Memorial Park Dock Replacement BE - douglaspud.org Park Dock Replacement … · existing docks and piling that anchor the docks. The proposed project will replace all four (4) existing

PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1 OF DOUGLAS COUNTY CITY OF PATEROS MEMORIAL PARK DOCK REPLACEMENT; COLUMBIA RIVER BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR: PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1 SCOTT KREITER 1151 VALLEY MALL PARKWAY EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802 (509) 884-7191 PREPARED BY: GRETTE ASSOCIATESLLC

151 SOUTH WORTHEN, SUITE 101 WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON 98801 (509) 663-6300 SEPTEMBER 2016

Public Utility District #1 of Douglas County City of Pateros i August 2016 Memorial Park Dock Replacement; Biological Assessment Grette Associates LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION AND SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................1

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................3 2.1 Proposed Project ................................................................................................3 2.2 Proposed Mitigation ...........................................................................................5 2.3 Proposed Dock/Construction Description..........................................................6 2.4 Future Boating Activity and Site Use ................................................................7 2.5 Construction Report ...........................................................................................7 2.6 Project Timing ...................................................................................................7 2.7 Definition of the Project Area ............................................................................8 2.8 Definition of the Action Area ............................................................................8 2.9 Environmental Baseline Conditions ..................................................................9

2.9.1 Definition of the Reach ........................................................................10 2.9.2 Reach Survey Date and Methods .........................................................10 2.9.3 Existing Inwater/Overwater Structures ................................................10 2.9.4 Waterfront Parcels ...............................................................................12 2.9.5 Existing Riparian Conditions ...............................................................12 2.9.6 Nearshore Bathymetry .........................................................................13 2.9.7 Nearshore Substrate .............................................................................13 2.9.8 Aquatic Vegetation ..............................................................................13

3 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND HABITAT USE ............................................14 3.1 Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha) .....................................................................................................14 3.2 Upper Columbia River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ..............................15 3.3 Coastal-Puget Sound Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) ...............................16 3.4 Ute Ladies’-Tresses .........................................................................................17

4 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ................................................................................18 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................18 4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects on Salmonids ........................................................18

4.2.1 Pile Driving ..........................................................................................18 4.2.1.1 Behavioral Impacts ...............................................................20 4.2.1.2 Instantaneous Injury Impacts ................................................20 4.2.1.3 Cumulative Injury Impacts ...................................................20

4.2.2 Water Quality .......................................................................................21 4.2.2.1 Turbidity ...............................................................................21 4.2.2.2 Potential Machinery Spills ....................................................23

4.2.3 Predation ..............................................................................................23 4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects on Ute Ladies’-Tresses .........................................24 4.4 Interdependent and Interrelated Actions ..........................................................24 4.5 Cumulative Effects...........................................................................................24

5 CRITICAL HABITAT EVALUATION ..................................................................26 5.1 Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Critical Habitat .............................................26

Public Utility District #1 of Douglas County City of Pateros ii August 2016 Memorial Park Dock Replacement; Biological Assessment Grette Associates LLC

5.1.1 Geographical Extent of Designated Critical Habitat ...........................26 5.1.2 Effects on the Primary Constituent Elements of Designated Critical

Habitat ..................................................................................................26 5.1.2.1 Primary Constituent Element 1 .............................................26 5.1.2.2 Primary Constituent Element 2 .............................................27 5.1.2.3 Primary Constituent Element 3 .............................................27

5.2 Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat ...............................................................28 5.2.1 Primary Constituent Elements .............................................................29

5.2.1.1 Primary Constituent Element 1 .............................................29 5.2.1.2 Primary Constituent Element 2 .............................................29 5.2.1.3 Primary Constituent Element 3 .............................................29 5.2.1.4 Primary Constituent Element 4 .............................................30 5.2.1.5 Primary Constituent Element 5 .............................................30 5.2.1.6 Primary Constituent Element 6 .............................................30 5.2.1.7 Primary Constituent Element 7 .............................................31 5.2.1.8 Primary Constituent Element 8 .............................................31 5.2.1.9 Primary Constituent Element 9 .............................................31

6 CONSERVATION MEASURES RELATED TO THE SPECIES .......................32 6.1 Impact Avoidance and Minimization...............................................................32 6.2 Regulatory Considerations ...............................................................................32 6.3 Best Management Practices .............................................................................33

7 CONCLUSIONS AND DETERMINATIONS ........................................................34 7.1 Summary of Effects .........................................................................................34 7.2 Determination of Effects on Species................................................................34 7.3 Determination of Effects on Critical Habitat ...................................................34

8 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT ......................................................35 8.1 Essential Fish Habitat Designations.................................................................35 8.2 Analysis of Effects on EFH .............................................................................35 8.3 EFH Assessment ..............................................................................................38

9 REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................39

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Reach IOSs. .........................................................................................................11 Table 2. Pacific Salmonid Species with Designated EFH in the Columbia River. ...........35 Table 3. Affected EFH by Project Element and Proposed Conservation Measures. .........36

Public Utility District #1 of Douglas County City of Pateros iii August 2016 Memorial Park Dock Replacement; Biological Assessment Grette Associates LLC

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Action Area relative to pile driving ......................................................................9 Figure 2. Reach figure........................................................................................................12 Figure 3. Potential extent of pile driving impacts (12.75-inch piles); this would occur at

each of the four docks. ...........................................................................................21

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Photographs Attachment 2: Sheets

Public Utility District #1 of Douglas County City of Pateros 1 August 2016 Memorial Park Dock Replacement; Biological Assessment Grette Associates LLC

1 INTRODUCTION AND SPECIES OF CONCERN

The Public Utility District #1 of Douglas County (PUD) proposes to replace the four (4) existing public docks within Memorial Park in the City of Pateros (City) on the Columbia River. The Pateros Memorial Park docks provide public access and moorage on the Columbia River. There are a total of four docks within the park that are typically removed during the winter to protect them from damage. However, over time the elements and the continual removal of the floats and gangways have damaged the docks. In order to ensure that the docks do not become unsafe for public use, the PUD is proposing to replace all four docks to allow for the continued safe public use of the park docks. If no action is taken the existing docks will continue to deteriorate and will significantly reduce the safe public use of the river. The PUD is mandated to ensure the continued safe use of the existing public facilities as part of the PUD’s FERC license.

This proposed project would occur within public lands associated with both the Wells Hydroelectric Project and public lands owned by the City of Pateros. In connection with the proposed project, the PUD has submitted an application for a Department of the Army permit for work in the Columbia River. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies (in this case the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps]) to ensure that they do not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species. This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared to assist the Corps in its review of the Applicant’s permit application and in conducting required consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Species listed under the ESA that may be present in the vicinity of the project site include Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha – endangered), Upper Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss – threatened), Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus – threatened), and Ute ladies’ -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis – threatened). In addition, the Project is located within areas designated as Upper Columbia River steelhead critical habitat. Based on discussions with the Corps, USFWS, and NMFS, the conclusions of this BA are as follows:


Species • Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon – may affect, but is not likely to

adversely affect

• Upper Columbia River steelhead – may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

• Columbia River bull trout – may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

• Ute ladies’-tresses – no effect Critical Habitat

• Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon critical habitat – may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

• Upper Columbia River steelhead critical habitat – may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

• Columbia River bull trout critical habitat – may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect


2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed project will replace the four (4) existing public docks within Memorial Park in the City of Pateros. Memorial Park was constructed by the PUD and is operated by the City of Pateros. As part of agreements between the PUD and FERC and the PUD and the City of Pateros, the PUD is required to operate and maintain the docks to ensure the continued safe use of the docks by the public and to minimize the impacts of the docks on the aquatic environment. The four (4) existing docks were originally permitted in 1988 and were constructed out of treated lumber and wood decking. Floatation was provided by Styrofoam filled tires. The docks were regularly removed during the winter to protect the docks and to repair any damage to the floats. The existing deterioration of the existing docks has resulted in the need to completely replace the existing docks and piling that anchor the docks. The proposed project will replace all four (4) existing docks and associated piling to ensure the continued safe use of the park and docks by the public. The proposed project will entail the demolition of the four (4) existing docks and installation of four (4) replacement floats. Overall, the replacement floats will result in an increase of approximately 96 sq ft of overwater coverage; however, based on the design of the floats and gangways the impacts associated with the replacement docks will be less than the impacts of the existing docks. Each of the existing docks consist of a concrete abutment, gangway and floats, which are anchored with steel piles. The docks are pretty much identical with the only difference being the number and configuration of the floats, which are all the same size. The exact configuration of the docks have varied over the years as the floats are interchangeable and have been installed differently each spring (floats removed during the winter to protect them). Although the configuration of the floats has varied over time, the number of floats has not increased keeping them compliant with the existing permits. The concrete abutments are all located landward of the OHWM and provide access from the existing trail to the docks. The concrete abutments are located at approximately the top of the bank within the riprapped portion of the shoreline. The abutments all have steps and handrails and will be modified as part of the project to make them ADA compliant. For ease of permitting, the existing docks have been labeled docks 1-4 and will be described as permitted. Docks 1 and 4 are the most downriver and upriver docks and each consists of an 8 ft by 20 ft gangway that extends from the concrete abutment to two (2) floats. The existing floats are 8 ft by 20 ft and framed with treated lumber. The floats are covered with solid decking and floatation is provided by either Styrofoam filled tires or plastic float tubs. The floats are deteriorating and the floatation on some of them has disappeared causing the floats to list. The dock is anchored by two steel piles. The existing overwater coverage of each of the docks are 480 sq ft for a total of 960 sq ft. Dock 2 is the immediately upriver of Dock 1 and consists of an 8 ft by 20 ft gangway that extends from the concrete abutment to four (4) floats. The existing floats are 8 ft by 20 ft and framed with treated lumber. The floats are covered with solid decking and floatation is provided by either Styrofoam filled tires or plastic float tubs. The floats are deteriorating and the floatation on some of them has disappeared causing the floats to list. The dock is anchored by two steel piles. The existing overwater coverage of Dock 2 is 800 sq ft.


