Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Biological_Evaluation_190225_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 RECEIVED 03/13/2019 amorganroth PLANNING DIVISION 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