HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Habitat_Data_Report_180907_v1.pdfLLJ A (0-oo~
Barbee Mill Community Dock Projeqt
. Army Corps of Engineers Reference #
City of Renton
Plan ning Divi s io n
JAN 2. .2 2UiU
Biological Evaluation/ Habitat Data Report
January 19 , 2010
For:
Conner Homes at Barbee Mill, LLC (Attn: Charlie Conner)
846 108th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
At:
Conner Homes at Barbee Mill
4151 & 4125 Williams Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Parcels #051850 0350 (4151) and 051850 0360 (4125)
Prepared by:
Marine Surveys & Assessments
521 Snagstead Way
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Phone: (360) 385-4073, Fax: (360) 385-1724
E-mail: sea@cablespeed.com
List of Figures and Attachments
Figure Number Page
1 . Vicinity and area maps .................................................................... 14
2. DNR withdrawal area ........................................................................ 15 .
3. Plot plan .............................................................................................. 16
4. Proposed pier plan and elevation views ...................................... 1 7
5. Proposed section and framing views A-A ............... ; ...................... 18
6. Proposed section and framing views B-8 ....................................... 19
7, Planting areas .................................................................................... 20
8. Planting legend ................................................................................. 21
9. Planting plan ...................................................................................... 22
1 0. Tree and shrub planting detail ........................................................ 23
Attachment Number Page
1. Photograph of the site ................................................................ 24-25
2. Species list for King County ........................................................ 26-27
3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment .............................................. 28-29
4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook ........................................................... 30-31
5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout.. ........................................ 32-33
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 2
Biological Evaluation/Habitat Data Report
Barbee Mill Community Dock Project
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location: '
'l4 Section NW32, Township 24N, Range OSE.
4151 and 4125 Williams Avenue N.
Renton, W A 98056
Latitude: 47.515745°N/Longitude: 122.206114°W
See Figure 1 for project location.
B. Project Description :
The proposed project is the construction of a community use dock intended to facilitate access to Lake Washington
for Barbee Mill community residents (Figures 1, 3 and 4). The Barbee Mill community is being developed by
Conner Homes at Barbee Mill LLC on the approximately 22 acre site of the fonner Barbee Mill Company lumber
mill. To restore the former industrial site to a parcel suitable for a residential waterfront subdivision, the mill
buildings were demolished; fill soils were removed from behind the bulkhead; asphalt paving, a pier, the wooden
bulkhead and piling associated with the mill operation were removed; and extensive shoreline restoration was
completed pursuant to sale of the site to Conner Homes. The shoreline restoration was completed by the Barbee
Mill Company in conjunction with vacation of the land.
The proposed community dock is adjacent to one vacant lot (36) ( 4125) scheduled for residential development and
located at the vacant lot (Lot 35) (4151) recently reallocated to the Barbee Mill Community as a result of DNR
disallowing the Community Dock to be constructed over a withdrawal area (Figure 2). This north property (Lot 35)
has been reallocated to the community to provide lake access for all upland owners and those waterfront owners
located north of the site adjacent to the DNR withdrawal area. In addition to a landing and day moorage facility for
watercraft, the proposed community dock would be a suitable place for launching canoes and kayaks, for sun-
bathing, for swimming, fishing, water skiing and any number of other water sports and activities. Both properties
are currently vacant but Lot 36 is planned for a single-family res idence.
The shoreline consists of a sheet pile/concrete. Additional native riparian plantings on both parcels will be offered
as part of this project. The substrate consists of small angular rock and cobble.
C. Habitat Data:
As mentioned above, the general project area is located at the former Barbee Mill Company lumber mill site. A s a
former industrial site, the general deve lopment area, including the subject property, was subject to decades of
disturbance and degradation by human activity. The Lake Washington shoreline was heavily bulkheaded, back-
filled and covered with impervious asphalt paving. Numerous piling and substantial quantities of concrete rubble
and other shoreline debris were on site. To restore this former industrial site to a parcel suitable for a residential
waterfront subd iv ision, upland and in-water structures including the mill buildings, timber bulkhead and piling were
remove d, shoreline rubble was removed, fill soi l was excavated to subgrade . elevations, and toe rock and a
temporary quarry spall erosion control berm were installed. In addition, extensive shoreline restoration was
completed which included using sand, gravel ·and rock materials to construct a beach to mimic natural conditions
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 3
and installing coir rolls along the Lake Washington ordinary high water line. No additional excavation, grading,
clearing or fill material will be required for the proposed pier project.
The subject property is located south of, and was not included in, the area requiring the mo st extensive remediation.
The study area includes no wetland or flood hazard areas but it does include Lake Washington riparian areas. Prior
to the site restoration, riparian vegetation was found to be generally absent in the Barbee Mill community
development area due to extensive paving. In unpaved areas, vegetation noted included Juncus e.ffusus (soft tush)
and Iris pseudocaris (a non-native iris). In accordance with the general development mitigation planting plan, native
plants were installed along the entire Barbee Mill community Lake Washington shoreline, including the subject
property shoreline. In conjunction with construction of the proposed community dock, additional native plants,
shrubs and/or trees will be planted as specified in applications to, and as approved by, the Washington State
Department ofFish and Wildlife and the U.S. Anny Corps ofEngineers (Figures 7-9).
Until the extensive site restoration was completed, the industrial use of the property limited the ecological functions
that would otherwise have been provided by Lake Washington and its adjacent riparian area. As a result of the
extensive remediation, beach reconstruction and plantings, the ecological functions of the Lake Washington
shoreline within the study area should be greatly enhanced. The addition of riparian vegetation to this formerly
near-barren site should help water quality by filtering pollutants, removing nutrients and reducing sediments in any
runoff from the adjacent upland development while helping to stabilize and protect the shoreline from erosion. The
riparian vegetation planted and to be planted should increase the habitat available for aquatic invertebrates and fish;
the addition of organic matter to the lake substrate from fallen and washed in leaves and woody debris will provide
them with food, shelter and shade. Increased overhanging vegetation will also provide shade and predator protection
for fish and aquatic invertebrates and may facilitate the migration of juvenile salmon. Terrestrial insects will benefit
from the food and shelter provided by newly planted vegetation, which in turn will provide' an additional food
source for the birds and animals that feed upon them .
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species database
(http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsli st.htm) identifie s habitats and species considered to be priorities for conservation and
management. Listed species observed in the general Barbee Mill community development area include bull trout,
Puget Sound chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and marbled murrelet, all of which are discussed below.
Protected wildlife in Washington State shall not be hunted or fished (WAC 232-12-011). Protected wildlife noted
from time to time within the general Barbee Mill community development area include the marbled murrelet and
the bald eagle. The marbled murre let is classified as a "threatened species," a species likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative
management or removal of threats. The bald eagle is no longer on the list of threatened or endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but continues to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection
Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is protected as a "sensitive species" in Washington. Sensitive species are
vulnerable or declining and likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within
the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. The only eagle nests observed near the subject
property are two nests approximately 0.65 mile from the site on the opposite shore.
