HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA16-000388_Report 1DEPARTMENT OF COMML ___ fY --------Kenton AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT MANAGER:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
May 27, 2016
LUA16-000388, SME
Barbee Maintenance Dredging Mitigation Shoreline Exemption
Angelea Weihs, Assistant Planner
The Barbee Company
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Michael Lloyd
38210 SE 92nd St
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
3909 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N
The proposed work consists of environmental enhancements and mitigation
measures, arising from state and federal permitting requirements, to improve
near-shore shallow water habitat (see project plan). These environmental
enhancements include, replacement of a solid float with a high
light-transmission grated float, extraction of treated and untreated wood piles,
replacement of wood piles with four galvanized pipe piles, removal of several
large angular rocks at base of basaltic columnar rockery, and placement of
approximately 20 CY of rounded river rock (aka, "fish rock") at the rockery.
These environmental enhancements are in response to approval of a ten year
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit {LUA05-138) for dredging the mouth
of May Creek where sediments collect to prevent flooding of the Barbee Mill
property and to maintain navigational depths to an existing boat house. These
mitigation measures were required as a part of permit approval, and are
approved by USACE {NWS-2007-10-19). The environmental enhancement work
is anticipated to be completed during the approved in-water work window in
accordance with HPA requirements. The anticipated HPA in -water work
window is July, 16 through September, 15 of this year.
The applicant is proposing to replace a solid wood float, approximately 25'
immediately south of the boathouse. The solid float is 32' long and has an
area of 256 sf. A new float that is 24' long and has a surface area of 192 sf
will be installed. The new float is 25% smaller. The entire surface area of the
float will be grated with high light-transmission grating (>63% light
transmission) to substantially improve light transmission to near-shore,
shallow water habitat. Three treated piles will be extracted and replaced with
Page 1 of 4
City of Renton Department of Communit conomic Development Certificate of E tion from Shoreline Substantial Development
Barbee Maintenance Dredging Mitigation Shoreline Exemption LUA16-000388, SME
SEC-TWN-R:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(King County Assessor)
SEC-TWN-R:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(King County Assessor)
two smaller galvanized pipe piles to eliminate creosote treated piles.
Approximately ten treated piles at the replacement float, mentioned above,
will be extracted in accordance with Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) requirements and procedures. Additionally, two dolphins,
consisting of three piles each, will also be extracted. Because there may be
"stubbed" piles, below the water line, the number of piles is stated as
approximate. Extracted piles will be cut into small lengths for disposal at an
approved landfill. At no time will any treated wood piling be reused for any
purpose.
Four pipe piles will be installed. As mentioned above, the three piles at the
float will be replaced with two 10" galvanized pile piles to secure the new
grated float. Two 12" galvanized pipe piles will be installed to replace the two
dolphins identified immediately above.
The applicant is proposing to remove several large angular basaltic rocks in
the water at the base of the rockery approximately 75' south of the boathouse
These rocks will be removed from the water and taken off-site. Approximately
20 CY of approved fish rock will be placed at the base of the rockery and at
area immediacy south of the boathouse and adjacent to the existing boat
ramp. Of this quantity about 2 or 3 yards will be placed near the boat ramp,
and the remainder will be placed at the rockery.
NW32-24-5
HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN #2 "LOT A" RENTON LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT NO LUA-96-153LLA-LND-30-0152 REC NO 20061002900012 SD
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OAF LOTS 1 THRU 13 IN BLOCK A OF HILLMANS LAKE
WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIV NO 2 PLAT TGW SH LOS ADS AND TGW
THE NWLY 25.00 FT OF BNSF ROW LY BTWN TWO LNS DRAWN PLW & DIST
25.00 AND 50.00 FT NWLY AS MEAS AT R/A FR MAIN TRACK C/L BOUNDED
ON THE NORTH BY THE ELY EXTN OF THE NORTH LN OF LOT 1 AND
BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE ELY EXTN OF THE SOUTH LN OF LOT 13
OF SD HILLMANS LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIV 2
NW32-24-5
HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN #2 "LOT D" RENTON LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT NO LUA-96-153LLA-LND-30-0152 REC NO 20061002900012 SD
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OAF LOTS 1 THRU 13 IN BLOCK A OF HILLMANS LAKE
WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIV NO 2 PLAT TGW SH LOS ADS AND TGW
THE NWLY 25.00 FT OF BNSF ROW LY BTWN TWO LNS DRAWN PLW & DIST
25.00 AND 50.00 FT NWLY AS MEAS AT R/A FR MAIN TRACK C/L BOUNDED
ON THE NORTH BY THE ELY EXTN OF THE NORTH LN OF LOT 1 AND
BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE ELY EXTN OF THE SOUTH LN OF LOT 13
OF SD HILLMANS LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIV 2
Page 2 of 4
City of Renton Department of Communh conomic Development Certificate of E tion from Shoreline Substantial Development
Barbee Maintenance Dredging Mitigation Shoreline Exemption LUA16-000388, SME
SEC-TWN-R:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(King County Assessor)
SEC-TWN-R:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(King County Assessor)
SEC-TWN-R:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(King County Assessor)
WATER BODY:
NW32-24-5
BARBEE MILL
NW32-24-5
HILLMAN$ LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN #2 "LOT C" RENTON LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT NO LUA-96-153LLA-LND-30-0152 REC NO 20061002900012 SD
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT DAF LOTS 1 THRU 13 IN BLOCK A OF HILLMAN$ LAKE
WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIV NO 2 PLAT TGW SH LDS ADS AND TGW
THE NWLY 25.00 FT OF BNSF ROW LY BTWN TWO LNS DRAWN PLW & DIST
25.00 AND 50.00 FT NWLY AS MEAS AT R /A FR MAIN TRACK C/L BOUNDED
ON THE NORTH BY THE ELY EXTN OF THE NORTH LN OF LOT 1 AND
BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE ELY EXTN OF THE SOUTH LN OF LOT 13
OF SD HILLMANS LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIV 2
NW32-24-5
HILLMAN$ LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN #2 "LOT B" RENTON LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT NO LUA-96-153LLA-LND-30-0152 REC NO 20061002900012 SD
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OAF LOTS 1 THRU 13 IN BLOCK A OF HILLMAN$ LAKE
WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIV NO 2 PLAT TGW SH LDS ADS AND TGW
THE NWLY 25.00 FT OF BNSF ROW LY BTWN TWO LNS DRAWN PLW & DIST
25.00 AND 50.00 FT NWLY AS MEAS AT R/A FR MAIN TRACK C/L BOUNDED
ON THE NORTH BY THE ELY EXTN OF THE NORTH LN OF LOT 1 AND
BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE ELY EXTN OF THE SOUTH LN OF LOT 13
OF SD HILLMAN$ LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIV 2
An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby Approved with
Conditions* on the proposed project in accordance with RMC 4.9.190C 'Exemption from Permit System' and
for the following reasons:
Projects to Improve Fish and Wildlife Passage or Habitat: A public or private project, the primary purpose of
which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply:
a. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as necessary for the
improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended
purpose.
b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to
chapter 75.20 RCW.
c. The Planning Division has determined that the project is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.
Page 3 of 4
City of Renton Department of Communit conomic Development Certificate af E
Barbee Maintenance Dredging Mitigation Shoreline Exemption
The proposed development is:
Consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
tion from Shoreline Substantial Development
LUA16-000388, SME
Consistent with the guidelines ofthe Department of Ecology where no Master Program has been finally
approved or adopted by the Department.
Consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program.
CONDITIONS: PLN -Administrative Decision Condition
1. All work shall comply with any conditions of the Hydraulic Project
Approval and USACE permit approval (NWS-2007-10-19) issued for the
dredging of the May Creek Delta.
SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION :
5-~ -/C_c
Jennifer Henning, Planning Dire Date
The administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing together with the required
fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm,
on June 10, 2016. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton
City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510.
Attachments: Vicinity/Neighborhood Detail Map, Site Plan, Project Narrative
cc: The Barbee Company The Barbee Company -Owner
Lloyd & Associates, Inc Michael Lloyd -Applicant
Page 4 of 4
f,9,,
1 ~, 6.o-11u~ ,\rn ' l,,
Mer~ l•lan41
u Skyway
Tu kwila
1~16
PURPOSE: Enhance Env ironment
DATUM: USACE / Seattle District (NAD83)
ADJACENT PROPERTY OW NERS
i Barbee Company
Barbee Mill Development
Burlington Northern-Sante Fe
Neighborhood Detail Map
ny
BNSF Railroad
Scale (ft)
0
APP LI CANT Barbee Company
REFE RENCE: USAC E NWS-2007-1019-NO
LOCA TION ADDRESS :
390 1 La ke Washington Blvd . N.
Ren ton , King County , WA 98055
Section Towns hip Range: NW 32 24 05
Lat 4 7 N 31' 40 '' Long 122W 12' 29"
\
Exit 7 1-4
~
500 1000
PROPO SED : Environmental Enhancement
WA TERBO DY: Lake Wash ington
Ne iqhborhood Deta il Map
5·· .. --·---------------------------------
EXHIBIT 1
-H-:,L ... /
------,/ I ~.A,,,, -
.---~ ,/-~ '-------:\ \
· .. ?} \
,.,."1'<>T•
--
,,_ ?·. ·,, , ..... '-~'" /'':-,_) < _I
· ~;J Sf1a1Jbywate,
r enhayc~ment (2016)
[,:11-t-:-: Ur::J-:1c ;\r->J .__:,_.-;,,, ,-
~--~.' ..
Install grated_,lloat • demo f --' / /{ existing f19ai, replace 3 treated
' I / J plies (?li'I~\
;
./
Fisl1roi:.k f--'hcernt!nt Att'~.1 (Lfi~li)
Fl ,------, -
Extract t sh rock Plac v-L with ste;~ated plles, replace ement Area (2016) ----_---
cans {2016)
J
//~· ,--
/;,
'~ ·-," E:.i~ ',/· t ! ~ ~~-
---100·---
PURPOSE: Enhance Shallow-water
DATUM: USAGE/ Seattle District (NAD83)
Section Township Range: NW 32 24 05
APPLICANT: Barbee Company
REFERENCE: USAGE NWS-2007-1019-NO
LOCATION ADDRESS:
PROPOSED: Environmental Enhancement Project
WATERBODY: Lake Washinqton
Lat: 47N 31' 40" Long: 122W 12' 29"
3901 Lake Washinqton Blvd. N.
Renton, King County, WA 98055
Site Plan
5/11/2_()J_§_
m >< ::c
""' ca
:I
l',J
City of Renton -Shoreline E. 1tion Request
Attachment 3. Project Narrative (5 copies)
Project Name:
Project Area:
Location:
Barbee Environmental Enhancements
Approximately 90,000 sf
Lake Washington. City of Renton Shoreline
EXHIBIT 3
Waterward of single family residences from 4001 Wells Ave. to 3905
Lake
Washington Blvd. N, Renton Washington,
Brief description of proposed work:
The proposed work consists of environmental enhancements and mitigation measures, arising
from state and federal permitting requirements, to improve near-shore shallow water habitat
(see project plan). These environmental enhancements include:
• Replacement of a solid float with a high light-transmission grated float.
• Extraction of treated and untreated wood piles.
• Replacement of wood piles with four galvanized pipe piles
• Removal of several large angular rocks at base of basaltic columnar rockery
• Placement of approximately 20 CY of rounded river rock (aka, "fish rock") at the
rockery
Float Replacement. A solid wood lloat, approximately 25' immediately south of the boathouse
will be replaced. The solid float is 32' long and has an area of256 sf. A new float that is 24'
long and has a surface area of 192 sf will be installed. The new float is 25% smaller. The entire
surface area of the float will be grated with high light-transmission grating (>63% light
transmission) to substantially improve light transmission to near-shore, shallow water habitat.
Three treated piles will be extracted and replaced with two smaller galvanized pipe piles to
eliminate creosote treated piles (see below)
Extraction of treated/untreated piles. Approximately ten treated piles at the replacement float
(mentioned above) will be extracted in accordance with Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) requirements and procedures. Additionally, two dolphins, consisting of
three piles each, will also be extracted. Because there may be "stubbed" piles, below the water
line), the number of piles is stated as approximate. Extracted piles will be cut into small
lengths for disposal at an approved landfill. At no time will any treated wood piling be reused
for any purpose.
Drive Galvanized pipe piles. Four pipe piles will be installed. As mentioned above, the three
piles at the float will be replaced with two IO" galvanized pile piles to secure the new grated
float. Two 12" galvanized pipe piles will be installed to replace the two dolphins identified
immediately above.
Angular Rock Removal. There are several large angular basaltic rocks in the water at the base
of the rockery approximately 75' south ol'the boathouse. These rocks will be removed from the
water and taken offsite.
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
City of Renton -Shoreline fa >tion Request
Placement of"Fish Rock". Approximately 20 CY of approved fish rock will be placed at the
base of the rockery and at area immediacy south of the boathouse and adjacent to the existing
boat ramp. Of this quantity about 2 or 3 yards will be placed near the boat ramp, and the
remainder will be placed at the rockery.
Basis for the Exemption: Completion or this project will improve shallow-water fish habitat.
Anticipated dates of work: July-September 2016
Environmental enhancement work is anticipated to be completed during the approved in-water
work window in accord with Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) requirements. Anticipated
HPA in-water work window is July] 6 -September 15.
Other permits required for proposed project:
USACE permit (NWS-2007-10 19)
Department of Ecology approvals (Shorelines and Water Quality Certification)
Hydraulic Project Approval (WDFW not yet obtained).
Current and proposed use of the site:
Currently the site is entirely aquatic lands owned by project proponent. The work site is
adjacent to the shoreline and used for navigational access to the boathouse and related
recreational uses on lake Washington. There are no proposed changes to site use.
Special site features
The project site is unique waterfront on Lake Washington. As stated above, the project
proponent owns aquatic lands of the water front for four single family homes. There is a
boathouse at the north end and a shared-use dock at the south end. The site is also near May
Creek.
Soil type and drainage conditions:
Existing sediments at the project site at the north are principally sands and gravels (with
rounded rock up to 8" in diameter) arising lrom May Creek lacustrine deposition. The sands
and gravels grade to finer materials (fine sands and silt) at the south end as one moves further
away from sands and gravels deposited by May Creek at the north end of the site (deposition
occurs principally during severe storm events). When dredged, the sediments at the north end
are known to be well draining sands and gravels with occasional rounded rock.
Estimated Construction and Fair Market Value Costs.
Construction costs are estimated to be approximately $65,000. The fair market value is harder
to estimate, but permitting costs, delays, and transactional and administrative costs, if included
in fair market value, bump estimates substantially higher than the construction costs. There is
also the difficulty of estimating the value to fishes and wildlife of enhanced shallow-water
habitat. Fair Market Value? Just a guess at $300,000.
Estimated Quantities and types of materials:
Approximately 20 CY of rounded river rock (approved previously by WDFW) will be placed in
the water at the rockery, as discussed above.
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
' City of Renton -Shoreline E. 1tion Request
Tree Removal: No trees will be removed.
Distance from Ordinary High Water Linc:
All proposed environmental enhancements at the project site will occur in-water below the
ordinary High Water Line (OHWL -21.8' feet, MSL, USACE datum).
Nature of the Existing Shoreline:
The existing shoreline is almost entirely a bulkhead composed of basaltic rock. A portion of this
project is directed at removal angular rock at the base of the bulkhead and softening the
shoreline along the base of the rockery with rounded fish rock.
Height Restrictions: No structures are proposed in this environmental enhancement project.
Lloyd & Associates. Inc.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Planni,,s Division
1055 South Grady 'c.'ay-Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 42.5-430-7200 I :,;,ww,rentonwa,~
.-------' -------~---,---------------------i
LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Wf•:' ;f.D MODIFIED
Arborist Report,
lsiolo~ical Assessment,
~alculat~ -----
Colored Maps for Display 4 >------
Construction Mitigation Description ,,No, , __
Deed of Right-of-Way Dedication 1
; Density Worksheet,
---------
Drainage Control Plan,
l -----------
,, , : BY: COMMENTS:
---------,
----1
-----··· _J
-i------+-------------~-~
____.___ __ --Environmental Checklist 4 ---------+--
~rainage Report,
Elevations, Architectural 3ANo, --------
Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) tANo,
Existing Easements I Recorded Copy) 1 AND•
----~~-~----+-------------
Flood Hazard Data,
---------_____ ....L_ L_:,'_ ~--
IFloo~ns 3AND4 __J
/Geotechnical Re_p_o_rt_,._N_o __ ,-=-~~~~~~~~-
~ Grading ElevatiCJn_s_&_P_lan, Conceptual 2 I ___ _
I _J
J
' __ Grading Elevations & Plan..:_:>etai~e~ _____ 1 c· _ _ ___________ _
'--, Habi~ata Report, -·0_-+-----+
Improvement Deferral, _______ _J ___ -~~-_ -------------~ l
Irrigation Plan, '
------------------
PROJECT NA <'c: Barbee Maintenance Dredging Mitigation/Enhancement SME
DI --;c, May 4th, 2016
1
H:\CED\Data\Forrn~-Templates\Self-flelp Handouts\Plom11ing\Wa1versubmit1alreqs.docx Revc 08/2015
-~ WA"'l:ol LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITIAl REQUIREMENTS: _ ,
;j :
MODIFIED
BY: COMMENTS:
King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4
Landscape Plan, Conceptual,
Landscape Plan, Detailed 4
,------------------
Legal Description 4 ---
Letter of Understanding of Geological Risk,
Map of Existing Site Conditions 4
---------!------.--------"
-------,------+----
----i------+-----------
,--------------------,---------------
Master Application Form 4
Monument Cards (one per monument) 1 --+-----+----" --
Neighborhood Detail Map 4 ]--
-----------
: Overall Plat Plan ,
!, ----------
Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis,
Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4
Post Office Approval ,
Plat Name Reservation 4
----_,
---,
!
---l ~-J ---+--------
Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 -------------'-----------
" =:-~-_:-_~-: __ i_:=t:_:_~_sn_~_:_i-:_~~o-::a:1:L_e~tt~_e __ r_, __ ~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~----~----+---------------~
Screening Detail 4
Shoreline Tracking Worksheet 4 ------
Site Plan >AND<
\.)
Pl use submit one copy of Biological Evaluation that~ Stream or lake Study, Standard,
'-_ __ _ _ __ --------~cc_-1-'w~•=-"c.c"=bmitted with origin.ii pr_oject_JLUA05·13S).
Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental, f---
:_:~_:_:~_P_:~~ _;k;,_M_i-ti-ga-ti-on ___ P_l_a_n:'~-==-----_-___ ----_ _J__ _____ --'
1
-_______________ ----j
Title Report or Plat Certificate 1AN0, _
I To~ography Map, ---
Traffic Study, -----------------
Tree Cutting/land Clearing Plan,
Urban Design Regulations Analysis 4 -------
Utilities Plan, Generalized, '
--------
Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4
Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary,
'-----------------
-----1--
1-
~]----
2
H:\CEO\Data\Forms-Tempfates\Self-Help Handouts\Plar,ning\Waiver;;ubmittalreqs.docx
----_ 1
Rev: 08/2015
~------
WP..• -£D I MODIFIED COMM-EN~-S: ----I LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
0. BY: __j
Wetlands Report/D-e-lin_e_a_t-io_n_4 ---------+---£-~-~J_'-_ _J~.i~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---_-_-_-__ _J
Wireless:
---------------------~
Applicant Agreement Statement, AND,
Inventory of Existing Sites 2ANoa ,--
Lease Ag!eem_ent, Draft 2 AND, r----
__ Map of Existing Site Conditions lAND~'---~-
--_Map of View Area 2-A·~"0=3 __
Photosimulations,~·~•~o~, ______ _
This Requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services
2 Development Engineering Plan Review
3 Building
4 Planning
3
_i_
H:\CEO\Data\forms-Templates\Self·Help Handouts\Planning\Waiversubmittalreqs.docx
---------
Rev: 08/201S
pty of Renton -Shoreline E. >lion Request
Attachment 3. Project Narrative (5 copies)
Project Name:
Project Area:
Location:
Lake
Barbee Environmental Enhancements
Approximately 90,000 sf
Lake Washington. City of Renton Shoreline
Waterward of single family residences from 4001 Wells Ave. to 3905
Washington Blvd. N. Renton Washington,
Brief description of proposed work:
The proposed work consists of environmental enhancements and mitigation measures, arising
from state and federal permitting requirements, to improve near-shore shallow water habitat
(sec project plan). These environmental enhancements include:
• Replacement of a solid float with a high light-transmission grated float.
• Extraction of treated and untreated wood piles.
• Replacement of wood piles with lour galvanized pipe piles
• Removal of several large angular rocks at base of basaltic columnar rockery
• Placement of approximately 20 CY of rounded river rock (aka, "fish rock") at the
rockery
Float Replacement A solid wood float, approximately 25' immediately south of the boathouse
will be replaced. The solid float is 32' long and has an area of 256 sf. A new float that is 24'
long and has a surface area of 192 sf will be installed. 'The new float is 25% smaller. The entire
surface area of the float will be grated with high light-transmission grating (>63% light
transmission) to substantially improve light transmission to near-shore, shallow water habitat.
Three treated piles will be extracted and replaced with two smaller galvanized pipe piles to
eliminate creosote treated piles (see below)
Extraction of treated/untreated piles. Approximately ten treated piles at the replacement float
(mentioned above) will be extracted in accordance with Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) requirements and procedures. Additionally, two dolphins, consisting of
three piles each, will also be extracted. Because there may be "stubbed" piles, below the water
line), the number of piles is stated as approximate. Extracted piles will be cut into small
lengths for disposal at an approved landfill. At no time will any treated wood piling be reused
for any purpose.
Drive Galvanized pipe piles. Four pipe piles will be installed. As mentioned above, the three
piles at the float will be replaced with two IO" galvanized pile piles to secure the new grated
float. Two 12" galvanized pipe piles will be installed to replace the two dolphins identified
immediately above.
Angular Rock Removal. There are several large angular basaltic rocks in the water at the base
of the rockery approximately 75' south of the boathouse. These rocks will be removed from the
water and taken offsite.
Lloyd & Associates. Inc.
(::ity of Renton -Shoreline E ,tion Request
Placement of"Fish Rock". Approximately 20 CY of approved fish rock will be placed at the
base of the rockery and at area immediacy south of the boathouse and adjacent to the existing
boat ramp. Of this quantity about 2 or 3 yards will be placed near the boat ramp, and the
remainder will be placed at the rockery.
Basis for the Exemption: Completion of this project will improve shallow-water fish habitat.
Anticipated dates of work: July-September 2016
Environmental enhancement work is anticipated to be completed during the approved in-water
work window in accord with Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A) requirements. Anticipated
I-IPA in-water work window is Julyl6 -September 15.
Other permits required for proposed project;
USACE permit (NWS-2007-10 19)
Department of Ecology approvals (Shorelines and Water Quality Certification)
Hydraulic Project Approval (WDFW -not yet obtained).
Current and proposed use of the site:
Currently the site is entirely aquatic lands owned by project proponent. The work site is
adjacent to the shoreline and used for navigational access to the boathouse and related
recreational uses on lake Washington. There are no proposed changes to site use.
Special site features
The project site is unique waterfront on Lake Washington. As stated above, the project
proponent owns aquatic lands of the water front for four single family homes. There is a
boathouse at the north end and a shared-use dock at the south end. The site is also near May
Creek.
Soil type and drainage conditions:
Existing sediments at the project site at the north are principally sands and gravels (with
rounded rock up to 8" in diameter) arising from May Creek lacustrine deposition. The sands
and gravels grade to finer materials (fine sands and silt) at the south end as one moves further
away from sands and gravels deposited by May Creek at the north end of the site ( deposition
occurs principally during severe stom1 events). When dredged, the sediments at the north end
are known to be well draining sands and gravels with occasional rounded rock.
Estimated Construction and Fair Market Value Costs.
Construction costs are estimated to be approximately $65,000. The fair market value is harder
to estimate, but permitting costs, delays, and transactional and administrative costs, if included
in fair market value, bump estimates substantially higher than the construction costs. There is
also the difficulty of estimating the value to fishes and wildlife of enhanced shallow-water
habitat. Fair Market Value? Just a guess at $300,000.
Estimated Quantities and types of materials:
Approximately 20 CY of rounded river rock (approved previously by WDFW) will be placed in
the water at the rockery, as discussed above.
