SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings. 1. Name: Anacortes, Port of Application No: NWS

Transcription

1 (1145) Hafer/OD-RG MEMORANDUM FOR Commander SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings 1. Name: Anacortes, Port of Application No: NWS / x / Permit issuance, no objections. / / Issuance, agency or tribal objections. / / Issuance, other objections. / x / Issuance, special conditions. / / Categorically excluded from NEPA. / / Permit denial. 2. District Engineer sign attached document. Sr. Sci. Sec Chief Ch, Reg. Br Counsel Ch, Ops Div DDE DE Encl CENWS-DE 1st End Commander For Ch, Reg. Br Signed forms returned herewith.

2 Application NWS ; Anacortes, Port of (Pier 2 Berth Dredge and Dolphin Relocation) MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment (EA) and Statement of Findings (SOF) for Above-Referenced Permit Application. This document constitutes the Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation, Public Interest Review, and Statement of Findings. 1. Application as described in the public notice and existing conditions. APPLICANT: Ms. Becky Darden Port of Anacortes 100 Commercial Avenue Anacortes, Washington WATERWAY & LOCATION: In Guemes Channel near Anacortes, in Skagit County, Washington. LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: Latitude North: Longitude West: PROJECT PURPOSE: Basic: To maintain navigation Overall: To create navigation depths that would maintain safe, year-round vessel access to the Port of Anacortes Pier 2 berth, regardless of tidal stage. Water Dependency Determination: The proposed project is not a water dependent activity as defined by the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines since it does not need to occur in a special aquatic site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Port of Anacortes (Port) proposes to dredge up to 8,700 cubic yards of accreted sediment from Guemes Channel at the Port of Anacortes Pier 2 berth. Historically the berth was dredged to -45 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and the toe of the slope was dredged to -35 feet MLLW. The applicant proposes to dredge the entire area to an elevation of -44 feet MLLW plus one foot overdredge. Dredging would occur in an area no greater than 20,250 square feet. Dredged material for Pier 2, DMMUs P2-1-A and P2-1-2 are not approved for in-water disposal; a minimum of 3,250 cubic yards of dredged material from these DMMUs shall be disposed of at an approved upland location. The applicant proposes to dispose of the remaining 5,450 cubic

3 yards of dredged material from DMMU P2-3-A at the Rosario Strait unconfined open-water disposal location. The applicant proposes to perform dredging activities using either a clamshell or hydraulic bucket dredge operated from a barge. Dredging activities would include modifications to the toe slope and deepening of the pier face along the entire Pier 2 berth. Following dredging, the new transition slope depth would range from -15 to -44 feet MLLW. To further stabilize the transition slope, the applicant proposes to construct a 610-foot-long combination pipe pile and sheet pile wall. The wall would consist of inch-diameter steel piles with sheet pile supported between each pair of piles. The top of the wall would be at elevation -32 feet MLLW. Piles would be driven into place using a vibratory hammer until resistance is met. When resistance is met for the pipe piles, an auger would be placed within the pile to pre-drill a hole to the desired depth. Tillings would be collected and stored on the work barge or on Pier 2 and not discharged into the water. If impact proofing of piles would be required, the applicant would require the use of sound attenuating bubble curtains. The completed wall would extend only minimally, if any, above the mud line at -35 to -41 feet MLLW parallel to the berth face and -10 feet MLLW along the east end of Pier 2. Construction of the proposed sheet pile wall along the north pier face would require the applicant to relocate a portion of the City of Anacortes existing 24-inch sanitary sewer outfall and pile supports. The existing structure includes seven 12-inch-diameter creosote-treated piles and a concrete cap. Prior to the start of dredging, the applicant proposes to remove the pipe, pile supports, and seven piles and concrete pile cap. The applicant would then complete the dredging activity and place the sheet pile wall as described above. The existing 24-inch-diameter pipe and support structures will be reused for the sewer outfall, but four new 12¾-inch-diameter steel piles would be used to replace the creosote piles. The new piles would be capped with 55-foot-long steel longitudinal support beams. The new outfall would be located at or below -27 feet MLLW. The project may also include relocating an existing damaged dolphin that is present at the west end of the Pier 2 berth. The existing dolphin consists of three steel piles and a steel pile cap holding a mooring bollard and 14 timber fender piles. The dolphin would be upgraded to a five-pile structure using the three existing 20-inch diameter steel piles and two new 24-inch-diameter steel batter piles as the dolphin cap. The dolphin would include eight timber fender piles, up to 18-inch diameter, from the existing dolphin. The piles would be installed using a vibratory hammer, although the steel piles may require proofing with an impact hammer. If proofing is necessary the applicant would use sound-attenuating bubble curtains to reduce the noise of the pile driving. The proposed new dolphin would be relocated 28 feet to better incorporate berthing, ingress, and egress at Pier 2. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: The proposed work will maintain safe access to the Port of Anacortes Pier 2 for ongoing navigation and commercial use. Maintenance dredging at the project location has been authorized in the past; the proposed activities would not increase capacity at the Port but would limit the frequency of maintenance dredging and prevent potential grounding of vessels during low tides. Because the proposed dredging would be limited to the area regularly 2