D. Project Description:
MS&A
The proposed community dock will consist of a fully grated 1,592 ft2 Community Dock with a 5'-10" x 172'
(1,003 ft?) main walkway, a 7'-10" x 56' (437 ft2 ) "T" and a 5'-10" x 26' (152 ft2 ) fmger pier (Figures 3-6). The
dock will have a 100% grated surface with 46% open space. The do ck will be supported by (14) 6" And (14) 8"
diameter steel battered piles. Piles will be driven using a vibratory pile driver to practical refusal. A native
planting plan will be installed (Figures 7-9). A 6 ' wide walkway is needed to safely serve the anticipated number
of users.
Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 4
E. Construction Sequence:
1. Mobilize construction barge to the si te with all construction materials and equipment on board. Moor the barge as
to prevent grounding on the lake bottom at any time during construction.
2. Install silt containment curtain around work area to contain any debris that may fall into lake waters. In the event
any materials enter lake waters they will be retrieved inunediately and placed in debris containers on the barge.
3. Using the barge-based crane and vibratory insertion/extraction system, install (14) 6", (14) 8" diameter steel
batter piles practical refusal.
4. Cut steel piling as necessary at the appropriate elevation.
5. Install pre-fabricated dock, "ELL" and fmger sections onto pipe collar assemblies and secure to piling.
6. Demobilize and dis pose of all debri s at approved upland disposal site.
General Notes:
1. All treatments will be applied and fully cured prior to de livery to the site.
2. Ramp and pier section will be prefabricated at contractor's Lake Union Facility and delivered to the site via
construction barge.
3. Native riparian planting plan will be installed by others following construction.
A TIENTION: Fisheries alert! If at any t ime, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill
occurs, or water quality problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and the
WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and Washington Department of Eco logy at ( 425) 649-7000 shall be contacted
immediately. Work shall not resume until further approval is given by the WDFW.
F. Action Area:
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the project location. This area includes potential
turbidity and noise impacts from the construction process.
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. Species Information:
In the project area, the Puget Sound chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed under the Endangered Species
Act as a threatened species according to the National Marine F isheries Service (NMFS)(Federal Register, Vol. 64,
No. 56). On May 11, 2007, NMFS also listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened
species under the ESA (Federal Register I Vol. 72, No. 91 I Friday, May 11,2007 I Rules and Regulations). Bull
trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in
October of 19 99.
On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant
Units (ESU s) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal
Summer-run Chum ESU. The proj ect s ite is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook
ESU (Federal Register /.Vo l 70, No.l70 I Friday, September 2, 2005 Rules and Regulations). USFWS h as
MS&A Barbee Mill C ommunity Doc k Proj ect • 5
designated critical habitat in Lake Washington for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register I Vol. 70, No.
185 I September 26, 2005 I Rules and Regulations).
Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific
salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget Sound are "ocean-type" and migrate to the marine
environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence
as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm., or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May
and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 nun. (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed
on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow
and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and
euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most
dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival.
In the Lake Washington system, adult chinook salmon usually arrive at the Chittenden Locks in July, although
there are some arrivals before and after July (Synthesis of Salmon Research and Monitoring. 2008). According
to Freshet al. (2000), the total time for salmon migration from the Locks to arrival at their tributary spawning
grounds "can take up to 55 days, but averages less than 30." During much of this time, salmon hold in the
upstream area from the Locks before moving through the Ship Canal and Lake Union. Fresh et al. (2000) found
the average holding time to be from 17 to 19 days. After reach their spawning streams between September and
November, spawning occurs from October to December.
According to Taboret al. (2006), "Fry emerge from their redds from January to March. Juvenile Chinook
salmon appear to have two rearing strategies: rear in the river and then emigrate in May or June as pre-smolts,
or emigrate as fry in January, February, or March and rear in the south end of Lake Washington or Lake
Sammamish for three to five months." In the project area vicinity, juvenile chinook salmon from the Cedar
River enter Lake Washington and rear in the south end of the lake primarily from January to May.
Taboret al. (2006) also reported that:
Similar to results of 2002, juvenile Chinook salmon were concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington
from February to May ..... Therefore, it appears that the lake shore area near the natal stream is an important
nursery area for juvenile Chinook salmon. In Lake Washington, the major part of this nursery area appears
to be roughly from Pritchard Beach on the west shoreline and the mouth of May Creek on the east shore and
the south part of Mercer Island. The distance from the mouth of the Cedar River to the edge of the nursery
area is around 6 krn. North ofthis area, the number of Chinook salmon would be expected to b e relatively
low until mid-May or June.
In the same study cited above, it was found that marked chinook did not move far from their release' site at Gene
Coulon Park (approximately 1.5 miles south of the current project site). Marked juveniles were observed 1, 7,
15, and 21 days after release at Gene Coulon Park. All of the marked salmon that the investigators observed ha d
moved less than 150 m from their release site at the park.
After moving slowly away from the Green River and south Lake Washington, juveniles reach the Chittenden
Locks during the period between May and August, with peak migration through the Locks taking place in June.
According to Kerwin (2001) chinook, coho, sockeye and winter steelhead use May Creek near the project site
for spawning, rearing and migration. However, volunteers from the Volunteer Salmon Watchers Program have
been observing salmon in May Creek since 2000. They have reported that only sockeye are seen consistently,
while chinook, coho, cutthroat trout and kokanee salmon are less commonly seen.
Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California (at present they
are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northe rn
Japan a nd Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically
from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea (for anadromous populatiops) takes place in
the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extre mely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Proj ect • 6
degrees Care thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and Mcintyre 1993). They live both in fresh and
marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before
returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the streams where
they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by n on-native fish threaten the
Coastal-Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only
anadromous forms ofbull trout in the contiguous United States (Federal Register, Vol. 6( No. 210, 1999).
Two subpopulations of bull trout (also known as "native char") are considered within the Lake Washington
area: the Chester Morse Reservoir population and the Issaquah Creek-Sammamish River population (Federal
Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999). "Only two 'native char' have been observed during the past 10 years in the
Issaquah Creek drainage and none have been observed in the Sanunamish River system. It is quest ionable
whether a viable subpopulation remains." (Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999).
Puget Sound Steelhead: Wild winter steelhead enter the Lake Washington system in mid-December with peak
spawning taking place in May. There have been high rates of predation by California sea lions at the Ballard
Locks, which is one of the leading factors in the declining steelhead production in the Lake Washington system
(1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Appendix One -Puget Sound Stocks.
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.).
According to Kerwin (2001):
The Lake Washington system supports one native winter steelhead stock but not a summer steelhead stock
(SASSI 1994). The winter steelhead stock was listed in SASSI as "Depressed" but has recently shown some
evidence of rebounding. A limited hatchery program utilizing the native winter steelhead stock was initiated
in 1997 as a supplementation type program to assist in recovery of winter steelhead populations in the north
Lake Washington tributaries. The sharp decline in Lake Washington winter steelhead was noted as a reason
for concern by NMFS in their stock status review (Busby 1996).
However, in a more recent analysis, between 1986 and 2004 escapement for the Lake Washington winter-run
steelhead ranged from 1,816 (1986) to 44 (2004) (WDFW 2004). Based on the chronically low escapement and
short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock status has decreased from its 1992 "depressed" status to
"critical" in 2002.
Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their time
at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old
growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDW, 1993). Adult
birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific
herring, surf smelt and other small schooling fi sh, and feed on invertebrates .
The project site is located in an urban environment adjacent to a major highway. There is a high level of
ambient noise in the project vicinity. There is no nesting habitat near the site. Therefore it is unlikely that
murrelets will be present in the project vicinity.
Ill. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project has been
described and the action area defined. When reviewing all the data, the potential direct and indirect effects of the
proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered.
A. Direct Effects:
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project will
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 7
immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the
construction process include increased noise and turbidity.
Pile driving noise: A vibratory pile driver will be used to drive the piles to practical refusal. Feist eta!. (1992)
reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000' from the source.
Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport, these researchers concluded that pile driving diq alter the
distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon. However, the Everett Homeport results may not be
entirely applicable to the proposed project, because a diesel powered compression hammer was u sed in that
study. As stated in the Feist report, "It would be reasonable to say that juvenile salmonids might respond
differently to the sounds of a vibratory hammer, compared to that of a diesel compression hammer."
As noted above, It is unlikely that murrelets will be present in the action area. Therefore, the construction
process should have little or no impact on marbled murrelets.
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could, under certain circumstances, have adverse effects on
salmon and bull trout. The effects depend on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity and the life stage
of the salmon during the increased exposure. The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or
behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 200 Ia and Simenstad, editor, 1988). A silt containment curtain will be
installed in the project area to contain and minimize turbidity impacts.
To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids and bull trout, inwater
construction work will take place during the approved work window from July 16 to December 31. Overwater
work can proceed outside of the inwater work window.
B. Indirect Effects:
Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might include
alteration of juvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation and reduction in prey resources
andrefugia due to shading of the epibenthic s ubstrate by the structure.
Migratory pathway alteration:
MS&A
Freshwater: There were no studies specifically investigating the effects of piers on salmonid migration in lakes
cited by Kahler et al. (2000) in their review of pier-related impacts in lakes. Concerning the lake environment,
Kahler et al. (2000) state, "The question remains whether juvenile salmonids in lakes migrate under, or
otherwise utilize, piers, or if they avoid them and/or traverse their perimeter."
However, more recent reports have provided additional information concerning salmon responses to overwater
structures.
Tabor and Piaskowski (2002) noted that, "In February and March, chinook salmon were found using overhead
structures (piers, docks, and overhanging vegetation) during the day but in April and May, no chinook salmon
were ever observed using overhead structures. At night, chinook salmon rarely used overhead structures." The
authors hypothesized that the overhead structures were being used as a substitute for natural overhead cover
during the days in February and March.
In a later study, Tabor et al. (2006) noted slightly different results. They state that, "When migrating Chinook
salmon approach a pier they appeared to move to slightly deeper water and either pass directly under the
structure or swim around the pier. Most likely they move to deeper water as a way of reducing their predation
risk." The pier where these findings we made is approximately 7.8' wide, 138' long and had solid decking. The
dimensions of the piers in the earlier study are not known. The results from the later study were noted in May
and July, whereas the 2002 study results were for the earlier months of February and March.
Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 8
The results of Celedonia et al. (2008) were similar to those of Tabor et al. (2000). Celedonia et al. stated,
"Juvenile Chinook salmon generally avoided areas directly beneath overwater structures. However, areas along
the edges of structures (within about 2m horizontal distance) were sometimes u sed for prolonged periods (up to
2 hours in one case)." However, these authors offered the following qualifying statement:
These observations may be representative of holding fish near structures in general, but may not be an
accurate indication of how untagged Chinook salmon would generally behave upon volitionally entering
these specific areas. Actively migrating fish (i.e., most fish released off-site and observed at the Seattle
Tennis Club site) often appeared to change course as they approached a structure. Structure width and water
depth appeared to influence degree of avoidance. Fish appeared less hesitant to pass beneath narrow
structures. Fish also appeared to move into deeper water to travel beneath or around structures.
These authors also observed:
Behavior at structures differed (i.e., swim beneath or travel around perimeter), and may have been related t o
such interrelated factors as: fish size, light levels beneath the structure, degree of contrast at the light-dark
edge, width of the structure, height of the structure above the water surface, and water column depth
beneath the structure. Further study is needed to conclusively determine how these and other factors inte ract
to influence Chinook salmon behavior.
Marine Waters: In the marine environment, it is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter
migration behavior of juvenile salmon (though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of
the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources and
refugia by shading aquatic plant life (Simenstad et al. 1999; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 b). However, the
significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad et al. state, "We found no studies that described
empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats
was reflected in changes in survival." Nightingale and Simenstad (200 1 b) state, "Presently, although we know
that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline movements when
encountering an overwater structure, the conditions under which thi s behavioral modification is significant to
the fishes' fitness and survival is re latively unknown."
A study by Williams et al. (2003) at the Mukilteo ferry terminal, found that, "Salmon fry we re observed in all
nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). The fry were observed under a wide
range of PAR values (0.0 p.mol m-2 s-1 to 2370 p.mol m-2 s-1 ). Fry were observed b oth outside the terminal
and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by the 1O-m-wide terminal structure did not
appear to act a s barriers to fry movement at this location."
There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns-that is not in dis pute. As seen in
the study by Williams and in many other studies (see the literature review by W eitkamp-2003), there are
studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures. Of course,
there are other studies indicating migration patterns are altered by overwater structures .
The issue is that no one has shown that these migration changes lead to increased mortality or decreased fitness .
None of the studies that report c hanges in salmonid migration patterns caused by overwater structures in the
marine environment have reported that these changes have a negative impact on salmonids.
Increased predation : An additional concern about the impacts of overwater structures on migrating salmon i s that
they will be forced to move out into deeper water, where they will be consumed by pre datory fish s peCies .
However, in a study c onducted in the marine environment, Williams et al. (2003) noted:
MS&A
We found no evidence that avian, marine mammal, or fish predators consumed more juvenile salmon
n ear WSF terminals than along shorelines without overwater structure s. Few species appeared to be
targeting abundant fry in nearshore habitats, and we observed only two occasions in which predators
(one tern sp., one staghorn sculpin) had consumed juvenile salmon.
Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 9
The authors also state,
Our analysis of fish diets at the Mukilt~o ferry terminal provides one piece of conclusive evidence that
juvenile salmon were not a major dietary component of predatory fish species during our study.
It should be noted that the Williams study was conducted in the marine, not lake, environment.
In Lake Washington, smallmouth bass migration into the littoral zone corresponds with the peak occurrence of
migrating salmonids in this zone (Freshet al. 2001). Because of these similar migration patterns, salmonids are
most at risk of predation from smallmouth bass in Lake Washington. Bass prefer complex, natural cover for
their foraging environment. When there is a scarcity of natural cover for foraging, as is the situation in Lake
Washington, they tend to use the dominant structures in the environment, such as pilings and piers, for foraging
cover (Kahler et al. 2000). There is concern that increasing the number of overwater structures will increase the
predation success of smallmouth bass on migrating salmonids.