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
•
pty of Renton··· Shoreline E ition Request
Tree Removal: No trees will be removed .
Distance from Ordinary High Water Linc:
All proposed environmental enhancements at the project site will occur in-water below the
ordinary High Water Line (OHWL -21.8' feet, MSL, USACE datum).
Nature of the Existing Shoreline:
The existing shoreline is almost entirely a bulkhead composed of basaltic rock. A portion of this
project is directed at removal angular rock at the base of the bulkhead and softening the
shoreline along the base of the rockery with rounded fish rock.
Height Restrictions: No structures are proposed in this environmental enhancement project.
Lloyd & Associates. Inc.
'H:,L -,.· /
/ " 1-
, ..
----
L<fft,:··,_· l:r·c:J•JC -"f'C'•J · .c.·., -;_;' ,-
~
--. ."0 -----·., ------· . . . . . . .. . · .. \ \
-·~\_ .. --·····,.,/:--_/.) \ ',
__ ... ----------'-.---~~-.:::-'· ·-._;;/, )
\ I
r ,.., Stial.lhj11 Water-
I enhaycement 12016)
~--.,-· )
. ___ , .,v/
----_/ Install grate<j.float • demo
/ ' · ' / // existing flpat, replace 3 treated
I J' plies (2016)
/ Fisl1r0ck i-'10,:2,nent Are.11201li) L./
.,.l
Flshrock Placement Area (2016) __
Extract treated plles, replace V
/ with steel cans {2016) / (' />
J-
' --.. --~-'~ ',.;, ::::.":::::-'.~ I ., l-L·-----
.'
PURPOSE: Enhance Shallow-water
DATUM: USAGE I Seattle District (NAD83)
Section Township Range: NW 32 24 05
Lat: 47N 31' 40" Long: 122W 12' 29"
I 100'---
APPLICANT: Barbee Company
REFERENCE: USAGE NWS-2007-1019-NO
LOCATION ADDRESS:
3901 Lake WashinQton Blvd. N.
Renton, King County, WA 98055
PROPOSED: Environmental Enhancement Project
WATERBODY: Lake Washinqton
Site Plan
5/11/2016 L&AI
I
·vvA u,~L Print Form Reset Form Save Form
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S) J I PROJECT INFORMATION I
NAME: Barbee Company PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
Barbee Environmental Enhancements
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 359 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
4001 WELLS AVE N 98056, 3979 LAKE WASHINGTON
BLVD N, 3909 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N, 3907 LAKE
CITY: Renton ZIP: 98057 WASHINGTON BLVD N, 3907 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N,
3905 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD, 98056.
TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
051850-1150, 334270-0007, 334270-0005,
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
334270-0009, 334270-0011
'
NAME R. Michael Lloyd EXISTING LAND USE(S):
Residential
COMPANY (if applicable): Lloyd & Associates, Inc. PROPOSED LAND USE(S):
Residential
ADDRESS: 3821 o SE 92nd Street
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
Residential Low Density
CITY: Snoqualmie ZIP: 98065
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable)
No ChanQe
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 785-1357 EXISTING ZONING:
Single Family R-1
CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):
No ChanQe
NAME: R. Michael Lloyd SITE AREA (in square feet):
Approximately 90,000 sf
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
COMPANY (if applicable): Lloyd & Associates, Inc. DEDICATED:
No Chanqe
ADDRESS: 38210 SE 92nd Street SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
No Change
CITY: Snoqualmie ZIP: 98065SNear
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
eACRE (if applicable) arbe
No ChanQe
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable)
(425) 785-1357 mlloydassociates, gmail.com No Change
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
I
No Change
1
H; \ CE D\Data \Forms-Temp late s \Self-Help Handouts \Pian ni n g \Master App Ii cation.doc Rev: 08/2015
.tOJECT INFORMATION (co nuedl ,.:...:::...:...:'----'--'=----=--__:_:=-::....:::.L-__________ ~
NUMBER O#ISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
Iv 'I}--
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): /l/!r
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDEylf--
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): jJ
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOI/J NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): ;J I}--
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-A/~NTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): I}--
NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable): J./ / )f--
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW
PROJECT (if applicable): KJ/lf-
PROJECT VALU~ 5 A .p& r6v0
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE
D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO
D FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft.
D GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft.
~HABITAT CONSERVATION &.'5;00i' sq. ft.
D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft.
D WETLANDS sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
/Attach leoal descriotion on separate sheet with the followina information included!
SITUATE IN THE JJ{)) QUARTER OF SECTION 3 2, TOWNSHIP l!±._, RANGE E, , IN THE CITY
OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Name/s) · N I , declare under penalty of perjury und~ laws of the State of
Washington that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or r,::.6.J the authorized
representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein
contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
-/9'-i
Signature of Owner/Representative Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF KING )
!) Cb<' /.-j-lu j /\ I I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that f--' signed this instrument and
acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument.
5/12../11,,,
Dated
"'''"""""''
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
.# ~ o. a, .... !1,,1 § ~~,;;•11,;;;')A''~ = "fr-;.~~ "t::'1,'~ ,~ ~ j 4Pl~1-1i i ~ .,.Cl -• -J ~ ~ i ~ ,
~ ,,,.,,,,,r,0.25.\ /f· :
Notary (Print):
My appointment expires: ~ ~\ 4i,9~\c, E> ~ § ,, ~ ,,..... ~"' :
1111 o,, WAS'<'"-,,--2 ,,,, ..,:--
H:\CED\Data\Forms-WMi\1'.,\'*i\self-Help Handouts\Plann,ng\Master Appl1cat1on.doc
0 • 2.& -I l,
Rev:08/2015
City of Renton -Shoreline Ex ion Request
Attachment I -Land Use Permit master Application (Original and 4 copies)
Includes: Title Report/Legal Descriptions
This Environmental Enhancement Project is situated in the NW Quarter of Section 32,
Township 24, Range 5 in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. A total of five lots
will be beneficially enhanced. There are the Boathouse Property, Lot A, Lot B, Lot C, and
Lot D.
P.1rcel
number
,:,51.~E,,:· 15·:1
Lloyd & Associates. lnc.
Taxp.-yer name
Tt-.::. L.:..KE H'.JU.SL' :., -~'"' :,_:: ...
Tl-::. LAKE HJL:.SE::· ~ ::.-_,_:::
5ARBEE FOREST =~,:c _1:-.~ If-,·.:
f..!_qBEE FOREST =F.:J:· _1 ::--~ It·.<
BA.RBEE FOREST =F.: :c _1 :--~ ll·.1:
Parcel address
4,:,0-··.'\'LLS AVE r,..
'.5?07 L.l..1-'..E -,:.,:.:._:a·-U,•.-:,r::::,r,.. BL'--D I\
3·?0~-LAKE ·,VAS-U~.GTCt. BL'-·'D I\.
Jurisdiction
RENTON
RENTC.N
RENTON
RENTCN
RENTON
Zip code
City of Renton -Shoreline Ex . ion Request
P.1rce-l N .imbe r
Narne
s:te Address
Legal
vear Built
Tota! Square Footage
Number Of Bedrooms
Number Of Baths
Grade
Condition
Lot Size
Views
Watertront
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Legal Description -Boathouse Lot
PARCEL
BUILDING 1
l.,LJ(
C ity of Renton Sho re line Ex . lion Requ est
Parce1
Number
Narre
S •e
Address
,< H
' J
,.
_egal '\ , . ~ '\/\ ...
T r, '/. L ( /._ ... '\ 'I
Year Built
Tot,,1 Square l'ootage
Number Of Bedrooms
Number Of Baths
Grade
Cond1t1on
Lot Size
Views
W.:ter•ront
Lloyd & Associates. Inc .
Legal Descri ption -Lot A
' •, .
', ' ' ~.
.. '.J
,. ' • h' '\ I ' ' I l
J' . '
~ BUILDING1
'J ,' f1' ·~ :.. ', T . .
1, ,, ... . ' ' t.,·, ,, I >if ' 1, l ' V I•' ' ~ Hf '->I ' . t t 'i
Ci ty or Renton -Shorel in e Ex. ,tion Request
Parcel
r,H,mber
t-iame
S;te
Address
Lega
, ~ I
• I ' I • '.
., ...
! 'I "J
. ,, " . t.
'I L
"-.i :. L 'y \ "1t
Vear Bu It
Total Square Footage
t-il,rnber Of Bedrooms
Number Of Baths
Grade
Cond t1on
Lot Size
Views
1/,' aterfrort
Lloyd & Associates . I n<:.
T ~ ~ J
Legal Oescription -Lot B
-,.,, ·:., ,' ,-PARCEL
l t," '
r j, I .
L !'JI : r
·1 'J
L\ ., ~. r~,, . ' . L ', ',
---BUILDING 1
m 1-l ' k ' t·, A
" .. f \J LA 111
I ' ' I [,' r,
F , \ r\, V. ·'\
'J I L
r., 't ' 'l
I [ ) .
' I •.
C ity of Renton -Shore line E. . ,tion Reque st -~------------~--
P.i•c"I
"JL,mber
tlja 11e r •
; 1 ..
Address
Leg a·
.,~
' . "
' .
~ ' ,•
'" iE 'J
Tota Square Footage
Number Of Bedrooms
"Jumbe• Of Baths
_,rade
:011<1 1t 10ll
o• Sze
\tie,~~
Water•ront
Lloyd & Associat~s. Inc.
'I
''
•I
•i I
1,,
11,
~ 'r
-..~
"
Legal Description -Lot C
' .
Tf-":;'.": ::~~ . ·. BUILDING 1
r. ~ r
'
,( '\ '~ ~ ..
'• I I '•
Y r E E ' • "-
• '. Lil ~
. \
T
, I
•, ,',
I , r
City of Renton Shorel ine Ex
P,1rcel
Number
Ste
Add·ess
Year Built
4
h
1tion Reque st
f<
I 'A'\ ' " ..... 'J
II', . I
1/ ~·tf \, .... l '{
-., :. • .,, r·:l
', ~ I H l \,
', I j I
To,al Square Footage
Number Of Bedrooms
Nuriber Of Baths
Grade
Cond1t1or
_ot Size
Views
Waterfront
Ll oyd & Assoc ial(:S. Inc.
Legal Description -Lot D
PARCEL
'. I .
' \ 'J
', . ,.
J'J
fr H
, BUILDING 1
·~ I •
' '
'. I' T .,
t 'J
;,. "
. "
I :, \J
; f '
f t ' f ''
., -----------a.;:i;,·• '0.:..ciJA,;, , ----------------
SHORELINE TRACKING
WORKSHEET
City of Renro 'anning Division
1055 South Grady•; 1, Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-T_" D Fax: 425-430-7231
The City of Renton is required by the Washington State! ·partment of Ecology to track and evaluate the
effectiveness of the Shoreline Master Program at achieving no net loss of shoreline ecologic~! functions with
respect to shoreline projects. The City will use shoreline development tracking information to prepare a Shoreline
Master Program report every eight years to comply wi.'1 the Shoreline Management Act requirements.
SHORELINE STABILIZATION
l. Is there currently a bulkhead on your site; ~ Yes D No; If yes, fill out table below.
If no,~e "Site Conditions", Section 2 be_lo 'i.:._ ------------
! What Type of Materials is Your Bulkheac Made of? Linear Feet of Hard----,
---+--Materia_ls_: ___ ---1
1
:-asa-lt r-oc-k-columns to be "-sof-te-ne-d" w-ith-fish 725 ft.
ock to enhance shoreline. r_ . Linear Feet of Soft 1
I Materials: I I f--------·
75 ft.
~ -----------------· -----------Examples of Types of Bulkheads: Hard (e.g. rocks, wood; Soft (e.g. sand, plants);
Combination-soft materials at the water .. , th hard materials furtherer inland, or a
combination of hard and soft materials ·.e water.
SITE CONDITIONS
2. List the size (in square feet) and type of,,. structures (l" floor only) on your property (e.g.
2,000 sq. ft. house, 125 sq. ft. green housL'
Four homes in environmental enhancement area with a total of approximately 3,000 sf
floor space on first floor.
3. List distance (in feet) from the water tot. ,. closest point of each structure. List each
building separately (e.g. shed, dock, carpc, :).
Varies from approximately 10 to 15 feet
-.l. -
H :\CEO\Data \Forms-T em plates\Self-Help Handouts \Pian n in g\Snoreline Tracking Worksheet.docx
09/13
,
4. List the size (in square feet) and type of c1:, · . ,pervious surfaces (e.g. driveway, parking area,
walkway, patio).
Estimates for impervious surfaces adjacent to environmental enhancement project area
are collective of 4 homes.
Access road (private)= 6,500 sf, Driveways= 500, sf, Parking near boathouse= 4,500 sf,
and Patios = 900 sf.
5. List distance (in feet) from the water tot',· ·iosest point of each impervious surface (hard
surface.
Private Road = 55 ft. Driveways = 45 ft, Parking = 1 Oft, Patios = 8 ft
(Estimated using Google Earth)
6. Describe the existing vegetation within l~-'t. of the waterline. Estimate the amount (in
square feet) of native vegetation. Grass J: .c' ornamental plantings (e.g. plants requiring care
ar grown far decorative purposes) shoulo . ct be counted.
All existing vegetation along the immediate shoreline consists of native plantings along the
rockery to provide shading for fishes. Total area is approximately 3,200 sf. Most of the
vegetation further inland (east of the homes) will be impervious surfaces, grass and
ornamental plantings, garden areas, and BNSF right-of-way (crushed rock).
7. Describe the proposed vegetation within .,,IJ ft. of the waterline. Estimate the amount (in
square feet) of native vegetation. Grass c. : ornamental plantings (e.g. plants requiring care
ar grown for decorative purposes) should. ,t be counted.
Total area is approximately 3,200 sf.
8. Will the project require any added fill? ';.;, how many cubic yards will be added:
Project area will not require any added fill. Rounded river rock (approximately 20 CY)
will be placed waterward of the rockery to soften the shoreline and improve fish habitat.
2 09/13
H: \CEO\Data \Forms-Tern µI ates\Self-Help Handou ts\Plan n I ng\Sha re I ine Tracking Worksheet.docx
IN WATER AND OVER WATER STRUCTURES
9. Are there any in or over water structures c '/Our site (e.g. docks, floats, bridges, mooring
piles, boatlifts)? [i!. Yes O No; If yes, 'i' · ,t the table below.
Describe the in and over water structures ·· ,, your site ----':..C..C.--=--'-=---~-
Existing
structures
to remain
Existing
structures
that will
be
removed
Proposed
structures
T y p e l Surface Area
(e.g. dock, float, bridge, I ··, square feet, if
mooring pile, boat lift, etc.) I applicable)
Shared Used Dock and
Boathouse Float
Boathouse
Mooring Piles
Float
Mooring Piles
I
-----
1250 sf
320 sf
2400 sf
6 sf
256 sf
12 sf
Grated Float (replacement) 192 sf.
Replace creosote piles
and dolphins with
galvanized pipe pile
3 sf
'------
Light Penetrating Materials
(the percentage of the
surface area that is made of
material that allows light to
reach the water)
Grated surface is greater
than 90% of dock and float.
No light transmission.
No light transmission.
No light transmission
No light transmission
I
' ---~
More than 90% of float )
surface is grated.
No light transmission
L___ ---
____ ,
3 -
H:\CED\Data\Forrns-Ternpiates\Self-Help Handouts\Plarirn. \Shoreline Tracking Worksheet.docx
09/13
PURPOSE: Enha nce Environment
DATUM : USACE I Seattle District (NAD83)
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
i Barbee Company
Ba rbe e Mill Development
Bu rlington Northern-Sante Fe
Neighb orhood Detail Map
Scale (ft) r::::::::r::::r~-~~-----~
0
APPLI CANT: Barbee Company
RE FERENCE · USAGE NWS-2007-1019-NO
LOCAT ION ADDRESS:
3901 Lake Was hington Blvd. N.
Rent on, King Coun ty , WA 98055
Secti on T ownsh1p Ra nge NW 32 24 05
Lat: 47N 31' 40" Long: 122W 12' 29'
500 1000
PROP OSE D: En viro nmental Enhan cement
WATERBODY : Lake Washi ngton
Neiqhborhood Detail Map
5/11/2016 L&AI
May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Biological Assessment
Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared by
Mer1<1ian
Environ me nta I, Inc. "'""'*<n!!11iifu-
Seattle, Washington
July 28, 2005
Mendian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
A. PROJECT AND FEDERAL ACTION HISTORY ..................................... 3
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ACTION AREA ............ 3
A. FEDERAL ACTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................... 3
B. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................... .4
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... .4
Timing and Duration of Work .............................................................................. 6
Work Zone and Sediment Attributes .................................................................... 6
Sediment Disposal ................................................................................................ 7
Conservation Measures to Limit Turbidity ........................................................... 8
Conservation Measures to Enhance Salmonid Habitat.. ....................................... 8
D. PROJECT MONITORING ........................................................................ 10
Project Environmental Permit Requirements .................................................... .1 O
Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions ................................................... .10
E. PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREADEFINED ............................... 10
III. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ......................................... .11
A. SPECIES LISTS FROM THE SERVICES (NOAA FISHERIES AND
USFWS) ..................................................................................................... 11
Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DPS ................................................... 11
Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH ................ 12
B. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES ................................................................... 13
Chinook Salmon ................................................................................................. 13
Bull Trout.. .......................................................................................................... 15
Coho Salmon ....................................................................................................... 15
Bald Eagle ........................................................................................................... 15
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ......................................................................... 15
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND PROJECT AREA ....... 15
Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington) .............................................. .15
Project Area (May Creek Delta) ......................................................................... 15
B. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE MATRIX ............................................ 15
Water Temperature ............................................................................................. 15
Sediment/Turbidity ............................................................................................. 15
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients .................................................................... 15
Physical Barriers ................................................................................................. 15
Substrate .............................................................................................................. 15
Large Woody Debris ........................................................................................... 15
Pool Frequency/Quality ...................................................................................... 15
Off-channel Habitat ............................................................................................ 15
Refugia ................................................................................................................ 15
July 28, 2005
Klprojecta\Balbae MHI BA 2005\2005 BA drafls'd'afl two\May Cl98k SA On805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page i
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Width/Depth Ratio .............................................................................................. 15
Streambank Condition ........................................................................................ 15
Floodplain Connectivity ..................................................................................... 15
Change in Peak/Base Flows ................................................................................ 15
Increase in Drainage Network ............................................................................ 15
Road Density and Location ................................................................................. 15
Disturbance History ............................................................................................ 15
Riparian Reserves ............................................................................................... 15
Population Size ................................................................................................... 15
Growth and Survival ........................................................................................... 15
Life History Diversity and Isolation ................................................................... 15
Persistence and Genetic Integrity ....................................................................... 15
V. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON SALMONIDS ................................................ .15
A. DIRECT EFFECTS ................................................................................... 15
Direct Effects on Sahnonids ............................................................................... 15
Direct Effects on Habitat .................................................................................... 15
Direct Effects on Water Quality ......................................................................... 15
Direct Effects on Bald Eagles ............................................................................. 15
B. INDIRECT EFFECTS ............................................................................... 15
C. EFFECTS FROM INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED
ACTIONS .................................................................................................. 15
D. EFFECTS FROM ONGOING PROJECT ACTIVITIES ......................... .15
E. DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
WOULD BE AFFECTED ......................................................................... 15
F. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................................... 15
VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED
CRITICAL HABITAT ....................................................................................................... 15
VIL ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT .............................................................................. 15
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................... .15
B. APPROPRIATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN(S) ...................... 15
C. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................. .15
D. PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES ......................................... 15
E. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 15
VIII. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 15
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page ii
K:\P!qectslBarbee Mil BA 2005'2005 BAdraibw:lraft two\May Craek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Table I.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
July 28, 2005
LIST OF FIGURES
May Creek delta flood mitigation dredging project site and action
area ............................................................................................................... 2
Flood damage to Barbee Mill lands in 1990 due to May Creek
flooding ....................................................................................................... .5
Proposed juvenile Chinook salmon habitat enhancement along the
May Creek delta margin ............................................................................... 9
Current condition of May Creek delta habitat enhancement area
(picture taken at or near ordinary high water level of21.8 feet msl) ........... 9
May Creek delta 2005 SCUBNsnorkel survey transect locations ............ 15
Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet ( eastern end
of transect 4) located adjacent to the existing dock structure (2005
SCUBA survey) ......................................................................................... 15
Current May Creek delta riparian condition (habitat enhancement
area) ............................................................................................................ 15
Curly-leaf pondweed, Elodea canadensi, and Eurasian milfoil
observed along transect 9 (2005 SCUBA survey) ..................................... 15
Riprap shoreline located along the May Creek delta (habitat
enhancement area) ..................................................................................... 15
Riprap cobble substrate along transect 3 (2005 SCUBA survey) .............. 15
Silt substrate along transect 9 at a depth of approximately 15 feet
(2005 SCUBA survey) ............................................................................... 15
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of previous ESA dredging Consultations .................................... 3
Results from 1999 May Creek delta sediment testing ................................. 6
Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson-
Stevens Act (MSA) Species ....................................................................... 12
Lake Washington basin Chinook salmon stock recent productivity,
status, and trends ........................................................................................ 15
Summary of April 9, 2005 SCUBA survey results within the
proposed project area ................................................................................. 15
Summary of May 6, 2005 snorkel survey results within the
proposed project area ................................................................................. 15
Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the
environmental baseline on relevant indicators ........................................... 15
Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11
days of sampling over the dredging period) .............................................. 15
Analysis of proposed project effects on the environmental baseline ......... 15
Biological Assessment -Page iii
K:\l'fojeCIS\Barbee W BA 2005\2005 BA draflsldrafl lwo\May Creak BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
AR
BRT
dbh
DPS
EFH
ESA
ESU
FA
FMO
GMA
MSA
NPF
NR
NTU
PCEs
PFC
PFMC
SPCCP
SR
TRT
UGB
UR
USFWS
WDF
WDFW
WDG
July 28, 2005
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
at risk
Biological Review Team
diameter at breast height
distinct population segment
essential fish habitat
Endangered Species Act
evolutionarily significant unit
functioning appropriately
foraging, migrating and overwintering
Growth Management Act
Magnuson-Stevens Act
not properly functioning
not to reduce or retard
nephelometric turbidity unit
primary constituent elements
properly functioning condition
Pacific Fisheries Management Council
spill prevention control and countermeasure plan
State Route
Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team
urban growth boundary
unacceptable risk
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington Department of Fisheries
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Game
Biological Assessment -Page iv
K:\Projecis\Barbee MiU BA 2005\2005 BA drafls\draff. lwo\May Creek BA 072605.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
I. INTRODUCTION
This Biological Assessment was prepared for the May Creek delta flood mitigation
dredging project located at the May Creek delta on the southeastern shore of Lake
Washington in the City of Renton (Figure!). Periodic maintenance dredging of the May
Creek delta to remove accumulated sediments and reduce flooding potential has occurred
for over 50 years. Over this same time period, erosion has increased in the upper reaches
of May Creek due to ongoing urban development, which has resulted in increased
sediment deposition and increased flooding potential at the May Creek delta adjacent to
Barbee Mill Company lands. The proposed project involves the continuation of periodic
dredging in the May Creek delta over the next ten years with an approximately 3 to 4
year dredging cycle. Periodic dredging would reduce the potential for flooding of the
Barbee Mill Company lands and maintain navigational depths.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) directs federal
departments and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, and/or conducted by
them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or
listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such
species. Section 7(c) of the ESA requires that federal agencies contact USFWS and
NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS are subsequently referred to as the
Services) before beginning any construction activity to determine if federally listed
threatened and endangered (T &E) species or designated critical habitat may be present in
the vicinity of a proposed project. A Biological Evaluation/ Assessment (BE/BA) must be
prepared if actions by a federal agency or permits issued by a federal agency will result in
construction and if the Services determine that T &E species may occur in the vicinity of
a proposed project. With respect to the proposed action, federal permits from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) will be needed to complete the project. The Services
have determined that T &E species, including the bald eagle, Puget Sound Chinook
salmon and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout may be present in the proposed project action
area; therefore, this BA is required by the ESA to ensure that proposed dredging project
will not jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of these listed species.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) includes a
mandate that NOAA Fisheries identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for federally
managed marine fish. In addition, federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries
on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded or undertaken by the agency
that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has
designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fish and coastal
pelagic fisheries. The ESA consultation process can be used to address EFH (see
Guidance for Integrating Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
EFH Consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations, National
Marine Fisheries Service, January 2001). This BA addresses EFH for Chinook and coho
salmon, which are the only MSA managed species that may be present in the action area
of the proposed project.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 1
K:\ProjaCtS\Barbee Mil BA 2~ BA draflslmall two\May Craek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Lake Washington
~-
(
!
