Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(12 copies double sided) Selland BE 6 9 15 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 2 List of Figures and Attachments Figure Number Page 1. Vicinity map ....................................................................................... 14 2. Site plan .............................................................................................. 15 3. Plan view ............................................................................................. 16 4. Elevation view .................................................................................... 17 5. A-A pier section ................................................................................. 18 6. Existing and proposed native vegetation buffer .......................... 19 7, Existing plant legend ......................................................................... 20 Attachment Number Page 1. Photograph of the site ...................................................................... 21 2. Species list for King County ........................................................ 22-23 3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment .............................................. 24-25 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook ........................................................... 26-27 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound Bull Trout .......................................... 28-29 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 3 Selland Pier Project Biological Evaluation/Lake and Stream Study Report I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location: ¼ Section NW32, Township 24N, Range 05E. 4017 and 4023 Williams Avenue N. Renton, WA 98056 Latitude: 47.52864° N Longitude: 122.20505°W See Figure 1 for project location. B. Site Description: The proposed project is a pier to be located along the common property line between two abutting lots, 4017 and 4023 Williams Ave N, Renton, WA 98056. The properties are located within the Barbee Mill Community, a major waterfront subdivision. The subject property is located along the eastern shore of Lake Washington in the City of Renton (Figures 1-2). The proposed pier would provide moorage and facilitate access to Lake Washington for residents of the property and their guests. Two bodies of water are adjacent to, or flow through, the Barbee Mill Community: Lake Washington and May Creek. The subject property is located along Lake Washington, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance as provided in RMC 4-3-090F1, and a Shoreline of the State under RMC 4-11-190. This Lake Study is prepared in accordance with the requirements of RMC 4-8-120D with respect to the Lake Washington shoreline of the subject property. May Creek, a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2), flows through the Barbee Mill Community. The May Creek open space (a riparian buffer) and a street are located between the two lots and May Creek. The Barbee Mill Community is located on the approximately 22 acre site of the former Barbee Mill Company lumber mill. The Barbee Mill Community has 114 multi-story paired homes, a pond, walking trails and lakefront open space for the use of residents. Lots 23 through 48 are lakefront lots. 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. The subject property is located south of, and was not included in, this extensive remediation. A steel and concrete bulkhead is located along the two parcels. The substrate immediately waterward of the property consists of large and small cobble. A number of factors were considered in determining the location of the proposed pier. In establishing design parameters for the proposed pier, it was required that it not interfere with the general public's use and enjoyment of Lake Washington, that it not pose a navigation hazard to boaters, and that it not interfere with the use of existing or future neighboring docks or piers. C. Lake and Stream Classifications: As mentioned above, as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance (RMC 4-3-090F1), Lake Washington is included in the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-11-190). Lake Washington is a Class 1 lake as it is a perennial salmonid-bearing body of water classified as a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-11-190S1). May Creek is an important salmonid stream that is classified by the City of Renton and the State of Washington as Class 1 waters and included within the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 4 D. Shoreline Restoration: Prior to restoration of the beach in conjunction with vacation of the land, the Lake Washington shoreline north of the subject property 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 the site. Pursuant to the general development site remediation, upland and in-water structures including the timber bulkhead and piling were removed, shoreline rubble was removed, fill soil was excavated to subgrade elevations, toe rock and a temporary quarry spall erosion control berm were installed, and sand, gravel and rock materials were used to construct a beach to mimic natural conditions. Although the area of extensive remediation did not encompass the subject property, a planting buffer of native vegetation (Figure 6) was installed along all the lakefront lots, including the subject property, to environmentally and functionally enhance the entire development shoreline. The Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark for Lake Washington is the line of mean high water (RMC 4-11-150 Definitions 0). The Lake Washington water depth is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks and is at 21.8' of lake elevation. In the course of the Barbee Mill Beach Restoration site remediation, permanent toe rock was installed along the OHW line. As of March 20, 2007, the date a SCUBA survey was conducted for purposes of identifying flora, fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information relative to the Biological Evaluation prepared for the previous community dock project, coir rolls were located along the OHW line within the remediation area. The May Creek OHW mark is the mean high water line of the stream (RMC 4-11-150 Definition O). E. Vegetative Cover of the Site: The study area includes no wetland or flood hazard areas; it does include Lake Washington riparian areas. Prior to the Barbee Mill Beach Restoration project, riparian vegetation was found to be generally absent within the study area as the shoreline behind the bulkhead was paved. In