Taboret al. (2004) investigated predation of juvenile chinook salmon in three areas of the Lake Washington
Basin. One of the areas they looked at was the south end of Lake Washington, an important rearing area. The
investigators found that:
The only predators observed to consume Chinook salmon were cutthroat trout, prickly sculpin (C. asper),
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and largemouth bass (M salmoides). Consumption of Chinook
salmon by cutthroat trout was observed in February, March and early April. Predation by prickly sculpin
was only observed in February. Smallmouth bass consumed Chinook salmon in May and June. Few
largemouth bass were collected; however, we did document a largemouth bass that had consumed a
Chinook salmon in June. We estimated a total of 1,400 Chinook salmon fry were consumed by littoral
predators from February to mid May ..... Based on consumption estimates and expected abundance of
juvenile Chinook salmon, predatory fishes probably consumed less than 10 % of the fry that entered the lake
from the Cedar River.
The investigators in this study did not comment on the impacts of overwater structures on the predation rate found
in south Lake Washington.
The following design components will r educe foraging cover and allow more light penetration under the proposed
pier.
1.The dock will have a fully grated surface with 46% open space to allow light to reach the lake waters below.
2. The bottom of the dock will be 18" above the OHWL.
3. The smallest number and diameter steel piles will be used to minimize the amount of structure in the water
and disturbance to the substrate.
4. Glu-lam stringers will be used to allow the longest spans possible between piles.
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects:
Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur
without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species
regulated under ESA will occur because of this project.
D. Take Analysis:
"Take" is defmed as, "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any
such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results
in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Proj ect • 1 0
sheltering." It is likely that no "take" will result from this project.
E. Conservation Measures:
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by this project, inwater work should take place
between July 16 and December 31. It is requested that overwater work be allowed to take place outside of this work
window. Additional impact reduction and mitigation measures will reduce adverse impacts of the project. They
include:
l .The dock will have a fully grated surface with 46% open space to allow light to reach the lake waters below.
2. The bottom of the dock will be 18" above the OHWL.
3. The smallest number and diameter steel piles will be used to minimize the amount of structure in the water and
disturbance to the substrate.
4. Glu-lam stringers will be used to allow the longest spans possible between piles.
5. The con.struction barge will not be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime.
6. Piles will be driven using a vibratory pile driver to practical refusal.
7. Construction will take place during authorized inwater work windows design to protect listed species and/or
critical habitat.
8. All dock sections will be prefabricated at the contractor's lake union facility and delivered to the site via
construction barge .
9 . A native planting plan will be installed.
F. Determination of Effect:
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the effect determinations for the impacts of the project, as
designed, are:
1. Puget Sound chinook-''May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
2. Bull trout -"May affect, not likely to adversely affecf'
3. Puget Sound steelhead-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
4. Marbled murrelet -''No effect"
This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial,
discountable or insignificant. Limiting construction work to the approved work window will reduce direct impacts
on the listed species . Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the conservation measures
discussed above.
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Doc k Project • 11
Literature
Celedonia, M. T., Roger A. Tabor, Scott Sanders, Daniel W. Lantz, and Ian Grettenberger. 2008.Movement and
habitat use of chinook salmon smolts and two predatory fishes in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington
Ship Canal. 2004-2005 acoustic tracking studies. Final report to Seattle Public Utilities.
Federal Register I Vol. 61, No. 102 I May 24, 1996 I Rules and Regulations.
Federal R egister I Vol. 64, No. 56 I March 24, 1999 I Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register I Vol. 64, No. 210 I November 1, 1999 I Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register I Vol 70, No.170 I Friday, September 2, 2005 I Rules and Regulations.
Federa l Register I Vol. 70, No. 185 I September 26, 2005 I Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register I Vol. 72, No. 91 I Friday, May 11, 2007 I Rules and Regulations.
Feist, Blake E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile p ink
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (0. keta) salmon behavior and distribution . FRI-UW-9603, Fish. Res.
Inst., UW, Seattle, W A .·
Fresh, K.L, E . Warner, R. Tabor, and D. Houck. 2000. Migratory behavior of adult Chinook salmon s pawning in the
Lake Washington watershed in 1998 and 1999 as determined with ultrasonic telemetry. Extended abstract and
presentation prepared for the Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, November.
Fresh, K. L., D. Rothaus, K. W. Mueller and C. Mueller. 2001. Habitat utilization by predators, with emphasis on
smallmouth bass, in the littoral zone ofLake Washington (draft). WDFW.
Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315-341. In: V.S. Kennedy
( ed. ), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Kahler, T., M. Grassley and David Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, pier and other
artificial structures and shorezone deve lopment on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. City of Bellevue.
Kerwin, J ., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (WRIA
8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA.
Myers, J. M., R. G . Kope, G. J. Bryant, D . Teel, L. J . Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W. Waknitz,
K. Neely, S. T . Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. ofCommerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department ofFish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of
Transportation, Olympia, W A, 144 pp.
Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department ofFish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of
Transportation, Olympia, W A, 177 pp.
Rienman, B. E. and J.D. Mcintyre. 1993 . Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout.
Gen. Tech. Rpt. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Resea rch Station, Ogden, UT. 3 8 pp.
Simenstad, C . A., K. L. Fresh and E. 0. Salo. 1982. The role ofPuget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in
the life history ofPacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343 -364. In: V. S. Kennedy, (ed.), Estuarine
comparisons. A cademic Press, New York, NY.
Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishe s, Workshop proceedings,
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 12
Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.
Simenstad, C.A, B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thorn and D .K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts offerry terminals on juvenile
salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowl e dge. Report to
WSDOT!fJSDOT Research Report T9903 , Task A2, 116 pp. +appendices.
Synthesis of salmon research and monitoring. Investigations conducted in the Western Lake Washington Basin.
December 31 ,2008. Seattle Public Utilities and the Army Corps ofEngineers. Contributors: Mike Cooksey
Peter N . Johnson, Paul DeVries, Michele Koehler, Charles J. Ebel, Lynne Melder, Frederick A. Goetz, Jim
Muck, Julie Hall Eva Weaver
Tabor, R. A. and Richard M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems
of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M . Piaskowski, D . L. Low, B. Footen and L. Park. 2004. Predation of
juvenile chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe anq Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
I
Tabor, R . A. Howard A. Gearns, Charles M. McCoy ill , and Sergio Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use by
juvenile chinook salmon in lentic sy stems o f the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2003 and 2004. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wil dlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510
Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI).
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, W A
Weitkamp, Don E. Septemb er 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc.
Kirkland, W A
Williams, G. D., R. M. Thorn, D. K. Shreffler, J. A. Southard, L. K. O'Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V.I. Cullinan, R.
MS&A
Moursund, and M . Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure-Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon : Field
Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the Washington State Department of
Transportation Under a Rehtted Services Agreement With the U .S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-
AC06-76RLO 1830. .
Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 13
MS&A
Figure 1. Vicinity map
PROJECT DESIGNED BY:
Waterfront Constru:tion loc.