4 dredged by the port, compensatory mitigation will not be required by the Corps. Avoidance and minimization measures are discussed further in Part 7 of this document. Existing Conditions and Affected Environment. The project site consists of 20,250 square feet of Guemes Channel at the Port of Anacortes. The project area has historically been dredged to a depth of -45 feet MLLW and to -35 feet MLLW along the toe of the slope. The project is located in waters deeper than -15 feet MLLW, depths that do not support the growth of eelgrass, although minimal occurrence of macroalgae has been documented within the project area. The project area is likely used by salmonids for migration, with some rearing and foraging likely occurring. The project is located too far from the shore in water depths that do not support high quality rearing and foraging habitat for out-migrating juvenile salmon. The water depths and minor occurrence of macroalgea also indicate that the project area likely does not support habitat for Pacific herring or for surf smelt spawning. The Port of Anacortes is a heavily developed industrial area. The banks near the project area are armored with riprap or consist of large piers extending over the water of Guemes Channel. The banks are devoid of vegetation and consist primarily of concrete with cranes or other structures to support port activities. The substrate consists of sandy silts and gravelly sands. Various surveys within Guemes Channel have shown that eelgrass is located approximately 50 feet from the proposed dredge prism, Pacific herring occur near a shipyard to the west of the proposed project area, surf smelt occur approximately 0.25 mile east of the project area, and Pacific sand lance larvae occur nearby in Fidalgo Bay. Guemes Channel is used for commercial and recreational purposes. A ferry provides service across the channel to Guemes Island. The Port of Anacortes includes a marina for long term and transient use, and a boat launch for day use. The dredged material disposal area consists of an open-water disposal site located approximately 5.25 miles west of the project area in Rosario Strait. Rosario Strait is an approved 650-acre open-water disposal area where water velocities are sufficient to disperse fine sediments. Depths range between -97 and -142 feet MLLW. 2. Authority. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 3. Scope of Analysis. a. NEPA 3

5 (1) Factors Considered. (i) Whether or not the regulated activity comprises merely a link in a corridor type project: The proposed project is an independent, stand-alone port maintenance project that is not a link in a corridor-type (linear) project. (ii) Whether there are aspects of the upland facility in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity which affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity: There is no work proposed in the upland areas adjacent to the regulated activity. The location of the dredging project is directly related to the use of the area and the historic development of the uplands for a port facility. The presence of the port requires the need for safe navigation in the area, thus maintenance dredging must occur in the area. (iii) The extent to which the entire project will be within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction: The entire project is located waterward of the line of mean higher high water (MHHW) of Guemes Channel and Rosario Strait, in navigable waters of the U.S. Therefore, the entire project is within Corps jurisdiction. (iv) The extent of cumulative Federal control and responsibility: Federal control extends over the entire project area because the Corps has jurisdiction over all proposed activities. (2) Determination of Scope. Only within the footprint of the regulated activity in waters of the U.S. Over entire property or project area, including uplands. Other. b. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Permit Area (1) Factors Considered: Activities outside waters of the United States are not included because no activities outside waters of the United States are proposed. The following tests do not apply. Activities outside waters of the United States are proposed but not included because not all of the following tests are met. Activities outside waters of the United States are included because all of the following tests are met. 4

6 (i) The activity outside of waters of the United States would not occur but for the authorization of the work or structures within waters of the United States. (ii) The activity outside waters of the United States is integrally related to the proposed work or structures within waters of the United States (or, conversely, the proposed work or structures within waters of the United States must be essential to the completeness of the overall project or program). (iii) The activity outside waters of the United States is directly associated (first order impact) with the proposed work or structures within waters of the United States. (2) Determination of Scope. The NHPA permit area includes the entire project site and all dredged material disposal sites. c. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Action Area (1) Action area means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. For this project, the action area needs to be sufficiently broad to address potential impacts to salmonids, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, bocaccio, killer whale, Stellar sea lion, humpback whale, bull trout, and marbled murrelet. The action area needs to include the aquatic habitats directly impacts by dredging activities, open-water disposal, and other in-water work. The action area must also encompass surrounding areas that may be affected by turbidity, suspended sediments, vibration, noise, sound pressure, and visual disturbance. (2) Determination of Scope. The ESA action area for this project encompasses: a. The entire project area, b. The area of Guemes Channel within an in-water radius of 5.86 miles from the vibratory pile driving locations to account for the direct effects of pile driving noise/sound pressure on ESA-listed species, and c. The Rosario Strait open-water disposal area, including the area directly affected by temporarily suspended sediment and turbidity. d. Public notice. A public notice for this proposal was circulated on 17 April The expiration date for comments was 17 May (1) Issues/comments forwarded to the applicant. NA Yes No (2) Applicant replied/provided views. NA Yes No (3) Comments received in response to public notice. 5