unpaved areas, vegetation noted included Juncus effusus (soft rush) and Iris pseudocaris (a non-native iris). The upland redevelopment required extensive regrading and clearing; a mitigation planting plan was agreed upon that includes planting along the Lake Washington shoreline. In accordance with this mitigation plan, plantings on the subject property have been installed (Figures 6 and 7). In conjunction with construction of the proposed pier, 11 additional native shrubs and trees will be planted. The planting plan details are shown on the full size drawing (Figure 6). F. Ecological Functions of Lake Washington along the Study Area: Previously to the Barbee Mill Community development, the industrial structures and use of the site limited the ecological functions that would otherwise have been provided by Lake Washington and its adjacent riparian area. As a result of the extensive general site restoration work completed north of the subject property, the ecological functions of the portion of the lake within the study area should be greatly enhanced. Previously planted riparian vegetation and additional plantings in conjunction with the proposed pier project will further assist in restoring the ecological functions of Lake Washington. Some of this new vegetation will be overhanging, providing shade and predator protection for fish and aquatic invertebrates. The newly planted riparian vegetation will add significant organic matter to the lake substrate in the form of leaves and woody debris that fall and wash into the lake. This will provide additional source of food, shelter and shade for aquatic invertebrates and fish. This increased vegetation will also provide food and shelter for terrestrial insects, and in turn provide an additional food source for birds and animals that feed upon them. The addition of riparian vegetation to this formerly near-barren site should also help water quality by filtering pollutants, removing nutrients and reducing sediments in any runoff from the adjacent upland development. The increased overhanging vegetation should facilitate the migration of juvenile salmon. G. Fish and Wildlife Use or the Area: Birds: Birds observed on or near the site include hawks, herons, eagles, quail, osprey, cormorants and songbirds. Before the mill structures were demolished, an osprey nest was successfully relocated from the top of the old mill sawdust collector to a platform built on a 25' pole over the water not far from the original nest site. The osprey have ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 5 accepted the new nest and a video camera records their activities for viewing over the Internet. 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 includes the marbled murrelet and the bald eagle. The marbled murrelet 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. Mammals: The only wild mammals reported as observed in the area are deer. Fish: Salmonids observed at the site include salmon and trout. Salmonids known to be present in southern Lake Washington include Puget Sound chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and cutthroat trout. Puget Sound chinook, Puget Sound steelhead and bull trout are all listed as threatened under the ESA. Other fish observed at the site include bass, black crappie, bluegill, pumpkinseed sunfish, tench and yellow perch. The shoreline remediation was designed to be consistent with Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Conservation Plan recommendations. As a result of the remediation, shoreline that was previously unsuitable habitat for fish and other aquatic life due to extensive shoreline modifications and industrial use of the site has been restored. The restored gravel substrate and gently sloping bottom should provide favorable habitat for winter rearing of salmon fry. The new gravel and cobble substrate to the north and the existing cobble on the subject property should be suitable habitat for benthic invertebrates which would likely attract juvenile salmonids. H. Project Details: The proposed pier will be supported by four 10" diameter, two 8” diameter and two 4" diameter galvanized steel piles. It will have a 4’ by 40’ walkway from shore followed by a 6’ by 40’ walkway for a total length of 80’ from the OHWM. Two free standing boat lifts will be installed on either side of the pier. The entire pier will be 100% grated (Figures 2-5). I. Construction Sequence: 1. Mobilize construction barge to the site 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 immediately and placed in debris containers on the barge. 3. Using the barge-based crane and vibratory insertion/extraction system, install (4) at 10” diameter, (2) at 8” diameter and (2) at 4” diameter galvanized steel piles to practical refusal. 4. Cut steel piling as necessary at the appropriate elevation. 5. Weld pre-fabricated steel frame sections onto the piling. Install grated decking and wood fascia on the pier using hand tools. 6. Set boat lifts in place using crane on the barge. 7. Demobilize and dispose of all debris at approved upland disposal site. General Notes: 1. All treatments will be applied and fully cured prior to delivery to the site. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 6 J. 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 Fisheries 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 / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in October of 1999. On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Federal Register / Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 Rules and Regulations). USFWS has designated critical habitat in Lake Washington for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / September 26, 2005 / 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 mm. (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 Fresh et 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 Tabor et 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. Tabor et 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 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 7 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 km. north of this area; the number of Chinook salmon would be expected to be 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 had 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 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. Hammer (2011) reported that the number of chinook varies from 0 to 12 fish annually in May Creek. WDFW reported three live chinook and one redd in 2010 spawner surveys. 