THIS OOOJI.IEliT IS PROPRIETAAY PROPeRTY Of' l't'AlERf'RONT
CONSTRUCTION NC., AND IS NOT 10 B( USED, IN *"OLE OR 11<
PART, fOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITH OUT THE \'IRITIEN
"'--lHORIZATIOI< OF WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION I'<C.
VICINITY MAP /NO SCALE
LEGAL DESCR IPTION
1/4 SEC: NW :}2-24N-05E
TAXLOT #~ 05 1850 0350 (4151) & 0518500360 (41 25)
BARBEE MILL TGW UNO INT IN TRS
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,L,M ,N ,O&P
LAT: 47.515745N
LONG: -122.206 1 14W
PUR POSE:PROVIDE COMI.IUNITY ACCESS
AND PRIVATE I.I OORAGE
DATUM: COE 0.0' EST 1919
ADJACE NT OWNERS:
Q) CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC
41 57 WILLIAMS AVE N
RENTON, WA. 98056 0 CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC
41 19 WILLIAM S AVE N
RENTON, WA. 96056
PROJ ECT NA E;
REFEREN CE f :
BARBEE I\IILL
COMMUNI TY DOCK
SITE LOCATION ADDRESS:
41 25 & 4151 \'IILLIAI;IS AVE N
RENTO N, WA. 96D5 6
We#: 05-3077-A.I-1
t
I
w
__J
I=
<{ w
(f)
KENMoRE
J UANITA
KIRKLAND
BELLEVUE
RENTON
AREA MAP/
MILES
1 MILE
PROPOSED: INSTALL COIIIMUNITY DOCK
IN: LAKE WASHINGTON NEAR: RENTON
COUNTY: KING STATE : WA
APPL BY : CONN ER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC
SHEET: 1 OF: 7 DATE: 1-12 -10
Barbee Mill Comm un ity Dock Project • 14
Figure 2. DNR withdrawal area
.t>
N
I
DNR WITHDRAWL
DNR WITHDRAWL AREA MILL LLC
100' 50' o· 100' PROPOSED: INSTALL COMMUNilY OOCK
SHEET; :3 OF: 7 NEAR AT: RENTON
DATE : 1-12-10 0 C • 05-3077-A..l-1
MS&A Barbee M ill C ommunity Doc k Project • 15
MS&A
Figure 3. Plot plan
-:.:--~--, . .,. L---s-s-
·,,
'•,
56'
l OHWL u:ai:J' (COE)
18.80' (NAVD 88) @
FACE ,~F BULKHEAD
PEND;~G FREESTANDING
PROPOsED
. . . . .
' ' ' ' /,/
GRATED DOCK •
..................
----?
(
PROJECT DESIGNED 6'1':
Water front Constntlioo loc.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPRETNIY PROPERlY OF 1\'ATtRFRONl
CONSTRUCTION INC., AND IS "llT TO BE USED, IN WHOlE (R IN
PART. FOR ANI' OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF 1'/ATERfRONT CONSTRUCTION INC.
PROPOSAL
( CONSTRUCT A FULLY GRA TEO 1,592SOFT COMMUNITY DOCK WITH A S·11T X 172 (1.(Xl3SOFT)M'.N
WALKWAY , T-10' X 56' (437SQFT) T AND 5'·10' X15(15'2SQFT)FNGERPER
( THE DOCK WILL HAVE A 100% GRATED ~ACE WITH46%0PENSPACE
( THE DOCK WILL BE SUPPORTED BY (14) 6' AND (14)8'0W.£TERSTEELBATTEREOPlES
( PilES WilL BE DRIVEN USING A VIBRATORY PlEIJWERTOPRACOCALFa'USAL
( A NATIVE PLANTING PLAN WllBE NSTALLEO
\ []II] --r-.......,...-===-~~~~ ~-----;~
[_---------------s.Y 11\ 7·. {:!;r . ------·-.
4 157/CONNER HOMES 34
DID
NATIVE PLANTING PLAN
JOB sm: 35
41 5 1/CONNER HOMES
3:1 . OITJ ~-
4113/CONNER HOMES
38
~ ----------
4101/CONNER HOMES l 40
----.,~
[1[[]:
,,, ......... -..
.. -.. ~ ... -
PLOT PLAN
50' 25' o' 50'
REFERENCE ~
APPLICANT: CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE f.IILL L LC
PROPOSED: INSTALL COMMUN ITY DOCK
SHEET:4 OF:7 NEAR AT: RENTON
DATE: 1-12-10 D C : 05-3077-AA -1
Barbee Mill Community Dock Projec t • 1 6
s: (/) 9'> )> o:> 0 a-<D <D ~ () 0 3 3 c 2. -< 0 0 () 7' 'lJ .Q. <D () -+ • '-I ' ' ' \ ; : I I '. ' ',, ...... __ ... ~ N ' --t'" .... \! ~ \'\. \ '\ ' ' ' ' ' I I ___ / ' \ ',, '' ........ -', J ...... .., / ............ ... ... ...... --(14)/PROPOSED 6" STEEL/ BATIEREO PILING /_,: 5'-10' -l ' ' \, '. ' PROPOSED DOCK DETAIL VIEW SCALE: 1"=30' 10 ~-----------------------------------180' ------------------~--------------~ I 172' -----------------------------------1 PROPOSED FULLY GRATED DOCK EXISTING CONCRETE/SHEET PILE BULKHEAD TO REMAIN ! ~ ' '~ OHWL21.BO' 111 ~ · 11 11 11 11 11 1 11e ~ ~ 1 r: NAV088 (18.80') ( 1 4) PROPOSED 8'' STEEL BATIERED PILING PROJECT DESIGNED BYe (14) PROPOSED 6' STEEL BATTERED PILING PROPOSED DOCK ELEVATION VIEW NATIVE PLANTING PLAN ' } I r I \ \ ' ' ' ' -------~---,,, -EXISTING GRADE HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC 20 Waterfront Construction Inc. 3!'1' l'i' o· 3o· PROPOSED: INSTALL COMMUNilY DOCK THIS DOCUMENT IS P!IQPRI[l.AIIY PROPERTY OF WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION INC .. /<NO IS N01 TO BE USED. IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WllHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF 1'/ATERIRONT CONSTRUCTION INC . SCALL 1"=30' SHEET: 5 OF: 7 DATE:1-12-10 -n cC c m ~ '"0 .... 0 "0 0 Ill (!) a. '0 0 :I 0 :I a. CD m-< 0 -c:r :I < if ~ Ill
Figure 5. Proposed section and framing views A-A
5'-10"
/STAINLESS STEEL · 5-1/8"x12"
2''x4" NAILER @ GRATING~ DECK SCREWS
/ GLU-L.AM BEAM
I a ·· 0/C MAX.~
""' V'V'v """ "' >t< "'Dt< :::+::: :>!<:;
~ ~ 3/4" GALV.