(
{
I
c:
~
\
' ·,
'--
0,9 0.9 °.8 kil,mder; -----
Note: Adapted from Tabor et al., 2004
fj " > I
M~rcer
( Island
/_, 5
\ / /
\."" Pr~cfnc _Site
/ Mav Cree,
Figure 1. May Creek delta flood mitigation dredging project site and action
area.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 2
K:'Projects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA dmftsldraftlwo\May Creek 8A 072805 doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
The objective of this BA was to review all pertinent and available information on the
potential effects of the proposed project on MSA managed species and EFH, ESA listed
T &E species, and associated critical habitats under NOAA Fisheries and USFWS
jurisdiction. Proposed and candidate species that could potentially be affected by this
project were also considered in the event that they become listed over the period for
which this permit may be issued.
A. Project and Federal Action History
The proposed project consists of maintenance dredging of the May Creek delta in order to
reduce flooding risk to the Barbee Mill Company lands and to maintain navigational
depths over a ten year period. Dredging of the May Creek delta has occurred for over SO
years on a 3 to 4 year cycle depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. The
most recent dredging occurred in 2002. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of
sediment have been removed during each dredging cycle. The dredged material is
stockpiled on upland areas of the Barbee Mill property and sold as clean construction fill
material. Previous consultations with the ACOE were completed for dredging of the May
Creek delta and for bark debris removal in Lake Washington below the former log
storage area in front of the mill. This bark removal work was voluntarily undertaken to
restore aquatic habitat under lease agreements with the Washington Department of
Natural Resources. Previous consultations for these projects at the Barbee Mill resulted
in a "not likely to adversely affect" determination for listed Chinook salmon and bull
trout. Previous Barbee Mill dredging consultations are summarized below (Table 1 ).
Table 1. Summary of previous ESA dredging Consultations.
ACOE Project Implementation
Year Reference# Action Consultation Date
2001 195-2-0097 May Creek delta 'May affect, not likely to 2001
dredging adversely affect' for all
species
2002 1995-2-00997 Lake Washington 'May affect, not likely to 2002
bark removal adversely affecr for all
species
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ACTION AREA
A. Federal Action and Legal Authority
It is anticipated that the ACOE will be the lead federal agency for this ESA consultation,
as ACOE permits are the only federal approvals (i.e. federal action) required for the
proposed dredging project. Therefore, this BA was prepared per the ACOE BA template
(http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/BETemp.pdf). This BA is
required by the ESA to ensure that dredging actions that may be authorized by the ACOE
under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 3
K:\Prc;ects\Bartle& Mill BA 2005\2005 BA ctalb'draft two\May Cleek BA onsos.ooc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
B. Project Purpose and Objectives
The Barbee Mill company has been affected by local impacts associated with ongoing
development in the May Creek Valley located several miles upstream of the Barbee Mill
site. This upstream development has resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased
impervious surface in the watershed. Peak flows have increased approximately 15 to 20
percent compared to predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year flood events
return intervals (King County 2001). In addition, this increased run-off has resulted in
severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper basin, which is transported
and deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. This increased
sediment deposition in the delta has increased flooding potential of the Barbee Mill
company lands, resulting in periodic loss of customary uses.
Maintenance dredging has been conducted in the May Creek delta for over 50 years to
reduce flooding potential of the Barbee Mill lands adjacent to the May Creek delta.
However, large flood events have caused damage to Barbee Mill lands, most recently
during a large storm event in 1990 (Figure 2). The proposed project would continue this
maintenance dredging in order to reduce potential flooding of company lands and to
maintain navigational depths. The purpose of this consultation is to obtain a
programmatic permit authorizing dredging for the next ten years. Previously, permitting
and BSA consultation was conducted for each individual dredging cycle, which was both
costly and time consuming. The programmatic IO year permit would reduce permitting
costs and agency workload, while implementing conservation measures to ensure the
long-term persistence of BSA listed species that may use the action area.
C. Project Description
The proposed project is to conduct clamshell dredging of sediments (coarse sand and
gravel) in the May Creek delta periodically as necessary to reduce the potential for
flooding of Barbee Mill lands and to maintain navigational depths. It is anticipated,
based on the previous 50-year dredging history, that future dredging would be necessary
every 3 to 4 years. The volume of material to be removed during each dredge cycle is
anticipated to range from approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards. Based on previous
dredging at the site, dredged materials are largely rapidly draining sands and gravels.
Dredged materials will be placed directly into an upland dewatering cell adjacent to the
dredging zone (Appendix A). Because the materials are so porous, most dewatering is
complete prior to placement in the dewatering cell. As soon as sediments are sufficiently
dry (within hours), they will be loaded into trucks for off-site sale or stored temporarily
on-site in an upland area of the Barbee Mill property for use as clean fill.
All dredging will be conducted during the WDFW approved in-water work time in order
to limit impacts to BSA listed Chinook salmon and bull trout. The project would also be
conducted during the bald eagle work window to minimize disturbance to this species,
although the action area is greater than 0.5 miles from known bald eagle nesting sites.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 4
K:\Projecls\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BAdraflaldraft two\May Creek aA 072805 doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Note: The high pressure gas line that was exposed as a result of the flood damage.
Figure 2. Flood damage to Barbee Mill lands in 1990 due to May Creek
flooding.
Based on past monitoring, conservation measures such as silt curtains to reduce turbidity
should not be required. During the 2002 dredging activity, highest turbidity values
recorded were less than 7 NTU (see Appendix 8 for previous water quality monitoring
data). However, turbidity will be monitored during future dredging and conservation
measures, such as silt curtains, will be deployed following conditions set by the WDOE
401 certification for this project. It is anticipated that the WDOE will require the
deployment of a silt curtain if turbidity in the dredging zone exceeds 10 NTU above
background levels.
In order to off-set any potential negative effects to listed Chinook salmon habitat, which
is the only listed fish species known to use the May Creek delta, the proposed project
includes measures to enhance juvenile Chinook rearing habitat near the dredging zone.
Measures will include establishing overhanging vegetation and emergent aquatic
vegetation along the delta shoreline and by installing small woody debris brush piles
along the shoreline. Recent research by Tabor et al. (2004) has shown that rearing
juvenile Chinook salmon in southern Lake Washington prefer these types of habitat
features.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 5
K:IPl'Cljecls\Bflt) Mil BA 2005'\2005 BA lhftsldraft lw!J\May Cr98k BA onaos.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
By working in the WDFW approved in-water work time and bald eagle work time, and
by employing the conservations measures detailed in this BA, the proposed project would
minimize or avoid impacts to listed fish species and their habitat, and bald eagles in the
action area. Detailed information for all project elements is presented below.
Timing and Duration of Work
The WDFW approved Lake Washington in-water work time, which is designed to limit
impacts to aquatic species, is July 16 to December 31. The proposed project would be
conducted within a three week period during this in-water work time. Due to the distance
of the project site from bald eagle nests (greater than 0.5 miles), WDFW does not require
work time restrictions to protect bald eagle nesting.
Work Zone and Sediment Attributes
Sediments in the May Creek delta dredging zone consist primarily of clean sand and
gravel, with only traces of fine sand. However, limited fine silt covers the top of the
substrate. Chemical testing results from 1999 showed that of32 toxic substance tested
for, only barium, chromium, and lead were detected (Table 2).
Table 2. Results from 1999 May Creek delta sediment testing.
Parameter MC-1
WTPH (silica cleanup mg/Kg-dry)
Gasoline -
Diesel' 10'
Motor Oil', Hydraulic Oil, or other petroleum products 14'
Volatile Organics (Method 8240) ND
Semivolatiles (EPA Method 8270, mg/Kg-dry)
4-Methylphenol ND
Napthalene ND
2-Methylnaphthalene ND
Acenaphthylene ND
Acenaphthene ND
Flourene ND
Phenanthrene ND
Anthracene ND
Flouranthene ND
Pyrene ND
Benzo(a)anthracene" ND
Chrysene" ND
Benzo(b/k)flouranthene" ND
Benzo(a)pyrene" ND
lndeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene" ND
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene" ND
Benzo(g ,h, i)perylene ND
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 6
K\Projeets\Basbee Mill BA2005\2005 BA drafls\drall iwo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Parameter MC-1
Dibenzofuran ND
bis{2-Ethylhexyl phthalate) ND
Other SVOC's ND
RCRA Metals {Total, mg/Kg-dry)
Silver ND
Arsenic ND
Barium 48.7
Cadmium ND
Chromium 28.2
Mercury ND
Lead 9.0
Selenium ND
Total Solids {from % moisture) 89.8
• Hydrocarbons detected, but did not match pattern for petroleum product(s)
ND = not detected at method detection limit
Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards will be dredged from the delta (dredge zone
depicted in Appendix A) approximately every three to four years depending on storm
events that generate upstream erosion along May Creek and result in deposition within
the delta. Periodic evaluation of sediment depth will trigger future dredging activities
when the average depth of the top of the delta substrate in the dredge zone reaches + 18
feet ms!, the dredging cycle will commence.
Dredging will deepen the delta mouth by approximately 10 feet, deepening from
approximately 20 feet ms! to 10 feet ms! (Appendix A presents the current depth profile
and estimated post-dredging depth profile). The estimated post-dredging depth profile
will be determined in the field using GPS guided dredging and visual depth
measurements.
Sediment Disposal
Sediments will be dredged and placed directly onto an upland cell for dewatering
(Appendix A). The cell will be excavated adjacent to the delta in previously disturbed
areas (see Appendix A). Sediments from the May Creek delta are generally coarse
grained sands and gravel suitable for use and sale as clean fill for construction. Because
the materials are so porous, most dewatering is complete prior to placement in the
dewatering cell. As soon as sediments are sufficiently dry (within hours), they will be
loaded into trucks for off-site sale or stored temporarily on-site in previously disturbed
upland areas of the Barbee Mill property for use as clean construction fill.
In the future, sediments may be dredged and transported for off-loading at the adjacent
Quendall Terminals. Quendall Terminals is the property located immediately north of
the delta. Dredged materials will be loaded into a dredge scow, moved approximately
1,500 feet north and unloaded on upland portions of the Quendall property with a dredge
scow.
July 28, 2005
K:\J'rojec;ls\Bar Mill BA 2005'\2005 BA dtaftllldralt twoWay Creek BA 072805.dClc
Biological Assessment • Page 7
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Conservation Measures to Limit Turbidity
Because of the velocity of the stream during depositional storm events, fine silt and
sediment from May Creek are carried further into Lake Washington into deeper water,
well beyond the proposed maintenance dredging areas. Historically, dredging in the May
Creek delta has not generated substantial turbidity due to the large granular nature of the
dredged materials. During previous dredging, turbidity has not exceeded 7 NTU (see
Appendix B). Silt curtains, cofferdams, or special dredge heads should not be required to
limit turbidity based on previous monitoring; however, turbidity monitoring will be
conducted during future dredging. WDOE is expected to issue a 401 certification for this
dredging project with conditions that are expected to require daily turbidity monitoring
and measures such as silt curtains if monitoring shows that turbidity exceeds 10 NTU
above background levels at the dredge site.
Conservation Measures to Enhance Salmonid Habitat
Juvenile Chinook salmon are known to heavily use the south end of Lake Washington
and prefer shallow tributary deltas with sand and gravel substrate, small woody debris,
and overhanging vegetation (Tabor et al. 2004). Maintaining a relatively deep delta
through dredging would prevent it from aggrading to a shallow depth, which would be
preferred by Chinook salmon juveniles. In order to enhance aquatic habitat in the project
vicinity to benefit juvenile Chinook salmon, which is the only ESA listed species known
to use the May Creek delta, several measures will be implemented. These measures will
improve shoreline habitats along the delta margin for rearing Chinook salmon juveniles,
including establishing overhanging vegetation and emergent aquatic vegetation along the
delta shoreline margin and installing small woody debris brush piles along the shoreline.
Willow stakes (mix of Salix scouleriana and Salix sitchensis) will be planted along 250
feet of shoreline on both sides of the delta to provide overhanging vegetation (Figure 3).
The riparian area adjacent to the delta is currently composed of riprap, grasses, and
various weedy species (Figure 4). Willow stakes will be planted approximately 1.5 feet
on center to a width of 4 feet along the shore ( approximately 1,000 total willow stakes).
To provide shallow water cover, aquatic emergent vegetation (cattail, Typha latifolia)
will be planted in the shallow water margin adjacent to the willows to a width of 2 or 3
feet (depending on appropriate plant depth). Ten Christmas tree piles (each pile
consisting of approximately 4 to 5 trees) will be added along the delta shoreline
(anchored with stakes and small diameter wire rope) for temporary shallow water cover
while the emergent vegetation and willows becomes established. Future dredging will
avoid established willows and emergent vegetation along the shoreline. In addition,
immediately to the north and south of the dredging zone margin, the shoreline will be
allowed to accrete naturally to increase shallow water habitat along the delta points.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 8
K:\Projeds\Barbee Mill BA2005\2005 BAdraflsldraft two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
July 28, 2005
Proposed juvenile Chinook salmon habitat enhancement along the
May Creek delta margin.
Current condition of May Creek delta habitat enhancement area
(picture taken at or near ordinary high water level of 21.8 feet msl).
K:1Prqecta\B81bae Mill BA 2005\2005 BA draftsldraft lwo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 9
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
D. Project Monitoring
Water quality will be monitored during each dredging event in accordance with the
WDOE 401 water quality certification. It is anticipated that turbidity will be monitored
daily within and adjacent to the dredging zone in order to determine the background
turbidity level and any increases in turbidity caused by dredging.
The willow and emergent vegetation plantings will be monitored for five years after
installation to ensure their successful establishment along the delta shoreline margin.
Two monitoring visits will be conducted each year for five years after plant installation to
assess plant survival, one visit each in spring and fall. The goal will be 80 percent plant
survival at the end of the five-year monitoring period.
Christmas tree piles will be added the first year after dredging, and during the subsequent
five-year monitoring period, the piles will be maintained to ensure they are not washed
away during high flow events. After the emergent vegetation is established at the end of
the five-year monitoring period, the Christmas tree piles will no longer be maintained.
Project Environmental Permit Requirements
A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARP A) will be submitted to WDFW for a
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA); to WDOE for a Short-term Water Quality
Modification and 401 water quality certification; and to ACOE for a 404 dredge permit.
The City of Renton conducted a SEP A review for dredging of the May Creek delta in
2002, which occurred under their Special Permit for Grade and Fill. Renton also
approved a shoreline substantial development permit application (City of Renton, File
LUA-99-058 SP, SM, ECF). The Barbee Mill will be submitting a new SEPA document
and grade/fill permit application to the City of Renton for review in conjunction with a
new shoreline substantial development permit application.
Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions
The proposed project has no direct relationship to any other actions. The sole purpose is
to maintain navigational depths and reduce flooding of Barbee Mill lands, which have
been an active lumber mill for over 60 years. However, dredging for other purposes has
occurred adjacent to the May Creek delta.
In 2002, the large log storage area in front of the mill was dredged to remove
accumulated bark and wood debris under a voluntary MTCA agreement with the WDOE.
The purpose for this dredging was to restore aquatic lands leased from the Washington
Department of Natural Resources. This action resulted in a substantial improvement of
aquatic habitat in the littoral zone of Lake Washington immediately north of the May
Creek delta. In addition, the Barbee Mill Company has periodically dredged the area in
front of the boathouse on the south side of May Creek to maintain navigational depths.
E. Project Area and Action Area Defined
The project area is located in the May Creek delta within Lake Washington in the City of
Renton (Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 32). Figures in Appendix A show the
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 1 o
K:\Prqects'&rbee Mil BA2005\2005 BA draflsldrall two\May Creek BA onaos.coc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
dredging zone. The removal of 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment will disturb
approximately 55,000 square feet (approximately 1.3 acres) of substrate in the delta.
The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402-
02). In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during
dredging and potential noise effects to bald eagles, the action area for this project
encompasses the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington within
approximately one mile of the May Creek delta (Figure 1). A one-mile area was chosen
in order to be consistent with WDFW bald eagle construction timing recommendations,
which are based on distance to nesting and roosting sites. It is anticipated that the one-
mile action area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in
turbidity during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in
the delta (see Appendix B for past turbidity monitoring data).
Ill. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
A. Species Lists from the Services (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS)
A list of federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species, and
critical habitat that may occur in the action area was compiled using the NOAA Fisheries
and USFWS electronic species list websites and critical habitat designations. The
USFWS and NOAA Fisheries websites were accessed on May 24, 2005. In addition, a
request for information was made to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program in order to obtain official PHS maps of the
action area (maps dated May 24, 2005), which show sensitive species information such as
bald eagle nest locations and priority fish habitats.
Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DPS
Table 3 summarizes the federally listed, proposed, ;md candidate fish and wildlife species
that are know to occur or may potentially occur in the action area. The table also
indicates whether critical habitat or EFH has been designated or proposed for each
species. On March 24, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed
Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (64 FR 14308). The Coastal/Puget
Sound bull trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was designated threatened under the
ESA on November 1, 1999. Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon were designated
as a candidate species for listing under the ESA on July 25, 1995. In 1978, the bald eagle
was federally listed as endangered throughout the lower 48 states except in Michigan,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where it was designated as threatened.
In July, 1995, the USFWS reclassified the bald eagle to threatened throughout the lower
48 states.
July 28, 2005
K:\J>l$Cl$\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA draffs'draft tlio\May Qvek BA 072805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 11
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Table 3. Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson-Stevens Act
(MSA) Species.
Species
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Bull trout
( Sa/velinus confluentus)
Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Bald eagle
(Ha/iaeetus /eucocephalus)
'Evolutionary S1grnficant Urnt
'Distinct Population Segment
ESA Status
(Listing Unit)
Threatened
(Puget Sound ESU1)
Threatened
(Coastal / Puget Sound DPS2)
Candidate
(Puget Sound I Strait of
Georgia ESU)
Threatened
(lower 48 States)
Designated Proposed MSA
ESA Critical ESA Critical Managed
Habitat Habitat with EFH
No Yes Yes
No Yes No
N/A N/A Yes
No No No
Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH
NMFS designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on February 16, 2000
(65 FR 7764); however, on April 30, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia approved a NOAA Fisheries consent decree withdrawing critical habitat
designations for 19 salmon and steelhead populations on the west coast (including Puget
Sound Chinook salmon). NOAA Fisheries proposed a new critical habitat rule on
December 14, 2004 (50 CFR Part 226). Proposed critical habitat in the action area of the
proposed project includes Lake Washington and May Creek. The action area contains
juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and migration primary constituent elements (PCEs) and
adult Chinook salmon migration PCEs.
ESA critical habitat was proposed by the USFWS for the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout
DPS on June 24, 2004 (50 CFR Part 17). Proposed critical habitat for the Coastal/Puget
Sound DPS includes Lake Washington, but does not include any Lake Washington
tributaries, except the upper Cedar River. Lake Washington is proposed as foraging,
migration, and overwintering (FMO) critical habitat for bull trout.
The MSA defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary for fish use in spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. MSA manages species that may occur in the
action area, including Chinook and coho salmon. Freshwater EFH for these salmon
species includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies
currently, or historically accessible to these species in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California. Lake Washington is designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon. There
are four major components of freshwater EFH for salmon including 1) spawning and
incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration
corridors and adult holding habitat. The components of EFH in the action area include
juvenile rearing and migration corridors, and adult migration corridors and holding
habitat.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 12
K.\Projects\Barbee Mi~ BA 2005\2005 BA draftsldraft lwo',May Creek BA 072805 doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
B. Description of Species
Chinook Salmon
Biological Requirements
In North America, the historical range of Chinook salmon extended from the Ventura
River in California to Point Hope, Alaska. In northeastern Asia, the historical range
extended from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Scott and Crossman
1973).
'Throughout their range, Chinook salmon exhibit diverse and complex of life history
strategies. Variation exists in age at seaward migration; freshwater, estuarine, and ocean
residence; and in age and season of spawning migration (Healey 1991, Myers et al.
1998). Most of this variation is exhibited in two distinct behavioral forms commonly
referred to as stream-type and ocean-type (Healey 1991 ). Ocean-type fish have a short,
highly variable juvenile freshwater residency (from a few days to several months) and an
extensive estuarine residency (Healy 1991 ). Adults show considerable variation in
timing of entry to freshwater. Stream-type fish have long freshwater juvenile phases (one
to three years), migrate rapidly to sea, live one to five years in the marine environment,
and spawn far upriver in late summer to winter depending on the stock. The average age
of spawners is four years (Myers et al. 1998). All Chinook salmon die after spawning
(Wydoski and Whitney 1979).
Adult spring-run Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound typically return to freshwater in
April and May, and spawn in August and September (WDF et al. 1993). Adults migrate
to the upper portions of their respective river systems and hold in pools until they mature.
In contrast, summer-run fish begin their freshwater migration in June and July and spawn
in September, while summer/fall-run Chinook salmon begin to return in August and
spawn from late September through January (WDF et al. 1993). Chinook salmon require
clean gravel, 0.5 to 4 inches in diameter for spawning (Reiser and Bjornn 1979).
Preferred water temperatures for Chinook salmon spawning ranges from 42.1 and 57°F
(Reiser and Bjornn 1979). The recommended incubation temperatures range between 41
to 60°F, with an optimal egg and fry temperature of 51.8°F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979).
Juvenile Chinook salmon are typically associated with low gradient, meandering,
unconstrained stream reaches (Lee et al. 1996), and require abundant habitat complexity
with accumulations oflarge wood and overhanging vegetation (USDI 1996). Juvenile
Chinook salmon often move into side channels, beaver ponds, and sloughs for over-
wintering habitat. In Lake Washington, Tabor et al. (2004) found that juvenile Chinook
salmon prefer shallow, low-gradient delta and shoreline habitats composed of sand and
gravel substrates with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris accumulations.
The preferred temperature range for Chinook salmon fry ranges from 54 to 56.8°F
(Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Optimal temperature for Chinook salmon fmgerlings is 62.6°F
(Seymour 1956), with an upper lethal tolerance limit of77°F (Scott and Crossman 1973;
Brett 1952).
After a variable freshwater residence time, Chinook salmon juveniles migrate to
estuaries. Migrations occur primarily during spring and early summer, but continue at
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 13
K:'.Orojecls\Barbae Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drafts'draft lwol.Uay Qeek SA on805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
lower levels through the fall (USFWS 1983). Chinook salmon in the Skagit River
estuary occupied the inner estuarine salt marshes for 2 to 3 days before emigrating farther
out in the estuary (USFWS 1983). Smolts congregated in tidal streams at low tide, with
the majority of fish observed in deep, slow water over soft substrates (USFWS 1983).
The highest nearshore juvenile Chinook salmon densities occurred in tidal areas without
any freshwater influence (Shepard 1981 ).
Chinook stocks in Lake Washington exhibit ocean-type life history patterns, with
juveniles typically migrating to sea within the first three months after emergence.
However, juveniles have also been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake
Washington for extended time periods (Wydoski and Whitney 1979).
Factors of Decline
Threats to the Chinook salmon include watershed development, such as forest practices,
mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water
manipulation and withdrawal. Over-fishing, artificial propagation and introduction of
nonnative species have also impacted Chinook salmon. Forest practices, mining,
agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water withdrawal have
resulted in increased sedimentation, changes in flow regimes and channel morphology,
decrease in water quality and quantity, loss of riparian habitat, loss oflarge woody debris
(LWD), and loss ofLWD recruitment, higher water temperatures, decreased gravel
recruitment, reduction in pools and spawning and rearing areas, rerouting of stream
channels, degradation of streambanks and loss of estuarine rearing areas (Bishop and
Morgan 1996; Myers et al. 1998). These changes have affected the spawning and rearing
environment of Chinook salmon. Harvest, hatchery practices and the introduction of
nonnative species have also impacted the expression of the varied life history strategies
of Chinook salmon within the ESU.
Current and future development pose many risks to the Chinook salmon populations in
Lake Washington, primarily through increased water pollution and further habitat
degradation by such mechanism as increased impervious surface, which alters stream
hydrology causing increased erosion and sedimentation of Chinook spawning grounds. A
detailed discussion of Chinook limiting factors in the Lake Washington basin is given in
Kerwin (2001).
