HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272811(1) W too �
MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH PASSAGE
ENHANCEMENT AND RAVINE
STABILIZATION PROJECT
Biological Assessment for
kb A) Puget Sound Chinook,
yl Bald Eagle and Bull Trout
Z I pLe, oo, ( If
fjY )/D u-�rG
For Coordination with
' National Marine Fisheries Service and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1
1
1
Prepared by
Mason Bowles, Senior Ecologist
John Bethel, Geologist
' Ecological Services Unit
December 1999
t4Q� KING COUNTY
Department of Natural Resources
t
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................... 4
t1.2 Study Objectives.................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Listed species......................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 5
' 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................... 6
2.1 Project Area........................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Action Area............................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Project Sites........................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Purpose and Need................................................................................................ 10
2.5 Construction Activities........................................................................................ 11
' 2.6 Applicable Regulations and Guidelines .............................................................. 13
3 SITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION............................................................................ 14
3.1 Review of Existing Background Information...................................................... 14
3.2 Maplewood Creek Basin ..................................................................................... 14
3.3 Status of Species Known or Thought to be in the Action Area........................... 15
4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND PROJECT EFFECTS................................ 19
t4.1 Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Habitat Access..................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Habitat Elements.................................................................................................. 20
4.4 Channel Condition and Dynamics....................................................................... 21
4.5 Flow/Hydrology................................................................................................... 21
' 4.6 Watershed Conditions.......................................................................................... 22
5 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION. . 24
5.1 Direct Effects....................................................................................................... 24
' 5.2 Indirect Effects .................................................................................................... 25
5.3 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................. 25
5.4 Interdependent Effects......................................................................................... 26
' 5.5 Interrelated Effects .............................................................................................. 26
5.6 Beneficial Effects ................................................................................................ 26
6 MITIGATION MEASURES......................................................................................27
' 6.1 Mitigation............................................................................................................ 27
6.2 Monitoring and Maintenance............................................................................... 29
7 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT............................................................................. 32
' 7.1 Bald Eagle............................................................................................................ 32
7.2 Chinook Salmon.................................................................................................. 32
7.3 Bull Trout............................................................................................................ 32
8 REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 33
AppendixA: Photographs................................................................................................. 36
Appendix B: Project Drawings......................................................................................... 45
2
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment ,
1 INTRODUCTION '
The purpose of this biological assessment is to review the affects of the proposed Maplewood
Creek Fish Passage Enhancement and Ravine Stabilization Project on bald eagle, chinook
salmon, and bull trout. This biological assessment was prepared in accordance with section '
7(c)of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to determine whether federally listed or proposed
threatened or endangered species in the project vicinity would be affected by project
construction. '
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
1n'I3'19'W WOSY/12rW17'W
�.�X s,��X 1 � � ,"„, .:� �,;� \�yam.. � �;� _,�•��-�" Q
Rnm
t ' !fir `� - r '' ---�' f • � \.
to
�l��Jr,..,u1•�� .#,. � y 43 1. (w
-22
ply �,
� .rda`^ fir{, � �i�t' '� '• 1 ��' 'k'V v't.�• '�'
�� Action ArearF TV
and
k, Project Area
y t V o ti,
At
IT
lit
9
7 �
c
ItTPxc 11 A At
i
171'I718'W WOSEI 12!'WI7*W
TN�`�9- Q I/3 1 ntL
®aoaT
Pouted Cram TOP010199fi Wikllb rPoductnm(w•..vtopocoaJ
3 '
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
1.1 Proposed Action
' The King County Department of Natural Resources proposes to perform a project on
Maplewood Creek (WRIA No. 08.0302), a tributary to the Cedar River located east of
Renton (Figure 1: Vicinity Map). The project area is located north of the Maplewood
Golf Course off of Highway 167 (Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 North,
Range 5 East).
The project area include four sites, where the following actions will occur, including:
1) stabilizing an eroding streambank with bioengineering;
2) removing upstream fish migration barriers including a weir and a culvert by creating
a boulder cascade channel;
3) reducing an erosion and sediment source by conveying residential drainage past
sensitive and erosion-prone slopes to a streamside outfall; and
4) creating pool-rearing habitat in a riffle-dominated reach with LWD and boulders.
1.2 Study Objectives
This biological assessment was prepared to evaluate the effects of the proposed action on
tthe species and critical habitat located within the project area. The objectives of the study
were to assess and evaluate:
• The level of use of the project areas and action areas associated with the listed
species.
• The effect of the project on the listed species primary food stocks, prey species, and
foraging areas.
• The impact from the project construction and implementation on listed species which
may result in disturbance to, and/or the avoidance of the project area.
1.3 Listed species
' Fish
Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and utilize the action area; specifically, the mainstem of
' the Cedar River. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) may also occur in the action area and
are listed as threatened under the ESA.
' Wildlife
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) range in the action area and are listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act(ESA); however, they have been proposed
' for delisting.
' 4
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment '
1.4 Summary of Findings
Table 1. Summary of listed, proposed, and selected candidate species present in the '
Maplewood Creek project area.
SPECIES FEDERAL STATUS STATUS IN PROJECT EFFECTS
STATUS IN BASIN PROJECT AREA '
Chinook Threatened Present Present downstream, in May affect,not likely to
Salmon (Cedar the Cedar River action adversely affect.
(Oncorhynchus River area,but not in There will be no adverse '
tshawytscha) mainstem) Maplewood Creek modification or destruction of
project area proposed critical habitat for
Chinook.
Bull Trout Threatened Present Unlikely to use the May affect,not likely to '
(Salvelinus (Upper action area.Highly adversely affect.
confluentus) Cedar unlikely to use There will be no adverse
River Maplewood Creek modification or destruction of '
watershed) project area due to lack proposed critical habitat for bull
Limited of suitable habitat and trout.
documentat inhospitable conditions
ion 'elsewhere
Bald Eagle Threatened Present Present in the action May affect,not likely to
(Haliaeetus (proposed to (Cedar area,not found in the adversely affect '
leucocephalus) delist) River project area
mainstem
5 '
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
' 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The action areas and project areas for chinook, bull trout, and bald eagle are located north
of the Maplewood Golf Course off of Highway 167 (see Figure 2: Action Areas and
Project Areas).
2.1 Project Area
The project area includes four sites where construction activities will occur(Appendix A:
plan sheet 4).
Chinook, bull trout
The Maplewood Creek ravine is located 0.6 river miles upstream from the confluence
' with the Cedar River. The proposed project includes four sites where construction work
will occur. The project area has poor water quality due to high sediment bed-loads, few
large or residual pools, and barriers to upstream migration. Below the habitat barrier
' these conditions would not categorically exclude bull trout, which utilize small habitats. .
Nevertheless, neither chinook or bull trout have been observed in the project area.
' Bald Eagle
Bald eagles have not been observed utilizing the project area. The Maplewood Creek
ravine is a heavily forested with steep slopes (>40%) and is not favorable for bald eagle
foraging, roosting, or nesting.
2.2 Action Area
' The Action Area includes areas that will be both directly and indirectly affected by the
proposed project. All of the project sites are located upstream from the sediment pond.
' Coarse sediments will be trapped in the sediment pond; however colloidal fines may be
transported downstream to affect the lower reach of Maplewood Creek.
' Chinook and bull trout
For chinook and bull trout the action area extends from the project area(sites 1 -4),
downstream past the sediment pond to the confluence of Maplewood Creek and the
' Cedar River.
Bald Eagle
' The Action Area, including all areas affected directly or indirectly by the projects, has
been delineated based on the helicopter flight path. The flight path includes the staging
area,project sites, and the refueling area. The use of a helicopter to deliver materials is
' anticipated to be generally beneficial by limiting construction-related impacts associated
with road development. Nevertheless, the helicopter will create a high level of audible
disturbance during the 3 - 3 days of operation between January and March. Helicopter-
related impacts include increased noise levels and rotor-wash downdrafts.
' 6
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment ,
Figure 2: Action Areas and Project Areas
S ?ND SE 136 H
<
SE 5TH ST
9 --
Maplewood Creek Stream '
r Channel Stabilization and
I�. Fisheries Enhancement
✓O ' fold Eagle Acton A w
.0 f44rrks Acton Area '
1000 FELT
Rotor-wash occurs when helicopters are hovering, when materials are being loaded and
delivered. Hovering will occur between the staging area and project sites. '
Eagles are known to regularly use perch sites in large cottonwood trees located on the '
golf course, adjacent to the action area. Bald eagles do not, however, generally utilize
steep and heavily forested valley wall tributaries such as Maplewood Creek. Rather, they
concentrate their feeding and perching activities along the mainstem and floodplain of the
Cedar River. ,
2.3 Project Sites t
The four proposed project sites located within the ravine of Maplewood Creek (WRIA
No. 08.0302)between river mile 0.4 and 0.6. These projects are numbered from 1 - 4,
from the downstream to upstream end of the project area. The relative locations of these '
sites are shown on plan sheet 4 (Appendix B).
