Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-05-138
n==D~~ ~L~lo~y~d~&~A~s~s~o~c~ia~t~e~s,~In~c~.~~~~~~~~~ __ ~ ________ __ lU ::~ 38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 42S-888-1905(v/t) rml@centurytcl.net April 12, 2006 TRANSMITIAL Jill K. Ding, Associate Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan Lake Washington/May Creek Delta Dredging LUA05-238, SP, SM, ECF Dear Ms. Ding: APF.' 1 ? ~o '5 L~u RECEIVED Attached please the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) to be implemented for the dewatering area(s) in conjunction with dredging of the May Creek Delta. This TESCP has been prepared as a requested mitigation measure in the Environmental Review Committee Staff, Report and Decision of March 14,2006. If you have any questions, please call. Thank you for your time and consideration of this permit application for Flood Mitigation Dredging on the May Creek Delta. The Barbee Mill Company looks forward to the Public Hearing to be held in Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall on April 18, 2006 at 9:00 AM. Sincerely, LWYD & A~SDCIA1'ES, [NC. J R. Michael Lloyd, PhD / J 425-888-1905(0)/425-785-1357 (cell) ,1, ' · Lake WashingtonIMay Creek Delta Dredging LUAOS·238, SP, SM, ECF Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Dewatering Area Construction Summary This Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) presents discussion of erosion and sedimentation measures to be implemented in associated with dredging on the May Creek Celta. In part this is also viewed as an extension of the Drainage Control Plan presented previously. Project drawings have been previously submitted and are not altered by this plan, This plan has been prepared as a mitigation measure as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Staff, Report and Decision of March 14, 2006; "because of the potential for erosion resulting from the construction afthe dewatering areas.» Narrative Dredging of the May Creek Delta for flood mitigation is anticipated to have minimal erosion or sedimentation impact. As frequently noted in the permit application, the primary purpose for dredging the May Creek Delta is to mitigate those quantifiable erosion and sedimentation impacts derived from upstream sources. As stated in previous Drainage Control Plans that have been submitted to the City of Renton, no existing upland drainages will be altered, impacted during dredging, or In any way changed, No new drainages will be created. Sediments deposited in the May Creek Delta during severe storms are principally rounded rock, gravel, and coarse sand, Finer materials are also delivered from upstream sources in the May Valley, but finer materials (silts and clays) tend to be carried further into Lake Washington away from the delta by the energy of May Creek during storm events, These finer materials gradually settle out as would be expected. Delta sediments are remarkably free draining and rapidly dewater. Most materials can be excavated from the dewatering areas relatively soon after placemtn and transported off site for beneficial reuse. Upland materials comprising the penisula areas proposed for dewatering are remarkably similar in composition to the sediments to be dredged. This should come as little surprise since the source is the same. Upland areas adjacent to the May Creek Delta where dewatering area has been proposed are also principally rounded rock, gravel, and coarse sands that rapidly dewater. Because upland soils are also very permeable, dewatering of dredged sediments has proven to be remarkably effective. Dewatering area soil substrates are well-drained and provide an ideal infiltration media for the purpose of dewatering. 2006-14 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.doe Page 2 of6 , Lake WashingtonIMay Creek Delta Dredging LUAOS·238, SP, SM, ECF The dewatering areas are constructed by simply excavating the center of the dewatering areas, using a portion of the materials for construction of the temporary berm. Essentially the infiltration area is a large sand filter. The use of a sand filter is recognized as a Best Management Practice for removing potential turbidity (derived from finer materials) from stormwater. Previous experience has shown that the dewatering was very effective. The purpose of the bermed dewatering area is fundamentally to reduce the water content of dredged material, so that dredge materials can be efficiently moved and handled. The bermed dewatering areas also eliminates potential turbidity from returning to Lake Washington. As stated previously, upland soils within the temporary dewatering areas (including most of the Barbee Mill Company) are composed principally of rounded rock, gravel, and coarse sands. The soils tend to be very free draining and are not particularly susceptible to erosion. As stated in Volume II of The Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Department of Ecology, 2001), "well-drained and well-graded gravel and gravel mixtures with little or no silt are the least erodible soils. Their high permeability and infiltration capacity helps prevent or delay runoff» The two dewatering areas are located near the May Creek Delta away from substantial impervious areas, steep slopes or any other upland drainages. The volume and energy of potential stormwater run-on is minimaL As a consequence the proposed dewatering areas do not require detention basins, channels, or more involved stormwater conveyance and/or treatment systems. As stated in the Drainage Control Plan, the dewatering areas have two principal purposes: (1) controlling the dewatering of dredged sediments; and (2) prevention of off-site erosion from the upland temporary storage area, The two dredge dewatering areas provide suffiecient sediment volume to handle a anticipated daily dredge volumes. If necessary, both dewatering areas can be operated simultaneously to accommodate greater sediment volume, increase freeboard, or extend dewatering time. All bermed slopes will be less than 2: L After dredging of the MayCreek Delta is completed, the entire storage area will be graded to natural contours and planted with native plants as previously proposed. Alternatively, the raised berms near the shoreline can be retained for future dredging events. Future dredging would require that the dredge bucket is raised over the shoreline plantings before contents are discharged. Each of the 12 Elements of Stormwater Pollution Prevention requirements for the dewatering areas are discussed below. Element 1: Mark Clearing Limits Land disturbing activities will involve excavation and dredging near the shoreline and in the May Creek Delta. Limits for the dewatering areas will be 2006-14 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.doc Page30f6 · Lake WashingtonIMay Creek Delta Dredging LUA05-238, SP, SM, ECF clearly marked, There are no utilities within the footprint of the dewatering areas and the dewatering areas are not part of any facility traffic pattern, No trees will be removed or impacted by project construction, Element 2: Establish Construction Zone Access Construction access to the dewatering area is limited to a single main gate on Lake Washington Blvd, The main gate at Barbee Mill is locked during non- business hours, Paved facility access to the dewatering area will be dry swept, In the event that materials are inadvertently transported to public roads, and sediments will be removed by shovel or pickup sweeping and returned to the dewatering area, Street washing will not be allowed, Element 3: Control Flow Rates There are no properties downstream from the proposed dewatering areas, The dewatering areas are adjacent to the May Creek Delta and flow control to prevent erosion to downstream properties will not be necessary, Rainfall that lands on the sloped side of the bermed areas will flow directly to Lake Washington and the dredge area, Element 4: Install Sediment Controls Native soils (similar in composition to dredge materials) will be retained to construct containment berms as the primary sediment control measure, Past experience has shown this filtering type of BMP to be very effective, Stormwater runoff from the bermed area will be very limited, Element 5: Stabilize Soils As discussed in the narrative above, well-graded sands and gravels are not particulalry susceptible to erosion, The sediment barrier (containment berm) will trap sediment within the dewatering area, The containment berm will be constructed prior to any dredging, Based on previous experience, additional stabilization measures (beyond what has been proposed) will not be required, Nevertheless, at project completion, the shoreline will be planted with protective native plantings to further stabilize any slopes, Element 6: Protect Slopes No exposed or steep shoreline slopes will be created by this project, At project completion, the shoreline will be planted with protective native plantings to further protect the shoeline at the May Creek Delta, 2006-14 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. doc Page 4 of6 · Lake WashingtonIMay Creek Delta Dredging LUA05-238, SP. SM, ECF Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets Not applicable. There are no storm drain inlets near the dredge dewatering areas. Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets Not applicable. There are no adjacent or nearby site conveyance channels or outlets, and none will be designed, altered or constructed as a consequence. Element 9: Control Pollutants Previous testing of May Creek Delta sediments has shown that the sediments are clean rock, gravel and sand, No chemicals, liquid products or other wastes are or will be present on site. Maintenance and/or repair of heavy equipment and vehicles will not be allowed on site. In the event of an oil or hydraulic leak, all residues will be cleaned up immediately. Sufficient oil absorbent boom will be available on the dredge to contain and to collect any petroleum leak or spill. Element 10: Control De-Watering The two dewatering areas have been specifically designed to contain water that is entrained in dredged materials. Dewatering in the context of theis project has a very limited meaning in comparison to that which is implied by trenches, conveyances or other more typical uses by the construction industry. Dewatering of Lake Washington or May Creek is simply not feasible. Element 11: Maintain BMPS Temporary and permanent erosion control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance. Sediment control BMPs will be inspected daily during operations. Temporary control measures and shoreline planting can be allowed to remain as permanent stormwater and bank stabilization measures. In future years it will not be necessary to re-construct the dewatering area berms adjacent to the delta for future flood mitigation dredging in the May Creek Delta. Element 12: Manage the Project Dredging of the May Creek Delta is anticipated to occur on a 3 to 4 year cycle (weather dependent). Dredging is anticipated to take about 2-3 weeks at a relatively low production rate of 400 to 600 yards per day. All shoreline and 2006-14 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.doc Page 5 of6 · Lake WashingtonIMay Creek Delta Dredging LUA05·238. SP. SM, ECF dredging work will comply with Hydraulic Project Approval requirements and will occur only during the allowed fish window in compliance with the Water Quality Certification from the Department of Ecology and provisions of the USACE Maintenance Dredging Permit. All implemented BMPs will be periodically inspected between dredging events and repaired as needed to assure continued performance for future dredging in the May Creek Delta until such time that upstream erosion control measures eliminate the need for dredging of the May Creek Delta as a flood control/ mitigation measure. Selected or potentially applicable BMPs from the Department of Ecology's Storm Water Management Manual (August 2001) are attached. These include: BMP ClOl: Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP Cl02: Buffer Zones BMP Cl05: Stabilized Construction Entrance BMP CI06: Wheel Wash BMP Cl07: Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C140: Dust Control BMP C150: Materials at Hand BMP C162: Scheduling BMP C230: Straw Bale Barriers BMP C232: Gravel Filter BermPreserving Natural Vegetation BMP C233: Silt Fencing BMP C234: Vegetated Strip BMP C235: Straw Wattles BMP C25l: Construction Stormwater Filtration 2006-14 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.doc Page 6 of6 4.1 Source Control BMPs BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications 4-2 The purpose of preserving natural vegetation is to reduce erosion wherever practicable. Limiting site disturbance is the single most effective method. for reducing erosion. For example, conifers can hold up to about 50 percent of all rain that falls during a storm. Up to 20-30 percent of this rain may never reach the ground but is taken up by the tree or evaporates. Another benefit is that the rain held in the tree can be released slowly to the ground after the storm. • Natural vegetation should be preservcd on steep slopes, near perennial and intermittent watercourses or swales, and on building sites in wooded areas. • As required by local governments. Natural vegetation can be preserved in natural clumps or as individual trees, shrubs and vines. The preservation of individual plants is more difficult because heavy equipment is generally used to remove unwanted vegetation. The points to remember when attempting to save individual plants are: • Is the plant worth saving? Consider the location, species, size, age, vigor, and the work involved. Local governments may also have ordinances to save natural vegetation and trees. • Fence or clearly mark areas around trees that are to be saved. It is preferable to keep ground disturbance away from the trees at least as far out as the dripline. Plants need protection from three kinds of injuries: • Construction Equipment -This injury can be above or below the ground level. Da'mage results from scarring, cutting of roots, and compaction of the soil. Placing a fenced buffer zone around plants to be saved prior to construction can prevent construction equipment injuries. • Grade Changes -Changing the natural ground level will alter grades, which affects the plant's ability to obtain the necessary air, water, and minerals. Minor fills usually do not cause problems although sensitivity between species does vary and should be checked. Trees can tolerate fill of 6 inches or less. For shrubs and other plants, the fill should be less. When there are major changes in grade, it may become necessary to supply air to the roots of plants. This can be done by placing a layer of gravel and a tile system over the roots before the fill is made. A tile Volume 11-Construction Storm water Pollution Prevention August 2001 August 2001 system protects a tree from a raised grade. The tile system should be laid out on the original grade leading from a dry well around the tree trunk. The system should then be covered with small stones to allow air to circulate over the root area. Lowering the natural ground level can seriously damage trees and shrubs. The highest percentage of the plant roots are in the upper 12 inches of the soil and cuts of only 2-3 inches can cause serious injury. To protect the roots it may be necessary to terrace the immediate area around the plants to be saved. If roots are exposed, construction of retaining walls may be needed to keep the soil in place. Plants can also be preserved by leaving them on an undisturbed, gently sloping mound. To increase the chances for survival, it is best to limit grade changes and other soil disturbances to areas outside the dripline of the plant. • Excavations -Protect trees and other plants when excavating for drainfields, power, water, and sewer lines. Where possible, the trenches should be routed around trees and large shrubs. When this is not possible, it is best to tunnel under them. This can be done with hand tools or with power augers. If it is not possible to route the trench around plants to be saved, then the following should be observed: Cut as few roots as possible. When you have to cut, cut clean. Paint cut root ends with a wood dressing like asphalt base paint. Backfill the trench as soon as possible. Tunnel beneath root systems as close to the center of the main trunk to preserve most of the important feeder roots. Some problems that can be encountered with a few specific trees are: • Maple, Dogwood, Red alder, Western hemlock, Western red cedar, and Douglas fir do not readily adjust to changes in environment and special care should be taken to protect these trees. • The windthrow hazard of Pacific silver fir and madronna is high, while that of Western hemlock is moderate. The danger of windthrow increases where dense stands have been thinned. Other species (unless they are on shallow, wet soils less than 20 inches deep) have a low wind throw hazard. • Cottonwoods, maples, and willows have water-seeking roots. These can cause trouble in sewer lines and infiltration fields. On the other hand, they thrive in high moisture conditions that other trees would not. • Thinning operations in pure or mixed stands of Grand fir, Pacific silver fir, Noble fir, Sitka spruce, Western red cedar, Western hemlock, Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-3 Maintenance Standards 4-4 Pacific dogwood, and Red alder can cause serious disease problems. Disease can become established through damaged limbs, trunks, roots, and freshly cut stumps. Diseased and weakened trees are also susceptible to insect attack. • Inspect flagged and/or fenced areas regularly to make sure flagging or fencing has not been removed or damaged. If the flagging or fencing has been damaged or visibility reduced, it shall be repaired or replaced immediately and visibility restored. • If tree roots have been exposed or injured, "prune" cleanly with an appropriate pruning saw or lopers directly above the damaged roots and recover with native soils. Treatment of sap flowing trees (fir, hemlock, pine, soft maples) is not advised as sap forms a natural healing barrier. Volume II -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 BMP C102: Buffer Zones Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications Maintenance Standards August 2001 An undisturbed area or strip of natural vegetation or an established suitable planting that will provide a living filter to reduce soil erosion and runoff velocities. Natural buffer zones are used along streams, wetlands and other bodies of water that need protection from erosion and sedimentation. Vegetative buffer zones can be used to protect natural swales and cali be incorporated into the natural landscaping of an area. Critical-areas buffer zones should not be used as sediment treatment areas. These areas shall remain completely undisturbed. The local permitting authority may expand the buffer widths temporarily to allow the use of the expanded area for removal of sediment. • Preserving natural vegetation or plantings in clumps, blocks, or strips is generally the easiest and most successful method. • Leave all unstable steep slopes in natural vegetation. • Mark clearing limits and keep all equipment and construction debris out of the natural areas. Steel construction fencing is the most effective method in protecting sensitive areas and buffers. Alternatively, wire-backed silt fence on steel posts is marginally effective. Flagging alone is typically not effective. • Keep all excavations outside the dripline of trees and shrubs. • Do not push debris or extra soil into the buffer zone area because it will cause damage from burying and smothering. • Vegetative buffer zones for streams, lakes or other waterways shall be established by the local permitting authority or other state or federal permits or approvals. • Inspect the area frequently to make sure flagging remains in place and the area remains undisturbed. Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-5 BMP C105: Stabilized Construction Entrance Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications 4-8 Construction entrances are stabilized to reduce the amount of sediment transported onto paved roads by vehicles or equipment by constructing a stabilized pad of quarry spalls at entrances to construction sites. Construction entrances shall be stabilized wherever traffic will be leaving a construction site and traveling on paved roads or othcr paved areas within 1,000 feet of the site. On large commercial, highway, and road projects, the designer should include enough extra materials in the contract to allow for additional stabilized entrances not shown in the initial Construction SWPPP. It is difficult to determine exactly where access to these projects will take place; additional materials will enable the contractor to install them where needed. • See Figure 4.2 for details. • A separation geotextile shall be placed under the spalls to prevent fine sediment from pumping up into the rock pad. The geotextile shall meet the following standards: Grab Tensile Strength (ASTM 04751) 200 psi min. Grab Tensile Elongation (ASTM 04632) 30% max. Mullen Burst Strength (ASTM 03786-80a) 400 psi min. AOS (ASTM 04751) 20-45 (U.S. standard sieve size) • Consider early installation of the first lift of asphalt in areas that will paved; this can be used as a stabilized entrance. Also consider the installation of excess concrete as a stabilized entrance. During large concrete pours, excess concrete is often available for this purpose. • Hog fuel (wood-based mulch) may be substituted for or combined with quarry spalls in areas that will not be used for permanent roads. Hog fuel is generally less effective at stabilizing construction entrances and should be used only at sites where the amount of traffic is very limited. Hog fuel is not recommended for entrance stabilization in urban areas. The effectiveness of hog fuel is highly variable and it generally requires more maintenance than quarry spalls. The inspector may at any time require the use of quarry spalls if the hog fuel is not preventing sediment from being tracked onto pavement or if the hog fuel is being carried onto pavement. Hog fuel is prohibited in permanent roadbeds because organics in the subgrade soils cause degradation of the sub grade support over time. • Fencing (sec BMPs CI 03 and C104) shall be installed as necessary to restrict traffic to the construction entrance. Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 Maintenance Standards August 2001 • Whenever possible, the entrance shall be constructed on a finn, compacted subgradc. This can substantially increase the effectiveness of the pad and reduce the need for maintenance. • Quarry spalls (or hog fuel) shall be added if the pad is no longer in accordance with the specifications. • If the entrance is not preventing sediment from being tracked onto pavement, then alternative measures to keep the streets free of sediment shall be used. This may include street sweeping, an increase in the dimensions of the entrance, or the installation of a wheel wash. • Any sediment that is tracked onto pavement shall be removed by shoveling or street sweeping. The sediment collected by sweeping shall be removed or stabilized on site. The pavement shall not be cleaned by washing down the street, except when sweeping is ineffective and there is a threat to public safety. If it is necessary to wash the streets, the construction of a small sump shall be considered. The sediment would then be washed into the sump where it can be controlled. • Any quarry spalls that are loosened from the pad, which end up on the roadway shall be removed immediately. • Ifvehicles are entering or exiting the site at points other than the construction entrance(s), fencing (see BMPs CI03 and C\o4) shall be installed to control traffic. • Upon project completion and site stabilization, all construction accesses intended as pennanent access for maintenance shall be ennanently stabilized. Install driveway culvert if there is a roadside ditch present 4"-8" quarry spaUs Geotextile -_.../ 12" min, thickness Driveway shalt meet the requirements of the permitting agency It is recommended that the entrance be crowned so that runoff i olf the pad Provide futl width of ingress/egress area Fi ure 4.2 -Stabilized Construction Entrance Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pol/ution Prevention 4-9 BMP C106: Wheel Wash Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications Maintenance Standards 4-10 Wheel washes reduce the amount of sediment transported onto paved roads by motor vehicles. When a stabilized construction entrance (see BMP C I 05) is not preventing sediment from being tracked onto pavement. • Wheel washing is generally an effective BMP when installed with careful attention to topography. For example, a wheel wash can be detrimental if installed at the top of a slope abutting a right-of-way . where the water from the dripping truck can run unimpeded into the street. • Pressure washing combined with an adequately sized and surfaced pad with direct drainage to a large I O-foot x I O-foot sump can be very effective. Suggested details are shown in Figure 4.3. The Local Permitting Authority may allow other designs. A minimum of 6 inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) over crushed base material or 8 inches over a good subgrade is recommended to pave the wheel wash. Use a low clearance truck to test the wheel wash before paving. Either a belly dump or lowboy will work well to test clearance. Keep the water level from 12 to 14 inches deep to avoid damage to truck hubs and filling the truck tongues with water. Midpoint spray nozzles are only needed in extremely muddy conditions. Wheel wash systems should be designed with a small grade change, 6 to 12 inches for a IO-foot-wide pond, to allow sediment to flow to the low side of pond to help prevent re-suspension of sediment. A drainpipe with a 2-to 3-foot riser should be installed on the low side of the pond to allow for easy cleaning and refilling. Polymers may be used to promote coagulation and flocculation in a closed-loop system. Polyacrylamide (PAM) added to the wheel wash water at a rate of 0.25 -0.5 pounds per 1,000 gallons of water incrcases effectiveness and reduces cleanup time. If PAM is alrcady being used for dust or erosion control and is being applied by a water truck, the same truck can be used to change the wash water. • The wheel wash should start out the day with fresh water. • The wash water should be changed a minimum of once per day. On large earthwork jobs where more than 10-20 trucks per hour are expected, the wash water will need to be changed more often. • Wheel wash or tire bath wastewater shall be discharged to a separate on-site treatment system, sueh as closed-loop recirculation or land application, or to the sanitary sewer with proper local sewer district approval. Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 " Schedule 40 1 Y," schedule 40 for sprayers 7 II 2% Slope 5:1 Slope 5:1 Slope II 2% I--rt:--------Slope II L---.J....",=-~-+_1/1 ..,-----==-I ..... II====~===d Slope A Wheel Wash Plan Elevation View Water level '----1;c-2 ---' Section A-A N.T.S. Figure 4.3 -Wheel Wash Notes: 1. Asphalt construction entrance 6 in. asphalt treated base (ATB). 2. 3-inch trash pump with floats on the suction hose. 3. Midpoint spray nozzles, if needed. . 1:1 Slope 4. 6-inch sewer pipe with butterfly valves. Bottom one is a drain. Locate top pipe's invert 1 foot above bottom of wheel wash. 5. 8 foot x 8 foot sump with 5 feet of catch. Build so can be cleaned with trackhoe. 6. Asphalt curb on the low road side to direct water back to pond. 7. 6-inch sleeve under road. 8. Ball valves. 9. 15 foot. ATB apron to protect ground from splashing water. August 2001 Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-11 -----.------------------------------------------------------------------ BMP C107: Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications Maintenance Standards 4-12 Stabilizing subdivision roads, parking areas, and other onsite vehicle transportation routes immediately after grading reduces erosion caused by construction traffic or runoff. • Roads or parking areas shall be stabilized wherever they are constructed, whether permanent or temporary, for use by construction traffic. • Fencing (see BMPs Ci03 and C104) shall be installed, if necessary, to limit the access of vehicles to only those roads and parking areas that arc stabilized. • On areas that will receive asphalt as part of the project, install the first lift as soon as possible. • A 6-inch depth of 2-to 4-inch crushed rock, gravel base, or crushed surfacing base course shall be applied immediately after grading or utility installation. A 4-inch course of asphalt treated base (ATB) may also be used, or the road/parking area may be paved. It may also be possible to usc cement or calcium chloride for soil stabilization. If cement or cement kiln dust is used for roadbase stabilization, pH monitoring and BMPs are necessary to evaluate and minimize the effects on stormwater. If the area will not be used for permanent roads, parking areas, or structures, a 6-inch depth of hog fuel may also be used, but this is likely to require more maintenance. Whenever possible, construction roads and parking areas shall be placed on a firm, compacted subgrade. • Temporary road gradients shall not exceed IS percent. Roadways shall be carefully graded to drain. Drainagc ditches shall be provided on each side of the roadway in the case of a crowned section, or on one side in the case of a super~elevated section. Drainage ditches shall be directed to a sediment control BMP. • Rather than relying on ditches, it may also be possible to grade the road so that runoff sheet-flows into a heavily vegetated area with a well- developed topsoil. Landscaped areas are not adequate. If this area has at least 50 feet of vegetation, then it is generally preferable to usc the vegetation to treat runoff, rather than a sediment pond or trap. The 50 feet shall not include wetlands. If runoff is allowed to sheetflow through adjacent vegetated areas, it is vital to design the roadways and parking areas so that no concentrated runoff is created. • Storm drain inlets shall be protected to prevent sediment-laden water entering the storm drain system (see BMP C220). • Inspect stabilized areas regularly, especially after large storm events. • Crushed rock, gravel base, hog fuel, etc. shall be added as required to maintain a stable driving surface and to stabilize any areas that have eroded. • Following construction, these areas shall be rcstored to pre-construction condition or bener to prevent future erosion. Volume" -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications August 2001 Seeding is intended to reduce erosion by stabilizing exposed soils. A well-established vegetative cover is one of the most effective methods of reducing erosion. • Seeding may be used throughout the project on disturbed areas that have reached final grade or that will remain unworked for more than 30 days. • Channels that will be vegetated should be installed before major earthwork and hydro seeded with a Bonded Fiber Matrix. The vegetation should be well established (i.e., 75 percent cover) before water is allowed to flow in the ditch. With channels that will have high flows, erosion control blankets should be installed over the hydroseed. If vegetation cannot be established from seed before water is allowed in the ditch, sod should be installed in the bottom of the ditch over hydromulch and blankets. • Retention/detention ponds should be seeded as required. • Mulch is required at all times because it protects seeds from heat, moisture loss, and transport due to runoff. • All disturbed areas shall be reviewed in late August to early September and all seeding should be completed by the end of September. Otherwise, vegetation will not establish itself enough to provide more than average protection. • At final site stabilization, all disturbed areas not otherwise vegetated or stabilized shall be seeded and mulched. Final stabilization means the completion of all soil disturbing activities at the site and the establishment of a permanent vegetative cover, or equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as pavement, riprap, gabions or geotextiles) which will prevent erosion. • Seeding should be done during those seasons most conducive to growth and will vary with the climate conditions of the region. Local experience should be used to determine the appropriate seeding periods. • The optimum seeding windows for western Washington are April 1 through June 30 and September 1 through October l. Seeding that occurs between July 1 and August 30 will require irrigation until 75 percent grass cover is established. Seeding that occurs between October 1 and March 30 will require a mulch or plastic cover until 75 percent grass cover is established. • To prevent seed from being washed away, confirm that all required surface water control measures have been installed. Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-13 ------- 4-14 • The seedbed should be firm and rough. All soil should be roughened no matter what the slope. If compaction is required for engineering purposes, slopes must be track walked before seeding. Backblading or smoothing of slopes greater than 4: 1 is not allowed if they are to be seeded. • New and more effective restoration-based landscape practices rely on deeper incorporation than that provided by a simple single-pass rototilling treatment. Wherever practical the subgrade should be initially ripped to improve long-term permeability, infiltration, and water inflow qualities. At a minimum, permanent areas shall use soil amendments to achieve organic matter and permeability performance defined in engineered soil/landscape systems. For systems that are deeper than 8 inches the rototilling process should be done in multiple lifts, or the prepared soil system shall be prepared properly and then placed to achieve the specified depth. • Organic matter is the most appropriate form of "fertilizer" because it provides nutrients (including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) in the least water-soluble form. A natural system typically releases 2-10 percent of its nutrients annually. Chemical fertilizers have since been formulated to simulate what organic matter does naturally. • In general, 10-4-6 N-P-K (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium) fertilizer can be used at a rate of 90 pounds per acre. Slow-release fertilizers should always be used because they are more efficient and have fewer environmental impacts. It is recommended that areas being seeded for final landscaping conduct soil tests to determine the exact type and quantity of fertilizer needed. This will prevent the over-application of fertilizer. Fertilizer should not be added to the hydromulch machine and agitated more than 20 minutes before it is to be used. If agitated too much, the slow-release coating is destroyed. • There are numerous products available on the market that take the place of chemical fertilizers. These include several with seaweed extracts that are beneficial to soil microbes and organisms. If 100 percent cottonseed meal is used as the mulch in hydroseed, chemical fertilizer may not be necessary. Cottonseed meal is a good source of long-term, slow-release, available nitrogen. • Hydroseed applications shall include a minimum of 1,500 pounds per acre of mulch with 3 percent tackifier. Mulch may be made up of 100 percent: cottonseed meal; fibers made of wood, recycled cellulose, hemp, and kenaf; compost; or blends of these. Tackifier shall be plant- based, such as guar or alpha plantago, or chemical-based such as polyacrylamide or polymers. Any mulch or tackifier product used shall be installed per manufacturer's instructions. Generally, mulches come in 40-50 pound bags. Seed and fertilizer are added at time of application. Volume If -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 August 2001 • Mulch is always required for seeding. Mulch can be applied on top of the seed or simultaneously by hydroseeding. • On steep slopes, Bonded Fiber Matrix (BFM) or Mechanically Bonded Fiber Matrix (MBFM) products should be used. BFMlMBFM products are applied at a minimum rate of 3,000 pounds per acre of mulch with approximately 10 percent tackifier. Application is made so that a minimum of 95 percent soil coverage is achieved. Numerous products are available commercially and should be installed per manufacturer's instructions. Most products require 24-36 hours to cure before a rainfall and cannot be installed on wet or saturated soils. Generally, these products come in 40-50 pound bags and include all necessary ingredients except for seed and fertilizer. BFMs and MBFMs have some advantages over blankets: • No surface preparation required; • Can be installed via helicopter in remote areas; • On slopes steeper than 2.5: I, blanket installers may need to be roped and harnessed for safety; • They are at least $1,000 per acre cheaper installed. In most cases, the shear strength of blankets is not a factor when used on slopes, only when used in channels. BFMs and MBFMs are good alternatives to blankets in most situations where vegetation establishment is the goal. • When installing seed via hydroseeding operations, only about 1/3 of the seed actually ends up in contact with the soil surface. This reduces the ability to establish a good stand of grass quickly. One way to overcome this is to increase seed quantities by up to 50 percent. • Vegetation establishment can also be enhanced by dividing the hydromulch operation into two phases: I. Phase 1-Install all seed and fertilizer with 25-30 percent mulch and tackifier onto soil in the first lift; 2. Phase 2-Install the rest of the mulch and tackifier over the first lift. An alternative is to install the mulch, seed, fertilizer, and tackifier in one lift. Then, spread or blow straw over the top of the hydromulch at a rate of about 800-1000 pounds per acre. Hold straw in place with a standard tackifier. Both of these approaches will increase cost moderately but will greatly improve and enhance vegetative establishment. The increased cost may be offset by the reduced need for: I. Irrigation 2. Reapplication of mulch 3. Repair of failed slope surfaces Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-15 4-16 This technique works with standard hydromulch (1,500 pounds per acre minimum) and BFMIMBFMs (3,000 pounds per acre minimum). • Areas to be permanently landscaped shall provide a healthy topsoil that reduces the need for fertilizers, improves overall topsoil quality, provides for better vegetal health and vitality, improves hydrologic characteristics, and reduces the need for irrigation. This can be accomplished in a number of ways: Recent research has shown that the best method to improve till soils is to amend these soils with compost. The optimum mixture is approximately two parts soil to one part compost. This equates to 4 inches of compost mixed to a depth of 12 inches in till soils. Increasing the concentration of compost beyond this level can have negative effects on vegetal health, while decreasing the concentrations can reduce the benefits of amended soils. Please note: The compost should meet specifications for Grade A quality compost in Ecology Publication 94-038. Other soils, such as gravel or cobble outwash soils, may require different approaches, Organics and fines easily migrate through the loose structure of these soils. Therefore, the importation of at least 6 inches of quality topsoil, underlain by some type of filter fabric to prevent the migration of fmes, may be more appropriate for these soils. Areas that already have good topsoil, such as undisturbed areas, do not require soil amendments. • Areas that will be seeded only and not landscaped may need compost or meal-based muleh included in the hydroseed in order to establish vegetation. Native topsoil should be re-installed on the disturbed soil surface before application. • Seed that is installed as a temporary measure may be installed by hand if it will be covered by straw, mulch, or topsoil. Seed that is installed as a permanent measure may be installed by hand on small areas (usually less than 1 acre) that will be covered with mulch, topsoil, or erosion blankets. The seed mixes listed below include recommended mixes for both temporary and permanent seeding. Thesc mixes, with the exception of the wetland mix, shall be applied at a rate of 120 pounds per acre. This rate can be reduced if soil amendments or slow- releasc fertilizers are used. Local suppliers or the local conservation district should be consulted for their recommendations because the appropriate mix depends on a variety of factors, including location, exposure, soil type, slope, and expected foot traffic. Alternative seed mixes approved by the local authority may be used. Volume" -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 August 2001 Table 4.1 represents the standard mix for those areas where just a temporary vegetative cover is required. Table 4.1 Temporary Erosion Control Seed Mix % Weight '% Purity % Germination Chewings or annual blue grass 40 98 90 Festuca I1Ibra var. commulafa or P~Q anna Perennial rye -50 98 90 Lolium perenne Redtop or colonial bentgrass 5 92 85 A)Zrosris alba or AKrostis lenuis White dutch clover 5 98 90 Tr@lium repens Table 4.2 provides just one recommended possibility for landscaping seed. Table 4.2 Landscaping Seed Mix % Weieht 0/0 Puritv % Germination Perennial rye blend 70 98 90 Lolium perenne Chewings and red fescue blend 30 98 90 Fesluca robra var. commUlala or Festuca rubra This turf seed mix in Table 4.3 is for dry situations where there is no need for much water. The advantage is that this mix requires very little maintenance. Table 4.3 Low-Growin!! Turf Seed Mix % Weight % Purity % Germination Dwarf tall fescue (several varieties) 45 98 Festuca arundinacea var. Dwarfperennial rye (Barclay) 30 98 Lolium perenne var. barclay Red fescue 20 98 Fesluca rubra Colonial bent grass 5 98 Agroslis lenuis Table 4.4 presents a mix recommended for bioswales and other intermittently wet areas. Table 4.4 Bioswale Seed Mix· 90 90 90 90 % Weight % Purity % Germination Tall or meadow fescue 75-80 98 90 Festuca arundinacea or Festuca elulior Seaside/Creeping bentgrass 10-15 92 85 Agroslis palustris Redtop bentgrass 5-10 90 80 AKroslis alba or ARroslis KiKuntea * Modified Bnargreen. Inc. Hydroseedmg GUide Wetlandf Seed MIx Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-17 Maintenance Standards 4-18 The seed mix shown in Table 4.5 is a recommended low-growing, relatively non-invasive seed mix appropriate for very wet areas that are not regulated wetlands. Other mixes may be appropriate, depending on the soil type and hydrology of the area. Recent research suggests that bentgrass (agrostis sp.) should be emphasized in wet-area seed mixes. Apply this mixture at a rate of 60 pounds per acre. Table 4.5 Wet Area Seed Mix· % Weieht % Purity % Germination Tall or meadow fescue 60-70 98 90 F es/uca arundinacea or Fesluca elatior Seaside/Creeping bentgrass 10-15 98 85 AJ!yostis J)a/ustris Meadow foxtail 10-15 90 80 Alepocuros pralensis Alsike clover 1-6 98 90 Trifolium hy/Jridum Redtop benlgr.ss 1-6 92 85 AJ!rostis alba .. • Modified Bnargreen, Inc. l1ydroseedmg GUide Wetlands Seed MIX The meadow seed mix in Table 4.6 is recommended for areas that will be maintained infrequently or not at all and where colonization by native plants is desirable. Likely applications include rural road and utility right- of-way. Seeding should take place in September or very early October in order to obtain adequate establishment prior to the winter months. The appropriateness of clover in the mix may need to be considered, as this can be a fairly invasive species. If the soil is amended, the addition of clover may not be necessary. Table 4.6 Meadow Seed Mix 0/0 Weieht % Purity % Germination Redtop or Oregon bentgrass 20 92 85 Agrostis alba or Agrostis oregonensis Red fescue 70 98 90 Festuca rubra White dutch clover 10 98 90 Trifolium repens • Any seeded areas that fail to establish at least 80 percent cover (100 percent cover for areas that receive sheet or concentrated flows) shall be reseeded. If reseeding is ineffective, an alternate method, such as sodding, mulching, or netslblankets, shall be used. If winter weather prevents adequate grass growth, this time limit may be relaxed at the discretion of the local authority when sensitive areas would otherwise be protected. Volume 11-Construction Storm water Pollution Prevention August 2001 August 2001 • After adequate cover is achieved, any areas that experience erosion shall be reseeded and protected by mulch. If the erosion problem is drainage related, the problem shall be fixed and the eroded area reseeded and protected by mulch. • Seeded areas shall be supplied with adequate moisture, but not watered to the extent that it causes runoff. Volume II -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-19 BMP C140: Dust Control Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications 4-40 Dust control prevents wind transport of dust from disturbed soil surfaces onto roadways, drainage ways, and surface waters. o In areas (including roadways) subject to surface and air movement of dust where on-site and off-site impacts to roadways, drainage ways, or surface waters are likely. o Vegetate or mulch areas that will not receive vehicle traffic. In areas where planting, mulching, or paving is impractical, apply gravel or landscaping rock. o Limit dust generation by clearing only those areas where immediate activity will take place, Icaving the remaining area(s) in the original condition, if stable. Maintain the original ground cover as long as practical. o Construct natural or artificial windbreaks or windscreens. These may be designed as enclosures for small dust sources. o Sprinkle the site with water until surface is wet. Repeat as needed. To prevent carryout of mud onto street, refer to Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C I 05). o Irrigation water can be used for dust control. Irrigation systems should be installed as a first step on sites where dust control is a concern. o Spray exposed soil areas with a dust palliative, following the manufacturer's instructions and cautions regarding handling and application. Used oil is prohibited from use as a dust suppressant. Local governments may approve other dust palliatives such as calcium chloride or PAM. o PAM (BMP C 126) added to water at a rate of 0.5 Ibs. per 1,000 gallons of water per acre and applied from a water truck is more effective than water alone. This is due to the increased infiltration of water into the soil and reduced evaporation. In addition, small soil particles are bonded together and are not as easily transported by wind. Adding PAM may actually reduce the quantity of water needed for dust control, especially in eastern Washington. Since the wholesale cost of PAM is about $ 4.00 per pound, this is an extremely cost- effective dust control method. Techniques that can be used for unpaved roads and lots include: o Lower speed limits. High vehicle speed increases the amount of dust stirred up from unpaved roads and lots. o Upgrade the road surface strength by improving particle size, shape, and mineral types that make up the surfacc and base materials. Volume 1/-Construction Storm water Pollution Prevention August 2001 Maintenance Standards August 2001 • Add surface gravel to reduce the source of dust emission. Limit the amount of fine particles (those smaller than .075 mm) to 10 to 20 percent. • Use geotextile fabrics to increase the strength of new roads or roads undergoing reconstruction. • Encourage the use of alternate, paved routes, if available. • Restrict usc by tracked vehicles and heavy trucks to prevent damage to road surface and base. • Apply chemical dust suppressants using the admix method, blending the product with the top few inches of surface material. Suppressants may also be applied as surface treatments. • Pave unpaved permanent roads and other trafficked areas. • Use vacuum street sweepers. • Remove mud and other dirt promptly so it does not dry and then tum into dust. • Limit dust-causing work on windy days. • Contact your local Air. Pollution Control Authority for guidance and training on other dust control measures. Compliance with the local Air Pollution Control Authority constitutes compliance with this BMP. Respray area as necessary to keep dust to a minimum. Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pol/ution Prevention 4-41 BMP C150: Materials On Hand Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications Maintenance Standards 4-42 Quantities of erosion prevention and sediment control materials can be kept on the project site at all times to be used for emergency situations such as unexpected heavy summer rains. Having these materials on-site reduces the time needed to implement BMPs when inspections indicate that existing BMPs are not meeting the Construction SWPPP requirements. In addition, contractors can save money by buying some materials in bulk and storing them at their office or yard. • Construction projects of any size or type can benefit from having materials on hand. A small commercial development project could have a roll of plastic and some gravel available for immediate protection of bare soil and temporary berm construction. A large earthwork project, such as highway construction, might have several tons of straw, several rolls of plastic, flexible pipe, sandbags, geotextile fabric and steel "T" posts. • Materials are stockpiled and readily available before any site clearing, grubbing, or earthwork begins. A large contractor or developer could keep a stockpile of materials that are available to be used on several projects. • If storage space at the project site is at a premium, the contractor could maintain the materials at their office or yard. The office or yard must be less than an hour from the project site. Depending on project type, size, complexity, and length, materials and quantities will vary. A good minimum that will cover numerous situations includes: Material Measure Quantitv Clear Plastic, 6 mil 100 foot roll 1-2 Drainoioe, 6 or 8 inch diameter 25 foot section 4-6 Sandbags, filled each 25-50 Straw Bales for mulching, aoorox. 50# each 10-20 ~~alls ton 2-4 Washed Gravel cubic yard 2-4 Geotextile Fabric 100 foot roll 1-2 Catch Basin Inserts each 2-4 Steel "T" Posts each 12-24 • All materials with the exception of the quarry spalls, steel "T" posts, and gravel should be kept covered and out of both sun and rain. • Re-stock materials used as needed. Volume II -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 BMP C162: Scheduling Purpose Conditions of Use Design Considerations August 2001 Sequencing a construction projcct reduces the amount and duration of soil exposed to erosion by wind, rain, runoff, and vehiclc tracking. The construction sequence schedulc is an orderly listing of all major land- disturbing activitics together with the nccessary erosion and scdimentation control mcasures planned for the project. This type of schedule guides the contractor on work to be done before other work is started so that serious erosion and sedimentation problems can be avoided. Following a specified work schcdule that coordinates the timing ofland- disturbing activities and the installation of control measures is perhaps the most cost-effective way of controlling erosion during construction. The removal of surface ground cover leaves a sitc vulnerable to accelcrated erosion. Construction procedures that limit land clearing, provide timely installation of erosion and sedimentation controls, and restore protcctive covcr quickly can significantly reduce the erosion potential of a site. o A void rainy periods. o Schedule projects to disturb only small portions of the sitc at anyone time. Complcte grading as soon as possible. Immediately stabilizc the disturbed portion before grading thc next portion. Practicc staged seeding in order to revegetate cut and fill slopes as the work progresscs. Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-49 BMP C180: Small Project Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications 4-50 To prevent the discharge of sediment and other pollutants to the maximum extent practicable from small construction projects. On small construction projects, those adding or replacing less than 2,000 square feet of impervious surface or clearing less than 7,000 square feet. • Plan and implement proper clearing and grading of the site. It is most important only to clear the areas needed, thus keeping exposed areas to a minimum. Phase clearing so that only those areas that are actively being worked are uncovered. Note: Clearing limits should be flagged in the lot or area prior to initiating clearing. • Soil shall be managed in a manner that does not pennanently compact or deteriorate the tinal soil and landscape system. If disturbance andlor compaction occur the impact must be corrected at the end of the construction activity. This shall include restoration of soil depth, soil quality, penneability, and percent organic matter. Construction practices must not cause damage to or compromise the design of permanent landscape or infiltration areas. • Locate excavated basement soil a reasonable distance behind the curb, such as in the backyard or side yard area. This will increase the distance eroded soil must travel to reach the stonn sewer system. Soil piles should be covered until the soil is either used or removed. Piles should be situated so that sediment does not run into the street or adjoining yards. • Backfill basement walls as soon as possible and rough grade the lot. This will eliminate large soil mounds, which are highly erodible, and prepares the lot for temporary cover, which will further reduce erosion potential. • Remove excess soil from the site as soon as possible after backfilling. This will eliminate any sediment loss from surplus fill. • If a lot has a soil bank higher than the curb, a trench or benn should be installed moving the bank several feet behind the curb. This will reduce the occurrence of gully and rill erosion while providing a storage and settling area for stonnwater. • The construction entrance should be stabilized where traffic will be leaving the construction site and traveling on paved roads or other paved areas within 1,000 feet of the site. Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pol/ution Prevention August 2001 August 2001 • Provide for periodic street cleaning to remove any sediment that may have been tracked out. Sediment should be removed by shoveling or sweeping and carefully removed to a suitable disposal area where it will not be re-eroded. • Utility trenches that run up and down slopes must be backfilled within seven days. Cross-slope trenches may remain open throughout construction to provide runoff interception and sediment trapping, provided that they do not convey turbid runoff off site. Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-51 BMP C230: Straw Bale Barrier Purpose Conditions of Use Design and J nstallation Specifications 4-84 To decrease the velocity of sheet flows and intercept and detain small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas ofJimited extent, preventing sediment from leaving the site. See Figure 4.18 for details on straw bale barriers. • Below disturbed areas subject to sheet and rill erosion. • Straw bales are among the most used and least effective BMPs. The best use of a straw bale is hand spread on the site. • Where the size of the drainage area is no greater than 114 acre per 100 feet of barrier length; the maximum slope length behind the barrier is 100 feet; and the maximum slope gradient behind the barrier is 2: l. • Where effectiveness is required for less than three months. • Under no circumstances should straw bale barriers be constructed in streams, channels, or ditches. • Straw bale barriers should not be used where rock or hard surfaces prevent the full and uniform anchoring of the barrier. • Bales shall be placed in a single row, lengthwise on the contour, with ends of adjacent bales tightly abutting one another. • All bales shall be either wire-bound or string-tied. Straw bales shall be installed so that bindings arc oriented around the sides rather than along the tops and bottoms of the bales in order to prevent deterioration of the bindings. • The barrier shall be entrenched and backfilled. A trench shall be excavated the width of a bale and the length of the proposed barrier to a minimum depth of 4 inches. The trench must be deep enough to remove all grass and other material that might allow underflow. After the bales are staked and chinked (tilled by wedging), the excavated soil shall be backfilled against the barrier. Backfill soil shall conform to the ground level on the downhill side and shall be built up to 4 inches against the uphill side of the barrier. • Each bale shall be securely anchored by at least two stakes or re-bars driven through the bale. The first stake in each bale shall be driven toward the previously laid bale to force the bales together. Stakes or re-bars shall be driven deep enough into thc ground to securely anchor thc bales. Stakes should not extend above the bales but instead should be driven in flush with the top of the bale for safety reasons. • The gaps bctween the bales shall be chinked (filled by wedging) with straw to prevent water from escaping between the bales. Loosc straw scattered over the area immediately uphill from a straw bale barrier tends to increasc barrier efficiency. Wedging must be done carefully in order not to separate the bales. Volume" -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 Maintenance Standards August 2001 • Straw bale barriers shall be inspected immediately after each runoff- producing rainfall and at least daily during prolonged rainfall. • Close attention shall be paid to the repair of damaged bales, end runs, and undercutting beneath bales. • Necessary repairs to barriers or replacement of bales shall be accomplished promptly. • Sediment deposits should be removed after each runoff-producing rainfall. They must be removed when the level of deposition reaches approximately one-half the height of the barrier. • Any sediment deposits remaining in place after the straw bale barrier is no longer required shall be dressed to conform to the existing grade, prepared and seeded. • Straw bales used as a temporary straw bale barrier shall be removed after project completion and stabilization to prevent sprouting of unwanted vegetation. Volume 11-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-85 NOTES, 1. The straw bales shall be placed on slope contour. 2. Bales 10 be placed in a row with Ihe ends tightly abutting. 3. Key in bales to pre\'ent erosion or flow under bales. Figure 4.18 Straw Bale Barrier 4-86 Volume II -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 BMP C232: Gravel Filter Berm Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications Maintenance Standards 4-88 A gravel filter benn is constructed on rights-of-way or traffic areas within a construction site to retain sediment by using a filter berm of gravel or crushed rock. Where a temporary measure is needed to retain sediment from rights-of- way or in traffic areas on construction sites. • Benn material shall be % to 3 inches in size, washed well-grade gravel or crushed rock with less than 5 percent fines. • Spacing ofbenns: Every 300 feet on slopes less than 5 percent -Every 200 feet on slopes between 5 percent and 10 percent -Every 100 feet on slopes greater than 10 percent • Benn dimensions: I foot high with 3: I side slopes - 8 linear feet per I cfs runoff based on the lO-year, 24-hour design stonn • Regular inspection is required. Sediment shall be removed and filter material replaced as needed. Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 BMP C233: Silt Fence Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specifications August 2001 Use of a silt fence reduces the transport of coarse sediment from a construction site by providing a temporary physical barrier to sediment and reducing the runoff velocities of overland flow. See Figure 4.20 for details on silt fence construction. • Silt fence may be used downslope of all disturbed areas. • Silt fence is not intended to treat concentrated flows, nor is it intended to treat substantial amounts of overland flow. Any concentrated flows must be conveyed through the drainage system to a sediment pond. The only circumstance in which overland flow can be treated solely by a silt fence, rather than by a sediment pond, is when the area draining to the fence is one acre or less and flow rates are less than 0.5 cfs. • Silt fences should not be constructed in streams or used in V -shaped ditches. They are not an adequate method of silt control for anything deeper than sheet or overland flow. Joints in filter fabric shall be spliced at posts. Use staples, wire rings or equivalent to attach fabric to posts 2"x2~ by 14 Ga. wire or equivalent, if standard strength fabric used -. Filter fabric-- c E N I I ~----~~~x -' -~ : ---Minimum 4"x4" trench /; / lJ~n~ I-~ / ~ Backfill trench With native 5011 ~---.-i Post spacmg may be Increased '\. or 3/4~-1 5" washed gravel / to 8' If Wife backing IS used "- 2"x2" wood posts, steel fence posts, or equivalent Figure 4.20 -Silt Fence • Drainage area of I acre or less or in combination with scdiment basin in a larger site. • Maximum slope steepness (normal (perpendicular) to fence line) I: l. • Maximum sheet or overland flow path length to the fence of 100 feet. • No flows greater than 0.5 cfs. • The geotextile used shall meet the following standards. All geotextile properties listed below arc minimum average roll values (i.e., the test result for any sampled roll in a lot shall meet or exceed the values shown in Table 4.10): Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-89 4-90 Table 4.10 Geotextile Standards Polymeric Mesh AOS 0.60 mm maximum for slit film wovens (#30 sieve). 0.30 (ASTM D4751) mm maximum for all other geotextile types (#50 sieve). 0.15 nun minimum for all fabric types (#100 sieve). Water Permittivity 0.02 sec-minimum (ASTM D4491) Grab Tensile Strength 180 Ibs. Minimum for extra strength fabric. (ASTM D4632) 100 Ibs minimum for standard strength fabric. Grab Tensile Strength 30% maximum (ASTM D4632) Ultraviolet Resistance 70% minimum (ASTM D4355) • Standard strength fabrics shall be supported with wire mesh, chicken wire, 2-inch x 2-inch wire, safety fence, or jute mesh to increase the strength of the fabric. Silt fence materials are available that have synthetic mesh backing attached. • Filter fabric material shall contain ultraviolet ray inhibitors and stabilizers to providc a minimum of six months of expected usable construction life at a temperature range ofO°F. to 120°F. • 100 percent biodegradable silt fence is available iliat is strong, long lasting, and can be left in place after the project is completed, if permitted by local regulations. • Standard Notes for construction plans and specifications follow. Refer to Figure 4.20 for standard silt fence details. The contractor shall install and maintain temporary silt fences at the locations shown in the Plans. The silt fences shall be constructed in the areas of clearing, grading, or drainage prior to starting those activities. A silt fence shall not be considered temporary if the silt fence must function beyond the life of the contract. The silt fence shall prevent soil carried by runoff watcr from going beneath, through, or over the top of the silt fence, but shall allow the water to pass through the fence. The minimum height of the top of silt fence shall be 2 feet and the maximum height shall be 21, feet above the original ground surface. The geotextile shall be sewn together at the point of manufacture, or at an approved location as determined by the Engineer, to form geotextile lengths as required. All sewn seams shall be located at a support post. Alternatively, two sections of silt fence can be overlapped, provided the Contractor can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Engineer, iliat the overlap is long enough and that the adjacent fence sections are close enough together to prevent silt laden water from escaping through the fence at the overlap. Volume /I -Construction Storm water Pollution Prevention August 2001 August 2001 The geotextile shall be attached on the up-slope side of the posts and support system with staples, wire, or in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The geotextile shall be attached to the posts in a manner that reduces the potential for geotextile tearing at the staples, wire, or other connection device. Silt fence back-up support for the geotextile in the form of a wire or plastic mesh is depcndent on the properties of the geotextile selected for usc. If wire or plastic back-up mesh is used, the mesh shall be fastened securely to the up-slope of the posts with the geotextile being up-slope of the mesh back-up support. The geotextile at the bottom of the fence shall be buried in a trench to a minimum depth of 4 inches below the ground surface. The trench shall be backfilled and the soil tamped in place over the buried portion of the geotextile, such that no flow can pass beneath the fence and scouring can not occur. When wire or polymeric back-up support mesh is used, the wire or polymeric mesh shall extend into the trench a minimum of 3 inches. The fence posts shall be placed or driven a minimum of 18 inches. A minimum depth of 12 inches is allowed if topsoil or other soft subgrade soil is not present and a minimum depth of 18 inches cannot be reached. Fence post depths shall be increased by 6 inches if the fence is located on slopes of 3: I or steeper and the slope is perpendicular to the fence. If required post depths cannot be obtained, the posts shall be adequately secured by bracing or guying to prevent overturning of the fence due to sediment loading. Silt fences shall be located on contour as much as possible, except at the ends of the fence, where the fence shall be turned uphill such that the silt fence captures the runoff water and prevents water from flowing around the end of the fence. If the fence must cross contours, with the exception of the ends of the fence, gravel check dams placed perpendicular to the back of the fence shall be used to minimize concentrated flow and erosion along the back of the fence. The gravel check dams shall be approximately 1- foot deep at the back of the fence. It shall be continued perpendicular to the fence at the same elevation until the top of the check dam intercepts the ground surface behind the fence. The gravel check dams shall consist of crushed surfacing base course, gravel backfill for walls, or shoulder ballast. The gravel check dams shall be located every 10 feet along the fence where the fence must cross contours. The slope of the fence line where contours must be crossed shall not be stceper than 3: 1. Wood, stcel or equivalent posts shall be used. Wood posts shall have minimum dimensions of2 inches by 2 inches by 3 feet minimum length, and shall be free of defects such as knots, splits, or gouges. Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-91 4-92 Steel posts shall consist of either size No.6 rebar or larger, ASTM A 120 steel pipe with a minimum diameter of I-inch, U, T, L, or C shape steel posts with a minimum weight of 1.35 Ibs./ft. or other steel posts having equivalent strength and bending resistance to the post sizes listed. The spacing of the support posts shall be a maximum of6 feet. Fence back-up support, ifused, shall consist of steel wire with a maximum mesh spacing of 2 inches, or a prefabricated polymeric mesh. The strength of the wire or polymeric mesh shall be equivalent to or greater than 180 Ibs. grab tensile strength. The polymeric mesh must be as resistant to ultraviolet radiation as the geotextile it supports. • Silt fence installation using the slicing method specification details follow. Rcfer to Figure 4.21 for slicing method details. The base of both end posts must be at least 2 to 4 inches above the top of the silt fence fabric on the middle posts for ditch checks to drain properly. Use a hand levcl or string level, if necessary, to mark base points before installation. Install posts 3 to 4 feet apart in critical retention areas and 6 to 7 feet apart in standard applications. Install posts 24 inches deep on the downstream side of the silt fence, and as close as possible to the fabric, enabling posts to support the fabric from upstream water pressure. Install posts with the nipples facing away from the silt fence fabric. Attach the fabric to each post with three ties, all spaced within the top 8 inches of the fabric. Attach each tic diagonally 45 degrees through the fabric, with each puncture at least I inch vertically apart. In addition, each tie should be positioned to hang on a post nipple when tightening to prevent sagging. Wrap approximately 6 inches of fabric around the end posts and secure with 3 ties. No more than 24 inches of a 36-inch fabric is allowed above ground level. The rope lock system must be used in all ditch check applications. The installation should be checked and corrected for any deviation before compaction. Use a flat-bladed shovel to tuck fabric deeper into the ground if necessary. Compaction is vitally important for effective results. Compact the soil immediately next to the silt fence fabric with the front wheel of the tractor, skid steer, or roller exerting at least 60 pounds per square inch. Compact the upstream side first and then each side twice for a total of four trips. Volume /I -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 Maintenance Standards August 2001 o Any damage shall be repaired immediately. o If concentrated flows are evident uphill of the fence, they must be intercepted and conveyed to a sediment pond. o It is important to check the uphill side ofthc fence for signs of the fence clogging and acting as a barrier to flow and then causing channelization of flows parallel to the fence. If this occurs, replace the fence or remove the trapped sediment. o Sediment deposits shall either be removed when the deposit reaches approximately one-third the height of the silt fence, or a second silt fence shall be installed. o If the filter fabric (geotextile) has deteriorated due to ultraviolet breakdown, it shall be replaced . ...... Oppation -.... -06 nvn WdIh) • GaT &PACING= r ". ••. on ope" rufl. _ ............ :clFSbdc I 18" ----- • lMze w.. .. per past, .. wiINn 1q) 8' 01 CIIbk:. • PoIIIion eacfllMt<llagOnlll)'. ~ noIeI.....ueat)' • ........,,01,...~ • Heng .... c:h tlt 011 II poa nIppe IItId IIghlef1 ~. UN cable tIet. (5(Ibf;I 01101. .... Roa of sa renee 3k::klg bmde (1 8 InIT'I wid!;h) Silt Fenco t 200-3OOmm I "'" ........ ..... compacoon Vlbratcwy plow is not acceptable because of horizontal compaction Figure 4.21 -Silt Fence Installation by Slicing Method Volume 1/-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-93 , ' BMP C234: Vegetated Strip Purpose Conditions of Use Design and Installation Specification., Maintenance Standards 4-94 Vegetated strips reduce the transport of coarse sediment from a construction site by providing a temporary physical barrier to sediment and reducing the runoff velocities of overland flow. • Vegetated strips may be used downslope of all disturbed areas. • Vegetated strips arc not intended to treat concentrated flows, nor are they intended to treat substantial amounts of overland flow. Any concentrated flows must be conveyed through thc drainage system to a sediment pond. The only circumstance in which overland flow can be treated solely by a strip, rather than by a sediment pond, is when the following criteria are met (see Table 4.11): Table 4.11 Ve!letated Strips Average SluDe Slo~e Percent FluwJlath Length 1.5H: I V or less 67% or less 100 feet 2H: IV or less 50% or less 115 feet 4H: I V or less 25% or less ISO feet 6H:IV or less 16.7% or less 200 feet I OH: I V or less 10% or less 250 feet • The vegetated strip shall consist of a minimum of a 25-foot wide continuous strip of dense vegetation with a permeable topsoil. Grass- covered, landscaped areas arc generally not adequate because the volume of sediment overwhelms the grass. Ideally, vegetated strips shall consist of undisturbed native growth with a well-developed soil that allows for infiltration of runoff. • The slope within the strip shall not exceed 4H: I V. • The uphill boundary of the vegetated strip shall be delineated with clearing limits. • Any areas damaged by erosion or construction activity shall be seeded immediately and protccted by mulch. • If more than 5 feet of the original vegetated strip width has had vegetation removed or is being eroded, sod must be installed. • If there arc indications that concentrated flows are traveling across the buffer, surface water controls must be installed to reduce the flows entering the buffer, or additional perimeter protection must be installed. Volume II -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 BMP C235: Straw Wattles Purpose Conditions of Use Design Criteria August 2001 Straw wattles are temporary erosion and sediment control barriers consisting of straw that is wrapped in biodegradable tubular plastic or similar encasing material. They reduce the velocity and can spread the flow of rill and sheet runoff, and can capture and retain sediment. Straw wattles are typically 8 to 10 inches in diameter and 25 to 30 feet in length. The wattles are placed in shallow trenches and staked along the contour of disturbed or newly constructed slopes. See Figure 4.22 for typical construction details. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disturbed areas that require immediate erosion protection. Exposed soils during the period of short construction delays, or over winter months. On slopes requiring stabilization until permanent vegetation can be established. Straw wattles are effective for one to two seasons. If conditions are appropriate, wattles can be staked to the ground using willow cuttings for added revegetation. Rilling can occur bencath wattles if not propcrly entrenched and water can pass between wattles if not tightly abutted together. It is critical that wattles are installed perpendicular to the flow direction and parallel to the slope contour. Narrow trenches should be dug across the slope on contour to a depth of 3 to 5 inches on clay soils and soils with gradual slopes. On loose soils, steep slopes, and areas with high rainfall, the trenches should be dug to a depth of 5 to 7 inches, or 112 to 2/3 of the thickness of the wattle. o Start building trenches and installing wattles from the base of the slope and work up. Excavated material should be spread evenly along the uphill slope and compacted using hand tamping or other methods. o Construct trenches at contour intervals of 3 to 30 feet apart depending on the steepness of the slope, soil type, and rainfall. The steeper the slope the closer together the trenches. o Install the wattles snugly into the trenches and abut tightly end to end. Do not overlap the ends. o Install stakes at each end of the wattle, and at 4-foot centers along entire length of wattle. o Ifrequired, install pilot holes for the stakes using a straight bar to drive holes through the wattle and into the soil. o At a minimum, wooden stakes should be approximately 3/4 x 3/4 x 24 inches. Willow cuttings or 3/8-inch rebar can also be used for stakes. Volume 1/ -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-95 . .' , . Maintenance Standards NOTE: • Stakes should be driven through the middle of the wattle, leaving 2 to 3 inches of the stake protruding above the wattle. • Wattles may require maintenance to ensure they arc in contact with soil and thoroughly entrenched, especially after significant rainfall on steep sandy soils. • Inspect the slope after significant storms and repair any areas where wattles are not tightly abutted or water has scoured beneath the wattles. Straw Rolls Must Be Placed Along Slope Contours /~ A ~>~>-/~) 10'-25' (3-8m) T~<'»\ ~ ~~~ 1 'A ~ Spacing Depends on Soli Type and Slope Steepness " ) «.:«"5-)\ Sediment, organic matter, /-« ~ rc and nalive seeds are /»'>«." captured behind the rolls. 