In addition to extensive shoreline development, other factors that can compromise the
survival of juvenile Chinook salmon include poor water quality and high water
temperatures in the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks. All juvenile and adult anadromous
salmonids must pass through the Ship Canal during migrations to and from saltwater.
The significant differences in water temperature and salinity encountered at the Ballard
Locks require a rapid transition by the fish and may cause severe stress. For example,
recorded delays in egg development in returning adult salmon may be connected to the
temperature transition when entering freshwater and prolonged exposure to high
temperatures in the Ship Canal (Kerwin 2001). In addition, the sharp demarcation
between the fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a
stressor for juvenile salmonid out-migrants. The Locks are also a predation bottleneck.
Heavy seal predation on adult salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 14
K:\Projects\Sarbee Mill BA2005\2005 BAdralls\drall two\May Creell BA 072805 dee
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Hatcheries continue to pose risk to natural spawning Chinook salmon in Lake
Washington, although hatchery impacts are becoming increasingly recognized and efforts
are being made to reduce hatchery effects listed populations. Several hatcheries and
hatchery programs exist in the Lake Washington basin. Releases of fall-run Chinook
salmon in the Lake Washington system accounted for about five percent of all Puget
Sound releases from 1991 through 2000, with about 2.6 million fish per year. In Puget
Sound, hatchery fish greatly outnumber natural origin fish in terms of juvenile out-
migrants and adult returns (NMFS 2003).
Detailed descriptions of harvest rates for Lake Washington Chinook stocks are provided
in (NMFS 2003). While harvest rates frequently change, the harvest rate of Lake
Washington Chinook has diminished over time. The total exploitation rate for Chinook
salmon returning to the Lake Washington watershed was 67 percent from 1983 through
1996, and 26 percent from 1997 through 2000.
Local Stock Information
Three summer-fall Chinook stocks are present in the Lake Washington basin including
the North Lake Washington Tributaries, Cedar, and Issaquah stocks (WDFW 2002). The
North Lake Tributaries stock is considered a mixed origin stock and similar to the non-
native Issaquah stock. It is not kuown whether this results from recent or historical
intermingling among fish from these sub-basins. The Issaquah stock is derived from the
Soos Creek Hatchery Chinook and other non-local stocks. The Issaquah stock production
is believed to be entirely the result of hatchery production, mostly from Issaquah
Hatchery. Many more fish return than are needed at that hatchery, and surplus fish are
allowed to spawn naturally.
Cedar Chinook are rated as depressed due to a long-term negative trend in escapements
and chronically low escapement values. There is limited data regarding this population,
although in the early 1990s, annual escapement was estimated at between 200 and 1,500
adults (WDF et al. 1993). Spawner surveys conducted in 1998, found an estimated adult
Chinook escapement of 432 fish, while escapement in 1999 was estimated to be only 214
adult Chinook (Carrasco et al. 1998; Mavros et al. 1999). The Technical Recovery Team
(TRT) has suggested recovery goals of 17,000 natural spawners for Lake Washington
Chinook populations (TRT 2002). Currently, based on recent average spawner
escapement (Table 4), natural spawner escapement is well below the levels needed for
Chinook recovery and sustainable tribal fishing goals.
Table 4. Lake Washington basin Chinook salmon stock recent productivity, status,
and trends.
Co-manager's Average Annual
Stock Status Escapement Goal Escapement (period)
North Lake Washington Healthy 350 301 (1986-2001)
Tributaries Chinook
Issaquah Chinook Healthy Not identified 3,279 (1986-2000)
Cedar Chinook Depressed 1,200 533 (1986-2001)
Sourte: WDFW 2002; NMFS 2003
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 15
K:\Projac:ts\B8rbee MHI BA 200S'l2005 BA draflsli1raft two\May Creek BA 072805.dcx:
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
In 2003 and 2004 significant numbers of adipose-clipped (hatchery) fish that were
recovered in the Cedar River during spawning surveys indicate that hatchery strays may
have maintained the Cedar River population (NOAA Fisheries 2005).
The primary Chinook salmon stock in the project vicinity (the southern portion of Lake
Washington) originates from the Cedar River. The Cedar River Chinook run, although a
naturally spawning population without current supplementation from hatchery stocks, is
not native to Lake Washington. May Creek is not thought to have a self-sustaining
Chinook salmon run and individuals using the stream are likely strays from the Cedar
River. Chinook are reported to use the lower three miles of May Creek for limited
spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Lucchetti (2002) rated the lower May Creek sub-
basin (from mouth to RM 3.0) as moderate to high for spawning habitat. This rating
signifies areas in which Chinook are known to spawn and that are characterized by
adequate flows and physical attributes (e.g., channel size, gradient, and substrate) that
typically support Chinook spawning (Lucchetti 2002).
Adult Cedar River Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington through the Ballard Locks
from late June through September, with the run peaking in late August. Spawning occurs
from mid-September through mid-to late-November, with a peak in early to mid-October
(WDF et al. 1993). In the Cedar River, fry probably begin to emerge in February and
continue through March and perhaps April (City of Seattle 2000), which is also probably
true in May Creek as well.
Unlike most systems in whichjuvenile Chinook rear in rivers and estuaries,juvenile
Chinook in Lake Washington rear in the littoral areas of the lake from January to July.
While rearing in the south end of Lake Washington, the nocturnal distribution of juvenile
Chinook salmon appears to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Tabor et al. (2004)
studied juvenile Chinook salmon use of shoreline habitats in Lake Washington and found
that juvenile Chinook were concentrated in very shallow water, approximately 1.3 feet in
depth, and prefer low gradient shorelines and deltas with substrates composed of sand
and gravel. In comparison to lake shore reference sites, the delta sites had a higher
density of juvenile Chinook salmon. On average, the delta sites had almost twice as
many fish as the lake reference site. Of the delta sites studied, Tabor et al. (2004) found
that juvenile Chinook appeared to use low gradient and shallow deltas that were close to
natal streams (such as the Cedar River).
Tabor et al. (2004) also found that juvenile Chinook had no preference for woody debris
piles alone; however, they did show a preference for woody debris piles in combination
with overhanging vegetation. In fact, over 80 percent of juvenile Chinook observed
during the study were found along shallow sites in association with overhanging
vegetation and small woody debris.
The majority of juvenile Chinook observed by Tabor et al. (2004) were concentrated in
the south end of Lake Washington from February to May, with peak abundance occurring
in May. The last shoreline survey was conducted on July 14, when only one juvenile
Chinook was observed out of five sample sites.
The lower 912 feet of May Creek and the May Creek delta (convergence pool) were
included in the study sites evaluated by Tabor et al. (2004). Tabor et al. (2004) also
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 16
K:\Prajects\Barbee Mil BA 2005'2005 BAdrafta\dralt two\May Creek E!A 072805 aoc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
surveyed a lake reference site located approximately 2,000 feet south of the May Creek
delta (the Kennydale Beach Park swim beach) .. In March of 2002, approximately 80
percent of the May Creek survey reach was composed of riffles. Snorkel surveys were
completed in three pools and one glide. Only two Chinook salmon were observed, one in
the convergence pool and one in a pool. The density of juvenile Chinook salmon was
similar between the lake reference site and delta area.
Juvenile coho salmon were also present primarily in the convergence pool, while large
trout primarily occupied the upstream pools. Small resident trout were scattered
throughout the study reach. Tabor et al. (2004) observed that while May Creek was a
relatively large tributary with low gradient and a large amount of available habitat, very
few juvenile Chinook salmon were observed; however, many trout over 6 inches in
length were observed. They hypothesized that the deep convergence pool and other deep
pools may have restricted the upstream movements of juvenile Chinook salmon through
increased predation risk by species such as trout, sculpin, and bass. Tabor et al. (2004)
noted that predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by large trout has been documented in
Lake Washington (Tabor and Chan 1996) and the Cedar River. Few predatory fish were
present in the shallower deltas, which were used by up to IO times more Chinook
compared to the May Creek delta. Based on habitat preference, Tabor et al. (2004)
hypothesized that the presence oflarge trout and large sculpin in the large tributaries may
inhibit the u.se of the convergence pool and other stream habitats by Chinook. It may be
that the lack of juvenile Chinook in the deep delta habitat has more to do with this habitat
type being preferred by predatory fish, and not that deep delta habitats are not "good"
Chinook habitat.
Population Trends of the ESU
During the most recent (July 2003) status review of federally-listed salmon and steelhead,
the West Coast Biological Review Team (BRT) identified Puget Sound Chinook salmon
as likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Long-term trends in abundance
for naturally spawning populations of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU indicate
that approximately half of the populations are declining and half are increasing in
abundance (NOAA Fisheries 2005). The median long-term trend in abundance over all
populations is 1.0, indicating that most populations are just replacing themselves.
Declines in short-term trends in natural spawner abundance are the most extreme in the
Upper Sauk, Cedar, Puyallup, and Elwha populations.
Bull Trout
Biological Requirements
Bull trout, members of the family Salmonidae, are a char native to the Pacific Northwest
and western Canada. Bull trout historically occurred in major river drainages in the
Pacific Northwest from about 41 °N to 60°N latitude, from the southern limits in the
McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada to the
headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond
1992). To the west, the bull trout range includes Puget Sound, and various coastal rivers
of Washington, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992; McPhail and
Carveth 1992; Leary and Allendorf 1997). Bull trout are widespread throughout
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 17
K:\Projects\Barbea Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\11refl lwolMey Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
tributaries of the Columbia River basin in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, including its
headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of
south-central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide, bull trout are found in the
headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta, and the MacKenzie River system in
Alberta and British Columbia (Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter 1996; Brewin and
Brevin 1997).
Throughout their range, bull trout are primarily freshwater species that exhibit both
resident and migratory life-history patterns. The entire lifecycle of the resident bull trout
takes place in headwater streams. Resident fish spawn, rear, and live as adults generally
in one headwater stream, although short migrations may occur. Migratory bull trout
spawn and rear in headwater streams, then after two to four years rearing in their home
stream, juveniles migrate downstream to larger rivers (fluvial) or lakes and reservoirs
(adfluvial) where they grow to maturity. Migrations can range from a few miles to well
over 50 miles (Goetz et al. 2004). Mature adults migrate back upstream to spawn in
headwater reaches. There is increasing evidence that several coastal and Puget Sound
populations have an anadromous or amphidromous component in Washington (Rieman
and McIntyre 1993; Kraemer 1999; Goetz et al. 2004; Volk 2000).
Goetz et al. (2004) is currently conducting a migration study of native char tagged in the
Snohomish River basin using hydro-acoustic tags. Out of 60 fish tagged in the
Snohomish basin, 6 were detected at hydrophones in the Skagit River basin at Mt.
Vernon. Kraemer (1999) tagged a char in the South Fork Sauk River (Skagit River basin)
while staging for spawning in the fall. An angler recaptured this fish the following spring
in the marine area on the east side of Camano Island. Kraemer (1999) noted that
anadromous char in the Puget Sound region leave the tidal areas to re-enter spawning
watersheds in late May, June and early July. Similarly, Goetz et al. (2004) noted that all
of the tagged char had left the nearshore marine areas and Snohomish River estuary by
early to mid-August, and left the lower river for the upper watershed by late August to
mid-October. Goetz et al. (2004) suspected that all fish moved into freshwater higher up
into colder parts of the rivers. The highest water temperature recorded by Goetz et al.
(2004) on a fish in the Snohomish/marine nearshore area was 59.9"F.
Adult anadromous char are thought to prey primarily on fish. A study by Brenkman
(2002) at the mouth of the Hoh River on the Olympic Peninsula found that surf smelt
(Hypomesus pretious) was the primary prey item and was found in 96 percent of the
stomachs analyzed; other species included herring ( Clupea harengus pallasi), sand lance
(Ammodytes hexapterus) and sculpin (Cottus spp.). Other limited stomach content work
and feeding observations in Skagit Bay and Port Susan also indicate that anadromous
char feed most commonly on surf smelt, and other fish such as herring, sand lance, pink
and chum salmon fry, and a number of invertebrates (Kraemer 1999). Kraemer (1999)
and Brenkman (2002) suspected the distribution of char in marine waters is closely tied to
the distribution of forage fish, especially spawning beaches for surf smelt and herring.
Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall from late August into December (timing varies
based on local conditions) and is thought to be correlated with particular flows, water
temperatures, and photo period. Peak spawning usually occurs in September and October
for most populations, but the population in the Skokomish River (southern Hood Canal)
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 18
K:\Projects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA draftsldraft l'.vo\May Creek ElA 072605.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
peaks in October and November (Brenkman et al. 2001). Bull trout spawning generally
occurs when water temperature drops below 48°F. Bull trout spawn in substrate ranging
from large sand to gravel over 2 inches in diameter. In western Washington, bull trout
spawning occurs above an elevation of 1,000 feet or in streams with very cold
temperatures similar to high elevation streams (Kraemer 1999). Fry emerge from spring
into the summer months (McPhail and Murray 1979). Mature adult bull trout can spawn
more than once in a lifetime. First spawning is often noted after age four, with
individuals living ten or more years (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Sexual maturity for
both sexes has been documented in fish smaller than 6 inches fork length in resident
populations (Hemmingsen et al. 2001).
Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993), requiring cold clean water and a high degree of habitat
complexity. Habitat characteristics including water temperature, stream size, stream
gradient, substrate composition, hydraulic complexity, and large wood have been
associated with juvenile bull trout distribution and abundance (Dambacher et al. 1992;
Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Water temperatures over approximately 50°F are thought
to limit their distribution; however, bull trout may be able to migrate through reaches
with elevated water temperatures for short durations. Recently, bull trout in northeast
Oregon were tagged with radio transmitters and temperature loggers, and then recaptured
one year after tagging. One fish captured alive and in apparent good health had
experienced water temperatures over 64°F for a brief period (personal communication, J.
Dunham, Research Fisheries Scientist, Boise Aquatic Sciences Laboratory, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Boise, ID, with J. Shappart, Fisheries Scientist, Meridian
Environmental, Seattle, WA, on September 5, 2002). More recent work employing
external temperature archival tags on migratory bull trout in the Lostine River basin
(eastern Oregon) suggested that bull trout did not necessarily use the coldest river reaches
available in the late summer (Howell et al. 2005).
Factors of Deciine
Bull trout are threatened by habitat degradation and fragmentation from past and ongoing
land management activities such as mining, road construction and maintenance, timber
harvest, hydropower, water diversions/withdrawals, agriculture, and grazing. Bull trout
are also threatened by interactions and hybridization with introduced non-native fishes
such as brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Bull
trout are estimated to have occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River basin, and
presently occur in 45 percent of the estimated historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide
1997). Bull trout have declined in overall range and numbers of fish. Though still
widespread, there have been numerous local extirpations reported throughout the
Columbia River basin. Although some strongholds still exist, bull trout generally occur
as isolated sub-populations in headwater lakes or tributaries where migratory fish have
been lost.
Although the bull trout distribution in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS is less fragmented
than the Columbia River DPS, bull trout subpopulation distribution within individual
river systems has contracted and abundance has declined. The decline of the Coastal/
Puget Sound bull trout DPS has been attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers,
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 19
K:IProjecb\Bartlee Mill BA 2005\2005 BAdrafts\drafl !wo\May Cniak BA 072805.dtlc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
interaction with introduced species, water quality degradation, and past management
practices. Historically, bull trout occurred throughout the Puget Sound region. Their
historical distribution has been significantly reduced. Currently, bull trout persist in
isolated populations of headwater streams; however, migratory components still exist in
some local populations. The decline of the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS has been
attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers, interaction with introduced species,
water quality degradation, and past management practices. Commercial and recreational
fisheries also impact native char populations in Puget Sound. Native char are
occasionally caught in sport and commercial fisheries in Puget Sound, as well as by in-
river net fisheries. They are common in nearshore marine areas of Puget Sound from
Everett north, and are vulnerable to beach seine and set net fisheries. Salmon test
fisheries in the Skagit River catch char, especially during the spring. Most recreational
fisheries in Puget Sound rivers are closed to native char harvest. Current and future
population pressures on bull trout in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as
those listed for Chinook.
Local Stock Information
The following Lake Washington bull trout information is summarized from USFWS
(2004) unless otherwise cited. The Cedar River watershed upstream of the Masonry Dam
supports the only known self-sustaining population of bull trout in the Lake Washington
basin. The Chester Morse Lake bull trout core area is located within the Cedar River in
the upper reaches of the Cedar River drainage, upstream of a natural migration barrier at
Lower Cedar Falls (river mile 34.4). The level of emigration of bull trout occurring from
Chester Morse Lake to the lower Cedar River is unknown. The only means for bull trout
to leave the reservoir complex and pass to the lower Cedar River is during use of the
emergency spill gates and/or the smaller spillway near the south end of the Masonry
Dam. These gates are rarely opened except under emergency conditions of high reservoir
elevation (e.g., 1990 flood) or for special operational purposes. It is presumed impossible
for live fish to pass through the other structure used to release water from Masonry Pool
(Masonry Dam spill valve/Howell-Bunger valve) at the base of the Masonry Dam. It is
possible that bull trout do successfully pass through the spill gates when water is released
and thereby gain access to the 'canyon reach' and the lower Cedar River, but no accurate
estimate of numbers of fish passing the dam has been made.
No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning
populations are known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River
above Lake Chester Morse. The potential for spawning in the Lake Washington basin is
believed to be very low as a majority of accessible habitat is low elevation, below 500
feet, and thus not expected to have the proper thermal regime to sustain successful
spawning. However, there are some coldwater springs and tributaries that may come
close to suitable spawning temperatures and that may provide thermal refuge for rearing
or foraging during warm summer periods. These include Rock Creek (tributary to the
Cedar River below Landsburg Diversion) and Coldwater Creek, a tributary to Cottage
Lake Creek immediately below Cottage Lake. In addition, the upper reaches of Holder
and Carey creeks, the two main branches of Issaquah Creek, have good to excellent
habitat conditions and may hold potential for bull trout spawning due to their elevation
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 20
K:\Projects\Barbas Mill BA 2005\2005 BAdraftsldraft two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
and aspect. However, despite survey efforts by King County (Berge and Mavros 2001),
no evidence of bull trout spawning or rearing has been found.
The connection with the Chester Morse Lake core area is one-way only, and currently the
level of connectivity with other core areas is unknown. However, a number of
observations of subadult and adult sized bull trout have been made in Lake Washington
and at the Ballard Locks (Shepard and Dykeman 1977; KCDNR 2000). Observations of
bull trout in the Ballard Locks and cursory hydroacoustic tagging suggest that these fish
may be migrating to the Lake Washington area from other watersheds such as the
Stillaguamish or Snohomish systems (Goetz et al. 2004). Bull trout have been caught in
Shilshole Bay and the Ballard Locks during late spring and early summer in recent times.
In 2000, eight adult and subadult fish (mean size 370 millimeters; 14.5 inches) were
caught in Shilshole Bay below the locks between May and July. These fish were found
preying upon juvenile salmon (40 percent of diet) and marine forage fish (60 percent of
diet) (Footen 2000, 2003). In 2001, five adult bull trout were captured in areas within the
Ballard Locks and immediately below the locks. One bull trout was captured in the large
lock in June, and in May one adult was captured while migrating upstream through the
fish ladder in the adult steelhead trap. Three adult bull trout were also captured below the
tailrace during the peak of juvenile salmon migration on June 18 (Goetz et al. 2004).
Population Trends of the Species in Washington State
Of the 80 populations of bull trout identified in Washington State, 14 (18 percent) are
healthy, 2 (3 percent) are depressed, 6 (8 percent) are critical, and the status of 58 (72
percent) is unknown (WDFW 1998). Adult population size is highly variable, ranging
from as many as 10,000 spawners per year throughout the Skagit River basin to possibly
less than l 00 in the White River basin.
Currently, the USFWS is conducting a five year review to assess the best available
information on how bull trout have fared since they were listed for protection across their
range in the lower 48 states in 1999. This will include analyses of population trends and
threats to the species. The purpose of a five year review is to ensure that the
classification of a species as threatened or endangered is accurate.
Coho Salmon
Biological Requirements
The coho salmon life history roughly consists of 18 months of freshwater rearing
followed by 18 months of ocean rearing (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon typically
spawn in relatively shallow tributary streams from October through February. Spawning
generally occurs in temperatures ranging from 42 to 49°F. Coho salmon spawning gravel
ranges from 0.5 to 4 inches (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Fry emerge in the spring and
occupy most stream habitats, but are usually associated with the channel margin. Coho
salmon fry densities are greatest in backwater pools, beaver dam pools, and off-channel
areas (WDW 1991).
At least one year of freshwater residence is normal for coho salmon juveniles (USFWS
1986a). Coho salmon parr are frequently associated with side channels, wetlands, and
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment-Page 21
K:\ProjeC:l:S'B8 MWI BA 2005\2005 8A drafts'drall lwo\May Cleek BA onso5.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
off-channel sloughs for rearing (Sandercock 1991). Other important juvenile habitats
include large wood accumulations, undercut banks, and complex pool habitats. Coho
salmon juveniles are generally absent in channels lacking cover. Mason and Chapman
(1965) reported that coho salmon juveniles are aggressive and territorial soon after
emergence, and establish intraspecific dominance hierarchies. Where coho and Chinook
salmon juveniles occurred together in streams, the coho were socially dominant,
defending optimum feeding territory (Stein et al. 1972). Water temperatures that average
between 50 to 59°F in the summer are considered optimum for juvenile coho salmon
rearing (USFWS 1986a). Bell (1973) reported the upper lethal limit to be 78.5°F. Out-
migration of smolts to marine areas usually occurs from April to August of the year
following their hatching, with peak migrations in May in nearly all areas (USFWS
1986a).
Factors of Decline
Concerns with this ESU included genetic integrity of individual stocks and declining
environmental and habitat conditions. Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho
salmon stocks include high harvest rates, widespread habitat degradation, hatchery
practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions. The genetic fitness of Puget Sound coho
salmon stocks has been affected by widespread artificial propagation that includes inter-
basin transfers of brood-stock, and by hatchery fish escapement and introgression with
wild populations (Weitcamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon are also MSA-rnanaged species in
Puget Sound and have designated EFH.
Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho salmon stocks include high harvest rates,
widespread habitat degradation, hatchery practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions.
The genetic fitness of Puget Sound coho salmon stocks has been affected by widespread
artificial propagation that includes inter-basin transfers of brood stock, and by hatchery
fish escapement and introgression with wild populations (Weitcarnp et al. 1995). Current
and future population pressures on coho salmon in Puget Sound and Lake Washington
are the same as those listed for Chinook.
Local Stock Information
Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production; therefore,
recent studies have not been able to fully evaluate the status of self-sustaining naturally
spawning coho populations in the region. Trends in both hatchery and wild escapements
in Lake Washington are showing a decline that may be attributable to urbanization, high
harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions (Fresh 1994; WDF et al.
1993). Naturally spawning coho escapement (which could be a mix of native and
hatchery origin coho) in Lake Washington was as high as 30,000 fish in 1970 and
declined to less than 2,000 in 1992 (Fresh 1994).
Index escapement values for Cedar River coho in the 1990s have declined to levels far
below those observed in the 1980s, so the stock is now rated depressed by WDFW due to
both the long-term negative trend in the index values and the chronically low nature of
the indicator values. The Lake Washington/Sammamish tributaries coho stock is also
rated as depressed by WDFW for the same factors (WDFW 2002). Available spawning
survey information for May Creek suggests the same negative trend. Spawning surveys
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 22
K:\ProjectS\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BAdraflsldrafl two\May Cmek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found peak coho adult spawner densities in lower
May Creek at 23, 5, and 55 coho per mile, respectively, while surveys in 1992 and 1993
found peak densities of only 2 fish per mile (Foster Wheeler 1995).
Population Trends of the Species
The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon ESU includes populations from
drainages of Puget Sound and Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula east of Salt Creek, and
the Strait of Georgia from the east side of Vancouver Island (north to and including
Campbell River) and the British Columbia mainland (north to and including Powell
River), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope. WDF et al. (1993) identified 40
coho populations within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. While
most were sustained by natural production, only three of these populations were
determined to be of native origin.