Site 1: Stabilize Streambank '
Drawing: plan sheet 3, Appendix B
7 '
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
In 1996 the City of Renton realigned approximately 350 feet of Maplewood Creek
' upstream of a newly constructed sediment pond. Erosion at the upstream end of this
constructed channel has led to the formation of a nick point that is approximately 2.5 feet
high. It has steep, unvegetated banks exposed for a distance of 30 feet downstream of the
' knickpoint (see Photograph 1, Appendix A).
In order to reduce the bank erosion and prevent the formation of another fish passage
barrier two actions area proposed. The first involves stabilization of the eroding right-
bank utilizing an existing, 30 foot-long conifer bank log that is positioned against the
right bank. Large, 2 - 3 foot diameter rounded rocks will be placed on either side of this
' bank log. A series of coir-wrapped lifts will be constructed on top of the bank log. In
order to provide long term stability, these lifts will be planted with native species,
' including Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), Western Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum),
Vine Maple (Acer circinatum), Black Twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), and Stink
Currant (Ribes bracteosum).
' The second action involves adjusting the transition between the two stream reach
gradients through the creation of a boulder cascade. Boulders, cobbles, and pieces of
' large woody debris will be placed downstream of the existing knickpoint, using a rubber-
tired mobile hydraulic crane. Immediately following placement the structures will have
significant internal voids and some or all of the stream discharge may flow through these
' voids. The large size of the internal voids will, however, provide continued fish passage.
Over time, as high flows move sediment downstream, the internal voids will fill with
sediment causing water to flow over, rather than through the structure, forming a boulder
' cascade. Typically, flows will pass through the debris in a series of chutes with
intervening pools.
' This boulder cascade stream morphology is common in steep channels with naturally
occurring cobbles and boulders in the geologic substrate. Features of this type are
common in Puget lowland streams and are present elsewhere in Maplewood Creek
' (Photograph 2, Appendix A). Such features are easily passable by fish, and create a stable
and complex instream habitat. The proposed project will install the key "framework"
elements for a boulder cascade, but the finished channel configuration will result from the
interaction of stream flow and sediment with the installed elements. Photographs 3 - 6
show images of other projects constructed by King County, using similar materials and
methodology.
' Site 2: Remove Weir and Restore Open Channel
Drawing: plan sheet 2, Appendix B
Two actions are within this project area. The first action involves removing a
proposed J
weir that is an anadromous fish passage barrier. This weir was created by the construction
' of a wooden retaining wall for a(now abandoned)water line crossing. The second action
involves plugging the upstream road culvert and placing the stream in an open side
channel that has scoured around the culvert and through the old roadbed. This secondary
' channel is located to the north of the culvert and appears to carry streamflows when the
8
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment t
culvert is plugged and/or during higher streamflows.
Field sampling by the project ecologist indicates that while cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus '
clarki) are found throughout Maplewood creek, rainbow/steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) are only found downstream of the weir. Below this wall the stream has vertically '
incised to a depth of 4 feet (see
Photograph 7 and Photograph 8). In order to remove this passage barrier, boulders,
cobbles and large woody debris will be placed to construct a boulder cascade as described '
for Site 1. In this case wood and rock will be installed using a helicopter. Use of a
helicopter will eliminate the need for heavy equipment to access the project site and
thereby significantly reduce disturbance to the stream or adjacent hillsides. The final '
stream gradient through the boulder cascade will be approximately 10%. The final
placement of the boulders and the LWD in the streambed will be made using hand labor.
The second action involves placing the stream in the open side channel located to the '
north of the culvert. In order to perform this work, Washington Conservation Corps
(WCC) crews will prepare the channel by cleaning out blackberries and other debris that '
now restrict flows. In order to redirect flows into the open channel a small berm that
separates the open channel from the culvert will be removed. A temporary cofferdam
constructed out of sandbags and plastic will be established in front of the culvert to direct '
flows into the open channel. The inlet and outlets to the 36inch, 30 foot-long CMP
culvert will then be permanently sealed with bags of dry concrete. These will harden and
cure within a few days from exposure to dew and precipitation. The downstream end of '
the culvert will be plugged with sandbags. A new streambank will be then formed in front
of the culvert openings using 12 - 24 inch rounded boulders backfilled with native soil
borrowed from the banks of the roadbed. The new streambanks will then be planted with '
native species including Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), Vine Maple(Acer circinatum)
and Stink Currant (Ribes bracteosum). '
Site 3: Reduce Hillside Erosion (summer 2000)
Drawing: plan sheet 4, Appendix B
At the upstream end of the project area a large rotational landslide is eroding and
discharging sediment into Maplewood Creek. Upstream development has aggravated the ,
landslide through the direct discharge of stormwater from the adjacent roadway and
houses onto the slide area. In order to correct this problem the run-off from a 3.9-acre
contributing basin will be tightlined around the landslide and conveyed to an energy ,
dissipater. The tightline will be 600 feet of 6-inch diameter welded plastic pipe,that
would discharge 0.2 - 0.4 cfs for the mean annual flow and 0.8 - 1.0 cfs for the 100-yr
flow. '
The energy dissipater will be positioned along the left bank of the stream, approximately
2-3-feet square constructed of 12 - 18 inch rounded boulders. This feature will be '
positioned at the edge of the channel, on top of an existing gravel bar. Materials for the
energy dissipater will be placed in the immediate vicinity of the site by helicopter in the
winter of 2000. The installation of the pipeline and positioning of the energy dissipater '
9 '
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
will be performed in the summer of 2000.
Site 4: Create Residual Pool Habitat
Drawing: plan sheet 4, Appendix B
' Annually, 850 - 950 cubic yards of sediment are removed from the City of Renton's in-
stream sediment pond. This material is eroding as a consequence of both natural
' (background) geomorphic processes, and as a result of urbanization and undetained
stormwater runoff from the contributing basin. As a consequence of this large sediment
load there are few residual pools located within the upper reaches of Maplewood Creek.
' This project area reach has an average gradient of 4.9 - 6%. In order to provide additional
in-channel complexity and residual (low-flow condition) pool habitat for both resident
t cutthroat trout and rainbow/steelhead, 5 wood and boulder debris clusters (DBC) will be
placed along over 650 lineal feet of stream channel. These DBC's will be established by
installing 2-3 foot round rock and LWD to create scour-pools. Large woody debris will
' be used to provide cover for these pools. Initially, these materials will be placed by
helicopter,with final positioning performed manually by WCC crews. Lastly, 40-60
western red cedar(Thuja plicata) seedlings will be planted along this reach in order to
' promote future LWD recruitment.
2.4 Purpose and Need
' The proposed project was identified in the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint
Pollution Action Plan, adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council July 1997. The
recommendation included the removal of fish passage barriers and the improvement of
stormwater drainage facilities.
' Maplewood Creek is one of the nine major fish-bearing tributaries in the Cedar River
Basin. Anadromous salmonid use per tributary mile has, however, been the lowest within
the Cedar River Basin primarily due to man-made passage barriers and erosion caused by
' increased stormwater runoff. Until the recent removal of the sediment pond at the
Maplewood Golf course, only 0.4 river miles out of 3.4 river miles, or 11% of the basin
was available to anadromous fish. Historic fish passage barriers have included a steep,
' 900-foot long culvert under SR 169, which had only seasonal fish passage capabilities,
and an impassible in-stream sediment pond, an abandoned water supply dam, and an
abandoned water line crossing. Increased development and insufficient stormwater
' retention/detention capacity have generated increased stormwater quantities. With basin
build-out, stormwater flows in Maplewood Creek would be expected to increase
significantly. Under these conditions the future two-year return flow would
' approximately equal the current 25-year flow.
In 1998 the City of Renton removed the fish-impassable water supply dam and sediment
' pond. These were replaced with a new in-stream sediment pond, including a fish ladder,
and 350 feet of realigned and reconfigured stream channel above the pond. As a result of
high sediment loading the pond was cleaned out in June of 1999, with 950 cubic yards of
' sediment removed. The site 1 streambank stabilization is necessary to correct a bank
10
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment '
failure associated with the City of Renton's stream realignment project. This nick point
has the potential to become enlarged and create additional fish passage problems.
The site 2 weir removal is one of the last tasks required to restore fish passage to
remaining higher quality spawning habitat located in the upper reaches of Maplewood
Creek. Plugging the culvert and placing the stream wholly in the open channel will
provide additional habitat area. Site 3 will reduce hillside erosion by conveying
residential stormwater around an active landslide area to discharge into the creek. Site 4 '
will create residual pool habitat in a riffle-dominated reach by creating 5 DBC's of
boulders and LWD.
2.5 Construction Activities
The total length of the project area is 1,751 feet, including the one road that exists within
the project area, which extends 350 feet above the sediment pond. This road will be used '
to provide access for the rubber tire crane that will deliver and install the habitat
stabilization features associated with site 1. The lack of road access into the rest of the
project area precludes the use of large mechanized equipment for the delivery and '
installation of materials. Therefore the supplies and materials used to perform the work
associated with sites 2 - 4 will be delivered to these roadless areas by helicopter.
The materials staging area will be established immediately below the City of Renton's
existing sediment pond in a parking lot used for storing landscaping materials and '
maintenance debris (see Appendix B,plan sheet 4). This staging area will be used to load
the construction helicopter, which will then transport materials up the drainage to sites 2 -
4. Helicopter refueling and maintenance will be performed at the King County Parks '
maintenance yard located northwest of the project area(see Figure 2: Action Areas and
Project Areas).