7 a. Stan Walsh (Skagit River System Cooperative), 16 May 2013: Ongoing maintenance activities required to support the associated land use activities prevent the ecosystem from recovering and potentially providing eelgrass and macroalgae habitat. The Port s activities, they argue, prevent the recovery of the habitat; therefore, the Port should provide mitigation for eelgrass and macroalgae. The Skagit River System Cooperative also expressed concern about the project s increase in hardened structures within Guemes Channel due to the construction of the proposed sheet pile wall. These structures simplify habitat and continue to commit the area to industrial use and delay any long-term recovery of the area. This aspect of the project should require compensatory mitigation. Applicant s Response: The consultant for the Port contacted the Skagit River System Cooperative and provided dive surveys, bathymetry, and benthic community information of the project area and nearby areas of Guemes Channel. District Engineer s (DE) Evaluation: On 10 June 2013 the Corps received an from the Skagit River System Cooperative stating the information provided by the Port addresses their concerns and the Cooperative no longer requests mitigation or objects to the Corps authorizing the project. The proposed activity would not change the upland use of the project area. Creating the sheet-pile wall would create slope stability within the project area but not increase the area of over-water structures or result in a loss of waters of the U.S. Adverse effects would be minor and limited to the construction period. Maintenance dredging of the project area would occur with or without the sheetpile wall; therefore this aspect of the project does not increase the impacts of ongoing activities within the project area. Further, it is speculative to assume that sediment would continue to accumulate in the project area in a significant enough manner to lead to the formation of eelgrass or macroalgae habitat and subsequent colonization of this area by such species. b. D.R. Peloquin, Commander (U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)), 13 May 2013: The USCG does not object to the proposed project but intended to inform the Port of the requirements to maintain navigation safety lights marking the piers. The USCG issued permits for the Private Aids to Navigation (PATON) and the permits include conditions that require safety lights. Any changes to the PATON or lighting require approval of the USCG. Applicant s Response: The Port did not provide a response to the Corps. DE s Evaluation: The Port is responsible for maintaining compliance with all permits issued by the USCG. In the permit transmittal letter, the permittee will be 6

8 reminded of the need to modify existing PATON permits or obtain new ones are required to be in compliance with federal navigation laws. (4) The following comments are not discussed further in this document as they are outside the Corps purview: None. (5) No public meeting or hearing was held. (6) Site was not visited by the Corps. (7) Key issues identified by the Corps. None 4. Alternatives Analysis The proposed project is being reviewed under the Corps authorities granted by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines require the Corps to evaluate alternatives and determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). The Guidelines apply to the proposed discharges subject to regulation under Section 404. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires analysis of all reasonable alternatives to the proposed work subject to Corps permit authority, including both Section 404 and Section 10. In this case, alternatives subject to the 404(b)(1) guidelines are limited to those associated with open-water disposal of dredged material. This alternatives analysis will identify whether an alternative is being evaluated under NEPA or the Guidelines, or both. Water Dependency Determination: The proposed project is not a water dependent activity as defined by the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines since it does not need to occur in a special aquatic site. Project Need: The project is needed to maintain safe access to the deepwater berthing area for commercial use. The project area has historically been maintained at a depth of -45 feet MLLW. The transition slope will be reshaped and dredged to a deeper depth than historically maintained to provide safety to vessels that are berthed in the area during low tides. a. Basic and Overall Project Purpose Basic: To maintain navigation Overall: To create navigation depths that would maintain safe, year-round vessel access to the Port of Anacortes Pier 2 berth, regardless of tidal stage. b. Water Dependency Determination: 7