'A ~)0 ~ , ~ i ~ 1. Straw roll installation requires the placement and secure staking of the roll in a trench, 3~x5~ (75-125mm) deep, dug on contour. Runoff must not be allowed to run under or around roll. Figure 4.22 -Straw Wattles 4-96 Volume II -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention August 2001 .. " .. August 2001 from the treatment pond prior to decanting. Compliance with the water quality standards is detcnnined in the receiving water. Operator Training: Each contractor who intends to usc chemical treatment shall be trained by an experienced contractor on an active site for at least 40 hours. Standard BMPs: Surface stabilization BMPs should be implemented on site to prevent significant erosion. All sites shall use a truck wheel wash to prevent tracking of sediment off site. Sediment Removal And Disposal: • Sediment shall be removed from the storage or treatment cells as necessary. Typically, sediment removal is required at least once during a wet season and at thc decommissioning of the cells. Sediment remaining in the cells between batches may enhance the settling process and reduce the required chemical dosage. • Sediment may be incorporated into the site away from drainages. Volume If -Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4-111 , , , .. BMP C251: Construction Stormwater Filtration Purpose Filtration removes sediment from runoff originating from disturbed areas of the site. Conditions of Use Traditional BMPs uscd to control soil erosion and sediment loss from sites under development may not be adequate to ensurc compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity in the receiving water. Filtration may be used in conjunction with gravity settling to removc sediment as small as fine silt (0.5 I'm). The reduction in turbidity will be dependent on the particle size distribution of the sediment in the stormwater. In some circumstances, sedimentation and filtration may achieve compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity. Design and Installation Specification" 4·112 Unlike chemical treatment, the use of construction stormwater filtration docs not rcquire approval from Ecology. Filtration may also be used in conjunction with polymer treatment in a portable system to assure capture of the flocculated solids. Background Information Filtration with sand media has been used for over a century to treat water and wastewater. The use of sand filtration for treatment of stormwater has developed recently, generally to treat runoff from streets, parking lots, and residential areas. The application of filtration to construction stormwater treatmcnt is currently under development. Two types of filtration systems may be applied to construction stormwater treatment: rapid and slow. Rapid sand filters are the typical systcm used for water and wastewater treatment. They can achieve relatively high hydraulic flow rates, on the order of 2 to 20 gpm/sf, because they have automatic backwash systems to removc accumulated solids. In contrast, slow sand filters havc very low hydraulic rates, on thc order of 0.02 gpm/sf, because they do not have backwash systems. To date, slow sand filtration has generally been used to treat stormwater. Slow sand filtration is mechanically simple in comparison to rapid sand filtration but requires a much largcr filter area. Filtration Equipment. Sand media filters are available with automatic backwashing features that can filter to 50 I'm particle size. Screen or bag filters can filter down to 5 I'm. Fiber wound filters can remove particles down to 0.5 I'm. Filters should be sequenced from the largest to the smallest pore opening. Sediment removal efficiency will be related to particle size distribution in the stormwater. Treatment Process Description. Stormwater is collected at interception point(s) on the site and is diverted to a sediment pond or tank for removal of large sediment and storage of the stormwater before it is treated by the Volume" -Construction Storm water Pollution Prevention August 2001 ." . Maintenance Standards August 2001 filtration system. The stormwater is pumped from the trap, pond, or tank through the filtration system in a rapid sand filtration system. Slow sand filtration systems are designed as flow through systems using gravity. If large volumes of concrete are being poured, pH adjustment may be necessary. • Rapid sand filters typically have automatic backwash systems that are triggered by a pre-set pressure drop across the filter. If the backwash water volume is not large or substantially more turbid than the stormwater stored in the holding pond or tank, backwash return to the pond or tank may be appropriate. However, land application or another means of treatment and disposal may be necessary. • Screen, bag, and fiber filters must be cleaned and/or replaced when they become clogged. • Sediment shall be removed from the storage and/or treatment ponds as necessary. Typically, sediment removal is required once or twice during a wct season and at the decommissioning of the ponds. Volume 1/ -Construction Stormwater Pol/ution Prevention 4-113 • May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Biological Assessment Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prepared by .~ MeriUian En vir 0 n me nta I, 1 nc.'''''''~""""," Seattle, Washington June 28, 2005 , \.J Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 A. PROJECT AND FEDERAL ACTION HISTORY ..................................... 3 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ACTION AREA ........... .3 A. FEDERAL ACTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................... 3 B. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................... .4 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... .4 Timing and Duration of Work .............................................................................. 6 Work Zone and Sediment Attributes .................................................................... 6 Sediment Disposal ................................................................................................ 7 Conservation Measures to Limit Turbidity ........................................................... S Conservation Measures to Enhance Salmonid Habitat ......................................... S D. PROJECT MONITORING ........................................................................ 10 Notification of Future Dredging and Re-initiation of Consultation ................... 10 Project Environmental Permit Requirements ..................................................... 1 0 Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions .................................................... 10 E. PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA DEFINED .............................. .11 III. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT .......................................... 11 A. SPECIES LISTS FROM THE SERVICES (NOAA FISHERIES AND USFWS) ..................................................................................................... 1I Identification of Listcd Specics and ESUIDPS .................................................. .11 Idcntification of Designated and Proposcd Critical Habitat and EFH ................ 12 B. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES ................................................................... 13 Chinook Salmon ................................................................................................. 13 Bull Trout ............................................................................................................ IS Coho Salmon ....................................................................................................... 22 Bald Eagle ........................................................................................................... 24 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ......................................................................... 26 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND PROJECT AREA ....... 26 Action Arca (May Creek and Lake Washington) ............................................... 26 Project Area (May Creck Delta) ......................................................................... 29 B. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE MATRIX ............................................ 39 Water Temperature ............................................................................................ .43 Sediment/Turbidity ............................................................................................. 43 Chemical ContaminationlNutrients ................................................................... .44 Physical Barriers ................................................................................................ .44 Substrate .............................................................................................................. 44 Large Woody Debris .......................................................................................... .45 Pool Frequency/Quality ..................................................................................... .45 Off-channel Habitat ............................................................................................ 45 Draft -June 28, 2005 K:\ProjedslBarbea Mll SA 2005\2005 BA draf\s\Current DrafI\May Creek BA Drafil)62805.doc Biological Assessment -Page i Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Refugia ................................................................................................................ 45 Width/Depth Ratio .............................................................................................. 46 Streambank Condition ........................................................................................ 46 Floodplain Connectivity ..................................................................................... 46 Change in Peak/Base Flows ............................................................................... .4 7 Increase in Drainage Network ........................................................................... .47 Road Density and Location ................................................................................ .4 7 Disturbance History ........................................................................................... .47 Riparian Reserves .............................................................................................. .48 Population Size ................................................................................................... 48 Growth and Survival ........................................................................................... 48 Life History Diversity and Isolation ................................................................... 49 Persistence and Genetic Integrity ....................................................................... 49 V. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON SALMONIDS ................................................ .49 A. DIRECT EFFECTS .................................................................................. .49 Direct Effects on Salmon ids .............................................................................. .49 Direct Effects on Habitat .................................................................................... 50 Direct Effects on Water Quality ......................................................................... 51 Direct Effects on Bald Eagles ............................................................................. 52 B. INDIRECT EFFECTS ............................................................................... 53 C. EFFECTS FROM INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED ACTIONS .................................................................................................. 54 D. EFFECTS FROM ONGOING PROJECT ACTIVITIES .......................... 54 E. DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE WOULD BE AFFECTED ......................................................................... 54 F. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................................... 57 VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABIT A T ....................................................................................................... 58 VII. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT .............................................................................. 60 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... 61 B. APPROPRIATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN(S) ...................... 61 C. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................. 61 D. PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES ......................................... 62 E. CONCLUSiON .......................................................................................... 62 VIII. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 63 Draft -June 28, 2005 K:\ProJElcts\Bartee Mil BA 2005\2005 SA draftslCurrenl DrafI\May Creek SA Draft 062B05.doc Biological Assessment -Page ii Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure l. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure II. Table I. Table 2. Table3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. LIST OF FIGURES May Creek delta flood mitigation dredging project site and action area ..... 2 Flood damage to Barbee Mill lands in 1990 due to May Creek flooding ....................................................................................................... .5 Proposed juvenile Chinook salmon habitat enhancement along the May Creek delta margin ............................................................................... 9 Current condition of May Creek delta habitat enhancement area ................ 9 May Creek delta 2005 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations ........... .30 Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet (eastern end of transect 4) located adjacent to the existing dock structure (2005 SCUBA survey) ......................................................................................... 35 Current May Creek delta riparian condition (habitat enhancement area) ............................................................................................................ 35 Curly-leaf pondweed, Elodea canadensi, and Eurasian milfoil observed along transect 9 (2005 SCUBA survey) .................................... .37 Riprap shoreline located along the May Creek delta (habitat enhancement area) ..................................................................................... 38 Riprap cobble substrate along transect 3 (2005 SCUBA survey) ............. .38 Silt substrate along transect 9 at a depth of approximately IS feet (2005 SCUBA survey) .............................................................................. .39 LIST OF TABLES Summary of previous ESA dredging Consultations ................................... .3 Results from 1999 May Creek delta sediment testing ................................. 6 Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) Species .................................................................................... 12 Lake Washington basin Chinook salmon stock recent productivity, status, and trends ........................................................................................ 16 Summary of April 9, 2005 SCUBA survey results within the proposed ~~= ................................................................................................. 32 Summary of May 6, 2005 snorkel survey results within the proposed projcet arca ................................................................................................. 34 Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental baseline on relevant indicators .................................................................. .41 Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (II days of sampling over the dredging period) ....................................................... 52 Analysis of proposed project effects on the environmcntal basclinc ......... 55 Draft -June 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page iii K:lPrqectslBarbee Ma SA 2005\2005 SA draftslCurrent Orafl\May Creek BA Dran (l628()5,doc • . Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging AR BRT dbh DPS EFH ESA ESU FA FMO GMA MSA NPF NR NTU PCEs PFC PFMC SPCCP SR TRT UGB UR USFWS WDF WDFW WDG July 28, 2005 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS at risk Biological Review Team diameter at breast height distinct population segment essential fish habitat Endangered Species Act evolutionarily significant unit functioning appropriately foraging, migrating and overwintering Growth Management Act Magnuson-Stevens Act not properly functioning not to reduce or retard nephelometric turbidity unit primary constituent elements properly functioning condition Pacific Fisheries Management Council spill prevention control and countermeasure plan State Route Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team urban growth boundary unacceptable risk U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Department of Fisheries Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Washington Department of Game Biological Assessment -Page iv K:lProjects\Barbee MiU SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldrafl twolMay Cleek BA 07280S.doc ------------------------------------- -. Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging I. INTRODUCTION This Biological Assessment was prepared for the May Creek delta flood mitigation dredging project located at the May Creek delta on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington in the City of Renton (Figure I). Periodic maintenance dredging of the May Creek delta to remove accumulated sediments and reduce flooding potential has occurred for over 50 years. Over this same time period, erosion has increased in the upper reaches of May Creek due to ongoing urban development, which has resulted in increased sediment deposition and increased flooding potential at the May Creek delta adjacent to Barbee Mill Company lands. The proposed project involves the continuation of periodic dredging in the May Creek delta over the next ten years with an approximately 3 to 4 year dredging cycle. Periodic dredging would reduce the potential for flooding of the Barbee Mill Company lands and maintain navigational depths. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) directs federal departments and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, and/or conducted by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such species. Section 7(c) of the ESA requires that federal agencies contact USFWS and NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS are subsequently referred to as the Services) before beginning any construction activity to determine iffederally listed threatened and endangered (T &E) species or designated critical habitat may be present in the vicinity of a proposed project. A Biological Evaluation! Assessment (BEIBA) must be prepared if actions by a federal agency or permits issued by a federal agency will result in construction and if the Services determine that T &E species may occur in the vicinity of a proposed project. With respect to the proposed action, federal permits from the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) will be needed to complete the project. The Services have determined that T &E species, including the bald eagle, Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout may be present in the proposed project action area; therefore, this BA is required by the ESA to ensure that proposed dredging project will not jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of these listed species. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) includes a mandate that NOAA Fisheries identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine fish. In addition, federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fish and coastal pelagic fisheries. The ESA consultation process can be used to address EFH (see Guidance/or Integrating Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act· EFH Consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations, National Marine Fisheries Service; January 200 I). This BA addresses EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, which are the only MSA managed species that may be present in the action area of the proposed project. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 1 K:lProjecI:s\Barbee Mill BA 2005I2005 SA draflsldraft two\May Creek BA 072805_doc , - ----------- Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Note: Adapted from Taboret al.. 2004 Figure 1. May Creek delta flood mitigation dredging project site and action area. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 2 K:\Projects\Barbee MiD SA 2005I2005 SA draflsldrafl two\May Creek SA 072B05.00c • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging The objective of this BA was to review all pertinent and available information on the potential effects of the proposed project on MSA managed species and EFH, ESA listed T &E species, and associated critical habitats under NOAA Fisheries and USFWS jurisdiction. Proposed and candidate species that could potentially be affected by this project were also considered in the event that they become listed over the period for which this permit may be issued. A. Project and Federal Action History The proposed project consists of maintenance dredging of the May Creek delta in order to reduce flooding risk to the Barbee Mill Company lands and to maintain navigational depths over a ten year period. Dredging of the May Creek delta has occurred for over 50 years on a 3 to 4 year cycle depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. The most recent dredging occurred in 2002. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment have been removed during each dredging cycle. The dredged material is stockpiled on upland areas of the Barbee Mill property and sold as clean construction fill material. Previous consultations with the ACOE were completed for dredging of the May Creek delta and for bark debris removal in Lake Washington below the former log storage area in front of the mill. This bark removal work was voluntarily undertaken to restore aquatic habitat under lease agreements with the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Previous consultations for these projects at the Barbee Mill resulted in a "not likely to adversely affect" determination for listed Chinook salmon and bull trout. Previous Barbee Mill dredging consultations are summarized below (Table I). Table 1. Summary of previous ESA dredging Consultations. ACOE Project Implementation Year Reference # Action Consultation Date 2001 195-2-0097 May Creek delta 'May affect, not likely to 2001 dredging adversely affect' for all species 2002 1995-2-00997 Lake Washington "May affect, not likely to 2002 bark removal adversely affect' for all species II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ACTION AREA A. Federal Action and Legal Authority It is anticipated that the ACOE will be the lead federal agency for this ESA consultation, as ACOE permits are the only federal approvals (i.e. federal action) required for the proposed dredging project. Therefore, this BA was prepared per the ACOE BA template (http://www.nws.usacc.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/BETemp.pdt).This BA is required by the ESA to ensure that dredging actions that may be authorized by the ACOE under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessmenl-Page 3 K:\Projects\Barbee Mill SA 2005\200~ BA dmftsldraft IwolMay Cr~k SA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging B. Project Purpose and Objectives The Barbee Mill company has been affected by local impacts associated with ongoing development in the May Creek Valley located several miles upstream of the Barbee Mill site. This upstream development has resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased impervious surface in the watershed. Peak flows have increased approximately 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year flood events return intervals (King County 200 I). In addition, this increased run-off has resulted in severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper basin, which is transported and deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. This increased sediment deposition in the delta has increased flooding potential of the Barbee Mill company lands, resulting in periodic loss of customary uses. Maintenance dredging has been conducted in the May Creek delta for over 50 years to reduce flooding potential ofthe Barbee Mill lands adjacent to the May Creek delta. However, large flood events have caused damage to Barbee Mill lands, most recently during a large storm event in 1990 (Figure 2). The proposed project would continue this maintenance dredging in order to reduce potential flooding of company lands and to maintain navigational depths. The purpose of this consultation is to obtain a programmatic permit authorizing dredging for the next ten years. Previously, permitting and ESA consultation was conducted for each individual dredging cycle, which was both costly and time consuming. The programmatic 10 year permit would reduce permitting costs and agency workload, while implementing conservation measures to ensure the long-term persistence of ESA listed species that may use the action area. c. Project Description The proposed project is to conduct clamshell dredging of sediments (coarse sand and gravel) in the May Creek delta periodically as necessary to reduce the potential for flooding of Barbee Mill lands and to maintain navigational depths. It is anticipated, based on the previous 50-year dredging history, that future dredging would be necessary every 3 to 4 years. The volume of material to be removed during each dredge cycle is anticipated to range from approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards. Based on previous dredging at the site, dredged materials are largely rapidly draining sands and gravels. Dredged materials will be placed directly into an upland dewatering cell adjacent to the dredging zone (Appendix A). Because the materials are so porous, most dewatering is complete prior to placement in the dewatering cell. As soon as sediments are sufficiently dry (within hours), they will be loaded into trucks for off-site sale or stored temporarily on-site in an upland area of the Barbee Mill property for use as clean fill. All dredging will be conducted during the WDFW approved in-water work time in order to limit impacts to ESA listed Chinook salmon and bull trout. The project would also be conducted during the bald eagle work window to minimize disturbance to this species, although the action area is greater than 0.5 miles from known bald eagle nesting sites. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 4 K:\Prujetts\8arbee Mil BA 2005\2005 BAIT.Jfts\draft !'NoWay Cree~ BA 072B05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Note: The high pressure gas line that was exposed as a result of the flood damage. Figure 2. Flood damage to Barbee Mill lands in 1990 due to May Creek flooding. Based on past monitoring, conservation measures such as silt curtains to reduce turbidity should not be required. During the 2002 dredging activity, highest turbidity values recorded were less than 7 NTU (see Appendix B for previous water quality monitoring data). However, turbidity will be monitored during future dredging and conservation measures, such as silt curtains, will be deployed following conditions set by the WDOE 40 I certification for this project. It is anticipated that the WDOE will require the deployment of a silt curtain if turbidity in the dredging zone exceeds 10 NTU above background levels. In order to off-set any potential negative effects to listed Chinook salmon habitat, which is the only listed fish species known to use the May Creek delta, the proposed project includes measures to enhance juvenile Chinook rearing habitat near the dredging zone. Measures will include establishing overhanging vegetation and emergent aquatic vegetation along the delta shoreline and by installing small woody debris brush piles along the shoreline. Recent research by Tabor et al. (2004) has shown that rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in southern Lake Washington prefer these types of habitat features. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 5 K:\Pro)ectslBarbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA drans\draft IwolMay Creek SA 072805 doc Meridian Environmental; Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging By working in the WDFW approved in-water work time and bald eagle work time, and by employing the conservations measures detailed in this BA, the proposed project would minimize or avoid impacts to listed fish species and their habitat, and bald eagles in the action area. Detailed information for all project elements is presented below. Timing and Duration of Work The WDFW approved Lake Washington in-water work time, which is designed to limit impacts to aquatic species, is July 16 to December 31. The proposed project would be conducted within a three week period during this in-water work time. Due to the distance of the project site from bald eagle nests (greater than 0.5 miles), WDFW does not require work time restrictions to protect bald eagle nesting. Work Zone and Sediment Attributes Sediments in the May Creek delta dredging zone consist primarily of clean sand and gravel, with only traces of fme sand. However, limited fine silt covers the top of the substrate. Chemical testing results from 1999 showed that of 32 toxic substance tested for, only barium, chromium, and lead were detected (Table 2). Table 2 . Results from 1999 May Creek delta sedimeut testing . Parameter MC·l WTPH (silica cleanup mg/Kg-dryj Gasoline - Diesel' 10' Motor Oil', Hydraulic Oil, or other petroleum products 14' Volatile Organics (Method 8240j ND Semivolatiles (EPA Method 8270, mg/Kg-dryj 4-Methylphenol ND Napthalene ND 2-Methylnaphthalene ND Acenaphthylene ND Acenaphthene ND Flourene ND Phenanthrene ND Anthracene ND Flouranthene ND Pyrene ND Benzo(ajanthracene" ND Chrysene" ND Benzo(b/kjflouranthene" ND Benzo(ajpyrene" ND Indeno(I,2,3-cdjpyrene" ND Dibenz(a,hjanthracene" ND Benzo(g,h,ijperylene ND July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 6 K:lJ>rotects\Barbee MIl SA 2005\2005 BAdlafts'draft IwolMay Creek BA 072BOS.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Parameter Dibenzofuran bis(2-Ethylhexyl phthalate) Other SVOC's RCRA Metals (Total, mg/Kg-dry) Silver Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Mercury Lead Selenium Total Solids (from % moisture) Hydrocarbons detected, but did not match pattern for petroleum product(s) ND = not detected at method detection limit MC-1 NO ND ND ND ND 48.7 ND 28.2 NO 9.0 NO 89.8 Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards will be dredged from the delta (dredge zone depicted in Appendix A) approximately every three to four years depending on storm events that generate upstream erosion along May Creek and result in deposition within the delta. Periodic evaluation of sediment depth will trigger future dredging activities when the average depth of the top of the delta substrate in the dredge zone reaches + 18 feet msl, the dredging cycle will commence. Dredging will deepen the delta mouth by approximately 10 feet, deepening from approximately 20 feet msl to IO feet msl (Appendix A presents the current depth profile and estimated post-dredging depth profile). The estimated post-dredging depth profile will be determined in the field using G PS guided dredging and visual depth measurements. Sediment Disposal Sediments will be dredged and placed directly onto an upland cell for dewatering (Appendix A). The cell will be excavated adjacent to the delta in previously disturbed areas (see Appendix A). Sediments from the May Creek delta are generally coarse grained sands and gravel suitable for use and sale as clean fill for construction. Because the materials are so porous, most dewatering is complete prior to placement in the ·dewatering cell. As soon as sediments are sufficiently dry (within hours), they will be loaded into trucks for off-site sale or stored temporarily on-site in previously disturbed upland areas of the Barbee Mill property for use as clean construction fill. In the future, sediments may be dredged and transported for off-loading at the adjacent Quendall Terminals. Quendall Terminals is the property located immediately north of the delta. Dredged materials will be loaded into a dredge seow, moved approximately 1,500 feet north and unloaded on upland portions of the Quendall property with a dredge scow. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 7 K:'i'rojects\8arbee Min BA 2005\2005 SA draflsldraft twolMay Creek BA 072B05.00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Conservation Measures to Limit Turbidity Because of the velocity of the stream during depositional storm events, fine silt and sediment from May Creek are carried further into Lake Washington into deeper water, well beyond the proposed maintenance dredging areas. Historically, dredging in the May Creek delta has not generated substantial turbidity due to the large granular nature of the dredged materials. During previous dredging, turbidity has not exceeded 7 NTU (see Appendix B). Silt curtains, cofferdams, or special dredge heads should not be required to limit turbidity based on previous monitoring; however, turbidity monitoring will be conducted during future dredging. WDOE is expected to issue a 401 certification for this dredging project with conditions that are expected to require daily turbidity monitoring and measures such as silt curtains if monitoring shows that turbidity exceeds 10 NTU above background levels at the dredge site. Conservation Measures to Enhance Salmonid Habitat Juvenile Chinook salmon are known to heavily use the south end of Lake Washington and prefer shallow tributary deltas with sand and gravel substrate, small woody debris, and overhanging vegetation (Tabor et ai. 2004). Maintaining a relatively deep delta through dredging would prevent it from aggrading to a shallow depth, which would be preferred by Chinook salmon juveniles. In order to enhance aquatic habitat in the project vicinity to benefit juvenile Chinook salmon, which is the only ESA listed species known to use the May Creek delta, several measures will be implemented. These measures will improve shoreline habitats along the delta margin for rearing Chinook salmon juveniles, including establishing overhanging vegetation and emergent aquatic vegetation along the delta shoreline margin and installing small woody debris brush piles along the shoreline. Willow stakes (mix of Salix scauteriana and Salix sitchensis) will be planted along 250 feet of shoreline on both sides of the delta to provide overhanging vegetation (Figure 3). The riparian area adjacent to the delta is currently composed of riprap, grasses, and various weedy species (Figure 4). Willow stakes will be planted approximately 1.5 feet on center to a width of 4 feet along the shore (approximately 1,000 total willow stakes). To provide shallow water cover, aquatic emergent vegetation (cattail, Typha tatifalia) will be planted in the shallow water margin adjacent to the willows to a width of 2 or 3 feet (depending on appropriate plant depth). Ten Christmas tree piles (each pile consisting of approximately 4 to 5 trees) will be added along the delta shoreline (anchored with stakes and small diameter wire rope) for temporary shallow water cover while the emergent vegetation and willows becomes established. Future dredging will avoid established willows and emergent vegetation along the shoreline. In addition, immediately to the north and south of the dredging zone margin, the shoreline will be allowed to accrete naturally to increase shallow water habitat along the delta points. July 28, 2005 K:lProjects\Barbee Min BA 2005\2005 SA draflsldrafl twolMay Creek SA 072805.d<x: Biological Assessment -Page 8 Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 3. Figure 4. July 28, 2005 Proposed juvenile Chinook salmon habitat enhancement along the May Creek delta margin. Current condition of May Creek delta habitat enhancement area (picture taken at or near ordinary high water level of 21.8 feet ms). Biological Assessment -Page 9 K:\Projects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA draftsldrall two\May Creek SA 072805_doc Meridian Environmental. Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging D. Project Monitoring Water quality will be monitored during each dredging event in accordance with the WDOE 401 water quality certification. It is anticipated that turbidity will be monitored daily within and adjacent to the dredging zone in order to determine the background turbidity level and any increases in turbidity caused by dredging. The willow and emergent vegetation plantings will be monitored for five years after installation to ensure their successful establishment along the delta shoreline margin. Two monitoring visits will be conducted each year for five years after plant installation to assess plant survival, one visit each in spring and fall. The goal will be 80 percent plant survival at the end of the five-year monitoring period. Christmas tree piles will be added the first year after dredging, and during the subsequent five·year monitoring period, the piles will be maintained to ensure they are not washed away during high flow events. After the emergent vegetation is established at the end of the five-year monitoring period, the Christmas tree piles will no longer be maintained. Project Environmental Permit Reguirements A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) will be submitted to WDFW for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA); to WDOE for a Short-term Water Quality Modification and 401 water quality certification; and to ACOE for a 404 dredge permit. The City of Renton conducted a SEPA review for dredging of the May Creek delta in 2002, which occurred under their Special Permit for Grade and Fill. Renton also approved a shoreline substantial development permit application (City of Renton, File LUA-99-058 SP, SM, ECF). The Barbee Mill will be submitting a new SEPA document and grade/fill permit application to the City of Renton for review in conjunction with a new shoreline substantial development permit application. Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions The proposed project has no direct relationship to any other actions. The sole purpose is to maintain navigational depths and reduce flooding of Barbee Mill lands, which have been an active lumber mill for over 60 years. However, dredging for other purposes has occurred adjacent to the May Creek delta. In 2002, the large log storage area in ITont of the mill was dredged to remove accumulated bark and wood debris under a voluntary MTCA agreement with the WDOE. The purpose for this dredging was to restore aquatic lands leased from the Washington Department of Natural Resources. This action resulted in a substantial improvement of aquatic habitat in the littoral zone of Lake Washington immediately north of the May Creek delta. In addition, the Barbee Mill Company has periodically dredged the area in front ofthe boathouse on the south side of May Creek to maintain navigational depths. E. Project Area and Action Area Defined The project area is located in the May Creek delta within Lake Washington in the City of Renton (Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 32). Figures in Appendix A show the July 28. 2005 K:\Projects\8afbee !.4IU SA 2005\2005 SA draltsldraft two\May Creek SA 072805.t\oc Biological Assessment -Page 10 .- -------- Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging dredging zone. The removal of 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment will disturb approximately 55,000 square feet (approximately l.3 acres) of substrate in the delta. The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402- 02). In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during dredging and potential noise effects to bald eagles, the action area for this project encompasses the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington within approximately one mile of the May Creek delta (Figure I). A one-mile area was chosen in order to be consistent with WD FW bald eagle construction timing recommendations, which are based on distance to nesting and roosting sites. It is anticipated that the one- mile action area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in turbidity during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in the delta (see Appendix B for past turbidity monitoring data). III. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT A. Species Lists from the Services (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS) A list of federaIly listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species, and critical habitat that may occur in the action area was compiled using the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS electronic species list websites and critical habitat designations. The USFWS and NOAA Fisheries websiteswere accessed on May 24, 2005. In addition, a request for information was made to the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program in order to obtain official PHS maps of the action area (maps dated May 24, 2005), which show sensitive species information such as bald eagle nest locations and priority fish habitats. Identification of Listed Species and ESUlDPS Table 3 summarizes the federally listed, proposed, and candidate fish and wildlife species that are know to occur or may potentially occur in the action area. The table also indicates whether critical habitat or EFH has been designated or proposed for each species. On March 24, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (64 FR 14308). The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was designated threatened under the ESA on November 1,1999. Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon were designated as a candidate species for listing under the ESA on July 25, 1995. In 1978, the bald eagle was federally listed as endangered throughout the lower 48 states except in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where it was designated as threatened. In July, 1995, the USFWS reclassified the bald eagle to threatened throughout the lower 48 states. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 11 K:'i'rojectslBarbee ~II SA 2005\2005 BA drafts\draft lwolMay Creek SA 012805 doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging Table 3. Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) Species. Species Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Bald eagle (Hafiaeetus leucocephalus) 'Evolutiona!}' Significant UOil 'Distinct Population Segment ESA Status (Listing Unit) Threatened (Puget Sound ESU1) Threatened (Coastal I Puget Sound DPS2) Candidate (Puget Sound I Strait of Georgia ESU) Threatened (lower 48 States) Designated Proposed MSA ESA Critical ESA Critical Managed Habitat Habitat with EFH No Yes Yes No Yes No NIA NIA Yes No No No Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH NMFS designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on February 16, 2000 (65 FR 7764); however, on April 30, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a NOAA Fisheries consent decree withdrawing critical habitat designations for 19 salmon and steelhead populations on the west coast (including Puget Sound Chinook salmon). NOAA Fisheries proposed a new critical habitat rule on December 14,2004 (50 CFR Part 226). Proposed critical habitat in the action area of the proposed project includes Lake Washington and May Creek. The action area contains juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and migration primary constituent elements (PCEs) and adult Chinook salmon migration PCEs. ESA critical habitat was proposed by the USFWS for the CoastalJPuget Sound bull trout DPS on June 24, 2004 (50 CFR Part 17). Proposed critical habitat for the CoastalJPuget Sound DPS includes Lake Washington, but does not include any Lake Washington tributaries, except the upper Cedar River. Lake Washington is proposed as foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO) critical habitat for bull trout. The MSA defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary for fish use in spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. MSA manages species that may occur in the action area, including Chinook and coho salmon. Freshwater EFH for these salmon species includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to these species in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Lake Washington is designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon. There are four major components of freshwater EFH for salmon including I) spawning and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration corridors and adult holding habitat. The components of EFH in the action area include juvenile rearing and migration corridors, and adult migration corridors and holding habitat. July 28, 2005 K:lProjectslBarbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA draftsldraft twolMay Creek SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 12 Meridian Environmental, Inc. . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging B. Description of Species Chinook Salmon Biological Requirements In North America, the historical range of Chinook salmon extended from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska. In northeastern Asia, the historical range extended from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Scott and Crossman 1973). Throughout their range, Chinook salmon exhibit diverse and complex of life history strategies. Variation exists in age at seaward migration; freshwater, estuarine, and ocean residence; and in age and season of spawning migration (Healey 1991, Myers et aL 1998). Most of this variation is exhibited in two distinct behavioral forms commonly referred to as stream-type and ocean-type (Healey 1991). Ocean-type fish have a short, highly variable juvenile freshwater residency (from a few days to several months) and an extensive estuarine residency (Healy 1991). Adults show considerable variation in timing of entry to freshwater. Stream-type fish have long freshwater juvenile phases (one to three years), migrate rapidly to sea, live one to five years in the marine environment, and spawn far upriver in late summer to winter depending on the stock. The average age of spawners is four years (Myers et aL 1998). All Chinook salmon die after spawning (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Adult spring-run Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound typically return to freshwater in April and May, and spawn in August and September (WOF et al. 1993). Adults migrate to the upper portions of their respective river systems and hold in pools until they mature. In contrast, summer-run fish begin their freshwater migration in June and July and spawn in September, while summer/fall-run Chinook salmon begin to return in August and spawn from late September through January (WOF et al. 1993). Chinook salmon require clean gravel, 0.5 to 4 inches in diameter for spawning (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Preferred water temperatures for Chinook salmon spawning ranges from 42.1 and 57°F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). The recommended incubation temperatures range between 41 to 60°F, with an optimal egg and fry temperature of 51.8°F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Juvenile Chinook salmon are typically associated with low gradient, meandering, unconstrained stream reaches (Lee et al. 1996), and require abundant habitat complexity with accumulations oflarge wood and overhanging vegetation (USOI 1996). Juvenile Chinook salmon often move into side channels, beaverponds, and sloughs for over- wintering habitat. In Lake Washington, Tabor et al. (2004) found that juvenile Chinook salmon prefer shallow, low-gradient delta and shoreline habitats composed of sand and gravel substrates with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris accumulations. The preferred temperature range for Chinook salmon fry ranges from 54 to 56.8°F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Optimal temperature for Chinook salmon fingerlings is 62.6°F (Seymour 1956), with an upper lethal tolerance limit of 77°F (Scott and Crossman 1973; Brett 1952). After a variable freshwater residence time, Chinook salmon juveniles migrate to estuaries. Migrations occur primarily during spring and early summer, but continue at July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 13 K:\PrOjeClslBartlee MiD BA2005\2005 SA draftsldraf\ two\May Creek SA 072B05_doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging lower levels through the fall (USFWS 1983). Chinook salmon in the Skagit River estuary occupied the inner estuarine salt marshes for 2 to 3 days before emigrating farther out in the estuary (USFWS 1983). Smolts congregated in tidal streams at low tide, with the majority of fish observed in deep, slow water over soft substrates (USFWS 1983). The highest nearshore juvenile Chinook salmon densities occurred in tidal areas without any freshwater influence (Shepard 1981). Chinook stocks in Lake Washington exhibit ocean-type life history patterns, with juveniles typically migrating to sea within the first three months after emergence. However, juveniles have also been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended time periods (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Factors of Decline Threats to the Chinook salmon include watershed development, such as forest practices, mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water manipulation and withdrawal. Over-fishing, artificial propagation and introduction of nonnative species have also impacted Chinook salmon. Forest practices, mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water withdrawal have resulted in increased sedimentation, changes in flow regimes and channel morphology, decrease in water quality and quantity, loss of riparian habitat, loss of large woody debris (LWD), and loss of LWD recruitment, higher water temperatures, decreased gravel recruitment, reduction in pools and spawning and rearing areas, rerouting of stream channels, degradation of streambanks and loss of estuarine rearing areas (Bishop and Morgan 1996; Myers et al. 1998). These changes have affected the spawning and rearing environment of Chinook salmon. Harvest, hatchery practices and the introduction of nonnative species have also impacted the expression of the varied life history strategies of Chinook salmon within the ESU. Current and future development pose many risks to the Chinook salmon populations in Lake Washington, primarily through increased water pollution and further habitat degradation by such mechanism as increased impervious surface, which alters stream hydrology causing increased erosion and sedimentation of Chinook spawning grounds. A detailed discussion of Chinook limiting factors in the Lake Washington basin is given in Kerwin (200 I). In addition to extensive shoreline development, other factors that can compromise the survival of juvenile Chinook salmon include poor water quality and high water temperatures in the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks. All juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids must pass through the Ship Canal during migrations to and from saltwater. The significant differences in water temperature and salinity encountered at the Ballard Locks require a rapid transition by the fish and may cause severe stress. For example, recorded delays in egg development in returning adult salmon may be connected to the temperature transition when entering freshwater and prolonged exposure to high temperatures in the Ship Canal (Kerwin 200 I). In addition, the sharp demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a stressor for juvenile salmonid out-migrants. The Locks are also a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation on adult salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 14 K:1Projects\Barbee MiD BA 2005'2005 SA draflsldran. twolMayCree~ SA 072B05_00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Hatcheries continue to pose risk to natural spawning Chinook salmon in Lake Washington, although hatchery impacts are becoming increasingly recognized and efforts are being made to reduce hatchery effects listed populations. Several hatcheries and hatchery programs exist in the Lake Washington basin. Releases of fall-run Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington system accounted for about five percent of all Puget Sound releases from 199 I through 2000, with about 2.6 million fish per year. In Puget Sound, hatchery fish greatly outnumber natural origin fish in terms of juvenile out- migrants and adult returns (NMFS 2003). Detailed descriptions of harvest rates for Lake Washington Chinook stocks are provided in (NMFS 2003). While harvest rates frequently change, the harvest rate of Lake Washington Chinook has diminished over time. The total exploitation rate for Chinook salmon returning to the Lake Washington watershed was 67 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 26 percent from 1997 through 2000. Local Stock Information Three summer-fall Chinook stocks are present in the Lake Washington basin including the North Lake Washington Tributaries, Cedar, and Issaquah stocks (WDFW 2002). The North Lake Tributaries stock is considered a mixed origin stock and similar to the non- native Issaquah stock. It is not known whether this results from recent or historical intermingling among fish from these sub-basins. The Issaquah stock is derived from the Soos Creek Hatchery Chinook and other non-local stocks. The Issaquah stock production is believed to be entirely the result of hatchery production, mostly from Issaquah Hatchery. Many more fish return than are needed at that hatchery, and surplus fish are allowed to spawn naturally. Cedar Chinook are rated as depressed due to a long-term negative trend in escapements and chronically low escapement values. There is limited data regarding this population, although in the early I 990s, annual escapement was estimated at between 200 and 1,500 adults (WDF et ai. 1993). Spawner surveys conducted in 1998, found an estimated adult Chinook escapement of 432 fish, while escapement in 1999 was estimated to be only 2 I 4 adult Chinook (Carrasco et ai. 1998; Mavros et ai. 1999). The Technical Recovery Team (TRT) has suggested recovery goals of 17,000 natural spawners for Lake Washington Chinook populations (TRT 2002). Currently, based on recent average spawner escapement (Table 4), natural spawner escapement is well below the levels needed for Chinook recovery and sustainable tribal fishing goals. Table 4. Lake Washington basin Chinook salmon stock recent productivity, status, and trends. Co-manager's Average Annual Stock Status Escapement Goal Escapement (period) North Lake Washington Healthy 350 301 (1986-2001) Tributaries Chinook Issaquah Chinook Healthy Not identified 3,279 (1986-2000) Cedar Chinook Depressed 1,200 533 (1986-2001) Source: WDFW 2002; NMFS 2003 July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 15 K:lProjects\Barbeil Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drallsldrall twolMay Creek BA 07ZS0S.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging In 2003 and 2004 significant numbers of adipose-clipped (hatchery) fish that were recovered in the Cedar River during spawning surveys indicate that hatchery strays may have maintained the Cedar River population (NOAA Fisheries 2005). The primary Chinook salmon stock in the project vicinity (the southern portion of Lake Washington) originates from the Cedar River. The Cedar River Chinook run, although a naturally spawning population without current supplementation from hatchery stocks, is not native to Lake Washington. May Creek is not thought to have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon run and individuals using the stream are likely strays from the Cedar River. Chinook are reported to use the lower three miles of May Creek for limited spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Lucchetti (2002) rated the lower May Creek sub- basin (from mouth to RM 3.0) as moderate to high for spawning habitat. This rating signifies areas in which Chinook are known to spawn and that are characterized by adequate flows and physical attributes (e.g., channel size, gradient, and substrate) that typically support Chinook spawning (Lucchetti 2002). Adult Cedar River Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington through the Ballard Locks from late June through September, with the run peaking in late August. Spawning occurs from mid-September through mid-to late-November, with a peak in early to mid-October (WDF et al. 1993). In the Cedar River, fry probably begin to emerge in February and continue through March and perhaps April (City of Seattle 2000), which is also probably true in May Creek as well. Unlike most systems in which juvenile Chinook rear in rivers and estuaries, juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington rear in the littoral areas of the lake from January to July. While rearing in the south end of Lake Washington, the nocturnal distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon appears to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Tabor et al. (2004) studied juvenile Chinook salmon use of shoreline habitats in Lake Washington and found that juvenile Chinook were concentrated in very shallow water, approximately 1.3 feet in depth, and prefer low gradient shorelines and deltas with substrates composed of sand and gravel. In comparison to lake shore reference sites, the delta sites had a higher density of juvenile Chinook salmon. On average, the delta sites had almost twice as many fish as the lake reference site. Of the delta sites studied, Tabor et al. (2004) found that juvenile Chinook appeared to use low gradient and shallow deltas that were close to natal streams (such as the Cedar River). Tabor et al. (2004) also found that juvenile Chinook had no preference for woody debris piles alone; however, they did show a preference for woody debris piles in combination with overhanging vegetation. In fact, over 80 percent of juvenile Chinook observed during the study were found along shallow sites in association with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris. The majority of juvenile Chinook observed by Tabor et al. (2004) were concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington from February to May, with peak abundance occurring in May. The last shoreline survey was conducted on July 14, when only one juvenile . Chinook was observed out of five sample sites. The lower 912 feet of May Creek and the May Creek delta (convergence pool) were included in the study sites evaluated by Tabor et al. (2004). Tabor et al. (2004) also July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 16 K:\ProjedslBafbee MiR SA 2005\2005 SA dralIs'aa!I twolMay Creek SA 072605_ooc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging surveyed a lake reference site located approximately 2,000 feet south of the May Creek delta (the Kennydale Beach Park swim beach). '. In March of 2002, approximately 80 percent of the May Creek survey reach was composed of riffles. Snorkel surveys were completed in three pools and one glide. Only two Chinook salmon were observed, one in the convergence pool and one in a pool. The density of juvenile Chinook salmon was similar between the lake reference site and delta area. Juvenile coho salmon were also present primarily in the convergence pool, while large trout primarily occupied the upstream pools. Small resident trout were scattered throughout the study reach. Tabor et al. (2004) observed that while May Creek was a relatively large tributary with low gradient and a large amount of available habitat, very few juvenile Chinook salmon were observed; however, many trout over 6 inches in length were observed. They hypothesized that the deep convergence pool and other deep pools may have restricted the upstream movements of juvenile Chinook salmon through increased predation risk by species such as trout, sculpin, and bass. Tabor et al. (2004) noted that predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by large trout has been documented in Lake Washington (Tabor and Chan 1996) and the Cedar River. Few predatory fish were present in the shallower deltas, which were used by up to 10 times more Chinook compared to the May Creek delta. Based on habitat preference, Tabor et al. (2004) hypothesized that the presence of large trout and large sculpin in the large tributaries may inhibit the use of the convergence pool and other stream habitats by Chinook. It may be that the lack of juvenile Chinook in the deep delta habitat has more to do with this habitat type being preferred by predatory fish, and not that deep delta habitats are not "good" Chinook habitat. Population Trends of the ESU During the most recent (July 2003) status review offederally-Iisted salmon and steelhead, the West Coast Biological Review Team (BRT) identified Puget Sound Chinook salmon as likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Long-term trends in abundance for naturally spawning populations of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU indicate that approximately half of the populations are declining and half are increasing in abundance (NOAA Fisheries 2005). The median long-term trend in abundance over all populations is 1.0, indicating that most populations are just replacing themselves. Declines in short-term trends in natural spawner abundance are the most extreme in the Upper Sauk, Cedar, Puyallup, and Elwha populations. Bull Trout Biological Requirements Bull trout, members of the family Salmonidae, are a char native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Bull trout historically occurred in major river drainages in the . Pacific Northwest from about 41 ON to 600 N latitude, from the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the west, the bull trout range includes Puget Sound, and various coastal rivers of Washington, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992; McPhail and Carveth 1992; Leary and Allendorf 1997). Bull trout are widespread throughout July 28. 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 17 K:lPro)eCls\Barbee M~ SA 200512005 SA draflsldrafl two\May Creek SA 072B05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging tributaries of the Columbia River basin in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, including its headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide, bull trout are found in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta, and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta and British Columbia (Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter 1996; Brewin and Brevin 1997). Throughout their range, bull trout are primarily freshwater species that exhibit both resident and migratory life-history patterns. The entire lifecycle ofthe resident bull trout takes place in headwater streams. Resident fish spawn, rear, and live as adults generally in one headwater stream, although short migrations may occur. Migratory bull trout spawn and rear in headwater streams, then after two to four years rearing in their home stream, juveniles migrate downstream to larger rivers (fluvial) or lakes and reservoirs (adfluvial) where they grow to maturity. Migrations can range from a few miles to well over 50 miles (Goetz et al. 2004). Mature adults migrate back upstream to spawn in headwater reaches. There is increasing evidence that several coastal and Puget Sound populations have an anadromous or amphidromous component in Washington (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993; Kraemer 1999; Goetz et al. 2004; Volk 2000). Goetz et al. (2004) is currently conducting a migration study of native char tagged in the Snohomish River basin using hydro-acoustic tags. Out of 60 fish tagged in the Snohomish basin, 6 were detected at hydrophones in the Skagit River basin at Mt. Vernon. Kraemer (1999) tagged a char in the South.Fork Sauk River (Skagit River basin) while staging for spawning in the fall. An angler recaptured this fish the following spring in the marine area on the east side of Camano Island. Kraemer (1999) noted that anadromous char in the Puget Sound region leave the tidal areas to re-enter spawning watersheds in late May, June and early July. Similarly, Goetz et al. (2004) noted that all of the tagged char had left the nearshore marine areas and Snohomish River estuary by early to mid-August, and left the lower river for the upper watershed by late August to mid-October. Goetz et al. (2004) suspected that all fish moved into freshwater higher up into colder parts of the rivers. The highest water temperature recorded by Goetz et al. (2004) on a fish in the Snohomish/marine nearshore area was 59.9°F. Adult anadromous char are thought to prey primarily on fish. A study by Brenkman (2002) at the mouth of the Hoh River on the Olympic Peninsula found that surf smelt (Hypomesus pretious) was the primary prey item and was found in 96 percent of the stomachs analyzed; other species included herring (Clupea harengus pallas i), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and sculpin (Collus spp.). Other limited stomach content work and feeding observations in Skagit Bay and Port Susan also indicate that anadromous char feed most commonly on surf smelt, and other fish such as herring, sand lance, pink and chum salmon fry, and a number of invertebrates (Kraemer \999). Kraemer (1999) and Brenkman (2002) suspected the distribution of char in marine waters is closely tied to the distribution of forage fish, especially spawning beaches for surf smelt and herring. Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall from late August into December (timing varies based on local conditions) and is thought to be correlated with particular flows, water temperatures, and photo period. Peak spawning usually occurs in September and October for most populations, but the population in the Skokomish River (southern Hood Canal) July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 18 K:\Pro1ecIs\Barbee Mill SA 200512005 SA draftsldran twolJday Creek SA 012805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc.' May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging peaks in October and November (Brenkman et al. 2001). Bull trout spawning generally occurs when water temperature drops below 48°F. Bull trout spawn in substrate ranging from large sand to gravel over 2 inches in diameter. In western Washington, bull trout spawning occurs above an elevation of 1,000 feet or in streams with very cold temperatures similar to high elevation streams (Kraemer 1999). Fry emerge from spring into the summer months (McPhail and Murray 1979). Mature adult bull trout can spawn more than once in a lifetime. First spawning is often noted after age four, with individuals living ten or more years (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Sexual maturity for both sexes has been documented in fish smaller than 6 inches fork length in resident populations (Hemmingsen et al. 2001). Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), requiring cold clean water and a high degree of habitat complexity. Habitat characteristics including water temperature, stream size, stream gradient, substrate composition, hydraulic complexity, and large wood have been associated with juvenile bull trout distribution and abundance (Dambacher et al. 1992; Rieman and Mcintyre 1993). Water temperatures over approximately 50°F are thought to limit their distribution; however, bull trout may be able to migrate through reaches with elevated water temperatures for short durations. Recently, bull trout in northeast Oregon were tagged with radio transmitters and temperature loggers, and then recaptured one year after tagging. One fish captured alive and in apparent good health had experienced water temperatures over 64°F for a brief period (personal communication, J. Dunham, Research Fisheries Scientist, Boise Aquatic Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, !D, with J. Shappart, Fisheries Scientist, Meridian Environmental, Seattle, W A, on September 5,2002). More recent work employing external temperature archival tags on migratory bull trout in the Lostine River basin (eastern Oregon) suggested that bull trout did not necessarily use the coldest river reaches available in the late summer (Howell et al. 2005). Factors of Decline Bull trout are threatened by habitat degradation and fragmentation from past and ongoing land management activities such as mining, road construction and maintenance, timber harvest, hydropower, water diversions/withdrawals, agriculture, and grazing. Bull trout are also threatened by interactions and hybridization with introduced non-native fishes such as brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Bull trout are estimated to have occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River basin, and presently occur in 45 percent of the estimated historical range (Quigley and Arbe\bide 1997). Bull trout have declined in overall range and numbers of fish. Though still widespread, there have been numerous local extirpations reported throughout the Columbia River basin. Although some strongholds still exist, bull trout generally occur as isolated SUb-populations in headwater lakes or tributaries where migratory fish have been lost. Although the bull trout distribution in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS is less fragmented than the Columbia River DPS, bull trout sUbpopulation distribution within individual river systems has contracted and abundance has declined. The decline of the Coastal/ Puget Sound bull trout DPS has been attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers, July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 19 K:\Projects\Barbee MUI SA 2005\2005 BA draftsldrafllwolMay Creek BA 07280S_doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging interaction with introduced species, water quality degradation, and past management practices. Historically, bull trout occurred throughout the Puget Sound region. Their historical distribution has been significantly reduced. Currently, bull trout persist in isolated populations of headwater streams; however, migratory components still exist in some local populations. The decline of the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS has been attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers, interaction with introduced species, water quality degradation, and past management practices. Commercial and recreational fisheries also impact native char populations in Puget Sound. Native char are occasionally caught in sport and commercial fisheries in Puget Sound, as well as by in- river net fisheries. They are common in nearshore marine areas ofPuget Sound from Everett north, and are vulnerable to beach seine and set net fisheries. Salmon test fisheries in the Skagit River catch char, especially during the spring. Most recreational fisheries in Puget Sound rivers are closed to native char harvest. Current and future population pressures on bull trout in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook. Local Stock Information The following Lake Washington bull trout information is summarized from USFWS (2004) unless otherwise cited. The Cedar River watershed upstream of the Masonry Dam supports the only known self-sustaining population of bull trout in the Lake Washington basin. The Chester Morse Lake bull trout core area is located within the Cedar River in the upper reaches of the Cedar River drainage, upstream of a natural migration barrier at Lower Cedar Falls (river mile 34.4). The level of emigration of bull trout occurring from Chester Morse Lake to the lower Cedar River is unknown. The only means for bull trout to leave the reservoir complex and pass to the lower Cedar River is during use of the emergency spill gates and/or the smaller spillway near the south end of the Masonry Dam. These gates are rarely opened except under emergency conditions of high reservoir elevation (e.g., 1990 flood) or for special operational purposes. It is presumed impossible for live fish to pass through the other structure used to release water from Masonry Pool (Masonry Dam spill valve/Howell-Bunger valve) at the base of the Masonry Dam. It is possible that bull trout do successfully pass through the spill gates when water is released and thereby gain access to the 'canyon reach' and the lower Cedar River, but no accurate estimate of numbers of fish passing the dam has been made. No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning populations are known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse. The potential for spawning in the Lake Washington basin is believed to be very low as a majority of accessible habitat is low elevation, below 500 feet, and thus not expected to have the proper thermal regime to sustain successful spawning. However, there are some coldwater springs and tributaries that may come close to suitable spawning temperatures and that may provide thermal refuge for rearing or foraging during warm summer periods. These include Rock Creek (tributary to the Cedar River below Landsburg Diversion) and Coldwater Creek, a tributary to Cottage Lake Creek immediately below Cottage Lake. In addition, the upper reaches of Holder and Carey creeks, the two main branches of Issaquah Creek, have good to excellent habitat conditions and may hold potential for bull trout spawning due to their elevation July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 20 K:IProjects\Barbee Mill SA 2005\2005 BA draflsldraf\ two\May Creek BA 07280S.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging and aspect. However, despite survey efforts by King County (Berge and Mavros 2001), no evidence of bull trout spawning orrearing has been found. The connection with the Chester Morse Lake core area is one-way only, and currently the level of connectivity with other core areas is unknown. However, a number of observations of subadult and adult sized bull trout have been made in Lake Washington and at the Ballard Locks (Shepard and Dykeman 1977; KCDNR 2000). Observations of bull trout in the Ballard Locks and cursory hydroacoustic tagging suggest that these fish may be migrating to the Lake Washington area from other watersheds such as the Stillaguamish or Snohomish systems (Goetz et al. 2004). Bull trout have been caught in Shilshole Bay and the Ballard Locks during late spring and early summer in recent times. In 2000, eight adult and subadult fish (mean size 370 millimeters; 14.5 inches) were caught in Shilshole Bay below the locks between May and July. These fish were found preying upon juvenile salmon (40 percent of diet) and marine forage fish (60 percent of diet) (Footen 2000,2003). In 2001, five adult bull trout were captured in areas within the Ballard Locks and immediately below the locks. One bull trout was captured in the large lock in June, and in May one adult was captured while migrating upstream through the fish ladder in the adult steelhead trap. Three adult bull trout were also captured below the tailrace during the peak of juvenile salmon migration on June 18 (Goetz et al. 2004). Population Trends of the Species in Washington State Of the 80 populations of bull trout identified in Washington State, 14 (18 percent) are healthy, 2 (3 percent) are depressed, 6 (8 percent) are critical, and the status of 58 (72 percent) is unknown (WDFW 1998). Adult population size is highly variable, ranging from as many as 10,000 spawners per year throughout the Skagit River basin to possibly less than 100 in the White River basin. Currently, the USFWS is conducting a five year review to assess the best available information on how bull trout have fared since they were listed for protection across their range in the lower 48 states in 1999. This will include analyses of population trends and threats to the species. The purpose of a five year review is to ensure that the classification of a species as threatened or endangered is accurate. Coho Salmon Biological Requirements The coho salmon life history roughly consists of 18 months of freshwater rearing followed by 18 months of ocean rearing (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon typically spawn in relatively shallow tributary streams from October through February. Spawning generally occurs in temperatures ranging from 42 to 49°F. Coho salmon spawning gravel ranges from 0.5 to 4 inches (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Fry emerge in the spring and occupy most stream habitats, but are usually associated with the channel margin. Coho salmon fry densities are greatest in backwater pools, beaver dam pools, and off-channel areas (WDW 1991). At least one year of freshwater residence is normal for coho salmon juveniles (USFWS 1986a). Coho salmon parr are frequently associated with side channels, wetlands, and July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 21 K:\Projecls\Barbee MiU SA 2005\2005 BA draftsldraft two\May Creek BA 072BCS.