Approximately 3 - 5 days will be required to prepared stabilize the roadbed, position the '
crane and perform the work associated with site 1. Work within the 1,250 feet of the
project not accessible by roads must be performed by hand. Therefore a narrow hogfuel '
path will be established on top of the existing trail, on the north side of the creek. Upon
completion of the work, the hogfuel will be hand-dispersed. Approximately 2-3 days will
be required to deliver materials by helicopter into the roadless sections of Maplewood '
Creek mid January to late February. The main flight path will travel the drainage between
site 4 and the staging area, a distance of approximately 1,600 feet. A secondary flight
path will travel between the project area and the refueling area, located 1.2 miles '
northwest, at the King County Parks maintenance facility.
Pre-Construction Preparation '
1. Flag all clearing limits.
2. Flag staging area perimeter, adjacent to City of Renton maintenance building.
3. Flag construction site boundaries. '
4. Secure area under the helicopter flight path.
11 '
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
Site 1 Construction
1. Install erosion control measures as required to reduce sediment discharge to
Maplewood Creek. This will include placing silt fences along the existing road and
stabilizing it with additional crushed rock.
' 2. Survey and stake proposed finished grade for boulder cascade.
3. Install boulders, cobble and LWD below existing knickpoint using a rubber-tired
' mobile hydraulic crane.
4. Place 2-3 foot round rock behind existing bank-log. Construct two, 1 foot high coir-
wrapped lifts interplanted with native plant material.
' 5. Plant with native species and mulch.
Site 2 Construction
1. Survey and stake proposed finished grade for boulder cascade.
2. Helicopter-transport materials and stage within the project area construction limits.
3. Hand labor crew positions rock and LWD to create boulder cascades.
' 4. Remove blackberries and debris from side channel.
5. Remove berm separating side channel from culvert.
6. Construct temporary cofferdam in front of culvert and divert streamflow into open
t channel.
7. Plug culvert with concrete bags and sandbags and backfill with boulders and native
soil to create streambank.
t8. Plant with native species and mulch all work areas.
Site 3 Construction: (summer 2000)
' 1. Survey, flag, and brush-out pipe alignment and outfall location.
2. Position materials for outfall energy.dissipater using helicopter delivery.
9. Hand labor crew positions rock to create energy dissipater.
' 10. Position pipe-welding machine at upper end of the project: weld and lower pipe down
to outfall. Anchor pipe to ground surface and outfall.
3. Connect pipe inlet and test.
' Project Area 4 Construction
1. Survey and stake scour-pool debris complex locations.
' 2. Helicopter-transport materials and stage within the project area construction limits.
3. Hand labor crew positions rock and LWD.
' Post-Construction Stabilization/Restoration
1. Stabilize all areas disturbed by construction by seeding and restore site to pre-
construction conditions. Grass-seed disturbed road areas.
' 2. Remove all silt fencing, construction area flags, and all construction materials and
equipment.
' 3. Ongoing monitoring of vegetation and project parameters as described in Section 6.2
below.
' 12
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment '
2.6 Applicable Regulations and Guidelines
The proposed project will comply with the following permit requirements, including: '
• King County Code (KCC) 21A.24 (Sensitive Areas Code);
• King County Code 16.82 (Grading Code);
• Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 220-110 (Hydraulics Code); '
• Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington WAC 173-
201 A; '
• Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 and 401.
1
13 '
1 Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
' 3 SITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION
3.1 Review of Existing Background Information
This biological assessment is based on information obtained from a literature review, site
visits, special studies and local and state agency biologists. This information was used to
' determine bald eagle,bull trout and fall chinook presence,habitat requirements, and species
occurrence at the site. The following sources were reviewed for information on species
presence and habitat conditions:
' 1992 WDFW SASSI Report for Chinook Salmon.
1998 WDFW SASSI Report for Bull Trout/Dolly Varden.
' Cedar River Current and Future Conditions: Summary Report(King County Surface Water
Management, October 1993).
' City of Renton, Dan Carey, Senior Engineer,Personal Communication. September 1, 1999.
King County Water and Land Resources Division, Bill Mavros, Senior Ecologist,Personal
Communication.November 29, 1999.
' Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan, (King County Department of
Natural Resources, 1998).
Maplewood Creek Basin Reconnaissance Report(King County Surface Water Management,
February 1993).
' Maplewood Creek General Site Survey/Level 1 Stream Survey Report(King County
Department of Natural Resources, 1997).
Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington,Idaho, Oregon, and California
' (National Marine Fisheries Service,February 1998).
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Form,February
' 12, 1998.
Washington State midwinter bald eagle survey results for 1989 (WDW 1989).
' 3.2 Maplewood Creek Basin
Land Use,Natural Drainage System Configuration, Stream Classification and Site
Characteristics
Maplewood Creek(WRIA 8.0302) is a 1.2-mile long stream draining an approximately
' 1.7 square mile(1099 acres)basin. Maplewood Creek drains to the Cedar River at River
Mile 3.3, near the Maplewood Golf Course. The east branch of the creek(WRIA 8.0303)
drains an approximately 1 square mile area.
The King County Coun Sensitive Areas Map Folio classifies Maplewood Creek as a Class 2
stream with salmonids in the area of the proposed project. The Washington Department
of Fisheries Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) stream catalogue identifies
14
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
Maplewood Creek as Tributary 08.0302 and indicates its utilization by coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch).
The Maplewood Creek Basin is located within the East Renton Planning Area, inside the
urban growth boundary. The upper two-thirds of the subasin is extensively developed, '
with about 60% of the total area devoted to commercial, multifamily, or high- or low-
density residential land uses. The remainder is forested or grassland. Flooding problems
have been identified in tributary 08.303, the east fork of Maplewood Creek, and 08.303A '
(a tributary to the east fork).
Habitat in the Maplewood Heights area of the upper basin plateau is highly fragmented
by urban development. The King County Sensitive Areas Folio identifies one 11-acre
wetland, Lower Cedar River 150, in the basin. This is a palustrine scrub-shrub Broad-
leaved Deciduous (hardback) and palustrine forested Broad-leaved Deciduous (alder) '
wetland. This wetland functions as the headwaters to tributary 08.0303; however it
constitutes less than 1% of the total basin area and consequently provides little flood
storage or attenuation. ,
The four project areas are located in the middle reach of Maplewood Creek. Slopes
within this ravine are generally 25 - 70% consisting of Alder-wood and Kitsap series soils. '
Distribution, drainage, and permeability of these soils vary with short distances. Runoff is
rapid to very rapid, erosion hazard severe to very severe, and slippage potential is severe.
Numerous slide slumps and scarps are visible along the both walls of the ravine.
Vegetation in this area consists of an even-aged mixed deciduous,coniferous forest '
dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra) and big-leafed maple (Ater macrophyllum). Vine
maple (Ater circinatum) and sapling western red cedar (Thuja plicata) occupy the shrub
strata. The riparian community consists of vine maple (Acer circinatum), Western Sword '
Fern (Polystichum munitum), Vine Maple (Acer circinatum), Black Twinberry (Lonicera
involucrata), and Stink Currant (Ribes bracteosum).
3.3 Status of Species Known or Thought to be in the Action Area ,
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) '
Regulatory Status
Federal Status: Threatened
WA State Status: Candidate
Occurrence in the Project Area and Action Area
There is no historic documentation of chinook utilizing Maplewood Creek. This is due to '
both the physical characteristics of the drainage, which favor trout over chinook, as well
as the presence of numerous fish passage barriers. The watershed has a contributing basin
area of 1,099 acres, summer stream flows of less than 3.2 cfs, an average gradient of 6 -
10%, and an annual sediment load of 800 - 1000 c.y. A 900-foot long, 72inch-diameter
culvert located under SR-169, at the mouth of Maplewood Creek on the Cedar River was
a seasonal passage barrier. Upstream, on the north side of the Maplewood Golf Course, a
15 '
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
sediment pond and an abandoned water supply dam presented additional barriers to
upstream migration.
Between 1995-6 the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
constructed a fish ladder to eliminate the barrier under SR- 169. Between 1997-8 the
City of Renton reconfigured all of Maplewood Creek located within the City's
jurisdiction. Upstream of the SR- 169 fish ladder, a new low-flow fish channel was
' constructed that leads to a flow "splitter." This flow splitter directs all flows < 17cfs
flows into the new channel, while all flows >17cfs are routed into the old channel that
continues to discharge into the Cedar River via the 72inch culvert. A new sediment pond
capable of containing 1,000 cubic yards of sediment is equipped with a fish ladder and is
located above the flow splitter. Above the sediment pond 350 lineal feet of stream was
realigned and reconfigured as part of this project.
These many improvements will certainly provide juvenile trout(steelhead and cutthroat)
passage through the Maplewood Golf Course. The new sediment pond fish ladder,
however, was constructed at an average gradient of 10% for a distance of 88 feet.
Consequently, it is likely to present a migration barrier to any stray juvenile chinook that
might seek refuge habitat during high flows in the Cedar River.