Weitkamp et al. (1995) noted that while coho salmon within the Puget Sound ESU were
abundant, and with some exceptions run sizes and natural spawning escapements
generally stable, there are substantial risks to whatever native production remains. The
Puget Sound coho ESU remains a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered
Species Act. From 1991 through 2000, the annual run size of coho populations entering
Puget Sound was 669,000, of which 44 percent were derived from natural spawning.
Over this same period, wild coho escapement increased, which is primarily attributed to a
reduction in Puget Sound fisheries, allowing more fish to reach spawning grounds even
though total run sizes decreased. High harvest rates and a recent decline in average size
of spawners is a concern because of the potential for reduced fecundity and/or
productivity (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Hatchery coho programs are also intensive in Puget
Sound, influencing population trends. From 1991 through 2000, an average of
approximately 24 million hatchery-produced juvenile coho were released into Puget
Sound annually. Over this period, total hatchery releases decreased from about 40
million in 1991 to less than 10 million in 2000 (PSMFC 2002).
Bald Eagle
Biological Requirements
The bald eagle is found throughout North America. The largest breeding populations in
the contiguous United States occur in the Pacific Northwest states, the Great Lakes states,
Chesapeake Bay and Florida. The bald eagle winters over most of the breeding range,
but is most concentrated from southern Alaska and southern Canada southward.
In Washington, bald eagles are most common along the coasts, major rivers, lakes and
reservoirs (USFWS 1986b ). Bald eagles require accessible prey and trees for suitable
nesting and roosting habitat (Stalmaster 1987). Food availability, such as aggregations of
waterfow I or salmon runs, is a primary factor attracting bald eagles to wintering areas and
influences the distribution of nests and territories (Stalmaster 1987; Keister et al. 1987).
Bald eagle nests in the Pacific Recovery Area are usually located in uneven-aged stands
of coniferous trees with old-growth forest components that are located within one mile of
large bodies of water. Factors such as relative tree height, diameter, species, form,
position on the surrounding topography, distance from the water, and distance from
July 28, 2005
K:~ Mil BA 2005\2005 BA dralls\drafl IWo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 23
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
disturbance appear to influence nest site selection. Nests are most commonly constructed
in Douglas fir or Sitka spruce trees, with average heights of 116 feet and size of SO inches
dbh (Anthony et al. 1982 in Stalmaster 1987). Bald eagles usually nest in the same
territories each year and often use the same nest repeatedly. Availability of suitable trees
for nesting and perching is critical for maintaining bald eagle populations. Toe average
territory radius ranges from l.SS miles in western Washington to 4.41 miles along the
lower Columbia River (Grubb 1976; Garrett et al. 1988).
In Washington, courtship and nest building activities normally begin in January, with
eaglets hatching in mid-April or early May. Eaglets usually fledge in mid-July
(Anderson et al. 1986). A number of habitat features are desirable for wintering bald
eagles. During the winter months bald eagles are known to band together in large
aggregations where food is most easily acquired. Toe quality of wintering habitat is tied
to food sources and characteristics of the area that promote bald eagle foraging. Key
contributing factors are available fish spawning habitat with exposed gravel bars in areas
close to bald eagle perching habitat. Bald eagles select perches that provide a good view
of the surrounding territory, typically the tallest perch tree available within close
proximity to a feeding area (Stalmaster 1987). Tree species commonly used as perches
are black cottonwood, big leaf maple, or Sitka spruce (Stalmaster and Newman 1979).
Wintering bald eagles may roost communally in single tree or large forest stands of
uneven ages that have some old-growth forest characteristics (Anthony et al. 1982 in
Stalmaster 1987). Some bald eagles may remain at their daytime perches through the
night but bald eagles often gather at large communal roosts during the evening.
Communal night roosting sites are traditionally used year after year and are characterized
by more favorable microclimatic conditions. Roost trees are usually the most dominant
trees of the site and provide unobstructed views of the surrounding landscape (Anthony et
al. 1982 in Stalmaster 1987). They are often in ravines or draws that offer shelter from
inclement weather (Hansen et al. 1980; Keister et al. 1987). A communal night roost can
consist of two birds together in one tree, or more than SO in a large stand of trees. Roosts
can be located near a river, lake, or seashore and are normally within a few miles of day-
use areas, but can be located as far away from water as 17 miles or more. Prey sources
may be available in the general vicinity, but close proximity to food is not as critical as
the need for shelter that a roost affords (Stalmaster 1987).
Bald eagles utilize a wide variety of prey items, although they primarily feed on fish,
birds and mammals. Diet can vary seasonally, depending on prey availability. Given a
choice of food, however, they typically select fish. Many species of fish are eaten, but
they tend to be species that are easily captured or available as carrion. In the Pacific
Northwest, salmon form an important food supply, particularly in the winter and fall.
Birds taken for food are associated with aquatic habitats. Ducks, gulls and seabirds are
typically of greatest importance in coastal environments. Mammals are less preferred
than birds and fish, but form an important part of the diet in some areas. Deer and elk
carcasses are scavenged, and in coastal areas eagles feed on whale, seal, sea lion and
porpoise carcasses (Stalmaster 1987).
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 24
K:\Projects\Barbee MUI BA 2005\2005 BA draftsldraft two\May Creek BA 0728G5.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Factors of Decline
Bald eagle populations have increased in number and expanded their range. The
improvement is a direct result ofrecovery efforts including habitat protection and the
banning of DDT and other persistent organochlorines. However, habitat loss continues to
be a long-term threat to the bald eagle in the Pacific Recovery Area of Washington,
Idaho, Nevada, California, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming. Urban and recreational
development, logging, mineral exploration and extraction, and other forms of human
activities are adversely affecting the suitability of breeding, wintering, and foraging areas.
In July 1999, the USFWS proposed to de-list the bald eagle; however, no action on the
de-listing proposal has occurred since that time.
Local Population Information
Bald eagles are known to occur in the action area for this proposed project (i.e. within
one mile of the May Creek delta). The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species maps, dated
May 24, 2005 for the vicinity of Township 24, Range 5 E, Section 32, indicate that three
bald eagle nests occur within one mile, but greater than 0.5 miles of the project site. All
three nests are located to the west of the May Creek delta on the southeastern tip of
Mercer Island. One of the nests was reported to have blown out in 1999. However,
another nest was reported as active over the last seven years (2004 observation). It is
reasonable to assume that bald eagles may fly over the project site and that they may
forage in the action area based on the presence of documented nest sites and forage
species, such as waterfowl, seagulls, and salmon, which occur in and around May Creek
and the southern portion of Lake Washington.
Population Trends of the Species
Bald eagle populations have increased in number and expanded their range. The
improvement is a direct result of recovery efforts including habitat protection and the
banning of DDT and other persistent organochlorines. The 1996 information provided by
WDFW (WDFW unpub. data) indicates that 589 nests were known to be occupied and
0.93 young/nest were produced. This is well above the recovery goal of276 pairs for
Washington, but below the recovery criteria of an average of 1.00 young/nest. In many
areas, the numbers of nesting pairs and the reproductive rates have been more than
double the targets. Recently, WDFW has changed bald eagle protection policies and no
longer requires construction windows to minimize noise disturbance to bald eagles during
nesting. WDFW now only focuses on protection of trees that could be used for roosting,
perching, or nesting.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all federal, state, or
private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all
proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early
section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are
contemporaneous with the consultation in process 50 CFR § 402.02(d). The baseline
provides a reference for NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS to evaluate the species' current
status in relationship to the proposed action.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 25
K:\PmjeCtS\Barbea MUI BA 2005\2005 BA drafl:sldraft twoWa~ Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
A. Description of the Action Area and Project Area
As described in Section II(E), the action area for the proposed project encompasses the
lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington (Figure 1 ). The project area
encompasses the May Creek delta. The environmental baseline of the action area is
generally described below, including the Lake Washington basin, May Creek watershed,
and the project area (May Creek delta).
Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington)
May Creek
May Creek drains approximately 14 square miles between the Coal Creek and Cedar
River basins. The basin contains approximately 26 miles of mapped streams, two small
lakes, and over 400 acres of wetlands (Foster Wheeler 1998). Historically, the watershed
was forested with predominantly coniferous stands. Over recent decades, land uses in the
western one-third of the basin have changed to intensive residential development, with
some industrial development in the lowermost reaches, including the Barbee Lumber
Mill. The eastern two-thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural residential, small
farms, and some forested areas (King County 2001). Developed communities in the
watershed include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honey Creek, and Lake
Kathleen (Foster Wheeler 1998).
The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington
State Growth Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban-
scale development from encroaching on the headwaters of the basin. Land development
in the lower basin has substantially reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces,
and filled wetlands. Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage
basin-wide is approximately 7 percent. In addition, under current zoning, full build-out
would result in approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being covered in
impervious surfaces (King County 2001). This is significant, as basin-wide impervious
surface areas of 10 percent or greater have been found to have significant impacts on the
health of aquatic ecosystems (May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991).
Logging, coal mining, and agricultural activities have resulted in channelized streams,
floodplain encroachment, and eroding slopes in the May Creek watershed.
The lower four miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the
creek experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of L WD
(Foster Wheeler 1998). The lack ofLWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity,
specifically pool habitat. Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to
forest removal, the presence of rock quarries, and the expansion of road networks.
Vegetation removal throughout the basin has resulted in higher maximum flows and
lower minimum flows. Higher flows than what naturally occurred can result in stream
substrate scour, which may negatively impact salmon redds (Foster Wheeler 1998). The
increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding and
sediment deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and
flooding and sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 2001 ).
Peak flows have increased moderately in May Valley, on the order of 15 to 20 percent
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 26
K:\Pro;eds\Bartlee Mill BA 2005\2D05 BA dmfts\draltt.No\Ma~ Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
greater than the predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and l 00-year return intervals
(King County 2001).
From approximately RM 3.9 to 7.0, the riparian area of May Creek is heavily impacted
by grazing (Foster Wheeler 1998). Agricultural activities in May Valley have drained
historic wetlands and channelized May Creek (Buchanan 2003). The South Fork of May
Creek starts at RM 7.0. Portions of the South Fork go dry in the summer from RM 7.0 to
9.1. A 128-foot-long culvert blocks anadromous fish passage at RM 7.7. The North Fork
of May Creek parallels State Route (SR) 900, resulting in degraded riparian conditions
and channelization. Three quarries along the North Fork contribute to high sediment
loading in the system (Foster Wheeler 1998). The East Fork of May Creek flows into the
South Fork at RM 7.2. Habitat conditions in the East Fork are highly degraded due to the
presence of man-made berms, culverts, and man-made ponds (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Almost all of the basin's nearly 80 identified wetlands have been disturbed by
deforestation, filling, draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this
disturbance occurring since the wetlands were first inventoried in 1983 (King County
2001).
The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 200 I) includes several goals, one of
which is to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin.
Implementation of habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on
funding availability. Restoration work along May Creek has recently taken place; the
Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek
riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge to Lake Washington Boulevard by
planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation. In this area (located
upstream from the proposed dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width
from 5 to over 100 feet in width.
Despite the current habitat conditions, the lower reaches of May Creek experience the
heaviest use by fish (Foster Wheeler 1998). Steelhead, cutthroat trout, Chinook, coho,
and sockeye salmon spawn in May Creek. Spawning gravel, although embedded, likely
supports successful incubation (Buchanan 2003). The primary limiting factor for
Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is available spawning area and incubation
success (Foster Wheeler 1998). The primary limiting factor for coho, steelhead, and
cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and over-
wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Lake Washington
The following description of the Lake Washington basin is from Kerwin (2001) unless
otherwise cited. Lake Washington is approximately twenty miles long and is bordered by
the cities of Seattle, Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Kenmore. The Lake Washington/
Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and Sammamish,
and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It also
includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain
into the system from the north.
Historically, Lake Washington had a vegetated shoreline of wetlands, trees, brush, and
other mixed vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for juvenile salmonids.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 27
K:IProjeCIS\Batbee MIi BA 2005'o2005 SA ctaftsldraft lwo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
The shoreline's natural structural complexity was beneficial for fish and other aquatic
species. Larger conifers that grew in the riparian area provided shade and contributed
plant material (branches, needles) and terrestrial insects to the aquatic food chain. The
United States Fish Commission Bulletin published in 1898 describes the lake as follows;
"Only in a few places along the shore of the entire lake is the bottom sufficiently free
from snags, fallen trees, and other material to permit the successful hauling of nets".
In the past 150 years, the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish watershed has been
dramatically altered from its historical condition. Habitat degradation started with heavy
logging of old growth forest throughout much of the watershed in the late 19th century.
In 1901, the City of Seattle began diverting water out of the upper Cedar River to serve as
its main water supply. Between 1910 through 1920, the natural Lake Washington outlet
was redirected from the Black River to the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M.
Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake Washington to Lake Union and
then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake that was not
connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of the
Lake Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to
10 feet and the loss of over ten miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of
wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality
and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho sahnon. During
that same decade, the Cedar River was redirected from the Black River into the south end
of Lake Washington.
In the ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area
has been the expansion of urban and suburban development. In the upper Cedar River,
land is devoted ahnost entirely to preservation of forests. Residential, industrial, and
commercial uses prevail in the lower reaches of virtually all the streams. Today,
approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce
the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700
piers extend into the lake, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by
shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen
trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). Piers are also used heavily as
ambush cover by non-native species such as bass, which may prey heavily on native
juvenile salmonids. The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse
plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat.
The current lake level is artificially regulated within a two-foot range. The high
water/low water regime is reversed from the natural state. High water occurs during the
summer for extensive operation of the Ballard Locks. Low water occurs during the
winter protect property from winter wave action.
Despite the heavy alteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support
numerous salmonid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest salmonid
populations, the Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye,
coho, kokanee, steelhead, rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char.
Some of the small independent Puget Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and
cutthroat. Maps illustrating known and presumed distributions for each of these species
are available in Kerwin (2001). Additionally, at least 40 non-native fish species (of
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 28
K:\Projects\Barbee Wil BA2005\2005 BA drafls\dralt t-No\May Creek BA 072605.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
which approximately 24 persist) have been introduced into the Lake Washington basin,
most notably smallmouth and largemouth bass, creating numerous trophic interactions
with native species, most notably predation on native salmonids. Sockeye salmon in the
lake system are believed to be primarily the descendants of fry transplanted from Baker
Lake in the 1930s. While many species have been introduced, native species such as
Cedar River pink and chum salmon have been extirpated.
Project Area (May Creek Delta)
On April 9 and May 6, 2005, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed
detailed aquatic habitat and fish presence surveys in the May Creek delta project area.
The objective of these surveys was to:
• document the existing aquatic habitat conditions;
• determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and
• describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the
survey.
An additional objective was to compare the results of 2005 surveys with the results of
fish habitat and fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in
1993, 2000, and 2001 (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza
2001). It should be noted that the timing of the 2005 surveys was designed to coincide
with the expected residence period of juvenile coho and Chinook.
Survey Methods
Ten underwater (SCUBA) transects were placed between the north end of the May Creek
delta and the existing boathouse located at the south end of the proposed project area
(Figure 5). Transects ranged from 25 to 245 feet in length, and extended approximately
395 feet into Lake Washington. Transects 1 through 4 were shallow-water snorkel
survey transects located along the north and south shoreline adjacent to the delta, up to
the lowermost access bridge at the mouth of May Creek. Transects 5 through 9 paralleled
each other, oriented from roughly 0° to 180°, and transect 10 extend from the south end
of transect 9 to the existing boathouse (Figure 5). The transects were placed to document
varying habitat types.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 29
K:IPl'OjeCl1\Bartle MIi BA 2005\2005 BAdraflsll:nft two\May Cleek BA 072605.dcc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Figure 5. May Creek delta 2005 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations.
On April 9, 2005, two fisheries biologists used snorkeling equipment and SCUBA to
swim each of the 10 survey transects approximately three feet above the surface of the
lake bed. While swimming each transect, both divers counted and identified fish to
species. When fish were observed, divers also recorded the depth, dominant and
subdominant substrate, and underwater visibility. Fish age classes and species
associations were also noted. Aquatic macrophyte densities were visually estimated
along each transects at a series of one to three square yard stations. At each station,
macrophyte densities were visually estimated as low (less than or equal to 10 stems per
square yard), moderate (11 to 100 stems per square yard), or high (greater than 100 stems
per square yard). Aquatic macrophyte species composition and relative abundance was
also estimated/recorded at each station. Underwater photographs of representative
habitat conditions and fish were also taken along selected transects.
On May 6, 2005, a fisheries biologist used snorkeling equipment to survey the littoral
zone of the delta and surrounding shoreline (transects I through 4) (Figure 5). The
survey focused on the littoral zone and surrounding shoreline because this is the area of
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 30
K:\Prujects\Barbee Mia BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\draft two\May Cleek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
the lake that is most likely to be occupied by ESA listed Chinook and other salmonids
(Tabor et al. 2004). The survey biologist identified, counted, and attempted to
photograph each fish species observed and also recorded the depth, dominant and
subdominant substrate, and underwater visibility.
Survey Results
Fish Use
Over the last several years numerous salmonid species have been documented at the
project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, and rainbow and cutthroat
trout. Non-salmonid species documented at the project site include largemouth and
smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three-spine
stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; and Buchanan
2003).
Fish species observed during the April and May 2005 aquatic habitat and fish population
surveys included Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, three-spine
stickleback, and prickly sculpin (Tables 5 and 6). As in past surveys, the majority of all
fish observed in 2005 were found in relatively shallow water (less than 6 feet deep) along
transects l through 4. Typically these fish were associated with overhead and underwater
cover in the form of riprap, emergent vegetation, submerged logs, the existing dock, and
the culvert located adjacent to the existing dock. In 2005, the majority of the coho and
Chinook were found to be associated with the outlet of the culvert located adjacent to the
dock (the eastern end of Transect 4) (Figure 6); however, coho and rainbow trout were
also observed using nearshore emergent vegetation as cover.
Riparian Condition
The Barbee Mill property, located adjacent to the May Creek delta, has been highly
modified, with mill operations dominating the land use. Approximately 85 percent of the
site is covered by impervious surfaces in the form of pavement associated with mill
operations and approximately 15 structures used for mill offices, log handling, sawing,
milling, and storage of wood products (Figure 5 illustrates the condition adjacent to the
May Creek delta). Mill facility structures and impervious surfaces abut the Lake
Washington shoreline, in addition to an existing dock structure.
In recent years, the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover
in the May Creek riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge by planting willows,
cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation. In this area (located upstream from
the proposed dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width from
approximately 5 to over 100 feet in width. Immediately adjacent to the May Creek delta,
the riparian area is grass covered and managed more as lawn than an actual riparian
buffer (Figure 7). Traditional riprap erosion control has been placed along both sides of
the delta from the lower access bridge down to the confluence with Lake Washington.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 31
K:\Projecls\Baibee MIi BA 2005'2005 BA <hfts'oaft two\May Craek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Table S Summary of April 9, 200S SCUBA survey results within the proposed project area.
Survey
Method Aquatic Aquatic
Transect and Station Distance Depth Macrophyte Macrophyte
Number Number Bearing (feet) (feet) Substrate Density• Species Comments/ Fish Observations
1 Snorkel 138° 115 0-2.6 Riprap cobble Low Elodea Visibility approximately 3.3 feel. No fish observed
Survey and sand canadensis (used light to see into riprap areas)
2 Snorkel 76° 180 0-3.3 Riprap cobble, None None observed Visibility approximately 2.6 feet. Two dead
Survey sand.and observed sticklebacks. One dead crayfish. No live fish
gravel observed. (Used light to see into riprap areas)
3 Snorkel 230° 280 0-3.3 Riprap cobble, Low Floating Visibility approximately 3.3 feet. Two sculpin (alive)
Survey sand.and Eurasian Milfoil under riprap.
gravel
4 Snorkel 115° and 150 0-3.3 Riprap cobble, Low Elodea Approximately 150 coho fry, two sockeye salmon fry,
Survey 70° sand.and canadensis and and five Chinook salmon fry (see Figure 6). All
gravel sparse Eurasian salmonids were observed near the culvert ouUet and
Milfoil (floating) under the existing dock structure. Pulses of turbid
water out of the culvert appeared to attract salmon
fry (actively feeding). One eight-inch-diameter
western pond turtle was observed mid-transect.
Visibility approximately 3.9 feet.
5 Snorkel 1ao· 25 0-3.3 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Gravel extends out approximately
Survey gravel and observed 2.6 feet from riprap followed by sand at mid-channel.
sand mid-Sand substrate across approximately 90 percent of
channel the channel.
6 Snorkel 1ao 0 35 0-3.9 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90
Survey gravel and observed percent of the channel. Gravel and cobble on edges
sand mid-of channel only, near the toe of shore armor.
channel
7 Snorkel 180° 80 0-4.3 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90
Survey gravel and observed percent of the channel. A 'pit'' measuring
sand mid-approximately 8.2 feet deep was observed at mid-
channel transect. Gravel and cobble on edges of channel
only, near the toe of shore armor.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 32
K~Projects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA draffs'maft two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc.
Survey
Method
Transect and Station Distance
Number Number Bearing (feet)
8 Snorkel 180° 115
Survey
9 SCUBA 1 180° 80
9 SCUBA2 150• 165
9 SCUBA3 180° 245
10 SCUBA 1 so· 80
10 SCUBA2 go• 165
10 SCUBA3 go• 245
• Low = less than or equal to 1 O stems per square yard.
Moderate= 11 to 100 stems per square yard.
High= greater than 100 stems per square yard.
July 28, 2005
K.-\ProjBcb\BarbN Mm BA 2005\2005 BA chfts'd'aft two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Depth
(feet)
0-8.2
4.3
10.5
19.7
13.1
10.5
6.6-9.8
May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Aquatic Aquatic
Macrophyte Macrophyte
Substrate Density• Species Comments I Fish Observations
Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90
gravel and observed percent of the channel.
sand mid-
channel
Silt Moderate Elodea No fish observed. Numerous (1,000's) Neomysis
canadensis and mercedis (possum shrimp) observed throughout the
sparse Eurasian transect.
Milfoil
Silt Moderate Eurasian Milfoil, No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis.
Elodea
canadensis, and
Potamogeton
crispis (curly-leaf
pondweed)
Silt None None observed No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis.
observed
Silt Moderate Elodea One dead sculpin. No live fish observed. Numerous
canadensis and Neomysis mercedis. One freshwater mussel.
Eurasian Miffoil
Silt Moderate Elodea No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis.
canadensis and
Eurasian Miffoil
Silt/Sand Low Elodea No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis.
canadensis and Series of three pits measuring 6.6 to 9.8 feet deep
Eurasian Mi~oil located near the boathouse entrance. Total transect
length = 245 feet.
Biological Assessment -Page 33
Meridian Environmental, Inc.
Table 6. Summary of May 6, 2005 snorkel survey results within the proposed project_area.
Survey
Method/
Transect Station Distance
Number Number Bearing (m)
1 Snorkel 138° 115
Survey
2 Snorkel 76° 180
Survey
3 Snorkel 230° 280
Survey
4 Snorkel 115°and 145
Survey 70°
Low= less lhan or equal to 10 stems per square yard.
Moderate= 11 to 100 stems per square yard.
High = greater than 100 stems per square yard.
July 28, 2005
K:\Projec!s\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA draltsldm~ two\May Creek SA 072805.doc
Aquatic Aquatic
Depth Macrophyte Macrophyte
(m) Substrate Density• Species
0-3.9 Riprap cobble Low Elodea canadensis
and sand and curly pondweed
0-3.9 Riprap cobble, None observed Soft rush along
sand, and shoreline.
gravel
0-4.9 Riprap cobble, Low None
sand.and
gravel
0-4.9 Riprap cobble, Low Elodea canadensis
sand.and
gravel
May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Comments / Fish Observations
Visibility approximately 4.9 feet. One large
stickleback in riprap.
Visibility approximately 4.9 feet. One rainbow trout
fry (using soft rush as cover), 2 coho salmon fry
and 8 large sticklebacks using riprap as cover.
Visibility approximately 3.9 feet. Five coho salmon
fry, 2 rainbow trout fry and 12 sticklebacks using
riprap as cover.
Visibility approximately 3.9 feet. Approximately 30
coho fry, 6 rainbow trout, and 20 sticklebacks. The
majority of the coho and rainbow trout fry were
observed near the culvert outlet and under the
existing dock structure; however, additional coho
and rainbow trout were observed using emergent
vegetation as cover.