Dock 3 is the immediately upriver of Dock 2 and consists of an 8 ft by 20 ft gangway that extends from the concrete abutment to five (5) floats. Three of the existing floats are 8 ft by 20 ft and the other floats are 8 ft by 12 ft and 8 ft by 15 ft. All of the floats are framed with treated lumber and are covered with solid decking. Floatation for the floats are provided by either Styrofoam filled tires or plastic float tubs. The floats are deteriorating and the floatation on some of them has disappeared causing the floats to list. The dock is anchored by two steel piles. The existing overwater coverage of Dock 3 is 856 sq ft. The demolition of the existing docks will entail the removal of the existing gangways, floats, and piles. The structures will be removed using either land based or barge mounted crane or excavator. The structures will be disposed of at an appropriate upland disposal site. The steel piles will be removed using either a barge mounted crane or excavator. Prior to the demolition, a silt curtain will be installed around each dock to contain any debris. The proposed replacement docks will be slightly different from the existing docks; however, the configuration will be extremely similar and would result in approximately the same amount of overwater coverage. The replacement of each of the docks will entail the modification to the existing concrete abutment to eliminate the stairs and the installation of a gangway, floats, and pile. The modification to the concrete abutment will allow each of the docks to be ADA compliant, as well as anchor and raise the elevation of the landward end of the gangway. The modification to each of the concrete abutment will entail covering the existing steps and abutment with reinforced concrete. The slope of the new concrete abutments will be 2 percent of less and no steeper that 5 percent longitudinal slope. The modifications will be cast in place and landward of the OHWM. No concrete will be placed within the OHWM and precautions will be taken if high water events occur at the time of abutment modifications. A total of 15.2 cubic yards of concrete will be required to modify the existing abutments. Each of the docks will have slightly different elements and configuration and will be discussed below. Docks 1 and 2 will each entail the installation of a gangway and three floats that will be anchored by three piling. The aluminum gangways for each dock will be 6 ft by 35 ft that will be anchored to the modified concrete abutment on the landward side. The waterward side of the gangway will rest on the landward end of the float and allowed to travel on the float during water level fluctuations. The entire surface of the gangway will be covered with grating with at least 60 percent open area. The floating portion of the docks will consist of an 8 ft by 40 ft float and two 8 ft by 20 ft floats. The floats will be assembled off site and placed into the river either from the upland or at the existing launch. The floats will be constructed of aluminum and would be decked with ADA-compliant grated material, having approximately 60% open area. Flotation for each of the floats will be provided by fully-encapsulated, white flotation tubs. The float framing will have greater than 50% open area (area not covered by framing and floatation tubs). The landward edge of the float for Dock 1 will be approximately 28 ft landward of the OHWM at a water depth of approximately 13 ft. The landward edge of the float for Dock 2 will be approximately 30 ft landward of the OHWM at a water depth of approximately 15 ft. The replacement docks at these locations will be located approximately 10 ft further waterward of the existing dock in order to ensure that the float does not ground out during low water Each of the floats for the two docks will be anchored by three (3) 12.75-inch diameter steel piles (epoxy coated white or within white PVC). Piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer unless driving


conditions require an impact hammer. If an impact hammer is used, sound attenuation measures (bubble curtain and wood block) would be used to minimize underwater noise. Also, piles will be capped with anti-perching pile caps. Dock 1 and Dock 2 will each result in approximately 823 sq ft of overwater coverage, for a total of approximately 1,646 sq ft of overwater coverage. Docks 3 and 4 will each entail the installation of a gangway and one float that will be anchored by two piling. The aluminum gangway for Dock 3 will be approximately 6 ft by 35 ft and the gangway for Dock 4 will be approximately 6 ft by 45 ft. The landward end of the gangways will both be anchored to the modified concrete abutment on the landward side. The waterward side of the gangways will rest on the landward end of the float and allowed to travel on the float during water level fluctuations. The entire surface of the gangways will be covered with grating with at least 60 percent open area. The floating portion of the docks will consist of an 8ft by 40 ft float. The floats will be assembled off site and placed into the river either from the upland or at the existing launch. The floats will be constructed of aluminum and would be decked with ADA-compliant grated material, having approximately 60% open area. Flotation for each of the floats will be provided by fully-encapsulated, white flotation tubs. The float framing will have greater than 50% open area (area not covered by framing and floatation tubs). The landward edge of the float for Dock 3 will be approximately 30 ft landward of the OHWM at a water depth of approximately 12 ft. The landward edge of the float for Dock 4 will be approximately 40 ft landward of the OHWM at a water depth of approximately 10 ft. The replacement dock for Dock 3 will be located approximately 3 ft further waterward of the existing dock, while the replacement dock for Dock 4 will be located approximately 20 ft further waterward of the existing dock. The increased length of the replacement docks are being proposed to ensure that the float does not ground out during low water The floats will each be anchored by two (2) 12.75-inch diameter steel piles (epoxy coated white or within white PVC). Piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer unless driving conditions require an impact hammer. If an impact hammer is used, sound attenuation measures (bubble curtain and wood block) would be used to minimize underwater noise. Also, piles will be capped with anti-perching pile caps. Replacement Dock 3 will result in approximately 503 sq ft of overwater coverage and replacement Dock 4 will result in approximately 563 sq ft of overwater coverage, for a total of approximately 1,066 sq ft of overwater coverage. The proposed project would result in no adverse effects on the existing nearshore shallow water habitat functions and values at Memorial Park. The replacement of the existing docks will result in an increase of approximately 96 sq ft of overwater coverage; however, this increase in overwater coverage will not result in any adverse impacts (2,616 sq ft of overwater coverage removed and 2,712 sq ft of overwater coverage installed). This is based on the fact that the replacement docks will reduce the overall impacts compared to the existing conditions. The replacement docks will result in a reduction of impacts on the nearshore shallow water habitat in the river and will not require compensatory mitigation. 2.2 PROPOSED MITIGATION

Overall, the proposed project will result in no net loss of ecological habitat functions and values. Compensatory mitigation is required when a proposed project will result in a net reduction of habitat functions and values and will reduce habitat conditions for aquatic species. With docks on the Columbia River, mitigation is typically required based on the amount of overwater coverage of a structure. The proposed project will result in the replacement of the


existing docks, which will remove a total of approximately 1,616 sq ft. These docks were originally permitted in 1988 and have been repaired over the years. The docks consist of floats constructed with treated lumber with floatation provided by ace tubs or tires with Styrofoam. The piles are steel piles. The proposed replacement docks will be approximately the same configuration and the floats will be the same width (8 ft wide). The primary difference between the existing permitted docks and the proposed docks is the length from shore and the width of the gangway. The proposed replacement docks will extend slightly waterward of the existing docks in order to reach a greater water depth and to protect the floats from grounding out during low water. As a result, the proposed replacement docks will result in a total of 2,712 sq ft of overwater coverage. The overall impact of the proposed dock replacement on overwater coverage will be an increase of 96 sq ft; however, the design of the proposed dock replacement will minimize the overall impacts on the aquatic environment. The proposed replacement docks were designed to meet as many of the current Corps, NMFS, and USFWS standards for overwater structures as possible. As stated above, the proposed replacement docks have been designed to significantly reduce the impacts that the existing docks have on the aquatic environment. The impacts will be reduced by grating the entire surface of the gangway and floats with grating with at least 60% open area and framing the floats with at least 50% open area. Additionally, the floatation for the floats will consists of fully encapsulated, white HDPE float drums. These designs will minimize the impacts of the existing docks by increasing light penetrance. Additionally, the floats will be in greater water depth than the existing docks, which will reduce the impacts of the docks on the nearshore shallow water habitat. These design modifications will reduce the overall impact of the proposed docks, which will compensate for the slight increase in overwater coverage. As a result, the proposed project will result in no net loss of aquatic habitat functions and values. Based on the improvements that will be incorporated into the proposed replacement docks, the proposed project will not result in any adverse effects compared to the existing conditions. Thus, no compensatory mitigation will be required or proposed. 2.3 PROPOSED DOCK/CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION

The proposed project will result in the removal and replacement of the four (4) existing public docks. The removal of the existing timber framed and tire float structures along with the existing piles will be removed from the river and disposed of at an appropriate off-site location. The removal of these structures will occur using either a land based excavator or a barge mounted excavator/crane. Excavation will not occur below the OHWM. The proposed concrete abutment improvements will be framed and cast in place, with concrete being delivered via the uplands. Piles would be driven with a barge mounted vibratory hammer unless driving conditions require an impact hammer. If an impact hammer is used, sound attenuation measures (bubble curtain and wood block) would be used to minimize underwater noise. The floats and gangways will be constructed off-site and delivered to the site either via truck or barge. If delivered to the site via the uplands they will be installed using a land-based crane. If they are delivered via barge, they will be placed in the water at the closest boat launch and floated to the site. A barge mounted crane or excavator will place the gangway and floats.


2.4 FUTURE BOATING ACTIVITY AND SITE USE

The proposed project will ensure the continued, safe usage of the launch to access the Columbia River. The future use of the handling float is expected to be the exact same as the use that currently exists. Thus, the proposed dock replacement will result in no increase in recreational boating activity on the reservoir.

Boats and watercraft that utilize the public docks will continue to be removed from the water for fueling and maintenance. No fueling or maintenance activities would occur at the docks.

2.5 CONSTRUCTION REPORT

Upon completion of the replacement of the existing docks, a construction report would be sent to NMFS and the Corps. The report would include the Corps permit number and NMFS tracking number, the area of floating in-water structure, the maximum area that could potentially be covered by boats moored at the handling float, the minimum lateral distance from OHWM to the waterward end of the float, water depths adjacent to the float relative to OHWM, the number, size and type of piles installed, and the pile driving method used. If impact pile driving is required, the number of strikes per pile and per day as well as the total number of days impact pile driving or proofing that were required would also be reported. The report would be submitted by the first January 31 following permit issuance. If the docks are not installed by the first January 31 following permit issuance, a report would be submitted to NMFS and the Corps stating that the project had not occurred by January 31, as well as every subsequent January 31 that the docks remain un-replaced until the expiration date of the permit.

2.6 PROJECT TIMING

The proposed project would begin as soon as possible after permits are received. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to minimize the potential effects on aquatic habitats or species. All in-water work would be timed to avoid the annual outmigration of juvenile salmonids. USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and WDFW have set closure periods during which in-water work cannot be conducted. Based on guidance from the Corps, the expected work window is July 16 through February 28 on the Columbia River with pile driving only occurring between October 1 and February 28. This would not include construction of the concrete abutment, as that will occur above the OHWM. The Applicant will comply with the work closures determined during Project review. All in-water work proposed for this Project will be performed using standard best management practices (BMPs) (see Section 6). The proposed project is expected to require 2-3 weeks to complete.


2.7 DEFINITION OF THE PROJECT AREA

For the purpose of this analysis, the “Project Area” includes all locations where construction would occur. This would include the existing and proposed dock footprints as well as the area in which construction machinery would be operating. The Project Area is primarily aquatic habitat. Upland habitat includes areas used for the access and storage and staging of construction materials.

2.8 DEFINITION OF THE ACTION AREA

The “Action Area” encompasses the Project Area as well as all habitats that could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed Project. To determine the boundaries of the Action Area, consideration was given to the potential reach of mechanisms that may lead to impacts on the species of concern. The Project element that has the potential for the most far-reaching impacts would be pile driving. A vibratory pile driver will be used to install the ten (10) 12.75-inch diameter piles. Thus, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) pile driving guidance (WSDOT 2010a) and the CalTrans Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data (Illingworth and Rodkin 2007) were consulted to find the nearest pile size with recorded sound data.

Therefore, the Action Area is defined by the distance required for the sound of impact pile driving to attenuate to ambient levels. NMFS recommends using the Practical Spreading Loss model to predict sound propagation from in-water pile driving and estimate the distance required for pile driving sound pressure to attenuate to 120 dBRMS (assumed ambient noise level of the Columbia River per WSDOT 2010b). The model uses Root Mean Squared, measured in decibels (dBRMS)1. The model was used with the following assumptions:

1) Impact pile driving of 12.75-inch steel pile would likely result in approximately 180 dBRMS at a distance of 20 meters from the source (Illingworth and Rodkin 2007).