' Native stocks of fall chinook salmon are known to exist in the mainstem of the Cedar
River(SASSI 1994). Spawning surveys conducted by the project biologist in the fall of
' 1999 have not identified any chinook use within Maplewood Creek. Spawner surveys
conducted in the summer and fall of 1999 did not locate any chinook redds immediately
' downstream from Maplewood Creek(Mavros, 1999). Streams the size of Maplewood
Creek do not typify preferred fall chinook spawning or rearing habitat. Chinook are
unlikely to utilize Maplewood Creek except for perhaps limited use in the lower reach by
' juveniles seeking refuge from flooding in the Cedar River. No chinook use is expected in
the upper reaches within the project area.
' Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus)
Regulatory Status
Federal Status: Threatened
' WA State Status: Priority
Occurrence in the Project Area
The Bull Trout and Dolly Varden Appendix to the 1998 Salmonid Stock(WDFW, 1998) states
that reproducing populations of bull trout and Dolly Varden occur in the upper Cedar River
basin in Chester Morse Lake(WDFW, 1998).Bull trout and Dolly Varden occurrence
' elsewhere in the Lake Washington drainage basin is not well documented and likely to be
rare. Water temperatures in the lower Cedar River within the project area are probably too
high to support bull trout or Dolly Varden populations(WDFW, 1998). The adfluvial
' population in Chester Morse Lake is a glacial relic separated from other populations in the
Snohomish River system when the outlet of Chester Morse lake was diverted south during
the last glacial period(WDFW, 1998). The waterfall the resulted at the outlet of the lake was
' a blockage to anadromous populations.
16
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
Information on the presence, abundance, distribution, and life history of bull trout in the
Maplewood Creek is unavailable. Given the degraded habitat conditions, including almost '
complete lack of LWD,pools, or shade in the lower(gold course) reaches, historic fish
passage barriers, high sediment levels, and elevated water temperatures,utilization is highly
unlikely. With the recent(1998) completion of the SR 169 fish ladder at the mouth of '
Maplewood Creek bull trout foraging could occur within the lower reach of Maplewood
Creek. This situation, however, remains unlikely given the lack of lack of documented
occurrence of bull trout in the Lake Washington basin outside of Chester Morse lake '
(WDFW, 1998). In addition habitat features are limited, and include the lack of in-stream
cover, and the elevated water temperatures that are found throughout the lower (Le.: golf
course) reach of the stream. '
Table 2 Timing of salmon and trout freshwater life history phases in the Cedar
River Basin. Data for chinook are from WDF (1975), data for bull trout are from '
Wydoski and Whitney (1979), City of Seattle (1998), USFWS (1998), WDFW (1998).
O ...f' 'ram• <. t. 'i..� c `
U stream migration
Fall Spawning
Chinook Incubation '
juvenile rearing
juvenile out-
migration
Bull Upstream migration
Trout Spawning
I ® ,
Incubation
uvenile rearing
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Regulatory Status
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed to delist)
WA State Status: Threatened '
Occurrence in the Project Area
Both resident and wintering migrant bald eagles are present in the Cedar River valley, '
and four bald eagle nesting territories located within 8 to 11.5 miles south of the project
area are active (Negri, 1999). These nests are located at North Lake, Lake Sawyer, Pipe '
Lake, and Lake Meridian. Eagles are known to regularly use perch sites in large
cottonwood trees located on the golf course, within the action area. Neither suitable
perching sites (snags), nor suitable nesting trees are present within the project area. '
Potential impacts to bald eagles will be related to increased noise and human activity
within the action area. Adult bald eagles are known to be disturbed by helicopters during '
17 '
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
eagle nest surveys (Watson, 1993), but less is known about the effect of human activities
1 on perching and feeding sites. Stalmsaster and Newman (1978) found that 50 percent of
bald eagles observed flushed from perches at 500 feet, but that 98 percent of eagles
would tolerate human presence at 1,000 feet (WDW, 1991).
No impacts to bald eagle nesting activity will occur as a result of the Maplewood Creek
project. Helicopters will be staged south of the project area, as discussed in the Project
1 Description section. They will move materials from the staging area, to the project areas
sites. Low-level flights will be limited to the immediate project area; helicopters will not
fly over nesting territories.
' The action area currently experiences noise and activity associated with the Maple Valley
Highway (SR 169), the Maplewood Golf Course, and surrounding urban environments.
1 Eagles utilizing the action area likely to be somewhat acclimatized to these activities.
Because the project work will not occur during peak salmon migration, impacts to
foraging eagles is not anticipated to be significant. Project impacts to fish will be limited
1 to short-term increases in turbidity that are unlikely effect the fish prey base. Overall,
project area and action area impacts are expected to no effects in the project area, with
discountable or insignificant effects on bald eagle behavior within the action areas.
1
i
1
1
i
i
1
1
18
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND PROJECT EFFECTS '
The baseline conditions are discussed primarily within the context of the NMFS (1996)
and USFWS (1998) matrix of pathways and indicators. Baseline conditions and project
effects were evaluated based on a limiting factors analysis of conditions within the
project area and action area. Environmental baseline conditions and proposed action
effects within the project area are summarized in Table 4.
4.1 Water Quality
Water quality data were obtained from two locations on Maplewood Creek by King
County Surface Water Management during storm events between 1990 and 1991 (King '
County 1993). Sediment data was obtained from sample site 9, located above the
sediment pond. Stormwater and sediment data were obtained from sample sites 7 & 8, '
located above the confluence with the Cedar River. Maplewood Creek is a Class A
surface water and water quality conditions were evaluated, where applicable, against
Washington State (WAC 173-201A-030) standards for Class A waters. '
Temperature
No published temperature data for Maplewood Creek were available for this study; ,
however, temperature does not appear to be a limiting factor to fish utilization of habitat
features. Above the sediment pond the stream is well shaded by a closed, mixed-forested
canopy of mature conifers and deciduous trees. Despite a lack of data, summer water '
temperatures are highly unlikely to exceed 60°F and do not appear to be a limiting factor
to salmonid reproduction and rearing above the sediment pond. Consequently,
temperature above the sediment pond, within the project area is properly functioning. '
Temperatures below the sediment pond, within the lower reaches that traverse the golf
course are likely to be considerably higher, do to the lack of in-stream cover and the
absence of any riparian corridor canopy. Residual pools do not exist within this lower ,
reach, and juvenile salmonids have not been observed during summer months. As a
result, this area is not properly functioning. Based on these data, overall baseline
conditions are not properly functioning. '
Sediment/Turbidity
Extremely significant levels of solids and turbidity were found during two storm events. '
Total Suspended Sediments (TSS mg/1) averaged 904 mg/l, and ranged from 13 - 2230
mg/l. Turbidity (NTU) averaged 85 NTU's and ranged from 14 - 290 NTU's. These data
indicate that solids and turbidity are a significant problem for Maplewood Creek. Based
on these high levels of solids and turbidity, Maplewood Creek does not meet the matrix
of pathways and indicators criteria and is not properly functioning.
Chemical Contaminants/Nutrients '
Bacteria and nutrient concentrations exceed recommended levels and standards (50 ,
Colonies/100 ml) in Maplewood Creek. Average fecal coliforms were 2492 Colonies
/100 ml, with a range of 520 - 6800 Colonies/ 100 ml. Septic failure rates in this drainage
are 13.2% - 4.8%, depending on the area studied. Problems also exist with poor livestock t
19 '
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
management at non-commercial farms. These data indicate that bacteria sources may
come from both human and animal wastes. In addition, acute and/or chronic metal
toxicity standards were exceeded during storm events at both sample sites. Samples taken
at site 9, upstream of the sediment pond, found extremely significant levels of acute
' copper, lead, and zinc toxicity during two storm events. Based on the high levels of
contaminants, Maplewood Creek does not meet the matrix of pathways and indicators
criteria and is not properly functioning.
4.2 Habitat Access
' Physical Barriers
Until 1998 there were numerous physical barriers to upstream fish migration, including
' the culvert at SR169 which had poor and seasonal passage capabilities, and a water
supply dam and sediment pond. In 1997 the Washington State Department of
Transportation(WSDOT) reconstructed the culvert to provide upstream fish access. In
1998 the City of Renton completed a large project which realigned Maplewood Creek
through the golf course. An impassible in-stream sediment pond and abandoned water
supply dam were removed and replaced with a new fish ladder and a new sediment pond.
' The only remaining upstream migration barrier is an old roadbed retaining wall, which
now functions as a weir. Based on the matrix of pathways and indicators criteria,
Maplewood Creek is not properly functioning.
' 4.3 Habitat Elements
' Substrate
The channel substrate throughout Maplewood Creek includes boulders (5%), cobbles
' (60%), and large gravels (20%) in fast water areas, and small gravels and some silts in
slow water areas (15%). Based on the matrix of pathways and indicators criteria,
substrate is properly functioning.
Large Woody Debris
Large woody debris (LWD)were defined as pieces of woody debris in excess of 25cm in
' diameter and 3 meters in length which directly interact with the stream channel. When
sufficient quantities of LWD are arranged and form the dominant feature of the stream
they are inventoried as a discreet habitat unit called a Debris Complex (DBC). When
' large quantities of LWD are present but do not constitute the dominant habitat feature
they are inventoried as a"debris pile" (DBP),but not as a discrete habitat unit. DBP was
observed; however no DBC's were identified. Nineteen pieces of LWD were present
' within the study area, with an average density of 1 piece of LWD/5 meters (14 feet).