Biological Assessment -Page 34
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
July 28, 2005
Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet (eastern end of
transect 4) located adjacent to the existing dock structure (200S
SCUBA survey).
Current May Creek delta riparian condition (habitat enhancement
area).
Biological Assessment -Page 35
K.V'rojeCl!IBartlee MUI BA 2005\2005 BA drafts1'111fl two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Aquatic Macrophytes
Six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented in the proposed project area;
elodea (Elodea canadensis ), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum ), white-stemmed
pondweed (Potamogeton prelongus), curly-leaf pondweed (P. crispis), American wild
celery (Vallisneria americana), and common water nymph (Najas guadalupensis) (Harza
1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001). Elodea is a native
species found throughout most of Lake Washington. It is nodally rooting and forms large
mats in shallow water, nearshore areas. Eurasian milfoil is a non-native species that first
appeared in Lake Washington in the mid-l 970s. This species spreads rapidly, and now
dominates the aquatic macrophyte community in the nearshore areas of the lake (Harza
1993). According to Kerwin (2001), Eurasian milfoil has colonized a large percentage of
the littoral zone and replaced much of the native aquatic vegetation present in littoral
areas of Lake Washington. Curly-leaf pondweed also forms mats of vegetation in lakes
and streams, and provides a large area of leaf surface. It is native to Europe, introduced
in North America, and known to occur in both central and western Washington.
American wild celery is also native to eastern North America; however, Hitchcock et al.
(1969) notes that it was introduced into several lakes in Washington, including Lake
Washington (Harza 1993). Common water nymph exists throughout Washington and is
often found in ponds, lakes and sluggish streams to depths of 12 feet.
Based on the results of underwater surveys conducted in 1993, 2000, and 2001 (Harza
1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 200 l ), the distribution and
abundance of these macrophyte communities fluctuates considerably on a seasonal basis.
In general, high densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and curly-leaf pondweed have been
observed in the nearshore portion (depths less than 12 feet) of the proposed project area
during the SUIIlIIler months (Harza 2000). The highest abundance is typically seen in
depths of 6 to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the deeper water
transects (greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and
less abundant. Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15 feet
(Harza 1993 and 2000). During the winter and early spring the densities of these species
are relatively low, as most of their growth occurs during the sUIIlIIler months.
In 2005, biologists observed low to moderate densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and
curly-leaf pondweed in the proposed project area (Table 5). Densities were highest along
transects 9 and IO at depths less than 12 feet (Figure 8) and lowest along transects I, 3
and 4. No aquatic rnacrophytes were observed along transects 2, 5, 7, and 8 (Table 5).
Overall, elodea was the dominant aquatic plant species both in distribution and
abundance throughout the proposed project area.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 36
K:\f>roiects\&lrbee Mill BA2005\2005 BA draflslclrafl two\May Crw!< BA 072805.doc
Mendian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Figure 8. Curly-leaf pondweed, Elodea canadensi, and Eurasian milfoil
observed along transect 9 (2005 SCUBA survey).
Shoreline Condition
As discussed previously, the littoral zone and shoreline of Lake Washington has been
extensively modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake level; construction of
piers, docks, and bulkheads; removal ofLWD; and the expansion of Eurasian milfoil and
other non-native aquatic macrophytes (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000). The previously
hardstem bulrush and willow-dominated shoreline community has been replaced by
developed and hardened shorelines with landscaped yards. According to Toft (2001), an
estimated 71 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored with riprap or
bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers have been built. This loss of natural
shoreline has reduced the occurrence of complex shoreline habitat features such as
overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris ( especially fallen trees with
branches and/or rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches, which has reduced the
availability of refuge habitat and forage for juvenile salmonids.
Like most of the shoreline along Lake Washington, the shoreline in the proposed project
area is armored with riprap (Figure 9); however, a very limited amount of emergent
vegetation (soft rush, grasses, sedges, etc.) was observed growing along transect 4. In
2005, juvenile rainbow trout, coho salmon, and sticklebacks were observed using this
using this emergent vegetation as cover. Water depths in the areas dominated by riprap
substrate range from Oto approximate 3 feet deep.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 37
K:\J1rqeds'&lrbea MHI BA 2005\2005 BA draflsli:lrall lwoWay Creek BA on805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Figure 9.
Substrate
Riprap shoreline located along the May Creek delta (habitat
enhancement area).
The substrate in the proposed project area (bottom surface observations during SCUBA
surveys) is comprised of a mixture of silt and sand, riprap cobble ( 4 to 8 inches in
diameter), and gravel patches. Riprap cobble, sand, and gravel were the dominant
substrates observed along transects 1 through 8. The riprap cobble was typically located
within 6 feet of the shoreline to a depth of approximately 3 feet (Figure 10). Roughly
equal amounts of gravel and sand were the dominant substrates in the mid-channel areas
of transects 1 through 8. Silt and sand were the only substrates observed along transects
9 and l O (Figure 11 ).
Figure 10. Riprap cobble substrate along transect 3 (2005 SCUBA survey).
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 38
K:\PmjeCIS\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drafls\draftlwo\May Crook BA 072805 doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Figure 11. Silt substrate along transect 9 at a depth of approximately 15 feet
(2005 SCUBA survey).
Overall Aquatic Habitat Complexity
Other than aquatic macrophytes, large substrates (submerged riprap), and occasional
pieces of submerged woody debris, complex habitat features are extremely limited in the
May Creek delta project area. The dock, boathouse, and culvert located immediately
south of the delta provide overhead cover for juvenile salmonids at depths less than
approximately two feet; however, at depths greater than two feet, these structures likely
provide cover for abundant nonnative predators such as largemouth and smallmouth bass.
The riprap shoreline surrounding the de! ta may directly affect predation on juvenile
salmonids by eliminating shallow-water refuge habitat or, indirectly, by the eliminating
shoreline vegetation. The large interstitial spaces found within the riprap shoreline may
also provide ambush habitat for abundant, large native cottids (also known to prey on
juvenile salmonids). As discussed previously, overhanging riparian vegetation and
emergent vegetation is extremely limited in the project area. In summary, the proposed
project area would be considered poor juvenile salmonid rearing habitat due to the lack of
overhanging vegetation and lack of shallow water structure such as shallow emergent
vegetation and small woody debris (brush).
B. Environmental Baseline Matrix
For proposed actions that affect freshwater habitat, the Services usually define the
biological requirements for listed species in terms of a concept called properly
functioning condition (PFC). PFC is the sustained presence of natural habitat-forming
processes in a watershed ( e.g., riparian community succession, bedload transport,
precipitation runoff pattern, channel migration) that are necessary for the long-term
survival of the species through the full range of environmental variation. PFC, then,
constitutes the habitat component of a species' biological requirements. The indicators of
PFC vary between different landscapes based on unique physiographic and geologic
features. For example, aquatic habitats on timberlands in glacial mountain valleys are
controlled by natural processes operating at different scales and rates than are habitats on
low-elevation coastal rivers or lake systems.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 39
K."\Prcjed:s\Barbee M~I BA 2005\2005 8Adraflsldn!ft hw\May Clvek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
In the NOAA Fisheries PFC framework, baseline environmental conditions are described
as "properly functioning" (PFC), "at risk" (AR), or "not properly functioning" (NPF).
USFWS also has a PFC framework that defines baseline environmental conditions in
terms of "functioning appropriately" (FA), "functioning at risk" (AR), or "functioning at
unacceptable risk" (UR). The PFC concept includes a recognition that natural patterns of
habitat disturbance will continue to occur. For example, floods, landslides, wind damage,
and wildfires result in spatial and temporal variability in habitat characteristics, as will
anthropogenic perturbations. If a proposed project would be likely to impair properly
functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat, or
retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it will usually be found
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or adversely modify its critical
habitat, or both, depending upon the specific considerations of the analysis. Such
considerations may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the
environmental baseline, the particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that
have arisen since listing, and the quality of the available information.
In this section of the BA, we summarize existing environmental conditions and
parameters for the action area, and present the status of each indicator as PFC, AR, or
NPF following the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS "pathways and indicators" matrices
(Table 7). For the purposes of this analysis we have integrated the NOAA Fisheries and
USFWS matrices in order to facilitate an analysis of the effects of the proposed project
on bull trout and Chinook salmon simultaneously. For consistency we have used the
terms PFC, AR, or NPF (NOAA Fisheries terminology) for rating specific environmental
indicators applicable to bull trout from the USFWS ( 1998) matrix. For practical
purposes, PFC, AR, or NPF (NOAA Fisheries terminology) are equivalent to FA, AR,
and UR (USFWS terminology). Criteria for PFC, AR and NPF are described in detail in
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998), but summarized for each indicator following Table 7
along with a detailed justification for the status of each indicator in the action area. The
effects that the proposed project may have on each environmental indicator are analyzed
subsequently in Section V(E).
It is important to note that the current status of a particular environmental indicator can
be non-related to a proposed project. For example, road density in the Lake Washington
basin may rate as "not properly functioning" under existing conditions even though the
proposed project has no influence on this indicator. In addition, the 1996 NMFS matrix
was originally designed by the U.S. Forest Service to evaluate timber harvest activities on
rangeland watersheds. Therefore, not all of the parameters below are necessarily
applicable to the small spatial scale of the proposed project, although it is still a useful
tool in characterizing the baseline conditions and summarizing the potential effects of the
proposed project.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 40
K:\Projem\Barbee Mil BA 2005'\2005 BA.drafts\draft two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging
Table 7. Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental
baseline on relevant indicators.
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Pathway Cause of Degradation from
Indicators Function Description PFC
Water Quality
Temperature NPF High water temperatures present Loss of riparian vegetation due
during bull trout spawning, to development; natural low
incubation and migration; and during watershed elevation
Chinook spawning, rearing and
migration
Sediment/Turbidity NPF High sediment loads in May Creek Increased runoff due to
and Lake Washington development has increased
bank erosion and sediment
transport in May Creek
Chemical NPF Several 303(d) reaches present Residential and commercial
Contamination/Nutrients development has increased
polluted runoff (point and non-
point sources), agricultural/
hobby farm run-off to May
Creek
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers AR Man-made in-stream structures Ballard Locks is a predation
present bottleneck, and is a quick
transition between salt and
freshwaters, which is
undesirable for salmon smolts
Habitat Elements
Substrate NPF High fine sediment loads in May Increased runoff due to
Creek and Lake Washington development has increased
bank erosion and sediment
transport in May Creek
Large Woody Debris NPF Limited to no L WD along the lake Development, historic wood
shore and in the lower 4 miles of removal, loss of riparian forest
May Creek
Pool Frequency and NPF Few pools in lower May Creek High sediment loads and lack
Quality of pool forming structure such
as LWD due to human
development
Off-Channel Habitat NPF Little if any off-channel habitat May Creek channelization,
present wetland degradation and
wetland loss due to
development lowering of Lake
Washington
Refugia NPF No pristine PFC aquatic habitat Wide scale urbanization has
present in the action area degraded May Creek and Lake
Washington
July 28, 2005
K:\Pl'Cljecls\Balt: Mll 8A 2005\2005 BA draflsldraft IWo\May Craek BA 072805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 41
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Pathway Cause of Degradation from
Indicators Function Description PFC
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio NPF Stream has been channelized, and Increased erosion and
heavy sediment transport occurs in sedimentation, along with
May Creek channelization due to
development and increased
runoff has degrade channel
morphology in May Creek
Streambank Condition NPF Extensive actively eroding Increased erosion due to
streambanks in May Creek; Lake channelization and
Washington's shore is extensively development in May Creek;
hardened with bulk heads and piers shoreline armoring along the
lake for residential and
commercial development
Floodplain Connectivity NPF Limited floodplain connectivity May Creek has been
channelized and Lake
Washington was lowered,
permanently dewatering
shallow wetlands and lake
margin habitat.
Flow/Hydrology
Change in Peak/Base NPF Peak flows are higher and base Loss of wetlands and increased
Flow flows are lower impervious surface due to
development has increased
runoff during peak flows, and
diminished ground water
recharge to sustain summer
base flows
Increase in Drainage NPF Peak flows are higher Impervious surface and roads
Network have contributed to increased
runoff
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and NPF High road density Lake Washington is a highly
Location urbanized area with a well
developed road network
Disturbance History NPF Massive human caused landscape Diversion of the Cedar River,
altering events have occurred lowering of Lake Washington
and general urbanization of
dramatically altered the historic
landscape
Riparian Reserves NPF Few forested areas compared to Wide spread clearing in the
historic conditions May Creek watershed and
Lake Washington for
urbanization
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 42
K:\Projec:;ts\Bar Mill BA 2005\2005 BAdraflsldraft two\May Creek 3A 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Pathway Cause of Degradation from
Indicators Function Description PFC
Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria}
Population Size NA No local bull trout subpopulation in No bull trout subpopulations
the action area, although foraging are known or suspected to
individuals may be present from occur in May Creek; the Cedar
other basins such as the Snohomish River population is resident
and Slillaguamish, or from the upper above a natural barrier and
Cedar River was not historically connected
to Lake Washington
Growth and Survival NA Same as above Same as above
Life History Diversity NA Same as above Same as above
and Isolation
Persistence and NA Same as above Same as above
Genetic Integrity
NA = Not Applicable
Water Temperature
For Chinook salmon, NMFS (1996) defines PFC as water temperatures ranging from 50
to 57°F. AR ranges from 57 to 60°F for spawning and from 57 to 64 ° for migration and
rearing. NPF is defined as greater than 60°F for spawning and greater than 64 °F for
rearing. USFWS (1998) defines PFC for bull trout as water temperatures ranging from
35.6 to 41 °F for incubation, 39.2 to 53.6°F for rearing, and 39.2 to 48.2°F for spawning.
NPF is defined as temperatures outside the above criteria, with rearing areas and
migration corridor temperatures over 59°F.
Water temperatures in the area (East Mercer Channel) are generally below 50°F during
the winter and between 62 to 75°F during the summer at depths of 3.3 feet. At a depth of
33 feet, water temperatures are about 45°F in the winter and between 59° and 68°F
during the summer (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/site0840.htm). Under the
USFWS (1998) criteria these values would rate as NPF for bull trout spawning and
incubation and summer migration corridors. Under the NMFS (1996) criteria, these
values would rate between NPF and AR for Chinook spawning, rearing and migration.
Sediment/Turbidity
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as containing less than 12 percent fines in
gravel, and NPF is defined as having greater than 17 percent surface fines (greater than
20 percent surface fines under USFWS 1998).
The project area substrate is composed of coarse sand and gravel with shallow surface
accumulations of silt. According to King County (200 I), sediment deposition has
occurred from natural erosion but has been accelerated by increased storm water runoff
from upstream development and changes in the watershed land cover. Increased erosion
and sedimentation has degraded fish habitat and resulted in sediment deposition at the
May Creek delta (King County 2001). We assume that this increased erosion and
July 28, 2005
K:V>rojeCIS\Bal'b8& Mill BA 2005\2005 SA c:hfts'O'aff: lwo\May CMk BA 072805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 43
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
sedimentation has increased turbidity levels over natural conditions, although no specific
turbidity data were reviewed. King County (200 l) also noted that activities associated
with quarrying operations, including earthmoving, gravel extraction, materials
stockpiling, and truck traffic to and from quarry sites, can contribute to discharge of
turbid, sediment-laden water to May Creek. Based on the documentation of increased
erosion and sedimentation, this indicator is likely NPF.
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as characterized by low levels of
contamination with no 303( d) designated reaches, and NPF is defined as high levels of
chemical contamination and nutrients and more than one 303(d) listed reach.
The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) 1998 -303(d) list of impaired waters
listed several reaches that do not meet state water quality standards for copper, fecal
coliform bacteria, lead, zinc and water temperature. Lake Washington was listed under
fecal coliform. In addition, WDOE has given several public warnings regarding limiting
fish consumption from Lake Washington due to mercury contamination (WDOH 2004).
Based on known water quality degradation in Lake Washington and May Creek, this
indicator rates as NPF.
Physical Barriers
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as man-made barriers that allow upstream
and downstream passage at all flows without significant levels of mortality or delay, and
NPF as man-made barriers that do not allow upstream and downstream fish passage at a
range of flows.
The fish passage facilities at the Ballard Locks provide adult access to Lake Washington
and smolt passage to the Puget Sound. However, the lock is a predation bottleneck.
Heavy seal predation on adult salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem.
In addition, the sharp demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the
Lake Washington outlet is likely a strcssor for juvenile salmonid out-migrants.
Therefore, the "Physical Barriers" indicator should be considered AR.
Substrate
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as reach embeddedness ofless than 20
percent and NPF as embeddedness greater than 30 percent.
The substrate in the project area is comprised of sand and silt based on SCUBA surveys.
According to King County (200 I) fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek is an
ongoing problem. Foster Wheeler ( 1998) reported that the primary limiting factor for
Chinook in May Creek is likely available spawning area and incubation success (Foster
Wheeler 1998), which infers that clean loose gravel patches are limited. Based on
chronic fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek, this indicator rates as NPF.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 44
K:\Projecls\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\dra~ two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Large Woody Debris
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as greater than 80 pieces of wood per
mile, which are greater than 24 inches in diameter and greater than 50 feet long. NPF is
defined as wood that does not meet the criteria of PFC and sources ofLWD recruitment
are lacking.
Surveys of the project area found little to no LWD in the project area (Harza 1993; Harza
2000; Meridian Environmental and Harza 2001 ). The lower four miles of May Creek
lacks current and future sources ofLWD (Foster Wheeler 1998). The lack ofLWD has
resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF.
Pool Freguency!Quality
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for pool frequency based on channel
width; the standard for lower May Creek is approximately 18 to 26 pools/mile (based on
average channel width). Pool quality for PFC is defined as pools with good cover with
only minor reduction of pool volume caused by fine sediments and many pools greater
than I meter deep. NPF is defined as pool frequency that is considerably less than under
PFC, cover and temperature is inadequate, with high fine sediment loads, and no pool
greater than 3 feet deep. USFWS (1998) also defines PFC for large pools as conditions
where each reach has many large pools greater than 3 feet deep and NPF is defined as
possessing no pools greater than 1 meter deep.
Chronic levels of sediment deposition have likely degraded pools in lower May Creek.
In addition, Foster Wheeler (1998) reported that the lack ofLWD in the lower 4 miles of
May Creek has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat.
Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF.
Off-channel Habitat
NMFS ( 1996) and USFWS ( 1998) define PFC for off-channel habitat as many
backwaters with cover and low energy, off-channel areas, including ponds and oxbows.
NPF is defined as the watershed with few or none of these habitat types.
Lowering of Lake Washington in the early 1900s resulted in the loss of over ten miles of
shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands
are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids
such as Chinook and coho salmon. Almost all of the May Creek basin's nearly 80
identified wetlands have been disturbed by deforestation, filling, draining, agricultural
practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring after the wetlands
were first inventoried in 1983 (King County 2001). Based on loss of wetland and off-
channel habitats, this indicator rates as NPF.
Refugia
NMFS (1996) defines PFC for refugia as habitat refugia that exists and is adequately
buffered by intact riparian reserves; existing refugia are sufficient in size, number and
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 45
K:\Pro;ects\Baibea M~I BA 2005\2005 BA drafls\draft lwo\May Craek BA onsos.do<:
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
connectivity to maintain viable populations and subpopulations. NPF is defined as
adequate habitat refugia that do not exist.
USFWS (1998) defines PFC for refugia as habitats capable of supporting strong and
significant populations of bull trout that are protected, well distributed, and connected for
all life stages and forms. NPF is defined as habitat and refugia that do not exist.
The action area has been extensively altered over the past 100 years by human
development and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed is likely one of the
most highly disturbed urban watersheds in the state of Washington. Although adequate
bull trout habitat exists in the upper Cedar River, no bull trout refugia exists in the action
area due to high summer water temperatures. The action area also lacks adequate local
refugia for Chinook salmon due to extensive riparian, instream, and shoreline habitat
alterations. Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF.
Width/Depth Ratio
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for the average width/depth ratio as less
than or equal to 10 and for NPF as greater than 20.
No specific data were reviewed for this indicator that quantifies the average width/depth
ratio for pools in the action area; however, the average width/depth ratio for pools is
likely impaired by the same processes as listed for the "pool frequency/quantity"
indicator. Based on the observed lack of pools in lower May Creek near the project area,
impairment of pool-forming process, and high sediment loads, this indicator likely rates
asNPF.
Streambank Condition
NMFS (1996) defines PFC as greater than 90 percent (80 percent under USFWS criteria)
of any stream reach of which 90 percent or more is stable NPF is defined as less than 80
percent stability. However, USFWS (1998) defines NPF as less than 50 percent of any
stream reach that is characterized as at least 90 percent stable.
The shoreline along the action area is developed and bulkheaded. The banks are not
actively eroding, but the bulkheads have disrupted natural shoreline processes. In
addition, over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington. Lowering of the lake in the
early 1900s substantially altered the Lake Washington shoreline, resulting in the loss of
approximately IO miles oflake shore perimeter. May Creek has been channelized and
bank erosion is the primary source of high sediment loads in the stream (Foster Wheeler
1998). Due to extensive alteration of the Lake Washington shoreline, this indicator rates
as NPF.
Floodplain Connectivity
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as well-connected, off-channel areas with
overbank flows of sufficient frequency to maintain function. NPF is defined as a severe
reduction in hydrologic connection with off-channel habitats.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 46
K:\Projects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA draflsldrafl two\May Creek BA 072805.dcc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
May Creek has been channelized and Lake Washington has been lowered, disconnecting
the mouths of streams from their floodplains. Therefore this indicator rates as NPF.
Change in Peak/Base Flows
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for the watershed hydrograph as being
similar in terms of peak flow, base flow, and timing characteristics to an undisturbed
watershed with similar geology and geography. NPF is defined as pronounced changes
in various hydrologic parameters.
This indicator is not applicable to lakes. However, May Creek baseflows have been
reduced and peak flows have increased moderately in May Creek, on the order of 15 to
20 percent greater than the predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and JOO-year flood
return intervals (King County 200 l ). Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF for May
Creek.
Increase in Drainage Network
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as zero to minimal increases in the
drainage network due to roads. That is, the construction of roads and their companion
drainage systems have not increased the total number of drainage routes to the river,
potentially increasing input of sediment and contaminants, and altering hydrology. NPF
is defined as significant increases in drainage network density due to roads (20 to 25
percent).
May Creek peak flows have increased by 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment
conditions (King County 200 I). This increase is mostly likely due to the increase of
impervious surfaces and the road drainage network in the watershed. Due to the
urbanized nature of Lake Washington and lower May Creek, this indicator rates as NPF.
Road Density and Location
NMFS ( 1996) and USFWS ( 1998) define PFC as less than l mile of road per square mile
with no valley bottom roads and NPF as greater than 2.4 miles of road per square mile
with many valley bottom roads.
The action area has been heavily urbanized and has a well developed road network. Road
densities, although not estimated for this analysis, likely rate as NPF.
Disturbance History
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as having less than 15 percent equivalent
clear-cut area (entire watershed) with no concentration of disturbance in unstable or
potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area; and for Northwest Forest
Plan area ( except adaptive management areas), 15 percent retention oflate successional
old growth timber in the watershed.
The "Disturbance History" indicator rates as NPF based on extensive past development
and ongoing development pressures.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 4 7
K.'\Projects\Barbee Mnl BA 2005\2005 BA draftsldreft two\May Cl9Elk BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Riparian Reserves
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as a riparian reserve system that provides
adequate shade, L WD recruitment, habitat protection, and connectivity to all sub-
watersheds. This reserve must be greater than 80 percent intact and the vegetation must
be greater than 50 percent similar to the potential natural community composition.
Riparian habitat in the action area along Lake Washington has been highly altered and
extensively cleared, primarily for residential development. Riparian areas along May
Creek have been extensively cleared for residential development and pastureland. Lower
May Creek in the project area is essentially devoid of trees and shrubs. This indicator
rates as NPF.
Population Size
USFWS (1998) defines FA as the mean subpopulation size or a local habitat capacity of
more than several thousand individuals and all life stages evenly represented in the
subpopulation. AR is defined as fewer than 500 adults in subpopulation but more than
50.
The Lake Chester Morse bull trout population in the upper Cedar River would be
classified as FA under the USFWS criteria; however, this is a naturally resident
population located upstream of a passage barrier. In addition, the Cedar River
historically was not connected to Lake Washington. There or no known current or
historic (but now extinct) bull trout populations located within the Lake Washington
basin, except for the Chester Morse population. However, it appears that individuals
from the Chester Morse population may pass downstream into Lake Washington, and that
anadromous bull trout migrate to the Lake Washington vicinity from other basins such as
the Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and possibly the Skagit River basins.