2) SPL attenuation measures such as a wood block or bubble curtain would result in a 10 dB reduction in the sound pressure levels of impact pile driving (Laughlin 2007; MacGillivray et al. 2007).

3) The ambient sound level in the Columbia River is 120 dBRMS based on the default recommended by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2008).

4) Sound would attenuate at a rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance.

5) Sound pressure travels in a linear direction (concentrically) away from the source

6) Sound would not reflect off or travel through landmasses.

1 Sound pressure in water is referenced at 1 micropascal (1 µPa). In this document, all Peak (dBpeak) and Root Mean Squared (dBRMS) pressures are referenced at 1 µPa (e.g., 195 dBRMS (re. 1 µPa). Sound Exposure Levels (SEL) are referenced at 1 µPa*sec (e.g., 187 dBSEL (re. 1 µPa*sec). For readability purposes, the pressure references are not repeated throughout the text.


The Practical Spreading Loss model was used to calculate the distance necessary for sound to attenuate from 170 dBRMS (180 dBRMS reduced by 10 dB from use of SPL attenuation measures) to 120 dBRMS ambient noise level. The model returned a distance of 141,331 ft (approximately 27 miles). However, sound would also be constrained by landmasses and would not reach the limit indicated by the model (Figure 1).

Water quality could be impaired by turbidity during pile driving. However, turbidity is expected to attenuate well within the 300-ft prescribed mixing zone for rivers (per WAC 173-201A). During construction, water quality standards and procedures that limit the impact of turbidity would be strictly observed (WAC 173-201A). Based on experience with other construction projects in the Columbia River, it is expected that water quality during and after Project construction would conform to the established standards.

For Ute ladies’-tresses, potential impacts of the Project would be limited to the direct effects of construction in the upland. Therefore, for this species, the Action Area is coincident with the upland portion of the Project Area. The Ute ladies’-tresses has not been identified as occurring in or near the Action Area, and there is no suitable habitat for this species in the area.

Figure 1. Action Area relative to pile driving

2.9 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE CONDITIONS

The proposed location for the handling float replacement is in the City of Pateros at the eastern end of Lakeshore Dr. Dock 1 - 48.0516 N lat / 119.9007 W long; Dock 2 - 48.0517 N lat / 119.9002 W long; Dock 3 - 48.0524 N lat / 119.8991 W long; Dock 4 - 48.0529 N lat / 119.8984 W long; Township 30 N, Range 23 E, Section 36.

Google Earth Professional 2016

Project Location

Action Area


2.9.1 Definition of the Reach

Based on recent guidance from the Corps, a project in the Upper Columbia River must include baseline information for the “reach” in which the project is to occur. For an overwater structure, the reach is defined as a distance of one half mile upstream and downstream of the proposed project on the side of the river on which the proposed overwater coverage is proposed. As the Project’s direct and indirect effects are limited to the Action Area described above and would not encompass the entire reach, per discussions with NMFS and the Corps, the Action Area would not include the entire reach. The baseline conditions of the entire reach are described below.

2.9.2 Reach Survey Date and Methods

This reach was surveyed using the most recent aerial photographs available, such as Google Earth Professional – 2013 (Google 2012), and WA Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas oblique aerial photos – 2007 (WDOE 2012). The reach was also surveyed during site visits in May 2016.

2.9.3 Existing Inwater/Overwater Structures

As mentioned above, the reach includes 9 IOSs. Please see Table 2 and Figure 2 for details.

Public Utility District #1 of Douglas County City of Pateros August 2016 Memorial Park Dock Replacement; Biological Assessment 11 Grette AssociatesLLC

Table 1. Reach IOSs.

Pier Ramp Float

Owner/ Parcel #

Owner (Pu/Pr) W L W L W L Dock

sq ft Pile # Pile Diam. Pile Type

Dock Lat/Long Boatlift Type

Boatlift Sq Ft

Boatlift Lat/Long

Total footprint

Right of way (City of Pateros) Pu 5.5 39.2 216 1 12” Wooden 48.0552°

119.8958° 216

Pateros Partners LLC 2180050501

Pr 6 95 8 20 730 unk 10-12” Wooden 48.0540°, -119.8970°

730

Pateros Partners LLC 2180050302

Pr. 5 24 8 40 440 3 8-10” Wooden 48.0535°, -119.8978° 440

City of Pateros 2180060000

Pu 8 20 8 40 480 2 <12.75” Wooden 48.0529°, -119.8984° 480

Pu 8 20 8 40 480 2 <12.75” Wooden 48.0523° -119.8991° 480

Pu 8 20 8 80 800 2 <12.75” Wooden 48.0517°, -119.9002° 800

Pu 8 20 8 60 640 2 <12.75” Wooden 48.0515°, -119.9006° 640

Pateros Lakeshore Inn LLC 8860300200

Pr 5 24 7 34 358 2 8-12” Steel 48.0513°, -119.9017° 358

Pr 5 24 7 34 358 2 8-12” Steel 48.0510°, -119.9023° 358

Docks in Reach 9 Boatlifts in Reach 0 Total IOSs in Reach (Docks plus Boatlifts) 9


2.9.4 Waterfront Parcels

Twelve (12) parcels are present in the Reach, eight (8) of which are owned by the City of Pateros, the PUD, or are a road right-of-way. The remaining parcels are privately owned. Among these 12 parcels there are 9 IOSs (docks), five (5) of which are public docks. The remaining four (4) docks are associated with the existing hotels in City. The properties within the Reach are fully developed and as a result the installation of docks would not be possible for the majority of the parcels. There are two (2) parcels where additional overwater structures could be installed within the Reach.

Figure 2. Reach figure.

2.9.5 Existing Riparian Conditions

The vegetation on the subject property (the property where the existing public docks are located) has been significantly altered by the historic public use of the property. The shoreline is armored with either riprap or concrete (steps and poured) with little if any riparian vegetation. Vegetation within the downriver portion of the property consists of lawngrass above the top of the bank with few upland trees installed for shade within the park. Upriver of the park and the existing boat launch, vegetation consists of a narrow strip (10-20 ft wide) of Siberian elm that are less than 30 ft tall. Riparian conditions downriver of the subject parcel are extremely similar to the subject property. The majority of the downriver portion of the Reach is publically owned and part of the City park, with the remainder of the properties in private ownership with commercial businesses on them. As a result, the majority of the downriver portion of the Reach consists of an armored shoreline (riprap) and lawngrass above the top of the bank. There are sparse trees present above the top of the bank, which consist of mature upland trees installed as shade for the park. The upriver portion of the Reach consists primarily of


riprapped shoreline owned by the PUD which is located between the existing railroad tracks and the OWHM. There is a small portion (approximately 330 lineal feet) of the Reach with a narrow strip of mature vegetation. This portion of the Reach is located immediately upriver of the subject property and is owned by the PUD. The narrow strip of vegetation extends between 20-25 ft landward of the OHWM and the trees were dominated by Siberian elm. The existing shoreline downriver of the proposed project is heavily utilized by the public and as a result has little if any riparian habitat functions and values. Likewise, upriver of the proposed project is also providing little if any riparian habitat functions and values due the presence of the existing railroad located within 30 ft of the OHWM. Due to the lack of mature native vegetation the subject parcels provides little if any habitat. 2.9.6 Nearshore Bathymetry

Nearshore bathymetry of the parcel on which the proposed project will occur consists of a fairly consistent 5H:1V slope from OHWM down to approximately -10 ft. Waterward of this elevation the slope increases to a slope greater than 3H:1V. These conditions are relatively consistent throughout the entire reach and the Reach consists of primarily armored shoreline.

2.9.7 Nearshore Substrate

Substrate immediately above and below the OHWM at the subject property consists of concrete and cobble/boulder. These substrates are armoring the shoreline and protecting the existing slope and upland use of the property. These substrates are consistent throughout the entire Reach. The shoreline is armored to protect the existing upland uses of the properties within the Reach, which include and public park, commercial businesses, and railroad. Below the OHWM, substrates consists of gravel, cobble, and boulder immediately waterward of the OHWM and within increased depth sand and silts become more prevalent. Substrate above the OHWM consists of sand, gravel and cobble.

2.9.8 Aquatic Vegetation

Due to the slope of the shoreline, coarse substrates, and energy present at the site aquatic vegetation is limited. Aquatic vegetation is present within smaller pockets of finer substrates between 3 and 10 ft below the OHWM. Based on the site visit and aerial photos, aquatic vegetation appears to be present throughout the reach; however, the coverage is sparse (covering less than 15 percent of the shoreline, within suitable depths). Dominant species of aquatic vegetation in this portion of the Columbia River include Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus).


3 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND HABITAT USE

The species of concern associated with the Action Area are Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River steelhead, Columbia River bull trout, and Ute ladies’ –tresses.

3.1 UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

The Upper Columbia River spring-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon in all river reaches accessible to Chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington (excluding the populations in the Okanogan River, which are considered part of the Upper Columbia summer- and fall-run ESU), the Columbia River from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, as well as six artificial propagation programs: the Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow Composite, Winthrop National Fish hatchery (NFH), Chiwawa River, and White River spring-run Chinook hatchery programs (NOAA 2005a). The Action Area is just upstream of the mouth of the Wenatchee River.

Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon. Two distinct races of Chinook salmon, an “ocean-type” and a “stream-type,” are recognized. Juvenile spring-run Chinook salmon in the Upper Columbia River ESU generally exhibit a stream-type life history pattern, rearing in fresh water for about one year before migrating to the ocean (Corps 2000). The spring-run is made up of several stocks that spawn in headwater tributaries of the Columbia River, including the Wenatchee, Entiat and Methow Rivers, as well as the upper mainstem Columbia River. There are no indications that Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook salmon currently use the Okanogan River drainage (NMFS et al. 1998). Hatchery populations are also produced from the Chiwawa River, Methow River, Twisp River, Chewuch River, White River and Nason Creek.

Adult spring-run Chinook salmon enter the Columbia River from March through May, with most adults passing through the Action Area from mid-April to mid-June (Chelan County PUD 1998a, 1998b). Spawning of spring-run Chinook salmon occurs from late July through September.

Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon juveniles generally emerge from the gravel in March and April. After emergence, the juvenile fish move into shallow water to rear, and many are displaced downstream by high flows in spring and summer. Spring-run Chinook salmon rearing in the colder upper tributaries may migrate in the fall into overwintering habitats in the larger tributaries. Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook typically migrate as yearling smolts (Cooney 2002). Yearling spring-run Chinook salmon migrate downstream to the ocean from mid-April to early July, with the peak migration occurring in mid- to late-May (Fish Passage Center 1987).


According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW’s) SalmonScape (WDFW 2016), spring-run Chinook use the Action area for migrating only; no rearing or spawning occurs in this portion of the river. Thus, any fish present would likely be larger juveniles or adults, typically located farther offshore.

The Action Area is also within Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook critical habitat. The project’s effects on this are addressed in Section 5.