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 northern Japan and 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 populations) takes place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are 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 non-native fish threaten the Coastal-Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States (Federal Register, Vol. 64, 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 Sammamish River system. It is questionable 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 of Fish 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. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 8 WDFW has reported steelhead in the lower 3 miles of May Creek (Salmon Scape, 2010). 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 fish, 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. III. 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 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 et al. (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 did 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 used 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 2001a 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 and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure. Migratory pathway alteration: Freshwater: There were no studies specifically investigating the effects of piers on salmonid migration in ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 9 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. In another study, Tabor et al. (2011) reported that, “Juvenile Chinook salmon were rarely observed under an overwater structure during either daytime or nighttime.” There were no details concerning the type of overwater structure where these observations were made – sold decking or grated overwater structures. 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 2 m horizontal distance) were sometimes used 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 to 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 interact 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 2001b). 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 (2001b) 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 this behavioral modification is significant to the fishes’ fitness and survival is relatively unknown.” A study by Williams et al. (2003) at the Mukilteo ferry terminal, found that, “Salmon fry were observed in all nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). The fry were observed under a wide ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 10 range of PAR values (0.0 µmol m-2 s-1 to 2370 µmol m-2 s-1). Fry were observed both outside the terminal and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by the 10-m-wide terminal structure did not appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location.” There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns – that is not in dispute. As seen in the study by Williams and in many other studies (see the literature review by Weitkamp - 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. Increased predation: An additional concern about the impacts of overwater structures on migrating salmon is that they will be forced to move out into deeper water, where they will be consumed by predatory fish species. However, in a study conducted in the marine environment, Williams et al. (2003) noted: We found no evidence that avian, marine mammal, or fish predators consumed more juvenile salmon near WSF terminals than along shorelines without overwater structures. 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. The authors also state, Our analysis of fish diets at the Mukilteo 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 (Fresh et 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. Tabor et 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. 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 defined as, "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 11 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 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: 1. The first 40’ of the fully grated pier will only be 4-feet wide. 2. Only two 4” diameter steel pilings will be used to support the first 40’ of the pier to minimize migration obstacles for young salmonids that prefer the more shallow areas. 3. The construction barge will not be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime. 4. Piles will be driven using a vibratory pile driver to practical refusal. 5. Construction will take place during authorized in water work windows designed to protect listed species and/or critical habitat (July 16 – Dec. 31). 6. Two trees and nine shrubs will be planted in addition to the existing native plants seen in Figures 6 and 7. 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 affect” 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 Selland Pier Project• 12 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 / Vol. 61, No. 102 / May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 56 / March 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations. Feist, Blake E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. FRI-UW-9603, Fish. Res. Inst., UW, Seattle, WA. Fresh, K.L, E. Warner, R. Tabor, and D. Houck. 2000. Migratory behavior of adult Chinook salmon spawning 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 of Lake Washington (draft). WDFW. Hammer, Misty, King County Road Services Division. 2011. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project. Biological Evaluation Report for: Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout as protected under the Endangered Species Act. May Creek, King County, Washington State. Prepared for: King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 201 South Jackson Street Ste 600,Seattle, WA 98104-3856. 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 development 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. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp. Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp. Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp. Rienman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 13 Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 pp. Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S. Kennedy, (ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY. Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to WSDOT/TJSDOT 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 of Engineers. 