9 Same as listed above. Revised: c. Applicant s preferred alternative site, site configuration, and project description. Same as Project Description in Part 1 listed above. Revised: d. Criteria. The Corps determined the following project criteria are appropriate for selecting alternatives to consider for this evaluation: (1) The alternative must provide safe, year-round vessel ingress and egress to and from Pier 2. e. Off-site Alternatives evaluated. The applicant s project site consists of an existing port facility with a deepwater berth, there are no practicable off-site locations or configurations that would be capable of achieving the project purpose. While it is theoretically possible to relocate Pier 2 and its berthing area to another location, the excessive cost and difficult logistics would make implementing an off-site alternative nearly impossible. Constructing a new pier at another location with sufficiently deep water would also have much greater adverse impact on the aquatic environment than maintaining navigation at the existing pier. An offsite location for placement of a new pier is not considered further in this document; however, alternative upland or open-water dredged material disposal sites are appropriate for further consideration. f. Alternative configurations on the applicant s preferred site. (1) Riprap: Riprap may have been considered for placement at the new bank slope to provide structural integrity to the bank. Large rock would be necessary to ensure the material would not move during large tidal events or storms. Ships could also ground out on the riprap during extremely low tides, potentially damaging the hull and risking the safety of the vessel and the seamen on board. Further, the riprap would potentially become covered by new silt, which could create challenges during any future dredging activities. Riprap increases hard armoring within the project area and would require more frequent maintenance than a sheet-pile wall. The placement of riprap would represent a discharge of fill material and is subject to review under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. (2) Concrete: A pre-cast concrete wall could be placed along the new bank slope to provide structural integrity. A concrete wall would result in signification modifications to critical habitat and essential fish habitat. Concrete would create a permanent hardened shoreline and modify, and potentially eliminate, tidal influences 8

10 on the bank landward of the wall. The placement of concrete would represent a discharge of fill material and is subject to review under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. (3) No change to current dredging design: The Port could continue maintenance dredging following previous designs and not deepen the shallow transition slope area. This alternative does not address the concerns that the transition slope may pose navigation risks for vessels during low tidal periods. This alternative is reasonable but does not fulfill the project purpose. This alternative is not subject to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines as it does not involve the discharge of dredged or fill material. (4) Alternative disposal location: The Port could dispose of all of the dredged material in an upland location rather than using the Rosario Strait open-water disposal location. It would not be reasonable to require the applicant to use an upland disposal area for all of the dredged material when only 3,250 cubic yards of the material from DMMUs P2-1-A and P2-1-2 must be disposed at an upland location. Disposing all of the material in an upland location would greatly increase the cost to the applicant without providing any added value or environmental benefit. The applicant could propose to place the dredged material approved for open-water disposal at an alternative disposal location. Open-water disposal locations are approved by federal and state agencies prior to use. These areas are evaluated for potential impacts to ESA-listed species, critical habitat, and other aquatic functions and values. The open-water disposal areas do not pose a threat to navigation, do not interfere with use of the area, and have similar environmental impact. Disposal at a more distant alternative approved open-water disposal site would increase transportation costs without reducing environmental impacts. (5) Reduced dredged depth and/or smaller dredging footprint: The proposal is to dredge the channel to -44 feet MLLW plus one foot of over-dredge and a steeper transition slope. Historically the channel has been maintained to -45 feet MLLW with a shallow transition slope. Reducing the volume of dredged material could reduce overall project impacts, including the volume of material that would be discharged into waters of the U.S. if open-water disposal methods are approved. The Port has shown that the size of the dredged area and the dredging depth are the minimum necessary to provide ocean-going vessels safe use of the deepwater berth at Pier 2. Reducing water depth at the Pier increases the risk that vessels would ground during low tides. Reducing the area proposed for dredging would lead to challenges during ingress and egress of these large vessels. Reducing the angle of the transition slope poses risk for vessels using the berth during low tides. The target depth is the minimum necessary to provide safe navigation during low tidal stages. The reduced dredging alternative is reasonable but does not achieve the overall project purpose. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines determination is not applicable to this alternative because this action does not involve the discharge of dredged or fill material. 9