3.2 UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

The Upper Columbia River steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams in the Columbia River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the U.S.-Canada border. Six artificial propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the Wenatchee River, Wells Hatchery (in the Methow and Okanogan Rivers), Winthrop NFH, Omak Creek, and the Ringold steelhead hatchery programs (NOAA 2006).

Steelhead exhibit one of the most complex life histories of the salmonid species. Both anadromous (steelhead) and resident (rainbow or redband trout) forms occur in the Columbia River. Steelhead reside in the marine environment for two to three years before returning to their natal stream to spawn as primarily 4- or 5-year-old fish. Steelhead may spawn more than once before they die.

Steelhead can be divided into two reproductive ecotypes, termed “stream-maturing” (“summer run”) and “ocean-maturing” (“winter run”). Stream-maturing steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature state and require from several months to a year to mature and spawn. Ocean-maturing steelhead enter fresh water in a mature condition and spawn shortly after entering their natal stream. Steelhead in the Columbia River basin are essentially all stream-maturing fish (USACE 2000).

Upper Columbia River steelhead juveniles generally emerge from the gravel from July through September. After emergence, the juvenile fish move downstream into overwintering habitats. Most steelhead juveniles rear in fresh water for two to three years, although the duration of fresh water residence can range from one to seven years. Approximately 90 percent of the wild steelhead juveniles in samples taken at the Rock Island and Rocky Reach dams (downstream of the Project Area) were two- and three-winter residents (Chelan County PUD 1998a). Typical fork length of juvenile steelhead is approximately 150 mm (Cooney 2002). Wild steelhead juveniles migrate through the Columbia River during the spring, passing McNary Dam from April to early July, with peak numbers in early June (Fish Passage Center 1987). Juvenile steelhead in the mid-Columbia are actively migrating (averaging 32 km/day), and thus the residence time is short (Chelan County PUD 1998a). Migrating steelhead smolts typically remain in mid-channel where water velocities are highest.

The majority of adult summer steelhead pass Rock Island Dam from July to mid-October and spawn the following spring or summer. Some adult steelhead overwinter in the


Columbia River, passing Rock Island Dam from May through June (Columbia Basin Research 2016).

According to WDFW’s SalmonScape (WDFW 2016), steelhead use the Action Area for migrating only; no rearing or spawning occurs in this portion of the river. Thus, any fish present would likely be larger juveniles or adults, both typically located farther offshore.

Critical habitat for Upper Columbia River steelhead has been designated within the Action Area (NOAA 2005b), and a description of steelhead critical habitat and potential effects of the Project on critical habitat are included in Section 5.

3.3 COASTAL-PUGET SOUND BULL TROUT (Salvelinus confluentus)

The Columbia River DPS encompasses the entire Columbia River basin and its tributaries, excluding the Jarbidge River, Nevada. Although two distinct clades have been identified in the Columbia River basin (Upper and Lower Columbia River clades) based on genetic diversity patterns, a discrete geographical boundary between the two clades was not documented. The Columbia River DPS is significant because the overall range of the species would be substantially reduced if this discrete population were lost.

Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. The species exhibits both migratory and non-migratory life histories throughout much of its current range (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). The adfluvial form migrates between lakes and streams, the fluvial form migrates within river systems, and the resident form is non-migratory. Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and it is suspected that bull trout give rise to offspring that can exhibit either resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Bull trout spawn when they reach maturity, between 4 and 7 years of age. They typically spawn from August to November as water temperatures drop, although spawning migrations may begin as early as April (USACE 2000). Bull trout require clean gravel or cobble substrate and cold water for spawning. Spawning generally would occur only after water temperatures drop below 8 to 10°C (Kraemer 1994). The period from egg deposition to emergence may be up to 220 days, making embryos vulnerable to temperature fluctuations and sedimentation. Fry emerge in April and May. Juvenile bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects. As they increase in size, bull trout also feed on other fish. Adult bull trout are primarily piscivorous and are known to prey on a variety of fish species (Corps 2000).

The distribution of bull trout in fresh water is strongly influenced by water temperature (Ratliff 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Buchanan and Gregory 1997) and they are associated with the coldest stream reaches in watersheds (Lee et al. 1997). Bull trout are widespread throughout the tributaries of the Columbia River, including its headwaters in Montana and Canada (Corps 2000). It is estimated that the Columbia River bull trout occurs in 45 percent of its historical range.


Subpopulations of bull trout within the mid-Columbia basin occur in the Yakima, Wenatchee, Entiat and Methow Rivers. The Action Area functions mainly as foraging habitat. According to WDFW’s SalmonScape online mapper, no spawning or rearing occurs in the Action Area or the mainstem Columbia River (WDFW 2016).

The Action Area is within designated bull trout critical habitat. Potential effects on bull trout critical habitat are addressed in Section 5.

3.4 UTE LADIES’-TRESSES

Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with stems 8 to 20 inches tall that arise from tuberous roots. It flowers in August through early September. The inflorescence consists of multiple small, white or ivory flowers clustered at the top of the stem. Its range encompasses eight Western states, including Washington. It is most commonly found in sites characterized by periodically-flooded alkaline flat (moist meadow) adjacent to Ponderosa pine/Douglas fir woodlands and sagebrush steppe. According to the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WHNP), the species is restricted to calcareous, temporarily inundated wet meadows and channels and swales with stable subsurface moisture.

According to the WHNP, Ute ladies’-tresses has not been identified in or near the Action Area. Further, habitat suitable for Ute ladies’-tresses does not occur within the Action Area. In general, the riparian and wetland habitats that may support this species in other areas have been affected by stream channelization, water diversions, and other watershed and stream alterations. The species has not been identified on the Project site.


4 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents the direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative effects of the proposed Project within the Action Area and describes interrelated and interdependent actions that may lead to effects on the species of concern. This analysis evaluates the potential effects of the Project on critical habitat within the Action Area. The Project’s effects on threatened and endangered species are described in this section, whereas the potential effects on critical habitat are described in Section 6.

Due to the similar use of habitat in the Action Area by all listed salmonids, and similar effects of the Project on all listed salmonids, effects of the Project are assessed for all salmonid species together. Where different salmonid species may be affected differently, this will be noted in each section.

4.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ON SALMONIDS

Project activities that have the potential to impact salmonids include impact pile driving, potential water quality impairments resulting from dredging and excavation for the boat launch, potential changes in predation due to changes in float coverage from the float, and potential habitat productivity impacts due to substrate conversion.

Project construction is not expected to adversely affect juvenile salmonids, as the Project would be conducted during the established in-water work season approved by WDFW, the Corps, NMFS, and USFWS (requested to be the period between July 16 and February 28; with pile driving occurring only between October 1 and February 28). This would ensure that in-water work does not occur during the period when outmigrating juvenile salmonids are likely present in the Action Area. Although adult spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout could be present in the Action Area during construction, adult fish are highly mobile and able to avoid areas where construction is occurring. No long-term impacts are anticipated.

4.2.1 Pile Driving

A total of ten (10) 12.75-inch diameter steel piles would be installed below the OHWM to anchor the replacement docks. Based on information from Illingworth and Rodkin (2007), 12.75-inch diameter piles would be expected to generate 185 dBpeak, 170 dBRMS, and 170 dBSEL at a distance of 10 m from the source. Based on WSDOT (2009), impact driving of 16-inch diameter piles would generate 200 dBpeak (9 meters from the source), 187 dBRMS (9 meters from the source), and 181 dBSEL (10 meters from the source)2. Attenuation measures were assumed to result in 9 dB reduction (WSDOT 2009). Pile installation would occur with a vibratory hammer to the extent possible, but an impact hammer may also be necessary to drive the piles to minimum required embedment depths

2 WSDOT (2009) was used for 16-inch diameter pile SPL data because Illingworth and Rodkin (2007) did not include data on 16-inch diameter piles. Further, WSDOT (2009)’s data for 16-inch piles did not include dBSEL data; thus, dBSEL data from the next larger pile size was used.


if difficult conditions are encountered. The Services have expressed concern over the potential for impact driving of steel piles to adversely affect juvenile fish in the vicinity due to the generation of high-pressure sound waves, which if generated at high enough pressure levels, can injure or kill juvenile fish. Additionally, concern has been expressed over the potential for cumulative effects on fish exposed to numerous pile strikes.

An interim agreement signed by several agencies has set threshold levels for potential injury and adverse behavioral effects, which are used by the Services for salmonids (Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group 2008). The agreement states that there is potential for injury to juvenile salmonids when pile driving generates an instantaneous sound pressure level (SPL) of 206 dBpeak, or cumulative SPL of 187 dBSEL for salmonids greater than or equal to 2 grams and 183 dBSEL for salmonids under 2 grams. Behavioral impacts (e.g. flushing or startle) could occur at SPLs over 150 dBRMS. Based on available data, impact-driving of 12.75-inch diameter piles would be expected to produce SPLs of 196 dBpeak, 180 dBRMS, and 170 dBSEL (Illingworth and Rodkin 2010)3.

Impact driving of piles produces an impulse-type sound, which is characterized by a rapid pressure-rise time (time in milliseconds for pressure to rise from 10% to 90% of its highest peak), followed by rapid fluctuation about the ambient pressure (overpressure and underpressure). Impulse sounds with a faster rise time generate more energy in a shorter amount of time, and thus may have more potential to injure juvenile salmonids than impulses with slower rise times. However, this relationship has not been demonstrated conclusively (WSDOT 2008). The material of which the pile is composed is a factor in the potential for injury, as steel piles have been observed to produce faster rise times than those of concrete or steel piles (WSDOT 2008). Additionally, pile driving sound pressure levels increase with the depth of water into which the pile is being driven, as more of the sound pressure-generating pile surface is exposed to the water (WSDOT 2008). Thus, piles driven into shallow water produce less sound pressure and have less potential for impacts on fish than the same pile driven into deeper water.

Sound pressure level (SPL) attenuation measures, including a bubble curtain around the pile being driven and wood block placed between the pile hammer and pile, have been shown to be effective in reducing SPL levels. In Puget Sound, both bubble curtains (MacGillivray et al. 2007) and wood blocks (Laughlin 2007) have been demonstrated to achieve at least 9 dB reductions, and often greater. It is assumed that some form of sound attenuation would be implemented; for the purpose of this assessment, the assumed SPL reduction is 9 dB based on discussions with NMFS, though a greater reduction is possible.

A noise impact calculator has been constructed by NMFS, which was used to estimate the potential for impacts on salmonids from pile driving (NMFS 2008). Potential instantaneous injury is measured in SPLs dBpeak; behavioral effects are measures in dBRMS; and cumulative effects are measured in dBSEL. This model is used to generate the distance within which the potential for injury or behavioral effects exist.

3 Represents data from 14-inch diameter steel pile driven in similar water depths in a tidal slough. No data are presented for dBSEL; therefore, dBSEL data from a 14-inch diameter steel pile is used.