Bull trout are naturally patchily distributed, even in pristine watersheds. There is no
indication that a bull trout population historically would have occupied May Creek.
Generally, self sustaining local bull trout subpopulations are only found in watersheds
that have accessible stream habitat above the average winter snow line (where winter
snowpack accumulates), approximately 900 feet in western Washington (USFWS 2004).
The May Creek watershed headwaters only extend to an elevation of approximately 500
feet, with no areas of winter snowpack accumulation. Spawning of bull trout in May
Creek would not be expected currently or historically because the water temperature
regime is likely too warm due to the low elevation and Jack of substantial cold springs,
glaciers, or winter snowpack. As there is no current or historic local self sustaining bull
trout population or subpopulation indigenous to the action area, this indicator is not
applicable.
Growth and Survival
USFWS (1998) defines FA as a subpopulation with the resilience to recover from short-
term disturbances in 5 to 10 years. Additionally, the subpopulation is increasing or
stable, with at least 10 years of data to support such a trend.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 48
K:\Projacts\Barbea Mill BA 2005\2005 BAdrafls\drall lwo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation
indigenous to the action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable.
Life History Diversity and Isolation
USFWS ( 1998) defines FA as the migratory form being present with subpopulations in
close proximity to other spawning and rearing groups. There is high likelihood of
neighboring subpopulations straying and adults mixing with other groups. UR is defined
as when the migratory form does not exist and the subpopulation is isolated to a local
stream, not likely to support more than 2,000 fish.
As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation
indigenous to the action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable. While this
indicator is meant to apply to local subpopulations within an action area, there may be
migratory bull trout in the action area that are from other basins, such as the Snohomish
and Stillaguamish River basins or the upper Cedar River.
Persistence and Genetic Integrity
USFWS (1998) defines FA as possessing high connectivity among more than five
subpopulations with at least several thousand fish each. UR is defined as having little or
no connectivity and subpopulations that are in low numbers or in decline. As discussed
above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the
action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable.
V. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON SALMONIDS
A. Direct Effects
In this section we analyze the direct effects of the proposed dredging action on three
primary elements that most likely may be influenced by the action. These elements are
direct effects on individual fish, such as harassment or actual mortality through contact
with the dredging equipment; direct effects on habitat by physically disturbing the
substrate and removing sediments from the delta; and effects on water quality during
dredging.
Direct Effects on Salmonids
Take of bull trout during the summer is extremely unlikely. Past water quality
monitoring in 2002 (within the silt curtain of the dredging zone and immediately outside
the silt curtain) strongly suggest that water temperatures during July and August
(proposed dredge timing) exceed the generally reported upper limit of bull trout
temperature tolerance of approximately 59°C. Recently, bull trout in northeast Oregon
tagged with radio transmitters and temperature loggers suggested that some bull trout
may use waters up to approximately 62 to 64°C (Howell et al. 2005). However,
temperatures in the dredging zone (within the silt curtain) from July to late September
2002 exceeded 65°C and averaged 69 .4 °C. Due to probable high water temperatures in
the dredging zone during summer, it would be extremely unlikely for bull trout to be
present in the dredging area and, therefore, take of individual bull trout is not expected.
July 28, 2005
K:\Pru,ei:ts\Barbea MiU BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\dralt two\May Creek BA Dn805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 49
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Bull trout are unlikely to be present in the fall due to low abundance and their tendency to
migrate to headwater spawning sites in the fall (Goetz et al. 2004).
Adult Chinook typically migration into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid-
June, peaking in late-August (Kerwin 2001). Spawning typically occurs from mid-
September through November (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from
approximately January through June (Kerwin 2001). Most juvenile Chinook move
through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the entire out-migration period is
unknown (Kerwin 2001 ). Although the proposed in-water work time of mid-July to the
end of December is the period approved by WDFW to limit impacts to migrating adult
and juvenile Chinook salmon, this time period overlaps with the end of juvenile Chinook
rearing and out-migration and adult migration to spawning grounds, such as May Creek.
Therefore, there is some chance that adult or juvenile Chinook salmon may be present in
the dredging zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by dredging activities.
However, it is anticipated that adult and juvenile Chinook would avoid direct contact
with the clamshell dredging equipment, and would not be physically injured or killed by
the dredging activities.
Coho begin entering Lake Washington from late-August through early December, but
primarily in the fall, with spawning occurring primarily in November and December
(Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater with peak
out-migration from the Lake Washington basin in early May (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile
coho have been observed in the May Creek delta and coho spawn in May Creek in the
fall. The proposed dredging period, while optimally designed to avoid the presence of
juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids, does overlap with the coho rearing and out-
migration time and adult coho migration. It is most likely that coho juveniles may be
present during dredging and may be temporarily displaced, but as with Chinook, it is not
anticipated that coho would come into direct contact with dredging equipment and be
physically injured or killed.
Direct Effects on Habitat
It is apparent from Tabor et al. (2004) that juvenile Chinook salmon in the south end of
Lake Washington prefer shallow stream delta habitat with substrates of sand and gravel.
The purpose of the project is to dredge the May Creek delta in order to make the delta
deeper and prevent flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would inhibit the formation
of shallow delta habitat composed of sand and gravel. The proposed project would
maintain a relatively deep delta, which is habitat more preferred by predator fish such as
large sculpin, trout, and bass. This represents a negative effect on Chinook salmon
habitat in the action area by inhibiting preferred habitat formation. However,
enhancement of the delta margin with overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation, and
brush should offset this impairment. Currently, the delta habitat is highly degraded and
not heavily used by juvenile Chinook (Tabor et al., 2004). Enhancement of the delta
margin habitat following the results of Tabor et al. (2004) should result in an overall net
improvement to the delta for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon.
Dredging the May Creek delta may also facilitate adult Chinook salmon access into the
watershed during the late summer when flows are extremely low. Ifleft un-dredged, the
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 50
K:\Pn:ijects\Barbee Mil BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\drafl two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Mendian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
increased sediment deposition from upstream development conceivably could rise to a
level that would cause the mouth of May Creek to become very shallow or result in
subsurface flow through accumulated alluvium. Under this scenario, the mouth of May
Creek may become too shallow for adult Chinook to pass the delta upstream into the May
Creek. The dredging may actually maintain adequate upstream migration depths for
adult salmon.
Similar information for coho use of Lake Washington shoreline habitat is not available;
however, many coho were observed by Tabor et al. (2004) and during the SCUBA
surveys conducted in 2005. Based on the SCUBA observations, it appears that a
deepened delta would not necessarily be less preferred than a shallow delta for juvenile
coho. However, enhancement of the shoreline with overhanging vegetation, emergent
vegetation and brush should improve the delta margin for rearing coho.
Due to the overall lack of abundance and information concerning habitat use by bull trout
in Lake Washington, effects of delta dredging on bull trout habitat use is unknown, but is
suspected to be small.
The effect on forage species habitat is likewise unknown.
Direct Effects on Water Quality
The proposed dredging project has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e. reduce water
clarity) and increase total suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action
area. Turbidity and TSS levels have been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce
growth, and adversely affectsalmonid survival. However, the potential for adverse
effects depends upon several factors including: the duration ofTSS increases, the area of
the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambient water (dilution factor), the size
of suspended sediments, and other factors. In the case of the proposed project, increases
in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and
increases would last for only short periods of time, expected to be less than three weeks
every three to four years.
Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as
such conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms,
landslides, or other natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic
exposure to increased turbidity that has been found to be the most potentially damaging
to salmonids (The Watershed Company et al. 2000). Studies have found that when
habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid localized areas of increased
turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological impacts (Bisson and
Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003). Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of
unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and Martens 1991 ), although they may seek out
areas of moderate turbidity ( l O to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation
(Cyrus and Blaber 1987a, 1987b). Studies have found that fish that inhabit waters with
elevated TSS may experience a reduction in predation from piscivorous fish and birds
(Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases, salmonids may actually increase foraging
activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from predators (Gregory 1993).
However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in excess of70 NTU,
well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult
July 28, 2005
K:\Prujacls\Barbee M~I BA 2005\2005 BA drefts\drafl fwolMay Craek BA 072805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 51
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
salmon returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20
mg/L suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/L of
suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982).
The highest turbidity values recorded during the most recent dredging activity in 2002
were less than 7 NTU, and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less
than I NTU greater than turbidity outside the dredging zone (Table 8, see Appendix B for
water quality monitoring during previous dredging of the May Creek delta). Overall
turbidity values ofless than 7 NTU are very low, and the effect of slightly increasing
turbidity by 1 or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be considered discountable.
Washington state water quality regulations allow a short term increase of 10 NTU when
background turbidity is less than SO NTU (WAC 273-201A-030). Based on the 2002
monitoring results, future dredging would likely meet this standard.
Table 8.
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11 days of
sampling over the dredging period).
Within silt curtain Outside silt curtain
(in dredge zone) (out of dredge zone)
1.1 NTU 1.1 NTU
2.1 NTU 1.4 NTU
5.2 NTU 3.1 NTU
Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short-
term (less than three weeks every three to four years) and localized elevation of turbidity
(less than S NTU elevation above background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed
project would not rise to the levels that would be expected to cause harm to Chinook
salmon that may be present in the dredging zone.
In-water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the
spill of toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging equipment. This
potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by
maintaining a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a
SPCCP would specify areas for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention
and emergency response strategies, requirements for keeping emergency response spill
containment kits onsite, and for having trained personnel be onsite during in-water work.
A SPCCP will be develop by the dredging contractor and approved by appropriate
agencies, such as the WDOE, before dredging occurs. Preparation of a SPCCP will limit
the potential for toxic material spills during dredging.
Direct Effects on Bald Eagles
Bald eagles are known to use the southeastern tip of Mercer Island for nesting, within one
mile of the proposed project. The nearest nest is approximately 0.75 miles to the west.
WDFW conducted several studies in the 1990s on the ecology of bald eagle in western
Washington with an emphasis on the effects ofhuman activity (WDFW 1998). The
WDFW (1998) results indicate that noise disturbance from construction and machinery
has little impact on bald eagle nest success. Based on this information, WDFW no longer
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 52
K:\Projecls\Barbee M~I BA 2005\2005 BA drafts'ilralt lwo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
has a requirement to limit construction noise in the winter during eagle nesting and
roosting, although the work timing restrictions are recommended.
WDFW's current bald eagle management strategy focuses on the retention of significant
trees that may be used for perching, nesting, or roosting. No trees will be affected during
dredging. In addition, the dredging will be conducted in the summer after nesting is
complete and, therefore, will be consistent with the recommended bald eagle work timing
restrictions. Currently, no work type or timing restrictions are recommended for projects
located greater than 0.25 miles from nesting sites, except for pile driving. The proposed
dredging project is located more than 0.5 mile from known nesting sites, will not include
pile driving, and will not disturb any trees. Therefore, the proposed project is assumed to
have no impact on bald eagle nesting or roosting habitats or nesting success.
Timing restrictions are also recommended for work occurs within 0.25 miles of bald
eagle roosting, perching, or feeding habitat. As bald eagle nests are located within one
mile of the proposed dredging site, it is possible that bald eagles may forage (feed) within
0.25 mile of the project. If a project site is within 0.25 mile of bald eagle foraging
habitat, no construction is allowed from October 31 to March 31. Dredging would occur
between July 15 and December 31, and therefore, may overlap with this timing
recommendation. Due to the highly urbanized nature of the project site and south Lake
Washington area, eagles that may be present in the action area are likely habituated to
human activity and therefore, the proposed project is assumed to have no impact on bald
eagle roosting, perching, or foraging.
B. Indirect Effects
Indirect effects could potentially arise through impacts on the Chinook, bull trout, and
coho prey base (e.g. aquatic macroinvertebrates and small forage fish), or through the
creation of deep water habitat conditions that favor species known to prey on juvenile
salrnonids (large trout, bass, and sculpin). ESA-listed salrnonids feed on certain
macroinvertebrates, and therefore any loss of these prey items via dredging or disposal
may harm these species. However, this harm from dredging will be localized to
deepwater areas oflow importance to these species. As a result, short-term impacts to
rnacroinvertebrate abundance and diversity are likely to be limited. In addition, the
establishment of overhanging riparian vegetation would likely increase the abundance
and rate of terrestrial insects falling into the shallow margins of the delta, which would
result in an increase in the juvenile salrnonid prey base along the delta margin.
Small juvenile bull trout are not expected to be present in the dredging zone. As
discussed previously, small juvenile bull trout are found in close proximity to spawning
reaches, and the nearest spawning habitat is located many miles away in the headwaters
of the Cedar River watershed. Large migratory bull trout from other watersheds could
potentially use the delta as foraging habitat in the winter and spring. The effect of habitat
alteration due to dredging on migratory bull trout is unknown. However, increased depth
of the delta ( due to dredging) may be more favored as foraging habitat by picivorous
migratory bull trout compared to a relatively shallow delta that would develop without
ongoing dredging. Due to suspected extremely low abundance in Lake Washington, it is
unlikely that migratory bull trout actually use the delta for foraging.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 53
K:\ProjectalBalbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA llraffl\drafl two\May C,aek BA D72805.doe
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Indirect effects on bald eagles would primarily arise through impacts on their forage base,
such as salmon. Although the project may adversely affect Chinook and coho salmon
individuals in the action area, this effect is not anticipated to rise to the level that would
cause a perceptible decline in the bald eagle forage base within the south Lake
Washington area. Of note is that the May Creek delta has been dredged for more than 50
years. Over the last 30 years, bald eagle abundance in Puget Sound has substantially
increased (WDFW 1998), giving evidence that continuation of the May Creek delta
dredging would not adversely affect bald eagles at the population level.
C. Effects from Interdependent and Interrelated Actions
No interdependent or interrelated actions have been identified in association with the
proposed maintenance dredging project.
D. Effects from Ongoing Project Activities
These effects are the same as previously described under direct effects. The proposed
project is ongoing maintenance dredging of the May Creek delta.
E. Description of How the Environmental Baseline Would be Affected
As discussed previously, the PFC framework for ESA consultation characterizes baseline
environmental conditions as "properly functioning," "at risk," or "not properly
functioning." If a proposed project is likely to impair properly functioning habitat
(Impair), appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat (Reduce), or
retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC (Retard), it is usually found
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or adversely modify its critical
habitat, or both, depending on the specific consideration of the analysis. Such
considerations may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the
environmental baseline, the particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that
have arisen since listing, and the quality of available information. Actions that do not
compromise a species' biological requirements to the degree that appreciably reduces the
species' viability and chances of survival in the action area are considered not to reduce
or retard (NR). The effect of the proposed project on baseline environmental conditions
(summarized from Section IV(B)) is presented in Table 9.
Based on the likely effects of the proposed 10-year flood maintenance dredging and
enhancing the delta margin, the proposed project would retard the formation of more
natural shallow water delta habitat preferred by juvenile Chinook salmon. However, the
project would ensure that adult salmon continue to have access to May Creek during
summer low flows. Increasing the width-to-depth ratio in the delta may be beneficial to
holding adult salmon and foraging trout by providing holding cover in the form of depth.
The addition of riparian and emergent vegetation would improve the stream bank
condition indicator for holding adult salmon and rearing juvenile Chinook salmon.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 54
K:\Pro;edsl&rbee MiH BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\draft !wol.May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Table 9. Analysis of proposed project effects on the environmental baseline.
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Effects of
Pathway Baseline Proposed
Indicators Function Description Action
Water Quality
Temperature NPF Temperatures in May Creek are a function of NR
upstream conditions.
SedimenUTurbidily NPF Dredge monitoring has shown a small increase (less NR
than 5 NTU) over background levels during dredging.
Chemical NPF An SPCCP will be prepared and approved by WDOE NR
Contamination/ for the dredging project, which will limit potential
Nutrients chemical contamination during dredging.
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers AR Dredging the delta ensures adequate depths for adult NR (improve)
salmon migration into May Creek. If the delta
continues to aggrade at an unnatural rate wtthout
dredging, access to the stream could be impaired
during low flows in the late summer.
Habitat Elements
Substrate NPF Continued dredging would reduce the formation of RETARD
shallow delta habitat that is preferred by juvenile formation of
Chinook salmon in Lake Washington; however, shallow delta
enhancement of the delta margin with overhanging habitat, but
vegetation, emergent vegetation, and brush should improve
offset this impairment. Currently, the delta habitat is overall
highly degraded and not heavily used by juvenile existing delta
Chinook according to Tabor et al. (2004). margin habitat
Enhancement of the delta margin habitat following over the long
the results of Tabor et al. (2004) should result in an term.
overall net improvement to the delta for juvenile
salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon.
Large Woody Debris NPF L WO is not present in the action area and no trees NR
will be affected.
Pool Frequency and NPF The delta will be deepened. If dredging did not occur, NR (improve)
Quality the unnatural elevated sediment deposition would
result in a very shallow riffle/glide at the May Creek
delta. Therefore, dredging results in an increased
width to depth ratio in the delta improving pool habitat
for foraging trout and holding adult salmon at the
mouth of May Creek.
Off-Channel Habttat NPF No off-channel habitat is present in the project area; NR (maintain)
the stream is channelized. The proposed project
would maintain this existing condition.
Refugia NPF No refugia exists in the project area. NR
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 55
K:\Proj9cts'B,elbee MHI 8A 2005\2005 BA draflslllraft two'May Creek BA OnB05.dDc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Effects of
Pathway Baseline Proposed
Indicators Function Description Action
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio NPF The delta will be deepened. If dredging did not occur, NR (improve)
the unnatural elevated sediment deposition would
result in a very shallow riffle/glide at the May Creek
delta. Therefore, dredging results in an increased
width to depth ratio in the delta improving pool habitat
for foraging trout and holding adult salmon at the
mouth of May Creek.
Streambank Condition NPF The delta margin consists of rip-rap and there is NR (improve)
essentially no woody riparian vegetation downstream
of the lower-most bridge. The proposed project
would result in improved bank condition by the
addition of woody riparian overhanging vegetation.
Floodplain NPF Although the floodplain is highly degraded, the RETARD
Connectivity proposed project would reduce floodplain connectivity
at the delta.
Flow/Hydrology
Change in Peak/Base NPF The proposed project would not influence May Creek NR
Flow hydrology.
Increase in Drainage NPF New roads are not part of the proposed project. NR
Network
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and NPF New roads are not part of the proposed project. NR
Location
Disturbance History NPF Dredging of the delta has occurred regularly for over NR (maintain)
50 years. The proposed project would maintain the
existing delta disturbance regime.
Riparian Reserves NPF The watershed is highly urbanized and significant NR
riparian reserves are limited to the headwaters of
May Creek. Although riparian vegetation will be
improved, this would not result in substantial riparian
reserves.
Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria)
Population Size NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR
or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake
Washington by individuals from other basins or the
upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of
May Creek by bull trout has not been documented
and is suspected to be very infrequent.
Growth and Survival NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR
or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake
Washington by individuals from other basins or the
upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of
May Creek by bull trout has not been documented
and is suspected to be very infrequent.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 56
K:\Projects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\dralt two\May Craek 3A 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Effects of
Pathway Baseline Proposed
Indicators Function Description Action
Life History Diversity NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR
and Isolation or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake
Washington by individuals from other basins or the
upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of
May Creek by bull trout has not been documented
and is suspected to be very infrequent
Persistence and NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR
Genetic Integrity or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake
Washington by individuals from other basins or the
upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of
May Creek by bull trout has not been documented
and is suspected to be very infrequent.
IMPAIR = ompa,r properly funct,ornng habitat; REDUCE = appreaably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat; RETARD =
retard the long-tenn progress of impaired habitat towards properly functioning condition; NR = not reduce, retard, or impair; NPF =
baseline not properly functioning; AR = baseline at risk; PFC = baseline properly functioning condition; NA = not applicable.
F. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are defined in 50 CFR § 402.02 as "those effects of future State,
tribal, local or private actions, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain
to occur in the action area." The area of cumulative effects analysis for the proposed
project is the action area, defined in Section II(C) as all areas within approximately one
mile of the May Creek delta. Potential cumulative effects may arise due to increased
development in the action area. Expansion of the local economy and diversification will
likely contribute to population growth. This growth is expected to increase demand for
electricity, water, and buildable land in the action area which will, in tum, increase
demand for transportation, communication and other social infrastructure. These actions
will affect habitat features such as water quality and quantity which will directly affect
the listed aquatic species. This is currently evidenced by the fact that runoff, erosion, and
sedimentation has increased in May Creek as development has increased (King County
2001 ). It is expected that this trend would continue and be further exacerbated as
additional development and as impervious surfaces increase upstream in the watershed.
As sediment deposition increases in the delta due to future development in the upper May
Creek watershed, more frequent dredging of the May Creek delta may be required to
protect Barbee Mill company lands from unnatural peak flood regimes.
A current proposal would remove the Barbee Mill works, cleanup any onsite
contamination, and add a residential development. Several notable milestones or
preliminary actions will precede site development. These include shoreline restoration,
facility demolition, upland environmental cleanup, and other actions associated with site
development, which are generally described below.
The western-most portion of sawmill operations will be restored as required by an aquatic
land lease agreement with the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Anchor
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 57
K:~ Mill BA 2005\2005 BA dn!llsldraft two\May Creek BA 072805.ooe
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Environmental has begun investigating the permitting process for removal of the sawmill
structure( s) and restoration of the existing shoreline to a more natural condition.
Prior to site development, the Barbee Mill Company will obtain demolition permits for
the sawmill and associated structures. Facility equipment will be sold/auctioned, and
upland structures will be removed. To the extent possible, materials will be salvaged or
sold. This work is anticipated to begin in 2005 through 2006.
Historic sawmill operations contaminated a portion of the site. This upland ( subsurface
contamination) will be excavated and disposed under a MTCA Voluntary Cleanup Order
from the Washington Department of Ecology. Clean fill will be used to complete the
cleanup action. The goal is to obtain a "No Further Action" determination from the
Department of Ecology. Other minor contaminated areas may also be uncovered during
site development that may require some cleanup activity.
The Barbee Mill Company will develop the site for a mixed-use project consistent with
City of Renton zoning. Included in the approved development plan are numerous
enhancement measures to benefit the environment. These include designating a riparian
buffer zone for lower May Creek and restoring this area with native riparian vegetation.
Site development efforts also include numerous habitat enhancement areas within the
development. These habitat areas are designed for stormwater quality improvements, as
well as enhancing the aesthetic value and environmental conditions within the upland
development.
Although upstream development may have a cumulative negative impact on the May
Creek basin, proposed on-site measures would likely increase habitat function of the may
Creek delta for listed species. The cumulative benefits of the dredging project's shoreline
vegetation enhancement would be combined with the additional riparian enhancement
and buffer zone restoration associated with the planned clean-up and re-development of
the Barbee Mill property (following the most current environmental regulations).
VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND
DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The primary objective of this BA is to determine the effect that the proposed project will
have on ESA listed Chinook salmon, bull trout, and bald eagles. This determination will
be used by NOAA Fisheries and USFWS to determine whether the proposed project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or to adversely modify
their critical habitats (if applicable). To facilitate and standardize the determination of
effects for ESA consultations, the Services use the following definitions for listed species
(USFWS and NMFS 1998):
No effect: This determination is only appropriate "if the proposed project will literally
have no effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect or an
effect that is unlikely to occur." Furthermore, actions that result in a "beneficial effect" do
not qualify as a no-effect determination.
May affect, not likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when effects on
the species or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 58
K:\Projecis\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drafls\dralt lwo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to
the species or habitat.
May affect, likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when there is "more
than a negligible potential to have adverse effects on the species or critical habitat." In
the event the overall effect of the proposed project is beneficial to the listed species or
critical habitat, but may also cause some adverse effects to individuals of the listed
species or segments of the critical habitat, then the proposed project is "likely to
adversely affect" the listed species or critical habitat. It is not possible for NOAA
Fisheries to concur on a "not likely to adversely affect" determination if the proposed
project will cause harm to the listed species.
Implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project will be
beneficial to listed Chinook and bull trout around the May Creek delta by increasing
shallow water cover and habitat complexity, which has been shown to be of heavily used
by juvenile Chinook salmon in southern Lake Washington.