11 g. Other alternatives not requiring a permit, including No Action. (1) No Action: Under the No Action alternative, no permit would be issued to authorize the removal of the accreted material or the construction of the sheet pile wall. Access to Pier 2 would become increasingly more challenging as sediment continues to accrete. This would eventually reduce the use of deep water berth to shallower vessels or restrict use to high tide events, ultimately culminating in the loss of the use of Pier 2 by the Port. The No Action alternative would not allow the Port to accomplish the overall project purpose, and is therefore not practicable. (2) The project is located in waters subject to the Corps jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Any work in, under, over or affecting these waters would require a Department of the Army (DA) permit from the Corps. There are no other alternatives available to the applicant that would not require a DA permit. h. Alternatives that are not practicable or reasonable. Based on the rationale outlined in section f(3) above, conducting maintenance dredging in the same manner as historic dredging activities does not provide for safe access to Pier 2 for all vessels that use this facility at all tides. Should a vessel ground out at Pier 2 there is a risk that the vessel would be damaged, potentially spilling chemicals and harmful materials into the water. Should a vessel ground out at the pier it could damage the substrate and possibly other elements of the aquatic environment. Historic dredging practices do not meet the current use of the area by the Port. The shallow transition slope is problematic for vessels during low tides. The proposal would modify the transition slope, creating a steeper slope that is stabilized with a modified sheet pile wall. While navigation would be maintained at pier 2, it would not maintain navigation for all vessels that berth at the pier during all tides. Retaining historic dredging practices would necessitate that the Port limit use of the pier to only those vessels that could safely access the area at all tides. This change in use of the pier would likely require the Port to construct a new pier facility to accommodate current and potential future customers using larger ocean going vessels or risk losing existing customers. Maintenance of the pier under historic conditions does not resolve the challenges the shallow transition slope creates for vessels during low tides, and does not make business sense for the Port to continue to dredge when not all of the current users of this area would be accommodated by the dredging activities. This alternative will not be evaluated further in this document because it does not fulfill the overall project purpose. Based on the rationale provided in section f(5) above, reducing the dredging depth and/or footprint would not achieve the overall project purpose and would result in decreased use of the Port which would likely result in adverse economic impacts to the Port and the surrounding community. Larger vessels that cannot be accommodated at the Port due to reduced berthing depth would have to find other facilities that could accommodate them. 10

12 The Port would lose business, which would adversely affect the local economy. Due to the likely adverse affects associated with this alternative, and the alternative s inability to fulfill the overall project purpose, this alternative is not considered further in this document. For reasons outlined in f(4) and f(5) above, alternative dredging locations and changes to the dredging depth do not represent reasonable alternatives. The Rosario Strait open water disposal location is the closest open-water disposal area; requiring placement at a different location would increase transportation costs and expenditure of fuel without providing added environmental value. It is not reasonable to require the applicant to transport the dredged material longer distances when there is an approved open-water disposal area near the project vicinity. Disposal of all of the dredged material in an approved upland location would remove the sediment from the aquatic environment while increasing handling and transportation of the material. This alternative would increase project costs without adding additional environmental benefit. This alternative is not the LEDPA. j. Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA): (1) Placement of riprap would result in a Section 404-regulated discharge subject to review under the Guidelines. For reasons provided in Part 4.f.(1), above, this alternative would result in increased shoreline armoring and alter nearshore habitat by converting converting sandy substrate to rock riprap armoring. This alternative would adversely impact critical habitat and essential fish habitat and have cause greater environmental damage than the proposed sheet pile wall. (2) Placement of a concrete wall would result in a Section 404-regulated discharge subject to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. As described in Part 4.f.(2) above, this alternative s impact would also result in a loss of nearshore habitat through conversion of sandy substrate into hard armoring, loss of access to sandy substrate, and changes in wave action patterns caused by the wall structure. This alternative would adversely impact critical habitat and essential fish habitat and cause greater environmental damage than the proposed sheet pile wall. (3) For reasons outlined in Part 4.f.(4) above, alternative open-water dredged material disposal location would have higher transportation and fuel costs but have the same environmental impact. Disposing of the dredged material at other DMMP-approved open water disposal sites would cause less environmental damage than the proposed disposal site. Based on the rationale above, the Corps has determined that the Port s preferred project design, which include a steeper transition slope, modified sheet pile wall, dolphin relocation, disposal of 3,250 cubic yards of contaminated dredged material at an 11

13 approved upland location, and disposal of clean dredged material at the Rosario Strait open-water disposal area qualifies as the LEDPA. 5. Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In this case, the discharge being evaluated under the Guidelines is the disposal of up to 5,450 cubic yards of dredged material into the Rosario Strait open-water disposal site. a. Factual determinations. (1) Physical Substrate. See Existing Conditions, Part 1 The substrate within the proposed dredge area is composed of coarse-grained material, primarily sand with small portions of silt and clay. The proposed dredging would remove the upper layer of substrate exposing deeper layers of similar sediments. Since the substrate material accreted within recent years and is uniform in nature, the proposed project will result in minimal impacts to substrate composition. (2) Water circulation, fluctuations, and salinity. Addressed in the Water Quality Certification. (3) Suspended particulate/turbidity. Turbidity controls (via water quality monitoring) addressed in Water Quality Certification. (4) Contaminant availability. Proposed excavation activity has been reviewed by the Corps Dredged Material Management Office and 5,450 cubic yards was found suitable for in-water disposal. The remaining 3,250 cubic yards from material from DMMUs P2-1-A and P2-1-2 will be disposed at an approved upland location. The post-dredging surface of the project footprint will not contain contaminants at levels that exceed safety thresholds and does not require over-dredging or a sediment cap. To ensure the requirements for using the DMMP-approved open water disposal site area met, Special Conditions j though k will become conditions of the DA permit. (5) Aquatic ecosystem and organism. Wetland/wildlife evaluations completed, see Parts 6, 7 and 8. (6) Proposed disposal site. 12