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 and Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Tabor, R. A. Howard A. Gearns, Charles M. McCoy III1, and Sergio Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2003 and 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503. Tabor, Roger A., Kurt L. Fresh, Richard M. Piaskowski, Howard A. Gearns & Daniel B. Hayes (2011): Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Nearshore Areas of Lake Washington: Effects of Depth, Lakeshore Development, Substrate, and Vegetation, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 31:4, 700-713 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, WA. Williams, G. D., R. M. Thom, D. K. Shreffler, J. A. Southard, L. K. O’Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V. I. Cullinan, R. 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 Related Services Agreement With the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE- AC06-76RLO 1830. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 14 Figure 1. Vicinity map ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 15 Figure 2. Site plan ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 16 Figure 3. Plan view ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 17 Figure 4. Elevation view ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 18 Figure 5. A-A pier section view ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 19 Figure 6. Existing and proposed native vegetation buffer ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 20 Figure 7. Existing plant legend ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 21 Attachment 1. Aerial photograph of the site Arrow indicates the project site. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 22 Attachment 2. Species List for King County LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN KING COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised April 24, 2013) LISTED Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal 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 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 of habitat. 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 PROPOSED North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) – contiguous U.S. DPS CANDIDATE Fisher (Martes pennanti) – West Coast DPS Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) [historic] Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 23 SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belleri) 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 (Falcon peregrines) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) Valley silver spot (Speyer serene brewery) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster curt us (white-top aster) Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort) Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 24 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 substrate necessary 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 of the 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 mean 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 designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for Pacific salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370 .4 km) offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border PFMC, 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California, except areas upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally-impassable barriers. Chinook salmon and coho salmon are the species with designated EFH that are found in Lake Washington C. Proposed Action The details of the proposed project are presented in section of the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study 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 the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report. The project is likely to have no permanent, long-term effects EFH designated for chinook and coho salmon. E. EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures mentioned in the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report will be implemented to minimize possible adverse effects to EFH. 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. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 25 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 Assessment/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 Selland Pier Project• 26 Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: Construction of a new pier on Lake Washington in Renton, This assessment covers the primary constituent elements (50 CFR Part 226, page 74581-2) determined essential to the conservation of Puget 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 physical 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, log 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/steel bulkhead along the site shoreline. 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 supporting 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 Selland Pier Project• 27 Effects Analysis: A complete discussion of the effects of this project is seen in the BE/Lake and Stream Study 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. Only two 4” diameter steel pilings will be used to support the first 40’ of the pier to minimize migration obstacles for young salmonids that prefer the shallowest areas. The construction barge will not be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime. Additional native vegetation will be planted (Figure 6). Determination of Effect: “May affect, not likely to adversely affect” ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MS&A Selland Pier Project• 28 Attachment 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound Bull Trout Applicant: Mark Selland 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 designation. 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 to 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 fine substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) 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 operating 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 Selland Pier Project• 29 (5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity as a cold- water source. Existing Conditions: See 4 above Effects to PCE: This project will have no impact on springs, seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface water (6) Migratory corridors 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. (7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage 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 survival 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 associated with the project construction 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/Lake and Stream Study Report.