4.2.1.1 Behavioral Impacts

Pile driving of 12.75-inch diameter piles would generate an instantaneous SPL of 180 dBRMS (Illingworth and Rodkin 2007). Using SPL attenuation measures, this would be 170 dBRMS. As mentioned above, behavioral effects on salmonids are possible at SPLs above 150 dBRMS. Using NMFS’ calculator and assuming the use of a bubble curtain, SPLs from 12.75-inch piles would attenuate to below 150 dBRMS within 215 meters (705 ft) (Figure 2). That is, outside of this radius, juvenile salmonids may detect impact pile driving impulses, but their behavior would not be altered in any detectable way (Figure 3).

4.2.1.2 Instantaneous Injury Impacts

Pile driving 12.75-inch diameter piles would generate an instantaneous SPL of 196 dBpeak. Using SPL attenuation measures, this would be 186 dBpeak. As mentioned above, the potential for injury to salmonids from instantaneous impulses is assumed possible at SPLs above 206 dBpeak. Since estimated SPLs generated by pile driving would be well below this threshold with or without SPL attenuation measures for both proposed pile sizes, it is assumed that no potential exists for instantaneous injury to salmonids.

4.2.1.3 Cumulative Injury Impacts

In calculating potential cumulative pile driving impacts (impact threshold described in dBSEL), it is necessary to estimate the number of strikes needed to fully embed a pile in addition to knowing the sound pressure level resulting from each individual strike. The model assumes that cumulative effects “reset” overnight based on assumed fish movement, so only strikes in a single day are counted toward cumulative impacts. The model also has an upper limit of 5,000 strikes, as tissue damage accumulation in juvenile salmonids does not seem to increase significantly beyond 5,000 strikes (NMFS 2009). It is assumed that each pile would require up to 191 strikes to embed, based on guidance from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2009). For this assessment, it is assumed that all dock piles would be driven in one day, and all navigation piles would be driven in another day. Thus, piling for the docks would require 1,910 strikes (191 times 10). These assumptions were used to populate the model. As mentioned above, cumulative injury on salmonids are possible at SPLs above 187 dBSEL for salmonids above 2 grams, and above 183 dBSEL for salmonids 2 grams or smaller. Based on data presented in Cooney 2002 and the weight:fork length curve presented in MacFarlane and Norton (2002), juvenile salmonids in the area would likely be larger than 2 grams. Thus, 187 dBSEL will be used.

Pile driving 12.75-inch diameter piles would generate an attenuated SPL of 160 dBSEL. Using NMFS’ calculator and assuming all 12.75-inch piles would be driven over four (4) days, pile driving would result in a cumulative SEL of 189 dBSEL at the measured distance (10m), and would attenuate to below the 187 dBSEL threshold within 26 meters (85 ft).


Figure 3. Potential extent of pile driving impacts (12.75-inch piles); this would occur at each of the four docks.

As with the Action Area, intervening landmasses in the vicinity of pile driving would limit the extent of SPLs.

4.2.2 Water Quality

In-water construction activities have the potential to generate impacts to water quality. Turbidity would likely be generated by the removal and installation of piling, as well as the potential for accidental releases of harmful chemicals into the water, though this potential is low. The potential impacts to water quality will be temporary and localized and will not result in impacts to water quality conditions.

4.2.2.1 Turbidity

Turbidity-generating activities would include removal of the existing pile and installation of the new piling. The potential impacts to turbidity are expected to be minimal due to the fact that the work will occur within 10-15 ft of the OHWM and can easily be contained within a silt curtain. Additionally, the substrates at this location consist of coarse sand, gravel, and cobble. A maximum 300-ft downstream and 100-ft upstream mixing zone is allowed in rivers per WAC 173.201A-400, beyond which water quality must meet the standards listed in WAC 173-201A-200 Table 200 (1)(e). Concentrations of suspended sediments associated with the proposed in-water work are expected to be much lower than the concentrations typically encountered near dredging operations, which typically range from 50 to 150 mg/l at 150 ft (USAE 1976, Havis 1988, Salo et al. 1979, Palermo et al. 1990). The potential effects of increased turbidity on salmonids have been investigated by a number of studies (Servizi and Martens 1987 and 1992, Emmett et al.

Proposed dock piles

Google Earth Professional 2016

Potential behavioral impacts (26m)

Potential cumulative impacts (215m)

Additional docks with pile driving


1988, Noggle 1978, Simenstad 1988, Redding et al. 1987, Mortensen et al. 1976, Berg and Northcote 1985; Palermo et al. 1990, Havis 1988, LaSalle 1988). The potential mechanisms by which turbidity could affect salmonids include direct mortality, sublethal effects (stress, gill damage, and increased susceptibility to disease), and behavioral responses (disruptions to feeding or migration).

Direct mortality from extremely high levels of suspended sediment has been demonstrated, but at concentrations far exceeding those caused by those expected to result from the proposed project. Studies indicate that suspended sediment concentrations occurring near dredging activity (typically 50-150 mg/l at 150 ft) would be well below levels known to cause gill damage in salmonids. Laboratory studies have consistently found that the ninety-six-hour median lethal concentration (LC50) for juvenile salmonids occurs at levels above 6,000 mg/L (Stober et al. 1981, Salo et al. 1980, LeGore and DesVoigne 1973). Servizi and Martens (1992) found that gill damage was absent in underyearling coho salmon exposed to concentrations of suspended sediments lower than 3,143 mg/l. Thus, injury or mortality to juvenile salmonids due to turbidity associated with the proposed project is expected to be minimal as the potential turbidity from this project is not expected to reach typical dredge activities.

Behavioral responses to elevated levels of suspended sediment include feeding disruption, changes in migratory behavior, swimming near the surface and avoidance behavior (Servizi 1988, Martin et al. 1977). Several studies (Bisson and Bilby 1992, Berg and Northcote 1985, Redding et al. 1987) indicate the threshold at which feeding effectiveness is impaired greatly exceeds the upper limit of expected suspended solid concentrations during dredging. Furthermore, there is no evidence that suspended sediment concentrations typically encountered near dredging operations (50 to 150 mg/l at 150 ft) cause juvenile salmonids to rise to the surface (Servizi 1988, Martin et al. 1977). Based on these studies, no mortality or sublethal effects are anticipated from turbidity associated with Project activities. Turbidity is expected to be localized and short-term, and concentrations of suspended sediments are expected to be below levels of concern for salmonids (Stober et al. 1981, Salo et al. 1980, LeGore and DesVoigne 1973; Bisson and Bilby 1992, Berg and Northcote 1985, Redding et al. 1987).

The extent of turbidity during construction would be controlled by adhering to the Water Quality Certification and the Short-Term Modification to the Water Quality Standards issued by the Department of Ecology. The provisions of the permit would specify turbidity limits and define a mixing zone for the Project. The permit would also specify corrective actions that are to be taken should turbidity exceed the short-term standards during Project construction. These corrective actions typically include determining which activities may be causing the temporary exceedance and modifying the activity accordingly.

In summary, based on the results of a number of detailed studies, it can be concluded that typical suspended sediment concentrations associated with the proposed project will not result in direct mortality, gill damage, stress or increased susceptibility to disease. Construction activities would most likely result in a temporary and localized sediment plume likely to settle relatively quickly.


Conservation measures will be implemented to minimize the potential of impacts to salmonids. The timing of construction indicates that direct impacts on salmonids are not expected from turbidity. Finally, a silt curtain would be used to contain any potential turbidity. It is acknowledged that small numbers of juvenile, sub-adult, and adult Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout could have feeding opportunities reduced during construction through exclusion from the silt curtain, though this portion of the river is most likely used primarily as a migratory corridor rather than for feeding. These impacts would be negligible.

Overall, due to the minor levels of anticipated turbidity and the conservation measures proposed, turbidity generated by the project is not expected to adversely affect ESA-listed salmonids.

4.2.2.2 Potential Machinery Spills

There is potential for accidental spills from machinery during construction. However, to minimize the potential for an accidental spill during construction, a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated into the Project (see Section 6). BMPs to be implemented during Project construction include keeping construction equipment well maintained, inspecting construction equipment daily for leaks, developing a spill prevention containment, and control plan and keeping oil absorbent material on-site during construction. The risk of an accidental spill is negligible.

Overall, based on the discussion above, adverse impacts on salmonids related to water quality are not expected to occur.

4.2.3 Predation

In freshwater environments, overwater structures can provide cover for native and non-native piscine predators and other fish that prey on juvenile salmonids. Resident fish in the Columbia River that are known to consume salmonids and may congregate around overwater structures include the northern pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, black crappie, white crappie, and yellow perch (NOAA 2003a, 2003b). Because visual acuity in a juvenile salmonid may be compromised when it passes from a light to a darkly shaded area (Brett and Ali 1958; Ali 1960; Protasov 1970), the ability of the fish to detect and avoid predators can be temporarily impaired. Pilings can also provide velocity refuge for pikeminnow.

As mentioned above, most juvenile salmonids migrating past the Action Area are likely actively migrating downstream, though some rearing does occur in the Columbia River impoundments (NMFS et al. 1998). Steelhead and bull trout would be larger fish during outmigration than Chinook salmon, and less tied to nearshore habitats (Cooney 2002).

The proposed replacement of the existing public docks will result in an overall increase in overwater coverage by 96 sq ft; however, the design of the proposed float will avoid and minimize the features that would be advantageous to predatory fish. The proposed float would be entirely decked with ADA-compliant grated material, which consists of at least 60% open area and the float framing will be at 50 percent open area. This will minimize


the potential for loss of visual acuity by juvenile salmonids as they pass under the float. This will be an improvement from the existing system that consists of solid decking. These avoidance and minimization measures and conservation measures would minimize potential hiding habitat for ambush style predators. For these reasons, the Project is very unlikely to cause an increase in predation on listed salmonids.

Additionally, the Project includes an overall increase in 96 sq ft of overwater coverage, the incorporation of the design standard swill result in no adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. As a result, the proposed project is not providing any mitigation to compensate for any loss in productivity that could occur as a result of the increase in overwater coverage.

4.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ON UTE LADIES’-TRESSES

As noted in Section 3.4, the Ute ladies’-tresses does not occur within the Action Area or at the Mitigation Site, and suitable habitat for this species does not occur on or in proximity to the Project site. There would be no effects related to construction, use, or maintenance of the Project on the baseline condition for this species or its habitat.

4.4 INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED ACTIONS

This project is part of the FERC-approved 2007 Wells Recreational Action Plan (RAP) associated with the Wells Hydroelectric Project. This RAP includes providing, repairing, enhancing and expanding public recreational access points throughout the Wells Reservoir. The proposed project would replace the existing public docks, which is in substandard quality and condition. A number of other similar projects are being undertaken or have been completed separately throughout the Wells Reservoir, interrelated through the RAP. These include in-water work, similar to the proposed project, as well as upland park redevelopment work. Each project is being permitted separately.

4.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

From an ESA perspective, the analysis of cumulative effects considers future non-Federal actions (i.e., non-Federal projects that do not require Federal permits) that may affect habitats and listed species in the Action Area. Thus, this analysis does not address the potential construction of new docks or other projects that would occur below OHWM. Cumulative effects would include trends and anticipated population growth, residential, commercial and infrastructure development, pollutant discharge, farming activity, etc.