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging off-channel sloughs for rearing (Sandercock 1991). Other important juvenile habitats include large wood accumulations, undercut banks, and complex pool habitats. Coho salmon juveniles are generally absent in channels lacking cover. Mason and Chapman (1965) reported that coho salmon juveniles are aggressive and territorial soon after emergence, and establish intraspecific dominance hierarchies. Where coho and Chinook salmon juveniles occurred together in streams, the coho were socially dominant, defending optimum feeding territory (Stein et al. 1972). Water temperatures that average between 50 to 59°F in the summer are considered optimum for juvenile coho salmon rearing (USFWS 1986a). Bell (1973) reported the upper lethal limit to be 78.5°F. Out- migration of smolts to marine areas usually occurs from April to August of the year following their hatching, with peak migrations in May in nearly all areas (USFWS 1986a). Factors of Decline Concerns with this ESU included genetic integrity of individual stocks and declining environmental and habitat conditions. Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho salmon stocks include high harvest rates, widespread habitat degradation, hatchery practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions. The genetic fitness of Puget Sound coho salmon stocks has been affected by widespread artificial propagation that includes inter- basin transfers of brood-stock, and by hatchery fish escapement and introgression with wild populations (Weitcamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon are also MSA-managed species in Puget Sound and have designated EFH. Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho salmon stocks include high harvest rates, widespread habitat degradation, hatchery practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions. The genetic fitness of Puget Sound coho salmon stocks has been affected by widespread artificial propagation that includes inter-basin transfers of brood stock, and by hatchery fish escapement and introgression with wild populations (Weitcamp et al. 1995). Current and future population pressures on coho salmon in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook . . Local Stock Information Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production; therefore, recent studies have not been able to fully evaluate the status of self-sustaining naturally spawning coho populations in the region. Trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions (Fresh 1994; WDF et al. 1993). Naturally spawning coho escapement (which could be a mix of native and hatchery origin coho) in Lake Washington was as high as 30,000 fish in 1970 and declined to less than 2,000 in 1992 (Fresh 1994). Index escapement values for Cedar River coho in the 1990s have declined to levels far below those observed in the 1980s, so the stock is now rated depressed by WDFW due to both the long-term negative trend in the index values and the chronically low nature of the indicator values. The Lake Washington/Sammamish tributaries coho stock is also rated as depressed by WDFW for the same factors (WDFW 2002). Available spawning survey information for May Creek suggests the same negative trend. Spawning surveys July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 22 K:lProjectsI8arbee MdI SA 200512005 SA draftsldra/l two\May Creek BA 072805 doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found peak coho adult spawner densities in lower May Creek at 23, 5, and 55 coho per mile, respectively, while surveys in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities of only 2 fish per mile (Foster Wheeler 1995). Population Trends of the Species The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon ESUincludes populations from drainages of Puget Sound and Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula east of Salt Creek, and the Strait of Georgia from the east side of Vancouver Island (north to and including Campbell River) and the British Columbia mainland (north to and including Powell River), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope. WDF et al. (1993) identified 40 coho populations within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. While most were sustained by natural production, only three of these populations were determined to be of native origin. Weitkamp et al. (1995) noted that while coho salmon within the Puget Sound ESU were abundant, and with some exceptions run sizes and natural spawning escapements generally stable, there are substantial risks to whatever native production remains. The Puget Sound coho ESU remains a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. From 1991 through 2000, the annual run size of coho populations entering Puget Sound was 669,000, of which 44 percent were derived from natural spawning. Over this same period, wild coho escapement increased, which is primarily attributed to a reduction in Puget Sound fisheries, allowing more fish to reach spawning grounds even though total run sizes decreased. High harvest rates and a recent decline in average size of spawners is a concern because of the potential for reduced fecundity and/or productivity (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Hatchery coho programs are also intensive in Puget Sound, influencing population trends. From 1991 through 2000, an average of approximately 24 million hatchery-produced juvenile coho were released into Puget Sound annually. Over this period, total hatchery releases decreased from about 40 million in 1991 to less than \0 million in 2000 (PSMFC 2002). Bald Eagle Biological Requirements The bald eagle is found throughout North America. The largest breeding populations in the contiguous United States occur in the Pacific Northwest states, the Great Lakes states, Chesapeake Bay and Florida. The bald eagle winters over most of the breeding range, but is most concentrated from southern Alaska and southern Canada southward. In Washington, bald eagles are most common along the coasts, major rivers, lakes and reservoirs (USFWS 1986b). Bald eagles require accessible prey and trees for suitable nesting and roosting habitat (Stalmaster 1987). Food availability, such as aggregations of waterfowl or salmon runs, is a primary factor attracting bald eagles to wintering areas and influences the distribution of nests and territories (Stalmaster 1987; Keister et al. 1987). Bald eagle nests in the Pacific Recovery Area are usually located in uneven-aged stands of coniferous trees with old-growth forest components that are located within one mile of large bodies of water. Factors such as relative tree height, diameter, species, form, position on the surrounding topography, distance from the water, and distance from July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 23 K:\Projects\Barbee Mill SA 2005\2005 BA draftsljjrafl.lYrIo\May Creek SA 072805_00c . Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging . disturbance appear to influence nest site selection. Nests are most commonly constructed in Douglas fir or Sitka spruce trees, with average heights of 116 feet and size of 50 inches dbh (Anthony et al. 1982 in Stalmaster 1987). Bald eagles usually nest in the same territories each year and often use the same nest repeatedly. Availability of suitable trees for nesting and perching is critical for maintaining bald eagle populations. The average territory radius ranges from 1.55 miles in western Washington to 4.41 miles along the lower Columbia River (Grubb 1976; Garrett et al. 1988). In Washington, courtship and nest building activities normally begin in January, with eaglets hatching in mid-April or early May. Eaglets usually fledge in mid-July (Anderson et al. 1986). A number of habitat features are desirable for wintering bald eagles. During the winter months bald eagles are known to band together in large aggregations where food is most easily acquired. The quality of wintering habitat is tied to food sources and characteristics of the area that promote bald eagle foraging. Key contributing factors are available fish spawning habitat with exposed gravel bars in areas close to bald eagle perching habitat. Bald eagles select perches that provide a good view of the surrounding territory, typically the tallest perch tree available within close proximity to a feeding area (Stalmaster 1987). Tree species commonly used as perches are black cottonwood, big leaf maple, or Sitka spruce (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). Wintering bald eagles may roost communally in single tree or large forest stands of uneven ages that have some old-growth forest characteristics (Anthony et al. 1982 in Stalmaster 1987). Some bald eagles may remain at their daytime perches through the night but bald eagles often gather at large communal roosts during the evening. Communal night roosting sites are traditionally used year after year and are characterized by more favorable microclimatic conditions. Roost trees are usually the most dominant trees of the site and provide unobstructed views of the surrounding landscape (Anthony et al. 1982 in Stalmaster 1987). They are often in ravines or draws that offer shelter from inclement weather (Hansen et al. 1980; Keister et al. 1987). A communal night roost can consist of two birds together in one tree, or more than 50 in a large stand of trees. Roosts can be located near a river, lake, or seashore and are normally within a few miles of day- use areas, but can be located as far away from water as 17 miles or more. Prey sources may be available in the general vicinity, but close proximity to food is not as critical as the need for shelter that a roost affords (Stalmaster 1987). Bald eagles utilize a wide variety of prey items, although they primarily feed on fish, birds and mammals. Diet can vary seasonally, depending on prey availability. Given a choice of food, however, they typically select fish. Many species of fish are eaten, but they tend to be species that are easily captured or available as carrion. In the Pacific Northwest, salmon form an important food supply, particularly in the winter and fall. Birds taken for food are associated with aquatic habitats. Ducks, gulls and seabirds are typically of greatest importance in coastal environments. Mammals are less preferred than birds and fish, but form an important part of the diet in some areas. Deer and elk carcasses are scavenged, and in coastal areas eagles feed on whale, seal, sea lion and porpoise carcasses (Stalmaster 1987). July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 24 K:IJ>rojects\8arbee Mil BA2005\2005 BA c!mfls'Klraft two\May Creek SA 072805.00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Factors of Decline Bald eagle populations have increased in number and expanded their range. The improvement is a direct result of recovery efforts including habitat protection and the banning of DDT and other persistent organochlorines. However, habitat loss continues to be a long-term threat to the bald eagle in the Pacific Recovery Area of Washington, Idaho, Nevada, California, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming. Urban and recreational development, logging, mineral exploration and extraction, and other forms of human activities are adversely affecting the suitability of breeding, wintering, and foraging areas. In July 1999, the USFWS proposed to de-list the bald eagle; however, no action on the de-listing proposal has occurred since that time. Local Population Information Bald eagles are known to occur in the action area for this proposed project (i.e. within one mile of the May Creek delta). The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species maps, dated May 24, 2005 for the vicinity of Township 24, Range 5 E, Section 32, indicate that three bald eagle nests occur within one mile, but greater than 0.5 miles of the project site. All three nests are located to the west of the May Creek delta on the southeastern tip of Mercer Island. One ofthe nests was reported to have blown out in 1999. However, another nest was reported as active over the last seven years (2004 observation). It is reasonable to assume that bald eagles may fly over the project site and that they may forage in the action area based on the presence of documented nest sites and forage species, such as waterfowl, seagulls, and salmon, which occur in and around May Creek and the southern portion of Lake Washington. Population Trends of the Species Bald eagle populations have increased in number and expanded their range. The improvement is a direct result of recovery efforts including habitat protection and the banning of DDT and other persistent organochlorines. The 1996 information provided by WDFW (WDFW unpub. data) indicates that 589 nests were known to be occupied and 0.93 young/nest were produced. This is well above the recovery goal of 276 pairs for Washington, but below the recovery criteria of an average of 1.00 young/nest. In many areas, the numbers of nesting pairs and the reproductive rates have been more than double the targets. Recently, WDFW has changed bald eagle protection policies and no longer requires construction windows to minimize noise disturbance to bald eagles during nesting. WDFW now only focuses on protection of trees that could be used for roosting, perching, or nesting. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process 50 CFR § 402.02(d}. The baseline provides a reference for NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS to evaluate the species' current status in relationship to the proposed action. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 25 K:'ProjecIslBartle1l Mill BA 2005\2005 SA drafts'draft lwQ\May Creek BA 01280S.00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging A. Description of the Action Area and Project Area As described in Section II(E), the action area for the proposed project encompasses the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington (Figure I). The project area encompasses the May Creek delta. The environmental baseline of the action area is generally described below, including the Lake Washington basin, May Creek watershed, and the project area (May Creek delta). Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington) May Creek May Creek drains approximately 14 square miles between the Coal Creek and Cedar River basins. The basin contains approximately 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres of wetlands (Foster Wheeler 1998). Historically, the watershed was forested with predominantly coniferous stands. Over recent decades, land uses in the western one-third of the basin have changed to intensive residential development, with some industrial development in the lowermost reaches, including the Barbee Lumber Mill. The eastern two-thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural residential, small farms, and some forested areas (King County 2001). Developed communities in the watershed include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honey Creek, and Lake Kathleen (Foster Wheeler 1998). The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban- scale development from encroaching on the headwaters ofthe basin. Land development in the lower basin has substantially reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces, and filled wetlands. Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage basin-wide is approximately 7 percent. In addition, under current zoning, full build-out would result in approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being covered in impervious surfaces (King County 2001). This is significant, as basin-wide impervious surface areas of 10 percent or greater have been found to have significant impacts on the health of aquatic ecosystems (May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991). Logging, coal mining, and agricultural activities have resulted in channelized streams, floodplain encroachment, and eroding slopes in the May Creek watershed. The lower four miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the creek experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of L WD (Foster Wheeler 1998). The lack ofLWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat. Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to forest removal, the presence of rock quarries, and the expansion of road networks. Vegetation removal throughout the basin has resulted in higher maximum flows and lower minimum flows. Higher flows than what naturally occurred can result in stream substrate scour, which may negatively impact salmon redds (Foster Wheeler· 1998). The increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding and sediment deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and flooding and sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 200 I). Peak flows have increased moderately in May Valley, on the order of 15 to 20 percent July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 26 K:lProjecls\Barboo Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draftsldraft twlJlMay Creek BA 012805.00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging greater than the predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year return intervals (King County 2001) .. From approximately RM 3.9 to 7.0, the riparian area of May Creek is heavily impacted by grazing (Foster Wheeler 1998). Agricultural activities in May Valley have drained historic wetlands and channelized May Creek (Buchanan 2003). The South Fork of May Creek starts at RM 7.0. Portions of the South Fork go dry in the summer from RM 7.0 to 9.1. A 128-foot-long culvert blocks anadromous fish passage at RM 7.7. The North Fork of May Creek parallels State Route (SR) 900, resulting in degraded riparian conditions and channelization. Three quarries along the North Fork contribute to high sediment loading in the system (Foster Wheeler 1998). The East Fork of May Creek flows into the South Fork at RM 7.2. Habitat conditions in the East Fork are highly degraded due to the presence of man-made berms, culverts, and man-made ponds (Foster Wheeler 1998). Almost all of the basin's nearly 80 identified wetlands have been disturbed by deforestation, filling, draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring since the wetlands were first inventoried in 1983 (King County 2001). The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 200 I) includes several goals, one of which is to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin. Implementation of habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on funding availability. Restoration work along May Creek has recently taken place; the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge to Lake Washington Boulevard by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation. In this area (located upstream from the proposed dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width from 5 to over 100 feet in width. Despite the current habitat conditions, the lower reaches of May Creek experience the heaviest use by fish (Foster Wheeler 1998). Steelhead, cutthroat trout, Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon spawn in May Creek. Spawning gravel, although embedded, likely supports successful incubation (Buchanan 2003). The primary limiting factor for Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is available spawning area and incubation success (Foster Wheeler 1998). The primary limiting factor for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and over- wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998). Lake Washington The following description of the Lake Washington basin is from Kerwin (200 I) unless otherwise cited. Lake Washington is approximately twenty miles long and is bordered by the cities of Seattle, Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Kenmore. The Lake Washington! Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and Sammamish, and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It also includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain into the system from the north. Historically, Lake Washington had a vcgetated shoreline of wetlands, trees, brush, and other mixed vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for juvenile salmonids. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 27 K:lPrtljeCtslBarbeo WI BA 2005\2005 SA dralls';;lrall.two\May Creek SA 07280S,cIoc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging The shoreline's natural structural complexity was beneficial for fish and other aquatic species. Larger conifers that grew in the riparian area provided shade and contributed plant material (branches, needles) and terrestrial insects to the aquatic food chain. The United States Fish Commission Bulletin published in 1898 describes the lake as follows; "Only in a few places along the shore of the entire lake is the bottom sufficiently free from snags, fallen trees, and other material to permit the successful hauling of nets". In the past 150 years, the Lake WashingtonlLake Sammamish watershed has been dramatically altered from its historical condition. Habitat degradation started with heavy logging of old growth forest throughout much of the watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle began diverting water out of the upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910 through 1920, the natural Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake Washington to Lake Union and then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake that was not connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of the Lake Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to 10 feet and the loss of over ten miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. During that same decade, the Cedar River was redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington. In the ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been the expansion of urban and suburban development. In the upper Cedar River, land is devoted almost entirely to preservation of forests. Residential, industrial, and commercial uses prevail in the lower reaches of virtually all the streams. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into the lake, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). Piers are also used heavily as ambush cover by non-native species such as bass, which may prey heavily on native juvenile salmonids. The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat. The current lake level is artificially regulated within a two-foot range. The high water/low water regime is reversed from the natural state. High water occurs during the summer for extensive operation of the Ballard Locks. Low water occurs during the winter protect property from winter wave action. Despite the heavy alteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support numerous salmonid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest salmonid . populations, the Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye, coho, kokanee, steelhead, rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char. Some ofthe small independent Puget Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and cutthroat. Maps illustrating known and presumed distributions for each of these species are available in Kerwin (2001). Additionally, at least 40 non-native fish species (of July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 28 K:lProjectslllarbee Mil! BA 2005\20()5 BA draflsldrafl twolMay Creek BA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc; May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging which approximately 24 persist) have been introduced into the Lake Washington basin, most notably smallmouth and largemouth bass, creating numerous trophic interactions with native species', most notably predation on native salmonids. Sockeye salmon in the lake system are believed to be primarily the descendants of fry transplanted from Baker Lake in the 1930s. While many species have been introduced, native species such as Cedar River pink and chum salmon have been extirpated. Project Area (May Creek Delta) On April 9 and May 6, 2005, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed detailed aquatic habitat and fish presence surveys in the May Creek delta project area. The objective of these surveys was to: • document the existing aquatic habitat conditions; • determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and • describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the survey. An additional objective was to compare the results of 2005 surveys with the results of fish habitat and fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in 1993, 2000, and 200 I (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001). It should be noted that the timing of the 2005 surveys was designed to coincide with the expected residence period of juvenile coho and Chinook. Survey Methods Ten underwater (SCUBA) transects were placed between the north end of the May Creek delta and the existing boathouse located at the south end ofthe proposed project area (Figure 5). Transects ranged from 25 to 245 feet in length, and extended approximately 395 feet into Lake Washington. Transects I through 4 were shallow-water snorkel survey transects located along the north and south shoreline adjacent to the delta, up to the lowermost access bridge at the mouth of May Creek. Transects 5 through 9 paralleled each other, oriented from roughly 0° to 180°, and transect 10 extend from the south end of transect 9 to the existing boathouse (Figure 5). The transects were placed to document varying habitat types. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 29 K :lJlrojectslBartlee Mlll BA 2005\2005 SA drol\sldran two\May Creek SA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 5. May Creek delta 2005 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations. On April 9, 2005, two fisheries biologists used snorkeling equipment and SCUBA to swim each of the 10 survey transects approximately three feet above the surface of the lake bed. While swimming each transect, both divers counted and identified fish to species. When fish were observed, divers also recorded the depth, dominant and subdominant substrate, and underwater visibility. Fish age classes and species associations were also noted. Aquatic macrophyte densities were visually estimated along each transects at a series of one to three square yard stations. At each station, macrophyte densities were visually estimated as low (less than or equal to 10 stems per square yard), moderate (II to 100 stems per square yard), or high (greater than 100 stems per square yard). Aquatic macrophyte species composition and relative abundance was also estimated/recorded at each station. Underwater photographs of representative habitat conditions and fish were also takcn along selected transects. On May 6, 2005, a fisheries biologist used snorkeling equipment to survey the littoral zone of the delta and surrounding shoreline (transects I through 4) (Figure 5). The survey focused on the littoral zone and surrounding shoreline because this is the area of July 28, 2005 K:IProjeclslBarbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA draftsldraft twolMay Crook BA 072B05.doc Biological Assessment· Page 30 • ---_. ------------------ Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging the lake that is most likely to be occupied by ESA listed Chinook and other salmonids (Tabor et al. 2004). The survey biologist identified, counted, and attempted to photograph each fish species observed and also recorded the depth, dominant and subdominant substrate, and underwater visibility. Survey Results Fish Use Over the last several years numerous salmonid species have been documented at the project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, and rainbow and cutthroat trout. Non-salmonid species documented at the project site include largemouth and small mouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three-spine stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; and Buchanan 2003). Fish species observed during the April and May 2005 aquatic habitat and fish population surveys included Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, three-spine stickleback, and prickly sculpin (Tables 5 and 6). As in past surveys, the majority of all fish obserVed in 2005 were found in relatively shallow water (less than 6 feet deep) along transects I through 4. Typically these fish were associated with overhead and underwater cover in the form of riprap, emergent vegetation, submerged logs, the existing dock, and the culvert located adjacent to the existing dock. In 2005, the majority of the coho and Chinook were found to be associated with the outlet ofthe culvert located adjacent to the dock (the eastern end of Transect 4) (Figure 6); however, coho and rainbow trout were also observed using nearshore emergent vegetation as cover. Riparian Condition The Barbee Mill property, located adjacent to the May Creek delta, has been highly modified, with mill operations dominating the land use. Approximately 85 percent of the site is covered by impervious surfaces in the form of pavement associated with mill operations and approximately 15 structures used for mill offices, log handling, sawing, milling, and storage of wood products (Figure 5 illustrates the condition adjacent to the May Creek delta). Mill facility structures and impervious surfaces abut the Lake Washington shoreline, in addition to an existing dock structure. In recent years, the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation. In this area (located upstream from the proposed dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width from approximately 5 to over 100 feet in width. Immediately adjacent to the May Creek delta, the riparian area is grass covered and managed more as lawn than an actual riparian buffer (Figure 7). Traditional riprap erosion control has been placed along both sides of the delta from the lower access bridge down to the confluence with Lake Washington. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 31 K:1PmjectslBarbee MiU SA 2005\2005 BA dr.i1'I:s'draft \wQ\May Creek SA 072S05.doc ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging . Table 5 Summary of April 9, 2005 SCUBA survey results within the proposed project area. Survey Method Aquatic Aquatic Transect and Station Distance Depth Macrophyte Macrophyte Number Number Bearing (feet) (feet) Substrate Density • Species Comments I Fish Observations 1 Snorkel 138° 115 0·2.6 Riprap cobble Low Elodea Visibility approximately 3.3 feet. No fish observed Survey and sand canadensis (used light to see into riprap areas) 2 Snorkel 76° 180 0·3.3 Riprap cobble, None None observed Visibility approximately 2.6 feet. Two dead Survey sand, and observed sticklebacks. One dead crayfish. No live fish gravel observed. (Used light to see into riprap areas) 3 Snorkel 230° 280 0-3.3 Riprap cobble, Low Floating Visibility approximately 3.3 feet. Two sculpin (alive) Survey sand,and Eurasian Milfoil under riprap. gravel 4 Snorkel 115° and 150 0-3.3 Riprap cobble, Low Elodea Approximately 150 coho fry, two sockeye salmon fry, Survey 70° sand,and canadensis and and five Chinook salmon fry (see Figure 6). All gravel sparse Eurasian salmonids were observed near the culvert outlet and Milfoil (floating) under the existing dock structure. Pulses of turbid water out of the culvert appeared to attract salmon fry (actively feeding). One eight-inch-diameter westem pond turtle was observed mid-transect. Visibility approximately 3.9 feet. 5 Snorkel 180° 25 0-3.3 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Gravel extends out approximately Survey gravel and observed 2.6 feet from riprap followed by sand at mid-channel. sand mid-Sand substrate across approximately 90 percent of channel the channel. 6 Snorkel 180° 35 0-3.9 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90 Survey gravel and observed percent of the channel. Gravel and cobble on edges sand mid-of channel only, near the toe of shore armor. channel 7 Snorkel 180° 80 0-4.3 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90 Survey gravel and observed percent of the channel. A "pit' measuring sand mid-approximately 8.2 feet deep was observed at mid- channel transect. Gravel and cobble on edges of channel only, near the toe of shore armor. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 32 K:\ProjedslBarboe PMI SA 2005\2005 SA draltsldralllWolMay Cruek SA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. Survey Method Transect and Station Distance Number Number Bearing (feet) 8 Snorkel 180· 115 Survey 9 SCUBA 1 180· 80 9 SCUBA 2 180· 165 9 SCUBA 3 180· 245 10 SCUBA 1 90· 80 10 SCUBA 2 90· 165 10 SCUBA 3 90· 245 Low = less than or equal to 10 stems per square yard. Moderate = 11 to 100 stems per square yard. High = greater than 100 stems per square yard. July 28, 2005 K:\Projects\Batbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA dtaftsldrall twoway Creek SA 072805.doc Depth (feet) 0-8.2 4.3 10.5 19.7 13.1 10.5 6.6-9.8 May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Aquatic Aquatic Macrophyte Macrophyte Substrate Density • Species Comments I Fish Observations Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90 gravel and observed percent 01 the channel. sand mid- channel Silt Moderate Elodea No fish observed. Numerous (1 ,000's) Neomysis canadensis and mercedis (possum shrimp) observed throughout the sparse Eurasian transect. Milloil Silt Moderate Eurasian Milloil, No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis. Elodea canadensis, and Potamogeton crispis (curly-leaf pondweed) Silt None None observed No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis. observed Silt Moderate Elodea One dead sculpin. No live fish observed. Numerous canadensis and Neomysis mercedis. One freshwater mussel. Eurasian Milloil Silt Moderate Elodea No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis. canadensis and Eurasian Milloil Silt/Sand Low Elodea No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis. canadensis and Series of three pits measuring 6.6 to 9.8 feet deep Eurasian Milfoil located near the boathouse entrance. Total transect length = 245 feet. - - Biological Assessment -Page 33 Meridian Environmental, Inc. Table 6. Summary of May 6, 2005 snorkel survey results within the proposed project area. Survey Method I Transect Station Distance Number Number Bearing (m) 1 Snorkel 138' 115 Survey 2 Snorkel 76' 180 Survey 3 Snorkel 230' 280 Survey 4 Snorkel 115' and 145 Survey 70' Low = less than or equal to 10 stems per square yard. Moderate = 11 to 100 stems per square yard. High = greater than 100 stems per square yard. July 28, 2005 K:\ProjedslBarbee Mill SA 2OOS\2OO5 BA drafls\clraft \Wo\May Creel! SA 072805.doc Aquatic Aquatic Depth Macrophyte Macrophyte (m) Substrate Density· Species 0-3.9 Riprap cobble Low Elodea canadensis and sand and curly pondweed 0-3.9 Riprap cobble, None observed Soft rush along· sand, and shoreline. gravel 0-4.9 Riprap cobble, Low None sand,and gravel 0-4.9 Riprap cobble, Low Elodea canadensis sand, and gravel May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Comments I Fish Observations Visibility approximately 4.9 feet. One large stickleback in rip rap. Visibility approximately 4.9 feet. One rainbow trout fry (using soft rush as cover), 2 coho salmon fry and 8 large sticklebacks using riprap as cover. Visibility approximately 3.9 feet. Five coho salmon fry, 2 rainbow trout fry and 12 sticklebacks using riprap as cover. Visibility approximately 3.9 feet. Approximately 30 coho fry, 6 rainbow trout, and 20 sticklebacks. The majority of the coho and rainbow trout fry were observed near the culvert outlet and under the existing dock structure; however, additional coho and rainbow trout were observed using emergent vegetation as cover. Biological Assessment -Page 34 Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 6. Figure 7. July 28, 2005 Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet (eastern end of transect 4) located adjacent to the existing dock structure (2005 SCUBA survey). Current May Creek delta riparian condition (habitat enhancement area). Biological Assessment· Page 35 K:lS'rojects\Barbee !vIiU BA 2005\2005 BA dr8I1s'ilralttwolMay Creilk SA 072805.00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Aquatic Macrophytes Six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented in the proposed project area; elodea (Elodea canadensis), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), white-stemmed pondweed (Potamogeton prelongus), curly-Ieafpondweed (P. crispis), American wild celery (Vallisneria americana), and common water nymph (Najas guadalupensis) (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001). Elodea is a native species found throughout most of Lake Washington. It is nodally rooting and forms large mats in shallow water, nearshore areas. Eurasian milfoil is a non-native species that first appeared in Lake Washington in the mid-1970s. This species spreads rapidly, and now dominates the aquatic macrophyte community in the nearshore areas of the lake (Harza 1993). According to Kerwin (2001), Eurasian milfoil has colonized a large percentage of the littoral zone and replaced much of the native aquatic vegetation present in littoral areas of Lake Washington. Curly-leaf pondweed also forms mats of vegetation in lakes and streams, and provides a large area ofleaf surface. It is native to Europe, introduced in North America, and known to occur in both central and western Washington. American wild celery is also native to eastern North America; however, Hitchcock et a1. (1969) notes that it was introduced into several lakes in Washington, including Lake Washington (Harza 1993). Common water nymph exists throughout Washington and is often found in ponds, lakes and sluggish streams to depths of 12 feet. Based on the results of underwater surveys conducted in 1993,2000, and 2001 (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001), the distribution and abundance of these macrophyte communities fluctuates considerably on a seasonal basis. In general, high densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and curly-leaf pondweed have been observed in the nearshore portion (depths less than 12 feet) ofthe proposed project area during the summer months (Harza 2000). The highest abundance is typically seen in depths of 6 to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the deeper water transects (greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and less abundant. Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15 feet (Harza 1993 and 2000). During the winter and early spring the densities of these species are relatively low, as most of their growth occurs during the summer months. In 2005, biologists observed low to moderate densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and curly-Ieafpondweed in the proposed project area (Table 5). Densities were highest along transects 9 and 10 at depths less than 12 feet (Figure 8) and lowest along transects I, 3 and 4. No aquatic macrophytes were observed along transects 2, 5, 7, and 8 (Table 5). Overall, elodea was the dominant aquatic plant species both in distribution and abundance throughout the proposed project area. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 36 K:\ProjectslBarbee MjK BA 2005\2005 SA draflsldraft twolMay Creek BA 072805.doc --------------------------- Meridian Environmental, Inc. . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 8. Curly-leaf pondweed, Elodea canadensi, and Eurasian milfoil observed along transect 9 (2005 SCUBA survey). Shoreline Condition As discussed previously, the littoral zone and shoreline of Lake Washington has been extensively modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake level; construction of piers, docks, and bulkheads; removal of L WD; and the expansion of Eurasian milfoil and other non-native aquatic macrophytes (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000). The previously hardstem bulrush and willow-dominated shoreline community has been replaced by developed and hardened shorelines with landscaped yards. According to Toft (200 I), an estimated 71 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored with riprap or bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers have been built. This loss of natural shoreline has reduced the occurrence of complex shoreline habitat features such as overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen trees with branches andlor rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches, which has reduced the availability of refuge habitat and forage for juvenile salmonids. Like most of the shoreline along Lake Washington, the shoreline in the proposed project area is armored with riprap (Figure 9); however, a very limited amount of emergent vegetation (soft rush, grasses, sedges, etc.) was observed growing along transect 4. In 2005, juvenile rainbow trout, coho salmon, and sticklebacks were observed using this using this emergent vegetation as cover. Water depths in the areas dominated by riprap substrate range from 0 to approximate 3 feet deep. July 28, 2005 K:\Projects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA drallsldrall lwo\May Creek SA 072805.ooc Biological Assessment -Page 37 Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 9. Substrate Riprap shoreline located along the May Creek delta (habitat enhancement area). The substrate in the proposed project area (bottom surface observations during SCUBA surveys) is comprised ofa mixture of silt and sand, riprap cobble (4 to 8 inches in diameter), and gravel patches. Riprap cobble, sand, and gravel were the dominant substrates observed along transects I through 8. The riprap cobble was typically located within 6 feet of the shoreline to a depth of approximately 3 feet (Figure 10). Roughly equal amounts of gravel and sand were the dominant substrates in the mid-channel areas of transects I through 8. Silt and sand were the only substrates observed along transects 9 and 10 (Figure II). Figure 10. Riprap cobble substrate along transect 3 (2005 SCUBA survey). July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 38 K:II'rojects\Barbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldrafl twolMay Creek BA 072805.00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure II. Silt substrate along transect 9 at a depth of approximately 15 feet (2005 SCUBA survey). Overall Aquatic Habitat Complexity Other than aquatic macrophytes, large substrates (submerged riprap), and occasional pieces of submerged woody debris, complex habitat features are extremely limited in the May Creek delta project area. The dock, boathouse, and culvert located immediately south of the delta provide overhead cover for juvenile salmon ids at depths less than approximately two feet; however, at depths greater than two feet, these structures likely provide cover for abundant nonnative predators such as largemouth and small mouth bass. The riprap shoreline surrounding the delta may directly affect predation on juvenile salmonids by eliminating shallow-water refuge habitat or, indirectly, by the eliminating shoreline vegetation. The large interstitial spaces found within the riprap shoreline may also provide ambush habitat for abundant, large native cottids (also known to prey on juvenile salmonids). As discussed previously, overhanging riparian vegetation and emergent vegetation is extremely limited in the project area. In summary, the proposed project area would be considered poor juvenile salmonid rearing habitat due to the lack of overhanging vegetation and lack of shallow water structure such as shallow emergent vegetation and small woody debris (brush). B. Environmental Baseline Matrix For proposed actions that affect freshwater habitat, the Services usually define the biological requirements for listed species in terms of a concept called properly functioning condition (PFC). PFC is the sustained presence of natural habitat-forming processes in a watershed (e.g., riparian community succession, bedload transport, precipitation runoff pattern, channel migration) that are necessary for the long-term survival of the species through the full range of environmental variation. PFC, then, constitutes the habitat component of a species' biological requirements. The indicators of PFC vary between different landscapes based on unique physiographic and geologic features. For example, aquatic habitats on timberlands in glacial mountain valleys are controlled by natural processes operating at different scales and rates than are habitats on low-elevation coastal rivers or lake systems. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 39 K:\Pr0jed5\8arbee MIll SA 2005\2005 SA draltsldralllwo\May Cleek BA 072B05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging In the NOAA Fisheries PFC framework, baseline environmental conditions are described as "properly functioning" (PFC), "at risk" (AR), or "not properly functioning" (NPF). USFWS also has a PFC framework that defines baseline environmental conditions in terms of "functioning appropriately" (FA), "functioning at risk" (AR), or "functioning at unacceptable risk" (UR). The PFC concept includes a recognition that natural patterns of habitat disturbance will continue to occur. For example, floods, landslides, wind damage, and wildfires result in spatial and temporal variability in habitat characteristics, as will anthropogenic perturbations. If a proposed project would be likely to impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it will usually be found likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both, depending upon the specific considerations of the analysis. Such considerations may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the quality of the available information. In this section of the BA, we summarize existing environmental conditions and parameters for the action area, and present the status of each indicator as PFC, AR, or NPF following the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS "pathways and indicators" matrices (Table 7). For the purposes of this analysis we have integrated the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS matrices in order to facilitate an analysis of the effects of the proposed project on bull trout and Chinook salmon simultaneously. For consistency we have used the terms PFC, AR, or NPF (NOAA Fisheries terminology) for rating specific environmental indicators applicable to bull trout from the USFWS (\998) matrix. For practical purposes, PFC, AR, or NPF (NOAA Fisheries terminology) are equivalent to FA, AR, and UR (USFWS terminology). Criteria for PFC, AR and NPF are described in detail in NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998), but summarized for each indicator following Table 7 along with a detailed justification for the status of each indicator in the action area. The effects that the proposed project may have on each environmental indicator are analyzed subsequently in Section VeE). It is important to note that the current status of a particular environmental indicator can be non-related to a proposed project. For example, road density in the Lake Washington basin may rate as "not properly functioning" under existing conditions even though the proposed project has no influence on this indicator. In addition, the 1996 NMFS matrix was originally designed by the U.S. Forest Service to evaluate timber harvest activities on rangeland watersheds. Therefore, not all of the parameters below are necessarily applicable to the small spatial scale of the proposed project, although it is still a useful tool in characterizing the baseline conditions and summarizing the potential effects of the proposed project. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 40 K:lf'rojectslBarbee Mill SA 200512005 SA dransldrafl twclMay Creek BA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Table 7. Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental baseline on relevant indicators. Baseline Environmental Conditions Pathway Cause of Degradation from Indicators Function Description PFC Water Quality Temperature NPF High water temperatures present Loss of riparian vegetation due during bull trout spawning, to development; natural low incubation and migration; and during watershed elevation Chinook spawning, rearing and migration' SedimentlTurbidity NPF High sediment loads in May Creek Increased runoff due to and Lake Washington development has increased bank erosion and sediment transport in May Creek Chemical NPF Several 303(d} reaches present Residential and commercial ContaminationlNutrients development has increased polluted runoff (point and non- point sources), agricultural! hobby farm run-off to May Creek Habitat Access Physical Barriers AR Man-made in-stream structures Ballard Locks is a predation present bottleneck, and is a quick transition between salt and freshwaters, which is undesirable for salmon smolts Habitat Elements Substrate NPF High fine sediment loads in May Increased runoff due to Creek and Lake Washington development has increased bank erosion and sediment transport in May Creek Large Woody Debris NPF Limited to no LWD along the lake Development, historic wood shore and in the lower 4 miles of removal, loss of riparian forest May Creek Pool Frequency and NPF Few pools in lower May Creek High sediment loads and lack Quality of pool forming structure such as LWD due to human development Off-Channel Habitat NPF Little if any off-channel habitat May Creek channelization, present wetland degradation and wetland loss due to development, lowering of Lake Washington Refugia NPF No pristine PFC aquatic habitat Wide scale urbanization has present in the action area degraded May Creek and Lake Washington July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 41 K:\PTOjects\Barbee Mil SA 2005\2005 BA draltsldrafl two\MayCreek SA 072B05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging Baseline Environmental Conditions Pathway Cause of Degradation from Indicators Function Description PFC Channel Conditions and Dynamics WidthlDepth Ratio NPF Stream has been channelized, and Increased erosion and heavy sediment transport occurs in sedimentation, along with May Creek channelization due to development and increased runoff has degrade channel morphology in May Creek Streambank Condition NPF Extensive actively eroding Increased erosion due to streambanks in May Creek; Lake channelization and Washington's shore is extensively development in May Creek; hardened with bulk heads and piers shoreline armoring along the lake for residential and commercial development Floodplain Connectivity NPF Limited floodplain connectivity May Creek has been channelized and Lake Washington was lowered, permanently dewatering shallow wetlands and lake margin habitat. F/owlHydrology Change in PeaklBase NPF Peak flows are higher and base Loss of wetlands and increased Flow flows are lower impervious surface due to development has increased runoff during peak flows, and diminished ground water recharge to sustain summer base flows Increase in Drainage NPF Peak flows are higher Impervious surface and roads Network have contributed to increased I runoff Watershed Conditions , Road Density and NPF High road density Lake Washington is a highly Location urbanized area with a well developed road network Disturbance History NPF Massive human caused landscape Diversion of the Cedar River, altering events have occurred lowering of Lake Washington and general urbanization of dramatically altered the historic landscape Riparian Reserves NPF Few forested areas compared to Wide spread clearing in the historic conditions May Creek watershed and Lake Washington for urbanization July 28. 2005 K:\Projects\Barboo Mill BA 2005\2005 SA dfaflsldran twolMay Creek BA (}72805.00c Biological Assessment -Page 42 Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Baseline Environmental Conditions Pathway Cause of Degradation from Indicators Function Description PFC Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria) Population Size NA No local bull trout subpopulation in No bull trout subpopulations the action area, although foraging are known or suspected to individuals may be present from occur in May Creek; the Cedar other basins such as the Snohomish River population is resident and Stillaguamish, or from the upper above a natural barrier and Cedar River was not historically connected to Lake Washington Growth and Survival NA Same as above Same as above Life History Diversity NA Same as above Same as above and Isolation Persistence and NA Same as above Same as above Genetic Integrity NA = Not Applicable Water Temperature For Chinook salmon, NMFS (1996) defines PFC as water temperatures ranging from 50 to 57°F. AR ranges from 57 to 60°F for spawning and from 57 to 64 ° for migration and rearing. NPF is defined as greater than 60°F for spawning and greater than 64°F for rearing. USFWS (1998) defines PFC for bull trout as water temperatures ranging from 35.6 to 41°F for incubation, 39.2 to 53.6°F for rearing, and 39.2 to 48.2°F for spawning. NPF is defmed as temperatures outside the above criteria, with rearing areas and migration corridor temperatures over 59°F. Water temperatures in the area (East Mercer Channel) are generally below 50°F during the winter and between 62 to 75°F during the summer at depths of 3.3 feet. At a depth of 33 feet, water temperatures are about 45°F in the winter and between 59° and 68°F during the summer (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/site0840.htm). Under the USFWS (\ 998) criteria these values would rate as NPF for bull trout spawning and incubation and summer migration corridors. Under the NMFS (1996) criteria, these values would rate between NPF and AR for Chinook spawning;rearing and migration. SedimentlTurbidity NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as containing less than 12 percent fines in gravel, and NPF is defined as having greater than 17 percent surface fines (greater than 20 percent surface fines under USFWS 1998). The project area substrate is composed of coarse sand and gravel with shallow surface accumulations of silt. According to King County (200 I), sediment deposition has occurred from natural erosion but has been accelerated by increased storm water runoff from upstream development and changes in the watershed land cover. Increased erosion and sedimentation has degraded fish habitat and resulted in sediment deposition at the May Creek delta (King County 2001). We assume that this increased erosion and July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 43 K:'ProjectslBarbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA draltsldraft lWolMay Creek BA 072605.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging sedimentation has increased turbidity levels over natural conditions, although no specific turbidity data were reviewed. King County (200 I) also noted that activities associated with quarrying operations, including earthmoving, gravel extraction, materials stockpiling, and truck traffic to and from quarry sites, can contribute to discharge of turbid, sediment-laden water to May Creek. Based on the documentation of increased erosion and sedimentation, this indicator is likely NPF. Chemical Contamination/Nutrients NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as characterized by low levels of contamination with no 303( d) designated reaches, and NPF is defined as high levels of chemical contamination and nutrients and more than one 303( d) listed reach. The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) 1998 -303( d) list of impaired waters listed several reaches that do not meet state water quality standards for copper, fecal coliform bacteria, lead, zinc and water temperature. Lake Washington was listed under fecal coliform. In addition, WDOE has given several public warnings regarding limiting fish consumption from Lake Washington due to mercury contamination (WDOH 2004). Based on known water quality degradation in Lake Washington and May Creek, this indicator rates as NPF. Physical Barriers NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as man-made barriers that allow upstream and downstream passage at all flows without significant levels of mortality or delay, and NPF as man-made barriers that do not allow upstream and downstream fish passage at a range of flows. The fish passage facilities at the Ballard Locks provide adult access to Lake Washington and smolt passage to the Puget Sound. However, the lock is a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation on adult salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem. In addition, the sharp demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a stressor for juvenile salmonid out-migrants. Therefore, the "Physical Barriers" indicator should be considered AR. Substrate NMFS {I 996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as reach embeddedness ofless than 20 percent and NPF as embeddedness greater than 30 percent. The substrate in the project area is comprised of sand and silt based on SCUBA surveys. According to King County (200 I) fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek is an ongoing problem. Foster Wheeler (I998) reported that the primary limiting factor for Chinook in May Creek is likely available spawning area and incubation success (Foster Wheeler 1998), which infers that clean loose gravel patches are limited. Based on chronic fine scdiment deposition in lower May Creek, this indicator rates as NPF. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 44 K:IP~ Mill SA 2005\2005 BA draflsldrafl twolMay Creek BA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Larqe Woody Debris NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as greater than 80 pieces of wood per mile, which are greater than 24 inches in diameter and greater than 50 feet long. NPF is defined as wood that does not meet the criteria of PFC and sources of L WD recruitment are lacking. Surveys of the project area found little to no L WD in the project area (Harza 1993; Harza· 2000; Meridian Environmental and Harza 200 I). The lower four miles of May Creek lacks current and future sources ofLWD (Foster Wheeler 1998). The lack ofLWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998). Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF. Pool Frequency/Quality NMFS (\996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for pool frequency based on channel width; the standard for lower May Creek is approximately 18 to 26 pools/mile (based on average channel width). Pool quality for PFC is defined as pools with good cover with only minor reduction of pool volume caused by fine sediments and many pools greater than I meter deep. NPF is defined as pool frequency that is considerably less than under PFC, cover and temperature is inadequate, with high fine sediment loads, and no pool greater than 3 feet deep. USFWS (1998) also defines PFC for large pools as conditions where each reach has many large pools greater than 3 feet deep and NPF is defined as possessing no pools greater than I meter deep. Chronic levels of sediment deposition have likely degraded pools in lower May Creek. In addition, Foster Wheeler (I 998)reported that the lack of L WD in the lower 4 miles of May Creek has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat. Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF. Off-channel Habitat NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for off-channel habitat as many backwaters with cover and low energy, off-channel areas, including ponds and oxbows. NPF is defined as the watershed with few or none of these habitat types. Lowering of Lake Washington in the early 1900s resulted in the loss of over ten miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. Almost all of the May Creek basin's nearly 80 identified wetlands have been disturbed by deforestation, filling, draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring after the wetlands were first inventoried in 1983 (King County 200 I). Based on loss of wetland and off- channel habitats, this indicator rates as NPF. Refuqia NMFS (1996) defines PFC for refugia as habitat refugia that exists and is adequately buffered by intact riparian reserves; existing refugia are sufficient in size, number and July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 45 K:\ProjectslSarbee Mill BA 2005120(15 BA draflsldrafllwolMay Creek BA 07280S.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging connectivity to maintain viable populations and subpopulations. NPF is defined as adequate habitat refugia that do not exist. USFWS (1998) defines PFC for refugia as habitats capable of supporting strong and significant populations of bull trout that are protected, well distributed, and connected for all life stages and forms. NPF is defined as habitat and refugia that do not exist. The action area has been extensively altered over the past \00 years by human development and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed is likely one of the most highly disturbed urban watersheds in the state of Washington. Although adequate bull trout habitat exists in the upper Cedar River, no bull trout refugia exists in the action area due to high summer water temperatures. The action area also lacks adequate local refugia for Chinook salmon due to extensive riparian, instream, and shoreline habitat alterations. Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF. Width/Depth Ratio NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for the average width/depth ratio as less than or equal to 10 and for NPF as greater than 20. No specific data were reviewed for this indicator that quantifies the average width/depth ratio for pools in the action area; however, the average width/depth ratio for pools is likely impaired by the same processes as listed for the "pool frequency/quantity" indicator. Based on the observed lack of pools in lower May Creek near the project area, impairment of pool-forming process, and high sediment loads, this indicator likely rates as NPF. Stream bank Condition NMFS (1996) defines PFC as greater than 90 percent (80 percent under USFWS criteria) of any stream reach of which 90 percent or more is stable NPF is defined as less than 80 percent stability. However, USFWS (1998) defines NPF as less than 50 percent of any stream reach that is characterized as at least 90 percent stable. The shoreline along the action area is developed and bulkheaded. The banks are not actively eroding, but the bulkheads have disrupted natural shoreline processes. In addition, over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington. Lowering of the lake in the early 1900s substantially altered the Lake Washington shoreline, resulting in the loss of approximately 10 miles oflake shore perimeter. May Creek has been channelized and bank erosion is the primary source of high sediment loads in the stream (Foster Wheeler 1998). Due to extensive alteration of the Lake Washington shoreline, this indicator rates as NPF. Floodplain Connectivity NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as well-connected, off-channel areas with overbank flows of sufficient frequency to maintain function. NPF is defined as a severe reduction in hydrologic connection with off-channel habitats. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 46 K:lProjetI:s\Barbce MiA SA 2005\2005 BA dlilltsldraft t.Yo\May Qeek SA 072805.00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging May Creek has been channelized and Lake Washington has been lowered, disconnecting the mouths of streams from their floodplains. Therefore this indicator rates as NPF. Change in Peak/Base Flows NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for the watershed hydrograph as being similar in terms of peak flow, base flow, and timing characteristics to an undisturbed watershed with similar geology and geography. NPF is defined as pronounced changes in various hydrologic parameters. This indicator is not applicable to lakes. However, May Creek baseflows have been reduced and peak flows have increased moderately in May Creek, on the order of 15 to 20 percent greater than the predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year flood return intervals (King County 200 I). Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF for May Creek. Increase in Drainage Network NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as zero to minimal increases in the drainage network due to roads. That is, the construction of roads and their companion drainage systems have not increased the total number of drainage routes to the river, potentially increasing input of sediment and contaminants, and altering hydrology. NPF is defined as significant increases in drainage network density due to roads (20 to 25 percent). May Creek peak flows have increased by 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions (King County 200 I). This increase is mostly likely due to the increase of impervious surfaces and the road drainage network in the watershed. Due to the urbanized nature of Lake Washington and lower May Creek, this indicator rates as NPF. Road Density and Location NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as less than 1 mile of road per square mile with no valley bottom roads and NPF as greater than 2.4 miles of road per square mile with many valley bottom roads. The action area has been heavily urbanized and has a well developed road network. Road densities, although not estimated for this analysis, likely rate as NPF. Disturbance History NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as having less than 15 percent equivalent clear-cut area (entire watershed) with no concentration of disturbance in unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area; and for Northwest Forest Plan area (except adaptive management areas), 15 percent retention oflate successional old growth timber in the watershed. The "Disturbance History" indicator rates as NPF based on extensive past development and ongoing development pressures. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 47 K:IProjects\Barboo Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldraft twolMay Creek BA 072805.drx: Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Riparian Reserves NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as a riparian reserve system that provides adequate shade, LWD recruitment, habitat protection, and connectivity to all sub- watersheds. This reserve must be greater than 80 percent intact and the vegetation must be greater than 50 percent similar to the potential natural community composition. Riparian habitat in the action area along Lake Washington has been highly altered and extensively cleared, primarily for residential development. Riparian areas along May Creek have been extensively cleared for residential development and pastureland. Lower May Creek in the project area is essentially devoid of trees and shrubs. This indicator rates as NPF. Population Size USFWS (1998) defines FA as the mean subpopulation size or a local habitat capacity of more than several thousand individuals and all life stages evenly represented in the subpopulation. AR is defined as fewer than 500 adults in subpopulation but more than 50. The Lake Chester Morse bull trout population in the upper Cedar River would be classified as FA under the USFWS criteria; however, this is a naturally resident population located upstream of a passage barrier. In addition, the Cedar River historically was not connected to Lake Washington. There or no known current or historic (but now extinct) bull trout populations located within the Lake Washington basin, except for the Chester Morse population. However,'it appears that individuals from the Chester Morse population may pass downstream into Lake Washington, and that . anadromous bull trout migrate to the Lake Washington vicinity from other basins such as the Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and possibly the Skagit River basins. Bull trout are naturally patchily distributed, even in pristine watersheds. There is no indication that a bull trout population historically would have occupied May Creek. Generally, self sustaining local bull trout subpopulations are only found in watersheds that have accessible stream habitat above the average winter snow line (where winter snowpack accumulates), approximately 900 feet in western Washington (USFWS 2004). The May Creek watershed headwaters only extend to an elevation of approximately 500 feet, with no areas of winter snowpack accumulation. Spawning of bull trout in May Creek would not be expected currently or historically because the water temperature regime is likely too warm due to the low elevation and lack of substantial cold springs, glaciers, or winter snowpack. As there is no current or historic local self sustaining bull trout population or sUbpopulation indigenous to the action area, this indicator is not applicable. Growth and Survival USFWS (1998) defines FA as a subpopulation with the resilience to recover from short- term disturbances in 5 to 10 years. Additionally, the subpopulation is increasing or stable, with at least 10 years of data to support such a trend. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 48 KProject:s\Batbee MllI BA2005\2005 SA d!<lftsldraft twoWay OE*!k SA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable. Life History Diversity and Isolation USFWS(1998) defines FA as the migratory form being present with subpopulations in close proximity to other spawning and rearing groups. There is high likelihood of neighboring subpopulations straying and adults mixing with other groups. UR is defined as when the migratory form does not exist and the subpopulation is isolated to a local stream, not likely to support more than 2,000 fish. As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable. While this indicator is meant to apply to local subpopulations within an action area, there may be migratory bull trout in the action area that are from other basins, such as the Snohomish and Stillaguamish River basins or the upper Cedar River. Persistence and Genetic Integrity USFWS (1998) defines FA as possessing high connectivity among more than five subpopulations with at least several thousand fish each. UR is defined as having little or no connectivity and subpopulations that are in low numbers or in decline. As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable. V. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON SALMON IDS A. Direct Effects In this section we analyze the direct effects of the proposed dredging action on three primary elements that most likely may be influenced by the action. These elements are direct effects on individual fish, such as harassment or actual mortality through contact with the dredging equipment; direct effects on habitat by physically disturbing the substrate and removing sediments from the delta; and effects on water quality during dredging. Direct Effects on Salmon ids Take of bull trout during the summer is extremely unlikely. Past water quality monitoring in 2002 (within the silt curtain of the dredging zone and immediately outside the silt curtain) strongly suggest that water temperatures during July and August (proposed dredge timing) exceed the generally reported upper limit of bull trout temperature tolerance of approximately 59°C. Recently, bull trout in northeast Oregon tagged with radio transmitters and temperature loggers suggested that some bull trout may use waters up to approximately 62 to 64°C (Howell et al. 2005). However, temperatures in the dredging zone (within the silt curtain) from July to late September 2002 exceeded 65°C and averaged 69.4°C. Due to probable high water temperatures in the dredging zone during summer, it would be extremely unlikely for bull trout to be present in the dredging area and, therefore, take of individual bull trout is not expected. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 49 K:lProjectslSarbee Mill SA 2OO5\lOO5 BA draflsldrafl twolMay Creek BA 072805_00c Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Bull trout are unlikely to be present in the fall due to low abundance and their tendency to migrate to headwater spawning sites in the fall (Goetz et al. 2004). Adult Chinook typically migration into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid- June, peaking in late-August (Kerwin 200 I). Spawning typically occurs from mid- September through November (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from approximately January through June (Kerwin 2001). Most juvenile Chinook move through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the entire out-migration period is unknown (Kerwin 2001). Although the proposed in-water work time of mid-July to the end of December is the period approved by WDFW to limit impacts to migrating adult and juvenile Chinook salmon, this time period overlaps with the end of juvenile Chinook rearing and out-migration and adult migration to spawning grounds, such as May Creek. Therefore, there is some chance that adult or juvenile Chinook salmon may be present in the dredging zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by dredging activities. However, it is anticipated that adult and juvenile Chinook would avoid direct contact with the clamshell dredging equipment, and would not be physically injured or killed by the dredging activities. Coho begin entering Lake Washington from late-August through early December, but primarily in the fall, with spawning occurring primarily in November and December (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater with peak out-migration from the Lake Washington basin in early May (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho have been observed in the May Creek delta and coho spawn in May Creek in the fall. The proposed dredging period, while optimally designed to avoid the presence of juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids, does overlap with the coho rearing and out- migration time and adult coho migration. It is most likely that coho juveniles may be present during dredging and may be temporarily displaced, but as with Chinook, it is not anticipated that coho would come into direct contact with dredging equipment and be physically injured or killed. Direct Effects on Habitat It is apparent from Tabor et al. (2004) that juvenile Chinook salmon in the south end of Lake Washington prefer shaHow stream delta habitat with substrates of sand and gravel. The purpose of the project is to dredge the May Creek delta in order to make the delta deeper and prevent flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would inhibit the formation of shallow delta habitat composed of sand and gravel. The proposed project would maintain a relatively deep delta, which is habitat more preferred by predator fish such as large sculpin, trout, and bass. This represents a negative effect on Chinook salmon habitat in the action area by inhibiting preferred habilat formation. However, enhancement of the delta margin with overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation, and brush should offset this impairment. Currently, the delta habitat is highly degraded and not heavily used by juvenile Chinook (Tabor et aI., 2004). Enhancement of the delta margin habitat following the results of Tabor et al. (2004) should result in an overall net improvement to the delta for juvcnile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. Dredging the May Creek delta may also facilitate adult Chinook salmon access into the watershed during the late summer when flows are extremely low. If left un-dredged, the July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 50 K:lProjeclslBarbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldraft two\May Creek BA 072B05_doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging increased sediment deposition from upstream development conceivably could rise to a level that would cause the mouth of May Creek to become very shallow or result in subsurface flow through accumulated alluvium. Under this scenario, the mouth of May Creek may become too shallow for adult Chinook to pass the delta upstream into the May Creek. The dredging may actually maintain adequate upstream migration depths for adult salmon. Similar information for coho use of Lake Washington shoreline habitat is not available; however, many coho were observed by Tabor et al. (2004) and during the SCUBA surveys conducted in 2005. Based on the SCUBA observations, it appears that a deepened delta would not necessarily be less preferred than a shallow delta for juvenile coho. However, enhancement of the shoreline with overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation and brush should improve the delta margin for rearing coho. Due to the overall lack of abundance and information concerning habitat use by bull trout in Lake Washington, effects of delta dredging on bull trout habitat use is unknown, but is suspected to be small. The effect on forage species habitat is likewise unknown. Direct Effects on Water Quality The proposed dredging project has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e. reduce water clarity) and increase total suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action area. Turbidity and TSS levels have been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect salmonid survival. However, the potential for adverse effects depends upon several factors including: the duration of TSS increases, the area of the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambient water (dilution factor), the size of suspended sediments, and other factors. In the case of the proposed project, increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and increases would last for only short periods of time, expected to be less than three weeks every three to four years. Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as such conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms, landslides, or other natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic exposure to increased turbidity that has been found to be the most potentially damaging to salmonids (The Watershed Company et al. 2000). Studies have found that when habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid localized areas of increased turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological impacts (Bisson and Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003). Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and Martens 1991), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a, 1987b). Studies have found that fish that inhabit waters with elevated TSS may experience a reduction in predation from piscivorous fish and birds (Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases, salmonids may actually increase foraging activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from predators (Gregory 1993). However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in excess of70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 51 K:If'rojects\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA draflsldraft two\May Creel\ BA D72B05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging salmon returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mgIL suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mgIL of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982). The highest turbidity values recorded during the most recent dredging activity in 2002 were less than 7 NTU, and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less than I NTU greater than turbidity outside the dredging zone (Table 8, see Appendix B for water quality monitoring during previous dredging of the May Creek delta). Overall turbidity values of less than 7 NTU are very low, and the effect of slightly increasing turbidity by I or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be considered discountable. Washington state water quality regulations allow a short term increase of 10 NTU when background turbidity is less than 50 NTU (WAC 273-20IA-030). Based on the 2002 monitoring results, future dredging would likely meet this standard. Table 8. Minimum Average Maximum Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11 days of sampling over the dredging period). Within silt curtain Outside silt curtain (in dredge zone) (out of dredge zone) 1.1 NTU 1.1 NTU 2.1 NTU 1.4 NTU 5.2 NTU 3.1 NTU Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short- term (less than three weeks every three to four years) and localized elevation of turbidity (less than 5 NTU elevation above background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed project would not rise to the levels that would be expected to cause harm to Chinook salmon that may be present in the dredging zone. In-water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the spill of toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging equipment. This potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by maintaining a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a speep would specify areas for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention and emergency response strategies, requirements for keeping emergency response spill containment kits onsite, and for having trained personnel be onsite during in-water work. A specp will be develop by the dredging contractor and approved by appropriate agencies, such as the WDOE, before dredging occurs. Preparation of a SPCCP will limit the potential for toxic material spills during dredging. Direct Effects on Bald Eagles Bald eagles are known to use the southeastern tip of Mercer Island for nesting, within one mile of the proposed project. The nearest nest is approximately 0.75 miles to the west. WDFW conducted several studies in the 1990s on the ecology of bald eagle in western Washington with an emphasis on the effects of human activity (WDFW 1998). The WDFW (1998) results indicate that noise disturbance from construction and machinery has little impact on bald eagle nest success. Based on this information, WDFW no longer July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 52 K:\ProjectslBarbee Min BA2005\2005 BA draflsldrafl two\May Creek SA Q72805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging has a requirement to limit construction noise in the winter during eagle nesting and roosting, although the work timing restrictions are recommended. WDFW's current bald eagle management strategy focuses on the retention of significant trees that may be used for perching, nesting, or roosting. No trees will be affected during dredging. In addition, the dredging will be conducted in the summer after. nesting is complete and, therefore, will be consistent with the recommended bald eagle work timing restrictions. Currently, no work type or timing restrictions are recommended for projects' located greater than 0.25 miles from nesting sites, except for pile driving. The proposed dredging project is located more than 0.5 mile from known nesting sites, will not include pile driving, and will not disturb any trees. Therefore, the proposed project is assumed to have no impact on bald eagle nesting or roosting habitats or nesting success. Timing restrictions are also recommended for work occurs within 0.25 miles of bald eagle roosting, perching, or feeding habitat. As bald eagle nests are located within one. mile of the proposed dredging site, it is possible that bald eagles may forage (feed) within 0.25 mile of the project. Ifa project site is within 0.25 mile of bald eagle foraging habitat, no construction is allowed from October 31 to March 31. Dredging would occur between July 15 and December 31, and therefore, may overlap with this timing recommendation. Due to the highly urbanized nature of the project site and south Lake Washington area, eagles that may be present in the action area are likely habituated to human activity and therefore, the proposed project is assumed to have no impact on bald eagle roosting, perching, or foraging. B. Indirect Effects Indirect effects could potentially arise through impacts on the Chinook, bull trout, and coho prey base (e.g. aquatic macroinvertebrates and small forage fish), or through the' creation of deep water habitat conditions that favor species known to prey on juvenile salmon ids (large trout, bass, and sculpin). ESA-listed salmonids feed on certain macroinvertebrates, and therefore any loss of these prey items via dredging or disposal may harm these species. However, this harm from dredging will be localized to deepwater areas of low importance to these species. As a result, short-term impacts to macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity are likely to be limited. In addition, the establishment of overhanging riparian vegetation would likely increase the abundance and rate of terrestrial insects falling into the shallow margins of the delta, which would result in an increase in the juvenile salmonid prey base along the delta margin. Small juvenile bull trout are not expected to be present in the dredging zone. As discussed previously, small juvenile bull trout are found in close proximity to spawning reaches, and the nearest spawning habitat is located many miles away in the headwaters of the Cedar River watershed. Large migratory bull trout from other watersheds could potentially use the delta as foraging habitat in the winter and spring. The effect of habitat alteration due to dredging on migratory bull trout is unknown. However, increased depth of the delta (due to dredging) may be more favored as foraging habitat by picivorous migratory bull trout compared to a relatively shallow delta that would develop without ongoing dredging. Due to suspected extremely low abundance in Lake Washington, it is unlikely that migratory bull trout actually use the delta for foraging. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 53 K:\ProjectslBa~ MIll SA 2005\2005 SA dral\s\draft two\May Creek SA 072.605 doc; Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Indirect effects on bald eagles would primarily arise through impacts on their forage base, such as salmon. Although the project may adversely affect Chinook and coho salmon individuals in the action area, this effect is not anticipated to rise to the level that would cause a perceptible decline in the bald eagle forage base within the south Lake Washington area. Of note is that the May Creek delta has been dredged for more than 50 years. Over the last 30 years, bald eagle abundance in Puget Sound has substantially increased (WDFW 1998), giving evidence that continuation of the May Creek delta dredging would not adversely affect bald eagles at the population level. C. Effects from Interdependent and Interrelated Actions No interdependent or interrelated actions have been identified in association with the proposed maintenance dredging project. D. Effects from Ongoing Project Activities These effects are the same as previously described under direct effects. The proposed project is ongoing maintenance dredging of the May Creek delta. E. Description of How the Environmental Baseline Would be Affected As discussed previously, the PFC framework for ESA consultation characterizes baseline environmental conditions as "properly functioning," "at risk," or "not properly functioning." If a proposed project is likely to impair properly functioning habitat (Impair), appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat (Reduce), or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC (Retard), it is usually found likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both, depending on the specific consideration of the analysis. Such considerations may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the quality of available information. Actions that do not compromise a species' biological requirements to the degree that appreciably reduces the species' viability and chances of survival in the action area are considered not to reduce or retard (NR). The effect of the proposed project on baseline environmental conditions (summarized from Section IV(B» is presented in Table 9. Based on the likely effects of the proposed 10-year flood maintenance dredging and enhancing the delta margin, the proposed project would retard the formation of more natural shallow water delta habitat preferred by juvenile Chinook salmon. However, the project would ensure that adult salmon continue to have access to May Creek during summer low flows. Increasing the width-to-depth ratio in the delta may be beneficial to holding adult salmon and foraging trout by providing holding cover in the form of depth. The addition of riparian and emergent vegetation would improve the stream bank condition indicator for holding adult salmon and rearing juvenile Chinook salmon. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 54 K:\PmjeclslBarOOc Min SA 2005\2005 SA dra1\sldraft twolMay Creek SA 072805_cIoc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation'Dredging Table 9. Analysis of proposed project effects on the environmental baseline. Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Pathway Baseline Proposed Indicators Function Description Action Water Quality . Temperature NPF Temperatures in May Creek are a function of NR upstream conditions. SedimentiT urbidity NPF Dredge mon~oring has shown a small increase (less NR than 5 NTU) over background levels during dredging. Chemical NPF An SPCCP will be prepared and approved by WDOE NR Contamination/ for the dredging project, which will limit potential Nutrients chemical contamination during dredging. . Habitat Access Physical Barriers AR Dredging the delta ensures adequate depths for adult NR (improve) salmon migration into May Creek. If the delta continues to aggrade at an unnatural rate without dredging, access to the stream could be impaired during low flows in the late summer. Habitat Elements Substrate NPF Continued dredging would reduce the formation of RETARD shallow delta habitat that is preferred by juvenile formation of Chinook salmon in Lake Washington; however, shallow delta enhancement of the delta margin with overhanging habitat, but vegetation, emergent vegetation, and brush should improve offset this impairment. Currenlly, the delta habitat is overall highly degraded and not heavily used by juvenile existing delta Chinook according to Tabor et al. (2004). margin habitat Enhancement of the delta margin habitat following over the long the results ofTabor et al. (2004) should result in an term. overall net improvement to the delta for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. Large Woody Debris NPF LWD is not present in the action area and no trees NR will be affected. Pool Frequency and NPF The delta will be deepened. If dredging did not occur, NR (improve) Quality the unnatural elevated sediment deposition would result in a very shallow riffle/glide at the May Creek delta. Therefore, dredging results in an increased width to depth ratio in the delta improving pool habitat for foraging trout and holding adult salmon at the . mouth of May Creek. Off-Channel Habitat NPF No off-channel habitat is present in the project area; NR (maintain) the stream is channelized. The proposed project would maintain this existing condition. Refugia NPF No refugia exists in the project area. NR July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 55 K:\Prnjects\Barbee Mill BA 200512005 SA dl'<lfi5'draft twoIMay Creek SA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Pathway Baseline Proposed Indicators Function Description Action Channel Conditions and Dynamics WidthlDepth Ratio NPF The delta will be deepened. If dredging did not occur, NR (improve) the unnatural elevated sediment deposition would result in a very shallow riffle/glide at the May Creek della. Therefore, dredging results in an increased width to depth ratio in the della improving pool habitat for foraging trout and holding adult salmon at the mouth of May Creek. Streambank Condition NPF The della margin consists of rip-rap and there is NR (improve) essentially no woody riparian vegetation downstream of the lower-mostbridge. The propcsed project would result in improved bank condition by the addition of woody riparian overhanging vegetation. Floodplain NPF Although the floodplain is highly degraded, the RETARD Connectivity proposed project wouldreduce floodplain connectivity at the delta. FlowlHydrology Change in Peak/Base NPF The proposed project would not influence May Creek NR Flow hydrology. Increase in Drainage NPF New roads are not part of the proposed project. NR Network Watershed Conditions Road Density and NPF New roads are not part of the proposed project. NR Location Disturbance History NPF Dredging of the delta has occurred regularly for over NR (maintain) 50 years. The proposed project would maintain the existing delta disturbance regime. Riparian Reserves NPF The watershed is highly urbanized and significant NR riparian reserves are limited to the headwaters of May Creek. Although riparian vegetation will be improved, this would not result in substantial riparian reserves. Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria) Population Size NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake Washington by individuals from other basins or the upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of May Creek by bull trout has not been documented and is suspected to be very infrequent. Growth and Survival NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake Washington by individuals from other basins or the upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of May Creek by bull trout has not been documented and is suspected to be very infrequent. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 56 K:'ProjecIs\Barbee MiU BA2005\2005 BA draltsldraft two\Mily Creek BA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Pathway Baseline Proposed Indicators Function Description Action Life History Diversity NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR and Isolation or lake Washington. Bull trout use of lake Washington by individuals from other basins or the upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of May Creek by bull trout has not been documented and is suspected to be very infrequent. Persistence and NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR Genetic Integrity or lake Washington. Bull trout use of lake Washington by individuals from other basins or the upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of May Creek by bull trout has not been documented and is suspected to be very infrequent. IMPAIR = Impair properly functiOning habitat; REDUCE = appreCiably reduce the functiOning of already Impaired habitat; RETARD = retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat towards properly functioning condition; NR = not reduce, retard, or impair; NPF = baseline not properly functioning; AR = baseline at risk; PFC = baseline properly functioning condition; NA = not applicable. F. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined in 50 CFR § 402.02 as "those effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area." The area of cumulative effects analysis for the proposed project is the action area, defined in Section U(C) as all areas within approximately one mile of the May Creek delta. Potential cumulative effects may arise due to increased development in the action area. Expansion of the local economy and diversification will likely contribute to population growth. This growth is expected to increase demand for electricity, water, and buildable land in the action area which will, in tum, increase demand for transportation, communication and other social infrastructure. These actions will affect habitat features such as water quality and quantity which will directly affect the listed aquatic species. This is currently evidenced by the fact that runoff, erosion, and sedimentation has increased in May Creek as development has increased·(King County 200 I). It is expected that this trend would continue and be further exacerbated as additional development and as impervious surfaces increase upstream in the watershed. As sediment deposition increases in the delta due to future development in the upper May Creek watershed, more frequent dredging of the May Creek delta may be required to protect Barbee Mill company lands from unnatural peak flood regimes. A current proposal would remove the Barbee Mill works, cleanup any onsite contamination, and add a residential development. Several notable milestones or preliminary actions will precede site development. These include shoreline restoration, facility demolition, upland environmental cleanup, and other actions associated with site development, which are generally described below. The western-most portion of sawmill operations will be restored as required by an aquatic land lease agreement with the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Anchor July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 57 K:lProjects\Barbee Min BA2005\2005 SA drartsldraft twoIMay Cl'eek BA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging Environmental has begun investigating the permitting process for removal of the sawmill structure(s) and restoration of the existing shoreline to a more natural condition. Prior to site development, the Barbee Mill Company will obtain demolition permits for the sawmill and associated structures. Facility equipment will be sold/auctioned, and upland structures will be removed. To the extent possible, materials will be salvaged or sold. This work is anticipated to begin in 2005 through 2006. Historic sawmill operations contaminated a portion of the site. This upland (subsurface contamination) will be excavated and disposed under a MTCA Voluntary Cleanup Order from the Washington Department of Ecology. Clean fill will be used to complete the cleanup action. The goal is to obtain a "No Further Action" determination from the Department of Ecology. Other minor contaminated areas may also be uncovered during site development that may require some cleanup activity: The Barbee Mill Company will develop the site for a mixed-use project consistent with City of Renton zoning. Included in the approved development plan are numerous enhancement measures to benefit the environment. These include designating a riparian buffer zone for lower May Creek and restoring this area with native riparian vegetation. Site development efforts also include numerous habitat enhancement areas within the development. These habitat areas are designed for stormwater quality improvements, as well as enhancing the aesthetic value and environmental conditions within the upland development. Although upstream development may have a cumulative negative impact on the May Creek basin, proposed on-site measures would likely increase habitat function of the may Creek delta for listed species. The cumulative benefits ofthe dredging project's shoreline vegetation enhancement would be combined with the additional riparian enhancement and buffer zone restoration associated with the planned clean-up and re-development of the Barbee Mill property (following the most current environmental regulations). VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT The primary objective of this BA is to determine the effect that the proposed project will have on ESA listed Chinook salmon, bull trout, and bald eagles. This determination will be used by NOAA Fisheries and USFWS to determine whether the proposed project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or to adversely modify their critical habitats (if applicable). To facilitate and standardize the determination of effects for ESA consultations, the Services use the following definitions for listed species (USFWS and NMFS 1998): No effect: This determination is only appropriate "if the proposed project will literally have no effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect or an effect that is unlikely to occur." Furthermore, actions that result in a "beneficial effect" do not qualify as a no-effect determination. May affect, not likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when effects on the species or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 58 K:\Projectsl6arbee Mill BA 2005\2005 BA draltsldraft twolMay Creek BA 072B05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. May affect, likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when there is "more than a negligible potential to have adverse effects on the species or critical habitat." In the event the overall effect of the proposed project is beneficial to the listed species or critical habitat, but may also cause some adverse effects to individuals of the listed species or segments of the critical habitat, then the proposed project is "likely to adversely affect" the listed species or critical habitat. It is not possible for NOAA Fisheries to concur on a "not likely to adversely affect" determination if the proposed project will cause harm to the listed species. Implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project will be beneficial to listed Chinook and bull trout around the May Creek delta by increasing shallow water cover and habitat complexity, which has been shown to be of heavily used by juvenile Chinook salmon in southern Lake Washington. While the overall effect of the proposed project will likely be beneficial to the listed species and their habitat by increasing shallow water cover and habitat complexity, and by maintaining adequate water depths for upstream migration through the delta, the risk of incidental adverse effect to individual Chinook juveniles cannot be entirely eliminated. For example, the potential for dredge entrainment cannot be completely eliminated and some harassment of fish may occur due to increased turbidity and machinery noise during dredging. However, these effects will be minimized by using conservation measures such as silt curtains (if deemed necessary during monitoring) and conducting the work in . the approved in-water work window when the vast majority of Chinook juveniles and adults would not be present. Lake Washington and May Creek are also proposed critical habitat for Chinook salmon. While the overall habitat enhancement of the delta margin would off-set impacts to the delta from dredging, the proposed project would modify proposed critical habitat. Therefore, in accordance with definitions contained in the USFWS and NMFS (1998), although the proposed project would have an overall net benefit on Chinook salmon and proposed critical habitat compared to current conditions, the proposed May Creek delta flood mitigation project is "likely to adversely affect" listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon because rearing juveniles have been observed in the May Creek delta. Additionally, it is possible that some individual juvenile and adult Chinook may be present during dredging, and proposed critical habitat will be modified. This effects determination (i.e. "likely to adversely affect") for Chinook salmon differs from the previous determination made in 2002 (i.e. "not likely to adversely affect") because this proposed action is a long-term dredging action for a 10 year period, whereas the 2002 action was for a one-time dredging of the delta. Critical habitat was not a component of the 2002 consultation; critical habitat for Chinook salmon was remanded prior to the 2002 consultation. In addition, the Tabor et al. (2004) study of juvenile Chinook habitat preference was not complete at that time, and the importance of delta habitat to juvenile Chinook was not known. In summary, the "likely to adversely affect" determination is appropriate for this proposed action as it is a long-term reoccurring July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 59 K:\Projects\Barbee Mill SA 2005\2005 BA draf\sldraft twolMay Creek SA 0728C5.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging disturbance that will impact habitat known to be used by Chinook salmon juveniles, which is proposed as critical habitat. Due to what is thought to be extremely low abundance of migratory bull trout in Lake Washington, there is a very low probability that bull trout use the action area at anytime of the year. Dredging during the approved in-water work window will further reduce the chances of bull trout presence as they would be migrating to their natal streams to spawn at this time and would not likely be present in the May Creek delta. Bull trout are not known to spawn in May Creek, currently or historically. Only very few bull trout are estimated to use the entire Lake Washington basin (except for the upper Cedar River). In addition, water temperatures during the dredging period would likely be above the chronic thermal tolerance for bull trout into the late summer. The proposed dredging would not appreciably reduce the function ofthe May Creek delta as potential foraging, migration, or overwintering habitat for bull trout. The likelihood of take of bull trout individuals during dredging in the late summer is extremely low and should be considered discountable. Therefore, in accordance with the definitions contained in the USFWS and NMFS (1998), the proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to adversely affect" CoastallPuget Sound bull trout. The proposed project has been evaluated for potential impacts to bald eagle nest sites, roost sites, foraging areas, and forage base. No significant trees for roosting, perching, or nesting will be affected by the proposed project; no trees of any kind will be disturbed. In addition, the project will likely have no measurable impact on the eagle forage base. The project will also be conducted during the approved work time to limit impacts on bald eagle roosting, perching, and foraging. However, a "no affect" determination cannot be made in this case since there is a small chance that foraging bald eagles may be disturbed during construction. This potential for disturbance should be considered discountable due to the overall high level of background noise and disturbance present in the vicinity of the project derived from general human activity within the highly urbanized action area. Take of bald eagles is extremely unlikely. Therefore, the appropriate final effects determination for the proposed project is "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagle. Based on these determinations, formal Section 7 consultation between ACOE and NOAA Fisheries is required to ensure that the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. VII. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT The MSA established procedures designed to identifY, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to the MSA, federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH (Section 305(b )(2)). Essential Fish Habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting this definition of EFH, waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 60 K:\Projectsl8arbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA drafls'drafllwo\May Creek SA 072805.00c ------- Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle (50 CFR 600.10). Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disf1:lption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). An EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required for any federal agency action that may adversely affect EFH, including actions that occur outside EFH, such as certain upstream and upslope activities. The objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed project would adversely affect designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to EFH. A. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed project and action area are described in Section II of this document. B. Appropriate Fisheries Management Plan(s) Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for three species offederally-managed Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon (PFMC 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (PFMC 1999). Detailed descriptions and identification of EFH for salmon are found in Appendix A to Amendment 14 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). In the Lake Washington basin, EFH is designated for Chinook and coho salmon; therefore, EFH is designated in the action area of the proposed project. C. Effects of the Proposed Action As previously described in Sections V and VI of this document, the proposed project will result in the modification of proposed Chinook salmon critical habitat. The effects on proposed critical habitat are the same as for designated EFH. Dredging would affect Chinook and coho EFH through: • Short term potential for localized water quality impairment. • Increasing depth of the May Creek delta. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 61 K:\ProjectslSarbee Min SA 2005\2005 BAdraltsldraft IwOlMay Creek SA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging D. Proposed Conservation Measures Proposed conservation measures to minimize impacts to designated Chinook and coho salmon EFH are the same as those described previously for the ESA consultation portion of this document and include preparation of a water quality monitoring plan; preparation of an SPCCP to limit chemical contamination; and enhancement of the delta margin by adding overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation, and brush piles. E. Conclusion Following the listed conservation measures, as outlined in this document, the proposed project may cause a short-term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended sediment. It is anticipated that this potential impact would be so small that adverse effects on coho and Chinook salmon habitat should be considered discountable. However, the proposed project would result in deepening the existing stream delta habitat. In Lake Washington, juvenile Chinook prefer relatively shallow water habitat in stream deltas. Therefore, the proposed project may adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook salmon. As' described in Sections V and VI, project effects would be off-set by enhancing shallow delta habitat adjacent to the dredging zone. By employing these conservation measures, impacts to Chinook and coho salmon EFH would be minimized. Following these measures, the proposed project would not hinder a sustainable Pacific salmon fishery for either of these species. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 62 K:lProjed$lBarbee MiD SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldralllWO\May Creek SA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging VIII. REFERENCES Anderson, B., J. Frost, K. McAllister, D. Pineo, and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald eagles in Washington. Washington Wildlife 36(4): 13-20. Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.1. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Will. Nat. Res. Conf. 47:332-342. Bell, M.C. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. Contract DACW57-68-0086. Berge, H.B., and B.V. Mavros. 2001. King County Bull Trout Program: 2000 Bull Trout Surveys. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington. Bishop, S., and A. Morgan, (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural Chinook salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA 105 pp. Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371-374. Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of bull trout and the effects of human activity on the species. pp.I-4 In: Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan (eds.). Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the Am. Fish. Soc., Corvallis, OR. Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems- measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings of the Watershed '93 Conference. U.S. GPO, Washington D.e. Brenkruan, S.J. 2002. Unpublished data on bull trout investigations. Olympic National Park. Washington. Brenkman, S.J., G.L. Larson, and R E. Gresswell. 2001. Spawning Migration of Lacustrine-Adfluvial Bull Trout in a Natural Area. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 130:981-987. Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerances of young Pacific salmon. Oncorhynchus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 9(6):264-323. Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brevin. 1997. Distribution Maps for Bull Trout in Alberta. pp.206-216 In: Mackay, W.e., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita (eds.). Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Buchanan, K. 2003. Stream Habitat Conditions During Low Flow Conditions: Coal Creek, May Creek, Lower Cedar River, and Selected Tributaries, 1-405 North Renton. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 63 K"lProjects\Barbee MiD SA 2005\2005 SA draftsldraft twolMay Creek SA 012805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Carrasco, K., S. Foley, B. Mavros, and K. Walter. 1998. 1998 Chinook spawner survey data technical report for the Lake Washington watershed. King County Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64: 139-174. City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities. April 2000. Cyrus, D.P., and SJ.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part I: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70. Cyrus, D.P., and SJ.M. Blaber. 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91. Dambacher, J.M., M.W. Buktenica, and G.L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, abundance and habitat utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Pages 30-36 in P. L. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. Footen, B. 2000. Preliminary results of an investigation into the impacts of piscivorous predation on juvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and other sahrionids in Salmon and Shilshole Bays, King Co. Washington. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Presentation at the 2000 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by King County Department of Natural Resources. Footen, B. 2003. Piscivorous impacts on Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Salmon Bay estuary, the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Sammamish. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Presentation at the 2003 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by Seattle Public Utilities. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1995. May Creek Basin Phase I Solutions Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water Utility, November 1995. Bellevue, Washington. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1996. May Creek Basin Phase 2 Solutions Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water Utility, May 1996. Bellevue, Washington. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Bothell, Washington. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 64 K:\Projecls'Sarbee Mill BA 2005I2005 BA draftsldrafl two\May Creek SA 072BOS.00c · Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Della Flood Mitigation Dredging Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. In: Lake and Reservoir Management. Vol. 9, no. I, pp. 148-151. Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous salmonids in the Lake Washington Watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525- 544 in E.E. Knudsen, e.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser (editors). Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton. Garrett, M.G., R.G. Anthony, J.W. Watson, and K.McGarigal. 1988. Ecology of bald eagles on the lower Columbia River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. 189 pp. Goetz, F.A., E. Jeanes, and E. Beamer. June 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore, preliminary draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. http://www.nws.usace.arrny.mil/publicmenuiDOCUMENTS/Prelim Bull Trout Rep ort.pdf Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241-246. Gregory, R.S., and C.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile Pacific salmon. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 127(2):275- 285. Grubb, T.G. 1976. A survey and analysis of bald eagle nesting in western Washington. M.s. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 87pp. Hansen, AJ., M.V. Stalmaster, and J.R. Newman. 1980. Habitat characteristics, function, and destruction of bald eagle communal roosts in western Washington. In: Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium, ed. R.L. Knight, G.T.Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. Servheen. Seattle: The Nature Conservancy, pp. 221-29. Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization Assessment for the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Healey, M.e. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-393 in e. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. Vancouver, B. C. UBC Press. Hemmingsen, A.R., S.L. Gunckel and P.l. Howell. 2001. Bull trout life history, genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon, 1999 Annual Report. Project Number 199405400, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. July 28, 2005 K:IPf1J!ects'&rbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA draftsldrafl twolMay Creek BA 012B05.doc Biological Assessment -Page 65 Mendian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, and M. Ownbey. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part I: vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Howell, P., J.B. Dunham, P. Sankovich, and G. Chandler. 2005. Water temperatures used by migratory bull trout from the Lostine River. Presentation made at the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, February 18,2005, Corvallis, OR. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications, 1:66-84. KCDNR (King County Department of Natural Resources). 2000. Literature review and recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Seattle, Washington. Keister, J.P., Jr., R.G. Anthony, and EJ. O'Neill. 1987. Use of communal roosts and foraging areas by bald eagles wintering in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(2): 4154.20. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar- Sammamish basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 200 I. Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, W A. 587 pp. King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 200 I. Kraemer, C. 1999. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) ofthe north Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington. Leary, R.F., and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Notes -genetic confirmation ofsympatric bull trout and Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:715-720. Lee, D. C. et al. 1996. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. in T. M. Quigley and S. J Arbelbide, editors. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rpt. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. Mason, J.C., and D.W. Chapman. 1965. Significance of early emergence, environmental rearing capacity, and behavioral ecology of juvenile coho salmon in stream channels. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 22(1): 172-190. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 66 K:\Projects\Barboo Mill SA 2005\2005 BA draflsldrafl two\May Creek SA 07280S.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Mavros, B., S. Foley, K. Burton, and K. Walter. 1999. 1999 Chinook spawner survey data technical report for the Lake Washington Watershed. King County Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. May, C.W., R.R. Homer, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4): 483-494. McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries management report no. 104. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C. McPhail, J.D., and R. Carveth. 1992. A foundation for conservation: the nature and origin of the freshwater fish fauna of British Columbia. Fish Museum, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C. McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life-history and ecology of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Department of Zoology and Institute of Animal Resources, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 200 I. Cugini property May 200 I, aquatic habitat and fish population survey and joint-use dock biological assessment. June 25,2001. Myers, 1.M. et al. 1998. Status review of spring Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC- 35. 443 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and Technical Services Division Habitat Conservation Branch. August 1996. NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW. Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003. NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Biological Opinion -Section 7 Endangcrcd Species Act Interagency Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the StrosahllNiven New Pier and Maintenance Deck and Tosti New Pier Projects, Lake Washington, HUC 171100120301, King County, Washington, March 11,2005. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendmcnt 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Advcrse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon (March 1999). July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 67 K:lProjecIslBarbee MiD SA 2005\2005 SA draftsldraft two\May Creek BA 072805.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2002. Regional mark infonnation service December 2002 database search of hatchery release infonnation by the William Douglas Company, Seattle, Washington. Quigley, T.M., and SJ. Arbelbide (Eds). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume I. U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management with assistance from the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. PNW-GTR-405. Pages 1-351. Redding, J.M., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:737-744. Reiser, D.W., and T.e. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids. In: W.R. Meehan (ed). Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America, pp. 1-54. U.S. For. Servo Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-96. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intennountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), In C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), Pacific salmon life histories, pp. 396-445. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa. Servizi, J.A., and Martens, D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 493-497. Seymour, A.H. 1956. Effects of temperature upon young Chinook salmon. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Shepard, M.F. 1981. Status and review of the knowledge pertaining to the estuarine habitat requirements and life history of chum and Chinook salmon juveniles in Puget Sound. Final Rep. Wash. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Shepard M.F., and R.G. Dykeman. 1977. A study of the aquatic biota and some physical parameters of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Sheffleton Power Plant, Renton, Washington 1975-1976. Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 68 K:\Projecls\Barbee Mih BA2005\2005 BA drafisldraft twoWay Creek BA 072B05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Stalmaster, M.V., and 1.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of wintering bald eagles in northwest Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management, 43(1):221-224. Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between juvenile coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon. Journal ofthe Fishery Research Board of Canada 29: 1737-1748. Tabor, R.A., and J. Chan. 1996. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by piscivorous fishes in the lower Cedar River and southern Lake Washington. Miscellaneous report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, Washington. Tabor, R.A., J.A. Scheurer, H.A. Gearns and E.P. Bixler. 2004. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division, Lacey, Washington, February 2004. Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources. TRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team). 2002. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines for the delisting and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. April 30, 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior (USOI), Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Management of anadromous fish habitat on public lands. Report No. BLM-ID-PT. USFWS. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) -Chinook salmon. USFWS, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. USFWS. 1986a. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) -coho salmon. USFWS BioI. Rep. 82(11.48) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. USFWS. 1986b. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. USFWS. 1998. DRAFT - A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale, February 1998. USFWS. 2004. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat; candidate species, and species of concern in western Washington web page. http://westernwashing:ton.fws.g:ov/se/SE List/endangered Species. asp. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Olympia, W A. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment· Page 69 K\Projects\Barbee Mill SA 2005\2005 BA drafts'.::lraft rwolMay Creek SA 072805_®r; Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging USFWS and NMFS. 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act. Version: 19 May 2002 IX Volk, E.C. 2000. Using otolith strontium to infer migratory histories in bull trout and Dolly Varden from several Washington state rivers. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fisheries ,Washington Department of Wildlife, and eastern Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and Steelhead stock inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW): 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. WDFW. 2002. Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/ Washington State Department of Health (WDOH). 2004. Final Report: Evaluation of Contaminants in Fish from Lake Washmgton King County, Washington. September 2004. Prepared by: Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health Assessments. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington salmonid stock inventory: bull trout and Dolly Varden. Wash. Dept ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia. 437 p. Watershed Company, M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmon ids in lakes. Prepared for the City of Bellevue. July 12, 2000. Weitkamp, L. A. et al. 1995. Status review of coho from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS- NWFSC-24. Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon. 1982. Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 111:63-69. Wydoski, R. S. and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle, University of Washington Press. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 70 K:\Projects\Barbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldrafl twolMay Oeek SA 072BOS.doc Meridian·Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging . Appendix A Proposed Project Site Maps Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page A-I K:\Projocts\Bal'tlec Mill SA 2005\2005 BA draflsldrafl lwolMay Creek SA 072B05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Appendix B Water Quality Monitoring During 2002 Dredging '. Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging O2 Turbidity Water Temp. Sampling Location Dredge Location (mgll) (NTU) °c 7/25/2002 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area A 8.1 1.25 20.2 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area A 8.3 1.11 19.2 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area A 8.4 1.15 20.9 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area A 8.4 1.20 22.6 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area A -- -- -- Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area A 9.2 1.21 22.9 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 8.4 1.11 19.5 8/7/2002 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area A 9.4 1.40 22.2 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area A 11.2 1.63 15.6 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area A 8.8 2.13 21.6 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area A 8.6 2.55 20.2 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area A 8.7 no data 20.2 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area A (see Station 4) Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 9.4 5.20 20.7 8/12/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area A 10.0 1.76 15.5 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area A 9.7 2.70 15.8 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area A 9.4 3.10 19.6 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area 8.5 4.80 21.8 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area 9.2 1.90 22.6 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area 8.5 4.10 21.0 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 8.8 3.90 22.0 8/21/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 10.6 1.21 13.8 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.2 1.78 13.9 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 8.5 3.07 21.4 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.2 1.66 21.4 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.3 2.67 21.6 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 7.8 4.70 21.6 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 7.5 3.48 21.5 9/16/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 10.0 1.12 20.7 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.7 1.18 17.1 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 8.9 1.19 18.7 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.18 22.5 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.5 1.19 20.5 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.15 20.3 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.8 1.16 19.5 9/17/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 8.9 1.12 20.7 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.2 1.18 17.1 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 9.4 1.19 18.7 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 9.0 1.18 22.5 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C} Bark Area B 8.8 1.19. 20.5 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.15 20.3 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 9.1 1.16 19.5 July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page B-1 K:\Projec\s\Barbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draftsldrnfl two\May Creek SA 072805_doc Meridian Environmental; Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging .. O2 Turbidity Water Temp. Sampling Location Dredge Location (mQn) (NTU) ·C 9/19/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 8.7 1.24 20.7 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.4 1.24 17.1 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 9.3 1.25 18.7 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 9.0 1.27 22.5 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 9.1 1.28 20.5 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.48 20.3 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 9.0 1.25 19.5 9/24/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 9.2 1.10 15.8 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.7 1.14 15.9 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 9.0 1.35 16.4 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.78 18.8 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.7 1.28 19.1 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.3 5.10 18.9 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.7 2.36 18.7 9/26/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 8.9 1.21 15.1 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.1 1.15 15.9 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 8.9 1.23 16.1 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.68 17.1 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.3 1.31 17.0 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.2 3.80 18.4 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.8 1.85 16.4 10/21/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area C 10.6 1.12 . 11.7 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area C 10.4 1.11 11.7 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area C 8.9 1.18 15.6 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area C 8.9 1.13 15.6 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area C 9.6 1.41 15.5 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area C 8.9 2.71 15.5 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area C 8.8 1.81 15.5 10/28/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' May Creek Delta 10.0 1.13 10.0 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge May Creek Delta 10.1 1.16 10.1 Station 3 -SW Poi nt May Creek Delta 10.0 1.74 14.2 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) May Creek Delta 8.9 1.46 14.2 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C)' May Creek Delta 9.6 1.38 14.1 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area May Creek Delta 8.9 1.96 13.9 Station 7 -Scow UnloadinQ Area May Creek Delta 8.8 2.13 14.3 , Monitoring station outside of Silt curtain July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page B-2 K:IProjectslBarb&e Mill SA 2005\2005 BA drallsldral\ twolMay Creek BA 012SOS.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging I. INTRODUCTION This Biological Assessment was prepared for the May Creek delta flood mitigation dredging project located at the May Creek delta on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington in the City of Renton (Figure I). Periodic maintenance dredging of the May Creek delta to remove accumulated sediments and reduce flooding potential has occurred for over 50 years. Over this same time period, crosion has increased in the upper reaches 'of May Creek due to ongoing urban development, which has resulted in increased sediment deposition and increased flooding potential at the May Creek delta adjacent to Barbee Mill Company lands. The proposed project involves the continuation of periodic dredging in the May Creek delta over the next tcn years with an approximately 3 to 4 year dredging cycle. Periodic dredging would reduce the potential for flooding of the Barbee Mill Company lands and maintain navigational depths. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) directs federal departments and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, and/or conducted by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such species. Section 7(c) of the ESA requires that federal agencies contact USFWS and NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS are subsequently referred to as the Services) before beginning any construction activity to determine iffederally listed threatened and endangered (T &E) species or designated critical habitat may be present in the vicinity of a proposed project. A Biological Evaluation! Assessment (BEIBA) must be prepared if actions by a federal agency or permits issued by a federal agency will result in construction and if the Services determine that T&E species may occur in the vicinity of a proposed project. With respect to the proposed action, federal permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) will be needed to complete the project. The Services have determined that T &E species, including the bald eagle, Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Coastal!Puget Sound bull trout may be present in the proposed project action area; therefore, this BA is required by the ESA to ensure that proposed dredging project will not jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of these listed species. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) includes a mandate that NOAA Fisheries identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine fish. In addition, federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fish and coastal pelagic fisheries. The ESA consultation process can be used to address EFH (see Guidance/or Integrating Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act EFH Consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations, National Marine Fisheries Service, January 200 I). This BA addresses EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, which are the only MSA managed species that may be present in the action area of the proposed project. July 28, 2005 K:IProjOCtslBarbee WI BA 200512005 SA drafls'draft two\May Crllllk SA 072805 dIX BiOlogical Assessment -Page 1 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging -.-------~------------/ '~ak¢ Washington '\ a!!. !!!!!i;;;;;i'!!!' !!!!!!!!!!!O'ii;" .. ;;;;;;i1.S Kib me. tell Note: Adapted from Tabor et al., 2004 ., Men:er ISland !1 N "d.-: :,:'!:l \~ \ Figure 1. May Creek delta flood mitigation dredging project site and action area. July 28, 2005 K:\Pro,ects\Barboe Mril BA 20051JOO5 6Adraftsldrafl twoIMay Creek BA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 2 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging The objective of this BA was to review all pertinent and available infonnation on the potential effects of the proposed project on MSA managed species and EFH, ESA listed T &E species, and associated critical habitats under NOAA Fisheries and USFWS jurisdiction. Proposed and candidate species that could potentially be affected by this project were also considered in the event that they become listed over the period for which this pennit may be issued. A. Project and Federal Action History The proposed project consists of maintenance dredging of the May Creek delta in order to reduce flooding risk to the Barbee Mill Company lands and to maintain navigational depths over a ten year period. Dredging of the May Creek delta has occurred for over 50 years on a 3 to 4 year cycle depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. The most recent dredging occurred in 2002. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment have been removed during each dredging cycle. The dredged material is stockpiled on upland areas ofthe Barbee Mill property and sold as clean construction fill material. Previous consultations with the ACOE were completed for dredging of the May Creek delta and for bark debris removal in Lake Washington below the fonner log storage area in front of the miil. This bark removal work was voluntarily undertaken to restore aquatic habitat under lease agreements with the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Previous consultations for these projects at the Barbee Mill resulted in a "not likely to adversely affect" detennination for listed Chinook salmon and bull trout. Previous Barbee Mill dredging consultations are summarized below (Table 1). Table I. Summary of previous ESA dredging Consultations. ACOE Project Implementation Year Reference # Action Consultation Date 2001 195-2'()097 May Creek delta "May affect, not likely to 2001 dredging adversely affect" for all species 2002 1995-2'()0997 Lake Washington "May affect, not likely to 2002 bark removal adversely affect" for all species II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ACTION AREA A. Federal Action and Legal Authority It is anticipated that the ACOE will be the lead federal agency for this ESA consultation, as ACOE pennits are the only federal approvals (i.e. federal action) required for the proposed dredging project. Therefore, this BA was prepared per the ACOE BA template (http://www.nws.usace.army.millpublicmenuIDOCUMENTSIBETemp.pdO.This BA is required by the ESA to ensure that dredging actions that may be authorized by the ACOE under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 3 K:\Pro)9dslllaroee M:II BA 2IJ05I2OO5 SA orafts'draft bwo\May CreeK SA 0728Q5.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging B . Project Purpose and Objectives . The Barbee Mill company has been affected by local impacts associated with ongoing development in the May Creek Valley located several miles upstream of the Barbee Mill site. This upstream development has resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased impervious surface in the watershed. Peak flows have increased approximately 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year flood events return intervals (King County 2001). In addition, this increased run-off has resulted in severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper basin, which is transported and deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. This increased sediment deposition in the delta has increased flooding potential of the Barbee Mill company lands, resulting in periodic loss of customary uses. Maintenance dredging has been conducted in the May Creek delta for over 50 years to reduce flooding potential of the Barbee Mill lands adjacent to the May Creek delta. However, large flood events have caused damage to Barbee Mill lands, most recently during a large storm event in 1990 (Figure 2). The proposed project would continue this maintenance dredging in order to reduce potential flooding of company lands and to maintain navigational depths. The purpose of this consultation is to obtain a programmatic permit authorizing dredging for the next ten years. Previously, permitting and ESA consultation was conducted for each individual dredging cycle, which was both costly and time consuming. The programmatic 10 year permit would reduce permitting costs and agency workload, while implementing conservation measures to ensure the long-term persistence ofESA listed species that may use the action area. C. Project Description The proposed project is to conduct clamshell dredging of sediments (coarse sand and gravel) in the May Creek delta periodically as necessary to reduce the potential for flooding of Barbee Mill lands and to maintain navigational depths. It is anticipated, based on the previous 50-year dredging history, that future dredging would be necessary every 3 to 4 years. The volume of material to be removed during each dredge cycle is anticipated to range from approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards. Based on previous dredging at the site, dredged materials are largely rapidly draining sands and gravels. Dredged materials will be placed directly into an upland dewatering cell adjacent to the dredging zone (Appendix A). Because the materials are so porous, most dewatering is complete prior to placement in the dewatering cell. As soon as sediments are sufficiently dry (within hours), they will be loaded into trucks for off-site sale or stored temporarily on-site in an upland area of the Barbee Mill property for use as clean fill. All dredging will be conducted during the WDFW approved in-water work time in order to limit impacts to ESA listed Chinook salmon and bull trout. The project would also be conducted during the bald eagle work window to minimize disturbance to this species, although the action area is greater than 0.5 miles from known bald eagle nesting sites. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 4 K:lProjects\8atbee Mil SA 2005\2005 SA tlrafts'Craft twolM9y Creek BA 072805.aoc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Note: The high pressure gas I was exposed as a result of the flood damage. Figure 2. Flood damage to Barbee Mill lands in 1990 due to May Creek flooding. Based on past monitoring, conservation measures such as silt curtains to reducc turbidity should not be required. During the 2002 dredging activity, highest turbidity values recorded were less than 7 NTU (sec Appendix B for previous water quality monitoring data). However, turbidity will be monitored during future dredging and conservation measures, such as silt curtains, will be deployed following conditions set by the WDOE 401 certification for this project. It is anticipated that the WDOE will require the deployment of a silt curtain if turbidity in the dredging zone exceeds 10 NTU above background levels. In order to off-set any potential negative effects to listed Chinook salmon habitat, which is the only listed fish species known to use the May Creek delta, the proposed project includes measures to enhance juvenile Chinook rearing habitat near the dredging zone. Measures will include establishing overhanging vegetation and emergent aquatic vegetation along the delta shoreline and by installing small woody debris brush piles along the shoreline. Recent research by Tabor et al. (2004) has shown that rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in southern Lake Washington prefer these types of habitat features. July 28, 2005 K:lPro}eClslBarbetl MIll BA 2005\2005 SA clrafisldrafl twolMay Creelt SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 5 • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging By working in the WDFW approved in-water work time and bald eagle work time, and by employing the conservations measures detailed in this BA, the proposed project would minimize or avoid impacts to listed fish species and their habitat, and bald eagles in the action area. Detailed information for all project elements is presented below. Timing and Duration of Work The WDFW approved Lake Washington in-water work time, which is designed to limit impacts to aquatic species, is July 16 to December 31. The proposed project would be conducted within a three week period during this in-water work time. Due to the distance of the project site from bald eagle nests (greater than 0.5 miles), WDFW does not require work time restrictions to protect bald eagle nesting. Work Zone and Sediment Attributes Sediments in the May Creek delta dredging zone consist primarily of clean sand and gravel, with only traces of fine sand. However, limited fine silt covers the top of the substrate. Chemical testing results from 1999 showed that of 32 toxic substance tested for, only barium, chromium, and lead were detected (Table 2). Table 2. Results from 1999 May Creek delta sediment testing. Parameter MC-l WTPH (silica deanup mg/Kg-dry) Gasoline - Diesel' 10' Motor Oil', Hydraulic Oil, or other petroleum products 14' Volatile Organics (Method 8240) ND Semivolatiles (EPA Method 8270, mg/Kg-dry) 4-Methylphenol ND Napthalene ND 2-Methylnaphthalene ND Acenaphthylene ND Acenaphthene ND Flourene ND Phenanthrene ND Anthracene ND Flouranthene ND Pyrene ND Benzo(a)anthracene" ND Chrysene" ND Benzo(b/k)flouranthene" ND Benzo(a)pyrene" ND Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene" ND Dibenz(a,h)anthracene" ND Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 6 K:IJ'>I'OjIlCt8\Barbee M,n SA 2005I2005 SA draflsldrafl twolMay Creek SA 072805.ooc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Parameter Dibenzofuran bis(2-Ethylhexyl phthalate) Other SVOC's RCRA Metals (Total, mglKg-dry) Silver Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Mercury Lead Selenium Total Solids (from % moisture) Hydrocarbons detected, but did not match pattern for petroleum product(s) NO ~ not detected at method detection limit MC-1 ND ND ND ND ND 48.7 ND 28.2 ND 9.0 ND 89.8 Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards will be dredged from the delta (dredge zone depicted in Appendix A) approximately every three to four years depending on storm events that generate upstream erosion along May Creek and result in deposition within the delta. Periodic evaluation of sediment depth will trigger future dredging activities when the average depth of the top of the delta substrate in the dredge zone reaches + 18 feet msl, the dredging cycle will commence. Dredging will deepen the delta mouth by approximately 10 feet, deepening from approximately 20 feet msl to 10 feet msl (Appendix A presents the current depth profile and estimated post-dredging depth profile). The estimated post-dredging depth profile will be determined in the field using GPS guided dredging and visual depth measurements. Sediment Disposal Sediments will be dredged and placed directly onto an upland cell for dewatering (Appendix A). The cell will be excavated adjacent to the delta in previously disturbed areas (see Appendix A). Sediments from the May Creek delta are generally coarse grained sands and gravel suitable for use and sale as clean fill for construction. Because the materials are so porous, most dewatering is complete prior to placement in the dewatering cell. As soon as sediments are sufficiently dry (within hours), they will be loaded into trucks for off-site sale or stored temporarily on-site in previously disturbed upland areas of the Barbee Mill property for use as clean construction fill. In the future, sediments may be dredged and transported for off-loading at the adjacent Quendall Terminals. Quendall Terminals is the property located immediately north of the delta. Dredged materials will be loaded into a dredge scow, moved approximately 1,500 feet north and unloaded on upland portions of the Quendall property with a dredge scow. July 28, 2005 K:IPrcjeCtS\Bart:lee MIll SA 200512005 SA draftsldraft lwolMay Creek SA 072BOS.doc Biological Assessment -Page 7 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Conservation Measures to Limit Turbidity Because of the velocity of the stream during depositional storm events, fine silt and sediment from May Creek are carried further into Lake Washington into deeper water, well beyond the proposed maintenance dredging areas. Historically, dredging in the May Creek delta has not generated substantial turbidity due to the large granular nature of the dredged materials. During previous dredging, turbidity has not exceeded 7 NTU (see Appendix B). Silt curtains, cofferdams, or special dredge heads should not be required to limit turbidity based on previous monitoring; however, turbidity monitoring will be conducted during future dredging. WDOE is expected to issue a 401 certification for this dredging project with conditions that are expected to require daily turbidity monitoring and measures such as silt curtains if monitoring shows that turbidity exceeds 10 NTU above background levels at the dredge site. Conservation Measures to Enhance Salmonid Habitat Juvenile Chinook salmon are known to heavily use the south end of Lake Washington and prefer shallow tributary deltas with sand and gravel substrate, small woody debris, and overhanging vegetation (Tabor et al. 2004). Maintaining a relatively deep delta through dredging would prevent it from aggrading to a shallow depth, which would be preferred by Chinook salmon juveniles. In order to enhance aquatic habitat in the project vicinity to benefit juvenile Chinook salmon, which is the only ESA listed species known to use the May Creek delta, several measures will be implemented. These measures will improve shoreline habitats along the delta margin [or rearing Chinook salmon juveniles, including establishing overhanging vegetation and emergent aquatic vegetation along the delta shoreline margin and installing small woody debris brush pi les along the shoreline. Willow stakes (mix of Salix scouleriana and Salix sitchensis) will be planted along 250 feet of shoreline on both sides of the delta to provide overhanging vegetation (Figure 3). The riparian area adjacent to the delta is currently composed of riprap, grasses, and various weedy species (Figure 4). Willow stakes will be planted approximately 1.5 feet on center to a width of 4 feet along the shore (approximately 1,000 total wiIlow stakes). To provide shallow water cover, aquatic emergent vegetation (cattail, Typha latifolia) will be planted in the shallow water margin adjacent to the wiIlows to a width of 2 or 3 feet (depending on appropriate plant depth). Ten Christmas tree piles (each pile consisting of approximately 4 to 5 trees) will be added along the delta shoreline (anchored with stakes and small diameter wire rope) for temporary shallow water cover while the emergent vegetation and willows becomes established. Future dredging will avoid established willows and emergent vegetation along the shoreline. In addition, immediately to the north and south of the dredging zone margin, the shoreline will be allowed to accrete naturally to increase shallow water habitat along the delta points. July 28, 2005 K:IJ"I'Oj8ds\Ba!bee WI SA 2005\2005 SA dli!ft:sldrafl twolMay Cree«. SA 072805_doc Biological Assessment -Page 8 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 3. July 28, 2005 Proposed juvenile Chinook salmon habitat enhancement along the May Creek delta margin. Current condition of May Creek delta habitat enhancement area (picture taken at or near ordinary high water level of 21.8 feet msl). K:lProjeCls\Barbee MIll SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldrafl twolMay Cteek SA 072805.doc; Biological Assessment -Page 9 • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging D. Project Monitoring Water quality will be monitored during each dredging event in accordance with the WDOE 40 I water quality certification. It is anticipated that turbidity will be monitored daily within and adjacent to the dredging zone in order to determine the background turbidity level and any increases in turbidity caused by dredging. The willow and emergent vegetation plantings will be monitored for five years after installation to ensure their successful establishment along the delta shoreline margin. Two monitoring visits will be conducted each year for five years after plant installation to assess plant survival, one visit each in spring and fall. The goal will be 80 percent plant survival at the end of the five-year monitoring period. Christmas tree piles will be added the first year after dredging, and during the subsequent five-year monitoring period, the piles will be maintained to ensure they are not washed away during high flow events. After the emergent vegetation is established at the end of the five-year monitoring period, the Christmas tree piles will no longer be maintained. Project Environmental Permit Requirements A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) will be submitted to WDFW for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA); to WDOE for a Short-term Water Quality Modification and 401 water quality certification; and to ACOE for a 404 dredge permit. The City of Renton conducted a SEPA review for dredging of the May Creek delta in 2002, which occurred under their Special Permit for Grade and Fill. Renton also approved a shoreline substantial development permit application (City of Renton, File LUA-99-058 SP, SM, ECF). The Barbee Mill will be submitting a new SEPA document and grade/fill permit application to the City of Renton for review in conjunction with a new shoreline substantial development permit application. Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions The proposed project has no direct relationship to any other actions. The sole purpose is to maintain navigational depths and reduce flooding of Barbee Mill lands, which have been an active lumber mill for over 60 years. However, dredging for other purposes has occurred adjacent to the May Creek delta. In 2002, the large log storage area in front of the mill was dredged to remove accumulated bark and wood debris under a voluntary MTCA agreement with the WDOE. The purpose for this dredging was to restore aquatic lands leased from the Washington Department of Natural Resources. This action resulted in a substantial improvement of aquatic habitat in the littoral zone of Lake Washington immediately north of the May Creek delta. In addition, the Barbee Mill Company has periodically dredged the area in front of the boathouse on the south side of May Creek to maintain navigational depths. E. Project Area and Action Area Defined The project area is located in the May Creek delta within Lake Washington in the City of Renton (Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 32). Figures in Appendix A show the July 28, 2005 K:1P1lJj8ds1Barbee MiD BA 2005\2005 BA draltsldraft twolMay Creek BA 072605 doc Biological Assessment -Page 10 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging dredging zone. The removal of 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment will disturb approximately 55,000 square fect (approximately 1.3 acres) of substrate in the delta. The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indircctly by the proposed federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402- 02). In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during dredging and potential noise effects to bald eagles, the action area for this project encompasses the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington within approximately one mile of the May Creek delta (Figure 1). A one-mile area was chosen in order to be consistent with WDFW bald eagle construction timing recommendations, which are based on distance to nesting and roosting sites. It is anticipated that the one- mile action area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in turbidity during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in the delta (see Appendix B for past turbidity monitoring data). III. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT A. Species Lists from the Services (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS) A list of federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species, and critical habitat that may occur in the action area was compiled using the NOAA Fishcries and USFWS electronic species list websites and critical habitat designations. The USFWS and NOAA Fisheries web sites were accessed on May 24, 2005. In addition, a request for information was made to the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program in order to obtain official PHS maps of the action area (maps dated May 24, 2005), which show sensitive species information such as bald cagle nest locations and priority fish habitats. Identification of Listed Species and ESUlDPS Table 3 summarizes the federally listed, proposed, and candidate fish and wildlife species that are know to occur or may potentially occur in the action area. The table also indicates whethcr critical habitat or EFH has becn designated or proposed for each specics. On March 24, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatcned under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (64 FR 14308). The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was designated threatened under the ESA on November I, 1999. Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon were designated as a candidate species for listing undcr the ESA on July 25, 1995. In 1978, the bald eagle was federally listed as endangered throughout the lower 48 states except in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where it was dcsignated as threatened. In July, 1995, the USFWS reclassified thc bald eagle to threatened throughout the lower 48 statcs. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 11 K:lPruJI:ICIS\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA dlllflsldraft two\May Creek SA 07260S,doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Table 3. Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) Species. Species Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 'Evolutionary Significant Unit 'Distinct Population Segment ESA Status (Listing Unit) Threatened (Puget Sound ESU1) Threatened (Coastal I Puget Sound DPS') Candidate (Puget Sound I Strait of Georgia ESU) Threatened (lower 48 States) Designated Proposed MSA ESA Critical ESA Critical Managed Habitat Habitat with EFH No Yes Yes No Yes No N/A N/A Yes No No No Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH NMFS designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on February 16, 2000 (65 FR 7764); however, on April 30, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a NOAA Fisheries consent decree withdrawing critical habitat designations for 19 salmon and steelhead populations on the west coast (including Puget Sound Chinook salmon). NOAA Fisheries proposed a new critical habitat rule on December 14, 2004 (50 CFR Part 226). Proposed critical habitat in the action area of the proposed project includes Lake Washington and May Creek. The action area contains juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and migration primary constituent elements (PCEs) and adult Chinook salmon migration PCEs. ESA critical habitat was proposed by the USFWS for the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS on June 24, 2004 (50 CFR Part 17). Proposed critical habitat for the CoastallPuget Sound DPS includes Lake Washington, but does not include any Lake Washington tributaries, except the upper Cedar River. Lake Washington is proposed as foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO) critical habitat for bull trout. The MSA defmes EFH as those waters and substrate necessary for fish use in spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. MSA manages species that may occur in the action area, including Chinook and coho salmon. Freshwater EFH for these salmon species includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to these species in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Lake Washington is designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon. There are four major components of freshwater EFH for salmon including I) spawning and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration corridors and adult holding habitat. The components of EFH in the action area include juvenile rearing and migration corridors, and adult migration corridors and holding habitat. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 12 K:\ProjectslBarbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draftsldfCIfi two\May ()eek SA 072805.ooc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging B. Description of Species Chinook Salmon Biological Requirements In North America, the historical range of Chinook salmon extended from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska. In northeastern Asia, the historical range extended from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Scott and Crossman 1973). Throughout their range, Chinook salmon exhibit diverse and complex of life history strategies. Variation exists in age at seaward migration; freshwater, estuarine, and ocean residence; and in age and season of spawning migration (Healey 1991, Myers et al. 1998). Most of this variation is exhibited in two distinct behavioral forms commonly referred to as stream·type and ocean-type (Healey 199\). Ocean-type fish have a short, highly variable juvenile freshwater residency (from a few days to several months) and an extensive estuarine residency (Healy 1991). Adults show considerable variation in timing of entry to freshwater. Stream·type fish have long freshwater juvenile phases (one to three years), migrate rapidly to sea, live one to five years in the marine environment, and spawn far upriver in late summer to winter depending on the stock. The average age of spawners is four years (Myers et al. 1998). All Chinook salmon die after spawning (Wydoski and Whitney 1979) . Adult spring-run Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound typically return to freshwater in April and May, and spawn in August and September (WDF et al. 1993). Adults migrate to the upper portions of their respective river systems and hold in pools until they mature. In contrast, summer·run fish begin their freshwater migration in June and July and spawn in September, while summer/fall-run Chinook salmon begin to return in August and spawn from late September through January (WDF et al. 1993). Chinook salmon require clean gravel, 0.5 to 4 inches in diameter for spawning (Reiser and Bjomn 1979). Preferred water temperatures for Chinook salmon spawning ranges from 42.1 and 57°F (Reiser and Bjomn 1979). The recommended incubation temperatures range between 41 to 60°F, with an optimal egg and fry temperature of51.8°F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Juvenile Chinook salmon are typically associated with low gradient, meandering, unconstrained stream reaches (Lee et al. 1996), and require abundant habitat complexity with accumulations of large wood and overhanging vegetation (USDI 1996). Juvenile Chinook salmon often move into side channels, beaver ponds, and sloughs for over· wintering habitat. In Lake Washington, Tabor et al. (2004) found that juvenile Chinook salmon prefer shallow, low-gradient delta and shoreline habitats composed of sand and gravel substrates with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris accumulations. The preferred temperature range for Chinook salmon fry ranges from 54 to 56. 8°F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Optimal temperature for Chinook salmon fingerlings is 62.6°F (Seymour 1956), with an upper lethal tolerance limit of 77°F (Scott and Crossman 1973; Brett 1952) . After a variable freshwater residence time, Chinook salmon juveniles migrate to estuaries. Migrations occur primarily during spring and early summer, but continue at July 28, 2005 K:\Proj8d$lBarbee MIl BA 2005\2005 SA dral\s'o:lraft lw<JlMay Crook SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment· Page 13 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging lower levels through the fall (USFWS 1983). Chinook salmon in the Skagit River estuary occupied the inner estuarine salt marshes for 2 to 3 days before emigrating farther out in the estuary (USFWS 1983). Smolts congregated in tidal streams at low tide, with the majority of fish observed in deep, slow water over soft substrates (USFWS 1983). The highest nearshore juvenile Chinook salmon densities occurred in tidal areas without any freshwater influence (Shepard 1981). Chinook stocks in Lake Washington exhibit ocean-type life history patterns, with juveniles typically migrating to sea within the first three months after emergence. However, juveniles have also been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended time periods (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Factors of Decline Threats to the Chinook salmon include watershed development, such as forest practices, mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water manipulation and withdrawal. Over-fishing, artificial propagation and introduction of nonnative species have also impacted Chinook salmon. Forest practices, mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water withdrawal have resulted in increased sedimentation, changes in flow regimes and channel morphology, decrease in water quality and quantity, loss ofriparian habitat, loss oflarge woody debris (L WD), and loss ofLWD recruitment, higher water temperatures, decreased gravel recruitment, reduction in pools and spawning and rearing areas, rerouting of stream channels, degradation of streambanks and loss of estuarine rearing arcas (Bishop and Morgan 1996; Myers et al. 1998). These changes have affectcd the spawning and rearing cnvironment of Chinook salmon. Harvest, hatchery practices and the introduction of nonnative species have also impacted the expression of the varied life history strategies of Chinook salmon within the ESU. Current and future development pose many risks to the Chinook salmon populations in Lake Washington, primarily through increased water pollution and further habitat degradation by such mechanism as increased impervious surface, which alters stream hydrology causing increased erosion and sedimentation of Chinook spawning grounds. A detailed discussion of Chinook limiting factors in the Lake Washington basin is given in Kerwin (200 I). In addition to extensive shoreline development, other factors that can compromise the survival of juvenile Chinook salmon include poor water quality and high water temperatures in the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks. All juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids must pass through the Ship Canal during migrations to and from saltwater. The significant differences in water temperature and salinity encountered at the Ballard Locks require a rapid transition by the fish and may cause severe stress. For example, recorded delays in egg development in returning adult salmon may bc connected to the temperature transition when entering freshwater and prolonged exposure to high temperatures in the Ship Canal (Kerwin 200 I). In addition, the sharp demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a stressor for juvenile salmonid out-migrants. The Locks are also a predation bottleneck . Heavy seal predation on adult salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 14 K:\ProjedslBarbee MJII BA 2005\2005 BA draflsldl'ilfllwolMay Oeek BA 072805.doI; • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Hatcheries continue to pose risk to natural spawning Chinook salmon in Lake Washington, although hatchery impacts arc becoming increasingly recognized and efforts arc being made to reduce hatchery effects listed populations. Several hatcheries and hatchery programs exist in the Lake Washington basin. Releases off all-run Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington system accounted for about five percent of all Puget Sound releases from 1991 through 2000, with about 2.6 million fish per year. In Puget Sound, hatchery fish greatly outnumber natural origin fish in terms of juvenile out- migrants and adult returns (NMFS 2003). Detailed descriptions of harvest rates for Lake Washington Chinook stocks are provided in (NMFS 2003). While harvest rates frequently change, the harvest rate of Lake Washington Chinook has diminished over time. The total exploitation rate for Chinook salmon returning to the Lake Washington watershed was 67 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 26 percent from 1997 through 2000. Local Stock Infonmation Three summer-fall Chinook stocks are present in the Lake Washington basin including the North Lake Washington Tributaries, Cedar, and Issaquah stocks (WDFW 2002). The North Lake Tributaries stock is considered a mixed origin stock and similar to the non- native Issaquah stock. It is not known whether this results from recent or historical intermingling among fish from these sub-basins. The Issaquah stock is derived from the Soos Creek Hatchery Chinook and other non-local stocks. The Issaquah stock production is believed to be entirely the result of hatchery production, mostly from Issaquah Hatchery. Many more fish return than are needed at that hatchery, and surplus fish are allowed to spawn naturally. Cedar Chinook are rated as depressed due to a long-term negative trend in escapements and chronically low escapement values. There is limited data regarding this population, although in the early 1990s, annual escapement was estimated at between 200 and 1,500 adults (WDF et al. 1993). Spawner surveys conducted in 1998, found an estimated adult Chinook escapement of432 fish, while escapement in 1999 was estimated to be only 214 adult Chinook (Carrasco et al. 1998; Mavros et al. 1999). The Technical Recovery Team (TRT) has suggested recovery goals of 17,000 natural spawners for Lake Washington Chinook populations (TRT 2002). Currently, based on recent average spawner escapement (Table 4), natural spawner escapement is well below the levels needed for Chinook recovery and sustainable tribal fishing goals. Table 4. Lake Washington basin Chinook salmon stock recent productivity, status, and trends Co-managers Average Annual Stock Status Escapement Goal Escapement (period) North Lake Washington Healthy 350 301 (1986-2001) Tributaries Chinook Issaquah Chinook Healthy Not identified 3,279 (1986-2000) Cedar Chinook Depressed 1,200 533 (1986-2001) Source. WDFW 2002. NMFS 2003 July 28, 2005 K:\ProjeclS\Bartlee MlII SA 200512005 SA drclftsldraft two\May Creek SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 15 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging In 2003 and 2004 significant numbers of adipose-clipped (hatchery) fish that were recovered in the Cedar River during spawning surveys indicate that hatchery strays may have maintained the Cedar River population (NOAA Fisheries 2005). The primary Chinook salmon stock in the project vicinity (the southern portion of Lake Washington) originates from the Cedar River. The Cedar River Chinook run, although a naturally spawning population without current supplementation from hatchery stocks, is not native to Lake Washington. May Creek is not thought to have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon run and individuals using the stream are likely strays from the Cedar River. Chinook are reported to use the lower three miles of May Creek for limited spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Lucchetti (2002) rated the lower May Creek sub- basin (from mouth to RM 3.0) as moderate to high for spawning habitat. This rating signifies areas in which Chinook are known to spawn and that are characterized by adequate flows and physical attributes (e.g., channel size, gradient, and substrate) that typically support Chinook spawning (Lucchetti 2002). Adult Cedar River Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington through the Ballard Locks from late June through September, with the run peaking in late August. Spawning occurs from mid-September through mid-to late-November, with a peak in early to mid-October (WDF et al. 1993). In the Cedar River, fry probably begin to emerge in February and continue through March and perhaps April (City of Seattle 2000), which is also probably true in May Creek as well. Unlike most systems in which juvenile Chinook rear in rivers and estuaries, juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington rear in the littoral areas of the lake from January to July. While rearing in the south end of Lake Washington, the nocturnal distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon appears to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Tabor et al. (2004) studied juvenile Chinook salmon use of shoreline habitats in Lake Washington and found that juvenile Chinook were concentrated in very shallow water, approximately 1.3 feet in depth, and prefer low gradient shorelines and deltas with substrates composed of sand and gravel. In comparison to lake shore reference sites, the delta sites had a higher density of juvenile Chinook salmon. On average, the delta sites had almost twice as many fish as the lake reference site. Of the delta sites studied, Tabor et al. (2004) found that juvenile Chinook appeared to use low gradient and shallow deltas that were close to natal streams (such as the Cedar River). Tabor et al. (2004) also found that juvenile Chinook had no preference for woody debris piles alone; however, they did show a preference for woody debris piles in combination with overhanging vegetation. In fact, over 80 percent of juvenile Chinook observed during the study were found along shallow sites in association with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris. The majority of juvenile Chinook observed by Tabor et al. (2004) were concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington from February to May, with peak abundance occurring in May. The last shoreline survey was conducted on July 14, when only one juvenile Chinook was observed out of five sample sites. The lower 912 feet of May Creek and the May Creek delta (convergence pool) were included in the study sites evaluated by Tabor et al. (2004). Tabor et al. (2004) also July 28, 2005 K:V'ro)9Cts\Barbee MIll SA 2005\2005 SA draftsldlOlft two\May Creek SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 16 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging surveyed a lake reference site located approximately 2,000 feet south of the May Creek delta (the Kennydale Beach Park swim beach) .. In March of2002, approximately 80 percent of the May Creek survey reach was composed ofriffles. Snorkel surveys were completed in three pools and one glide. Only two Chinook salmon were observed, one in the convergence pool and one in a pool. The density of juvenile Chinook salmon was similar between the lake reference site and delta area. Juvenile coho salmon were also present primarily in the convergence pool, while large trout primarily occupied the upstream pools. Small resident trout were scattered throughout the study reach. Tabor et al. (2004) observed that while May Creek was a relatively large tributary with low gradient and a large amount of available habitat, very few juvenile Chinook salmon were observed; however, many trout over 6 inches in length were observed. They hypothesized that the deep convergence pool and other deep pools may have restricted the upstream movements of juvenile Chinook salmon through increased predation risk by species such as trout, sculpin, and bass. Tabor et al. (2004) noted that predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by large trout has been documented in Lake Washington (Tabor and Chan 1996) and the Cedar River. Few predatory fish were present in the shallower deltas, which were used by up to 10 times more Chinook compared to the May Creek delta. Based on habitat preference, Tabor et al. (2004) hypothesized that the presence of large trout and large sculpin in the large tributaries may inhibit the use of the convergence pool and other stream habitats by Chinook. It may be that the lack of juvenile Chinook in the deep delta habitat has more to do with this habitat type being preferred by predatory fish, and not that deep delta habitats are not "good" Chinook habitat. Population Trends of the ESU During the most recent (July 2003) status review of federally-listed salmon and steelhead, the West Coast Biological Review Team (BRT) identified Puget Sound Chinook salmon as likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Long-term trends in abundance for naturally spawning populations of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU indicate that approximately half of the populations are declining and half arc increasing in abundance (NOAA Fisheries 2005). The median long-term trend in abundance over all populations is 1.0, indicating that most populations are just replacing themselves. Declines in short-term trends in natural spawner abundance are the most extreme in the Upper Sauk, Cedar, Puyallup, and Elwha populations. Bull Trout Biological Requirements Bull trout, members ofthe family Salmonidae, are a char native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Bull trout historically occurred in major river drainages in the Pacific Northwest from about 41 ON to 600 N latitude, from the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of thc Yukon River in Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the wcst, the bull trout range includes Puget Sound, and various coastal rivers of Washington, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992; McPhail and Carveth 1992; Leary and Allendorf 1997). Bull trout arc widespread throughout July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 17 K:IPrQj8Cl5\Bartlee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA draflsldraft twolMay Cieek SA 072805.do!; • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging tributaries of the Columbia River basin in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, including its headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide, bull trout are found in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta, and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta and British Columbia (Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter 1996; .Brewin and Brevin 1997). Throughout their range, bull trout are primarily freshwater species that exhibit both resident and migratory life-history patterns. The entire lifecyelc of the resident bull trout takes place in headwater streams. Resident fish spawn, rear, and live as adults generally in one headwater stream, although short migrations may occur. Migratory bull trout spawn and rear in headwater streams, then after two to four years rearing in their home stream, juveniles migrate downstream to larger rivers (fluvial) or lakes and reservoirs (adfluvial) where they grow to maturity. Migrations can range from a few miles to well over 50 miles (Goetz et al. 2004). Mature adults migrate back upstream to spawn in headwater reaches. There is increasing evidence that several coastal and Puget Sound populations have an anadromous or amphidromous component in Washington (Rieman and Mcintyre 1993; Kraemer 1999; Goetz et al. 2004; Volk 2000). Goetz et al. (2004) is currently conducting a migration study of native char tagged in the Snohomish River basin using hydro-acoustic tags. Out of 60 fish tagged in the Snohomish basin, 6 were detected at hydrophones in the Skagit River basin at Mt. Vernon. Kraemer (J 999) tagged a char in the South Fork Sauk River (Skagit River basin) while staging for spawning in the fall. An angler recaptured this fish the following spring in the marine area on the east side of Camano Island. Kraemer (1999) noted that anadromous char in the Puget Sound region leave the tidal areas to re-enter spawning watersheds in late May, June and early July. Similarly, Goetz et al. (2004) noted that all of the tagged char had left the nearshore marine areas and Snohomish River estuary by early to mid-August, and left the lower river for the upper watershed by late August to mid-October. Goetz et al. (2004) suspected that all fish moved into freshwater higher up into colder parts of the rivers. The highest water temperature recorded by Goetz et al. (2004) on a fish in the Snohomish/marine nearshore area was 59. 9°F. Adult anadromous char arc thought to prey primarily on fish. A study by Brenkman (2002) at the mouth of the Hoh River on the Olympic Peninsula found that surf smelt (Hypomesus pretious) was the primary prey item and was found in 96 percent of the stomachs analyzed; other species included herring (Clupea harengus pallas i), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and sculpin (Cottus spp.). Other limited stomach content work and feeding observations in Skagit Bay and Port Susan also indicate that anadromous char feed most commonly on surf smelt, and other fish such as herring, sand lance, pink and chum salmon fry, and a number of invertebrates (Kraemer 1999). Kraemer (1999) and Brenkman (2002) suspected the distribution of char in marine waters is closely tied to the distribution offorage fish, especially spawning beaches for surf smelt and herring. Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall from late August into December (timing varies based on local conditions) and is thought to be correlated with particular flows, water temperatures, and photo period. Peak spawning usually occurs in September and October for most populations, but the population in the Skokomish River (southern Hood Canal) July 28, 2005 K:\PfI)J9ClSlBarbDe MdI BA 2005\2005 SA draflsldraft twolMay Cum SA 012805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 18 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging peaks in October and November (Breukman et al. 2001). Bull trout spawning generally occurs when water temperature drops below 48°F. Bull trout spawn in substrate ranging from large sand to gravel over 2 inches in diameter. In western Washington, bull trout spawning occurs above an elevation of 1,000 feet or in streams with very cold temperatures similar to high elevation streams (Kraemer 1999). Fry emerge from spring into the summer months (McPhail and Murray 1979). Mature adult bull trout can spawn more than once in a lifetime. First spawning is often noted after age four, with individuals living ten or more years (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Sexual maturity for both sexes has been documented in fish smaller than 6 inches fork length in resident populations (Hemmingsen et al. 200 I). Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), requiring cold clean water and a high degree of habitat complexity. Habitat characteristics including water temperature, stream size, stream gradient, substrate composition, hydraulic complexity, and large wood have been associated with juvenile bull trout distribution and abundance (Dambacher et al. 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Water temperatures over approximately 50°F are thought to limit their distribution; however, bull trout may be able to migrate through reaches with elevated water temperatures for short durations. Recently, bull trout in northeast Oregon were tagged with radio transmitters and temperature loggers, and then recaptured one year after tagging. One fish captured alive and in apparent good health had experienced water temperatures over 64°F for a brief period (personal communication, J. Dunham, Research Fisheries Scientist, Boise Aquatic Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, 10, with J. Shappart, Fisheries Scientist, Meridian Environmental, Seattle, W A, on September 5, 2002). More recent work employing external temperature archival tags on migratory bull trout in the Lostine River basin (eastern Oregon) suggested that bull trout did not necessarily use the coldest river reaches available in the late summer (Howell et al. 2005). Factors of Decline Bull trout are threatened by habitat degradation and fragmentation from past and ongoing land management activities such as mining, road construction and maintenance, timber harvest, hydropower, water diversions/withdrawals, agriculture, and grazing. Bull trout arc also threatened by interactions and hybridization with introduced non-native fishes such as brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Bull trout are estimated to have occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River basin, and presently occur in 45 percent of the estimated historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Bull trout have declined in overall range and numbers of fish. Though still widespread, there have been numerous local extirpations reported throughout the Columbia River basin. Although some strongholds still exist, bull trout generally occur as isolated sub-populations in headwater lakes or tributaries where migratory fish have been lost. Although the bull trout distribution in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS is less fragmented than the Columbia River DPS, bull trout sUbpopulation distribution within individual river systems has contracted and abundance has declined. The decline of the Coastal! Puget Sound bull trout DPS has been attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers, July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 19 K:lProJ8ClSlBartlee Mill SA 200512005 SA draftsldraft twolMay Creek SA 0728G5_cIoc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging interaction with introduced species, water quality degradation, and past management practices. Historically, bull trout occurred throughout the Puget Sound region. Their historical distribution has been significantly reduced. Currently, bull trout persist in isolated populations of headwater streams; however, migratory components still exist in some local populations. The decline of the CoastallPuget Sound bull trout DPS has been attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers, interaction with introduced species, water quality degradation, and past management practices. Commercial and recreational fisheries also impact native char populations in Puget Sound. Native char are occasionally caught in sport and commercial fisheries in Puget Sound, as well as by in- river net fisheries. They are common in nearshore marine areas of Puget Sound from Everett north, and are vulnerable to beach seine and set net fisheries. Salmon test fisheries in the Skagit River catch char, especially during the spring. Most recreational fisheries in Puget Sound rivers are closed to native char harvest. Current and future population pressures on bull trout in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook. Local Stock Infonmation The following Lake Washington bull trout information is summarized from USFWS (2004) unless otherwise cited. The Cedar River watershed upstream of the Masonry Dam supports the only known self-sustaining population of bull trout in the Lake Washington basin. The Chester Morse Lake bull trout core area is located within the Cedar River in the upper reaches of the Cedar River drainage, upstream of a natural migration barrier at Lower Cedar Falls (river mile 34.4). The level of emigration of bull trout occurring from Chester Morse Lake to the lower Cedar River is unknown. The only means for bull trout to leave the reservoir complex and pass to the lower Cedar River is during use of the emergency spill gates and/or the smaller spillway ncar the south end of the Masonry Dam. These gates are rarely opened except under emergency conditions of high reservoir elevation (e.g., 1990 flood) or for special operational purposes. It is presumed impossible for live fish to pass through the other structure used to release water from Masonry Pool (Masonry Dam spill valvelHowell-Bunger valve) at the base ofthc Masonry Dam. It is possible that bull trout do successfully pass through the spill gates when water is released and thereby gain access to the 'canyon reach' and the lower Cedar River, but no accurate estimate of numbers of fish passing the dam has been made. No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning populations are known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse. The potential for spawning in the Lake Washington basin is believed to be very low as a majority of accessible habitat is low elevation, below 500 feet, and thus not expected to have the proper thermal regime to sustain successful spawning. However, there are some coldwater springs and tributaries that may come close to suitable spawning temperatures and that may provide thermal refuge for rearing or foraging during warm summer periods. These include Rock Creck (tributary to the Cedar River below Landsburg Diversion) and Coldwater Creek, a tributary to Cottage Lake Creek immediately below Cottage Lake. In addition, the upper reaches of Holder and Carey creeks, the two main branches of Issaquah Creek, have good to excellent habitat conditions and may hold potential for bull trout spawning due to their elevation July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 20 K:lProjads\BarbDtt WI BA 2005\2005 BA draflsldrafl twolMay Creek SA 0728I}S.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging and aspect. However, despite survey efforts by King County (Berge and Mavros 2001), no evidence of bull trout spawning or rearing has been found. The connection with the Chester Morse Lake core area is one-way only, and currently the level of connectivity with other core areas is unknown. However, a number of observations of subadult and adult sized bull trout have been made in Lake Washington and at the Ballard Locks (Shepard and Dykeman 1977; KCDNR 2000). Observations of bull trout in the Ballard Locks and cursory hydroacoustic tagging suggest that these fish may be migrating to the Lake Washington area from other watersheds such as the Stillaguamish or Snohomish systems (Goetz et al. 2004). Bull trout have been caught in Shilshole Bay and the Ballard Locks during late spring and early summer in recent times. In 2000, eight adult and subadult fish (mean size 370 millimeters; 14.5 inches) were caught in Shilshole Bay below the locks between May and July. These fish were found preying upon juvenile salmon (40 percent of diet) and marine forage fish (60 percent of diet) (Footen 2000, 2003). In 2001, five adult bull trout were captured in areas within the Ballard Locks and immediately below the locks. One bull trout was captured in the large lock in June, and in May one adult was captured while migrating upstream through the fish ladder in the adult steelhead trap. Three adult bull trout were also captured below the tailrace during the peak of juvenile salmon migration on June 18 (Goetz et al. 2004). Population Trends of the Species in Washington State Of the 80 populations of bull trout identified in Washington State, 14 (18 percent) are healthy, 2 (3 percent) are depressed, 6 (8 percent) arc critical, and thc status of 58 (72 percent) is unknown (WDFW 1998). Adult population size is highly variable, ranging from as many as 10,000 spawners per year throughout the Skagit River basin to possibly less than 100 in the White River basin. Currently, the USFWS is conducting a five year review to assess the best available information on how bull trout have fared since they were listed for protection across their range in the lower 48 states in 1999. This will include analyses of population trends and threats to the species. The purpose of a five year review is to ensure that the classification of a species as threatened or endangered is accurate. Coho Salmon Biological Requirements The coho salmon life history roughly consists of 18 months of freshwater rearing followed by 18 months of ocean rearing (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon typically spawn in relativcly shallow tributary streams from October through February. Spawning generally occurs in temperatures ranging from 42 to 49°F. Coho salmon spawning gravel ranges from 0.5 to 4 inches (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Fry emerge in the spring and occupy most stream habitats, but are usually associated with the channel margin. Coho salmon fry densities arc greatest in backwater pools, beaver dam pools, and off-channel areas (WDW 1991). At least one year of freshwater residence is normal for coho salmon juveniles (USFWS 1986a). Coho salmon parr are frequently associated with side channels, wetlands, and July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 21 K:lProjedslBartea MlII BA 200512005 SA dra!tsldraft IWolMay Creek BA 072805_doc ---------------- • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging off-channel sloughs for rearing (Sandercock 1991). Other important juvenile habitats include large wood accumulations, undercut banks, and complex pool habitats. Coho salmon juveniles are generally absent in channels lacking cover. Mason and Chapman (1965) reported that coho salmon juveniles are aggressive and territorial soon after emergence, and establish intraspecific dominance hierarchies. Where coho and Chinook salmon juveniles occurred together in streams, the coho were socially dominant, defending optimum feeding territory (Stein et al. 1972). Water temperatures that average between 50 to 59°F in the summer are considered optimum for juvenile coho salmon rearing (USFWS 1986a). Bell (1973) reported the upper lethal limit to be 78.5°F. Out- migration of smolts to marine areas usually occurs from April to August of the year following their hatching, with peak migrations in May in nearly all areas (USFWS 1986a). Factors of Decline Concerns with this ESU included genetic integrity of individual stocks and declining environmental and habitat conditions. Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho salmon stocks include high harvest rates, widespread habitat degradation, hatchery practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions. The genetic fitness ofPuget Sound coho salmon stocks has been affected by widespread artificial propagation that includes inter- basin transfers of brood-stock, and by hatchery fish escapement and introgression with wild populations (Weitcamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon are also MSA-managed species in Puget Sound and have designated EFH. Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho salmon stocks include high harvest rates, widespread habitat degradation, hatchery practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions. The genetic fitness of Puget Sound coho salmon stocks has been affected by widespread artificial propagation that includes inter-basin transfers of brood stock, and by hatchery fish escapement and introgression with wild populations (Weitcamp et al. 1995). Current and future population pressures on coho salmon in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook. Local Stock Information Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production; therefore, recent studies have not been able to fully evaluate the status of self-sustaining naturally spawning coho populations in the region. Trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions (Fresh 1994; WDF et al. 1993). Naturally spawning coho escapement (which could be a mix of native and hatchery origin coho) in Lake Washington was as high as 30,000 fish in 1970 and declined to less than 2,000 in 1992 (Fresh 1994). Index escapement values for Cedar River coho in the 1990s have declined to levels far below those observed in the 1980s, so the stock is now rated depresscd by WDFW due to both the long-term negative trend in the index values and the chronically low nature of the indicator values. The Lake WashingtOn/Sammamish tributaries coho stock is also rated as depressed by WDFW for the same factors (WDFW 2002). Available spawning survey information for May Creek suggests the same negative trend. Spawning surveys July 28, 2005 K:\Pro!8dSI8albee MIll BA 2005I2005 SA (lraftsldraft twolJday Creek SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 22 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found peak coho adult spawner densities in lower May Creek at 23, 5, and 55 coho per mile, respectively, while surveys in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities of only 2 fish per mile (Foster Wheeler 1995). Population Trends of the Species The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon ESU includes populations from drainages of Puget Sound and Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula east of Salt Creek, and the Strait of Georgia from the east side of Vancouver Island (north to and including Campbell River) and the British Columbia mainland (north to and including Powell River), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope. WDF et al. (1993) identified 40 coho populations within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. While most were sustained by natural production, only three of these populations were determined to be of native origin. Weitkamp et al. (1995) noted that while coho salmon within the Puget Sound ESU were abundant, and with some exceptions run sizes and natural spawning escapements generally stable, there are substantial risks to whatever native production remains. The Puget Sound coho ESU remains a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. From 1991 through 2000, the annual run size of coho populations entering Puget Sound was 669,000, of which 44 percent were derived from natural spawning. Over this same period, wild coho escapement increased, which is primarily attributed to a reduction in Puget Sound fisheries, allowing more fish to reach spawning grounds even though total run sizes decreased. High harvest rates and a recent decline in average size of spawners is a concern because of the potential for reduced fecundity and/or productivity (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Hatchery coho programs are also intensive in Puget Sound, influencing population trends. From 1991 through 2000, an average of approximately 24 million hatchery-produced juvenile coho were released into Puget Sound annually. Over this period, total hatchery releases decreased from about 40 million in 1991 to less than to million in 2000 (PSMFC 2002). Bald Eagle Biological Requirements The bald eagle is found throughout North America. The largest breeding populations in the contiguous United States occur in the Pacific Northwest states, the Great Lakes states, Chesapeake Bay and Florida. The bald eagle winters over most of the breeding range, but is most concentrated from southern Alaska and southern Canada southward. In Washington, bald eagles are most common along the coasts, major rivers, lakes and reservoirs (USFWS 1986b). Bald eagles require accessible prey and trees for suitable nesting and roosting habitat (Stalmaster 1987). Food availability, such as aggregations of waterfowl or salmon runs, is a primary factor attracting bald eagles to wintering arcas and influences the distribution of nests and territories (Stalmaster 1987; Keister et al. 1987). Bald eagle nests in the Pacific Recovery Area are usually locatcd in uneven-aged stands of coniferous trees with old-growth forcst components that are located within one mile of large bodies of water. Factors such as relative tree height, diameter, species, form, position on the surrounding topography, distance from thc water, and distance from July 28, 2005 K:lProjects\Barbfle MIll SA 200512005 SA draflsldraI\ lw<llMay Creek SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 23 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging disturbance appear to influence nest site selection. Nests are most commonly constructed in Douglas fir or Sitka spruce trees, with average heights of 116 feet and size of 50 inches dbh (Anthony et al. 1982 in Stalmaster 1987). Bald eagles usually nest in the same territories each year and often use the same nest repeatedly. Availability of suitable trees for nesting and perching is critical for maintaining bald eagle populations. The average territory radius ranges from 1.55 miles in western Washington to 4.41 miles along the lower Columbia River (Grubb 1976; Garrett et al. 1988). In Washington, courtship and nest building activities normally begin in January, with eaglets hatching in mid-April or early May. Eaglets usually fledge in mid-July (Anderson et al. 1986). A number of habitat features are desirable for wintering bald eagles. During the winter months bald eagles are known to band together in large aggregations where food is most easily acquired. The quality of wintering habitat is tied to food sources and characteristics of the area that promote bald eagle foraging. Key contributing factors are available fish spawning habitat with exposed gravel bars in areas close to bald eagle perching habitat. Bald eagles select perches that provide a good view of the surrounding territory, typically the tallest perch tree available within close proximity to a feeding area (Stalmaster 1987). Trce species commonly used as perches are black cottonwood, big leaf maple, or Sitka spruce (Stalmaster and Newman 1979). Wintering bald eagles may roost communally in single tree or large forest stands of uneven ages that have some old-growth forest characteristics (Anthony et al. 1982 in Stalmaster 1987). Some bald eagles may remain at their daytime perches through the night but bald eagles often gather at large communal roosts during the evening. Communal night roosting sites arc traditionally used year after year and are characterized by more favorable microclimatic conditions. Roost trees are usually the most dominant trees of the site and provide unobstructed views of the surrounding landscape (Anthony et al. 1982 in Stalmaster 1987). They are often in ravines or draws that offer shelter from inclement weather (Hansen et al. 1980; Keister et al. 1987). A communal night roost can consist of two birds together in one tree, or more than 50 in a large stand of trees. Roosts can be located near a river, lake, or seashore and are normally within a few miles of day- use areas, but can be located as far away from water as 17 miles or more. Prey sources may be available in the general vicinity, but close proximity to food is not as critical as the need for shelter that a roost affords (Stalmaster 1987). Bald eagles utilize a wide variety of prey items, although they primarily feed on fish, birds and mammals. Diet can vary seasonally, depending on prey availability. Given a choice of food, however, they typically select fish. Many species of fish are eaten, but they tend to be species that arc easily captured or available as carrion. In the Pacific Northwest, salmon form an important food supply, particularly in the winter and fall. Birds taken for food are associated with aquatic habitats. Ducks, gulls and seabirds are typically of greatest importance in coastal environments. Mammals are less preferred than birds and fish, but form an important part of the diet in some areas. Deer and elk carcasses are scavenged, and in coastal areas eagles feed on whale, seal, sea lion and porpoise carcasses (Stalmaster 1987). July 28, 2005 K:\Projects\Barbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA drafts\draft twolMay Creel; SA 072B05.doc Biological Assessment -Page 24 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Factors of Decline Bald eagle populations have increased in number and expanded their range. The improvement is a direct result of recovery efforts including habitat protection and the banning of DDT and other persistent organochlorines. However, habitat loss continues to be a long-term threat to the bald eagle in the Pacific Recovery Area of Washington, Idaho, Nevada, California, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming. Urban and recreational development, logging, mineral exploration and extraction, and other forms of human activities are adversely affecting the suitability of breeding, wintering, and foraging areas. In July 1999, the USFWS proposed to de-list the bald eagle; however, no action on the de-listing proposal has occurred since that time. Local Population Information Bald eagles are known to occur in the action area for this proposed project (i.e. within one mile of the May Creek delta). The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species maps, dated May 24, 2005 for the vicinity of Township 24, Range 5 E, Section 32, indicate that three bald eagle nests occur within one mile, but greater than 0.5 miles of the project site. All three nests are located to the west of the May Creek delta on the southeastern tip of Mercer Island. One of the nests was reported to have blown out in 1999. However, another nest was reported as active over the last seven years (2004 observation). It is reasonable to assume that bald eagles may fly over the project site and that they may forage in the action area based on the presence of documented nest sites and forage species, such as waterfowl, seagulls, and salmon, which occur in and around May Creek and the southern portion of Lake Washington. Population Trends of the Species Bald eagle populations have increased in number and expanded their range. The improvement is a direct result of recovery efforts including habitat protection and the banning of DDT and other persistent organochlorines. The 1996 information provided by WDFW (WDFW unpub. data) indicates that 589 nests were known to be occupied and 0.93 young/nest were produced. This is well above the recovery goal of 276 pairs for Washington, but below the recovery criteria of an average of 1.00 young/nest. In many areas, the numbers of nesting pairs and the reproductive rates have been more than double the targets. Recently, WDFW has changed bald eagle protection policies and no longer requires construction windows to minimize noise disturbance to bald eagles during nesting. WDFW now only focuses on protection oftrccs that could be used for roosting, perching, or nesting. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE The environmental baseline includes the past and prescnt impacts of all fcderal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process 50 CFR § 402.02(d). The baseline provides a reference for NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS to evaluate the species' current status in relationship to the proposed action. July 28, 2005 K:\Projects\Barbee Mill BA.200s1JOO5 SA draflsldraft lwolMa~ Creek BA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 25 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging A. Description of the Action Area and Project Area As described in Section lI(E), the action area for the proposed projcct encompasses the lower portion of May Creek and southem Lake Washington (Figure I). The project arca encompasses the May Creek delta. The cnvironmental baseline of the action area is generally described below, including the Lake Washington basin, May Creek watershed, and the project area (May Creek delta). Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington) May Creek May Creek drains approximately 14 square miles between the Coal Creek and Cedar River basins. The basin contains approximately 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres of wetlands (Foster Wheeler 1998). Historically, the watershed was forested with predominantly coniferous stands. Over recent decades, land uses in the western one-third of the basin have changed to intensive residential development, with some industrial development in the lowermost reaches, including the Barbee Lumber Mill. The eastern two-thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural residential, small farms, and some forested areas (King County 200 I). Developed communities in the watershed include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honcy Creek, and Lake Kathleen (Foster Wheeler 1998). The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban- scale development from encroaching on the headwaters ofthe basin. Land development in the lower basin has substantially reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces, and filled wetlands. Currently, the amount of etTective impervious surface coverage basin-wide is approximately 7 percent. In addition, under current zoning, full build-out would result in approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being covered in impervious surfaces (King County 2001). This is significant, as basin-wide impervious surface areas of 10 percent or greater have been found to have significant impacts on the health of aquatic ecosystems (May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991). Logging, coal mining, and agricultural activities have resulted in channelized streams, floodplain encroachment, and eroding slopes in the May Creek watershed. The lower four miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the creek experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of L WD (Foster Wheeler 1998). Thc lack ofL WD has rcsulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat. Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to forest removal, the presence of rock quarries, and the expansion of road networks. Vegetation removal throughout the basin has resulted in higher maximum flows and lower minimum flows. Higher flows than what naturally occurred can result in stream substrate scour, which may negatively impact salmon redds (Foster Wheeler 1998). The increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding and sediment deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and flooding and sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 200 I). Peak flows have increased moderately in May Valley, on the order of 15 to 20 percent July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 26 K:\Prqeds\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA dfCIlts'(lrafl1wo\May Creek SA 072805.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging greater than the predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year return intervals (King County 200 I). From approximately RM 3.9 to 7.0, the riparian area of May Creek is heavily impacted by grazing (Foster Wheeler 1998). Agricultural activities in May Valley have drained historic wetlands and channelized May Creek (Buchanan 2003). The South Fork of May Creek starts at RM 7.0. Portions ofthe South Fork go dry in the summer from RM 7.0 to 9.1. A I 28-foot-Iong culvert blocks anadromous fish passage at RM 7.7. The North Fork of May Creek parallels State Route (SR) 900, resulting in degraded riparian conditions and channelization. Three quarries along the North Fork contribute to high sediment loading in the system (Foster Wheeler 1998). The East Fork of May Creek flows into the South Fork at RM 7.2. Habitat conditions in the East Fork are highly degraded due to the presence of man-made berms, culverts, and man-made ponds (Foster Wheeler 1998). Almost all of the basin's nearly 80 identified wetlands have been disturbed by deforestation, filling, draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring since the wetlands were first inventoried in 1983 (King County 2001). The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 200 I) includes several goals, one of which is to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin. Implementation of habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on funding availability. Restoration work along May Creek has recently taken place; the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge to Lake Washington Boulevard by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation. In this area (located upstream from the proposed dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width from 5 to over 100 feet in width. Despite the current habitat conditions, the lower reaches of May Creek experience the heaviest use by fish (F oster Wheeler 1998). Steelhead, cutthroat trout, Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon spawn in May Creek. Spawning gravel, although embedded, likely supports successful incubation (Buchanan 2003). The primary limiting factor for Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is available spawning area and incubation success (Foster Wheeler 1998). The primary limiting factor for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and over- wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998). Lake Washington The following description of the Lake Washington basin is from Kerwin (2001) unless otherwise cited. Lake Washington is approximately twenty miles long and is bordered by the cities of Seattle, Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Kenmore. The Lake Washington! Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and Sammamish, and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It also includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain into the system from the north. Historically, Lake Washington had a vegetated shoreline of wetlands, trees, brush, and other mixed vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for juvenile salmonids. July 28, 2005 K:\ProJ8C1slSarbee Mill SA 200512005 SA drallsldraft twolMay Creek SA 07280S.doc Biological Assessment -Page 27 .1 *-pttf':ft.u tJl!6. 4(1,$, ' .. )'1.~""1P' '~"I~""",""':J" ........ I."' .... ';iO"IIi!: .... ;'Ii.bMllllliloilo!!L", .,. ............ ,,,, ............... 'filil:.' .. ' '"'!I!tW!" .. · .. ,.,,'WW .. · oi]!IIlt!!' .i~t"-II1'@"""j.II!~""t .. ·. "'~'tlijJ"Io!:.,. ................•• "'x". '''\.·''''tIiUllbllll'lIIltll,'.II,!I''!IlIllJIII''I,,1!I11I_1II1!!.I ••• . ' •" "",-,,% """"'"" --..,,+~~ ".-,.-• " . •• ~.---.-.-.~.--~- • • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging The shoreline's natural structural complexity was beneficial for fish and other aquatic species. Larger conifers that grew in the riparian area provided shade and contributed plant material (branches, needles) and terrestrial insects to the aquatic food chain. The United States Fish Commission Bulletin published in 1898 describcs the lake as follows; "Only in a few places along the shore of the entire lake is the bottom sufficiently free from snags, fallen trees, and other material to permit the successful hauling of nets". In the past 150 years, the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish watershed has been dramatically altered from its historical condition. Habitat degradation started with heavy logging of old growth forest throughout much of the watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle began diverting water out of the upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910 through 1920, the natural Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake Washington to Lake Union and then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake that was not connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of the Lake Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to to feet and the loss of over ten miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. During that same decade, the Cedar River was redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington . In the ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been the expansion of urban and suburban development. In the upper Cedar River, land is devoted almost entirely to preservation of forests. Residential, industrial, and commercial uses prevail in the lower reaches of virtually all the streams. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into the lake, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). Piers are also used heavily as ambush cover by non-native species such as bass, which may prey heavily on native juvenile salmon ids. The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat. The current lake level is artificially regulated within a two-foot range. The high water/low water regime is reversed from the natural state. High water occurs during the summer for extensive operation of the Ballard Locks. Low water occurs during the winter protect property from winter wave action. Despite the heavy alteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support numerous salmonid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest salmonid populations, the Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye, coho, kokanee, steelhead, rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char. Some of the small independent Puget Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and cutthroat. Maps illustrating known and presumed distributions for each of these species arc available in Kerwin (2001). Additionally, at least 40 non-native fish species (of July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 28 K:\ProjlldslBaroee Mill SA 200512005 SA draft$1dTiI1I.1WO\May Cree~ SA 072805_00c • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging which approximately 24 persist) have been introduced into the Lake Washington basin, most notably smallmouth and largemouth bass, creating numerous trophic interactions with native species, most notably predation on native salmonids. Sockeye salmon in the lake system are believed to be primarily the descendants of fly transplanted from Baker Lake in the 1930s. While many species have been introduced, native species such as Cedar River pink and chum salmon have been extirpated. Project Area (May Creek Delta) On April 9 and May 6, 2005, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed detailed aquatic habitat and fish presence surveys in the May Creek delta project area. The objective of these surveys was to: • document the existing aquatic habitat conditions; • determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and • describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the survey. An additional objective was to compare the results of 2005 surveys with the results of fish habitat and fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in 1993, 2000, and 200 I (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001). It should be noted that the timing of the 2005 surveys was designed to coincide with the expected residence period of juvenile coho and Chinook. Survey Methods Ten underwater (SCUBA) transects were placed between the north end of the May Creek delta and the existing boathouse located at the south end of the proposed project area (Figure 5). Transects ranged from 25 to 245 feet in length, and extended approximately 395 feet into Lake Washington. Transects I through 4 were shallow-water snorkel survey transects located along the north and south shoreline adjacent to the delta, up to the lowermost access bridge at the mouth of May Creek. Transects 5 through 9 paralleled eaeh other, orientcd from roughly 00 to 1800 , and transect 10 extend from the south end of transect 9 to the existing boathouse (Figure 5). The transects were placed to document varying habitat types . July 28, 2005 K:lPlll)llClSlBarbee u.n BA2005l2OO5 SA dra!\sldrafl hYolMay Creek fIA 072605.do(: Biological Assessment -Page 29 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 5. May Creek delta 2005 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations. On April 9, 2005, two fisheries biologists used snorkeling equipment and SCUBA to swim each of the 10 survey transects approximately three feet above the surface of the lake bed. While swimming each transect, both divers counted and identified fish to species. When fish were observed, divers also recorded the depth, dominant and subdominant substrate, and underwater visibility. Fish age classes and species associations were also noted. Aquatic macrophyte densities were visually estimated along each transects at a series of one to three square yard stations. At each station, macrophyte densities were visually estimated as low (less than or equal to IO stems per square yard), moderate (11 to 100 stems per square yard), or high (greater than 100 stems per square yard). Aquatic macrophyte species composition and relative abundance was also estimated/recorded at each station. Underwater photographs of representative habitat conditions and fish were also taken along selected transccts. On May 6, 2005, a fisheries biologist used snorkeling equipment to survcy the littoral zone of the delta and surrounding shoreline (transects 1 through 4) (Figure 5). The survey focused on the littoral zone and surrounding shoreline because this is the area of July 28, 2005 K:\ProjectslBartlee Mill SA 2005~005 SA draftsldraft two\Ma)' Creak SA 072805.00(: Biological Assessment· Page 30 • • • ---------------------- Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging the lake that is most likely to be occupied by ESA listed Chinook and other salmonids (Tabor et al. 2004). The survey biologist identified, counted, and attempted to photograph each fish species observed and also recorded the depth, dominant and subdominant substrate, and underwater visibility. Survey Results Fish Use Over the last several years numerous salmonid species have been documented at the project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, and rainbow and cutthroat trout. Non-salmonid species documented at the project site include largemouth and small mouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three-spine stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; and Buchanan 2003). Fish species observed during the April and May 2005 aquatic habitat and fish population surveys included Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, three-spine stickleback, and prickly sculpin (Tables 5 and 6). As in past surveys, the majority of all fish observed in 2005 were found in relatively shallow water (less than 6 feet deep) along transects 1 through 4. Typically these fish were associated with overhead and underwater cover in the form of riprap, emergent vegetation, submerged logs, the existing dock, and the culvert located adjacent to the existing dock. In 2005, the majority of the coho and Chinook were found to be associated with the outlet of the culvert located adjacent to the dock (the eastern end of Transect 4) (Figure 6); however, coho and rainbow trout were also observed using nearshore emergent vegetation as cover. Riparian Condition The Barbee Mill property, located adjacent to the May Creek delta, has been highly modified, with mill operations dominating the land use. Approximately 85 percent of the site is covered by impervious surfaces in the form of pavement associated with mill operations and approximately 15 structures used for mill offices, log handling, sawing, milling, and storage of wood products (Figure 5 illustrates the condition adjacent to the May Creek delta). Mill facility structures and impervious surfaces abut the Lake Washington shoreline, in addition to an existing dock structure. In recent years, the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other nativc vegetation. In this area (located upstream from the proposed dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width from approximately 5 to over 100 feet in width. Immediately adjacent to the May Creck delta, the riparian area is grass covered and managed more as lawn than an actual riparian buffer (Figure 7). Traditional riprap erosion control has been placed along both sides of the delta from the lower access bridgc down to the confluence with Lake Washington. July 28, 2005 K:\Pf'OI&CI$lBartlee tddIBA 2005\2005 SA draftsl(jraft twoWay CrtH:Ik BA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 31 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Table 5 Summary of April 9, 2005 SCUBA survey results within the proposed project area Survey Method Aquatic Aquatic Transect and Station Distance Depth Macrophyte Macrophyte Number Number Bearing (feet) (feet) Substrate Density • Species Comments I Fish Observations 1 Snorkel 138' 115 0-2.6 Riprap cobble Low Elodea Visibility approximately 3.3 feet. No fish observed Survey and sand canadensis (used light to see into riprap areas) 2 Snorkel 76' 180 0-3.3 Riprap cobble, None None observed Visibility approximately 2.6 feet. Two dead Survey sand,and observed sticklebacks. One dead crayfish. No live fish gravel observed. (Used light to see into riprap areas) 3 Snorkel 230' 280 0-3.3 Riprap cobble, Low Floating Visibility approximately 3.3 feet. Two sculpin (alive) Survey sand,and Eurasian Milfoil under riprap. gravel 4 Snorkel 115' and 150 0-3.3 Riprap cobble, Low Elodea Approximately 150 coho fry, two sockeye salmon fry, Survey 70' sand,and canadensis and and five Chinook salmon fry (see Figure 6). All gravel sparse Eurasian salmon ids were observed near the culvert outlet and Milfoil (floating) under the existing dock structure. Pulses of turbid water out of the culvert appeared to attract salmon fry (actively feeding). One eight-inch-diameter westem pond turtle was observed mid-transect. Visibility approximately 3.9 feet. 5 Snorkel 180' 25 0-3.3 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Gravel extends out approximately Survey gravel and observed 2.6 feet from riprap followed by sand at mid-channel. sand mid-Sand substrate across approximately 90 percent of channel the channel. 6 Snorkel 180' 35 0-3.9 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90 Survey gravel and observed percent of the channel. Gravel and cobble on edges sand mid-of channel only, near the toe of shore armor. channel 7 Snorkel 180' 80 0-4.3 Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90 Survey gravel and observed percent of the channel. A ·pit" measuring sand mid-approximately 8.2 feet deep was observed at mid- channel transect. Gravel and cobble on edges of channel only, near the toe of shore armor. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 32 IUPrujects'.Bart:Ige Mil8A 2005\2005 BA drafts'jjra1l twoIMay Cree~ SA 0728Didoc • Meridian Environmental, Inc. Survey Method Transect and Station Distance Number Number Bearing (feet) 8 Snorkel 1800 115 Survey 9 SCUBA 1 1800 80 9 SCUBA 2 1800 165 9 SCUBA 3 1800 245 10 SCUBA 1 900 80 10 SCUBA 2 900 165 10 SCUBA 3 900 245 .--.