Based on the matrix of pathways and indicators criteria, Maplewood Creek does not meet
standards for LWD frequency and is not properly functioning.
Pool Frequency & Pool Quality/Large Pools
Pool quality indexing was performed according to the methodology described in Platts
' (1987). This method assigns each pool a score ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being of little
' 20
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment '
habitat value for salmonids, and 5 being of superior habitat value for salmonids. Scores
are based on pool width relative to the average stream width of the reach, maximum pool '
depth, and cover. Using this methodology there were no pools that rated a numerical
score. Based on the matrix of pathways and indicators criteria, pool frequency is not
properly functioning. '
Off-Channel Habitat
No off-channel habitat was observed during field surveys of Maplewood Creek. '
Therefore this indicator is not properly functioning.
Refugia '
No refugia habitat was observed during field surveys of Maplewood Creek. Therefore
this indicator is not properly functioning.
4.4 Channel Condition and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio ,
The width to depth ratio for Maplewood Creek ranges from 11 to 19. Using the pathways
and indicators criteria of<10 this indicator is not properly functioning. ,
Streambank Condition
Bank stability and channel morphology were assessed using the US Forest Service '
Stream Habitat and Channel Stability Evaluation Forms (Pfankuch 1975). Using this
methodology channel stability was rated as "Fair." Using the pathways and indicators
criteria, streambank stability is rated as at risk. ,
F000dplain Connectivity
There are no off-channel areas linked to the main channel and overbank flows are rare. '
Within the floodplain reach of Maplewood Creek all wetlands have been eliminated, and
the channel confined to a rock-walled alignment. Riparian vegetation is minimal, '
consisting of scattered clumps of willows (Salix spp.) which do not provide uniform
canopy cover. Based on these conditions and the matrix of pathways and indicators
criteria, floodplain connectivity is not properly functioning. '
4.5 Flow/Hydrology
Changed Peak/Base Flows ,
Under current land use the mean annual daily flow in Maplewood Creek is 3.2 cfs; under
future land use it is projected to be 3.72 cfs, based on the King County HSPF (Hydrologic '
Simulation Program Fortran) model simulations (King County 1993). Hydrologic
changes are more pronounced for larger storm events, (see Table 3: Expected Maplewood
Creek Peak Discharges). In order to manage the erosion and sediment bed load associated '
with these significant flow increases the City of Renton designed the new Maplewood
Creek Sediment basin to trap 500 - 600 c.y. of sediment per year. In 1999, however, the
City of Renton cleaned out 850 - 950 c.y. of sediment from the basin. Based on the '
21 '
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
matrix of pathways and indicators criteria, the pronounced changes in peak flows and
baseflow are not properly functioning.
Table 3: Expected Maplewood Creek Peak Discharges
Storm Event Recurrence Current Land Use Conditions Future Land Use Conditions
Interval
' Mean Annual Daily 3.2 3.72
2 Yr 59 132
10 Yr 104 207
25 Yr 135 257
100 Yr 197 349
' Drainage Network Increase
The contributing basin is heavily developed an extensive drainage network serving
residential homes. The increased drainage network density comprises >20% of the
contributing basin. Based on these changes in drainage network, conditions are not
properly functioning.
4.6 Watershed Conditions
' Road Density/Location
The contributing basin is heavily developed an extensive road network serving primarily
' residential homes. A municipal gold course with service and fairway roads occupies the
floodplain. Based on these developments, conditions are not properly functioning.
' Disturbance History
The steep valley walls associated with the project area of Maplewood Creek include
unstable areas, include a large and active slide scarp. Disturbance is concentrated in areas
subject to uncontrolled stormwater run-on within the Maplewood ravine. No disturbances
occur within the lower golf course reach because it is highly managed. Based on these
observations, conditions are at risk.
' Riparian Conservation Areas
The riparian corridor within the project area provides adequate shade, but poor LWD
recruitment, habitat protection, and connectivity. There is no riparian corridor within the
lower reach of Maplewood Creek due to the presence of the managed golf course
environment. Therefore these conditions are not properly functioning.
t
' 22
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment ,
Table 4: Environmental Baseline and Project Effects. Checklist for documenting '
environmental baseline and effects of proposed action(s) on relevant indicators for
the Maplewood Creek action area (NMFS 1996, USFWS 1998).
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF THE ACTION (S)'
PATHWAYS: Properly Not Properly
INDICATORS Functioning At Functioning Restore Maintain Degrade '
Risk
Water • .
Temperature I X X
Sediment/Turbidity X X(short-temi) '
Chem. Contam./Nutrients X X
Habitat Access:
Physical Barriers X X '
Habitat Elements:
Substrate X X(short-term)
Large Woody Debris X X '
Pool Frequency X X
Pool Quality/Large Pools X X
Off-Channel Habitat X X '
Refu is X X
Channel Cond.&Dyn.
Width/Depth Ratio X X
Streambank Condition X X '
Flood lain Connectivity X X
1=11101 •MIN
Changed Peak/Base Flows X X ,
Drainage Network X X
Increase
Watershed Conditions:
Road Density/Location X X '
Disturbance History X X
Riparian Cons.Area X X
23 '
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
5 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
The effects of the project on baseline project area and action area conditions were
evaluated for chinook salmon, bull trout, and bald eagle in accordance with guidance
documents provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Table 4). These documents included: "A Guide to Biological Assessments"
(NMFS 1999), and "A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act
' Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout
Subpopulation Watershed Scale."
5.1 Direct Effects
The proposed project will result in short-term, temporary water quality impacts during
' the placement of the large woody debris, boulders, and stream gravels. Material
placement will occur in-water, resulting in the mobilization and downstream transport of
fine-grained sediments and increased turbidity. Turbidity levels are likely to exceed
Washington State water quality standards during these periods, but only as short pulses
for short periods of time during construction. The presence of the in-stream sediment
pond immediately below the project area will buffer the lower reach of Maplewood
Creek from any significant affects.
Bald Eagle
' No impacts to wintering bald eagles are anticipated, as they do not utilize the project
area. However,they are known to occur in the action area and often feed along the Cedar
River. The use of a helicopter will create a high level of audible disturbance during the 2-
' 3 days of intermittent operation between January and March. Helicopter-related impacts
include increased noise levels and rotor-wash downdrafts. Rotor-wash occurs when
helicopters are hovering,when materials are being loaded and delivered. Hovering will
occur between the staging area and project sites, however the associated noise levels are
not expected to have an adverse effect on bald eagle perching or foraging. Bald eagles are
known to regularly use perch sites in large cottonwood trees located on the golf course,
within the action area. They also forage along the Cedar River, with the highest foraging
activity occurring during fall and winter during salmon spawning migration. Bald eagles
do not,however, generally utilize steep and heavily forested valley wall tributaries such
as Maplewood Creek. Low-level helicopter flights will not occur along the mainstem and
floodplain of the Cedar River. Consequently, impacts to foraging eagles are anticipated to
be insignificant.
Bull Trout, Chinook Salmon
The use of helicopters to transport and place materials limits construction to the winter
' season. The absence of roads, combined with higher winter streamflows, makes
dewatering the project sites unfeasible. As a consequence, in-water work will be
performed between Jan and March. Construction will occur over the course of 2 - 3 days
of 5 - 6 hours of construction activity.
' 24
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
In general, King County experiences with these construction methods indicate that
projects of this type can be constructed even in mid-winter with very limited and '
transitory turbidity increases. Background turbidity levels are higher during mid-winter
due to more frequent storm events. There will certainly be short-term impacts during
construction, with increases in suspended sediments and turbidity. Turbidity levels may '
exceed background levels during periods of construction, although this is unlikely as
normally higher winter turbidity levels will generally mask construction effects.
Helicopter placement of LWD and rock will occur at an average of 3 - 5 minute intervals, ,
with placement requiring 15 - 30 seconds of in-water work and sediment disturbance over
the course of 2 -3 days.
Any increased turbidity will be limited to areas below the construction sites and upstream '
of the Renton sediment pond. Due to the relatively high stream gradient the turbid water
that will be generated during construction will be quickly displaced to the downstream '
sediment pond. This pond has a design dead storage volume of 1000 c.y. and will provide
an excellent barrier to the downstream migration of sediments generated by the project.
Increased turbidity may, however, extend below the sediment pond if colloidal materials '
are placed in suspension. Releases below the sediment pond could potentially extend to
the lower reach of Maplewood Creek and the Cedar River and effect substrate
composition. While unlikely, any turbid water that reaches these areas is expected to be '
insignificant compared to background levels in either stream.
Weekly chinook spawner surveys of the Cedar River performed by King County '
(Mavros, 1999) have not detected any redds in the vicinity of Maplewood Creek. Bull
Trout are also highly unlikely to occur at the confluence with Maplewood Creek, and the
insignificant amount of turbid water expected to reach river is not likely to adversely ,
affect Bull Trout. Consequently, there will be no adverse modification or destruction of
proposed critical habitat for chinook or bull trout.