This proposed replacement of the existing public docks will not result in an increase in public use of the reservoir as it will simply ensure the continued safe use of the launch. The recreational use of the river is not expected to change significantly, although slight increases in use may occur due to the improved facilities. The replacement of the existing docks will make the use of the reservoir safer. This type of a project is typically undertaken by public agencies, as the primary beneficiary of the project is the public. This project is being completed by a public entity (PUD) with no direct funding by the


public. Because of this, these types of projects are very rare and the extent of the activities are rare due to the cost and extent of property that will be impacted.

Increased residential development is not anticipated in the immediate vicinity of the Project, as Douglas County PUD owns a significant amount of the land and the project is within an existing City park. Overall, the likelihood of significant development in the vicinity is low. Overall, the cumulative effects related to this Project are anticipated to be very minimal.


5 CRITICAL HABITAT EVALUATION

5.1 CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD CRITICAL HABITAT

On September 2, 2005, NMFS designated critical habitat for numerous ESUs, including Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon and Upper Columbia River steelhead (NOAA 2005b). The Action Area is within designated critical habitat for both species, and an analysis of the potential effects of the Project on Upper Columbia River steelhead critical habitat is presented below.

5.1.1 Geographical Extent of Designated Critical Habitat

The Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU includes approximately 1,262 miles of streams and 7 square miles of lakes designated as critical habitat (NOAA 2005b). The area designated as critical habitat for this ESU is divided into nine subbasins/units; the Project’s Action Area is located within the Chief Joseph Subbasin.

Critical habitat within fresh water includes the stream channel within the designated stream reaches, which includes a lateral extent as defined by the OHWM (NOAA 2005).

5.1.2 Effects on the Primary Constituent Elements of Designated Critical Habitat

NMFS identified six critical habitat types, or Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) (i.e., physical and biological features), that are “essential for conservation of these ESUs” (NOAA 2005b). Three of the six PCEs pertain to marine environments and three pertain to freshwater environments. The three freshwater PCEs are discussed below, along with the potential impacts to these PCEs that may result from the Project.

It is important to note that the Columbia River no longer functions like a typical riverine ecosystem. The installation of dams along the length of the river has created a series of reservoirs, controlled overbank flooding, and virtually eliminated certain habitat elements that are important to salmonids, such as backwater habitat and oxbows. Therefore, many of the critical habitat attributes that are discussed in this section are either non-existent or extremely limited in the Columbia River.

5.1.2.1 Primary Constituent Element 1

PCE 1 includes “freshwater spawning sites with water quality and quantity conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development.”

Typical spring-run Chinook and steelhead spawning habitat consists of fast water and small, gravelly substrate. Gravel substrates are critical for steelhead spawning and larval development. There is no suitable spawning habitat for steelhead trout in the immediate vicinity of the Action Area. Substrates consist primarily of finer sediments and large cobbles rather than gravel. Further, according to WDFW’s SalmonScape, no spring-run Chinook salmon or steelhead spawning occurs in this portion of the Columbia River (WDFW 2008). Hence, no long-term adverse impacts on freshwater spawning sites utilized by Chinook salmon or steelhead are expected to occur as a result of the Project.



PCE 2 includes “freshwater rearing sites with (a) water quality and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility, (b) water quality and forage supporting juvenile development and (c) natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.”

According to WDFW’s SalmonScape, neither spring-run Chinook salmon nor steelhead rearing occurs in this portion of the Columbia River (WDFW 2016), though it is possible that the Action Area is used for rearing to a limited degree. The Wells Reservoir may be used for limited juvenile steelhead rearing, most likely for steelhead from the Okanogan River system, which is used by very few wild steelhead (NMFS et al. 1998). Thus, actual steelhead rearing in the Wells Reservoir is likely very low.

The rearing habitat described in PCE 2 is rare in the Wells Reservoir and particularly scarce in the vicinity of the proposed Project due to existing habitat modifications and human use. There is no true floodplain in the Wells Reservoir due to the presence of Wells Dam. At the project site, little overhanging vegetation exists (Photographs 1-9), and no riparian vegetation would be removed as part of this Project. The potential impacts associated with the proposed project will be minimal due to the existing level of public use of the shoreline, which significantly reduces the potential for the project location to provide freshwater rearing sites.

The potential effects of impact pile driving were discussed in Section 4. Impact pile driving could temporarily affect rearing habitat by causing short-term behavioral changes in juvenile salmonids present in the area depicted in Figure 3. No injury is anticipated, and conservation measures/BMPs would be implemented to minimize the potential risk of impacts. In the event that impact pile driving temporarily flushes juvenile steelhead from rearing habitat, ample raring habitat of comparable quality is present in the vicinity.

Potential water quality impacts were discussed in Section 4. It was determined that water quality impacts would be minor, localized, and temporary, and would be controlled by BMPs. Further, they would occur when juvenile steelhead would likely be present.

Even if rearing does occur at the site, the Project would have no effects on this PCE as the existing launch will essentially be directly replaced; natural substrates will not be impacted. The project includes no mechanism for long-term effects on this PCE.


PCE 3 includes “freshwater migration corridors free from obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.”


Overall, the potential effects on the nearshore environment are not expected to have a measurable impact on listed salmonids, as Chinook salmon and steelhead smolts have been shown to actively migrate through this stretch of the river (Fish Passage Center 1987; Chelan County PUD 1998a). This indicates that these fish would remain in the main river channel away from the float. It is expected that steelhead trout migrating through the Action Area will be of a larger size, and therefore less likely to utilize any backwater habitat that may exist within the Action Area. Consequently, effects of the proposed Project on the migration corridor would be limited, given the conservation measures incorporated into the Project design, the active migration of juvenile salmonids through the area, and the increased light penetrance provided by the replacement structures.

The primary mechanism by which the Project could affect Chinook salmon and steelhead migratory corridors is through new overwater coverage. Numerous studies have been conducted to examine the behavior of juvenile salmonids as they encounter overwater and shoreline structures. Of particular concern has been the potential for diverting migrating juveniles around structures into deeper water, subjecting the fish to a greater risk of predation. Additionally, overwater structures can provide cover for native and non-native piscine predators that prey on juvenile salmonids.

As described in Section 4 the Project includes conservation measures designed to lessen the effects of increased overwater coverage (e.g., grated decking surfaces on gangway and floats and minimizing the number of piles) should juvenile salmonids enter the Action Area. The proposed mitigation planting area would provide overhanging vegetation in the vicinity of the project, which would improve migratory corridor conditions and compensate for any impacts to migratory corridors that result from the Project.

As discussed in Section 4, impact pile driving would generate SPL above the threshold for potential behavioral impacts, which could reach into the migratory corridor. Adherence to the approved in-water work window would minimize potential for juvenile Chinook or steelhead being present while pile driving is occurring. If Chinook or steelhead are present, SPLs are not anticipated to be high enough in the migratory corridor to cause instantaneous injury to migrating fish, but could cause behavioral effects. Cumulative effects are not likely since the fish would likely be migrating through the area rather than spending extended time rearing. There is the potential for this to temporarily affect migratory habitat by discouraging migration past the Action Area while impact pile driving is occurring (e.g. a few hours), but would not result in long-term impacts to migration habitat.

Based on the above analysis, the Project’s effects on Chinook and steelhead critical habitat are expected to be negligible.

5.2 PROPOSED BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT

On November 17, 2010, USFWS expanded bull trout critical habitat to include the mainstem Columbia River. This listing extends up to Chief Joseph Dam on the mainstem


Columbia River as well as several tributaries. The Project is in Unit 22: Mainstem Upper Columbia River. The Project’s effects on bull trout critical habitat are discussed below, in the context of potential effects on PCEs.

According to WDFW’s SalmonScape (WDFW 2010), bull trout presence is mapped in the Action Area but rearing or spawning is indicated. 5.2.1 Primary Constituent Elements


PCE 1 is defined as “springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporehic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia.”

No springs, seeps, groundwater sources, or subsurface water connectivity exist in the Action Area. If these features were present in the Action Area, the Project would not affect them. Thus, the Project would not affect this PCE.


PCE 2 is defined as “migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.”

According to USFWS 2009, the Upper Columbia River Basins Critical Habitat Unit “supports populations in core areas that exhibit unique adfluvial, fluvial, and allucustrine life history movements between lakes, rivers, and the mainstem Columbia River (18).” Thus, the Action Area likely serves as a migratory corridor for bull trout between the Columbia River and the upper tributaries or lakes in which spawning occurs. This project is proposing to replace the existing public docks. Any migrating bull trout is not expected to remain in the immediate vicinity of the heavily utilized public docks, rather they will likely remain in the deeper portions of the main channel of the Columbia River. Additionally, the proposed project will replace the existing public docks and will not result in the installation of any new overwater structures. Thus, the Project would not result in physical obstructions to the migratory corridor.

Short-term water quality impacts would occur during excavation and placement of riprap, quarry spall, and fish mix. As discussed in Section 4, BMPs would be implemented to minimize water quality impacts, such as use of a silt curtain where possible. No long-term water quality impacts would occur within the Action Area.


PCE 3 is defined as “an abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.”


Sub-adult and adult migratory bull trout are opportunistic feeders and generally consume large quantities of small fish in freshwater environments (USFWS 2005). Overall, the Project would have negligible impact on bull trout food base. The Project is not expected to result in significant changes in the amount of small fish present in the Action Area. The Project would generate negligible levels of turbidity during pile removal and driving. Overall, the Project will have negligible short-term effects on this PCE, and no long-term effects are anticipated due to the incorporation of the proposed design standards.


PCE 4 is defined as “complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.”

The aquatic environment in the Action Area consists of a rocky shoreline at the upper elevations transitioning to silty river bottom with little or none of the features listed above. The shoreline has been armored and protected as part of the development of the shoreline park and angular gravel was placed at the OHWM to protect the shoreline. No large wood, pools, or undercut banks are present. The proposed project would not impact the existing conditions and would not impact the PCE. Further, the installation of the native riparian planting would eventually increase large wood within the river. Thus, the Project would have negligible effects on this PCE.


PCE 5 is defined as “water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence.”

Water temperature in the Wells Reservoir varies seasonally, from as low as approximately 5 degrees Celsius in the winter to approximately 19 degrees Celsius in the summer (http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/adultpass.html). The Project may decrease water temperatures through deepening of the embayment, but would not cause increased temperatures.


PCE 6 is defined as “substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g., less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions.”

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/adultpass.html


Spawning does not occur at the site, and adequate spawning and incubating gravels are not present at the site. Substrate at the site consists primarily of fine sand or cobbles. Thus, the Project would have no effect on this PCE.


PCE 7 is defined as “a natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph.”

The hydrograph of the Columbia River is controlled primarily by dam operations, which cause daily water level fluctuations. The Columbia River’s water level is slightly higher in the spring, but typically varies only slightly by season. The Project would have no effect on the hydrograph of the river.


PCE 8 is defined as “sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.”

