: 13410-2008-F-0160
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 In Reply Refer To: 13410-2008-F-0160 Mr. Daniel Mathis Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration - Washington Division 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza Olympia, Washington 98501-1284 Attn:Wendy McAbee Dear Mr. Mathis: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the proposed Manette Bridge Replacement Project, in Kitsap County, Washington, and its effects on the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your request for initiation of formal consultation, dated January 24, 2008, was received in our office on January 25, 2008. The request included information supporting a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for the marbled murrelet and a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for the bull trout. We concur with these effect determinations. We subsequently received additional information via submittals from your office on April 30, 2008, November 4, 2008, and April 13, 2009. At that point, we determined that the information required to initiate formal consultation on the project was adequate. On May 7, 2009, we sent your office a letter noting that we were initiating formal consultation as of April 13, 2009. The proposed project involves replacement of the structurally deficient, and functionally obsolete, Manette Bridge over the Port Washington Narrows in Bremerton. A new concrete bridge will be built parallel to, and just south of, the existing bridge, with roadway connections to existing city street intersections. Daniel Mathis 2 The enclosed Opinion addresses the proposed action’s adverse effects to the marbled murrelet and includes mandatory terms and conditions intended to minimize certain adverse effects. If you have any questions regarding the Opinion or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, please contact Brooke Hamilton at (360) 753-9073 or Emily Teachout at (360) 753- 9583, of my staff. Sincerely, Ken S. Berg, Manager Washington Fish and Wildlife Office cc: WSDOT, Olympic Region, Olympia, WA (C. Ward) WSDOT, Olympic Region, Olympia, WA (J. Sawyer) WSDOT, ESO, Olympia, WA (P. Wagner) NOAA, Sand Point, WA (M. Grady) Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation BIOLOGICAL OPINION USFWS Log # 13410-2008-F-0160 Manette Bridge Replacement Project Kitsap County, Washington Agency: Federal Highway Administration Olympia, Washington Ken S. Berg, Manager Date Washington Fish and Wildlife Office TABLE OF CONTENTS CONSULTATION HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 1 CONCURRENCE....................................................................................................................... 3 BIOLOGICAL OPINION............................................................................................................... 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................... 3 Jeopardy Determination............................................................................................................ 10 STATUS OF THE SPECIES (range wide)................................................................................... 11 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE (in the action area) ................................................................ 11 Existing Conditions: Setting .................................................................................................... 11 Status of the Marbled Murrelet (in the action area).................................................................. 13 Conservation Needs of the Marbled Murrelet in the Action Area........................................ 13 Likelihood of Species Presence in the Action Area.............................................................. 14 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................. 18 Direct Effects ............................................................................................................................ 19 Effects of Benthic Habitat Alteration.................................................................................... 19 Use of Barges........................................................................................................................ 19 Effect of In-Air Sound Disturbance from Pile Installation ................................................... 20 Effect of Piling Removal ....................................................................................................... 21 Effect of Impact Installation of Piles .................................................................................... 22 Effects from Impact Installation of Steel Piles Expected to Result in Mortality or Injury ... 22 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .......................................................................................................... 37 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 38 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT.......................................................................................... 39 AMOUNT OF TAKE ............................................................................................................... 39 EFFECT OF THE TAKE.......................................................................................................... 40 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURE....................................................................... 40 TERMS AND CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 40 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 41 REINITIATION NOTICE............................................................................................................ 42 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 43 Appendix A: Status of the Species............................................................................................... 54 Appendix B: USFWS Murrelet Monitoring Protocol.................................................................. 55 Appendix C: Impact Pile Driving Sound Attenuation Specification........................................... 56 Appendix D: Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan ............................................................................. 57 ii LIST OF FIGURES and TABLES Figure 1. Manette Bridge Vicinity Map......................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Estimated locations of work trestles............................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Depiction of the action area with the extent of in-air sound ........................................ 10 Figure 4. Water bodies in the action area. ................................................................................... 12 Figure 5. The polygons above represent herring holding and spawning areas............................ 16 Table 1. Marbled murrelet observations in Conservation Zone 1, Stratum 3.............................. 15 Table 2. Probability of murrelet forage group(s) within 1.2 km2 ................................................ 28 iii CONSULTATION HISTORY The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes to replace the structurally deficient and functionally obsolete Manette Bridge in Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington. Federal funding from FHWA establishes a nexus requiring consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) based this Biological Opinion (Opinion) on the following sources of information: the Biological Assessment (BA), dated January 24, 2008 and received on January 25, 2008, a field review of the project site and meeting with the WSDOT project team on March 18, 2008, and WSDOT and FHWA responses to our requests for additional information (written correspondence received on April 30, 2008, November 4, 2008, and April 13, 2009). In December 2008 and March 2009 several meetings were held to discuss the recommended USFWS marbled murrelet monitoring protocol. After the March 2009, meeting attended by WSDOT biologists, biologists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Hamer Environmental, and USFWS staff, a modified, site-specific monitoring protocol was agreed upon by all parties. On April 13, 2009, a complete package of information was received in our office that included the site-specific, revised, marbled murrelet monitoring protocol. On May 7, 2009, the USFWS sent a letter to FHWA to formally initiate the consultation as of April 13, 2009. A complete record of this consultation is on file in the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington. A chronological summary of important consultation events follows: January 25, 2008 – The FHWA submits a BA and request for formal consultation with an effect determination of