14 Disposal would occur at the Rosario Strait open water disposal site which has been evaluated and approved by the Seattle District Dredged Material Management Office. (7) Cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem. See Part 7.e. (8) Secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem. See Part 7.e. b. Restrictions on discharges (230.10). (1) It has been demonstrated in Part 4 that there are no less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives that could satisfy the project s basic purpose. (2) The activity is not located in a special aquatic site (wetlands, sanctuaries, and refuges, mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes). The activity does not need to be located in a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose. (3) The proposed activity does not violate applicable State water quality standards or Section 307 prohibitions or effluent standards. (4) The proposed activity does not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered species or affects their critical habitat. (5) The proposed activity does not violate the requirements of a federally designated marine sanctuary. (6) The activity will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United States, including adverse effects on human health; life stages of aquatic organisms ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability; and recreation, esthetic, and economic values. (7) Appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. 6. Public Interest Review: a. All public interest factors have been reviewed as summarized here. Both cumulative and secondary impacts on the public interest were considered. Relevant public interest factors are discussed below in Part M + Beneficial effect 0 Negligible or no effect or not applicable Adverse effect M Neutral as result of mitigative action 13

15 + 0 M + Beneficial effect 0 Negligible or no effect or not applicable Adverse effect M Neutral as result of mitigative action Conservation. Economics. Aesthetics. General environmental concerns. Wetlands. Historic properties. Fish and wildlife values. Flood hazards. Floodplain values. Land use. Navigation. Shore erosion and accretion. Recreation. Water supply and conservation. Water quality. Energy needs. Safety. Food and fiber production. Mineral needs. Considerations of property ownership. Needs and welfare of the people. 7. Effects, policies and other laws. a. Public Interest Factors. (1) Economics: Maintaining access to the deepwater berth at Pier 2 will ensure that the Port of Anacortes is able to continue to provide services and products to its customers. The Port is a large employer for Fidalgo Island and operates the airport, marine terminal, and Cap Sante Marina, and therefore generates ancillary economic benefits to the broader population. The project will have a beneficial effect on economics for the applicant and the immediate region. 14

16 (2) Fish and Wildlife Values: A number of fish species occur in the project area, including rockfish and anadromous salmonids. Marine mammals and birds also occur in the project area. While fish, birds, and marine mammals may be disturbed by the turbidity, noise, and activity associated with the dredging, disposal, and pile driving operations, these impacts are expected to be temporary in nature and limited to the vicinity of the project area. The impacts associated with dredging are expected to be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the dredging and disposal areas. In-water noise disturbance to fish caused by vibratory pile driving would be in an area of approximately 112 feet from the location of the pile driving activity. Disturbance to migrating fish species is likely to be minor because the area in which the dredging or disposal activities will occur is relatively small compared to the total area of Guemes Channel. Disturbance to species would be avoided through the use of the approved in-water work window of 14 July to 15 February, when ESA-listed species are least likely to be present. Limited removal of benthic invertebrates will occur during dredging and disposal operations. Dredging will also result in some entrainment of non-mobile macroinvertebrates. The loss of prey will likely have localized temporary impacts on Pacific salmon. However, these macroinvertebrates respond relatively rapidly to disturbances and can quickly recolonize areas following these disturbances. Furthermore, benthic habitat in the project area is not considered highly productive due to regular disturbance from past and ongoing dredging and ship traffic. A variety of mammals, including humpback whale and Stellar sea lion, migrate near the project site. Noise associated with vibratory pile driving can travel up to 5.86 miles; this is the maximum area where in-water noise would be elevated above the disturbance threshold for marine mammals. Marine mammals are highly mobile and are expected to avoid the project site during dredging activities. The project will also occur during a work window that minimizes the potential for presence of marine mammals. Overall, the effects of the proposed activities on fish and wildlife would be shortterm, temporary, and localized; therefore, the Corps has concluded that these effects would be minor and not contrary to the public interest. (3) Navigation and Safety: These two factors are interrelated and will be discussed together. The project is designed to maintain safe navigation at the Port of Anacortes Pier 2. Without dredging, relocation of the dolphin, and construction of the modified sheet pile wall, ocean-going vessels would eventually be unable to safely dock at Pier 2. Maintaining safe navigation is necessary for the Port to continue to operate the deepwater berth at Pier 2. The project will have beneficial effects on navigation and safety. 15