5.2 Indirect Effects '
Indirect effects are those effects that are caused or will result from the proposed action '
and are later in time,but are still reasonably certain to occur. [CFR §402.02] The
proposed action is highly unlikely to create conditions that will increase the number or
incidences of future activities that could have effects on listed, proposed, or candidate ,
species. For this reason no indirect effects are foreseen for bald eagle or salmonid
species.
5.3 Cumulative Effects '
Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving
Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the '
Federal action subject to consultation. [CFR §402.02] The proposed action will not
increase the number or incidences of future activities that could have effects on listed,
proposed, or candidate species. For this reason no cumulative effects are foreseen for '
bald eagle or salmonid species.
t
25 '
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
5.4 Interdependent Effects
Interdependent effects are actions having no independent utility apart from the proposed
action. [CFR §402.02] The proposed action will not precipitate actions that otherwise
would not occur and that could have effects on listed, proposed, or candidate species. For
' this reason no interrelated effects are foreseen for bald eagle or salmonid species.
5.5 Interrelated Effects
' Interrelated effects are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their
justification [CFR §402.02]. The proposed action will not result in additional actions or
conditions that could have effects on listed, proposed, or candidate species. For this
reason no interrelated effects are foreseen for bald eagle or salmonid species.
' 5.6 Beneficial Effects
The primary goal of this proposal is enhancement of salmonid habitat. Completion of the
proposed project will provide access to previously unavailable spawning habitat for
' cutthroat, as well as rainbow/steelhead. Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) may also stray into
and utilize the middle reaches of Maplewood Creek, within the project area. The goals of
the project are to stabilize eroding streambanks, remove a fish passage barrier, reduce
sedimentation and erosion within the system, and increase the area and complexity of fish
habitat features.
Overall impacts resulting from the proposed construction are considered to be generally
beneficial within the context of the Maplewood Creek basin. The removal of human-
created, site-specific fish passage barriers is achievable. However,broader, landscape-
level land use changes have increased the sediment supply beyond probable historic
levels, resulting in a loss of pool habitat. Consequently, the proposal to increase the
number of large pools may not be sustainable. Negative impacts associated with this
project are not anticipated to extend beyond a level of harm to a few individual cutthroat
trout or steelhead.
1
26
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment ,
6 MITIGATION MEASURES '
Conservation measures associated with the project include actions that would both reduce
or eliminate any adverse impacts, including both mitigation and monitoring activities.
Mitigation includes: '
• Avoiding impacts by not taking a certain action;
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the actions by using
appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce the impact; ,
• Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation or maintenance
operations during the life of the proposal;
• Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute '
sensitive areas or environments.
• Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. ,
6.1 Mitigation
Construction Management '
All construction activities will occur in the following sequence:
1. Pre-construction meeting. '
2. Clearing and construction limits will be staked and flagged. During construction '
period no disturbance beyond the clearing/construction limits will occur.
3. Filter fabric fencing will be installed, where appropriate, along topographic contours,
perpendicular to the drainage pathways. '
4. All erosion control will be maintained in accordance with King County standards and
manufacturer's recommendations. '
5. Cover all areas that will be unworked for more than seven days during the dry season
or two days during the wet season with straw, wood fiber mulch, compost,plastic '
sheeting or equivalent.
6. Stabilize all areas that reach final grade within seven days.
7. To minimize construction impacts to fisheries resources, any in-stream work will be
confined to the WDFW fish window specified on the approved HPA.
27 '
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
Long-Term Mitigation Goals
' The primary goals of the project include:
1. Stabilizing an eroding streambank with bioengineering;
2. Removing upstream fish migration barriers including a weir and a culvert by creating a
' boulder cascade channel;
3. Reducing sedimentation and erosion within the system;
4. Creating pool-rearing habitat in a riffle-dominated reach with LWD and boulders.
' Objectives and Performance Standards
Site 1
Objective 1-A: Stabilize right-bank of stream channel
Performance Standard:
Streambank stabilization will be measured by establishing a baseline cross-section of the
project area. Surveyed benchmarks will be established on both sides of the stream. These
will be tied into a local monument as a contingency measure. Following the construction
treatment,post-construction cross-sections will be measured the 1", 3rd, and 51h years.
' Objective 1-B: Establish a native riparian plant community
Performance Standard:
' Plant community success will be evaluated on percent survival and percent cover of
desirable species, including both planted and volunteer species.
• The native plant community less than one meter in height will exhibit>60%by year
' three and> 80% coverage by Year Five.
• Native plant communities between one and two meters in height will exhibit shrub or
sapling cover of> 50%by Year Five.
• Non-native and other invasive—Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed,
evergreen blackberry,reed canary grass, Scots broom, English ivy, morning glory,
etc. —may only comprise up to 10% cover in any given stratum.
• All planted species must demonstrate 100% survival by Year One, 85% survival by
Year Three.
' Site 2
Objective 2-A: Remove fish passage barriers through the placement of approximately 14
pieces of LWD, 62 tons (approximately 46 cubic yards) of large boulders.
' Performance Standard: During the 1st, 3rd, and 5th years following construction, the
project area will be monitored for fish utilization above the passage barriers. Fish
presence will be monitored by hand-netting salmonid parrs. The presence of
' rainbow/steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss) or coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) above the
historic barriers will indicate that the passage barrier has been successfully removed.
Contingency Measures:
' 28
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment '
In the event that rainbow/steelhead are not observed upstream of the passage the project
team will analyze and correct channel characteristics that may be preventing upstream '
steelhead migration.
Site 3 ,
Objective 3-A: Install 600 feet of 6 inch welded plastic pipe tightline down steep slope to
outfall structure. ,
Performance Standard:
The pipe will be installed on the top of ground for 600 feet down 40 - 60% slopes. In
order to ensure that the pipe installation does not contribute to any bank instability the '
alignment will be seeded, mulched and walked the Is`, 3rd, and 5`h years following
construction.
Contingency Measure: '
If any bank instability is observed in association with the pipeline alignment, the project
engineer and ecologist/geologist will review and redesign the structure to eliminate such
problems. '
Objective 3-13: Establish a stable outfall structure that does not contribute to in-stream
scour. '
Performance Standard:
The design discharge from the outfall into the stream is 0.2 - 0.4 cfs for the mean annual
flow and 0.8 - 1.0 cfs for the 100-yr flow. In order to ensure that the discharge flows do '
contribute to any in-stream scour, the outfall discharge will be visually examined during
winter peak storms to ensure that it is not generating scour and remains structurally
stable. '
Contingency Measure:
In the event that scour or in-stream bank instability are observed in association with the '
outfall location the project ecologist and engineer will review and redesign the facility to
eliminate such problems.
Site 4 i
Objective 4-A: Create 5 debris clusters (DBC's) and establish residual pool habitats with '
minimum pool sizes of 10 inches deep, 3 square feet of surface area.
Performance Standard:
Pool depth and size will be evaluated by obtaining as-built pool measurements. These '
will be re-measured between July I" and September 3 1"during the I", 3�d, and 5`h years
following construction.
Contingency Measure: If the pools fail to persist the project ecologist and geologist will '
review and redesign the pools to add or adjust debris placements to create the desired
residual pools, adjusting for geomorphic conditions.
6.2 Monitoring and Maintenance
The appropriate design and diligent implementation of a monitoring plan is central to
evaluating the success of project mitigation. Monitoring typically consists of three phases '
29 '
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
including pre-construction baseline data collection, short-term construction monitoring
' and long-term performance monitoring.
Baseline Pre-Construction Monitoring
Baseline data was collected in the Level 1 stream survey and wetland reconnaissance.
Additional baseline data will be obtained prior to project construction. These data will be
used to evaluate the performance of the project during the long-term monitoring phase.
Construction Monitoring
Short-term construction monitoring is typically focused on preventing erosion and
controlling sediment dispersal into receiving waters. Water quality will be monitored
using criteria that are established under WAC 173-201A.
' Maplewood Creek is a Class A water (WAC 173-201A-120) which establishes the
following water quality criteria for the project impacts to receiving waters:
' Table 5. Water Quality Monitoring Criteria
Parameter Threshold
' Temperature Shall not exceed 18°C due to human activities
H <0.5 pH units when background is 6.5 - 8.5.
Turbidity < 5 NTU's/background when background is< 50 NTU's, or<10%
increase when background is> 50 NTU's.
1
Water quality monitoring sampling stations (SS)will be established as follows:
■ SS-1: immediately above the project area to establish background levels
■ SS-2: within or immediately below each project site, during construction.
■ SS-3: at the the outlet of the sediment pond.
' All stations will be flagged in the field and mapped for future reference. For pre-
construction monitoring background turbidity data will be acquired immediately prior to
' the commencement of all construction activities, or after more then 1/2 inch of rainfall
has fallen within 24 hrs. If state water quality standards are exceeded in the receiving
water(SS-3) construction will be stopped and the problem addressed before activities are
' resumed.
Long-Term Performance Monitoring
' Project performance monitoring period will begin following the completion of project
construction and plant installation. Maintenance will be performed during each
monitoring visit. The project area will be monitored lx p/yr during the ls`, 3`d, and 5cn
' years following construction by King County staff, or until the project performance
standards are satisfied, whichever is longer. Monitoring will use standardized techniques
and procedures to measure changes in habitat and streambank integrity, and the survival,
' relative health, and growth of the plant material as well as other elements of the success
of the mitigation plan. A monitoring report that describes and quantifies the success of
the plan will be prepared by or before October 31 st of every monitoring year.