Reproduction and growth are not expected to occur in the Action Area, as this stretch of the Columbia River is primarily used as a migratory corridor for sub-adult and adult bull trout. Potential water quality impacts were discussed in Section 4. It was determined that water quality impacts would be minor, localized, and temporary, and would be controlled by BMPs. Further, any bull trout in the vicinity would likely be migrating sub-adult or adult fish, which are highly mobile and would be expected to avoid the area of water quality impairments. Juvenile bull trout are not expected to be present in the Action Area. Overall, the Project is not anticipated to produce water quality conditions such as could inhibit reproduction, growth, and survival.


PCE 9 is defined as “few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present.”

Predatory species such as bass, walleye, and northern pikeminnow are present in the Columbia River. Brook trout and brown trout may be present. The Project’s effects on predation were discussed in Section 4. It was determined that, based on the minimization measures incorporated into the design of the float, such as grated decking and white coloration, predation would be very unlikely to increase as a result of the Project.


6 CONSERVATION MEASURES RELATED TO THE SPECIES

6.1 IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION

The Project has incorporated a number of design approaches to avoid and to minimize potential adverse impacts of the Project. The following features have been incorporated into the Project design to minimize the potential for the Project to impact listed species:

• The Project would occur during the approved in-water work window for the protection of migrating juvenile salmonids. The applicant is requesting a work window of July 16 through February 28, with pile driving occurring only from October 1 through February 28.

• The float would use ADA-compliant grated decking that with at least 60% open area.

• Pile caps will be placed on all exposed pile caps to discourage perching of piscivorous birds.

• The contractor would take care to prevent uncured concrete from entering the river.

• The size and number of piles have been reduced to the minimum necessary to support the gangway and float.

• The surface of the ramp and float will consist of functional grating material to reduce shading, allowing at least 60 percent light penetration to the water.

• Construction of the float would be designed to allow for at least 50 percent functional grating.

• Exposed pile tops would be fitted with anti-perching caps to discourage avian predation on juvenile salmonids.

• The grated surfaces of the dock would not be used for storage or any other activities that would inhibit light penetration.

6.2 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Federal, State, and Local permits contain conditions that are intended to reduce the potential for short-term effects from in-water construction activities and long-term effects from habitat change. The provisions comprise a list of conservation measures that are applied to projects in fresh water. Conditions that are part of project permits would be conservation measures for the Project. Permit conditions are expected to include the following:

• Timing restrictions on in-water work to protect fish in vulnerable life history stages.

• Water quality standards and procedures that limit the extent and impact of turbidity.


• Corrective measures that must be implemented if water quality problems, fish distress, or fish kill occurs.

6.3 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

BMPs are employed to reduce the potential for construction-related impacts on species and habitats. The following BMPs would be followed for this Project:

• A silt curtain would be placed around the area of substrate disturbance to limit the extent of elevated turbidity.

• Extreme care would be taken to prevent any petroleum products, chemicals, or other toxic or deleterious materials from entering the water. If a spill were to occur, work would be stopped immediately, steps would be taken to contain the material, and appropriate agency notifications would be made.

• To minimize impacts of potential spills from construction equipment, vegetable-based oil products would be used rather than petroleum-based oil.

• All equipment operating waterward of the OHWM would be inspected daily for fluid leaks. Leaking equipment would be repaired prior to resuming operation.

• Uncured cast-in-place concrete in the upland would not be allowed to enter the water.

• The Contractor would develop and implement a site-specific spill prevention, containment, and control (SPCC) plan, and is responsible for containment and removal of any toxicants released.

• All exposed or disturbed areas, including upland staging areas, would be stabilized to prevent erosion.

• All erosion control devices would be inspected during construction to ensure that they are working adequately.

• Grated surfaces would not be used for storage or other purposes that would reduce natural light penetration through the structure.

• A bubble curtain and wood block would be used as a sound attenuation measure if impact pile driving is required.


7 CONCLUSIONS AND DETERMINATIONS

7.1 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

The potential impacts to ESA-listed salmonid species were discussed in Section 5 of this document, and include dock removal, impact pile driving, and installation of slightly larger replacement docks. Juvenile spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout are expected to be absent or present in relatively low numbers during Project construction. Although adult salmonids could be present during construction, fish in this life history stage are expected to avoid areas where pile driving is occurring. Overall, the proposed Project is considered to entail a negligible risk of take of listed salmonids.

Implementation of the Project is not expected to result in water quality conditions that are dangerous to salmonids, and no adverse water quality effects on salmonids are likely to occur. Due to the size of piles proposed, impact pile driving is not expected to result in instantaneous injury to salmonids. Cumulative impacts are also expected to be limited to a relatively small radius around pile driving work. Due to adherence to in-water work windows, juvenile salmonids would not be expected to be present in large numbers within this radius. Thus, pile driving would have a negligible risk of mortality or injury to listed salmonids.

A number of design modifications have been incorporated into the Project to minimize the potential for the Project to result in increased predation on listed salmonids (see Section 5.2.3). These conservation measures would also minimize shading of the benthic substrates. Further, listed salmonids residence time within the Action Area is likely limited, as studies have indicated that smolts migrate actively through this stretch of river (i.e., rearing most likely occurs in the cooler upper tributaries).

Suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses does not occur in the Action Area and construction, use and maintenance of the Project would not affect this species or its habitat.

7.2 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ON SPECIES

Based on the analysis in Section 5 of this BE, and discussions with the Corps, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. The Project will have no effect on Ute ladies’ tresses.

7.3 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ON CRITICAL HABITAT

Designated critical habitat for steelhead is present within the Action Area. Effects of the Project were considered for three of the designated critical habitat’s PCEs in Section 6. Based on that analysis, and taking into consideration the avoidance/ minimization measures discussed in Section 6, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect spring-run Chinook salmon critical habitat, steelhead critical habitat, or bull trout critical habitat.


8 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT

8.1 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DESIGNATIONS

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) evaluation of impacts is necessary for the Project. EFH is defined by the MSFCMA in 50 CFR 600.905-930 as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Further definitions include:

• Waters: Aquatic areas and associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish.

• Substrate: Sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities.

• Necessary: The habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem.

The Upper Columbia River and its tributaries are designated as EFH for two salmonid species, as indicated in Table 1. Salmonid EFH is discussed in Appendix A of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). There is no designated EFH for groundfish or pelagic species in the vicinity of this Project.

Table 2. Pacific Salmonid Species with Designated EFH in the Columbia River. Pacific Salmon Species

Scientific Name EFH

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch

Adults – freshwater systems, pelagic and nearshore waters on migration back to freshwater, not necessarily associated with any habitat type in marine waters

Juveniles – marine, estuarine, nearshore to pelagic, associated with all bottom types; 0 – 240 feet

Larval Stage – gravel and shallow water in streambeds Spawning – freshwater Egg Stage – gravel and shallow water in streambeds

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Adults – freshwater systems, pelagic and nearshore waters on migration back to freshwater, not necessarily associated with any habitat type in marine waters

Juveniles – estuary and oceanic, associated with all bottom types; 0 – 240 feet

Larval Stage – gravel and shallow water in streambeds Spawning – freshwater rivers, timing depends on run Egg Stage – gravel and shallow water in streambeds

8.2 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS ON EFH

The assessment of potential impacts from the proposed Project to the species’ EFH is based on information in the above-referenced document (PFMC 1999).The specific elements of the Project that could potentially impact salmonid species EFH, impact mechanisms, and conservation measures that avoid and minimize impacts are identified in Table 2. Note that because the Project is located in fresh water, the potential effects of the Project are limited to the EFH for anadromous salmonid species.


Table 3. Affected EFH by Project Element and Proposed Conservation Measures.

Project Element Affected EFH Impact Mechanism

Conservation Measures

Removal of the existing docks and piling

Salmonid EFH (Substrate)

The Project involves the removal of the existing docks existing pile, which would remove approximately 2,616 sq ft of overwater coverage. The entire surface of the docks are covered with wooden decking.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8

Salmonid EFH (Waters)

There is the potential for an unintentional release of fuel, lubricants, or hydraulic fluid from the construction equipment that could lead to adverse impacts to water column EFH.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8

Pile Driving Salmonid EFH (Waters)

Pile driving of 12.75” diam. piles would result in SPLs anticipated to cause behavioral effects within 54 meters and cumulative impacts to juvenile fish within 22 meters.

1, 9, and 10


Pile driving may result in a very slight, temporary increase in turbidity, but there would be no long-term effect on turbidity in the vicinity of the Project. Based on experience with similar projects, activities associated with pile driving are expected to generate turbidity only in localized areas.

1, 9, and 10

Dock Replacement

Salmonid EFH (Substrate/ Waters)

The project would replace the existing dock with new replacement docks. The installation of the new replacement docks would result in a net increase of 96 sq ft of overwater coverage. The minor increase in overwater coverage associated with the proposed replacement docks is a result of the extension of the existing dock to allow them to be installed is slightly deeper water (to avoid grounding out). Although the proposed dock replacement will slightly increase the amount of overwater coverage at the site, the proposed project will result in a reduction of impacts to the aquatic environment due to the design of the new docks. The dock design includes full grated dock surface, open framing, and fully encapsulated floatation. Shading caused by overwater structures can lead to decreased primary productivity through light attenuation and provide refuge for predatory fish. Additionally, predatory birds can perch on the piles.

11, 12, 13, 14, and 15


There is the potential for an unintentional release of fuel, lubricants, or hydraulic fluid from the construction equipment that could lead to adverse impacts to water column EFH.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8

Conservation Measures

1. Timing restrictions on in-water work to protect fish in vulnerable life history stages. All in-water construction would be accomplished during the approved in-water work window for this reach of the Columbia River (July 16 through February 28; pile driving only between October 1 and February 28). No in-water work would be performed from March 1 through July 15 of any year.

2. Water quality standards and procedures that limit the extent and impact of turbidity. 3. A silt curtain will be installed waterward of the excavation to minimize the extent of elevated turbidity. 4. Corrective measures that would be implemented if water quality problems, fish distress, or fish kill occurs.


5. Extreme care would be taken to prevent any petroleum products, chemicals, or other toxic or deleterious materials from entering the water. If a spill were to occur, work would be stopped immediately, steps would be taken to contain the material, and appropriate agency notifications would be made.

6. All equipment operating waterward of the OHWM would be inspected daily for fluid leaks. Leaking equipment would be repaired prior to resuming operation.

7. The Contractor would develop and implement a site-specific spill prevention, containment, and control (SPCC) plan, and is responsible for containment and removal of any toxicants released.

8. To minimize impacts of potential spills from construction equipment, vegetable-based oil products would be used rather than petroleum-based oil. 9. SPL attenuation measures such as a bubble curtain or wood blocks would be used if impact pile driving is required. 10. The size and number of piles have been reduced to the minimum necessary to anchor the floats. 11. The design of this float would minimize shading to negligible levels, minimizing the impact of the float on salmonid EFH. Based on these

considerations, the float is likely to have a negligible effect on productivity and predator abundance in the area. 12. Piles will be steel, epoxy coated white, or within a white PVC. 13. The surface of the docks would consist of grated material to reduce shading, open area of grating will exceed >60 percent. 14. Grated surfaces would not be used for storage or other purposes that would reduce natural light penetration through the structure. 15. All piles would be fitted with devices to prevent perching by piscivorous bird species.