17 (4) Water Quality: Suspended sediment from both dredging and disposal operations can adversely impact aquatic organisms through behavioral avoidance, disorientation, physiological stress, and direct mortality. Clamshell and bucket dredging can create water column concentration of suspended sediments at the excavation site. Turbidity is generally more concentrated near the bed, but extends to the surface as buckets are raised. In-water disposal of dredged material will also create a discharge field extending from the bottom of the ship s hull (bottom-dump barge) to the bottom of the disposal site. Depending on depth, substrate type, and currents, the turbidity plumes can extend downstream up to 300 meters at the surface and 500 meters near the bottom. However, these impacts are temporary and short-term, and water quality conditions would return to background levels shortly after dredging and disposal activities cease; therefore, water quality impacts are expected to be minor and not be contrary to the public interest. (5) No effects to conservation, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, energy needs, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, or the general needs and welfare of the people have been identified. b. Endangered Species Act. Listed in the Memorandum for the Services, dated 31 May 2013 and located in the file, are the species and/or critical habitat, listed under the ESA that occur in the project s action area and the Corps determinations of effect. On 1 November 2013 and 23 October 2013, the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, respectively, concurred with our findings. To achieve minimal impacts on listed species, special conditions d through e listed at the end of this document will become conditions of the permit. c. Essential Fish Habitat. The proposed project will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat for pacific salmon, groundfish, and/or coastal pelagic species based on the rationale detailed in the Biological Evaluation. d. Historic Properties. The Corps has determined the proposed action has no potential or little likelihood to cause effects to any historic property listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. The NHPA process was completed on 12 April 2013, as documented in the NHPA Section 106 MFR located in the file. e. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts 1. The project site is located in WRIA 03 (Lower Skagit-Samish) and HUC (Strait of Georgia). The geographic scope of this 1 Supporting information for this evaluation was obtained from: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cumulative Effects Analysis Tool for the Puget Sound Region of Washington, Version 1. Designed by Y.J. Chung. Institute for Water Resources. 16

18 assessment is the San Juan Islands and Georgia Sub-basin. The temporal scope of this assessment covers the previous 22 years. This timeframe is based on land use information available to the Corps dating back to Population information was obtained from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. (1) Historic conditions of the area subject to this analysis: Approximately 29% of the watershed area was wetland in There is no updated information available to determine the current percent land cover of wetlands; however, it is likely that the area of wetlands has decreased as the population of the area has increased. There are also approximately 29.5 miles of shoreline length contained within the watershed. Unconsolidated shore composes 3.1% of the watershed. Prior to the development of the area, the project area consisted of portions of small strips of sandy beach, with uplands that consisted of mature forested areas. The beach slopes were gentler, and water deep enough to support ocean-going vessels was not present right up the shoreline. (2) Major changes to the watershed and description of current condition: Resulting natural resource changes and stresses include loss of shoreline, loss of bluff-backed beaches, artificial shorelines, and shoreline armoring. These resources are also being affected by agricultural activities within the sub-basin, industrial use within 25 miles of the shore, and tidal barriers. Key issues of concern in this watershed are threats to water quality resulting from upland developments, increased human population, and modifications to the shoreline habitat. The project area is listed on the 303(d) list for multiple parameters. One of the pollutants, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was identified in the tissue of red rock crab within the listed site, but the majority of the pollutants were recorded in the sediments. The project area is used for commercial and industrial activities. The Port of Anacortes was established in Since that time, the Port has increased in size and range of services it provides, resulting in development of uplands adjacent to the project area and overwater structures to accommodate commercial activities and serve the vessels that use the Port s facilities. The city of Anacortes, located near the Port, has also experienced growth over the past several decades. The population within the watershed itself has increased nearly eight percent between 2000 and The increased population of the area and increased commercial activities at the Port have resulted in increased uses of the waters for commercial and recreational purposes. (3) Anticipated cumulative and secondary impacts (environmental consequences) of the proposed project to the watershed: The Port of Anacortes has been using the project area for commercial marine purposes since the 1920s. Maintenance dredging activities within this area have occurred multiple times in the past. The proposed dredging would facilitate the continued use of Pier 2, and should not lead to any additional adverse impacts above baseline conditions. Use of the open-water disposal site will contribute to cumulative water quality degradation in Rosario 17