' 30
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment '
Table 6: Monitoring Table
Monitoring Activity 15f 3`d 5`h Years '
Channel Inspection Aril 30-July 30th
Pipeline Alignment Aril 30-July 30th '
Streambank Inspection
• LWD
• Scour July 31 -September 30 t
Photo points July 31 -September 30
Habitat Assessment
• Cross-section survey '
• Pool depth
• Fish utilization July 31 -September 30
Vegetation Assessment
• survival '
• lot sampling July 31 -September 30
Maintenance July 31 -September 30
Reports <Oct 31 '
31 '
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
7 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT
7.1 Bald Eagle
A recommended determination of May Affect, Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect is
made for bald eagle.
' 7.2 Chinook Salmon
A recommended determination of May Affect, Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect is
' made for chinook salmon.
The project May Affect, but Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect or modify chinook
' spawning and rearing habitat. It will have Insignificant effects during construction.
There will be Beneficial effects because the project includes both active and passive
measures that will restore habitat-forming processes for Maplewood Creek.
' 7.3 Bull Trout
A recommended determination of May Affect, Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect is
' made for bull trout. Construction will not occur in habitats likely to be utilized by bull trout,
nor will the work affect downstream habitats known to be utilized by bull trout.
t
' 32
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment '
8 REFERENCES '
Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat
used by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl.
Nat. Res. Conf. 47:3323-342. '
Brown, Larry G. 1992. The Zoogeography and Life History of WA Native Charr.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, t
Washington.
Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991.Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British '
Columbia Press, Vancouver,British Columbia, Canada.
Goetz,Fred. 1989. Biology of the Bull Trout,Salvelinus confluentus:a Literature Review. '
Willamette National Forest, 1989. Eugene, Oregon.
Goetz,Fred. 1994. Distribution of Bull Trout in Cascade Mountain Streams of Oregon and ,
Washington.Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings, Calgary,Alberta.
Goetz,Fred. 1999. Personal communication. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. '
King County Department of Natural Resources , 1997.Maplewood Creek General Site '
Survey/Level 1 Stream Survey Report.
King County Surface Water Management,February 1993. Maplewood Creek Basin
Reconnaissance Report. '
King County Department of Natural Resources, 1998. Lower Cedar River Basin and
Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan. '
King County Surface Water Management, October 1993. Cedar River Current and Future
Conditions: Summary Report.
Johnson,Thom H. 1989. Bull Trout Studies in Washington,Washington Department of '
Wildlife,Fisheries Management Division,Olympia, Washington.
Mavros, William. 1999.Personal Communication on November 29, 1999. '
McPhail J.D. and J. S.Baxter; 1996. A Review of Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus)Life- '
history and Habitat Use in Relation to Compensation and Improvement Opportunities.
Department of Zoology,U.B.C., 6270 University Boulevard,Vancouver,B.C.,V6T 2A9.
Mongillo,Paul. 1993. The Distribution and Status of Bull Trout/Dolly Varden in Washington '
State,June 1992. Washington Department of Wildlife,Fisheries Management Division,
Olympia,Washington. '
33 t
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
Montgomery,David and J.M. Buffington, 1993. Channel Classification, Prediction of
Channel Response, and Assessment of Channel Condition. Prepared for SHAMW committee
of the Washington State Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement.
NMFS. 1998. Factors Contributing to the Decline of Chinook Salmon: An Addendum to the
1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors For Decline Report. Protected Resources Division ,
NMFS Portland, Oregon.
National Research Council. 1996. Upstream Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Negri, Steve. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone Conversation of
March 29, 1999 with Laurie McCray,KCWTD.
' Rieman, Bruce E. and John D. McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and Habitat Requirements for
Conservation of Bull Trout.U. S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Russell,D.M. 1980. Study of wintering bald eagles on the Sauk and Suiattle rivers.
' Prepared for U.S. Forest Service,Mt.Baker—Snoqualmie Natural Forest, Seattle,
Washington.
' Stalmaster,M.V., and J.R.Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of wintering bald eagles in
northwest Washington. J. Wildlife Management 43(1):1979.
Trotter,Patrick C. 1987. Cutthroat,Native Trout of the West. Colorado Assciated
University Press,Boulder,Colorado 80309.
' USFWS. 1986. Pacific bald eagle recovery plan. U.S. Department of the Interior,Fish and
Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon.
WDF, WDW and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State
Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory(SASSI). Olympia,Washington.
WDFW. 1998. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory Bull Trout/Dolly Varden(SASI),
September 1997. Olympia, Washington.
WDWW, 1989. Washington State midwinter bald eagle survey results for 1989. Washington
Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
WDW. 1992. Washington State Fisheries Management Division. Bull Trout/Dolly Varden
Management and Recovery Plan. Washington Department Wildlife, Fisheries Management
' Division, Olympia, Washington.
' 34
Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment '
WDFW. 1994. On the Zoogeogrpahy of Washington State Fisheries Management Division.
Bull Trout/Dolly Varden Management and Recovery Plan. Washington Department Wildlife, '
Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, Washington.
Watson,James. 1993. Responses of Nesting Bald Eagles to a Moving Pedestrian: Effedcts of
Nest Stage,Nest Screening, and Distance from Activity. Progress Report 1. Washington
Department of Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
1
1
i
35 '
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
' Appendix A: Photographs
' 36
�.
' f+� `��,. V t`t' fir- •f��•,�! �;�� �tZ�f
�•�'xt .' '�� t- IJ1�/�'tc ��' Hwy„r:, _
t akZ e
03
^� 7
kq
rtr r `al
'�,
"* y ,. `I'
F�
N
N y
A '
t F/
Maplewood CreekHabitat Improvements: Biological
n.. r`' � yt..,.:.�; ;�..'-.l••— .r`i�J''N°.�'tl�i3� �"��'if
•y �: - � � ��`���� '�' - ,art` ',��;�> ''�""
.� '+.. . - - c �.tom•' . . -
+ey i !' -.�� •� r l ;-+. 1. ,
L
r •o I•Ig ., U` I i.,; •, Nff;n (Coal Creek)e I Three Years •, Construction
40
� r1� ,J "�� �• �r�11
yl
• a. � 1\� �' �,'�~`. I. � 'tom' r..rii�hV �,'f r�(,.. x t• -
u .,.`��)I » l t 1'�1,11i�� ( ' �'{I �� vI%'(•i. . •r ��tl�. '� »1 � y�,T., —
1 F .
F l' 4 �c
I a d t.' i'' r•"• r I e
t�et ` ;� •�y 7� � 4r 1 =
Y,...-
f
O � �
1 * d t
' 1 �
�+ �. '�" .-"� fir, R• � Ed
f,�� '{• � � i�S�l �.1�, 4A L.7 � Biel
•s r t . � :�` d r �� 4� �i
\ i `1
ir
ol
AF
PV
fop
� ,i \ •!f' .r. 1w t it
fP+ Y' ♦ � ,
.ti i r f 6
s1�
1.LL J
A _
a
°'• ,� - - ����' •�� '�� •� � ! is .L r.' ,
i ..•f I r
' Maplewood Creek Habitat Improvements: Biological Assessment
' Appendix B: Project Drawings
1
1
1
' 45
1 -
' LEGEND edge of vegetation
Q 3' dia. rock n
0
EXISTING LOG 3
Q� 2' dia. rock y�y�y� TO BE ROTATED INTO POSITION o
00 1' dia. rock
s = 4J
' Log with Rootwad / �� = x a x �. '�"E•'® (D 6+00
EXISTING NICK POINT
m
o"on TOPSOIL FILLED SANDBAGS o
/ t , top a
g. o
' woe
' ,o o ,o SO CALL 2 DAYS
RMT so ORE YOU DIG
�' BEF 1-800-424-5555
1
:...
............. ...........i ............. ............. ............. ............. .............
EXISTING S
...................:..................:...................:...................
. •'NtSTE
UVf WILLOW STAVE WRN �
EO►API�CTED NATIVE SOQ
T
COIR F"C MAT t5
STN®;ON TOP OF PAW
AT 2• C. MAT i5 TO
..................:.................... .............:...................:............................................:...............................i...................i...................i...................i................ ..............
..... .........................
i ? i .......... ............. ........ _ ............. ............. ............. .......... ....... ...... IIPTO .. ............. ............. ...
...i... : i...
WRAP t:TrEFt SMIp
BAG BASE
WITH
140.0 - NA ITVP ••,i •W000. ...
BURLAP SUM••�7B�AG5 fklEq
:................... .......... :.................. 1400 T
SAKE mPa
:...................:...................:.................... s
._ K SIZE IE ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ...
:............. ...:....
:ROC ZE iVAR'E 7CIS ING,LOG
iFILL WrrH
..................i.......�. M.x .............i...................i......................................i...................i...................?.... .. BOULDERS ASBREEQUM: ice•" M.I.MI SURFACE i j i i `
,; .� .........• ..............:...................:........ ........... ........._... ......................................;EXISTING....DRO�, 30:.0....................................
— —.— — — _ IMPEDIFAENT TQ :.