/ V"' LAG BOLT
--
~ ~CAP BEAM
~
~ -r ,._,. ASSEMBLY
1/4" PILE COVER
6l TYP. PLATE 1'-6"
1
~,_OHWL 21.80' (COE)
OHWL 18.80' (NAVD 88)
6" OR 8" STEEL BATIERED PILING
PROPOSED 5• DOCK SECTION A-A
SCALE: 3 /4"=1'
5'-10"
/
1
STAIN LESS STEEL
2"x4" NAILER @ GRATING~ DECK SCREWS
18 "' 0/C MAX . ~ 16d GALV. COMMON
NAILS {TYP)
:XI
~ -aM J:t:l L 5-1/B"x12" ·;r I II I I L VGLU-LAM BEA M
I-' '\ "'""" --~ J "\.._ 3/4" GALV. _/11\~
THRU ROO 2"x6" RIM JO IST ~ " •
2"x6n JOIST 3 x4 LEDG ER
l9 2' 0/C W/ 1/2"x7" GALV .
LAG BOLT @ 16" D/C
PROPOSED 6' SECTION FRAMING
12" . 6" 3· o· 1'
I ~~ I
SCA LE: 3/4~=1 ' PROJECT DESIG NE D B'f':
Waterfront Constroction loc.
TH IS DOCUIIENT IS PROPR£l.IRY PROPERlY OF WATERFRONT
COiiSTRUCTION IN<;., ANO IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN
I#TERIAL LIST PART, fOR At-ff OTHER PROJ ECT I\'11HO U1 THE WR mEN
AUTHOR IZ ATION Of WATER f RONT COiiSTRUCTIO N INC.
PART SPECS TREATMENT NOTE!
PI LING 6"&8" STD WALL STEEL EPOXY COATED OR HOG ALL P ILES TO BE DRN EN TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL.
CAPS W6x1 5 "H" BEAM HOG
GLU-LAMS 5 1/8"x12" & 7 1/8"x12" OF (24F-V4) ACZA REFERENCE #:
APPLI CANT: CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC JOIST 2"x6" DF #2 OR BTR ACZA
RIM JOIST 2"x6" DF #2 OR BTR AC ZA PROPOSED: INSTALL CO MMUNITY DOCK
NAILERS 2"x4" OF #2 OR BTR ACZA
GRATI NG SUNWALK PO LYPROPYLENE NONE
HARDWARE STEEL STAINLESS OR HDG SHEET ; 6 OF:7 NEAR/AT: RENTON
DATE: 1-12-10 IDWG /1: 05-3077 -A.6 -1
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Doc k Proje ct • 18
s: (/) 90 )> OJ 0 a-(l) (l) ~ () 0 3 3 c ::J ~ 0 0 0 7<: -u .Q. (l) 0 -'() I PART PILING CAPS GLU-LAMS JOIST RIM JOIST NAILERS GRATING HARDWARE 7'-10" /STAINLESS STEEL 2"x4" NAILER @ GRATING\ DECK SCREWS 7-1/8'"x12" 18'' 0/C MAx.\ 1/ GLU-LAM BEAM 00< 9<K / ~ '>k 5I( ~ ;::t:: ...... -V 3/4" GALV • v lAG BOLT ~CAP BEAM / -v ~ ASSEMBLY 2'-6'' 1/4" PILE COVER 6l lYP. PLATE 1'-6" 1 OHWL 21 .80' {COE) '-OHWL 1 8.80' (NAVD 88) 8" STEEL BATIERED PILING PROJECT DESIGNED B'ft Waterfront Construction Inc. PROPOSED 8' DOCK SECTION 8-B THIS DOCU~N1 IS PROPI!El.IRY PROPERTY or WATERrRONT CONSTRUCTION INC .• Al-10 IS NOT TO BE USED. IN WHOLE: OR tl SCALE: .3/4"= 1' PART, <OR ANY OTHER PROJECT \!'llHOUT THE '/IRmEN AUTHORIZATION OF I\'ATERTRON1 CONSTRUCTION INC. 7'-10" /STAINLESS STEEL 2"x4" NAILER ~ GRATING\ DECK SCREWS 7-1/B'"x12" 18" 0/C MAX.\ /~CLU-LAM BEAM :XK )tX 1 6d GALV. l<i( "'l>l<r I'm' "l:+:r U1'! ,.......--coMMON IT I I I I I I .,.. ---NAILS (TYP) " 7 -~ J ·~ .3/4" CAI.V. _/tx-THRU ROD 2"x6'' RIM JOIST ~ 3"x4" LEDGER 2"x6" JOIST @ 2' 0/C PROPOSED 8' SECTION FRAMING W/ 1/2"x7" GALV. ~.'A TERIAL LIST " LAG BOLT @ 16" 0/C SPECS TREATMENT 12'' 6" .3" 0' 1' I --I NOTE: 6"&8" STO WALL STEEL EPOXY COATED OR HOG ALL PILES TO BE DRIVEN TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL. W6x15 "H" BEAM HOG SCALE: 3/4"•1' 5 1/8"x12" & 7 1/B"x12" OF (24F-V4) ACZA REFERENCE H: ; jAPPLICANT: CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC 2"x6" Of 62 OR BTR ACZA 2"x6" DF #2 OR BTR ACZA PROPOSED: INSTALL COMMUNITY DOCK 2"x4" OF 1/2 OR BTR ACZA SUNWALK POLYPROPYLENE NONE STEEL STAINLESS OR HDG SHEET: 7 OF:7 I NEAR/AT: RENTON DATE: 1 12-10 IDWGJI: 05-3077-A.7 1 -n 6' c: .... (1) ?" ""t' 0 "0 0 In (1) a. In (1) () -(5' ::J a ::l a. -.... a 3 :;· co < (D' ~ In CI:J I CI:J
MS&A
I
16
• P~NTIN~ AREAS
16
• ~
~~~iiiliiiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiliiiiiiliiiiii i
PLANTING DESIGN BY
THE
WATERSHED
COMPANY
750 SbcUl S«reet Soulh
KlrlcWld WA 98033
1' of25.822.5l42 f of25.827.81 36
www.w-oliedcu,Q)l'T1
Science & Des i gn
Figure 7. Planting areas
LOT 35
JOB SITE
4151 /CON NE R HO MES
JOB SITE
4 125/CONNE R HOMES
LO T 36
PROJCCT DCS GNCO BY:
Waterfratt C<mtrud.!oo I"',
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPRIETNIY PROPERTY OF WAl£R FIIONT
COtiSTRUCllON INC., AN D IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOL£ OR IN
PART, fOR Ntf OTHER PROJECT Wfl!Dir THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZAnON OF WATERfROt{T CONS1l!UC110N INC.
REFERENCE #:
APPLCANT: CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL" LlC
PROPOSED: INSTALL COMMUNflY DOCK
SHEET: 1 OF: 4 NE"AR/AT: RCNTON
OATF: 1-12-10 DWG : 05 3077 A.2 1
Barbee Mill Community Dock Proj ect • 20
MS&A
Fig ur e 8. Planting legend
\ I
I
, I
\ I
: I
' I
1 1iiiii6.~P~~~· NiiiiT~I~N~~-AiiiiRiiiiEiiiiAiliiSiiiiiiiiiiil"~ t
r---. ---··----. ---------+.~,:-l==::::;,r-tt~ll
~: I I
GENERAL PLANTING SEQUENCE:
I . Native plant installation shaH occur during frost-free periods only.. Preferred
months for installation are between September 15th and April 15, prior to hot, d ry
weather.. Plants may only be installed during hot weather if the contractor agrees
to immediate irrigation of the entire planting area. delivering at least 2" of water per
week.