While the overall effect of the proposed project will likely be beneficial to the listed
species and their habitat by increasing shallow water cover and habitat complexity, and
by maintaining adequate water depths for upstream migration through the delta, the risk
of incidental adverse effect to individual Chinook juveniles cannot be entirely eliminated.
For example, the potential for dredge entrainment cannot be completely eliminated and
some harassment of fish may occur due to increased turbidity and machinery noise during
dredging. However, these effects will be minimized by using conservation measures
such as silt curtains (if deemed necessary during monitoring) and conducting the work in
the approved in-water work window when the vast majority of Chinook juveniles and
adults would not be present.
Lake Washington and May Creek are also proposed critical habitat for Chinook salmon.
While the overall habitat enhancement of the delta margin would off-set impacts to the
delta from dredging, the proposed project would modify proposed critical habitat.
Therefore, in accordance with definitions contained in the USFWS and NMFS (1998),
although the proposed project would have an overall net benefit on Chinook salmon and
proposed critical habitat compared to current conditions, the proposed May Creek delta
flood mitigation project is "likely to adversely affect" listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon
because rearing juveniles have been observed in the May Creek delta. Additionally, it is
possible that some individual juvenile and adult Chinook may be present during
dredging, and proposed critical habitat will be modified.
This effects determination (i.e. "likely to adversely affect") for Chinook salmon differs
from the previous determination made in 2002 (i.e. "not likely to adversely affect")
because this proposed action is a long-term dredging action for a 10 year period, whereas
the 2002 action was for a one-time dredging of the delta. Critical habitat was not a
component of the 2002 consultation; critical habitat for Chinook salmon was remanded
prior to the 2002 consultation. In addition, the Tabor et al. (2004) study of juvenile
Chinook habitat preference was not complete at that time, and the importance of delta
habitat to juvenile Chinook was not known. In summary, the "likely to adversely affect"
determination is appropriate for this proposed action as it is a long-term reoccurring
July 28, 2005
K."\Projects\Bartiee Mm BA 2005\2005 BA drafts'(lraft two\May Clvek BA 012805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 59
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
disturbance that will impact habitat known to be used by Chinook salmon juveniles,
which is proposed as critical habitat.
Due to what is thought to be extremely low abundance of migratory bull trout in Lake
Washington, there is a very low probability that bull trout use the action area at anytime
of the year. Dredging during the approved in-water work window will further reduce the
chances of bull trout presence as they would be migrating to their natal streams to spawn
at this time and would not likely be present in the May Creek delta.
Bull trout are not known to spawn in May Creek, currently or historically. Only very few
bull trout are estimated to use the entire Lake Washington basin ( except for the upper
Cedar River). In addition, water temperatures during the dredging period would likely be
above the chronic thermal tolerance for bull trout into the late summer. The proposed
dredging would not appreciably reduce the function of the May Creek delta as potential
foraging, migration, or overwintering habitat for bull trout. The likelihood of take of bull
trout individuals during dredging in the late summer is extremely low and should be
considered discountable. Therefore, in accordance with the definitions contained in the
USFWS and NMFS (1998), the proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to
adversely affect" Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout.
The proposed project has been evaluated for potential impacts to bald eagle nest sites,
roost sites, foraging areas, and forage base. No significant trees for roosting, perching, or
nesting will be affected by the proposed project; no trees of any kind will be disturbed.
In addition, the project will likely have no measurable impact on the eagle forage base.
The project will also be conducted during the approved work time to limit impacts on
bald eagle roosting, perching, and foraging. However, a "no affect" determination cannot
be made in this case since there is a small chance that foraging bald eagles may be
disturbed during construction. This potential for disturbance should be considered
discountable due to the overall high level of background noise and disturbance present in
the vicinity of the project derived from general human activity within the highly
urbanized action area. Take of bald eagles is extremely unlikely. Therefore, the
appropriate final effects determination for the proposed project is "may affect, not likely
to adversely affect" the bald eagle.
Based on these determinations, formal Section 7 consultation between ACOE and NOAA
Fisheries is required to ensure that the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU.
VII. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
The MSA established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for
those species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to the MSA,
federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions or proposed actions,
authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH (Section
305(b )(2)).
Essential Fish Habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting this definition
of EFH, waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 60
K:\Projeds\Barbee Mil BA 2005\2005 BAdrafls\drafl lwo\May Creek BA onao5.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used
by fish where appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures
underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary means the
habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to
a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a
species' full life cycle (50 CFR 600.10). Adverse effect means any impact that reduces
quality and/or quantity ofEFH, and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical
disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site-specific or
habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of
actions (50 CFR 600.810).
An EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required for any federal agency action that
may adversely affect EFH, including actions that occur outside EFH, such as certain
upstream and upslope activities. The objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine
whether the proposed project would adversely affect designated EFH and to recommend
conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to
EFH.
A. Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed project and action area are described in Section II of this document.
B. Appropriate Fisheries Management Plan(s)
Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated
EFH for three species of federally-managed Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho, and Puget
Sound pink salmon (PFMC 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all
streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically
accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas
upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (PFMC 1999). Detailed descriptions and identification of EFH for
salmon are found in Appendix A to Amendment 14 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan
(PFMC 1999). In the Lake Washington basin, EFH is designated for Chinook and coho
salmon; therefore, EFH is designated in the action area of the proposed project.
C. Effects of the Proposed Action
As previously described in Sections V and VI of this document, the proposed project will
result in the modification of proposed Chinook salmon critical habitat. The effects on
proposed critical habitat are the same as for designated EFH. Dredging would affect
Chinook and coho EFH through:
• Short term potential for localized water quality impairment.
• Increasing depth of the May Creek delta.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 61
K:IJ)rojec:la\Bar M~I BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\draft two\May Creek BA onaos.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
D. Proposed Conservation Measures
Proposed conservation measures to minimize impacts to designated Chinook and coho
salmon EFH are the same as those described previously for the ESA consultation portion
of this document and include preparation of a water quality monitoring plan; preparation
of an SPCCP to limit chemical contamination; and enhancement of the delta margin by
adding overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation, and brush piles.
E. Conclusion
Following the listed conservation measures, as outlined in this document, the proposed
project may cause a short-term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended sediment. It is
anticipated that this potential impact would be so small that adverse effects on coho and
Chinook salmon habitat should be considered discountable. However, the proposed
project would result in deepening the existing stream delta habitat. In Lake Washington,
juvenile Chinook prefer relatively shallow water habitat in stream deltas. Therefore, the
proposed project may adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook salmon. As
described in Sections V and VI, project effects would be off-set by enhancing shallow
delta habitat adjacent to the dredging zone. By employing these conservation measures,
impacts to Chinook and coho salmon EFH would be minimized. Following these
measures, the proposed project would not hinder a sustainable Pacific salmon fishery for
either of these species.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 62
K:\Projects\Bartiee Mil BA 2005\2005 BAdralls\drall lwo\May Cniek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
VIII. REFERENCES
Anderson, B., J. Frost, K. McAllister, D. Pineo, and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald
eagles in Washington. Washington Wildlife 36(4):13-20.
Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982.
Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N.
Am. Will. Nat. Res. Conf. 47:332-342.
Bell, M.C. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological
criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation
Program, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. Contract DACW57-68-0086.
Berge, H.B., and B.V. Mavros. 2001. King County Bull Trout Program: 2000 Bull Trout
Surveys. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington.
Bishop, S., and A. Morgan, (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural
Chinook salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA 105 pp.
Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho
salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371-374.
Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of bull trout and the
effects of human activity on the species. pp.1-4 In: Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan
(eds.). Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter
of the Am. Fish. Soc., Corvallis, OR.
Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems -
measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings
of the Watershed '93 Conference. U.S. GPO, Washington D.C.
Brenkman, S.J. 2002. Unpublished data on bull trout investigations. Olympic National
Park. Washington.
Brenkman, S.J., G.L. Larson, and RE. Gresswell. 2001. Spawning Migration of
Lacustrine-Adfluvial Bull Trout in a Natural Area. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society. 130:981-987.
Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerances of young Pacific salmon. Oncorhynchus. J.
Fish. Res. Board Can. 9(6):264-323.
Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brevin. 1997. Distribution Maps for Bull Trout in Alberta.
pp.206-216 In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita (eds.). Friends of the
Bull Trout Conference Proceedings.
Buchanan, K. 2003. Stream Habitat Conditions During Low Flow Conditions: Coal
Creek, May Creek, Lower Cedar River, and Selected Tributaries, I-405 North Renton.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
July 28, 2005
K:\PrqadslBarbee M~I BA. 2005\2005 BA draftsldrall two\May Craek BA 072805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page 63
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Carrasco, K., S. Foley, B. Mavros, and K. Walter. 1998. 1998 Chinook spawner survey
data technical report for the Lake Washington watershed. King County Department
of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus
conjluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game
64:139-174.
City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle
Public Utilities. April 2000.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine
Fishes in Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast
of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine
Fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and
Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91.
Dambacher, J.M., M.W. Buktenica, and G.L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, abundance and
habitat utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek, Crater Lake National
Park, Oregon. Pages 30-36 in P. L. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors.
Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the
American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR.
Footen, B. 2000. Preliminary results of an investigation into the impacts of piscivorous
predation on juvenile Chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and other salmonids in
Salmon and Shilshole Bays, King Co. Washington. Muck:leshoot Indian Tribe.
Presentation at the 2000 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by
King County Department of Natural Resources.
Footen, B. 2003. Piscivorous impacts on Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the
Salmon Bay estuary, the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Sammamish.
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Presentation at the 2003 Lake Washington Chinook
Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by Seattle Public Utilities.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1995. May Creek Basin Phase I Solutions
Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton
Surface Water Utility, November 1995. Bellevue, Washington.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1996. May Creek Basin Phase 2 Solutions
Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton
Surface Water Utility, May 1996. Bellevue, Washington.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions
Report. Prepared for King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility.
Bothell, Washington.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 64
K:IPrc;etls\Barbee W BA 2005\2005 BA drafls\draH two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. In: Lake and
Reservoir Management. Vol. 9, no. l, pp. 148-151.
Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous
sahnonids in the Lake Washington Watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525-
544 in E.E. Knudsen, C.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W.
Reiser (editors). Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific sahnon. CRC Press
LLC, Boca Raton.
Garrett, M.G., R.G. Anthony, J.W. Watson, and K. McGarigal. 1988. Ecology of bald
eagles on the lower Columbia River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR.
189 pp.
Goetz, F.A., E. Jeanes, and E. Beamer. June 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore,
preliminary draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/Prelim Bull Trout Rep
ort.pdf
Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile
Chinook sahnon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241-246.
Gregory, R.S., and C.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating
juvenile Pacific sahnon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(2):275-
285.
Grubb, T.G. 1976. A survey and analysis of bald eagle nesting in western Washington.
M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 87pp.
Hansen, A.J., M.V. Stahnaster, and J.R. Newman. 1980. Habitat characteristics,
function, and destruction of bald eagle communal roosts in western Washington. In:
Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium, ed. R.L. Knight, G.T.Allen,
M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. Servheen. Seattle: The Nature Conservancy, pp. 221-29.
Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization
Assessment for the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993.
Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish
Population Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc.
Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Pages 311-393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific sahnon life histories.
Vancouver, B. C. UBC Press.
Hemmingsen, A.R., S.L. Gunckel and P.J. Howell. 2001. Bull trout life history,
genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon, 1999
Annual Report. Project Number 199405400, Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 65
K:\Profeds\Barbee Mil 8A 2005\2005 BA <lrafts\drall two\May Craek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, and M. Ownbey. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific
Northwest. Part 1: vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons.
University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Howell, P., J.B. Dunham, P. Sankovich, and G. Chandler. 2005. Water temperatures
used by migratory bull trout from the Lostine River. Presentation made at the Oregon
Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, February 18, 2005,
Corvallis, 0 R.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource
management. Ecological Applications, 1 :66-84.
KCDNR (King County Department of Natural Resources). 2000. Literature review and
recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Seattle, Washington.
Keister, J.P., Jr., R.G. Anthony, and E.J. O'Neill. 1987. Use of communal roosts and
foraging areas by bald eagles wintering in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife
Management 51(2): 4154.20.
Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar-
Sammamish basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 2001. Washington
Conservation _Commission. Olympia, WA. 587 pp.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the
City of Renton. April 2001.
Kraemer, C. 1999. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char,
Dolly Varden (Sa/velinus ma/ma) and bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) of the north
Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek,
Washington.
Leary, RF., and F .W. Allendorf. 1997. Notes -genetic confirmation of sympatric bull
trout and Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 126:715-720.
Lee, D. C. et al. 1996. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. in T. M.
Quigley and S. J Arbelbide, editors. An assessment of ecosystem components in the
interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech.
Rpt. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county
urban growth areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural
Resources. April 2002.
Mason, J.C., and D.W. Chapman. 1965. Significance of early emergence, environmental
rearing capacity, and behavioral ecology of juvenile coho salmon in stream channels.
J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 22(1 ): 172-190.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 66
K:\Projects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA dralls\draH. lwolMay Crook BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Mavros, B., S. Foley, K. Burton, and K. Walter. 1999. 1999 Chinook spawner survey
data technical report for the Lake Washington Watershed. King County Department
of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
May, C.W., R.R. Homer, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of
urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection
Techniques, 2(4): 483-494.
McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus)
life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement
opportunities. Fisheries management report no. 104. University of British Columbia.
Vancouver, B.C.
McPhail, J.D., and R. Carveth. 1992. A foundation for conservation: the nature and
origin of the freshwater fish fauna of British Columbia. Fish Museum, Department of
Zoology, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.
McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life-history and ecology of Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Department of Zoology and
Institute of Animal Resources, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 2001. Cugini property
May 200 I, aquatic habitat and fish population survey and joint-use dock biological
assessment. June 25, 2001.
Myers, J.M. et al. 1998. Status review of spring Chinook salmon from Washington,
Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-
35. 443 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act
determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale.
Environmental and Technical Services Division Habitat Conservation Branch.
August 1996.
NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound Chinook Harvest
Resource Management Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from Puget Sound
Treaty Tribes and WDFW. Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003.
NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Biological Opinion -Section 7 Endangered Species Act
Interagency Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Strosahl/Niven New Pier
and Maintenance Deck and Tosti New Pier Projects, Lake Washington, HUC
171100120301, King County, Washington, March 11, 2005.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific
Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish
Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon.
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon (March 1999).
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 67
K:\Projects\Barbea MHI BA 2005\2005 BA draftaldrafl two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2002. Regional mark
information service December 2002 database search of hatchery release information
by the William Douglas Company, Seattle, Washington.
Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide (Eds). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem
Components in the Interior Columbia Basin And Portions of the Klamath and Great
Basins: Volume I. U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management with
assistance from the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. PNW-GTR-405.
Pages 1-351.
Redding, J.M., C.B. Schreck, and P.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho
salmon and steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 116:737-744.
Reiser, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids.
In: W.R. Meehan ( ed). Influence of forest and rangeland management on
anadromous fish habitat in western North America, pp. 1-54. U.S. For. Serv. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-96. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Portland, OR.
Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for
conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Sandercock, F .K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ), In C.
Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), Pacific salmon life histories, pp. 396-445. University
of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184,
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa.
Servizi, J.A., and Martens, D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on
acute lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 493-497.
Seymour, A.H. 1956. Effects of temperature upon young Chinook salmon. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Shepard, M.F. 1981. Status and review of the knowledge pertaining to the estuarine
habitat requirements and life history of chum and Chinook salmon juveniles in Puget
Sound. Final Rep. Wash. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, University of Washington. Seattle,
Washington.
Shepard M.F., and R.G. Dykeman. 1977. A study of the aquatic biota and some physical
parameters of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Sheffleton Power Plant,
Renton, Washington 1975-1976. Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 68
K:1Projecis\J3art,e,e Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drafts\draft lwo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of wintering bald
eagles in northwest Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management, 43(1):221-224.
Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between juvenile coho
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) in Sixes River,
Oregon. Journal of the Fishery Research Board of Canada 29: 1737-1748.
Tabor, R.A., and J. Chan. 1996. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by piscivorous fishes
in the lower Cedar River and southern Lake Washington. Miscellaneous report. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia,
Washington.
Tabor, R.A., J.A. Scheurer, H.A. Gearns and E.P. Bixler. 2004. Nearshore habitat use by
juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual
report 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office, Fisheries Division, Lacey, Washington, February 2004.
Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for
King County Department of Natural Resources.
TRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team). 2002. Planning ranges and preliminary
guidelines for the delisting and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon
Evolutionarily Significant Unit. April 30, 2002.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management. 1996.
Management ofanadromous fish habitat on public lands. Report No. BLM-ID-PT.
USFWS. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal
fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) -Chinook salmon. USFWS, Division of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.6. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
USFWS. 1986a. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of
coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) -coho salmon. USFWS Biol.
Rep. 82(11.48) U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
USFWS. 1986b. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Portland, OR.
USFWS. 1998. DRAFT -A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout
Subpopulation Watershed Scale, February 1998.
USFWS. 2004. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical
habitat; candidate species, and species of concern in western Washington web page.
http://westernwashington.fws.gov/se/SE List/endangered Species.asp. Prepared by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office,
Olympia, WA.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 69
K:\PrtJject9\Barbea Mill BA 2005\2005 SA. thfts\draft Lwo\Me~ Cr98k BA on805.doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
USFWS and NMFS. 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for
Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. Version: 19 May 2002 IX
Volk, E.C. 2000. Using otolith strontium to infer migratory histories in bull trout and
Dolly Varden from several Washington state rivers. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Fisheries ,Washington Department of Wildlife, and eastern
Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and
Steelhead stock inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW): 1991. Management recommendations for
Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife,
Olympia, Washington.
WDFW. 2002. Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/
Washington State Department of Health (WDOH). 2004. Final Report: Evaluation of
Contaminants in Fish from Lake Washington King County, Washington. September
2004. Prepared by: Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental
Health Assessments. Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington salmonid
stock inventory: bull trout and Dolly Varden. Wash. Dept of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia. 437 p.
Watershed Company, M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects
of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on
ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Prepared for the City of Bellevue. July 12, 2000.
Weitkamp, L.A. et al. 1995. Status review of coho from Washington, Oregon, and
California. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-
NWFSC-24.
Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon. 1982. Influence of Suspended Volcanic
Ash on Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society, 111:63-69.
Wydoski, R. S. and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle,
University of Washington Press.
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 70
K:\Projects\Barbee Mill BA2005\2005 BA draflsldraR two\Mey Creek BA 072605 doc
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Appendix A
Proposed Project Site Maps
•
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page A-1
K:\Projecis\Barboo Mill BA2005\2005 BAdraftsldraft !wo'May Creek BA 072805.doc
•
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
Appendix B
Water Quality Monitoring During 2002 Dredging
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May (.;reek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
02 Turbidity Water
Temp.
Samolinu Location Dredue Location (mu/ll INTUl oc
7/25/2002
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge* Bark Area A 8.1 1.25 20.2
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area A 8.3 1.11 19.2
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area A 8.4 1.15 20.9
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area A 8.4 1.20 22.6
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area A ------
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area A 9.2 1.21 22.9
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 8.4 1.11 19.5
8/7/2002
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge* Bark Area A 9.4 1.40 22.2
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area A 11.2 1.63 15.6
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area A 8.8 2.13 21.6
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area A 8.6 2.55 20.2
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area A 8.7 no data 20.2
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area A (see Station 4)
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 9.4 5.20 20.7
8/12/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge• Bark Area A 10.0 1.76 15.5
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area A 9.7 2.70 15.8
Station 3 -SW Point* Bark Area A 9.4 3.10 19.6
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area 8.5 4.80 21.8
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area 9.2 1.90 22.6
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area 8.5 4.10 21.0
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 8.8 3.90 22.0
8/21/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge* Bark Area B 10.6 1.21 13.8
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge* Bark Area B 9.2 1.78 13.9
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area B 8.5 3.07 21.4
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.2 1.66 21.4
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.3 2.67 21.6
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 7.8 4.70 21.6
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 7.5 3.48 21.5
9/16/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge• Bark Area B 10.0 1.12 20.7
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area B 9.7 1.18 17.1
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area B 8.9 1.19 18.7
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.18 22.5
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.5 1.19 20.5
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.15 20.3
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.8 1.16 19.5
9/17/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge• Bark Area B 8.9 1.12 20.7
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area B 9.2 1.18 17.1
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area B 9.4 1.19 18.7
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 9.0 1.18 22.5
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area Cl Bark Area B 8.8 1.19 20.5
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.15 20.3
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 9.1 1.16 19.5
July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page B-1
K:\Projecls\Barbea Mii BA 2005\2005 BA. drafls\draH two\May Creek BA 072805.doc
'
Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging
02 Turbidity Water
Temp.
Samnlinn Location Dredne Location {ma/ll {NTUl oc
9/19/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge• Bark Area B 8.7 1.24 20.7
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area B 9.4 1.24 17.1
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area B 9.3 1.25 18.7
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 9.0 1.27 22.5
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 9.1 1.28 20.5
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.48 20.3
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 9.0 1.25 19.5
9/24/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge• Bark Area B 9.2 1.10 15.8
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area B 9.7 1.14 15.9
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area B 9.0 1.35 16.4
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.78 18.8
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.7 1.28 19.1
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.3 5.10 18.9
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.7 2.36 18.7
9/26/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge• Bark Area B 8.9 1.21 15.1
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area B 9.1 1.15 15.9
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area B 8.9 1.23 16.1
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.68 17.1
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.3 1.31 17.0
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.2 3.80 18.4
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.8 1.85 16.4
10/21/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge• Bark Area C 10.6 1.12 11.7
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge• Bark Area C 10.4 1.11 11.7
Station 3 -SW Point• Bark Area C 8.9 1.18 15.6
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area C 8.9 1.13 15.6
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area C 9.6 1.41 15.5
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area C 8.9 2.71 15.5
Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area C 8.8 1.81 15.5
10/28/99
Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge• May Creek Delta 10.0 1.13 10.0
Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge May Creek Delta 10.1 1.16 10.1
Station 3 -SW Point May Creek Delta 10.0 1.74 14.2
Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) May Creek Delta 8.9 1.46 14.2
Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C)* May Creek Delta 9.6 1.38 14.1
Station 6 -Active Dredge Area May Creek Delta 8.9 1.96 13.9
Station 7 -Scow Unloadino Area Mav Creek Delta 8.8 2.13 14.3
• Monitoring station outside of silt curtain
July 28, 2005
K:\Profecls\Ba,rbee Mil BA 2~ BA drafls'drall lwo\May Creek BA 072805.doc
Biological Assessment -Page B-2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RJI CITY OF .t::\ ------enton ~
PLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT MANAGER:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT LOCATION:
May 26, 2016
LUA16-000388, SME
Angelea Weihs, Assistant Planner
The Barbee Company
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Michael Lloyd
38210 SE 92nd St
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
3909 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N
Vanessa Dolbee
Sabrina Mirante
Jennifer Cisneros
Angetea Weihs
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed work consists of environmental enhancements and mitigation
/
measures, arising from state and federal permitting requirements, to improve
near-shore shallow water habitat (see project plan).These environmental
enhancements include, replacement of a solid float with a high
light-transmission grated float, extraction of treated and untreated wood piles,
replacement of wood piles with four galvanized pipe piles, removal rj several
large angular rocks at base of basaltic columnar rockery, and placement of
approximately 20 CY of rounded river rock (aka, "fish rock") at the rockery. The
environmental enhancement work is anticipated to be completed during the
approved in-water work window in accordance with Hydraulic Project Approva
(HPA) requirements. The anticipated HPA in-water work window is July, 16
through September, 15 of this year.
The applicant is proposing to replace a solid wood float, approximately 25'
immediately south of the boathouse. The solid float is 32' long and has an
area of 256 sf. A new float that is 24' long and has a surface area of 192 sf
will be installed. The new float is 25% smaller. The entire surface area of the
float will be grated with high light-transmission grating (>63% light
transmission) to substantially improve light transmission to near-shore,
shallow water habitat. Three treated piles will be extracted and replaced with
two smaller galvanized pipe piles to eliminate creosote treated piles.
Approximately ten treated piles at the replacement float, mentioned above,
will be extracted in accordance with Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) requirements and procedures. Additionally, two dolphins,
Page 1 of 4