—_. - -' - - - ��� oatri�MMAT.......
€ € '
:FISH PASSAGE s
.................'......120..0 ................................€...................€......................................I......... BUIL6 UP STREAMBLD ETAIL
........ .................. .........................................................'...................:...................:. 20►O a ,� ,
................. ...................:.......................................... 1..... SAND BA i
s BOU ERS .....
's WITH;STREAM l.l�
W
D
................... . .....................................................:.......................................:...................€...................:...................:...................:...................:...................;....
1 100
i
.................. a ... ............. ............. ........ .............
3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
..................:...................:...................:......................................:...................:..........................................................€...................s...................
15 10 5 0 5 10 15
4+62
' UP� DATE: FED. AID No. �
SMLVEYEDt 5 APPROVED: DON ALTHAIJSfR. P.E. KNO PROJEUrvotavnr oFrr.of NATURAL 3
9AlE 1NP PLAF MAKAZIM ZAW KAHN. P.E. DATE: PAM BMSONNETTE. DIRECTOR
cams PLAN
' CHEM DEspNED:J" Ilms_ DODLow DATE: PROJECT No. 0E1135 '3 SURFACE WATER — ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF
I92nr KARA, Pff DATE: SURVEY No. 15-23-0 MAPI.EWOM CFEMK CHAMP STA►BLEATIOPI 4
PSD roam mosm DATE: e'4"" aM AMA 1 SHEETS
' rr WE WOW gy pqE D111 r_ BE7NEL IL RAMIA DAM MAINTENANCE DIVISION No. 4 RAK P
MAP-NO
SW 1/4 SEC.15, TWN. 23, R.5E, W.M.
PLACE LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (APPRox 100 PIECES)
AND BOULDERS IN STREAMEIED
FISH
-*AP ENTS __ �I, �;� a• •`
sT" •T
= -
SITE AREA 4
• ,p TYPICAL DEBRIS JAM DETAIL
SCALE:
SCALE IN FEET
�' �-,�'�~, ..�`" ,�`' � ,� _ I� _
Metric distances +'
Metric elevations
40 80 0 j \
SCALE IN METERS
(1 40 METERS; = 131.232 FEET) e -
�.�� :r• � � «-!tea. ,,, `�, ���a;+ y ,
1
CONTOUR
S SHOWN ARE METERS
NOTE WASHINGTON COOOROINA SYSTEM OF 1953/1991, `-
NORTH ZONE
.w a,'ti o
i'
r�
SITE AREA 3
TYPICAL PIPE OUTFALL W/ROCK DISSIPATION 20ft. CALL 2 DAYS
BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
z,RVEnM1 QWM RADS-A a AaPRovm. DON &TH 4WL P.E. DATE: KNO COUNTY DEFT, OF NATURAL RESOURCES SHEET
DAM MAP PLOT PROJECTR IIHID KAHN, P.E. DATE; PAM BISSONNETTE, DIRECTOR
DEEM Rar Data DESIGNED:JOHN RFINFl CEOL[1P.tST DATE: PROJECT No. 0E,135 SURFACE WATER — ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF
C++ECKMt BET"a Wear KART Pc. DATE: SURVEY No. ,s-2s-0s MAPLEW=Q9EEK CHANNEL STABL2AT10N 4
FED eoou DATE: WE AREA 6 AND WE AFEA 4 MAP
y�
SHEETS
BYDKE RE�RSION ByDr1TE DRAWN: J. BEM2• Y. RADE11♦ DATE: MAINTENANCE DIVISION No.4 vwe� n nos PLAN 11IIA —NO �—M(4)
...................
........................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................
MAPLEWOOD CREEK BEGINNING 600' UPSTREAM OF SEDIMENT POND
PLACE COFFER
DAM ............... ..................:........t7. ........................................................ ...........................................................................
............
t ,o o ,o sD ao 170-
170
SOME IN FM
............... .................. ..... ................... ........... .................. .................. .......... .........................
165...................
.............
eQf
160- 160
Of O*_
o0s ............... .................. ....... ................................. ... ........................................................ ..............
-155
6 OJ
0
RESTORE 150- 150
0 STREAMBANK .115.
............... .................. ....... -45....
WITH STREAM
30 25 10 15 io 9 d i 0 15 �O i5 SO 35 40
\ \ BOULDERS,
weir LWD, AND 7+22
............... .................. .................. .................. ...................................... ................................. .................. .....................................
..............
PLANTINGS.
0 EXISTING 36" CMP
\ p 0
. .....................................
TO BE PLUGGED ..........................................1. ...................................... ........................................................
..............
01, 170- 170
LEGEND 0 .......................................... ............... ......................................................... .................. ..................
0/?"- : 1-65............. -.165 :..............
CQ 2' — 3' rock 160-
160
................................... -55...................:..................................... .................................... .....................................-.455
b < 2' dia. rock :........
150-
150
Log with Rootwad
.................................. ...........
d 9 110 i5 20 i5 SO 40
30 25 20 15 iO 6 S5
7+51
............................................................................ .......................................................................................................................
IMP............................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... EX
............................................................................................... 160.6
...........
:..
LVER—
W16 1,.5
•
roject::length ::approxi 100 Feet 9.8% SIOP6
. ...................... ......... ................ .................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................i.................................................................
.........................................................................i...................i................. .... ............ . .............
59.7
EXISTING DROP, 150.6
......................................................... ....... ....................................i...................
TO ............................................................................ ............................................................................ .............................................
........... ..................................... ..................................................IM .EDIMEW
FISH PAS9AGE
4:
1 9.9
BUILD Up STRE�AMBED ::
............................................................................ ...................................................... . ................................................................................................................
.............i...................i.............. ...................i...................i............................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................
STREW"tou 11 H LDERS"*"***"** I
AND LWO
140.0 140.0........................................... ..... ..............
.................................................... ............................. ...................................................................... ................................................................................................................ ................................... ................... .................. .............. .................. ................................ ..................
...................
------------------------— -------------
-----------------i i----------—A---------------i__ ----------- --------------- ---------------------------------- --------------
---------------- ---------------- ----------------------------------
...................i......................................i....................................................................& ............................... ................................................................. ................ .................................. ........... .......................................................................................................................
............7T-.'GO ......................... I— .........
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................ .................................................... .................................................................................................
..........
ADLM DMI1. SHEEr
SURVDIM W*Mr, RADEUA 51N AppRovM DON ALMAM NE—DOM. FED. AID No. KM MUM DEPT.OF NATLEOL FESOURCM
SW MV PIMP NOMA p"Gim 2
MANAGM ZAW OHM. RE —DAM, PAM BISSONNETTE. DIRECTOR
DOWN Mix,JOEL— DCPGNM JOHN BEn*L GEOLOGIST ogE. PROJECT No. QQ 135 SURFACE WATER ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF
u RESTORE
S1-REAMB Ar
WITH STREAM
BOULDERS,
LM' AND
PLANTINGS.
NGS'
0
CHIMI(Elk KTHEL Ps- DAM SURVEY No. k4APLEWCM CFEM CHANNM STABLMA7M 4
I=DO M- JimmaLAM&EL-an-miff DUE SM AFEA 2 SHEM
By WE my WE DAM* MAINTENANCE DMSION No. 4 FLAK PPA)FtA 10FOWMI MAP-W
MC:NTY MAP
POR NE SEC.16, T.23,N., R.5,E., W.M.
I \
RENTON
sp S I 90 F10%)ECT 1\
ST ''�...,,� LOCATION
NG SEDIMENT POND/ KING COUNTY
1 ;`: ..>'. .":. FISH PASSAGE STRUCTURE
.......
. ...............
.......................
\ r RENTON
169
Z V occo4e,Q
PT. OF NATURAL RESOURC
16 PAM BISSONNETTE
' sa DIRECTOR
167 \
\r aa,N,RY. . .:
ROAD
— —
(SE 1767H ST)
aUV
SHEET
\y
1�J
DESCRIPTION 1 COVER SHEET MAPLEWOOD CREEK CHANNEL STABILZATION
2 PLAN. PROFILE, CROSS-SECTIONS - SITE AREA 2
' 3 PLAN, PROFILE - SITE AREA 1 FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT
4 PLAN, TYPICALS, DETAILS - SITE AREA 3, SITE AREA 4
CALL 2 DAYS
BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
AoER,
SUINEYED: EOWW RADELLA 5 APPit4WFD:_DON ALTl4AUSER. P.E. DAME., y�y�
d1�E IMP momPROJECT KM� IOLVI 1 I �.OF,vy� EEr
Lwo awN. PZ oA,e PAM BISSONNETTE. DIRECTOR
OEM PWT DESOCk .JOM �_ oMQ= DAw- PROJECT No. OE1135 SURFACE WATER - ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF
a� wENvr KARA P E Dye SURVEY Na +S- C`r�C CHiAM®_STABLgATM 4
fQD (t YLSlYJ R (1f1fCi �{., MW.AGSAMSHEM
' By I am I51910N I 4wfADRAW. =^ Y Rom^'?i♦ DAIS: µNNT17W4CE DMSION No. 4 e..e '1 ���ta000-1 C�OM91��T MMr���p—NO WV f L�=�—M XX
(70