2. Procure plants in legend and insure that material meets the m in imum requirements
outlined in the plant legend and planting details ..
3. Locate all existing utilities within the limit of work. The contractor is responsible
for any utility damage as a result of the landsape construction.
-4. Remove ali invasive weeds (if encountered) by grubbing out roots.
5.. Amend soils as heeded to provide min. 20% org;v~ic material throughout the
planting area. Add compost to Increase organk: content, rototiU Into planting area
6. Note: T he contractor Is responsible for any adverse drainage conditions that may
affect proper plant growth and establislvnent. Notify owner of any poor drainage
conditions prior to constrUCtion.
7. Layout plant material per plan for inspection by the landscape Architect. Plant
substitutions wiH NOT be allowed without the approval of the Landscape
Architect.
8. Install plants per planting details, sheet 3 .
9 . WatJ?Jr each plant thoroughly to remove air pockets.
I 0. Install a -4" depth, coarse woo<khlp m ulch ring throughout entire project area.
I I. Install a temporary irrigation system capable of delivering 2" of wate r per week. to
the entire planted area. Maintain Irrigation system in working condition for two (2)
summers after initial plant installation.
The landscape contractor shall maintain all plant material until fmal inspection and
approval by the Owner or Owner's representative. Al l plantings and workmanship
shall be guaranteed for one year fo llowing final owner acceptance.
PLANTING DESIGN BY
THE
WATERSHED
COMPANY
750 SOOh Street South
Klridand WA 99033
p ~25.822..5242 f .25.827.8 136
www.watetohedco.com
Science & Design
PROJECT DESIGNED BY:
Waterfront C~5i:ruc.tlcnl nc..
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF WAl!RFRONT
CONSTRUCTION INC., AND S NOT TO BE USED. IN WHO LE OR IN
PART, FOR loNY OlHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATlON OF WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION INC.
P L A N TING L EG E ND
SCIENTlFIC /COMMON NAME Q:Ir, SIZE l COMMENTS
TPHS
AC ACERORCINAT\JM 13 2 GAL. W!iU. BAANCHED
VIN£ I'W'lE
BP BETUlA PAI'\1UFERA 3 5 GAL. Wlil l BAANCHED
PAPER BIRCH
TP Tlil.lp.PUCATA l 5 GAL. WB.l BAANCHED
WliSTERN RED CEOAA
SHI!VAS
cs CORNUS~C£A 9 l GAL. HULTI-STEM
II.EDTWIG DOGWOOD ®~~&W>R 7 2 GAL. FUU. & BUSHY 0 PHYSOCAIU'USCAPITAT\JS 3 2 GAL. FULl. &IIUSHY
PAOAC NINEBAAK 0 RIBESSANGUINM1 I ) 2 GAL. FULl. & BUSHY
RED Fl.OWBUNG CURRANT
' , SAlJX WCIDA...,.LASIANDRA • I CAL ,st.,. PAC AC WIU.CM' G SYMPHOf<!CWOSALWS 7 2 GAL. FULl. & IIUSHY
SNCM'BEAAY @ VACONUM OVAT\JM 12 2 GAL. FULl. & BUSHY G MI\GREEN HUCICI.£8ERI\Y
VIBURNUM EDULE 3 l GAL. FULl. & IIUSHY
SQUASHBEIU\Y
GIIOUNDCOVER ® AI\CTOSTAPHYLOSUVMJIISI 2«) l.S' POTS, 24' O.C.
kJNNIIONNICX a ASAI\UMCAUD.O.l\J " ICII l.S' POTS, 24' O.C.
W11DGINGEJI.
~MAHONL'.NEl!VOS'. S4 1 GAL. 24' o.c.
LCM' OREGON GRAPE
0 POL YrnCMUM "'-'NITUM 41 4'POTS
SWORD FE RN
~~-78 ~~···~: Lvr '" COMMON HAAEBEll.
CASTIUfJ"HINATA I GAL; 30' O.C.
OOMMON RED PAINT8!\USH
D£1PHINIUM MENZIES!
MENZJES'I..ARKSPUR
PENSTEMONS£RI\UlA'TUS
CO .. STPENSTEMON .
REFERENCE H:
APPLICANT: CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC
PROPOSED: INSTALL COMMUNITY DOCK
SHEET: 2 OF: 4
DATf: 1-12-10
I NFAR/A": RCNTON
lowe#: os 3077 A.2 1
Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 2 1
MS&A
Figure 9. Planting plan
j FOR PLANTING LEGEND SEE SHEET 21
PLANTING PLAN
16' e· o·
THE
WATERSHED
COMPANY
150 Sbah Street South
Klridand WA 98033
p 425 .. 822.5242 f 425.827.8136
www.w-si....XO.com
Science & Design
PROJCCT DCS CNCD SY:
Waterfroot Cct1~tlon Inc...
TtiiS DOCUMENT IS PROPRIETIIRY PROPERTY Of WATERfRONT
CONSTRUC'TlON INC .. AND IS NOT TO BE US£0, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART. FOR ANT OiliER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTMORIZAllON OF WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION INC.
REFERENCE #:
APP UCAN T: CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC
PROPOSED: INSTALL COMMUNITY DOCK
SHEET: 3 OF: 4
DATF: 1-12-10
Barbee M ill Community Dock Project • 22
MS&A
Figure 1 0. Tree and shrub planting details
NOTES:
I . PLANT GROUNDCOVER AT SPEC IFIED D ISTANCE ON-CENTER (O.C.) USING
TRIANGULAR SPACING, lYP.
2. LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PLANTING PIT AND REMOVE DEBRIS
3 . LOOSEN ROOTBOUND PlANTS BEFORE INSTALLING
4 . SOAK PIT BEFORE AND AFTER INSTAUJNG PlANT
0 GROUNDCOVER & PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL
NTS
THE
WAT ERSHED
COMPANY
750 SOOh Scraet South
Kiridand WA 98033
p ~25.822.52~2 f .25.827.8136
www.watershedco.com
Science & D es ign
NOTES :
I. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2) TIMES
THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL DIA.
2. LOOSEN SIDES AND·BOTTOMS OF PLANTING PIT
3. SOAK PLANTING PIT AFTER PLANTING
REMOVE FROM POT & ROUGH-UP ROOT BALL BEFORE
INSTALLING. UNTANGLE AND STRAIGHTEN CIRCLING
ROOTS -PRUNE IF NECESSARY. IF PLANT IS
EXCEPTIONAI.l. Y ROOT -BOUND, DO NOT PLANT AND
RETIJRN TO NURSERY FORAN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIV
4' MULCH LAYER-HOLD BACK MULCH FROM
TRUNK/STEMS
3" MIN HT. WATER BASIN
FINISH GRADE
~~~~~~t1::~~~~~~t~=-SLOW RELEASE GRANULAR FERTILIZER, OSMOCOTE ~ OR APPROVED EQUIV. (OUTS IDE OF O.H.W.M .