8.3 EFH ASSESSMENT

Pursuant to the MSFCMA and the SFA, an EFH Assessment has been completed for this Project. The impacts of the Project on salmonid EFH are shown in Table 2. The primary potential effects of the Project on salmonid EFH are associated with potential water quality impairments during dock removal and impact pile driving. Turbidity associated with dock removal and pile installation is expected to be minimal. Pile removal and driving would result in minor, temporary, and localized SPLs. The impacts of the installation would be minimized through the use of a bubble curtain around the pile being driven during all impact pile driving. These conservation measures are expected to greatly minimize the potential for the Project to affect any shoreline-oriented juvenile salmonids that may enter the Action Area.

Based on the analysis completed as part of this EFH Assessment, and based on discussion with the Corps regarding new overwater structures on the Columbia River between Chief Joseph Dam and Rock Island Dam, the Project will not adversely affect the EFH for salmonid species.


9 REFERENCES CITED

Ali, M.A. 1960. The effect of temperature on the juvenile sockeye salmon retina. Can. J. Zool. 28:169-171.

Berg, L. and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill flaring and feeding behavior in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended sediment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1410-1417.

Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 2:371-374.

Brett, J.R. and M.A. Ali. 1958. Some observations on the structure and photomechanical responses of the Pacific salmon retina. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 15:815-829.

Buchanan, D.V. and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature standards to protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon. In W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, eds. Friends of the bull trout conference proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. pp. 119-126.

Chelan County Public Utility District (Chelan County PUD). 1998a. Biological Assessment of Rocky Reach Dam Operations for Interim Protection of Steelhead Trout. Prepared for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, February 9, 1998. Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wenatchee, Washington.

Chelan County Public Utility District (Chelan County PUD). 1998b. Rock Island Background Biology, Exhibit F. in Rock Island Anadromous Fish Agreement & Habitat Conservation Plan, Rock Island Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 943. Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wenatchee, Washington. July 1998. 585p.

Columbia Basin Research. 2008. Columbia River Data Access in Real Time (DART). Information obtained at http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/adultpass.html. February 14, 2008.

Cooney, T. 2002. Briefing Paper: Estimating Survival of Anadromous Fish through the Mid-Columbia PUD Hydropower Projects. Wells Habitat Conservation Plan Supporting Document C. URL: http://www.douglaspud.org/pdfs/Supporting _Document_C.pdf.

Emmett, R.L., G.T. McCabe Jr., and W.D. Muir. 1988. Effects of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption on Columbia River estuarine fishes: implications for dredging in northwest estuaries. Pages 75-91 in C.A. Simenstad, ed. Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Fish Passage Center. 1987. Migrational characteristics of Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead trout, 1986. Smolt Monitoring Program Annual Report 1986, Volume 1. Fish Passage Center, Portland, Oregon. February 1987. 133 pp. plus appendices.

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598 p.

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/adultpass.html

http://www.douglaspud.org/pdfs/Supporting%20_Document_C.pdf

http://www.douglaspud.org/pdfs/Supporting%20_Document_C.pdf


Havis, R.N. 1988. Sediment resuspension by selected dredges. EEDP-09-2. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Illingworth and Rodkin. 2007. Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data. Prepared for California Department of Transportation. September 27, 2007.

Kraemer, C. 1994. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the north Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fisheries Baitfish Unit, Mt. Vernon, Washington.

LaSalle, M.W. 1988. Physical and chemical alterations associated with dredging: an overview. Pages 1-12 in C.A. Simenstad, ed. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Laughlin, J. 2007. Underwater sound levels associated with driving steel and concrete piles near the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal. WSDOT Office of Air Quality and Noise. March 2007.

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, J.C. Williams, et al. 1997. Chapter 4: Broadscale Assessment of Aquatic Species and Habitat. In T.M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide, eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Volume III. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-405.

LeGore, R.S. and D.M. DesVoigne. 1973. Absence of acute effects of threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) exposed to resuspended harbor sediment concentrations. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30(8): 1240-1242.

MacFarlane, R.B. and E.C. Norton. 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. Fish. Bull. 100(2): 244-257.

MacGillivray, A., Ziegler, E. and Laughlin, J., 2007. Underwater Acoustic Measurements from Washington State Ferries 2006 Mukilteo Ferry Terminal Test Pile Project. Technical report prepared by JASCO Research, Ltd for Washington State Ferries and Washington State Department of Transportation, 27 pp.

Martin, J.D., E.O. Salo and B.P. Snyder. 1977. Field bioassay studies on the tolerance of juvenile salmonids to various levels of suspended solids. University of Washington School of Fisheries Research Institute. Seattle, WA. FRI-UW-7713.

Mortensen, D.G., B.P. Snyder, and E.O. Salo. 1976. An analysis of the literature on the effects of dredging on juvenile salmonids. University of Washington. Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-7605.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. NMFS Pile Driving Calculator. In-house tool for assessing potential effect to fishes exposed to elevated levels of underwater sound produced during pile driving. Excel file. Retrieved online. URL: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1C4DD9F8-681F-49DC-ACAF-ABD307DAEAD2/0/BA_NMFSpileDrivCalcs.xls. Retrieved 11-3-09.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/94F86D1C-F4BD-4402-91F2-22A39962FF12/0/MukilteoFerryTermTestPileRptJasco.pdf

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1C4DD9F8-681F-49DC-ACAF-ABD307DAEAD2/0/BA_NMFSpileDrivCalcs.xls

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1C4DD9F8-681F-49DC-ACAF-ABD307DAEAD2/0/BA_NMFSpileDrivCalcs.xls


National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Indian Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Nation, Chelan County Public Utility District, Douglas County Public Utility District, and Grant County Public Utility District. 1998. Aquatic Species and Habitat Assessment: Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan Watersheds. Supporting document to the Wells Habitat Conservation Plan. URL: http://www.douglaspud.org/pdfs/Supporting Document_A.pdf. Retrieved 10-30-2009.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species; Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead; Final Rule. January 5, 2006. Fed. Reg. 71. No. 3

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005a. Endangered and threatened species; final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and final 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs. Final Rule. June 28, 2005. Fed. Reg.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005b. Endangered and threatened species; designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Final Rule. September 2, 2005. Fed. Reg. 70(170):52630-52858.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003a. Hood Canal Bridge Retrofit and Replacement Project: Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. NOAA Fisheries No. 2002-00546. April 30, 2003.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003b. City of Richland Proposed Boat Launch Facilities Improvement Projects on the Leslie Groves Park and Howard Amon Park Properties, Benton County, Washington Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. NOAA Fisheries No. 2002-00604. February 21, 2003.

Noggle, C.C. 1978. Behavioral, physiological and lethal effects of suspended sediment on juvenile salmonids. Master’s thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1999. Appendix A. Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Protasov, V.R. 1970. Vision and near orientation of fish. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. 175 pp.

Ratliff, D.E. 1992. Bull trout investigations in the Metolius River-Lake Billy Chinook system. In P.J. Howell and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. pp. 37-44.

http://www.douglaspud.org/pdfs/Supporting%20Document_A.pdf

http://www.douglaspud.org/pdfs/Supporting%20Document_A.pdf


Palermo, M.R., J.H. Homziak, and A.M. Teeter. 1990. Evaluation of clamshell dredging and barge overflow, Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg Mississippi. March, 1990.

Redding, M. J., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Trans. of the Am. Fish. Soc. 116:737-744.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-302. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho. 38p.

Salo, E.O., T.E. Prinslow, R.A Campbell, D.W. Smith, and B.P. Snyder. 1979. Trident Dredging Study: the effects of dredging at the U.S. Naval submarine base at Bangor on outmigrating juvenile chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, in Hood Canal, Washington. FRI-UW-7918. University of Washington College of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, September 1979.

Salo, E.O., N.J. Bax, T.E. Prinslow, C.J. Whitmus, B.P. Snyder, and C.A. Simenstad. 1980. The effects of construction of naval facilities on the outmigration of juvenile salmonids from Hood Canal, Washington, final report. Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-8006, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Servizi, J.A. and D.W. Martens. 1987. Some effects of suspended Fraser River sediments on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Page 254-264 in H.D. Smith, L. Margolis, and C.C. Wood, eds. Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population biology and future management. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 96.

Servizi, J.A. and D.W. Martens. 1992. Sublethal responses of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) to suspended sediments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:1389-1395.

Simenstad, C.A. 1988. Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes. Workshop Proceedings Sept 8-9, 1988. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Stober, Q.J., B.D. Ross, C.L Melby, P.A. Dimmel, T.H. Jagielo, and E.O. Salo. 1981. Effects of Suspended Sediment on Coho and Chinook Salmon in the Toutle and Cowlitz Rivers. FRI-UW-8124. University of Washington College of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute. November 1981.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2000. Listed fish species life histories for Washington State. Compiled by Regulatory Branch, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. CENWS-OD-RG, July 14, 2000.

U.S. Army Engineers (USAE), San Francisco. 1976. Dredge disposal study, San Francisco Bay and estuary. Pages 2-3 in C.A. Simenstad, ed. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Bull trout proposed critical habitat justification: Rationale for why habitat is essential, and documentation of occupancy.


U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, Boise, Idaho Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon. November 10, 2009.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildife (WDFW). 2010. SalmonScape Interactive Mapper. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscaperun/default.htm. Retrieved on 7-1-10.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects: Advanced Training Manual. Version 10-08/ Prepared October 2008.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2009. Pile strike summary table. Retrieved online. URL: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/42F72E68-C26D-4C61-8741-121050313200/0/BA_PileStrikeSummaryTable.pdf. Retrieved 11-3-09.

WA State Office of Financial Management. 2009. 2009 Population Trends. Forecasting division. Retrieved online. URL: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/poptrends/default.asp. Retrieved 5-28-10.

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscaperun/default.htm

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/42F72E68-C26D-4C61-8741-121050313200/0/BA_PileStrikeSummaryTable.pdf

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/42F72E68-C26D-4C61-8741-121050313200/0/BA_PileStrikeSummaryTable.pdf

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/poptrends/default.asp

PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1 OF DOUGLAS COUNTY CITY OF PATEROS MEMORIAL PARK DOCK REPLACEMENT; COLUMBIA RIVER ATTACHMENT 1: PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Existing Pateros Memorial Dock 1 to be replaced.


Photograph 3: Upriver of the existing Pateros Memorial Dock 1 to be replaced.

Photograph 4. Downriver of the existing Pateros Memorial Dock 1 to be replaced.



Photograph 7. Existing Pateros Memorial Dock 2 to be replaced.


Photograph 9. Upriver of the existing Pateros Memorial Dock 2 to be replaced.










PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1 OF DOUGLAS COUNTY CITY OF PATEROS MEMORIAL PARK DOCK REPLACEMENT; COLUMBIA RIVER ATTACHMENT 2: SHEETS

Documents

Memorial Park Dock Replacement BE - douglaspud.org Park Dock Replacement … · existing docks and piling that anchor the docks. The proposed project will replace all four (4) existing