19 Strait; however, since impacts will be short term, minor and localized, their contribution to cumulative impacts will be minor. Dredged material not approved for open-water disposal will be placed at an approved upland location. The creation of the modified sheet pile wall may result in secondary impacts to shoreline sediment accretion. These impacts are expected to be minor given the modified sheet pile design would alternate between a sheet pile and pipe pile design. Further, the wall would extend minimally, if at all, above the mud line, thereby reducing the likelihood that the structure would interfere with sediment accumulation processes. (4) Reasonably foreseeable future actions: Reasonably foreseeable actions include ongoing but infrequent maintenance dredging activities at the Port and marina facilities in the area. Actions could also include additional industrial development at the Port and other commercial, industrial and private developments (e.g., piers, ramps, floats, etc.) along the Guemes Channel shoreline and Fidalgo Bay. (5) Effect of the proposed mitigation, including avoidance and minimization, on reducing the project s contribution to cumulative effects in the region: The proposed dredging is the minimum needed for safe navigation. The use of a low modified sheet pile wall to stabilize the shoreline would minimize the impacts of this work compared to other shoreline armoring activities like the placement of riprap or a seawall. In addition, the applicant has agreed to implement best management practices during construction, conduct work in the allowable in-water work window, and use open-water and upland disposal methods. These actions are expected to reduce the project s cumulative effects to a minimal level. The action consists of maintenance activities that would not result in a new loss of aquatic functions or habitat. Impacts along the shoreline would be limited to a change in the slope at the Pier 2 berth. This change would be occurring in an area that is already highly degraded by commercial and industrial development. The change in the slope does not result in a loss of aquatic functions in this area due to the anthropogenic uses of the site. For these reasons, compensatory mitigation for this project are not needed. (6) Conclusions: The cumulative and secondary impacts of the proposed project on the environment of the Strait of Georgia watershed were evaluated in relation to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The proposed project will result in minor modifications to a segment of shoreline at a site already highly degraded by commercial/industrial development. The use of the a low-profile sheet pile wall will stabilize but not armor the shoreline slope. I have determined that the secondary and cumulative impacts of the project are not contrary to the public interest and comply with the Guidelines. f. N/A Corps Wetland Policy. The project would not impact any wetlands or special aquatic sites. 18

20 g. Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act has been issued by the State/ Tribe/ EPA. Date of issuance: 18 June 2013, amended on 18 July h. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency determination has been received from the State. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) defaulted on the CZM consistency determination. In a discussion with the representatives from Ecology on 13 November 2014, the Corps was informed that Ecology would not provide any comments on the CZM consistency determination, and that the Corps was able to make a final decision on the permit application. i. N/A Other relevant authorizations. j. N/A Significant Issues of Overriding National Importance. 8. Compensation and other mitigation actions. a. Compensatory Mitigation (1) Is compensatory mitigation required? Yes No, because the proposed work is maintenance dredging in a previously dredged area. The impacts to the aquatic environment would be minor and short-term. 9. General evaluation criteria considered under the public interest review: a. The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work: see Section 4, purpose and need, for a description of the private/public need for the project. b. Conflicts as to resource use. There are no unresolved conflicts as to resource use. c. The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects, which the proposed work is likely to have on the public, and private uses to which the area is suited: Detrimental impacts are expected to be minimal and temporary in the construction area. Sediment would continue to accrete in the berthing area, which will require additional maintenance dredging in the future. The beneficial effects associated with utilization of the property would be permanent. 10. Special Conditions. a. You must provide a copy of the permit transmittal letter, permit form, and drawings to all contractors performing any of the authorized work. 19

21 b. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. c. The authorized work shall not interfere with the public s right to free navigation on navigable waters of the United States. d. You must implement and abide by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements and/or agreements set forth in the Biological Evaluation (BE) dated January 2013, and the addenda dated May 20, 2013, and August 28, The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurred with a finding of may affect, not likely to adversely affect based on these documents on November 1, 2013 (NMFS Reference Number NWR ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with a finding of may affect, not likely to adversely affect based on these documents on October 23, 2013 (USFWS Reference Number 01EWFW I-0387). Both agencies will be informed of this permit issuance. Failure to comply with the commitments made in the BE and the addenda constitutes non-compliance with the ESA and your Corps permit. The USFWS and NMFS are the appropriate authorities to determine compliance with ESA. e. In order to meet the requirements of the ESA and for the protection of ESA-listed species, you may conduct the authorized activities from July 14 through February 15 in any year this permit is valid. You shall not conduct work authorized by this permit from February 16 through July 13 in any year this permit is valid. f. At least 14 days prior to beginning the dredging and disposal work, you must notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch Project Manager, by telephone, (206) , to schedule a Pre-dredge Conference. g. At least 7 days prior to the scheduled Pre-dredge Conference, you must submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch Project Manager, a quality control plan for dredging and disposal. This plan must include: the equipment and vessels to be used, operational controls to ensure dredging accuracy, disposal positioning procedures, spill control and response measures, water quality monitoring and contingency plans for exceeding water quality standards, debris management, personnel and responsibilities, dredging and disposal schedule, report submittals, agency contact information and coordination procedures. The plan must be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State Department of Ecology prior to commencement of open-water disposal. h. At least 7 days prior to dredging and disposal, you, the dredging contractor s 20