ONLY) APPLIED ONE YEAR AFTER INITIAL PLANTING
;,~~~ml---REMOVE DEBRIS AND LARGE ROCKS AND BACKFILL
WITH NATIVE SOIL FIRM UP SOI L AROUND PLANT
(;;\ TREE & SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
~NTS
PROJECT DESIGNED BY:
Waterfront Ca~stroctlcn Inc.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPRIETARY P ROPERlY OF WATERFRONT
CONSTRUCnON INC •• ANO I S NOT TO BE USED. IN WHOLE OR IN
PART. FOR N.ff OTHER PROJ ECT WITHOUT THE WRmEN
AUTHORIZATION OF WATERFRO NT CONSTRucnON INC.
REFERENCE 6:
APPL CANT: CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL LLC
PROPOSED: INSTALL CO MM UN11Y DOCK
S HEET: 4 OF: 4 N[AR/AT: RENTON
DATF: 1-12-1 0 DWG : 05 3077 A.2 1
Barbee Mill Community Dock Proj ect • 23
Attachment 1. Photographs of the site
Looking north along the site's bulkhead
Looking south from the site
MS&A Ba rbee M ill Community Dock Project • 24
Project site
MS&A Barbee Mill Com munity Dock Project • 25
Attachment 2. Species list for King County
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT;
CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
INKING COUNTY
AS PREPARED BY
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
LISTED
Bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus)
Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Gray wolf(Canis lupus)
(Revised November 1, 2007)
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U a. horribilis)
Marbled murre let (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species include:
1. Level of use of the project area by listed species.
2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas
influenced by the project.
3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased
human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance
to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area.
Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) [historic]
Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed plant species
include:
1. Distribution of taxon in project vicinity.
2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss ofhabitat.
3. Changes in hydrology where taxon is found. ·
DESIGNATED
Critical habitat for bull trout
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet
Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 26
PROPOSED
None
CANDIDATE
Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)
Yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus)
SPECIES OF CONCERN
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belleri)
California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)
Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi)
Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli)
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans)
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata marmorata)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)
Pacific Townsend=s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog (Ascaphus truel)
Valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremeri)
·western toad (Bufo boreas)
Aster curtus (white-top aster)
Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort)
Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane)
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 27
Attachment 3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may
adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the relevant species. According to the MSA, EFH
means "those waters and s ubstrate n ecessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For the
Pacific West Coast, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) has designated EFH for federally managed
groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC 1998b) and Pacific salmon fisheries (PFMC 1999).
The purpose ofthe EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant
species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH.
B. Identification of EFH
The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the me~ high water
line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and
California, seaward to the boundary of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). The
des ignated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for Pacific salmon species extends from the nears hore and tidal
submerged environments within state te rritorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (3 70 .4
km) offshore o f Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the C anadian border PFMC,
1999).
Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other water b odies
c urrently, or historically accessible to s almon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California, except areas upstream
of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally~ impassable barriers .
Chinook salmon and coho salmon are the species with des ignated EFH that are found in Lake Washington
C. Proposed Action
The details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the attached BE/Habitat Data
Report. ·
D. Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects
Analysis section of t h e attached BE/Habitat Data Report. The project is likely t o have no permanent, long-term
effects EFH designated for chinook and coho salmon.
E. EFH Conservation Measures
The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached BE/Habitat Data Report will be implemented to
minimize possible adverse effects to EFH. ·
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 28
F. Conclusion
The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH the salmon species, but will not produce long-term adverse
effects on EFH for the above species. The conservation measures and HMP 's mentioned in the attached BE/Habitat
Data Report will be implemented to minimize any possible the temporary adverse effects on EFH.
G. Additional References
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 (August 1999).
PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental A sses sment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998).
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998).
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 29
Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook
Project description: Construction of a new community-use dock on Lake Washington in Renton,
This assessment covers the primary constituent elements (50 CFR Part 226, page 74581-2) determined essential to
the conservation ofPuget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha):
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning,
incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: There are no suitable freshwater spawning sites at the project location.
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physi~al habitat
conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;
and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood , lo g jams and beaver dams, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted immediately landward of the bulkhead in conjunction
with the upland development. There is a concrete/sheet pile bulkhead along the shoreline of both properties. No side
channels or undercut banks were noted.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and
undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions s upporting juvenile
and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including
aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including
aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater area.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,
supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater lake area.
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 30
Effects Analysis: A complete discussion of the effects of this project is seen in the BE/Habitat Data Report.
Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity, which will be contained by a silt curtain. The
project will have no long-term impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions or water temperature . Construction
during work windows will prevent impacts to the listed fish species.
Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be reduced by design components of the proposed project. The
entire dock will be fully grated. The smallest number and diameter steel piles will be used to minimize the amount
of structure in the water and disturbance to the substrate. Glu-lam stringers will be used to allow the longest s pans
possible between piles. The construction barge will not be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime. A
native planting plan will be installed.
Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 31
Attachment 5.
Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound Bull Trout
COE reference: Unknown at this time
Applicant: Conner Homes at Barbee Mill LLC (Attn: Charlie Conner).
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are:
(1) Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures
from 32 to 72 °F (0 to 22 °C) but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 °F (2 to 15 °C).
These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation,
diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence.
Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from designati on.
Existing Conditions: The project will take place in Lake Washington, a large body of fresh water.
Effects to PCE: The project is not expected to have any influence on the water temperature of Lake Washington.
(2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to
provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in stream structures.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington-not in a stream environment
Effects to PCE: No effect
(3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size and composition tci ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival,
fry emergence, and young-of-the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal amount of fme substrate
less than 0.25 in (0.63 em) in diameter.
Existing Conditions: No spawning activity at the site
Effects to PCE: No effect
( 4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, currently
operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout, or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support
bull trout populations by minimizing daily and· day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural
cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation: This rule finds that reservoirs currently oper;:tting under
a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides management for PCEs as currently operated.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington
Effects to PCE: The project does not involve any alteration in the lake level ; therefore it will have no impact on
this PCE.
MS&A Barbee Mill Community Dock Project • 32
(5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to w ater quality and qu antity as a cold-
water source.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: This project will have no impact on s prings , seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface water
(6) Migratory corridor s with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing,
overwintering, and foraging habitats , including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures
or low flows.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted along the site shoreline.
Effects to PCE: The proposed dock will incorporate design components that will decrease negative impacts on
foraging habitat and migratory corridors. The proposed dock will be fully grated and supported by the smallest
number and diameter steel pilings, which will cause minimal physical, biological or water quality impediments.
(See the BE/Habitat Data Report for details).
(7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and f orage
fish.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted along the site shoreline.
Effects to PCE: See 6 above
(8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and s urvival are not
inhibited.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above.
Effects to PCE: Pile driving may produce temporary turbidity impacts. These are expected to be short term and are
not expected to have a significant impact on critical habitat. Any debris a ssociated with the proj ect constructio n
phase will be contained by a silt containment curtain.
Determination of Effect: ''No destruction or adverse modification"
Conservation Measures: Conservation measures for this project are seen in the BE/Habitat Data Report.
MS&A Barb ee Mi ll Com mu nity Do c k Proj e c t • 33