--------- Low = less than or equal to 10 stems per square yard. Moderate = 11 to 100 stems per square yard. High = greater than 100 stems per square yard. July 28, 2005 K:IProjeaslSarbee M~I BA 2OCl5\2OO5 SA drilftsidl'!lf\ MlJIMay Creek BA 072S05.doc Depth (feet) 0-8.2 4.3 10.5 19.7 13.1 10.5 6.6-9.8 • • May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Aquatic Aquatic Macrophyte Macrophyte Substrate Density • Species Comments I Fish Observations Rip-rap edges, None None observed No fish observed. Sand across approximately 90 gravel and observed percent 01 the channel. sand mid- channel Silt Moderate Elodea No fish observed. Numerous (1 ,ODD's) Neomysis canadensis and mercedis (possum shrimp) observed throughout the sparse Eurasian transect. Milloil Silt Moderate Eurasian Milloil, No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis. Elodea canadensis, and Potamogeton crispis (cu~y-Ieal pondweed) Silt None None observed No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis. observed Silt Moderate Elodea One dead sculpin. No live fish observed. Numerous canadensis and Neomysis mercedis. One freshwater mussel. Eurasian Milloil Silt Moderate Elodea No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis. canadensis and Eurasian Milloil SilUSand Low Elodea No fish observed. Numerous Neomysis mercedis. canadensis and Series 01 three pits measuring 6.6 to 9.8 leet deep Eurasian Milloil located near the boathouse entrance. Total transect length = 245 leet. Biological Assessment -Page 33 • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. Table 6. Summary of May 6, 2005 snorkel survey results within the proposed project area. Survey Method I Transect Station Distance Number Number Bearing (m) 1 Snorkel 138° 115 Survey 2 Snorkel 76° 180 Survey 3 Snorkel 230° 280 Survey 4 Snorkel 115° and 145 Survey 70° Low = less than or equal to 10 stems per square yard. Moderate = 11 to 100 stems per square yard. High = greater than 100 stems per square yard. July 28, 2005 K:\Projects'Sartlee Mil BA 2005'J005 SA dl8fts\drafllwo'May Creek SA 072805.doc Aquatic Aquatic Depth Macrophyte Macrophyte (m) Substrate Density' Species 0-3.9 Riprap cobble Low Elodea canadensis and sand and curly pondweed 0-3.9 Riprap cobble, None observed Soft rush along sand,and shoreline. gravel 0-4.9 Riprap cobble, Low None sand,and gravel 0-4.9 Riprap cobble, Low Elodea canadensis sand,and gravel • May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Comments I Fish Observations Visibility approximately 4.9 feet. One large stickleback in riprap. Visibility approximately 4.9 feet. One rainbow trout fly (using soft rush as cover), 2 coho salmon fly and 8 large sticklebacks using riprap as cover. Visibility approximately 3.9 feet. Five coho salmon fry, 2 rainbow trout fry and 12 sticklebacks using riprap as cover. Visibility approximately 3.9 feet. Approximately 30 coho fly, 6 rainbow trout, and 20 sticklebacks. The majority of the coho and rainbow trout fly were observed near the culvert ou~et and under the existing dock structure; however, additional coho and rainbow trout were observed using emergent vegetation as cover. Biological Assessment -Page 34 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 6, Figure 7, July 28, 2005 Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet (eastern end of transect 4) located adjacent to the existing dock structure (2005 SCUBA survey). Current May Creek delta riparian condition (habitat enhancement area). K:\Projed$lB~rbee Mdl8A 200512005 SA draflsldraf\ lwolMay Creek BA OnB05.doc Biological Assessment· Page 35 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Aquatic Macrophytes Six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented in the proposed project area; elodea (Elodea canadensis), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), white-stemmed pondweed (Potamogeton prelongus), curly-Ieafpondweed (P. crispis), American wild celery (Vallisneria americana), and common water nymph (Najas guadalupensis) (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001). Elodea is a native spccies found throughout most of Lake Washington. It is nodally rooting and forms large mats in shallow water, nearshore areas. Eurasian mil foil is a non-native species that first appeared in Lake Washington in the mid-1970s. This species spreads rapidly, and now dominates the aquatic macrophyte community in the nearshore areas of the lake (Harza 1993). According to Kerwin (200 I), Eurasian milfoil has colonized a large percentage of the littoral zone and replaced much of the native aquatic vegetation present in littoral areas of Lake Washington. Curly-Ieafpondweed also forms mats of vegetation in lakes and streams, and provides a large area of leaf surface. It is native to Europe, introduced in North America, and known to occur in both central and western Washington. American wild celery is also native to eastern North America; however, Hitchcock et al. (1969) notes that it was introduced into several lakes in Washington, including Lake Washington (Harza 1993). Common water nymph exists throughout Washington and is often found in ponds, lakes and sluggish streams to depths of 12 feet. Based on the results of underwater surveys conducted in 1993,2000, and 2001 (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001), the distribution and abundance ofthese macrophyte communities fluctuates considerably on a seasonal basis. In general, high densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and curly-leaf pondweed have been observed in the nearshore portion (depths less than 12 feet) of the proposed project area during the summer months (Harza 2000). The highest abundance is typically seen in depths of 6 to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the deeper water transects (greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and less abundant. Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than IS feet (Harza 1993 and 2000). During the winter and early spring the densities ofthese species are relatively low, as most of their growth occurs during the summer months. In 2005, biologists observed low to moderate densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and curly-leaf pondweed in the proposed project area (Table 5). Densities were highest along transects 9 and 10 at depths less than 12 feet (Figure 8) and lowest along transects 1,3 and 4. No aquatic macrophytes were observed along transects 2,5,7, and 8 (Table 5). Overall, elodea was the dominant aquatic plant species both in distribution and abundance throughout the proposed project area. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 36 K:\Projec1slBarbee Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldral'l twoVday Creek SA 072805.ooc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 8. Curly-leaf pondweed, Elodea canadens;, aud Eurasiau milfoil observed along transect 9 (2005 SCUBA survey). Shoreline Condition As discussed previously, the littoral zone and shoreline of Lake Washington has been extensively modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake level; construction of piers, docks, and bulkheads; removal of LWD; and the expansion of Eurasian milfoil and other non-native aquatic macrophytes (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000). The previously hardstem bulrush and willow-dominated shoreline community has been replaced by developed and hardened shorelines with landscaped yards. According to Toft (2001), an estimated 71 perccnt of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored with riprap or bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers havc been built. This loss of natural shoreline has reduced the OCCurrence of complex shoreline habitat features such as overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen trees with branches and/or rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches, which has reduced the availability of refuge habitat and forage for juvenile salmonids. Like most of the shoreline along Lake Washington, the shoreline in the proposed project area is armored with riprap (Figure 9); however, a very limited amount of emergent vegetation (soft rush, grasses, sedges, etc.) was observed growing along transect 4. In 2005, juvenile rainbow trout, coho salmon, and sticklebacks were observed using this using this emergent vegetation as covcr. Water depths in thc areas dominated by riprap substratc range from 0 to approximate 3 feet deep. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 37 K:lProjectslBaftIM Mill SA 2005\2005 SA draflslDraft twolMay Creek SA 072805.ooc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 9. Substrate Riprap shoreline located along the May Creek delta (habitat enhancement area). The substrate in the proposed project area (bottom surface observations during SCUBA surveys) is comprised of a mixture of silt and sand, riprap cobble (4 to 8 inches in diameter), and gravel patches. Riprap cobble, sand, and gravel were the dominant substrates observed along transects 1 through 8. The riprap cobble was typically located within 6 feet of the shoreline to a depth of approximately 3 feet (Figure 10). Roughly equal amounts of gravel and sand were the dominant substrates in the mid-channel areas of transects I through 8. Silt and sand were the only substrates observed along transects 9 and 10 (Figure II). Figure 10. Riprap cobble substrate along transect 3 (2005 SCUBA survey). July 28, 2005 K:lProjeclslBarbee Mill BA2005\200S SA draflsldrafl two\May Cr8&k SA G72805.doc Biological Assessment· Page 38 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 11. Silt substrate along transect 9 at a depth of approximately 15 feet (2005 SCUBA snrvey). Overall Aquatic Habitat Complexity Other than aquatic macrophytes, large substrates (submerged riprap), and occasional pieces of submerged woody debris, complex habitat features are extremely limited in the May Creek delta project area. The dock, boathouse, and culvert located immediately south of the delta provide overhead cover for juvenile salmonids at depths less than approximately two feet; however, at depths greater than two feet, these structures likely provide cover for abundant nonnative predators such as largemouth and smallmouth bass. The riprap shoreline surrounding the delta may directly affect predation on juvenile salmonids by eliminating shallow-water refuge habitat or, indirectly, by the eliminating shoreline vegetation. The large interstitial spaces found within the riprap shoreline may also provide ambush habitat for abundant, large native cottids (also known to prey on juvenile salmonids). As discussed previously, overhanging riparian vegetation and emergent vegetation is extremely limited in the project area. In summary, the proposed project area would be considered poor juvenile salmonid rearing habitat due to the lack of overhanging vegetation and lack of shallow water structure such as shallow emergent vegetation and small woody debris (brush). B. Environmental Baseline Matrix For proposed actions that affect freshwater habitat, the Services usually define the biological requirements for listed species in terms of a concept called properly functioning condition (PFC). PFC is the sustained presence of natural habitat-forming processcs in a watershed (e.g., riparian community succession, bedload transport, precipitation runoff pattern, channel migration) that are necessary for the long-term survival of the species through the full range of environmental variation. PFC, then, constitutes the habitat component of a species' biological requirements. The indicators of PFC vary between different landscapes based on unique physiographic and geologic features. For example, aquatic habitats on timberlands in glacial mountain valleys are controlled by natural processes operating at different scales and rates than are habitats on low-elevation coastal rivers or lake systems. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 39 K:lPlOf6ClSlBarbee Mal BA 200512005 SA dralts'v;!ralllwol.l.4ay Creek SA 0728G5.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging In the NOAA Fisheries PFC framework, baseline environmental conditions are described as "properly functioning" (PFC), "at risk" (AR), or "not properly functioning" (NPF). USFWS also has a PFC framework that defines baseline environmental conditions in terms of "functioning appropriately" (FA), "functioning at risk" (AR), or "functioning at unacceptable risk" (UR). The PFC concept includes a recognition that natural patterns of habitat disturbance will continue to occur. For example, floods, landslides, wind damage, and wildfires result in spatial and temporal variability in habitat characteristics, as will anthropogenic perturbations. If a proposed project would be likely to impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it will usually be found likely to jeopardize the continued existence ofthe species or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both, depending upon the specific considerations of the analysis. Sueh considerations may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the quality of the available information. In this section of the BA, we summarize existing environmental conditions and parameters for the action area, and present the status of each indicator as PFC, AR, or NPF following the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS "pathways and indicators" matrices (Table 7). For the purposes of this analysis we have integrated the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS matrices in order to facilitate an analysis of the effects of the proposed project on bull trout and Chinook salmon simultaneously. For consistency we have used the terms PFC, AR, or NPF (NOAA Fisheries terminology) for rating specific environmental indicators applicable to bull trout from the USFWS (1998) matrix. For practical purposes, PFC, AR, or NPF (NOAA Fisheries terminology) are equivalent to FA, AR, and UR (USFWS terminology). Criteria for PFC, AR and NPF are described in detail in NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998), but summarized for each indicator following Table 7 along with a detailed justification for the status of each indicator in the action area. The effects that the proposed project may have on each environmental indicator are analyzed subsequently in Section VeE). It is important to note that the current status of a particular environmental indicator can be non-related to a proposed project. For example, road density in the Lake Washington basin may rate as "not properly functioning" under existing conditions even though the proposed project has no influence on this indicator. In addition, the 1996 NMFS matrix was originally designed by the U.S. Forest Service to evaluate timber harvest activities on· rangeland watersheds. Therefore, not all of the parameters below are necessarily applicable to the small spatial scale of the proposed project, although it is still a useful tool in characterizing the baseline conditions and summarizing the potential effects of the proposed project. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 40 K:\Prllf8ClSIBari.Jee MIl BA 2OOSlJOO5 SA draftsldraft twolMay CraM SA 07281)5.00t • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Table 7. Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental baseline on relevant indicators Baseline Environmental Conditions Pathway Cause of Degradation from Indicators Function Description PFC Water Quality Temperature NPF High water temperatures present Loss of riparian vegetation due during bull trout spawning, to development; natural low incubation and migration; and during watershed elevation Chinook spawning, rearing and migration SedimentlTurbidity NPF High sediment loads in May Creek Increased runoff due to and Lake Washington development has increased bank erosion and sediment transport in May Creek Chemical NPF Several 303(d) reaches present Residential and commercial Contamination/Nutrients development has increased polluted runoff (point and non- point sources), agricultural I hobby farm run-off to May Creek Habitat Access Physical Banriers AR Man-made in-stream structures Ballard Locks is a predation present bottleneck, and is a quick transition between salt and freshwaters, which is undesirable for salmon smolts Habitat Elements Substrate NPF High fine sediment loads in May Increased runoff due to Creek and Lake Washington development has increased bank erosion and sediment transport in May Creek Large Woody Debris NPF Limited to no LWD along the lake Development, historic wood shore and in the lower 4 miles of removal, loss of riparian forest May Creek Pool Frequency and NPF Few pools in lower May Creek High sediment loads and lack Quality of pool forming structure such as LWD due to human development Off-Channel Habitat NPF Little if any off-channel habitat May Creek channelization, present wetland degradation and wetland loss due to development, lowering of Lake Washington Refugia NPF No pristine PFC aquatic habitat Wide scale urbanization has present in the action area degraded May Creek and Lake Washington July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 41 K:\ProjectslSaftlee Mill 8A 2005\2005 SA dralls'draft two\M<ly Creek SA 072805_doc Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • Baseline Environmental Conditions Pathway Cause of Degradation from Indicators Function Description PFC Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio NPF Stream has been channelized, and Increased erosion and heavy sediment transport occurs in sedimentation, along with May Creek channelization due to development and increased runoff has degrade channel morphology in May Creek Streambank Condition NPF Extensive actively eroding Increased erosion due to streambanks in May Creek; Lake channelization and Washington's shore is extensively development in May Creek; hardened with bulk heads and piers shoreline armoring along the lake for residential and commercial development Floodplain Connectivity NPF Limited floodplain connectivity May Creek has been channelized and Lake Washington was lowered, permanently dewatering shallow wetlands and lake margin habitat. Flow/Hydrology • Change in Peak/Base NPF Peak flows are higher and base Loss of wetlands and increased Flow flows are lower impervious surface due to development has increased runoff during peak flows, and diminished ground water recharge to sustain summer base flows Increase in Drainage NPF Peak flows are higher Impervious surface and roads Network have contributed to increased runoff Watershed Conditions Road Density and NPF High road density Lake Washington is a highly Location urbanized area with a well developed road network Disturbance History NPF Massive human caused landscape Diversion of the Cedar River, altering events have occurred lowering of Lake Washington and general urbanization of dramatically altered the historic landscape Riparian Reserves NPF Few forested areas compared to Wide spread clearing in the historic conditions May Creek watershed and Lake Washington for urbanization • July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 42 K:\ProJ8ClSlBarbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA drsltsldraft twolMay Creek SA 012B05.00c • • ---------~----------------------------------------~ Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Baseline Environmental Conditions Pathway Cause of Degradation from Indicators Function Description PFC Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria) Population Size NA No local bull trout subpopulation in No bull trout subpopulations the action area, although foraging are known or suspected to individuals may be present from occur in May Creek; the Cedar other basins such as the Snohomish River population is resident and Stillaguamish, or from the upper above a natural barrier and Cedar River was not historically connected to Lake Washington Growth and Survival NA Same as above Same as above Life History Diversity NA Same as above Same as above and Isolation Persistence and NA Same as above Same as above Genetic Integrity NA -Not Applicable Water Temperature For Chinook salmon, NMFS (\996) defines PFC as water temperatures ranging from 50 to 57°F. AR ranges from 57 to 60°F for spawning and from 57 to 64 ° for migration and rearing. NPF is defined as greater than 60°F for spawning and greater than 64°F for rearing. USFWS (1998) defines PFC for bull trout as water temperatures ranging from 35.6 to 41°F for incubation, 39.2 to 53.6°F for rearing, and 39.2 to 48.2°F for spawning. NPF is defined as temperatures outside the above criteria, with rearing areas and migration corridor temperatures over 59°F. Water temperatures in the area (East Mercer Channel) are generally below 50°F during the winter and between 62 to 75°F during the summer at depths of 3.3 feet. At a depth of 33 feet, water temperatures arc about 45°F in the winter and between 59° and 68°F during the summer (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/site0840.htm). Under the USFWS (1998) criteria these values would rate as NPF for bull trout spawning and incubation and summer migration corridors. Under the NMFS (\996) criteria, these values would rate between NPF and AR for Chinook spawning, rearing and migration. SedimentlTurbidity NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as containing less than 12 percent fines in gravel, and NPF is defined as having greater than 17 percent surface fines (greater than 20 percent surface fines under USFWS \998). The project area substrate is composed of coarse sand and gravel with shallow surface accumulations of silt. According to King County (2001), sediment deposition has occurred from natural erosion but has been accelerated by increased storm water runoff from upstream development and changes in the watershed land cover. Increased erosion and sedimentation has degraded fish habitat and resulted in sediment deposition at the May Creek delta (King County 200\). We assume that this increased erosion and July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 43 K:\PrtIJI3dS\Bartlee MlP SA 2005\2005 SA dralts'(lraft tt.'olMiry Oeek SA 072805.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging sedimentation has increased turbidity levels over natural conditions, although no specific turbidity data were reviewed. King County (200 I) also noted that activities associated with quarrying operations, including earthmoving, gravel extraction, materials stockpiling, and truck traffic to and from quarry sites, can contribute to discharge of turbid, sediment-laden water to May Creek. Based on the documentation of increased erosion and sedimentation, this indicator is likely NPF. Chemical Contamination/Nutrients NMFS (1996) and USFWS {I 998) define PFC as characterized by low levels of contamination with no 303(d) designated reaches, and NPF is defined as high levels of chemical contamination and nutrients and more than one 303( d) listed reach. The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) 1998 -303(d) list of impaired waters listed several reaches that do not meet state water quality standards for copper, fecal coliform bacteria, lead, zinc and water temperature. Lake Washington was listed under fecal coliform. In addition, WDOE has given several public warnings regarding limiting fish consumption from Lake Washington due to mercury contamination (WDOH 2004). Based on known water quality degradation in Lake Washington and May Creek, this indicator rates as NPF. PhYsical Barriers NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as man-made barriers that allow upstream and downstream passage at all flows without significant levels of mortality or delay, and NPF as man-made barriers that do not allow upstream and downstream fish passage at a range of flows. The fish passage facilities at the Ballard Locks provide adult access to Lake Washington and smolt passage to the Puget Sound. However, the lock is a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation on adult salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem. In addition, the sharp demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a stressor for juvenile salmonid out-migrants. Therefore, the "Physical Barriers" indicator should be considered AR. Substrate NMFS (l996) and USFWS {I 998) define PFC as reach embeddedness ofless than 20 percent and NPF as embeddedness greater than 30 percent. The substrate in the project area is comprised of sand and silt based on SCUBA surveys. According to King County (2001) fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek is an ongoing problem. Foster Wheeler (1998) reported that the primary limiting factor for Chinook in May Creek is likely available spawning area and incubation success (Foster Wheeler 1998), which infers that clean loose gravel patches arc limited. Based on chronic fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek, this indicator rates as NPF. July 28, 2005 K:\PI'O)9Cts\Barbeil MdI SA 2OOS\2OO5 SA dmflsldrafl two1May Cleek SA 072S05 doc Biological Assessment -Page 44 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Larqe Woody Debris NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as greater than 80 pieces of wood per mile, which are greater than 24 inches in diameter and greater than 50 feet long. NPF is defined as wood that does not meet the criteria of PFC and sources of L WD recruitment are lacking. Surveys of the project area found little to no LWD in the project area (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental and Harza 2001). The lower four miles of May Creek lacks current and future sources of L WD (Foster Wheeler 1998). The lack of LWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998). Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF. Pool Frequency/Quality NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for pool frequency based on channel width; the standard for lower May Creek is approximately 18 to 26 pools/mile (based on average channel width). Pool quality for PFC is defined as pools with good cover with only minor reduction of pool volume caused by fine sediments and many pools greater than 1 meter deep. NPF is defined as pool frequency that is considerably less than under PFC, cover and temperature is inadequate, with high fine sediment loads, and no pool greater than 3 feet deep. USFWS (1998) also defines PFC for large pools as conditions where each reach has many large pools greater than 3 feet deep and NPF is defined as possessing no pools greater than I meter deep . Chronic levels of sediment deposition have likely degraded pools in lower May Creek. In addition, Foster Wheeler (1998) reported that the lack of L WD in the lower 4 miles of May Creek has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat. Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF. Off-channel Habitat NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for off-channel habitat as many backwaters with cover and low energy, off-channel areas, including ponds and oxbows. NPF is defined as the watershed with few or none of these habitat types. Lowering of Lake Washington in the early 1900s resulted in the loss of over ten miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considercd to be high quality and preferrcd habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. Almost all of the May Creek basin's nearly 80 identified wetlands have been disturbed by deforestation, filling, draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring after the wetlands were first inventoried in 1983 (King County 2001). Based on loss of wetland and off- channel habitats, this indicator rates as NPF. Refuqia NMFS (1996) defines PFC for refugia as habitat refugia that exists and is adequately buffered by intact riparian rcserves; existing refugia are sufficient in size, number and July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 45 K:lProjectslBarbee 1M SA 200512005 SA draftsldrafl ~lMay Cr&ek SA 072805.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging connectivity to maintain viable populations and subpopulations. NPF is defined as adequate habitat refugia that do not exist. USFWS (1998) defines PFC for refugia as habitats capable of supporting strong and significant populations of bull trout that are protected, well distributed, and connected for all life stages and forms. NPF is defined as habitat and refugia that do not exist. The action area has been extensively altered over the past 100 years by human development and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed is likely one of the most highly disturbed urban watersheds in the state of Washington. Although adequate bull trout habitat exists in the upper Cedar River, no bull trout refugia exists in the action area due to high summer water temperatures. The action area also lacks adequate local refugia for Chinook salmon due to extensive riparian, instream, and shoreline habitat alterations. Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF. Width/Depth Ratio NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for the average width/depth ratio as less than or equal to 10 and for NPF as greater than 20. No specific data were reviewed for this indicator that quantifies the average width/depth ratio for pools in the action area; however, the average width/depth ratio for pools is likely impaired by the same processes as listed for the "pool frequency/quantity" indicator. Based on the observed lack of pools in lower May Creek near the project area, impairment of pool-forming process, and high sediment loads, this indicator likely rates as NPF. Stream bank Condition NMFS (1996) defines PFC as greater than 90 percent (80 percent under USFWS criteria) of any stream reach of which 90 percent or more is stable NPF is defined as less than 80 percent stability. However, USFWS (1998) defines NPF as less than 50 percent of any stream reach that is characterized as at least 90 percent stablc. The shoreline along the action area is developed and bulkheaded. The banks are not actively eroding, but the bulkheads have disrupted natural shoreline processcs. In addition, over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington. Lowering of the lake in the early 1900s substantially altered the Lake Washington shoreline, resulting in the loss of approximately 10 miles of lake shore perimeter. May Creek has been channclized and bank erosion is the primary source of high sediment loads in the stream (Foster Wheeler 1998). Due to extensive alteration of the Lake Washington shoreline, this indicator rates as NPF. Floodplain Connectivity NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) dcfine PFC as well-connected, off-channel areas with overbank flows of sufficient frequency to maintain function. NPF is defined as a severe reduction in hydrologic connection with off-channel habitats. July 28, 2005 K:lProjects\Barbee t.bJ SA 200512005 BA drafislt:lrail two\May Creek SA 072805.ooc Biological Assessment -Page 46 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging May Creek has been channelized and Lake Washington has been lowered, disconnecting the mouths of streams from their floodplains. Therefore this indicator rates as NPF. Change in Peak/Base Flows NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for the watershed hydrograph as being similar in terms of peak flow, base flow, and timing characteristics to an undisturbed watershed with similar geology and geography. NPF is defined as pronounced changes in various hydrologic parameters. This indicator is not applicable to lakes. However, May Creek baseflows have been reduced and peak flows havc increased moderately in May Creek, on the order of 15 to 20 percent greater than the predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year flood return intervals (King County 200 I). Therefore, this indicator ratcs as NPF for May Creek. Increase in Drainage Network NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as zero to minimal increases in the drainage network due to roads. That is, the construction of roads and their companion drainage systems have not increased the total number of drainage routes to the river, potentially increasing input of sediment and contaminants, and altering hydrology. NPF is defined as significant increases in drainage network density due to roads (20 to 25 percent). May Creek peak flows have increased by IS to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions (King County 2001). This increase is mostly likely due to the increase of impervious surfaces and the road drainage network in the watershed. Due to the urbanized nature of Lake Washington and lower May Creek, this indicator rates as NPF. Road Density and Location NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as less than I mile of road per square mile with no valley bottom roads and NPF as greater than 2.4 miles of road per square mile with many valley bottom roads. The action area has been heavily urbanized and has a well developed road network. Road densities, although not estimated for this analysis, likely rate as NPF. Disturbance History NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as having less than IS percent equivalent clear-cut area (entire watershed) with no concentration of disturbance in unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area; and for Northwest Forest Plan area (except adaptive management areas), 15 percent retention oflate successional old growth timber in the watershed. The "Disturbance History" indicator rates as NPF based on extensive past development and ongoing development pressures. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 47 K:\PrcjectslBartltle 1.1111 BA 200512005 SA draflsldraft twolMay Crook SA 012805.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Riparian Reserves NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as a riparian reserve system that provides adequate shade, L WD recruitment, habitat protection, and connectivity to all sub- watersheds. This reserve must be greater than 80 percent intact and the vegetation must be greater than 50 percent similar to the potential natural community composition. Riparian habitat in the action area along Lake Washington has been highly altered and extensively cleared, primarily for residential development. Riparian areas along May Creek have been extensively cleared for residential development and pastureland. Lower May Creek in the project area is essentially devoid of trees and shrubs. This indicator rates as NPF. Population Size USFWS (1998) defines FA as the mean subpopulation size or a local habitat capacity of more than several thousand individuals and all life stages evenly representcd in the subpopulation. AR is defined as fewer than 500 adults in subpopulation but more than 50. The Lake Chester Morse bull trout population in the upper Cedar River would be classified as FA under the USFWS criteria; however, this is a naturally resident population located upstream of a passage barrier. In addition, the Cedar River historically was not connected to Lake Washington. There or no known current or historic (but now extinct) bull trout populations located within the Lake Washington basin, except for the Chester Morse popUlation. However, it appears that individuals from the Chester Morse popUlation may pass downstream into Lake Washington, and that anadromous bull trout migrate to the Lake Washington vicinity from other basins such as the Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and possibly the Skagit River basins. Bull trout are naturally patchily distributed, even in pristine watersheds. There is no indication that a bull trout population historically would have occupied May Creek. Generally, self sustaining local bull trout subpopulations are only found in watersheds that have accessible stream habitat above the average winter snow line (where winter snowpack accumulates), approximately 900 feet in western Washington (USFWS 2004). The May Creek watershed headwaters only extend to an elevation of approximately 500 feet, with no areas of winter snowpack accumulation. Spawning of bull trout in May Creek would not be expected currently or historically because the water temperature regime is likely too warm due to the low elevation and lack of substantial cold springs, glaciers, or winter snowpack. As there is no current or historic local self sustaining bull trout population or subpopulation indigenous to the action area, this indicator is not applicable. Growth and Survival USFWS (1998) defines FA as a sUbpopulation with the resilience to recover from short- term disturbances in 5 to 10 years. Additionally, the subpopulation is increasing or stable, with at least 10 years of data to support such a trend. July 28, 2005 K:\ProjectslBarb6e Mill BA 2005\2005 SA drnftsldrafl two\May Creek BA 072BOS.doc Biological Assessment -Page 48 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable. Life History Diversity and Isolation USFWS (1998) defines FA as the migratory form being present with subpopulations in close proximity to other spawning and rearing groups. There is high likelihood of neighboring subpopulations straying and adults mixing with other groups. UR is defined as when the migratory form docs not exist and the subpopulation is isolated to a local stream, not likely to support more than 2,000 fish. As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable. While this indicator is meant to apply to local subpopulations within an action area, there may be migratory bull trout in the action area that are from other basins, such as the Snohomish and Stillaguamish River basins or the upper Cedar River. Persistence and Genetic Integrity USFWS (1998) defines FA as possessing high connectivity among more than five sUbpopulations with at least several thousand fish each. UR is defined as having little or no connectivity and subpopulations that arc in low numbers or in decline. As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area. Therefore this indicator is not applicable . V. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON SALMON IDS A. Direct Effects In this section we analyze the direct effects of the proposed dredging action on three primary clements that most likely may be influenced by the action. These elements are direct effects on individual fish, such as harassment or actual mortality through contact with the dredging equipment; direct effects on habitat by physically disturbing the substrate and removing sediments from the delta; and effects on water quality during dredging. Direct Effects on Salmonids Take of bull trout during the summer is extremely unlikely. Past water quality monitoring in 2002 (within the silt curtain of the dredging zone and immediately outside the silt curtain) strongly suggest that water temperatures during July and August (proposed dredge timing) exceed the generally reported upper limit of bull trout temperature tolerance of approximately 59°C. Recently, bull trout in northeast Oregon tagged with radio transmitters and temperature loggers suggested that some bull trout may use waters up to approximately 62 to 64°C (Howell et al. 2005). However, temperatures in the dredging zone (within the silt curtain) from July to late September 2002 exceeded 65°C and averaged 69.4°C. Due to probable high water temperatures in the dredging zone during summer, it would be extremely unlikely for bull trout to be present in the dredging area and, therefore, take of individual bull trout is not expected. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 49 K:\ProjectslBarbee MiU SA 2005\2005 SA draflsldrafl t.NolMay Qee~ SA 012805.doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Bull trout are unlikely to be present in the fall due to low abundance and their tendency to migrate to headwater spawning sites in the fall (Goetz et al. 2004). Adult Chinook typically migration into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid- June, peaking in late-August (Kerwin 2001). Spawning typically occurs from mid- September through November (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from approximately January through June (Kerwin 2001). Most juvenile Chinook move through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the entire out-migration period is unknown (Kerwin 200 I). Although the proposed in-water work time of mid-July to the end of December is the period approved by WDFW to limit impacts to migrating adult and juvenile Chinook salmon, this time period overlaps with the end of juvenile Chinook rearing and out-migration and adult migration to spawning grounds, such as May Creek. Therefore, there is some chance that adult or juvenile Chinook salmon may be present in the dredging zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by dredging activities. However, it is anticipated that adult and juvenile Chinook would avoid direct contact with the clamshell dredging equipment, and would not be physically injured or killed by the dredging activities. Coho begin entering Lake Washington from late-August through early December, but primarily in the fall, with spawning occurring primarily in November and December (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater with peak out-migration from the Lake Washington basin in early May (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho have been observed in the May Creek delta and coho spawn in May Creek in the fall. The proposed dredging period, while optimally designed to avoid the presence of juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids, does overlap with the coho rearing and out- migration time and adult coho migration. It is most likely that coho juveniles may be present during dredging and may be temporarily displaced, but as with Chinook, it is not anticipated that coho would come into direct contact with dredging equipment and be physically injured or killed. Direct Effects on Habitat It is apparent from Tabor et al. (2004) that juvenile Chinook salmon in the south end of Lake Washington prefer shallow stream delta habitat with substrates of sand and gravel. The purpose of the project is to dredge the May Creek delta in order to make the delta deeper and prevent flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would inhibit the formation of shallow delta habitat composed of sand and gravel. The proposed project would maintain a relatively deep delta, which is habitat more preferred by predator fish sueh as large sculpin, trout, and bass. This represents a negative effect on Chinook salmon habitat in the action area by inhibiting preferred habitat formation. However, enhancement of the delta margin with overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation, and brush should offset this impairment. Currently, the delta habitat is highly degraded and not heavily used by juvenile Chinook (Tabor et aI., 2004). Enhancement of the delta margin habitat following the results of Tabor et al. (2004) should result in an overall net improvement to the delta for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. Dredging the May Creek delta may also facilitate adult Chinook salmon access into the watershed during the late summer when flows are extremely low. If left un-dredged, the July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 50 K:lJ>roj9cts\Barbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA drafls\drafl two\May Creek SA 072805.dOC • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging increased sediment deposition from upstream development conceivably could rise to a level that would cause the mouth of May Creek to become very shallow or result in subsurface flow through accumulated alluvium. Under this scenario, the mouth of May Creek may become too shallow for adult Chinook to pass the delta upstream into the May Creek. The dredging may actually maintain adequate upstream migration depths for adult salmon. Similar information for coho use of Lake Washington shoreline habitat is not available; however, many coho were observed by Tabor et al. (2004) and during the SCUBA surveys conducted in 2005. Based on the SCUBA observations, it appears that a deepened delta would not necessarily be less preferred than a shallow delta for juvenile coho. However, enhancement of the shoreline with overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation and brush should improve the delta margin for rearing coho. Due to the overall lack of abundance and information concerning habitat use by bull trout in Lake Washington, effects of delta dredging on bull trout habitat use is unknown, but is suspected to be small. The effect on forage species habitat is likewise unknown. Direct Effects on Water Quality The proposed dredging project has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e. reduce water clarity) and increase total suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action area. Turbidity and TSS levels have been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect salmonid survival. However, the potential for adverse effects depends upon several factors including: the duration ofTSS increases, the area of the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambicnt water (dilution factor), the size of suspended sediments, and other factors. In the case of the proposed project, increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and increases would last for only short periods of time, expected to be less than three weeks every three to four years. Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as such conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms, landslides, or other natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic exposure to increased turbidity that has been found to be the most potentially damaging to salmonids (The Watershed Company et al. 2000). Studies have found that when habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid localized areas of increased turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological impacts (Bisson and Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003). Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and Martens 1991), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a, 1987b). Studies have found that fish that inhabit waters with elevated TSS may experience a reduction in predation from piscivorous fish and birds (Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases, salmonids may actually increase foraging activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from predators (Gregory 1993) . However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in excess of 70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult July 28, 2005 K:\projedslSartlee I.1i!I SA 2005'.2005 SA draflsldran twolMay Creek BA 072805.OOC Biological Assessment -Page 51 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging salmon returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mglL suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mgIL of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982). The highest turbidity values recorded during the most recent dredging activity in 2002 were less than 7 NTU, and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less than I NTU greater than turbidity outside the dredging zone (Table 8, see Appendix B for water quality monitoring during previous dredging of the May Creek delta). Overall turbidity values of less than 7 NTU are very low, and the effect of slightly increasing turbidity by I or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be considered discountable. Washington state water quality regulations allow a short term increase of 10 NTU when background turbidity is less than 50 NTU (WAC 273-20IA-030). Based on the 2002 monitoring results, future dredging would likely meet this standard. Table 8. Minimum Average Maximum Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (II days of sampling over the dredging period). Within silt curtain Outside silt curtain (In dredge zone) (out of dredge zone) 1.1 NTU 1.1 NTU 2.1 NTU 1.4 NTU 5.2 NTU 3.1 NTU Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short- term (less than three weeks every three to four years) and localized elevation of turbidity (less than 5 NTU elevation above background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed project would not rise to the levels that would be expected to cause harm to Chinook salmon that may be present in the dredging zone. In-water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the spill of toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging equipment. This potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by maintaining a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a SPCCP would specify areas for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention and emergency response strategies, requirements for keeping emergency response spill containment kits onsite, and for having trained personnel be onsite during in-water work. A SPCCP will be develop by the dredging contractor and approved by appropriate agencies, such as the WDOE, before dredging occurs. Preparation of a SPCCP will limit the potential for toxic material spills during dredging. Direct Effects on Bald Eagles Bald eagles are known to use the southeastern tip of Mercer Island for nesting, within one mile of the proposed project. The nearest nest is approximately 0.75 miles to the west. WDFW conducted several studies in the 1990s on the ecology of bald eagle in western Washington with an emphasis on the effects of human activity (WDFW 1998). The WDFW (1998) results indicate that noise disturbance from construction and machinery has little impact on bald eagle nest success. Based on this information, WDFW no longer July 28, 2005 K:lProjecls\Barb6e ~II BA 2005\JOO5 BA draftsldrafl tNo\May Creek BA 072B05.doc Biological Assessment -Page 52 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging has a requirement to limit construction noise in the winter during eagle nesting and roosting, although the work timing restrictions are recommended. WDFW's current bald eagle management strategy focuses on the retention of significant trees that may be used for perching, nesting, or roosting. No trees will be affected during dredging. In addition, the dredging will be conducted in the summer after nesting is complete and, therefore, will be consistent with the recommended bald eagle work timing restrictions. Currently, no work type or timing restrictions are recommended for projects located greater than 0.25 miles from nesting sites, except for pile driving. The proposed dredging project is located more than 0.5 mile from known nesting sites, will not include pile driving, and will not disturb any trees. Therefore, thc proposed project is assumed to have no impact on bald eagle nesting or roosting habitats or nesting success. Timing restrictions are also recommended for work occurs within 0.25 miles of bald eagle roosting, perching, or feeding habitat. As bald eagle nests are located within one mile of the proposed dredging site, it is possible that bald eagles may forage (feed) within 0.25 mile of the project. If a project site is within 0.25 mile of bald eagle foraging habitat, no construction is allowed from October 31 to March 3 I. Dredging would occur between July 15 and December 31, and therefore, may overlap with this timing recommendation. Due to the highly urbanized nature of the project site and south Lake Washington area, eagles that may be present in the action area are likely habituated to human activity and therefore, the proposed project is assumed to have no impact on bald eagle roosting, perching, or foraging. B. Indirect Effects Indirect effects could potentially arise through impacts on the Chinook, bull trout, and coho prey base (e.g. aquatic macro invertebrates and small forage fish), or through the creation of deep water habitat conditions that favor species known to prey on juvenile salmonids (large trout, bass, and sculpin). ESA-listed salmonids feed on certain macroinvertebrates, and therefore any loss of these prey items via dredging or disposal may harm these species. However, this harm from dredging will be localized to deepwater areas of low importance to these species. As a result, short-term impacts to macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity are likely to be limited. In addition, the establishment of overhanging riparian vegetation would likely increase the abundance and rate of terrestrial insects falling into the shallow margins of the delta, which would result in an increase in the juvenile salmonid prey base along the delta margin. Small juvenile bull trout are not expected to be present in the dredging zone. As discussed previously, small juvenile bull trout are found in close proximity to spawning reaches, and the nearest spawning habitat is located many miles away in the headwaters of the Cedar River watershed. Large migratory bull trout from other watersheds could potentially use the delta as foraging habitat in the winter and spring. The effect of habitat alteration due to dredging on migratory bull trout is unknown. However, increased depth of the delta (due to dredging) may be more favored as foraging habitat by picivorous migratory bull trout compared to a relatively shallow delta that would develop without ongoing dredging. Due to suspected extremely low abundance in Lake Washington, it is unlikely that migratory bull trout actually use the delta for foraging. July 28, 2005 K:lPIOfEIdS\Sarbee M;I SA 200512005 SA drafls'drafl \wQ1May Oee~ SA 072805.001: Biological Assessment -Page 53 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Indirect effects on bald eagles would primarily arise through impacts on their forage base, such as salmon. Although the project may adversely affect Chinook and coho salmon individuals in the action area, this effect is not anticipated to rise to the level that would cause a perceptible declinc in the bald eagle forage base within the south Lake Washington area. Of note is that the May Creek delta has been dredged for more than 50 years. Over the last 30 years, bald eagle abundance in Puget Sound has substantially increased (WDFW \998), giving evidence that continuation of the May Creek delta dredging would not adversely affect bald eagles at the population level. C. Effects from Interdependent and Interrelated Actions No interdependent or interrelated actions have been identified in association with the proposed maintenance dredging project. D. Effects from Ongoing Project Activities These effects are the same as previously described under direct effects. The proposed project is ongoing maintenance dredging of the May Creek delta. E. Description of How the Environmental Baseline Would be Affected As discussed previously, the PFC framework for ESA consultation characterizes baseline environmental conditions as "properly functioning," "at risk," or "not properly functioning." If a proposed project is likely to impair properly functioning habitat (Impair), appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat (Reduce), or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC (Retard), it is usually found likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both, depending on the specific consideration of the analysis. Such considerations may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the quality of available information. Actions that do not compromise a species' biological rcquirements to the degree that appreciably reduces the species' viability and chances of survival in the action area are considered not to reduce or retard (NR). The effect of the proposed project on baseline environmental conditions (summarized from Section IV(B)) is presented in Table 9. Based on the likely effects of the proposed to-year flood maintenance dredging and enhancing the delta margin, the proposed project would retard the formation of more natural shallow water delta habitat preferred by juvenile Chinook salmon. However, the project would ensure that adult salmon continue to have access to May Creek during summer low flows. Increasing the width-to-depth ratio in the delta may be beneficial to holding adult salmon and foraging trout by providing holding cover in the form of depth. The addition ofriparian and emergent vegetation would improve the stream bank condition indicator for holding adult salmon and rearing juvenile Chinook salmon. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 54 K:lPmjectslBarbee M~ SA 2005\2005 BA. draltsldrafl two\May Creek SA 0728OS.doc i , I Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • Table 9 Analysis of proposed project effects on the environmental haseline Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Pathway Baseline Proposed Indicators Function Description Action Water Quality Temperature NPF Temperatures in May Creek are a funclion of NR upstream conditions. SedimentlTurbidity NPF Dredge monitoring has shown a small increase (less NR than 5 NTU) over background levels during dredging. Chemical NPF An SPCCP will be prepared and approved by WDOE NR Contamination! for the dredging project, which will limit potential Nutrients chemical contamination during dredging. Habitat Access Physical Barriers AR Dredging the delta ensures adequate depths for adult NR (improve) salmon migration into May Creek. If the delta continues to aggrade at an unnatural rate without dredging, access to the stream could be impaired during low flows in the late summer. Habitat Elements Substrate NPF Continued dredging would reduce the formation of RETARD shallow delta habitat that is preferred by juvenile formation of • Chinook salmon in Lake Washington; however, shallow delta enhancement of the delta margin with overhanging habitat, but vegetation, emergent vegetation, and brush should improve offset this impairment. Currently, the delta habitat is overall highly degraded and not heavily used by juvenile existing delta Chinook according to Tabor et al. (2004). margin habitat Enhancement of the delta margin habitat following over the long the results of Tabor et al. (2004) should result in an term. overall net improvement to the delta for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. Large Woody Debris NPF LWD is not present in the action area and no trees NR will be affected. Pool Frequency and NPF The delta will be deepened. If dredging did not occur, NR (improve) Quality the unnatural elevated sediment deposition would result in a very shallow riffle/glide at the May Creek delta. Therefore, dredging results in an increased width to depth ratio in the delta improving pool habitat for foraging trout and holding adult salmon at the mouth of May Creek. Off-Channel Habitat NPF No off-channel habitat is present in the project area; NR (maintain) the stream is channelized. The proposed project would maintain this existing condition. Refugia NPF No refugia exists in the project area. NR • July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 55 K:\ProjectslBarbee WI SA 200512005 SA dniltsldlOlfllwo\May Creek SA 072805_doc Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Pathway Baseline Proposed Indicators Function Description Action Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio NPF The delta will be deepened. If dredging did not occur, NR (improve) the unnatural elevated sediment deposition would result in a very shallow riffle/glide at the May Creek delta. Therefore, dredging results in an increased width to depth ratio in the delta improving pool habitat for foraging trout and holding adult salmon at the mouth of May Creek. Streambank Condition NPF The delta margin consists of rip-rap and there is NR (improve) essentially no woody riparian vegetation downstream of the lower-most bridge. The proposed project would result in improved bank condition by the addition of woody riparian overhanging vegetation. Floodplain NPF Although the floodplain is highly degraded, the RETARD Connectivity proposed project would reduce floodplain connectivity at the delta. FlowlHydrology Change in Peak/Base NPF The proposed project would not influence May Creek NR Flow hydrology. Increase in Drainage NPF New roads are not part of the proposed project. NR Network • Watershed Conditions Road Density and NPF New roads are not part of the proposed project. NR Location Disturbance History NPF Dredging of the delta has occurred regularly for over NR (maintain) 50 years. The proposed project would maintain the existing delta disturbance regime. Riparian Reserves NPF The watershed is highly urbanized and significant NR riparian reserves are limited to the headwaters of May Creek. Although riparian vegetation will be improved, this would not result in substantial riparian reserves. Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria) Population Size NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake Washington by individuals from other basins or the upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of May Creek by bull trout has not been documented and is suspected to be very infrequent. Growth and Survival NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake Washington by individuals from other basins or the upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of • May Creek by bull trout has not been documented and is suspected to be very infrequent. July 28, 2005 K:\Prujeclsl8artlee WlBA 2005\2005 SA draftsldraH lwoIMay Cree~ SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 56 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Pathway Baseline Proposed Indicators Function Description Action Life History Diversity NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR and Isolation or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake Washington by individuals from other basins or the upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of May Creek by bull trout has not been documented and is suspected to be very infrequent. Persistence and NA There is not a local bull trout population in May Creek NR Genetic Integrity or Lake Washington. Bull trout use of Lake Washington by individuals from other basins or the upper Cedar River is suspected to be limited. Use of May Creek by bull trout has not been documented and is suspected to be very infrequent. IMPAIR = Impair properly functioning hablta~ REDUCE = appreCiably reduce Ihe funcbonlng of al",ady Impaired habllal; RETARD = relard the long-Ienm prog",ss of impaired habilal towards properly funclioning oondition; NR = nollllduce, ",lard. or impair; NPF = beseline nol properly functioning; AR = baseline at risk; PFC = baseline properly funclioning oondition; NA = not applicable. F. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined in 50 CFR § 402.02 as "those effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area." The area of cumulative effects analysis for the proposed project is the action area, defined in Section II(C) as all areas within approximately one mile of the May Creek delta. Potential cumulative effects may arise due to increased development in the action area. Expansion of the local economy and diversification will likely contribute to population growth. This growth is expected to increase demand for electricity, water, and buildable land in the action area which will, in tum, increase demand for transportation, communication and other social infrastructure. These actions will affect habitat features such as water quality and quantity which will directly affect the listed aquatic species. This is currently evidenced by the fact that runoff, erosion, and sedimentation has increased in May Creek as development has increased (King County 2001). It is expected that this trend would continue and be further exacerbated as additional development and as impervious surfaces increase upstream in the watershed. As sediment deposition increases in the delta due to future development in the upper May Creek watershed, more frequent dredging of the May Creek delta may be required to protect Barbee Mill company lands from unnatural peak flood regimes. A current proposal would remove the Barbee Mill works, cleanup any onsite contamination, and add a residential development. Several notable milestones or preliminary actions will precede site development. These include shoreline restoration, facility demolition, upland environmental cleanup, and other actions associated with site development, which are generally described below. The western-most portion of sawmill operations will be restored as required by an aquatic land lease agreement with the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Anchor July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 57 K:lPmjectslBartlee Mill SA 2005\20()5 SA draflfilraft. twoIMay Creek SA 072805.Doc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Environmental has begun investigating the permitting process for removal of the sawmill structure(s) and restoration of the existing shoreline to a more natural condition. Prior to site development, the Barbee Mill Company will obtain demolition permits for the sawmill and associated structures. Facility equipment will be sold/auctioned, and upland structures will be removed. To the extent possible, materials will be salvaged or sold. This work is anticipated to begin in 2005 through 2006. Historic sawmill operations contaminated a portion of the site. This upland (subsurface contamination) will be excavated and disposed under a MTCA Voluntary Cleanup Order from the Washington Department of Ecology. Clean fill will be used to complete the cleanup action. The goal is to obtain a "No Further Action" determination from the Department of Ecology. Other minor contaminated areas may also be uncovered during site development that may require some cleanup activity. The Barbee Mill Company will develop the site for a mixed-use project consistent with City of Renton zoning. Included in the approved development plan are numerous enhancement measures to benefit the environment. These include designating a riparian buffer zone for lower May Creek and restoring this area with native riparian vegetation. Site development efforts also include numerous habitat enhancement areas within the development. These habitat areas are designed for storrnwater quality improvements, as well as enhancing the aesthetic value and environmental conditions within the upland development. Although upstream development may have a cumulative negative impact on the May Creek basin, proposed on-site measures would likely increase habitat function of the may Creek delta for listed species. The cumulative benefits of the dredging project's shoreline vegetation enhancement would be combined with the additional riparian enhancement and buffer zone restoration associated with the planned clean-up and re-development of the Barbee Mill property (following the most current environmental regulations). VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT The primary objective of this BA is to determine the effect that the proposed project will have on ESA listed Chinook salmon, bull trout, and bald eagles. This determination will be used by NOAA Fisheries and USFWS to determine whether the proposed project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence ofthe listed species or to adversely modity their critical habitats (if applicable). To facilitate and standardize the determination of cffects for ESA consultations, the Services use the following definitions for listed species (USFWS and NMFS 1998): No effect: This determination is only appropriate "if the proposed project will literally havc no effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect or an cffect that is unlikely to occur." Furthermore, actions that result in a "beneficial effect" do not quality as a no-effect determination . May affect, not likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when effects on the species or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 58 K:\Pro,ects\Barbee MIll SA 2005\2005 SA draftsldraf\1wolMay Creek SA 072805.ooc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. May affect, likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when there is "more than a negligible potential to have adverse effects on the species or critical habitat." In the evcnt the overall effect of the proposed project is beneficial to the listed species or critical habitat, but may also cause some adverse effects to individuals of the listed species or segments of the critical habitat, then the proposed project is "likely to adversely affect" the listed species or critical habitat. It is not possible for NOAA Fisheries to concur on a "not likely to adversely affect" detennination if the proposed project will cause hann to the listed species. Implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project will be beneficial to listed Chinook and bull trout around the May Creek delta by increasing shallow water cover and habitat complexity, which has been shown to be of heavily used by juvenile Chinook salmon in southern Lake Washington. While the overall effect of the proposed project will likely be beneficial to the listed species and their habitat by increasing shallow water cover and habitat complexity, and by maintaining adequate water depths for upstream migration through the delta, the risk of incidental adverse effect to individual Chinook juveniles cannot be entirely eliminated. For example, the potential for dredge entrainment cannot be completely eliminated and some harassment of fish may occur due to increased turbidity and machinery noise during dredging. However, these effects will be minimized by using conservation measures such as silt curtains (if deemed necessary during monitoring) and conducting the work in the approved in-water work window when the vast majority of Chinook juveniles and adults would not be present. Lake Washington and May Creek are also proposed critical habitat for Chinook salmon. While the overall habitat enhancement of the delta margin would off-set impacts to the delta from dredging, the proposed project would modify proposed critical habitat. Therefore, in accordance with definitions contained in the USFWS and NMFS (1998), although the proposed project would have an overall net benefit on Chinook salmon and proposed critical habitat compared to current conditions, the proposed May Creek delta flood mitigation project is "likely to adversely affect" listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon because rearing juveniles have been observed in the May Creek delta. Additionally, it is possible that some individual juvenile and adult Chinook may be present during dredging, and proposed critical habitat will be modified. This effects determination (i.e. "likely to adversely affect") for Chinook salmon differs from the previous determination made in 2002 (i.e. "not likely to adversely affect") because this proposed action is a long-term dredging action for a 10 year period, whereas the 2002 action was for a one-time dredging of the delta. Critical habitat was not a component of the 2002 consultation; critical habitat for Chinook salmon was remanded prior to the 2002 consultation. In addition, the Tabor et al. (2004) study of juvenile Chinook habitat preference was not complete at that time, and the importance of delta habitat to juvenile Chinook was not known. In summary, the "likely to adversely affect" detennination is appropriate for this proposed action as it is a long-tenn reoccurring July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 59 K:IPI'Oj8CIs\Barbee MIll BA. 200512005 SA draftsldraft I\IIolMay Creek SA 072805.doC • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging disturbance that will impact habitat known to be used by Chinook salmon juveniles, which is proposed as critical habitat. Due to what is thought to be extremely low abundance of migratory bull trout in Lake Washington, there is a very low probability that bull trout use the action area at anytime of the year. Dredging during the approved in-water work window will further reduce the chances of bull trout presence as they would be migrating to their natal streams to spawn at this time and would not likely be present in the May Creek delta. Bull trout are not known to spawn in May Creek, currently or historically. Only very few bull trout are estimated to use the entire Lake Washington basin (except for the upper Cedar River). In addition, water temperatures during the dredging period would likely be above the chronic thermal tolerance for bull trout into the late summer. The proposed dredging would not appreciably reduce the function of the May Creek delta as potential foraging, migration, or overwintering habitat for bull trout. The likelihood of take of bull trout individuals during dredging in the late summer is extremely low and should be considered discountable. Therefore, in accordance with the definitions contained in the USFWS and NMFS (\ 998), the proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to adversely affect" CoastallPuget Sound bull trout. The proposed project has been evaluated for potential impacts to bald eagle nest sites, roost sites, foraging areas, and forage base. No significant trees for roosting, perching, or nesting will be affected by the proposed project; no trees of any kind will be disturbed. In addition, the project will likely have no measurable impact on the eagle forage base . The project will also be conducted during the approved work time to limit impacts on bald eagle roosting, perching, and foraging. However, a "no affect" determination cannot be made in this case since there is a small chance that foraging bald eagles may be disturbed during construction. This potential for disturbance should be considered discountable due to the overall high level of background noise and disturbance present in the vicinity of the project derived from general human activity within the highly urbanized action area. Take of bald eagles is extremely unlikely. Therefore, the appropriate final effects determination for the proposed project is "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagle. Based on these determinations, formal Section 7 consultation between ACOE and NOAA Fisheries is required to ensure that the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ES U. VII. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT The MSA established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to the MSA, federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH (Section 305(b )(2)). Essential Fish Habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For thc purpose of interpreting this definition of EFH, waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and July 28, 2005 K:\Pro,ects\BarbBe Mill SA 2005\2005 BA drafls'ljraf\ twolMay Creek BA Onl105.doc Biological Assessment -Page 60 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle (50 CFR 600.10). Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity ofEFH, and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). An EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required for any federal agency action that may adversely affcct EFH, including actions that occur outside EFH, such as certain upstream and upslope activities. The objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed project would adversely affect designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to EFH. A. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed project and action area arc described in Section II of this document. B. Appropriate Fisheries Management Plan(s) Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for three species of federally-managed Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon (PFMC 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (PFMC 1999). Detailed descriptions and identification ofEFH for salmon arc found in Appendix A to Amendment 14 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). In the Lake Washington basin, EFH is designated for Chinook and coho salmon; therefore, EFH is designated in the action area of the proposed project. C. Effects of the Proposed Action As previously described in Sections V and VI of this document, the proposed project will result in the modification of proposed Chinook salmon critical habitat. The effects on proposed critical habitat arc the same as for designated EFH. Dredging would affect Chinook and coho EFH through: • Short term potential for localized water quality impairment. • Increasing depth of the May Creek delta. July 28, 2005 K:lPmJ8ClS\Barbefl Mill BA 200512005 SA draltsldraft twolMay CreeK SA 072805 00c Biological Assessment -Page 61 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging D. Proposed Conservation Measures Proposed conservation measures to minimize impacts to designated Chinook and coho salmon EFH are the same as those described previously for the ESA consultation portion of this document and include preparation of a water quality monitoring plan; preparation of an SPCCP to limit chemical contamination; and enhancement of the delta margin by adding overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation, and brush piles. E. Conclusion Following the listed conservation measures, as outlined in this document, the proposed project may cause a short-term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended sediment. It is anticipated that this potential impact would be so small that adverse effects on coho and Chinook salmon habitat should be considered discountable. However, the proposed project would result in deepening thc existing stream dclta habitat. In Lake Washington, juvenile Chinook prefer relatively shallow water habitat in stream deltas. Therefore, the proposed project may adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook salmon. As described in Sections V and VI, project effects would be off-set by enhancing shallow delta habitat adjacent to the dredging zone. By employing these conservation measures, impacts to Chinook and coho salmon EFH would be minimized. Following these measures, the proposed project would not hinder a sustainable Pacific salmon fishery for either of these species. July 28, 2005 K:\Pmj!Ids\flatbee MIll SA 2005\2005 SA draftslDrB1I twolMay Creek BA 012805.doc Biological Assessment -Page 62 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging VIII. REFERENCES Anderson, B., J. Frost, K. McAllister, D. Pineo, and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald eagles in Washington. Washington Wildlife 36(4):13-20. Anthony, R.G., R.L. K.night, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Will. Nat. Res. Conf. 47:332-342. Bell, M.e. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering rcquirements and biological criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. Contract DACW57-68-0086. Berge, H.B., and B.Y. Mavros. 2001. King County Bull Trout Program: 2000 Bull Trout Surveys. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattlc, Washington. Bishop, S., and A. Morgan, (cds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural Chinook salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound arcas of Washington State. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, W A 105 pp. Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenilc coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371-374. Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of bull trout and the effects of human activity on the species. pp.I-4 In: Howell, PJ. and D.Y. Buchanan (eds.). Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the Am. Fish. Soc., Corvallis, OR. Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systcms- measured effccts, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings of the Watershed '93 Confercnce. U.S. GPO, Washington D.e. Brenkman, SJ. 2002. Unpublished data on bull trout investigations. Olympic National Park. Washington. Brenkman, S.J., G.L. Larson, and R E. Gresswell. 2001. Spawning Migration of Lacustrine-Adfluvial Bull Trout in a Natural Area. Transactions of the American Fisherics Society. 130:981-987. Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerances of young Pacific salmon. Oncorhynchus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 9(6):264-323. Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brevin. 1997. Distribution Maps for Bull Trout in Alberta. pp.206-216 In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita (cds.). Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Buchanan, K. 2003. Stream Habitat Conditions During Low Flow Conditions: Coal Creek, May Creek, Lower Cedar River, and Selected Tributaries, 1-405 North Renton. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 63 K:\ProjecislBarbee Mil BA2OO5I2OO5 BMraftsldrafl twolMay Creek SA Q728()5,dOC • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Carrasco, K., S. Foley, B. Mavros, and K. Walter. 1998. 1998 Chinook spawner survey data technical report for the Lake Washington watershed. King County Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64: 139-174. City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities. April 2000. Cyrus, D.P., and SJ.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part I: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70. Cyrus, D.P., and SJ.M. Blaber. 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91. Dambacher, lM., M.W. Buktenica, and G.L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, abundance and habitat utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Pages 30-36 in P. L. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. Footen, B. 2000. Preliminary results ofan investigation into the impacts ofpiscivorous predation on juvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and other salmonids in Salmon and Shilshole Bays, King Co. Washington. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Presentation at the 2000 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by King County Department of Natural Resources. Footen, B. 2003. Piscivorous impacts on Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Salmon Bay estuary, the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Sammamish. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Presentation at the 2003 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by Seattle Public Utilities. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1995. May Creek Basin Phase I Solutions Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water Utility, November 1995. Bellevue, Washington. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1996. May Creek Basin Phase 2 Solutions Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water Utility, May 1996. Bellevue, Washington. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Bothell, Washington. July 28, 2005 K:\Proj&C!slBarbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA draltsldraft twolMay Crllllk SA 072805 doc Biological Assessment -Page 64 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. In: Lake and Reservoir Management. Vol. 9, no. I, pp. 148-151. Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous salmonids in the Lake Washington Watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525- 544 in E.E. Knudsen, e.R. Steward, D.O. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser (editors). Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton. Garrett, M.G., R.G. Anthony, J.W. Watson, and K. McGarigal. 1988. Ecology of bald eagles on the lower Columbia River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. 189 pp. Goetz, F.A., E. Jeanes, and E. Beamer. June 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore, preliminary draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. http://www.nws.usace.army.millpublicmenuIDOCUMENTSlPrclim Bull Trout Rep ort.pdf Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241-246. Gregory, R.S., and e.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(2):275- 285 . Grubb, T.G. 1976. A survey and analysis of bald eagle nesting in western Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 87pp. Hansen, AJ., M.V. Stalmaster, and J.R. Newman. 1980. Habitat characteristics, function, and destruction of bald eaglc communal roosts in western Washington. In: Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium, ed. R.L. Knight, G.T.Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and e.W. Servheen. Seattle: The Nature Conservancy, pp. 221-29. Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization Assessment for the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Healey, M.e. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-393 in e. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. Vancouver, B. e. UBC Press. Hemmingsen, A.R., S.L. Gunckel and PJ. Howell. 2001. Bull trout life history, genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon, 1999 Annual Report. Project Number 199405400, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon . July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 65 K:lPI'OJ8CtS\Barbee IdiII BA 2005\2005 SA !lraftsldran twolMay Creek SA 072805.OOC • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Hitchcock, e.L., A. Cronquist, and M. Ownbey. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part I: vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Howell, P., J.B. Dunham, P. Sankovich, and G. Chandler. 2005. Water temperatures used by migratory bull trout from the Lostine River. Presentation made at the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, February 18, 2005, Corvallis, OR. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications, 1:66-84. KCDNR (King County Department of Natural Resources). 2000. Literature review and recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Seattle, Washington. Keister, J.P., Jr., R.G. Anthony, and EJ. O'Neill. 1987. Use of communal roosts and foraging areas by bald eagles wintering in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51 (2): 4154.20. Kerwin, J. 200 I. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar- Sammamish basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 2001. Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA. 587 pp. King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 2001. Kraemer, e. 1999. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus rnalrna) and bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) of the north Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington. Leary, R.F., and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Notes -genetic confirmation ofsympatric bull trout and Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:715-720. Lee, D. e. et al. 1996. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. in T. M. Quigley and S. J Arbelbide, editors. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rpt. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. Mason, J.e., and D.W. Chapman. 1965. Significance of early emergence, environmental rearing capacity, and behavioral ecology of juvenile coho salmon in stream channels. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 22(1): 172-190. July 28, 2005 K:lPro}8ds\Bartlee Mill BA200512OO5 SA draftsldraft twolMay Creek SA 072805.(\0(: Biological Assessment -Page 66 • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Mavros, 8., S. Foley, K. Burton, and K. Walter. 1999. 1999 Chinook spawner survey data technical report for the Lake Washington Watershed. King County Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. May, C.W., R.R. Homer, J.R. Karr, 8.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4): 483-494. McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries management report no. 104. University of British Columbia. Vancouver,8.c. McPhail, J .D., and R. Carveth. 1992. A foundation for conservation: the nature and origin of the freshwater fish fauna of British Columbia. Fish Museum, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.c. McPhail, J.D., and c.8. Murray. 1979. The early life-history and ecology of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Department of Zoology and Institute of Animal Resources, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 2001. Cugini property May 2001, aquatic habitat and fish population survcy and joint-use dock biological assessment. June 25, 2001. Myers, J.M. et al. 1998. Status review of spring Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC- 35. 443 pp. National Marine Fisherics Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and Technical Services Division Habitat Conservation Branch. August 1996. NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW. Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003. NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Biological Opinion -Section 7 Endangered Species Act Interagency Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the StrosahllNiven New Pier and Maintenance Deck and Tosti New Pier Projects, Lake Washington, HUC 171100120301, King County, Washington, March 11,2005. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon . Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon (March 1999). July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page 67 K:\ProjedslBirbee Mill BA 2005I2005 SA drafto;ldrafl two\May Creek SA 072&15.ooc • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2002. Regional mark infonnation service December 2002 database search of hatchery release infonnation by the William Douglas Company, Seattle, Washington. Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide (Eds). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume l. U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management with assistance from the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. PNW-GTR-405. Pages 1-351. Redding, J.M., e.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:737-744. Reiser, D.W., and T.e. Bjomn. 1979. Habitat requirements ofanadromous salmonids. In: W.R. Meehan (cd). Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America, pp. I-54. U.S. For. Servo Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-96. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intennountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), In e. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), Pacific salmon life histories, pp. 396-445. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa. Servizi, J.A., and Martens, D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 493-497. Seymour, A.H. 1956. Effects of temperature upon young Chinook salmon. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Shepard, M.F. 1981. Status and review of the knowledge pertaining to the estuarine habitat requirements and life history of chum and Chinook salmon juveniles in Puget Sound. Final Rep. Wash. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Shepard M.F., and R.G. Dykeman. 1977. A study of the aquatic biota and some physical parameters of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Sheffieton Power Plant, Renton, Washington 1975-1976. Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York. July 28, 2005 K:\ProjedslSarbee Min SA 2005\2005 8A draflsljjraft two\May Cleek SA 072805 doc Biological Assessment -Page 68 , I • • • Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of wintering bald eagles in northwest Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management, 43( 1 ):221-224. Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between juvenile coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon. Journal of the Fishery Research Board of Canada 29:1737-1748. Tabor, R.A., and J. Chan. 1996. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by piscivorous fishes in the lower Cedar River and southern Lake Washington. Miscellaneous report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resourcc Office, Olympia, Washington. Tabor, R.A., J.A. Scheurer, H.A. Gearns and E.P. Bixler. 2004. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division, Lacey, Washington, February 2004. Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources. TRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team). 2002. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines for the delisting and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. April 30, 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior (USOl), Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Management ofanadromous fish habitat on public lands. Report No. BLM-ID-PT. USFWS. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) -Chinook salmon. USFWS, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. USFWS. 1986a. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) -coho salmon. USFWS BioI. Rep. 82(11.48) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. USFWS. 1986b. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. USFWS. 1998. DRAFT - A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale, February 1998. USFWS. 2004. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat; candidate species, and species of concern in western Washington web page. http://westernwashington.fws.gov/se/SE List/endangered Species.asp. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Olympia, W A. July 28, 2005 K:\ProjedslBarbee MIll SA 2005\2005 SA draftsldraft twolMay Crtl9k SA 072805_doc Biological Assessment -Page 69 • • • Meridian Environmental. Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging USFWS and NMFS. 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Version: 19 May 2002 IX Volk, E.e. 2000. Using otolith strontium to infer migratory histories in bull trout and Dolly Varden from several Washington state rivers. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fisheries ,Washington Department of Wildlife, and eastern Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and Steelhead stock inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, W A. Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW): 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. WDFW. 2002. Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasil Washington State Dcpartment of Health (WDOH). 2004. Final Report: Evaluation of Contaminants in Fish from Lake Washington King County, Washington. September 2004. Prepared by: Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health Assessments. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington salmonid stock inventory: bull trout and Dolly Varden. Wash. Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 437 p. Watershed Company, M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Prepared for the City of Bellevue. July 12, 2000. Weitkamp, L. A. et al. 1995. Status review of coho from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS- NWFSC-24. Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon. 1982. Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 111:63-69. Wydoski, R. S. and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle, University of Washington Press. July 28. 2005 K:\Proj8cts'IBartlee t.11118A2005'2005 BAdraftsldrafl. twu\May Creek SA 072605.doc Biological Assessment -Page 70 Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • Appendix A • Proposed Project Site Maps • ·~==========================~==~ • The May Creek Delta receives depositional coarse sand, gravel and rounded rock from the May Creek Valley during severe storm events. Finer sands and silts are typically carried past the delta area to settle our further into Lake Washington. The Barbee Mill Company is requesting a 10 year Maintenace Dredging permit to mitigate the impacts caused by flooding of May Creek; to protect property along May Creek; and to maintain navigational depths. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington A<I)o< ..... ....,portva..-<. 1 .... __ 0..-____ .... '!,,,.....,-......... _-._ ... -i ____ ,,""' ...... ,._ ... 'BUO PROJECT LOCATION IN: Lak.e Washington APPLlCATlON BY Barbee Mill Company SHEET 1 of4 • aomM lSOCI:/_o-a. -,... CJr.ot<C--.,.WI<) AT: 4300 lake WashIngton Blvd. N. 430) Lake Washington Blvd. N 1~==~~~~~';'~~;·~~~R~~~~~"=~==================K='''=g=c=ou=n=~=.=R.=n=,o=n.=W=A=='8=O='6==Re=="=='=W=A==~======================~======~ Lake Washington -I~ " -f- + _L , --1-- + V" "', ..... ,~.(/) . . ~,,"'---, FormerO.tedg~ ~wateringAtea ' + ~ -1-. May Creek Delta ApptrUnab! ~ lmit5 Notes: EJisI:iIg contour eIMtiI:n5 as rI May, 2005 (sltlJect to dlangt with stoon events). EJ:istJIg CIJ1toors wilV¥'f from yel!I to 'If6 ~ on storm t:Yt!1ts (~{i1ten51ty) that c\epOSIt wnd nI!PM! ertIIbI ton tile May ~ Yil!ey. Dredge ;rea wI i'lcUIe occasDIaI d'edlJllCjJ i1 ft1J1t d Itle Boa!hruse to mai'llilil ~I ~ ¥d ilCCe5S. PtqIOSed ~ eIeYaWIs I a:rtws stown til 9Iect 3 t:I ~ I.lR Elevatm ma,\1tai1ed I7f USACE. O"thJy High Wam-lR (OHWL) = 21.8 rm Dredge ~evatkJls and Ioc.abons base{! (J1 fjAD{83 Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington DATUM, USACE /Se.lttle DI~iCt ea5e Map: OTAK (lCorldand, WA) latitude: "1m 31' 40". LOngItUde 122W 12 "29" SectIon Township Range: !'(W 31 2"1 05 PROJECT LOCATION IN: L.ake WilshtlglOO AT: 000 lake WlIShrqm IIIW. N Krlg Carty, RmIoo, WA 90056 APPUCATION BY B1IrbeeHd~ny 1300 L.ake washng!IJl BM:l. N Rtrtal, WA !IB[66 / / -"-, , rbee Mill " , ~(ft) = • • • / / // J ./' ,// ./ ,./ / _L / "/ / / .. /--:--,', /' ;:t/" ~ .. /.~/ /,' /:y" ;, .. ,.~.;I"'-~" /~/'-/// / /Y .:/ // / / / / j/ f , / / '> .':/ ,/ / ///// -,,-' , /, ,'/ / / ~// / . ,. / ,/ /// /' ./' " EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATIONS SHEET 2of4 ~ ~ _: 5flOf05 Lake Washington -t- '" May Creek Delta - -+ NOTES: SteSl1~4fo<Csoss-St<tionII.-A·,9-B',C·C Tl'IOOewatemQftl$lI!s/IoMI. ~""""lfIIor*~"'WiIII'.<tflI9I!5WOI1C1II!"nIDIdallti)Jen""T_bf"'5aI!III!I!as",",nfl D'tdOt~ tr! coerst ~ 1'll!P'dlnd I1IIdr _Ie', ~J.OOOto4,llOOtYlClII!~.....,:H"'~lIjmamnlrftll.'5lCVnI--". !lrtdgrIg1C bo..,........tI'I._I:Olcl:elIrtrn. 1>19"""""""" ,.,~ .... 1II!_ .. 1I'Ie_. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington DATUM: USACE I Seattle Dtstrtt. Base Map, OTAK (Krkland, WA) lalWk:4i'tj 31'40", loo;JitudelllW 12'29'" SecticJ1 Township RirIge: IfW 12 2~ os PROJECT lOCATlON IN: lake WilShrgtoo AT 4300 lake Washi'l\ltoo Blvd. N. KI'9Cou1ty, Re'Itoo, WA 9B056 APPl..lCATION BY B.Wee Mil CanP¥1Y ~300 UIkI' Washinqtm 1IMl. N Rertcr1, WA 96056 "'" .) i= • • • " / / ./ '/ / -.--: /./ / /v " / /1/ ,'/ / /-~' ,;,./ / / /1 / /'/' / // '/ ' " , ,. / .. -::, PROPOSED DREDGING CONTOURS SHEET 3 of 4 ~ ~ =::::D 1Ie\isaI: 6/5/rh • • Cross-Sections A-A', 6-6', and C-C' (See sheet 3 of 4) (Ii:', ~ ,., "l 8 A Dewatering Kea A' "w", '=~:::-----::~--~--~---~~: -----2" ---------. ~_.. ------------: ~---------------_~ _I ...,_ ..... Cross-Section A-A' runs north to south (see Sheet 3). Maltlmum drtdge depth is EL .. 10', /j3' ~+ ~-~~-=! -May en;;; oata B' Cross-5e:tion 8-6' I1Jns west to east through May O"eek Delta (see Sheet 3). Maximum dredge depth 15 B. = 10'. ($) C ... ~"' "l __ C' --;:'''z;I:::~ ss-~ .. ~--~,-~::-;JIi--'?S----7~ ] Cross-Section C-C' runs north to south (see Sheet 3). Maximum dredge depth is EL = 10', Maximum dewatering area depth shown is EL -20' (will depend on liIke Washington Elevation) Scale 0' 25' SO' 100' 200' NOTES: sq".,. ... 1111'>_10 Do! cftdged nomeper thIIn 2:1 stipe to rMmze NIk IIn)5.Ion o-atEring .... J aaN_ to EL _ 211 (~I_, dopcncIInQ "" t.JIoe _l. ,. portIOn at mster1Il to Do! used fur berm.......:l ~ ..... Dewatering al1!ll(_) til Do! reb.med to orlglrlal condruoo lIO(\ hyQ'oseedIed """" o:JmPIetlOn ~_use .. ~lbeOlKOrJtjnuedwnhs.te~(Mlnyears) Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington DATUM: USACE I Seattle District. Ba§e Map: OTAK (Kirkland, WA) • Latitude: 47N 31'~", lDngltude lllW 12 '29" SectIon Township Range: NW 32 24 05 PROJECT LOCATION IN: liIke Washington AT: 4300 lake Washington 6IVd. N. King Count;', Renton, WA 98056 APPLICA nON BY Baroee Mill Company '1300 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, WA 98056 ___ ""allIoIIItIo<Ise DREDGE AREA CROSS-SECTIONS """ SHEET 4 of 4 • ~ c:=:!J Revision 6(9/05 Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • Appendix B • Water Quality Monitoring During 2002 Dredging • Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • 0, Turbidity Water Temp. Samolino Location DredQe Location (mQ/I) (NTU) °c 7/25/2002 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area A 8.1 1.25 20.2 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area A 8.3 1.11 19.2 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area A 8.4 1.15 20.9 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area A 8.4 1.20 22.6 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area A ------ Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area A 9.2 1.21 22.9 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 8.4 1.11 19.5 8/712002 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area A 9.4 1.40 22.2 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area A 11.2 1.63 15.6 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area A 8.8 2.13 21.6 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area A 8.6 2.55 20.2 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area A 8.7 no data 20.2 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area A (see Station 4) Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 9.4 5.20 20.7 8/12/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area A 10.0 1.76 15.5 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area A 9.7 2.70 15.8 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area A 9.4 3.10 19.6 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area 8.5 4.80 21.8 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area 9.2 1.90 22.6 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area 8.5 4.10 21.0 • Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area A 8.8 3.90 22.0 8/21/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 10.6 1.21 13.8 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.2 1.78 13.9 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 8.5 3.07 21.4 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.2 1.66 21.4 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.3 2.67 21.6 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 7.8 4.70 21.6 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 7.5 3.48 21.5 9/16/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 10.0 1.12 20.7 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.7 1.18 17.1 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 8.9 1.19 18.7 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.18 22.5 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.5 1.19 20.5 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.15 20.3 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.8 1.16 19.5 9/17/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 8.9 1.12 20.7 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.2 1.18 17.1 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 9.4 1.19 18.7 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 9.0 1.18 22.5 Station 5 -Water Dock iArea C') Bark Area B 8.8 1.19 20.5 • Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.15 20.3 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 9.1 1.16 19.5 July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page B-1 K:IPI'Oj6CIS\Barb&e Mill SA 2005\2005 BAdraflsldraft two\May CrBeK SA 072a05.doc Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • O2 Turbidity Water Temp. Samolina Location Dredae Location (mQII) (NTU) 'c 9/19/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 8.7 1.24 20.7 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.4 1.24 17.1 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 9.3 1.25 18.7 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 9.0 1.27 22.5 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 9.1 1.28 20.5 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.6 1.48 20.3 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 9.0 1.25 19.5 9/24/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 9.2 1.10 15.8 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.7 1.14 15.9 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 9.0 1.35 16.4 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.78 18.8 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.7 1.28 19.1 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.3 5.10 18.9 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.7 2.36 18.7 9/26/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area B 8.9 1.21 15.1 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area B 9.1 1.15 15.9 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area B 8.9 1.23 16.1 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area B 8.7 1.68 17.1 • Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area B 8.3 1.31 17.0 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area B 8.2 3.80 18.4 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area B 8.8 1.85 16.4 10/21/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' Bark Area C 10.6 1.12 11.7 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge' Bark Area C 10.4 1.11 11.7 Station 3 -SW Point' Bark Area C 8.9 1.18 15.6 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) Bark Area C 8.9 1.13 15.6 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C) Bark Area C 9.6 1.41 15.5 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area Bark Area C 8.9 2.71 15.5 Station 7 -Scow Unloading Area Bark Area C 8.8 1.81 15.5 10/28/99 Station 1 -Pedestrian Bridge' May Creek Delta 10.0 1.13 10.0 Station 2 -Vehicle Bridge May Creek Delta 10.1 1.16 10.1 Station 3 -SW Point May Creek Delta 10.0 1.74 14.2 Station 4 -Boom Dock (Area A) May Creek Delta 8.9 1.46 14.2 Station 5 -Water Dock (Area C)' May Creek Delta 9.6 1.38 14.1 Station 6 -Active Dredge Area May Creek Delta 8.9 1.96 13.9 Station 7 -Scow Unload ina Area Mav Creek Delta 8.8 2.13 14.3 • Monitoring station outside of silt curtain • July 28, 2005 K:\Pm)8CIslBarbee Mill BA 2005\2005 SA drat\sldraf\ twolMay Creek SA 072805.doc Biological Assessment -Page B-2 • • • -----~~----------------------------- May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 15 Utilities Plan Flood mitigation dredging in the May Creek Delta will not alter, incorporate or otherwise have any impacts on utilities. City of Renton -Permit Application Pagt: 17 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 16 Drainage Control Plan Five copies of the Drainage Control Plan are provided in Exhibit L. A copy is provided on the following pages. . City of Renton -Permit Application Page 18 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 16 Drainage Control Planning Dredging of the May Creek Delta will have minimal impact on existing drainages. Existing upland drainages will not be altered, impacted during dredging, or in any way changed. No new drainages will be created. 16.1 On-Site Dewatering Dredged materials from the May Creek Delta will be placed in a bem1ed dewatering area (see project plan sheets) adjaccnt to the shorcline. The purpose of the beffi1ed dewatering area is to reduce the water content of dredged material, so that dredge materials can be efficiently handled and move. As discussed previously, proposed dredge materials are coarse sands and gravels, which rapidly drain. The beffi1ed dewatering area also eliminates potential turbidity returning to Lake Washington. A dewatering area adjacent to the shoreline has been very successfully employed in previous dredging with no problems observed. 16.2 Off-Site Transport In the event that the site is developed, and it is no longer feasible to place dredged materials in a beffi1ed dewatering area adjacent to the shoreline, dredged materials will be placed on a dredge scow, moved to Quendall Teffi1inals (or other off-loading facility on Lake Washington) for off-loading. In previous work dredge scows were off-loaded at Barbee Mill with an excavator during the Bark and Wood Debris Removal Project several years ago. Therefore, we do not anticipate any special problems at Qucndall Teffi1inals. If necessary, a dewatering area can be constructed at Quendall Teffi1inals, which would be very similar to those currently planned at Barbee Mill adjacent to the dredge area. The biggest impact is that the material must bc handled twice if the materials are taken to Quendall Teffi1inals (or other off- loading facility on Lake Washington). 16.3 Dewatering Area Inspections Dewatering areas will be inspected daily to assure that they are free draining and that containment beffi1s are in good condition and have not been disturbed by heavy equipment. As soon as the last dredged materials arc removed from a dewatering area, the area will regraded to pre-existing conditions and shoreline plantings of native plants (see BE/BA, prepared by Meridian Environmental) will further stabilize the shoreline and enhance shallow water habitat for fishes . Item 16 -Drainage Control PlaninglL&AI 16 _ I • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 17 Fill Source Statement Flood mitigation dredging will not require placement of any imported fill material on-site. Nevertheless, the Barbee Mill Company does contemplate that clean sand and gravel dredged from the May Creek Delta may be utilized on site during site cleanup and/or development. This proposal is contemplated under separate development and cleanup activities . City of Renton -Permit Application Page 19 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 18 Plan Reductions One PMT plan reduction is provided of all full size plan sheets in Exhibit M. One photocopy of each PMT is also provided in Exhibit M. Photocopies arc also provided in this section. City of Renton -Pemlit Application Page 20 ·~================================= • The May Creek Delta receives depositional coarse sand, gravel and rounded rock from the May Creek Valley during severe storm events. Finer sands and silts are typically carried past the delta area to settle our further into Lake Washington. The Barbee Mill Company is requesting a 10 year Maintenace Dredging permit to mitigate the impacts caused by flooding of May Creek; to protect property along May Creek; and to maintain navigational depths. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington ~ Pro ........ Owr.o<s 'l __ ...,'.-___ .... ,j,-,-..." ... _ ...... _ ... - '~ __ .......... _.,_ .... WD< PROJECT LOCATION IN: Lake Washington SHEET 10f4 , " Vi """,.-"",/ '. , , Lake Washington FormerOredg,e Dewatering Area' ~-~ " _-1--------- -+- Notes: ExI5tl1g COOIDlI eltvabcr15 as r:I f>V;, 2005 (SltI)ecl to dIange "til stom events). -+- ~ .fwt;IxnW cndge lirIts ~-' May Creek Delta Ex~ Co1tw"s wll WIy from year 10 yeardepeoc1llg on storm t't'tJIts (frequency/i1ter6iLy) IhIII cIeposIt sand and ~veI eroded from ttl! May Creek Valley. Drm9t il"ea .. II nci.de ~ ~ilg 11 fruit r:J Ihe EIoathoose to ll'0i1tail ~9<lbI:nal dI!pths and ao;J5. I'rqIosed ~ e~\in; I CXJ'Ib:US stoM1 00 9leeI3 rI~. l* ElMiOOn m/lntaIle;I tit USM:E. ()dnary ~ Water Ln! (0IiNL) = 21.8 fed ~ devaOCns and Iocaticns based on NAOlU Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington DATUM: l.ISACE I Se.!tt~ DIstrict ~ Map: OTAK (Klrklal'ld, WI.) UltftudP.: '1m 31' 40". L.ongItUde 122W 12 '29" SectIon Township Range: NW 32 24 05 PROJECT l.OCAllClN 1M: l1lke W<S\i'gtD'I AT: 4300 !alit Wa!il'lrogtoo BM1 N, Ki1g Crunty, ~,WA 98056 APR .. KATIOO 8Y B.lrbee "'aI CorI1IanY 4300 ta:eWashll9lOO BMI. N Rentm, WA 98(1j6 Barbee Mill -"'- , 5CALE (~) , • • / / / / ./ , / ,<;;/ /' / -;~~~---:~-= /</~/~ ~;?;.-". / '/,// ~// ~~/p ,,/ / / '> ,'/ / / / //.:/ i-v I', .. '/ " / ///:/ / ,/ ., EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATIONS SHEET 2of4 ~ ==:::!J RMied: 5{lO{05 -) -+ -+ -i-- Lake Washington -I " -----.----~ 14 _" ~~..--::::: + -----------~--:::::=-::::::~----u__, ________ =:::::E:::::::>~-- '---::::::---------B --~ -j --------, (AI-I-rB -~ -----,-g : I~ /<-< ,,-1---- -+- + NOTES: _-1. I SeeSheel4rtfCJ0!5.SecbI:nIIrA',U',C-C May Creek Delta T""arwotmw;I ____ ~ ...... _-~ ... _I ............ "'bo_III.~T_JtrWle, ... lSdeWI ... Cl!edI\l!rneterasmtoene~ndlrld~lrII,..at;dewIttr. ~lmotftv3.000!o4,ooo<"l"'bodn!dr,/!dM'13-4-,eJrs~"pcnstorm~<qUBl<"1""I/tttISty. ~lObt~"""a __ fI1;rnll:aieorntllf!ll"""_ No_~wIIIb1!_I1I!'1e_. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington DATUM: IJSAC1' I seattle DIstiicI. 1Ia~ Map: OTAI( (K.-IdaocI, WA) 1..UIde: 47N 31' o4(l", ll:rgi\I.IdI! 122W 12 '2'1' Sean1 Towrm~ Range: IfN 32 24 os PROJECT l.OCATION IN: l$c Wasl\ln;jltn AT: 4300BUWasI'II1gI:IJ'IllMI.N. KJ'qCotl1ty, RaIttrI, WA 98056 APPUCATION BY ~ Mil CtmIWl)' 11OOlm!~BI'Id,N ~,WA 98056 "'" "' F= • • .. / ,/ --: / /'),' .. '/ ; //1:,: ..... /.'/ ./ / /--;t;<:;:, ,. / //:/, .:.:'-;// ////(/ PROPOSED DREDGING CONTOURS SHEET 3 of 4 .I @ ~ =::::D RoIisoI: 6/5/OS • • Cross-Sections A-A', 6-6', and C-C' (See sheet 3 of 4) LA". ~ ,., -, ~ A Oewattr ..... ArQ A' '""''' 'iiEt ? o.t; ~ ;::;?? -----?5S44£j -~-Cross-5ec:tIon A-A' runs north to south (see Sheet 3). Maximum dredge depth Is a '" 10', @ B' ~:, ' .. i" ....... ~:.: ..•• ~ •••• ~ •...... ,:. ........... ·····~·:~::: .. :;:~~~::~a :-May6id< o.et'i Cross-Sectloo B-B' runs west to east thl'Ol,JQh May Q-eek Delta (see Sheet 3). MaxImum dredgt cIt>pth is El = 10', (C~" C' • C ._ 1>1.3' ~~ \.~ o. '?S-." .... ~_ . . -, ~Al9~ ~""N =. ."'.,. ...,0',,,,... kEP'~ ___ __._ Cross-Se;:t1OO C-C n.ms north to south (see Sheet 3). MaJdmum dredge depth Is EL '"' 10'. Maximum dewiltering area depth shown is a = 20' (will depend on lillie Wilshington Elevation) Scale • 25' SO' 100' 200' N01ES: sq-__ blbll!dredQledoo~than 2:101cpo!1D .......... _0!rtriIa1 Dewat.omg"5)~ bl a -2f1 (hlglw~, d!pI:nCInOmL.ak2fJewtmn) "portIOnl1fl!lllUl1lll to~ UIIIlICI/QrbonnillCtnl~_ CIowiJtemQ an:a(s) to be tmJmed 10 Dr1gInaI an:Itb1/11ld ~ upm ~ CIewiItemQ are/!" WIll be IIIscontInu!!d With _ ~ (ruu-e rurs) Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington DATUM: USACE/ Seattle District. Base Map: OTA!( (Kirldand, WA) L'ltitude: 47N 31' <10", longitude 122W 12 '29" Section Township Range: mol 32 24 OS PROJECT LOCATION IN: u,ke Washilgton AT: 4300 lake Washington Blvd. N. KJng CcItInty, Renton, WA 98056 APPUCATION BY Bartoee MUI Company 4300 Lake Wastungton Blvd. N Renton, WA 98056 DREDGE AREA CROSS-SECTIONS """ SHEET 4of4 • ~ c:=:!J RevisiOll 6/9{05 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 19 Colored Maps for Display One color copy of eaeh of the following sheets is provided in Exhibit N. A reduced copy of each is provided in this section for the following: • Neighborhood Detail Map • Dredging plans (sheets) City of Renton -Pemlit Application Page 21 ". Flood Mitigation Dredging -Permit Application Special Permit for Grade & Fill Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Above: Flood Damage along May Creek al the Barbee Mill Company. Note exposed high pressure gas line Submitted to: City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Prepared by: Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92nd Street Snoqualmie, W A 98065 ======================DtiW ~~ --- ------------------, ~==~In=c. • September 27, 2005 • • TRANSMITIAL Jennifer Henning Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Subject: May Creek Flood Mitigation Dredge Permit Application Special Permit for Fill and Grade/Shoreline Substantial Development Dear Ms. Henning: Thank your for your time in assisting the Barbee Mill Company in putting together a responsive proposal for Flood Mitigation Dredging of the May Creek Delta in Renton, Washington. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 50 years to remove sand and gravel from the mouth of May Creek. Lloyd & Associates, Inc., has submitted dredging permit applications and supporting information to the City of Renton for this work since 1994. The importance of flood mitigation dredging of the May Creek Delta takes on considerable importance in light of development changes at the Barbee Mill property. Although this proposal for dredging is separate from other project proposals that have or will be considered by the City of Renton, flood mitigation dredging is a necessary to protect the property and future homeowner's interests. We anticipate that in future years, a homeowners association will take the permit to dredge and the associated rights to protect their property from severe storm damages. In the absence of dredging the mouth of May Creek, the May Creek channel will fill with depositional sand, gravel and rock, increasing the potential for flooding and property damages. The Barbee Mill Company is requesting a 10-year permit for maintenance dredging. While we understand the extended permit duration may cause concern within the City of Renton, the importance of establishing a longer term permit is an essential and fundamental step in providing a measure of certainty to the Barbee Mill Company and future property owners. A 10-year permit will also be consistent with anticipated permit conditions for the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers Currently, the May Creek Delta needs to be dredged. We anticipate that dredging of 3,000 to 4,000 y3 will be required every three to fours years. However, the volume of material to be removed and the frequency of dredging are subject to unpredictable • • • Lloyd & Associates, Inc. September 27, 2005 future weather conditions, and the necessary frequency of dredging or the exact volume to be dredged is not possible to predict with certainty. Therefore, we are proposing to dredge to a specific profile, as shown in project plans (see Item 11 of application, and Exhibit I). The Barbee Mill Company and the entire project team looks forward to this unique project opportunity to proactively mitigate the potential impacts of flooding. As the City of Renton is aware, this maintenance dredging work has been conducted successfully for many years and remains an essential component of future site development. If you have any questions, please call. Thank you for your time and consideration of this permit application for Flood Mitigation Dredging on the May Creek Delta. Sincerely, p;;;::;;Jkl R. Michael Lloyd, PhD/JI[; 425-888-1905(0}/425-785-1357 (cell) • L&AI transmittal to COR. doc Page 2 of2 • • • Flood Mitigation Dredging -Pennit Application Special Pennit for Grade & Fill Shoreline Substantial Development Pennit Above: Flood Damage along May Creek at the Barbee Mill Company. Note exposed high pressure ga~ line Submitted to: City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Prepared by: Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92nd Street Snoqualmie, W A 98065 ======================DViij • • • ------------------------------------, ~ Lloyd & Associates, Inc . 38210 SE 92nd SUoct, Snoquahnie. Washington 98065 September 27, 2005 TRANSMITIAL Jennifer Henning Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055 425-888-1905(v/l) nnl@atvUoyd ..... Subject: May Creek Flood Mitigation Dredge Permit Application Special Permit for Fill and Grade/Shoreline Substantial Development Dear Ms. Henning: Thank your for your time in assisting the Barbee Mill Company in putting together a responsive proposal for Flood Mitigation Dredging of the May Creek Delta in Renton, Washington. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 50 years to remove sand and gravel from the mouth of May Creek. Lloyd & Associates, Inc., has submitted dredging permit applications and supporting information to the City of Renton for this work since 1994. The importance of flood mitigation dredging of the May Creek Delta takes on considerable importance in light of development changes at the Barbee Mill property. Although this proposal for dredging is separate from other project proposals that have or will be considered by the City of Renton, flood mitigation dredging is a necessary to protect the property and future homeowner's interests. We anticipate that in future years, a homeowners association will take the permit to dredge and the associated rights to protect their property from severe storm damages. In the absence of dredging the mouth of May Creek, the May Creek channel will fill with depositional sand, gravel and rock, increasing the potential for flooding and property damages. The Barbee Mill Company is requesting a lO-year permit for maintenance dredging. While we understand the extended permit duration may cause concern within the City of Renton, the importance of establishing a longer term permit is an essential and fundamental step in providing a measure of certainty to the Barbee Mill Company and future property owners. A lO-year permit will also be consistent with anticipated permit conditions for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Currently, the May Creek Delta needs to be dredged. We anticipate that dredging of 3,000 to 4,000 y3 will be required every three to fours years. However, the volume of material to be removed and the frequency of dredging are subject to unpredictable ;" . '.', • • • - ------------------------------- i :''::':'1.! ~,~ ;\.:" .. n(f,i! .';;'~" h 'c ~!':):d,)[.'~': '. ,:nl:':.-. future weather conditions, and the necessary frequency of dredging or the exact volume to be dredged is not possible to predict with certainty. Therefore, we are proposing to dredge to a specific profile, as shown in project plans (see Item 11 of application, and Exhibit I). The Barbee Mill Company and the entire project team looks forward to this unique project opportunity to proactively mitigate the potential impacts of flooding. As the City of Renton is aware, this maintenance dredging work has been conducted successfully for many years and remains an essential component of future site development. If you have any questions, please call. Thank you for your time and consideration of this permit application for Flood Mitigation Dredging on the May Creek Delta. Sincerely, LWYD & AS!l0CIATES, Ie/} f. '?Iii .f/ R. Michael Lloyd, PhD/~~ 425-888-1905(0)/425-785-1357 (cell) • L&AI transmittal to COR.doc Page 2 of2 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Table of Contents/Application Organization Item I -Land Usc Permit Master Application Item 2 -Title Report Item 3 -Environmental Checklist Item 4 -Project Narrative Item 5 -Construction Mitigation Description Item 6 -List of Surrounding Property Owners/Mailing Labels Item 7 -Mailing Labels Item 8 -Fees -Submitted Separately Item 9 -Neighborhood Detail Map Item 10 -Site Dredging/Grading Plans Item II -Rehabilitation Plan Item 12 -Tree Cutting/Land Clearing & Plan Floor Plans/Architectural Elevations Item 13 -Wetland Report / Delineation Item 14 -Habitat Data Report Item 15 -Utilities Plan Item 16 -Drainage Control Plan Item 17 -Fill Source Statement Item 18 -Plan Reductions Item 19 -Colored Maps for Display Exhibits (Submitted separately) Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Title Report [3 copies] Land Use Permit Master Application [eleven (II) copies] Environmental Checklist [twelve (12) copies] Project Narrative [eleven (II) copies] Construction Mitigation Description [five (5) copies] List of Surrounding Property Owners [two (2) copies] Mailing Labels [two (2) sets] Neighborhood Detail Map [twelve (12) copics] Site/Grading Plans [twelve (12) copies] Rehabilitation Plan [eleven (II ) copies] Habitat Data Report / Biological Evaluation [twelve (12) copies] Drainage Control Plan Plan Reductions [one (1) PMT copy/sheet, one (I) photocopy/sheet] Colorcd Maps for Display [onc/sheet] City of Renton -Penni! Applicalion Page 2 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 1 Land Use Permit Master Application Eleven copies of the Land Use Pennit Master Application are provided in Exhibit A to this application. A copy of the notarized original and legal description is provided on the next page. City of Renton -Permit Application Page 3 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging ADDRESS: 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Renton, WA 98057 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton,WA 98057 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-226-3900 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 322405-0034-00 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): Industrial/COR NAME: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COR COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: COR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable): COR TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING:lndustrial/COR CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): COR NAME: Michael Lloyd SITE AREA (in square feet): approximately 55,000 sf. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED COMPANY (if applicable): Lloyd & Associates, Inc. FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): Not Applicable ADDRESS: 38210 SE 92nd Street PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): Not Applicable CITY: Snoqualmie, WA 98065 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): Not Applicable TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E·MAIL ADDRESS: 425-888-1905/ rml@centurytel.net NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Not Applicable Item 1-Master Applil.:ation/L&Al PROJECT II ,. TION (continued) PROJECT VALUE: $325,000 Applicable ~BER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 00;;;:;; ,.~~ FOOTAGE OF riAL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA. PLEASE INCLUDE saUARE FOOTAGE (n BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not A;:'~H' -~, applicable): Shoreline, 55,OOOsf. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING _N~t~~L BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if i I IJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL IJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not Applicable IJ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. fl. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING ·'~·No-t BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if i ITI~~,. o GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. fl. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. fl. applicable): Not Applicable II!I SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 55,000 sq. fl. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): Not Applicable 0 WETLANDS sq. fl. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I""~~" lellal on sheet with the information SITUATE IN THE!!y'y QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (See Exhibit) TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: Shoreline Substantial Develo(!ment 2. S(!ecial Permit for Grade and Fill Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I. (Print NamolB) Robert A Cugini. declare that I am (please ched< one) IllI the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to ad for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contaIned and the information herewith are in aU respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and be4 . I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that hCC ~f""4.( ( ... " signed this instrument and acknOWledged it to be hislherltheir free and YOlWlary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument (Signature of OwnerlRepresentalive) • My appoinlment expire •. : __ -=~7+I0= ... R",h,,-,,'<II'L.. __ Item 1 -Master Application • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 2 Title Report Three copies of a recent title report are included In Exhibit B and reproduced on the following pages. City of Renton -Pemli( Application Page 4 • • • " STEWART TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101 Senior Title Officer, Robert L. Ludlow Senior Title Officer, Mike Sharkey Title Technician, Linda Lamson Unit No. 12 FAX Number 206-343-1330 Telephone Number 206-343-1327 Lloyd & AS80ciates, Inc. 38210 SOuthea8t 92nd Street Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 Attention: JoAnne Lloyd Title Order No.: 210616 " A. L. T. A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Effective Date: April 26, 1993, at 8:00 a.m. 1. Policy or Policies to be issued: A. .ALTA Owner's Policy Standard (X) Extended Proposed In.ured: TO fOLLOW B. WORK CHARGE ( ) Amount Tax Amount Tax PREMIUM TO BE AGREED UPON $350.00 $ 28.70 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this commitment 18 fee simple. 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Commitment vested in: BARBEE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. (NOTE: SEE SPECIAL EXCEPTION NUMBER 4 REGARDING EXECUTION OF THE FORTHCOMING DOCUMENT(S) TO BE INSURED). 4. The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the County of King, State of Washington, and described as follows: All that portion of Government Lot 1, Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, and of Second Class Shore Lands adjOining, lying westerly of Northern Pacific Railroad right-of-way' EXCEPT that portion, if any, of said Shore Lands lying north of the westerly production of the north line of said Government Lot. • • . del • STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT Schedule S Order No. 210616 I. The followinq are the requirements to be complied with. A. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. S. Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortqaqors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. II. Schedule B of the Policy or Pol~cies to be issued <as set forth in Schedule A) will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgaqe thereon covered by this Commitment. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public recordll. Public or private easements, .or claims of easementll, not shown by the public record. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters Which would be disclosed by an accurate surveyor inspection of the premises. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, or Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. 5. Any title or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons, corporations, governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or sound, or lands beyond the line of the harbor lines as established or changed by the United States Government. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) water rights~ cl aims or ti tle to· water. 7. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, capacity, or construction charges for sewer, water, electriCity or garbage removal. a. General taxes not now payable or matters relating to special assessments and special leVies, if any, preceding the same becoming a lien. 9. Indian tribal codes or .regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes . C . SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: As on Schedule B, attached. • • • - A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Pa'iJe 2 Order No. 210616 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. 1. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE. PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED I RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER. City of Renton Public utilities. includin'iJ water and sewer The easterly 10 feet. measured perpendicularly to the easterly line of the northerly 230 feet. measured alon'iJ the easterly line December 19. 1972 7212190390 2. GENERAL TAXES. FIRST HALF DELINQUENT MAY 1; SECOND HALF DELINQVENT NOVEMBER li YEAR: AMOUNT BILLED I AMOUNT PAIDI AMOUNT DUE: TAX ACCOUNT NT.1MBER: LEVY CODEI : CTJRRENT ASSESSED VALVE: 1993 $33.688.24 $ 0.00 $33.688.24 322405-9034-00 2100 Land: Improvementll: $2.094.100.00 $ 481.300.00 NOTE: If the taxes cannot be divided equally by 2. the hi'iJher &mount must be paid for the first half payment. 3. Assessments. if any, which will follow by supplemental report. 4. Evidence of the corporation existence of Barbee Forest Products, Inc., a corporation, must be submitted, to'iJether with evidence of the corporate identity and authority of the officers thereof to execute the forthcominq instrument. S. Notwithstandin'iJ the insurin'iJ clauses of this policy, the Company does not insure a'iJainst any loss or damage by reason of lack of access to and from the land. 6. Until the &mount of the policy to be issued is prOVided to us, and entered on the commitment as the amount of the policy to be issued, it is agreed by every person relying on this commitment that we wi~: not be required to approve any policy amount over $100,000, and our total liability under this commitment shall not exceed that amount. (continueci) ---" ~'-'---- • • A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Paqe 3 Order No. 210616 7. Title is to vest in persons not yet revealed and when so vested will be subject to matters disclosed by a search of the records against their names. END OF .SCHEDULE B .' Title to this property waB examined by. Russ Gamman Any inquiries should be directed to one of the title officers set forth in Scheaule-A. RG/dkh/8471E e' ~ ... ": .. 1 I , , ~ t-i . ,~~ STEWART TITLE COMPANY . : .4} of Washington, Inc. -..... ' '''~';ir} ORDER NO. ~U:::I.:'.O~~~/.::6;.....--~/-=2=--_ IMPORTANT: This Is not a Pili of Survey, It Is fu,nished as a convenience to localo Iho land indicateo he,eon witll ,of.'enco to It'Hto Ind ollie, lind, No lI.bility II assumeO by 'Oillon of reliance horeon, ---_·t·· -,- \ , \ , i. \ ' \'. -:-------.-- • , I I / ............. r' I, I' ;' I ,I j • , ....... , ... '" ..... 1 ........... '0. J I'" I '\ , \ j \ ~ \ .~ _J / ••••• 00' ................. '" I • 1 , ;, -----~ .. • ,. · .... ; .. .. '.,.;.a4 ... i,i-\, TITUi iN5UiWiCii"~ ._- FiIfd for _ ., 1Ioq_, 0/ AntII ~1N8 ""IL TO. Qull ClcUm Deed .COIIro".'1 PH ... BARREE MI~L co., INC. ..... 11_100 .. BARBEE rORZST PRODUCTS, INC. . '''''IM'ON 0' ", lud!,'I.~':,'~n{1H~ KIH~ ~')llH 11 ~.oo -0900 ····~.oo = ::':";';.,«'uNrt _0 DCIIl fAa oren' I9&f .. -.... ., .. 'EOBO:i47S: Goyernment Lot 1, Section J7, Townlh1p 24 ~ortn. Ronq. , c. •• t, W.M., Jt1nq County, W.·lntn~c.on lyln4jl Walt Cit lu.r11"'iton Hort.hlrn R .. Uroad R19h~ o( Way. Wind only" no 1aprov ... nt •• 1 o -J J! :- • ~i , 1 I , I , I --" I ) , ' " , " I I I . , I ". 'I .. I \' ! • }.) n.r " PlONE'" NATlO"'AL -"-';<j" :. ml.lo IH~IIAH" , ... , ...c ... "'''''. ,,, "'0"" \ "'" ._- ",-.. ~o/ _II" "'I~ TOO %/WI. Mc:,mr.R, KA"~EN • 1$"" '28 III RE o F ;.00 II!IRCERSrR CA ~5I. ····l I -lrd Av •• , SuIte 1)00 .~ C\Niit~ '::II.lQS( 1M ttl •• WA U10l JUNU1965 EOB.)07(;t> "C&: OUNTOA aARDEC ~ILL CO., INC. ' ...... Gov~r~"t Lot One II., •• ot10n ?hlrey-tvv e'2', To~.h1~ TV.ntY~'Qyt (24) North, nan9_ rive ,,) 14.,. W.N., ~in9 COU"~y, Wft.~lnqton Lyinq w •• t of lurUnqt.on Hortnern Rath'"ad RJ.9ht of Way, with .4j.c.n~ Inore\and. ~nd Qnly • no ~~~oy ... n' •• ~, ..... ,,,. '" wm<as ...... 0£0', ............. "'" bo. _ ........ _ .... _ .. ' • .-_ ... IU.,.,._ .... ~ ....... ~II ~ .,... 21(.,+,sG • 1',:.:.- -'~l3'''---'--AI'! -,~ .,~ '-z;n'''- ., (lrib: '-~l$ ;:~ 78 • .00 .• ---------~--._._.- I • • ' • ........... -.-('C) ) -" .~ I ~4-': . , ,.' <. ..... , . tH .. UU.!!.l nilS lN~TRUJo£NT. made thts :!J::..di1 of &yani.vz,/' by and ba~een 3 41<4-< . 2'h.iM thn~::.· _______ - ___________________________ and ____________________ ___ __________________________ -"and,---------------------- ____________________ 'ind, _______________ __ hereinafter called "Grantor(s)". and the CITY OF RENTON. a Municipal COl1lorltion of King Coun~, Washington. he,",lnafter cilled "Grlnteo'. WI TNESSETH: That said Grantor(s). for and in consideration of the sum of S I.po paiG ~:; Grantee. and other valuable consideration. '::dOr.:--':by:-:""':t"'n':'e"'se=-=p"'re"'s:-::e"'n'::"to-,-g-ra:-::n..,Jt. ~"rgain, sell. convey. and warrant unto the said Grantee. its successors and ass;qns. an easement for public utilities (Including water and sewer) with necessary appurtenanc.s over. through, across and upon the follo,""in9 described property in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows; A utility easement over the Easterly 10 feet. measured perpendicularly to the Easterly line thereof, of the Northerly 230 feet, measured along the Easterly line, of the following described property: ALL that portion of Government Lot I in Section 32. Township 24 North. Range 5 East; W.M. lyin9 Westerly of the Burlington Northern (Northern Pacific) raUroad right-ot-way; TOGE1HER with the Shorelands adjoining. Together with a temporal')' construction eGsement described as: 30 feet in width over the Easterly 30 feet of the Northerly 230 feet of t~e above described property. "Said temporary construction easement shall remain in force during conltruct1on and until such tilhl as the utilities ar,d ap~Jrtenances have been accepted for the '~'!ntl~n ~nd "'aintp."dnCp. by the GTintee but not later than _________ _ • • • -' I '" .. N N r- , ~ r"I""~ ........ ,'t, ~'~r"""')\'.'-' ..... ~ .... "' .. ',. ....... ~ .. ,... .... .. '" ... J'. ...,. .... ~ .... ~-.ooo"_ ...... --. ... ... " Said heretofore .lI'I!ntioned gNntee. Its suetlno" or 1~$i9n$. shall "'h.ve the r'~ht. without orior notice or proce.~lng .t 1111. at such tins IS .. y be ne""nary to enter vpon $lId above described property for the pvrpoSt of co!\structi n9. ",.inuinin9, rep"trins. altering or reconstruc:t1n9 Slid utility, or m.kin~ ony connections therewith, without incurring In>, leg.l Obllglt;il)n$ or liability ~l'Ier,,(or1!, tlro'lioed, tt'ut such construction. 11'161"" t,J in1n9. roep.1r1ng, altedt'lo; or r"fCOMt"uction of SUCt\ vtility 5nall be accomplished in SUCh a mrsnner that tne Orl"lt~ irroroverrenU tx,1st1l'1g 11'1 the 1"1CTIt rignt(s)-of-w.y sh.lI not O. dllturbeO or o.m.g~d. or In the .vent tney .~ disturbed or damaged. they wi 11 be replaced In as good a cnnd\tion as they we~ I_alately before the property w4S.,~~.t~r;e.d, upon by the Grantee . . . " ," . The Grantor shall fully ... a;;d'·enjO',yI'ti..· ',fo";'descrlbed premlus. Incl'Jdlng tn. right to ret,in the right to use tne surface of said rlght-of-"ay if such use does not interfere w\th inst411at1on and 1I'I41n.ten~nte of the utility line. However, the grantor s""n"no,t erect buil:Jing5 or structures over, unger Or acro~S the right-of-w.y durin~''"the uin.nee of such utility. This usement. sh.lI be , tovenan' rvnning with the l.nd and shall be blnd- 1"9 on tr.. Grantor, his 5ucceisorsl heirs and assigns. Grantors, covenant that they ore tne lawful owners of the .bo," properties .nd that they have a ,good anO lawful right to ... cute this agretnn\. ~#~~ STATE Of WASHINGTON coum OF KING "'~-;"'" .... ~ ,.'"'''' o'.(.~ .~ " I, • .,~ ~ "',,''01(# .u '0' :", • ·1 .t ....... .(~ .. ~, f .·.., "0 " .. I', ' •• ' .1 .:-: -, •• , ,.\ ..... ,!:'!f~,::( ,,\:~ ~ :;;, "y: , I • • ""',,, • 0""A,. ... 4,,-= ,. t ,\,' 0'. "q ..... ::.~ .... """., "'~I 'Ii ~~~ .... ................ .nd ss • <-q • n !Ii! I I 0:> '" ,.., 0 '" .... N .... N a-... ... 0 0 0 ...... ~ .,. .... .:. ~ •. I ....~ .. .. ; .' FILED for Record at Request at rlu.O lor Rword at ReQlMI J' .... trek q mead ! O)'Vla 01' THE C.:ITY CLF.R~ .... &ManN 'aDam .... "Istl til JQO KIl '. A va, SOUTH 9,V.ym" w", Mrs: • RECOROED ....... OF. ~ ... _ ...... •••••• REOIJ£Si 0' 1m OE( ~ AAI II 30 DIRiCTOR IfEOOIIOI " n.ECTlOHS KING "UHf .... WASH. , . • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 3 Environmental Checklist Twelve copies of the Environmental Checklist are provided in Exhibit C to this application. A copy of the Environmental Checklist is provided on the following pages. City of Renlon -Penni! Application Page 5 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all govemmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can . You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively . Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3· I • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging 2. Name of applicant: Barbee Mill Company 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Robert A. Cugini Barbee Mill Company 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98057 425-226-3900 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 9Z'd Street Snoqualmie, WA 90965 425-888-1905 425-785-1357 (cell) 4. Date checklist prepared: June 27, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. City of Renton -Planning/Building/Public Works Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Dredging will occur periodically, as necessary, for the duration of this permit beginning in the fall of 2005. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes and No. Additional plans and activities are certainly related to this proposal. Anticipate future activities include environmental cleanup, shoreline restoration, demolition of mill structures, and site development. Regardless of future plans this proposal to dredge the May Creek Delta is largely independent of future site activity since flood mitigation dredging needs to be done regardless of other site activity or development to protect the property from potential flooding cause by severe storm events. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The Barbee Mill Company has previously secured Grade and Fill Permits and attending environmental information for this continuing project in presentations and permit applications to the City of Renton. In addition, a Biological Evaluation/Assessment (Meridian Environmental) is in preparation for submittal to the U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE) and National Marine Fisheries. This environmental information builds upon previous biological survey work conducted by the Barbee Mill Company. A copy will be attached to this application as an Exhibit. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3-2 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, a 10 year Maintenance Dredging Permit is in preparation and will be submitted to the USACE. A copy of this permit application will be provided to the City of Renton. Additionally, future site development proposals affecting the property have or will be reviewed and considered by the City of Renton, Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fisheries . . 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Maintenance Dredging Permit -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Project Approval-Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Certification -Washington State Department of Ecology 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. 12. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 45 years. The purpose of this dredging is to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. Additionally, dredging is proposed to maintain navigational depths. No change in use is necessitated by this proposal. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 tf. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Barbee Mill Company is located on Lake Washington at 4300 Lake Washington Boulevard N., Renton, WA. From Interstate-405 take Exit 7 to Lake Washington Boulevard North. NWSEC:32 Township: 24 N Range: 05 E County: King B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (underline/highlight one); FLAT, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ _ The Barbee Mill Company is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The property is flat and gently sloping downward to the west. East of May Creek the land slopes upward to Lake Washington Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad right-of-way. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3·3 • • • May Creek Ddla -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 c. There are no steep slopes adjacent to the proposed dredge area. The steepest slopes are adjacent to Barbee Mill Company Office approximately 125 feet away. The approximate slope is 1:1.5 (v/h). What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime famnland. Soils at the Barbee Mill Company are fundamentally coarse sands and gravels with very little silt or clay content. Not coincidentally, these soils are very similar to those to be dredged at the mouth of May Creek. There is no farmland at this industrial site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is no history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity although severe storms (nooding) have periodically eroded banks of May Creek and damaged the mill property (see cover photograph). e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. The primary purpose for dredging of the May Creek Delta is to mitigate the effects of severe storms, which deposit coarse sands and gravels. As these materials accumulate, the risk of nooding mill property increases (see cover photograph of the effects of severe storms). Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No filling is proposed. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion will not occur as a result of this project. As stated above, the purpose for this project is to mitigate the erosional effects caused by storm events and to minimize the impacts of such storms on the Barbee Mill Company and any future development. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Dredging of the May Creek Delta will not increase the area of impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR a. This project is proposed to mitigate the impacts of erosion from the May Creek Valley on the Barbee Mill property.. Materials to be dredged are coarse sands and gravel with very little sand or silt content. As these materials are dredged, they will be placed in a bermed dewatering area, then moved off site or stored on-site for use as clean fill during development or environmental cleanup. In future years (after site development), dredged materials will be placed in a dredge scow, transported to Quendall Terminals (or other potential facility on Lake Washington) for off-loading and sale as clean fill. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Item 3 Environmental Checklist 3·4 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Uarbee Mill Company -2005 Heavy equipment for dredging will generate diesel exhaust emissions typical of large equipment. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Maintaining equipment in good operating order will minimize emissions to the air. 3, WATER a, Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it fiows into. 2) 3) This project is proposed to occur in Lake Washington at the delta of May Creek, which is a year-round stream. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans . Yes. The project will occur in Lake Washington. Plans are included in this application. Plans include site map, current (May 2005) delta contours, proposed dredge contours, and dredge cross-sections. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sands and gravel will be removed from Lake Washington at the May Creek Delta. Currently dredging is required every 3-4 years, but the deposition rate is dependent upon severe storm events, so dredging may occur on a more or less frequent basis as necessary. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 OO-year fiood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) No. The level of Lake Washington is maintained the U. S. Army corps of Engineers at the proposal area. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge . No. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3-5 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Ground water will not be withdrawn. Sediments will be allowed dewater and to infiltrate into the ground and eventually back to Lake Washington within the dewatering area(s) adjacent to the shoreline. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No industrial or domestic discharges will result from this project. c. Water Runoff (Including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. 2) Currently, May Creek flows into Lake Washington. During storm events, May Creek transports substantial quantities of erosional sediments. This project will not reduce this occurrence of severe storms, but will mitigate the depOSitional impacts at the May Creek Delta and reduce the impacts of flooding of the property. Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Dredging of clean coarse sands and gravels will not generate any waste materials that will enter ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The main purpose for conducting this project is to reduce, control or mitigate surface, runoff water impacts caused by continued upstream erosion from the May Creek Valley. Dewatering areas for dredged sediments will be bermed to prevent run-on or run-off of surface water. 4. PLANTS a. Check, circle, or identify types of vegetation found on the site: b. ~ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other (principally alder and maple) _v'_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other (principally fir, cedar) _v'_ shrubs (principally native plants, willow, rhododendrons,etc,) _v'_ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _v'_ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other (elodea, milfoil) _v'_ other types of vegetation What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 - 6 • • • ---------------------------------------------------- May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 c. None. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon and other threatened or endangered fish are known to on or near the site during seasonal migration runs. See Biological Evaluation/Assessment prepared and attached as an exhibit to this application. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Upon completion of this project, the shoreline adjacent to the May Creek Delta will be landscape with native vegetation to stabilize the shoreline, provide habitat for birds and animals, and to provide shading for fishes. This work will be completed in conjunction with site development as previously proposed. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle (Identify) any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawks, Eagles, Osprey, Jays, and other birds have been observed on or near the site. The Barbee Mill Company has set up a webcam to monitor the Osprey nest which resides on top of the sawdust collection bin. Mammals: Deer have been observed. Additionally, we have observed probable traces of beaver in the May Creek area. Fish: Bass, salmon, trout, freshwater clams, and crawfish have been observed along with numerous other small fishes (see Biological Evaluation/Assessment (Meridian Environmental) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon are known to be in Lake Washington and have been observed in May Creek, which is a salmon spawning creek. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain d. May Creek is a salmon spawning creek upstream from the Barbee Mill Company. Migratory birds also use Lake Washington as a stopover and winter rest. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The Barbee Mill Company will be conducting a number of measures to preserve or enhance wildlife. These measures are associated with other permits and proposals considered or to be considered by the City of Renton. These measures include sawmill demolition, shoreline restoration, environmental remediation, as well as, numerous measures associated with site development. For example, during site development the May Creek corridor through the property will be widened and substantially enhanced for wildlife and fishes. As mentioned in the Biological AssessmenVEvaluation, the shoreline immediately adjacent to the dredge area will be revegetated with native plants to provide additional shading and shoreline enhancement. 1tt:n1 3 -Envirunmental Checklist J -7 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2{){)5 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The primary energy need for this project will include fuel for construction equipment during dredging and material handling operations. No other energy needs are anticipated. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? list other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Proper maintenance and operation of equipment will minimize or control energy impacts. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. 1 ) Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Operation of heavy equipment poses a serious risk of injury to workers conducting the work. No exposure to toxic chemicals or hazardous waste is anticipated. Care will be maintained to minimize leaks or drips from heavy equipment. Petroleum sorbent boom will be readily available for deployment. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Special emergency services that might be required include ambulance or related emergency services for workers that may be injured. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The selected contractor for this work will be required to provide a spill prevention plan including containment I absorbent boom to control and to cleanup any leaks or spills of petroleum products. The barge-mounted dredge will arrive on site fueled and will not require refueling during the project. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise in the area will not affect dredging. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Item 3 -Environmental Checkli!'>t J·8 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 3) The noise of heavy equipment operation will occur during dredging operations. Dredging is anticipated to occur during weekday daylight hours in compliance with City of Renton noise limitations. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The largest source of noise is the dredge generator at the rear of the dredge. Noise generation will be directed away from shoreline residences. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Currently the Barbee Mill Company is a lumber mill. However, operations have decreased substantially in recent years .. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The site has numerous buildings and structures associated with lumber mill operations, including a saw mill, planer building, warehouses, dry kiln, etc. These structures will be demolished as site development occurs in the future (not a part of this proposal). d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. This project will not require or result in any structure demolition. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Currently the site is a non-conforming, industrial classification. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? COR g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? COR h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes and no. Although we are unaware of any specific "classification", the shoreline areas abut important shallow water habitat for fishes. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? ApproXimately 7 to 8 people will be present onsite during dredging operations. j . Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. Item 3 Environmental Checkiisl 3 - 9 • • • May Crl!ek Delta -Flood Mitigalion Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with eXisting and projected land uses and plans, if any: This proposal to mitigate the impacts of upstream erosion and deposition at the May Creek Delta (which contributes to flooding) is compatible with the protection of any eXisting and projected land use plans or development actions. 9. HOUSING 10. a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. No structures are proposed in conjunction with this proposal. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. Dredging is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 -10 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Lake Washington provides an abundance of water related recreational opportunities, including boating, fishing, swimming, etc. All of these opportunities are available in the immediate vicinity of the project area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No impacts on recreation will result as a consequence of dredging the May Creek Delta. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a . Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. The site was originally underwater prior to the lowering of Lake Washington early in the 1900's. There are no known landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Barbee Mill Company is located on Washington Boulevard N. near exit 7 of Interstate 405. Site plans are provided in the Master Application. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest transit stop is several miles away at the park-n-ride at exit 9 on Interstate 405. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 -II " • • • .----------------------------------- May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. No parking spaces will be eliminated or created by the project. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Dredging of coarse sand and gravel from the May Creek Delta may in future years may use water transport of dredged materials for oft-loading and eventual upland use/sale. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g . No vehicular trips will be generated by the completed project. However, during dredging operations as many as 150 to 200 truckloads of sand and gravel may be moved oftsite for sale/use over a 3 to 6 week time frame. A portion of the clean fill may be used on site during development and/or site cleanup activities. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Transportation impacts will be temporary and of short duration as sands and gravel are transported oft site for upland uses .. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No long-term, permanent need for public services is anticipated although short term needs for emergency medical services may be required if there is an accident associated with heavy equipment operations. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Workers will be directed to exercise all due caution to avoid accidents when operating heavy equipment. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle (Identify) utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Electricity, water, refuse service. telephone, and sanitary services are present on the site. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3·12 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barllee Mill C_any -2005 c. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full d!~sur~ ~ my p~ ~ , Proponent: ~ (~~ Name Printed: ~ Date: Cf-/9-o5 Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 ·13 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 4 Project Narrative Eleven copies of the Project Narrative are provided in Exhibit D and on the next several pages. City ofRenl0n -Permit Application Page 6 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 4.1 Introduction Item 4 Project Narrative The Barbee Mill Company is seeking a permit from the City of Renton to conduct flood mitigation dredging at the mouth of May Creek where it enters Lake Washington. Coarse sands and gravels are deposited in the delta as a consequence of upstream erosion. This deposition is most prevalent during severe storm events. Finer materials (silts and clays) are carried further into Lake Washington where they eventually settle out. The proposed dredge profile of the May Creek Delta covers an area of approximately 55,000 ft2 (see plans, Sheets 1-4). Historically, approximately 3,000-4,000 y3 of material accumulates in the delta area every 3 to 4 years. Deposition rates are not constant by any means and are driven by the weather and the amount of material eroded from the May Creek Valley. This upstream erosion is beyond the control of the Barbee Mill Company. The purpose of this project is to mitigate the impacts of sand and gravel deposition in the May Creek Delta as a consequence of upstream erosion. The Barbee Mill facility has largely discontinued operations although facility cleanup, demolition, shoreline restoration, and eventual site development activities are underway or planned for the ncar future. Conduct of flood mitigation dredging over the next ten years, as proposed in this permit application; will eventually be assumed by a homeowners association after site development. Nevertheless, the need to conduct flood mitigation dredging in the near future by the Barbee Mill Company and successors/assigns in the context of site development is essential to mitigate the potential for flooding under any scenario or sequence for continued operations, facility cleanup, demolition, shoreline restoration, and site development. 4.2 Land Use and Project Permitting May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging will require a dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Incorporated into the USACE permit is the consultation with NOAA and National Marine Fisheries Service for Endangered Species Act compliance. Locally, the Barbee Mill Company will requirc a permit for Special Pcrmit for Grade and Fill from the City of Renton. Additionally, the Barbce Mill Company will require a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit from the City of Renton. Finally, the Barbee Mill Company will require a Water Quality Certification from the Washington Department of Ecology . Required permits and approvals are summarized below: Item 4 -Project NarrativeJL&AI 4-1 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • Special Grade and Fill Pcmlit -City of Renton • Shoreline Substantial Development Pemit -City of Renton • Maintenance Dredging Pemit -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Hydraulic Project Approval-Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife • Water Quality Certification -Washington State Department of Ecology 4.3 Existing and Projected Zoning 4.4 4.5 The Barbee Mill Company facility is currently a non-confoming industrial use within COR zoning. Beyond the project area the site is largely developed as a lumber mill with the exception of the May Creek corridor. Immediately south is residential zoning. Over the next several months cleanup activities, structure demolition, and site development will occur. The non- confoming industrial zoning will ultimately disappear. Special Site Features The Barbee Mill Facility is a unique property on Lake Washington. The facility occupies over 22 acres and over 1500 feet of waterfront. On the eastern side of the mill property is May Creek. May Creek drains the May Valley Watershed and teminates at the southern end of the facility. East of May Creek, elevations increase toward Lake Washington Boulevard and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way. Most of the built up facility is built on land that gently slopes toward Lake Washington to the west. Soil Types and Drainages Soils at the Barbee Mill Company arc principally well-draining coarse sand and gravel typical of those to be dredged at the May Creek Delta. Historically, May Creek meandered across a larger area that was to eventually become land when Lake Washington was lowered. Currently, the facility is served by several stom drains that discharge to Lake Washington. These discharges will be substantially modified with future development, but will be unaffected by this project. 4.6 Proposed Development Although the current property has non-confoming industrial zoning, the site is currently proposed for development, consistent with COR zoning. This pemit application for dredging of the May Creek Delta is consistent with mitigating the impacts of flooding within an industrial context or within future development on the site. Dredging of the May Creek Delta to mitigate the impacts of flooding is required to help protect the property from potential flood damages, present and future. No plats are anticipated in conjunction with this proposal for dredging. Proposed uses of the property and scope of the proposed site development is considered elsewhere. 4.7 Facility Access Item 4 -Proj«1 NarrativelL&AI 4·2 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 4.8 4.9 Access to the property is currently by gated access from Lake Washington Blvd. N. The facility can also be reached from the water (Lake Washington). Completion of this project will not affect site access in any way. Other than removing coarse sand and gravel in the May Creek Delta, the facility will not be impacted. No off-site improvements (sidewalks, fire hydrants, etc) are proposed or reasonably related to this work. Total Estimated Construction Cost and Estimate Fair Market Value of the Proposed Project Dredging of the May Creek Delta is anticipated to occur at least three times over the next 10 years. Assuming that approximately 4,000 / of sand and gravel are dredged, and that dredging will require 8 to 10 days (using a small rig), then estimated project costs would range from $275,000 to $325,000. If dredging must be conducted more frequently, or if severe storm events substantially increase the amount of upstream erosion, the project cost would increase proportionately. Likewise, estimated coats do not include the cost of future regulatory or permitting changes that may be required. The cost of handling materials upland may be offset by sale of clean sand and gravel for off-site use as clean fill. The fair market value of the proposed project is more difficult to estimate. Estimated project costs are similar to an insurance premium against the potential risk of flooding. Estimated Dredge Quantities As mentioned earlier, dredging of the May Creek Delta will typically require dredging of 3,000 to 4,000 y3 every 3 to 4 years. However, because the accumulation of coarse sand and gravel at the mouth of May Crcek is largely dependent upon the weather (assuming that erosion of the May Valley will continue) and those severe storms that scour May Creek and discharge erosional materials into Lake Washington. Therefore, the frequency and quantity of material to be dredged can be highly variable and unpredictable. Nevertheless, the estimated dredge quantity for this project is at least 12,000 / over the next 10 years and may range as high as 40,000 y3 to maintain proposed dredge contours if severe storms result in upstream erosion and sediment deposition in the May Creek Delta. Rather than proposing estimated dredge quantities, this permit application seeks to maintain a dredge profile as provided in project plans (see Item 10 and Exhibit I). 4.10 Upland Vegetation Removal Completion of flood mitigation dredging at the May Creek Delta will not require removal of any upland vegetation or trees of any size or type. 4.11 Land to be Dedicated to the City of Renton No land will be dedicated to the City of Renton. Nevertheless, if the City of Renton wishes to assume responsibility for dredging of May Creek Delta, something could be worked out! 4.12 Proposed Number, Size or Range of Sizes of the New Lots and Density Item 4 -Project Narrative/L&AI 4·3 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Completion of dredging at the May Creek Delta will not create any new lots and/or increase density of any size or range. 4.13 Any Proposed Job Shacks, Sales Trailers, etc. No job shacks, sales trailers, and/or model homes will be necessary to complete flood mitigation dredging in the May Creek Delta. 4.14 Proposed Land Use Modifications The Barbee Mill Company is not requesting any land usc modifications for dredging in the May Creek Delta. However, because the cost of permitting is substantial, and the need for certainty in flood mitigation capability, the Barbee Mill Company is requesting a lO-year permit for flood mitigation dredging. No rezones, variances, or other conditional use permits are anticipated. 4.15 May Creek -Waterbody Flood mitigation dredging of the May Creek Delta, as shown in project plans, will occur in the water below the ordinary high water line (OHWL, 21.8 ft, USACE datum). The existing shoreline in the immediate area adjacent to the proposed flood mitigation dredging is modestly armored. In general, the shoreline of the facility has a mix of concrete bulkheads ncar the log haul-out area, and light shoreline armoring consisting of rock and some untreated piling. 4.16 Viewsheds along the Shoreline No residential or commercial units (current or future) will have any long-term obstructed views as a consequence of completing periodic flood mitigation dredging at the May Creek Delta. Views will be unavoidably impacted by dredging equipment during periodic dredging events over the course of this permit and future permits for flood mitigation dredging. Item 4 -Projl'C( Nllrrati\'clL&A1 4·4 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 5 Construction Mitigation Description Five copies of the Construction Mitigation Description are provided In Exhibit E. A copy IS reproduced on the following pages . City of Renton -Permit Application Page 7 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 5 Construction Mitigation Planning 5.1 Proposed Construction Dates/Hours 6.2 Flood Mitigation Dredging will occur in compliance with an anticipated HPA (Hydraulic Project Approval) permitted window in accordance with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements. Typically, dredging is anticipated to occur in late fall or early winter. Work will be timed to protect potential spawning salmon fisheries in Lake Washington and May Creek. Dredging will occur during daylight hours on weekdays to minimize noise to neighboring residences and businesses. Daylight hours are also more protective of protect worker safety. Additionally, daylight hours will better allow for visual observation of dredging and potential impacts. Proposed Hauling/Transportation routes/Preliminary Traffic Control Plan Coarse sand and gravel to be dredged from the May Creek Delta provides well-draining fill material. This fill material will be sold and trucked off-site or potentially used on-site during site development and/or cnvironmental cleanup activities. Any material to be hauled off-site will follow principally Interstate 405 as accessed from the Barbee Mill Company at Lake Washington Boulevard to Exit 7 on 1-405 during daylight hours. If trucked off site for sale/usc as elean fill, approximately 150 to 200 truckloads of sand and gravel will use 1-405 (during daylight hours) spread out over a 2 to 3 week period. This would result in approximately 10 to 15 trips a day. Nevertheless, the most likely scenario in the near term is that clean dredged material will be utilized on site as clean fill for remedial activities and development/construction uses. 6.3 Measures to be Implemented to Minimize Dust, Erosion, Mud Dust Abatement. Because sediments are wet, no special dust abatement measures arc required or neccssary during dredging and handling. Sedimcnts arc principally sand and gravel with a very low potential for dust generation, even when dry. A road sweeper will be used to pick up sand and gravel that may fall on paved areas of the facility to minimize the potential for dust generation. Item 5 -Construction Mitigation PlanninglL&AI 5 - I • • • Erosion Control. Flood mitigation dredging should not cause any in-water or upland erosional impacts. The Barbee Mill Company appreciates the irony that this flood mitigation dredging is necessary because of the lack of effective erosion control measures in the May Creek Drainage Basin upstream from the Barbee property. Placement of dredged materials behind berms in the dewatering areas will faciltate dewatering, increase ease of handling, and minimize overland flow of water and stormwater. Mud Control. Dredging operations shall be conducted at all times to minimize disturbance or si ltation to adjacent waters. Because dredged materials are principally sand and gravel, very little mud will be generated or encountered during the project. Control measures include placement of wet sediments behind berms for dewatering to minimize off-site transport impacts. In the event of excessive turbidity, fish distress, fish kill, or other water quality problem, then dredging operations will be stopped until the problem can be corrected. Historically, dredging of coarse sand and gravel from May Creek Delta does not generate any mud that will end up on the site or off-site, if transported. Noise Control. Dredging will occur during daylight hours to minimize noise to neighboring businesses and residences. Some temporary increase in noise is unavoidable from the operation of loaders, trucks and dredging equipment. Noise levels will approximate those generated by equipment operated at the sawmill by Barbee Mill Company. Other Noxious Characteristics. Sediments have been previously sampled and tested for potential contamination. Test results indicate that sediments are clean sand and gravel. No sediment quality criteria have been exceeded, and sediments present no substantial environmental threat to human health or the environment. Materials to be dredged are principally coarse sand and gravel. Item 5 -Construction Mitigalion Planoing/L&AI 5·2 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 6 List of Surrounding Property Owners Two copies of a signed and notarized City of Renton Development Services Division "List of Surrounding Property Owners" form are provided in Exhibit F. A copy is provided on the following pages. City of Renton -Permit Applicalion Page 8 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300-FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PROJECTNAME: __ ~M~A~Y~C~R=E=E~K~D~E=L~TA~-wFL~O~O~D~M~IT~IG~A~TI~O~N~D~R~E~D~G~I~N~G~ ____________ _ APPLICATION NO: ___________________________________________________ _ The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL Berry, Lana McLaughlin Properties Youngblood, Jon C. Wywrot, Lois R. Igelmund, Darrell & Linda Hutton, Ronald Luger, Therese Igelmund, Darrell & Linda Gurel, Mehmet Gibson, Lance Smith, Taryn Item 7 -List of Property Owners/L&AI 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -Al0l Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -AI 02 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -Al03 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -Al04 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A201 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A202 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A203 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A204 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -BIOI Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -Bl02 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -Bl03 Renton, WA 98056 NUMBER 2212000010 2212000020 2212000030 2212000040 2212000050 2212000060 2212000070 2212000080 2212000090 2212000100 2212000110 7 - I May Creek De1ta-Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Kelly, Kimberly Ann 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B104 2212000120 Renton, WA 98056 Pak, Sung Hyun 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B201 2212000130 Renton, WA 98056 Gurel, Mehmet 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B101 2212000140 Renton, WA 98056 Carl, Kenneth 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B203 2212000150 Renton, WA 98056 Robinson, Laura Anne 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B204 2212000160 Renton, WA 98056 Jelinek, Jane M. 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C101 2212000170 Renton, WA 98056 Emst, Lee 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C102 2212000180 Renton, WA 98056 Foster Rich, Inc. 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C103 2212000190 • Renton, WA 98056 Stanich, Linda 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C104 2212000200 Renton, WA 98056 Good, Bruno & Ann 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C201 2212000210 Renton, WA 98056 Wallace Holdings, LLC 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C202 2212000220 Renton, WA 98056 Egenes, Oane 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C203 2212000230 Renton, WA 98056 Muscat, James & Jane 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C204 2212000240 Renton, WA 98056 Lee, Tae 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0101 2212000250 Renton, WA 98056 Newing, Andrew 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0102 2212000260 Renton, WA 98056 Allen, Colleen 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0103 2212000270 Renton, WA 98056 • Item 7 -List of Property Owners 7 -'2 May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Wagner, Beverly 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0104 2212000280 Renton, WA 98056 Boots, Sherice 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0201 2212000290 Renton, WA 98056 Houser, Paul & Amy 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0202 2212000300 Renton, WA 98056 Nagamine, Akira & Hideko 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -D203 2212000310 Renton, WA 98056 Brace, Jeanette 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -D204 2212000320 Renton, WA 98056 Ouendall Terminals 4503 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 2924059002 Renton, WA 98056 Burlington Northem Sante Fe 1741 4th Ave. S. 2924059005 Seattle, WA 98134 Barbee Forest Products 4300 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 3224059034 Renton, WA 98056 • Hicks, Gardner W. 4008 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 3224059036 Renton, WA 98056 Lange, Robert H. 4017 Park Ave. N. 3224059039 Renton, WA 98056 Port Ouendall Company 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 3224059049 Renton, WA 98056 Thompson, Neil 4016 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 3224059050 Renton, WA 98056 Helina, Patricia 4004 N 40th SI. 3224059058 Renton, WA 98056 Fawcett, Clarissa 4008 Meadow Ave. N. 3224059081 RENTON WA 98056 Boydston, Tony 3901 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 3342700070 Renton, WA 98056 Zilmer, Mark & Rosemary 3837 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 3342700080 Renton, WA 98056 Hunt, Timothy & Jen 1129 N. 40th SI. 3342700415 • Renton, WA 98056 Item 7 -List of Propeny O\'\Tlers 7·3 • • • May Creek Della -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Hunt, Thomas & Caryl Bruno, Nicoli & Sarah 1125 N. 40th SI. Renton, WA 98056 3404 Burnett Ave. N. Renton, WA 98056 Applicant Certification 3342700425 3342700427 I, __ -"R" . ...,M"'i"'ch"'a"'e"-I ... L"'lo<Xv"-d ______ hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: Title Company Records King County Assessors Records Signed _____________ _ Date (Applicant) NOTARY AnESTED: Subscribed and swom before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at on the __ day of , 20 __ . Signed ________________ _ (Notary Public) "''''For City of Renton Use"''' CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, _________ , hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (City Employee) each listed property owner on ______ _ Signed, _____________ _ Date: ________ _ NOTARY A nEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at on the day of ,20 __ . Si ned Item 7 -Li$\ of Properly Owners 7-4 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 7 Mailing Labels Two sets of self-adhesive mailing labels are provided in Exhibit G. A copy follows this page. City of Renton -I'ennit Application Page 9 Berry, Lana 2212000010 Smith, Taryn 22120001 \0 • 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A101 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -BI03 Renton, WA 98056 Mclaughlin Properties 2212000020 Kelly, Kimberly Ann 2212000120 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A102 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -BI04 Renton, W A 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Youngblood, Jon C. 2212000030 P.al<, Sung Hyun 2212000130 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -AI03 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B201 Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Wywrot, Lois R. 2212000040 Gurel, Mehmet 2212000140 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -AI04 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -BIOI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Jgelmund. Darrell & Linda 2212000050 Carl, Kenneth 2212000150 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A201 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B203 • Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Hutton, Ronald 2212000060 Robinson, Laura Anne 2212000160 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A202 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B204 Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Luger, Therese 2212000070 Jelinek, Jane M. 2212000170 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A203 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -CIOI Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Igelmund, Darrell & Linda 2212000080 Ernst, Lee 2212000180 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A204 4\01 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -CI02 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, W A 98056 • • • • Gurel, Mehmet 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. BIOI Renton, W A 98056 2212000090 Gibson, Lance 2212000100 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -BI02 Renton, W A 98056 Good, Bruno & Ann 2212000210 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C201 Renton, W A 98056 Wallace Holdings, LLC 2212000220 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C202 Renton, W A 98056 Egenes, Dane 2212000230 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C203 Renton, W A 98056 Muscat, James & Jane 2212000240 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C204 Renton, W A 98056 Lee, Tae 2212000250 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -DIOI Renton, W A 98056 Newing, Andrew 2212000260 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -D102 Renton, W A 98056 Foster Rich, Inc. 2212000 190 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -CI03 Renton, W A 98056 Stonich, Linda 2212000200 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -CI04 Renton, WA 98056 Nagamine, Akira & Hideko 2212000310 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -D203 Renton, WA 98056 Brace, Jeanette 2212000320 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -D204 Renton, W A 98056 Quendall Tenninals 4503 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 Burlington Northern Sante Fe 1741 4th Ave. S. Seattle, W A 98134 Barbee Forest Products 4300 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Hicks, Gardner W. 4008 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 2924059002 2924059005 3224059034 3224059036 • • • Allen, Colleen 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0103 . Renton, W A 98056 2212000270 Wagner, Beverly 2212000280 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0104 Renton, WA 98056 Boots, Sherice 2212000290 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0201 Renton, WA 98056 Houser, Paul & Amy 2212000300 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0202. Renton, WA 98056 Fawcett, Clarissa 4008 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, W A 98056 Boydston, Tony 3901 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Zilmer, Mark & Rosemary 3837 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 Hunt, Timothy & Jen 1129 N. 40th St. Renton, W A 98056 3224059081 3342700070 3342700080 3342700415 Lange, Robert H. 4017 Park Ave. N. Renton, WA 98056 Port QuendaIl Company 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Thompson, Neil 4016 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Helin&, Patricia 4004 N 40th St. Renton, W A 98056 HWlt, Thomas & Caryl 1125 N. 40th St. Renton, W A 98056 Bruno, Nicoli & Sarah 3404 Burnett Ave. N. Renton, W A 98056 . 3224059039 3224059049 3224059050 3224059058 3342700425 3342700427 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 A check will be made out to the City of Renton for applicable fees. City of Renton -Permit Application itemS Fees Page 10 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 9 Neighborhood Detail Map Twelve copies of a neighborhood detail map are provided in Exhibit H. A reduced copy is provided on the following page. City of Renlon -Permit Application Page II .1 • • MAY CREEK DELTA FLOOD MITIGATION DREDGING Barbee Mill Lake Washington NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP Prepared by L&AI 9/25/05 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 10 Site Dredging/Grading Plans Twelve copies of fully-dimensioned plan sheets are provided in Exhibit I. Reduced copies are provided in following pages. Ciry of Renton -Permit Application Page 12 • • • The May Creek Delta receives depositional coarse sand, gravel and rounded rock from the May Creek Valley during severe storm events. Finer sands and silts are typically carried past the delta area to settle our further into Lake Washington. The Barbee Mill Company is requesting a 10 year Maintenace Dredging permit to mitigate the impacts caused by flooding of May Creek; to protect property along May Creek; and to maintain navigational depths. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington Adjooconl Propefty o..no... (11 ___ """' __ • __ '_lJQunIoI __ ,,"_-, __ _ ,j"--... "" .. -... _ ... ...,,. ~17N 31.'1T, ~122W 12'29' -.~ __ r-N/32201CS PROJECT LOCATION IN: Lake Washington APPUCATION BY Bart>ee Mill Company AT: 4300 lake Washington Blvd. N. 43CD lake Washington Blvd. N King County, Renton, WA 98056 Rerton,. WA 98Q56 SHEET 1 of4 Lake Washington + -I- "~ + + , T + . ""', ' ,/ .~.l. Vii. . '''-., Formero.rw~ ~wateringArea . .+ .. + May Creek Delta _ ......... Notes: Existi1g CDI'III:lI.r dMltkrS as rI Nay, 200S (SItrI!d to cMIge wit! SUm e¥IJIIS). ExI5tiIg Cooton wi! ¥II)' fran '1M toyelf ~~ IIIstcnn MIlts (~!'I'Iten5tt) 1hatdQX\Sl S2IId In! poe ertlde:I frun III!! IV1lmk valey. Dredge a"'9 will Rille ocrasiJnaI <ftd!II"V il frmt d It'll! bIInJs;e to rnai1tail ~ depths nI auss. Proposed ctedge eIMtkrIs I CCII'ItoIIs shown (1'1 Shed 3 fA 4. L* EIMtlon mantaned by' USACE. ~ Hioi1 Water IZIe (C»fNL) = 21.8 rm Dredge dMtb'Is II'Id locations based en NAD{83. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington DATUM: USAa! I Se!ItHo:! DIstI1ct 8llse MlIp: OTAK (IOrkland, WA) lAtItude: '1m )1' 40", t.ongIl1KIe 122W 12 '29" SectIon TO'IYn$hIp~: PNt 32 2-4 05 PIIllEO l.OCAllON IN: L* wastWIgtcn AT: 4JOOIaIo2~BMl.N. KiIg CCuty, FIf:ntlJl, WA 98056 N'OUCAllOI< BY ....... """'" 4300 I..1kI! ~ BMl. N ~WA~ rbee Mill I ''''''" 1= • • '" EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATIONS SHEET 2of4 ~ =::!J RMI!d: + + + Lake Washington + + + • + ~~+u~" ~~ "Lt- - + + NOTES: + SeeShM4Jor~A-A',IHI·.C-C May Creek Delta + 1\oo~lnnlf!_. DIIdgiIIQ_II'Itr"~,,,_,<hdge!IaIWlDboorlOllcll!dllQue1ddT""""'kr18le/llSe.dIen" ~_nCOllrselllfldnlJMl..:IrlIIdY_. ~l,OOClD\OIXI~lDbeohdg!dwrrrl-4yoMdi!pIrd'Ig .. tIrm~IOId~. ~lDbo~wIIIll~IIDI!tfr\nl'bor9flTU.lteclan. NOIIIXtI*Ia..tlbeIlbold1n1lle_, Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington DAM: USACE!seattIe Oistrict BasI! Mi4l: OTAIe (KJ1dand. WA) l.dtI:ie: ~7N )1' 40", ~ 122W U 7!!f Secticr1TOIM'I5hIpP.ange: PNt32H05 PROJECT I..OCATlON IN: !.akeWasl:1i9m AT: <000 IiIkl! Wi51i91Jl Sha. N. Kil9 CCuty, R8Ib;rl, WA 9IlQ56 ",,",,-,IDI BY ..... MII""""" 'l3OO L*~ BIId. N RertJ;rl,WA 91!1056 5OIf(ll:) • • .. PROPOSED DREDGING CONTOURS SHEET 3 of 4 ~ ~ ~ 1iMej: 6/5If.6 • • Cross-Sections A-A', 8-8', and C-C' (See sheet 3 of 4) ~ ,.g ~ .A Oewetemglva A' -"'=1 ----:: 6 2hlll ""0 •• ,, ... Cross-Section A-A' I\ln5 north to sou:n (see Sheet J). Maxlm~ dreDge li!pth Is El -10'. @.: _--~-!lf1 """:1 ~ . "'-YQ;;:DeL B' Cross-Se:t:lon 8-S' runs wd to east through May Creek Delta (see Sheet J). Maximum dredge depth ~ a· 10'. @ C ~"' -, __ c 1 ---_>OJ, S #., o§i _ • 1 ~ ICIY-OIaDlll 2 s; "~_ .1IaIIheuJe Cross-Section c-C' runs north to south (seI! Sheet 3). Maximum dredge depth Is El· 10'. Maximum dewatering area depth shown Is a = 20' (will depend on Lilla!! Washington Elevation) Scale 0' 25' SO' ,,. 200' NOTES: Slopes willi ... delta to be!ftdged no ~1tI51 2:11k1pe to rrirWT'oblI! bIroIr. eroskln Dewaterl'lll .....::.) ~ III El _ 2f1 (~I_, dI!pendIng on I.JIIz f~). ,. portlon ~ ITIIItI!riIII to be UIIIld Ibr berm A'ound cIew8IIernCI_ DewIItemg ";5) to be Il!b.Imed to or'QNI onIltion _ ~ I.p:lI1 ampIIltIon ~_UIlewllbedllcontlnue:lwml_~{Man-,-s). Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington DAltJM: USACE I Se/ltt!e DistrICl Base Mllp: OTAK (Kirtland, WA) Latitude: 47N 31' 40". Longituoo t22W 12 '29" Semon Township Range: ~ 32 24 OS PROJECT LOCA nON IN', lake Wash 'Ington AT: 4300 lake Washington Blvd. N. lOng County, Renton, WA 98056 APPLICA nON BY Barbee Mill COmpany 4300 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, WA 98056 DREDGE AREA CROSS-SECITONS «XY SHEET 4of4 • ~ =::!J Revision 6/9/05 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Eleven copies of the Rehabilitation Plan are provided in Exhibit J. Item 11 Rehabilitation Plan The proposed project is for flood mitigation dredging. Existing upland landscape will not be altered. No trees will be removed, and no structures will result in any floor plans or architectural elevations. Upon completion of proposed dredging, the shoreline will be restored to pre-dredge conditions. A copy of the Rehabilitation Plan follows this page. i City of Renton -Pcmlit Application Page 13 • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 11 Project Area Rehabilitation Planning Flood Mitigation Dredging in the May Creek Delta will have remarkably little upland impact on the Barbee Mill Company or on future homeowners when built out. No trees will be removed, and no structures are planned that will result in any floor plans or architectural elevations. 12.1 Dewatering Area Rehabilitation There are two proposed dewatering areas adjacent to thc May Creek Dredge Area as shown in project Plans (see Sheet 3 of 4). As dredge materials are taken from the May Creek Delta, they will be placed in one of two proposed dewatering areas. The last materials to be dredged from the May Creek Delta will remain in place and the area( s) will be graded to pre-dredge conditions. Once site development is substantially complete, the northern area adjacent to the shoreline may not be available for sediment dewatering. In this circumstance, only temporary Storage/Dewatering Area 2 will be utilized. • 12.2 Shoreline Rehabilitation/Shading • As noted in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation (Item 14), the existing shoreline areas adjacent to the May Creek Delta will be planted with native plants to provide additional shading for fishes and to help stabilize the shoreline. In major part, this work is considered in overall development plans for the Barbee Mill Site. Shoreline native plantings will be planted and maintained for the duration of the permit. Essentially, a buffer area at least ten feet wide, adjacent to the dredge area shoreline of the May Creek Delta will be planted to stabilize the shoreline and provide additional shading for fishes. The planting plan will follow planting protocols similar to those established for the Cugini Dock. Project. The north shore of the May Creek Delta (Area A) comprises an area of approximately 1,800 ft2 Thc south shore of the May Creek Delta comprises an arca of approximately 2,400 ft2 as shown in the figure on the next page. A native plant list and anticipated typical plant type/quantity is provided in the following table. The conceptual planting scheme can be summarized as follows: \ (I) Taller native shrubs and trees will be planted at the east ends of both Areas A & B (2) Shorter native shrubs and ground covers will be planted toward the west-end of the peninsulas to maintain viewsheds. (3) Willows will predominate on the southern shoreline adjacent to the delta to provide maximum shading impact for fishes. (4) Habitat areas will be 10 to 12 feet wide, as measured from the OHWL. (5) If there is a conflict between this plan and planned habitat areas along the shoreline under existing site development plans, then site development plans will take precedent. Item II -Rehabilitation PlanninglL&AI II - 1 • • • + May Creek Delta "'" OJ -1-__ ===.1- ,-' --.. ;l Shoreline Habitat Area B -2,400 sf Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging· May Creek Delta I lake Washington PROJECT LOCAnON Barbee Mill Company , , Shoreline Habitat AreiiA -1,800 sf I fJ1JiJg~ // , (' / / , , , / --~ , , , , , , , I , , , , , IN: liIke Washlnotoo AT: 4300 lake Washlr.gton Blvd. N. King County, Renton, WA 98056 Shoreline Planting Plan SHEET 1 of 1 , , , , , I / , , ;' ------------- • Area A 1,800 Area B 2,700 Shoreline Plant Ust sf sf Total Botanical Name Common Name Size Est. Quan. Esl. Quan. Quanity Trees Comus Nuttal/ii Pacific Dogwood 5 gal 4 6 10 Acer Circintum Vine Maple 5gal 6 12 18 Pinus Contorta Shore Pine 109al 2 4 6 Willows Salix hookeriana Hooker's Willow Cutting 16 48 64 Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow Cutting 16 48 64 Salix sitchensis Sitka Williow Cutting 16 48 64. Shrubs Amelancher alnito/a Serviceberry 4" pots 6 9 15 Comus sto/onitolia Red Twig Dogwood 1 gal 12 24 36 Sambucus racemosa Red Elderberry bare root 18 32 50 Rosa Nootka Nootka Rose bare root 16 32 48 Rhododendron Macroe.h~."um Pacific Rhodendron 5 gal 4 6 10 Groundcovers Carex obnupta Slough Sedge 4" pots 24 24 48 Gaultheria shal/on Salal 4" pots 24 24 48 • Iris Tenax Native Iris 1 gal 24 24 48 Juncus acuminatus Tapered Rush bare root 48 64 112 Juncus ensitolius Dagger Leaf Rush bare root 48 64 112 Glyceria elata Tall Mannagrass seed 100 100 200 Descrie.tioniConcee.t Area Habitat Area A 1,800 fi2 Greater height trees and shrubs at mouth of creek Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Predominately shrubs and groundcovers at end of peninsula Provides some shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Habitat Area B 2,700 tf Predominately willows and taller shrubs/trees near bridge to west Provide shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Willow density increase to east • • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 12 Tree Cutting/Land Clearing (Tree Inventory) Plan Floor Plans/Architectural Elevations This project is for flood mitigation dredging. Existing upland landscape will not be altered. No trees will be removed, and no structures will be constructed that will result in any floor plans or architectural elevations. I Ciry of R~nton -Pemlit Application Pagt: 14 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 13 Wetland Report / Delineation Although this project will occur in the waters of Lake Washington, completion of this work will not impact, alter, or decrease the size of any wetlands on the subject property or within 100 feet of the subject property. City of Renton -Permit Application Page 15 • • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 Item 14 Habitat Data Report A Biological Evaluation! Assessment has been prepared by Meridian Environmental. Twelve copies of this report are provided in Exhibit K A copy of this report follows this page. City of Renton -Pemlil Application Page 16 • • • May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Biological Assessment Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prepared by Seattle, Washington July 28, 2005 Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 A. PROJECT AND FEDERAL ACTION HISTORY .................................... .3 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ACTION AREA ............ 3 A. FEDERAL ACTION AND LEGAL AUTHORlTY ................................... 3 B. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ................................................ 4 C. PROJECT DESCRlPTION ......................................................................... .4 Timing and Duration of Work .............................................................................. 6 Work Zone and Sediment Attributes .................................................................... 6 Sediment Disposal ................................................................................................ 7 Conservation Measures to Limit Turbidity ........................................................... 8 Conservation Measures to Enhance Salmonid Habitat.. ....................................... 8 D. PROJECT MONITORING ........................................................................ 1 0 Project Environment~1 Permit Requirements ..................................................... 10 Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions .................................................... 10 E. PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA DEFINED ............................... 1 0 lII. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ......................................... .11 • A. SPECIES LISTS FROM THE SERVICES (NOAA FISHERlES AND USFWS) ..................................................................................................... 11 Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DPS ................................................... II Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH ................ 12 B. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES ................................................................... 13 Chinook Salmon ................................................................................................. 13 Bull Trout... ......................................................................................................... IS Coho Salmon ....................................................................................................... IS Bald Eagle ........................................................................................................... IS IV. ENVIRONMENT AL BASELINE ......................................................................... IS A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND PROJECT AREA ....... IS Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington) ............................................... IS Project Area (May Creek Delta) ......................................................................... IS B. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE MATRIX ............................................ IS Water Temperature ............................................................................................. IS SedimentlTurbidity ............................................................................................. IS Chemical ContaminationlNutrients .................................................................... IS Physical Barriers ................................................................................................. IS Substrate .............................................................................................................. IS Large Woody Debris ........................................................................................... IS Pool Frequency/Quality ...................................................................................... IS • Off-channel Habitat ............................................................................................ IS Refugia ................................................................................................................ IS July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page i K:\Projects\BilrOee WI BA 2005\2005 SA or.lftsldlllfl two\May Creek BA 072605.000:.: Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • Width/Depth Ratio .............................................................................................. 15 Streambank Condition ........................................................................................ 15 Floodplain Connectivity ..................................................................................... 15 Change in Peak/Base Flows ................................................................................ 15 Increase in Drainage Network ............................................................................ 15 Road Density and Location ................................................................................. 15 Disturbance History ............................................................................................ 15 Riparian Reserves ............................................................................................... 15 Population Size ................................................................................................... 15 Growth and Survival ........................................................................................... 15 Life History Diversity and Isolation ................................................................... 15 Persistence and Genetic Integrity ....................................................................... 15 V. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON SALMONIDS ................................................. 15 A. DIRECT EFFECTS ................................................................................... 15 Direct Effects on Salmonids ................................................................................ 15 Direct Effects on Habitat .................................................................................... 15 Direct Effects on Water Quality ........................................................................ .15 Direct Effects on Bald Eagles ............................................................................. 15 B. INDIRECT EFFECTS ............................................................................... 15 C. EFFECTS FROM INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED ACTIONS .................................................................................................. 15 • D. EFFECTS FROM ONGOING PROJECT ACTIVITIES ......................... .15 E. DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE WOULD BE AFFECTED ......................................................................... 15 F. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................................... 15 VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ....................................................................................................... 15 VII. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT .............................................................................. 15 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... 15 B. APPROPRIATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN(S) ...................... 15 C. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................. 15 D. PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES ......................................... 15 E. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 15 VIII. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 15 • July 28, 2005 Biological Assessment -Page ii K:lProjedslBaroee 1.4111 SA 2005\2005 BAdraftsldraft hwolMay Creek SA 072805.ooc • • • -------------------------------- Meridian Environmental, Inc . May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure II. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9 . July 28, 2005 LIST OF FIGURES May Creek delta flood mitigation dredging project site and action area ............................................................................................................... 2 Flood damage to Barbee Mill lands in 1990 due to May Creek flooding ........................................................................................................ 5 Proposed juvenile Chinook salmon habitat enhancement along the May Creek delta margin ............................................................................... 9 Current condition of May Creek delta habitat enhancement area (picture taken at or near ordinary high water level of2I.8 feet msl) ........... 9 May Creek delta 2005 SCUBNsnorkcl survey transect locations ............ 15 Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet (eastern end of transect 4) located adjacent to the existing dock structure (2005 SCUBA survey) ......................................................................................... 15 Current May Creek delta riparian condition (habitat enhancement area) ............................................................................................................ 15 Curly-leaf pondweed, Elodea canadensi, and Eurasian milfoil observed along transect 9 (2005 SCUBA survey) ..................................... 15 Riprap shoreline located along the May Creek delta (habitat enhancement area) ..................................................................................... 15 Riprap cobble substrate along transect 3 (2005 SCUBA survey) ............. .l5 Silt substrate along transect 9 at a depth ofapproximatcly 15 feet (2005 SCUBA survey) ............................................................................... 15 LIST OF TABLES Summary of previous ESA dredging Consultations .................................... 3 Results from 1999 May Creek delta sediment testing ................................. 6 Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson- Stevens Act (MSA) Species ....................................................................... 12 Lake Washington basin Chinook salmon stock recent productivity, status, and trends ........................................................................................ 15 Summary of April 9, 2005 SCUBA survey results within the proposed project area ................................................................................. 15 Summary of May 6, 2005 snorkel survey results within the proposed project area .............................................................................. , .. 15 Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental baseline on relevant indicators ........................................... 15 Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (II days of sampling over the dredging period) .............................................. 15 Analysis of proposed project effects on the environmental baseline ......... 15 K:\PlOJ$C!5lBarbee Mill BA 2005I2005 SA dfCIfls'vJraft two\May Creel<; SA 012S05.!1Qc Biological Assessment -Page iii ., Meridian Environmental, Inc. May Creek Delta Flood Mitigation Dredging • ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS • • AR BRT dbh DPS EFH ESA ESU FA FMO GMA MSA NPF NR NTU PCEs PFC PFMC specp SR TRT UGB UR USFWS WDF WDFW WDG July 28, 2005 at risk Biological Review Team diameter at breast height distinct population segment essential fish habitat Endangered Species Act evolutionarily significant unit functioning appropriately foraging, migrating and overwintering Growth Management Act Magnuson-Stevens Act not properly functioning not to reduce or retard nephelometric turbidity unit primary constituent elements properly functioning condition Pacific Fisheries Management Council spill prevention control and countermeasure plan State Route Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team urban growth boundary unacceptable risk U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Department of Fisheries Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Washington Department of Game K:lProjedslBartlee M,n BA 200512005 SA drans\draft twoIMay Creak SA 072605_doc Biological Assessment -Page iv Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92nd Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 tel: 425-888-1905 eml: rml@centurytel.net ( contact) Updated: 03/17/06 PARTIES OF RECORD MAY CREEK/LAKE WA DREDGING LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF Barbee Mill Company Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 tel: 425-226-3900 (owner / applicant) John Hannsen 4005 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: 425-430-1498 (party of record) (Page 1 of d ~ I -,' f--· ,., = t:' " -.' ' .. ::~ " , ". .;" ;.l.. " , ' '", , '" " . , ::i v> ,~ '-, " '~ '-;-~ " ',- i ' ,,' :> '<. ,-, ' " , " ;r: " , " ~ , ~, '-, c:" , , " :::t ~ -= ~":. r , (,,' ,"""",' , .. '~ = " .. . ;' :.:: " >E , "> " " -' ~~ -~, -:.!. , , " ~ , .< ~, .. .~., Berry, Lana 22120000 I 0 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A101 Smith, Taryn 2212000110 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -BI03 Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 McLaughlin Properties 2212000020 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -AI02 Renton, W A 98056 Kelly, Kimberly Ann 2212000120 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -BI04 Renton, W A 98056 Youngblood, Jon C. 2212000030 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A103 Renton, W A 98056 Pak, Sung Hyun 2212000130 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -8201 Renton, W A 98056 Wywrol, Lois R. 2212000040 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -AI04 Renton, W A 98056 Gurel, Mehmet , 2212000140 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -BIOI Renton, WA 98055 Igelmund, Dmell & Linda 2212000050 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A201 Renton, W A 98056 Carl, Kenneth 2212000 ISO 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B203 Renton, W A 98056 Hutton, Ronald 2212000060 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A202 Renton, W A 98056 Robinson, Laura 1\nf:" 22120fl0 j SO 4101 Lake Washington 3lvd. N. -B201) Renton, W A 98056 Luger, Therese 2212000070 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A203 Renton, W A 98056 Jelinek, Jane M. 2212000170 4101 Lake Wash:ngtonBlvd. N. -CIOI Renton, W A 98056 Igelmund, Darrell & Linda 2212000080 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A204 Renton, W A 98056 Er:Jst, Lee 2212000180 4101 Lake WashingJ:~n Ejvd. N. -CI02 Renton, W A 98056 Gurel, Mehmet 2212000090 Foster Rich, Inc. 2212000 J')O 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. BIOI 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C103 Renton, W A 98056 ' Renton, W A 98056 Gibson, Lance 2212000100 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B102 Stonich, Linda 2212000200 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -CJ04 Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Good, Bruno & Ann 2212000210 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C201 Nagamine, Akira & Hideko 2212000310 4101 Lake Washington Blva. N. -0203 Renton, W A 98056 Rentcl'., W A 98056 Wallace Holdings, LLC 2212000220 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C202 Brace, Jeanette 2212000320 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0204 Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Egenes, Dane 2212000230 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C203 Quendal! Terminals 2924059002 4503 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 Renton, W A 98056 Muscat, James & Jane 22 I 20002t,0 Burlington Northern Sante Fe 2924059005 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C204 174: 4th Ave. S. Renton, W A 98056 Seattle, W A 98134 Lee, Tae 2212000250 Barbee Forest Products 3224059034 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0101 4300 Lake Washbgton Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Pc~nton, W A 98056 Newing, Andrew 2212000260 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -Dl02 Hicks, Gardner W. 322405903(5 4008 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Ren:on, WA 98055 Allen, Colleen 2212000270 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0103 Renton, W A 98056 Wagner, Beverly 2212000280 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0104 Renton, W A 98056 Boots, Sherice 2212000290 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0201 Renton, W A 98056 Houser, Paul & Amy 2212000300 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0202 Renton, W A 98056 Fawcett, Clarissa 3224059081 4008 Meadow Ave. N. Renton, W A 98056 Boydston, Tony 3901 Lake Washington Blvd. N. 3342700070 Renton, W A 98056 Zilmer, Mark & Rosemary 3837 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Hunt, Timothy & Jen 1129 N. 40th St. Renton, W A 98056 3342700080 3342700415 Lange, Robert E. 4017 Park Ave. N. Renton, W A 98056 Port Quendall Company 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Thompson, Neil 4016 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, W A 98056 Helina, Patricia 4004 N 40th St. Renton, W A 98056 Hunt, Thomas & Caryl 1125 N. 40th St. Renton, W A 98056 Bruno, Nicoli & Sara.'t 3404 Burnett Ave. N. Renton, W A 98056 3224059039 3224059049 3224059050 3224059058 3342700425 3342700427 MAY CREEK DELTA FLOOD MITIGATION DREDGING '" ...... ."0 .' .:."j. . " .... -..... . ". .... ;' ,'::' • >'. , , , .:7' 'I Exit 7 1 i " ,. I l'r-=:----:-::-=-~,--, ,/ I Quendall Terminals 1 Zoning = COR 1 '," 'I Zoning = COR 1 . ....1' ~y i l::' '1.1 '1'1 '{: Y. .~ . 00 00lf[M] ®lr ~';i -NL 4JI- Lake Washington \1, ,. .> , . .1 ' Project-·· Area " \-.~ . . / "-. ""-. . , ,r:1 Z"'o"'ni-ng-=-=-R-:081 _. C --'_. @> ~ ~ E:::. (§ @b SCALE -~ '-1...' lr';' :-.:;:, . -. ,~ ".' I : I f 1 I , . ,j, .. ,--, c. 1000' . NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP Prepared by L&AI 8/18/05 . • ----------------------------------------.-------------.• , .. \., JAN·31. RECeIVED The May Creek Delta receives depositional coarse sand, gravel and rounded rock from the May Creek Valley during severe storm events. Finer sands and silts are typically carried past the delta area to settle our further into Lake Washington. The Barbee Mill Company is requesting a 10 year Maintenace Dredging permit to mitigate the impacts caused by flooding of May Creek; to protect property along May Creek; and to maintain navigational depths. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington MJ.oonl ","open, Ow,,,, ... ; ",.".~ ....... -,.-, ... -... " __ 1 _____ ..... _ ... _ ,-.----_ .. ,,., .. , ... , --... .. ~ 41N n «T". 11 • .,.........,1llN 1Z '8 -"l~~_ IHJ32Z41z. PROJECT lOCATION IN: lake W .. "hington APPLICATION BY Barbee Mill Company Al, 4300 '"ke Wa!ihm9ton Blvd. N. 43CO Lake Washington Blvd. N KlIlg CouUly, Henion. WA !.l8Q5h Renton. WA 90056 SHEET 1 of 4 • '.~Ji. v; '-'. . / ."~' / (-..,' "", rbee Mill lake Washington Former.Or.edg~ Dewatering Atea . .. 1. , .,+- + ,I.. , Notes: ,,..,,,. II.". '" ", " -I -t-- Exislilg contcu elevations 15 01 May. 2OO!i ($l.bjm to thlnge with storm MIlls). + -+- ", ", . May Creek Delta Approlimate Dredge UmIt$ biIomg contoln wiI Yary fn:Im,._ 10 year dllpencling on ~rm _Its (frequerqlnte~) '''-'deposlt PIId and 1i"_1 ellldBd from the May Creek '1111ey. Dredg! .rel wMI irdu:la ouB5IonaI drtdgilg In front 01 the BoaIhouwIIo maIlIaill\lvlgatlollll depChs nItCHS. Proposed dred", ell!YliblOS/ cortllln shown on Sheet J 01' 4 Ute ElMtion maintained by lISAC(, OfUlnaty High Wiler LIv! (OHWl) • 21.8 feel Dredge elevMlons Ifllllocaliom based on NAOlU, flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington DATUM: USAC£ I Sealtle DI.lflcl 9 ..... Mop: OTAK (KIr1tI.nd. WA) l.atitude: 41N 31' 40". Longil..:!" 122W 12 '29" Section Township Range' NW lZ 24 OS PROJECT LOCATION IN: UbWa$~n AT: 4300"W~BM:I.N. Ki1g CoII'IIy, Rentol\ WA 113056 .vf'lICATION BY Barbee Mil Con'faIlJ 4300 like washington aMI. N Rermn. WA 93056 ""f" • w ". / // / / / '/ // / / r--"-L------ , / / v'" ,. . /~/ /.' // /~-;:.?'// //,,/ /ft/' /:/ ,7, // / / / ///' , ,-,'////// ...- ,// .'/ / / / / / I,' /////" " "-'/ / / //,// ,/ //". EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATIONS SHEET 2 of 4 ~ =::::!J Reviled: 5/30105 ,i /" ---..:.:..:.....Iii -' II • • g ~ .. + 1-..,- UJ ..... UJo ~M VI c::: ~ o I-Z o u C!l z C!l o UJ c::: o o UJ VI o a.. o c::: a.. Cross-Sections A-A', B-B', and C-C' (See sheet 3 of 4) ©~~~_u .. " _"._" . · '''"''".: ~:"c~---::::~~~~=::=cc::c,,::'~;::c:~:~:t~~~$~~o~~=c~,--~c'o :i:,::,~,,,~~,~~:o:,,~~_,,,:'1 j May C ..... DeIUo Cross·section A·A' runs north to south (see Sheet J). Maximum dredge depth is El .. 10', @ e e' -"'r:;E~:-~~:':~--~::-:~~~~;:~;;;:~~~~:~';'~:~~~:::-:-::-~~~I Cross-section B-S' runs west to east through May Creek Delltl (see Sheet J). Maximum dredge depth is El.. 10'. We ~'f. O+M\ZHD: Cross-Seaion CoCo runs north 10 south (see Sheet 3). Maximum dredge depth is EL .. 10', Maximum deWatering area depth shown is EL .. 20' (win ctepend I,In Lako Washington Elevation) Scale • 25' SO' 100' 200' NOTES: st>pa ........ tob.<i'wdgednolleeperlhan 2:1 .1Dp.ta_bri~ ~ ..... (.J 8 ..... ated 10 El _ ZO° (~ ........... doIpencIrog "" lab ElevllIon). A p)ft1Ofl or .... 11Iial1O be iliad fur 1Mnn...,.,...j .... IItering .... DewIIt.emg _al') to be returned to origNI-.dtIDn 8nd Irfdruseeded upon ~ DIIwIIt.mg.,.. UIo. WI. be lIKontiroMJd wIIl>!lII ...... eIap .... nt (Iuhn ~8I'S) Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington DATUM: USAC£ I Seattle District. Base Map: OTAK (Kirldand, WA) Latttude: 41N 31' 40", longitude 122.W 12. '29" Sel;lion Township Range: NW 32 24 05 PROJECT LOCATION IN: Lake Washington AT: 4300 lake Washington Blvd, N. King County, Ri!nton, WA 98056 APPLICATION BY Barbee Mil Company 4300 Lake Washtngton Blvd. N Renton. WA 9B056 DREDGE AREA CROSS-SECTIONS 400' SHEET 4 of 4 ~ ~ Revision 619105 i ~d , STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY DEV~~NT f'j,ANNING ... I}ENTON .. NOV 0'92006 RECEIVED Northwest Regional Office' 3190 160th Avenue Sf' Bellevue, Washington 98008·5452 • (425) 649.7000 November 8, 2006 Barbee Mill Company 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98057 Dear Mr. Lloyd: SUbject: City of Renton Permit #IIAfA-;OS;J3S:;z. Approved Barbee Mill Company -Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 2006-NW-I0026 Purpose of this letter: This letter is to inform you that on October 31,2006, the Department of Ecology received notice that the City of Renton approved your application for a substantial development permit. Your permit is for maintenance dredging of 3-4,000 cubic yards of material per year over a IO-year timeframe within shoreline jurisdiction of May Creek and Lake Washington. (Chapter 90.58 Revised Code of Washington). What happens next? The law requires that you must wait at least twenty-one (21) days from the date that we received this decision from City before you begin the specific activities authorized by this permit. Therefore, you cannot lawfully begin those activities until after November 21, 2006. This waiting period is to allow anyone disagreeing with any aspect of your permit to appeal to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. If anyone does appeal your permit, you must wait until the appeal is over before you start work. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notifY you by letter if they receive an appeal. To be sure that the Shorelines Hearings Board has not received an appeal, we advise you to contact them at (360) 459-6327 or http://www.eho.wa.gov/Boards/SHB.asp before you begin work. If you want to appeal this decision, you can fmd appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shoreline Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. Other federal, state and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. Barbee Mill Company November 8, 2006 Page 2 of2 , • • If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Joe Burcar at 425-649-7145, jobu461@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, ~4~ Joe Burcar, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program JGB:cja cc: Jill Ding, City of Renton Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates, Inc. I ,I October 12, 2006 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA98008-5452 CIT'e0F RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for File No. LUA-05-138. SP. SM. ECF Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on October 12, 2006. A Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated was issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee on February·23, 2006. The appeal period ended March 7,2006, no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at (425) .430-7219 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, i:::,. ;f(J)o Project Manager Enclosures: Administrative Decision Legal Description Copy of Master Application Project Narrative ProjectArea Rehabilitation Planning Correspondence to USACE dated February 3, 2006 Neighborhood Detail Map . Aerial photograph, existing contour elevations, proposed contour elevations, dredge area cross sections Notice of Application SEPA Checklist SEPA Determination DNS-M Mitigation Measures DNS-M Advisory Notes cc: Office of Attorney General ApplicanUOwner y _.,'Itt.,."'eooo .... ".,"!ei .. ,'m,c'N.ofo'oeo------------------------R E N T ~O N 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 ~ This paper contains 50% recycled materia;, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • • CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT··---;:;::=--_ I CONCURRENc"'E'"""-- APPLICATION NO.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF . ., OATEJ2/'-~ jl'.O~ ~J·:;'.l January 31, 2006 Je,Yi--. _~ 0 . 1\1~.il -!a February 23, 2006 1:, ==-10 72 October 12, 2006 '_~.. .~ ~ DATE RECEIVED: DATE OF PUBLICNOTICE: DATE APPROVED: TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X 1 Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Permit Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit. This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A Special Permit for dredging for a period of 10 years was requested. The hearing examiner issued a decision issuing the permit for a period of 5 years, however after an appeal was filed by the applicant, the City Council overturned the hearing examiner's decision and the permit was issued for a period of 10 years. The dredged spoils are proposed to be dewatered in two bermed areas located to the north and south of the mouth of May Creek. The material will then be used on site as fill or will be sold and removed from the subject site. The last of the material dredged from May Creek will remain onsite in the dewatering areas and the dewatering areas will be regraded to their original condition. It is anticipated that during the course of the 10 year dredging permit that development of the upland portion of the subject site will occur and that the northern location for dewatering may not be available. If that occurs the southern dewatering area would be utilized or the spoils may be dewatered offshore on a barge mounted dewatering area. The project area is located within the Urban Shoreline Environment. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC-TWNP-R: WITHIN SHORELINES OF: APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: See attached 32-24N-5E May Creek and Lake Washington City of Renton The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section 4-3-090.J 4-3-090.L Description Urban Environment Specific Use Regulations -Dredging Page page 3-25 pages 3-29 & 3-30 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: WA05-138shoreline.dcic v • • CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF DATE RECEIVED: January 31, 2006 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: February 23, 2006 DATE APPROVED: October 12, 2006 TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X 1 Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Permit Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit. This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A Special Permit for dredging for a period of 10 years was requested. The hearing examiner issued a decision issuing the permit for a period of 5 years, however after an appeal was filed by the applicant, the City Council overturned the hearing examiner's decision and the permit was issued for a period of 10 years. The dredged spoils are proposed to be dewatered in two bermed areas located to the north and south of the mouth of May Creek. The material will then be used onsite as fill or will be sold and removed from the subject site. The last of the material dredged from May Creek will remain on site in the dewatering areas and the dewatering areas will be regraded to their original condition. It is anticipated that during the course of the 10 year dredging permit that development of the upland portion of the subject site will occur and that the northern location for dewatering may not be available. If that occurs the southern dewatering area would be utilized or the spoils may be dewatered offshore on a barge mounted dewatering area. The project area is located within the Urban Shoreline Environment. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC-TWNP-R: WITHIN SHORELINES OF: I APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: See attached 32-24N-5E May Creek and Lake Washington City of Renton The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section 4-3-090.J 4-3-090.L Description Urban Environment Specific Use Regulations -Dredging Page page 3-25 pages 3-29 & 3-30 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: LUA05-138shoreline. doc City of Renton Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging Substantial Development Permit Page 20f 2 1. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies and all construction conditions provided in the application and modifications submitted to the City. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this twenty-one (21) day review period have been completed. inistrator ublic Works Administrator cc: Attorney General's Office Applicant / Owners Yellow File I LUA05-138shorelins.doc ·C) .. ·.0 CHfCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AL.T A. COMMITMENT .. SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.:· 1164869 . Your No.: BARBBB FOREST PRODUCTS . . . LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT . (Paragraph 40f Schedule A continuation) THAT PORTION OF·GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF· SECOND CLASS SHORELANDS ADJOINING, LYING WESTERLY OF· THE NORTHERN· PACIFIC RAILRAOD RIGHT OF WAY; EXCEPT THAT PORTioN, IF ANY, OF SAID SHORELANDS DESCRIBED AS LYING NORTH OF· THE WESTERLY PRODUCTION OF ·THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1. CLTACMA6/~ • • • -.Ji:V~LOPME/Ifr .fTY OF RE~~NIIVG LAND USE PERMIT JAN 312006 City of Renton MASTER APPLICATION RECEIVED PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging ADDRESS: 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Renton, WA 98057 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton,WA 98057 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-226-3900 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 322405-0034-00 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): Industrial/COR NAME: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COR COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: COR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable): COR TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING:lndustriai/COR CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): COR NAME: Michael Lloyd SITE AREA (in square feet): approximately 55,000 sf. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING COMPANY (if applicable): Lloyd & Associates, Inc. THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): Not Applicable ADDRESS: 38210 SE 92nd Street PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): Not Applicable CITY: Snoqualmie, WA 98065 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): Not Applicable TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 425-888-19051 rml@centurytel.net NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Not Applicable Item 1-Master ApplicationfL&Al L-__________ _ • • .-______________ ~PR~O~J~EC~T~IN~F_O~RMATrl~O~N~j~'c~o~nt~in~u~e~d~I) ______________ _. NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS Cd applicable): Not Applicable SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not Applicable SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN Qf applicable): Not Applicable SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not Applicable SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (~applicable): Not Applicable NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not Applicable NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): Not Applicable PROJECT VALUE: $325,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (W applicablo): Shoreline, 55,DDOsf. iJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE t:I AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO t:I FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. iJ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. t:I HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. Il!] SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 55,000 sq. ft. t:I WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY al description on se arate sheet with the followin information included SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (See Exhibit) TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Shoreline Substantial Development 2. Special Permit for Grade and Fill Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Ponl NamolB) Robert A. Cugini, declar. Ihat I am (please check ono) Il!I the cUITont owner of the property involved in Ihis appUcation or __ the authorized representative to ad for a corporation (please attach proof of authOrization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and be;tL . I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that A",.C ~/.fv( .. ... signed this instrument and aCknowledged it to be htslherltheir free and vOlU;ry act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of OvmerlRepresentative) My appoinlment eXPires:_-=;t,z;fT-k~;zR:'<~'-"'IJ.J( __ _ Item 1 ~ Master Application ... May Creek Delta -Flood Mit.on Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 4.1 Introduction • Item 4 Project Narrative The Barbee Mill Company is seeking a permit from the City of Renton to conduct flood mitigation dredging at the mouth of May Creek where it enters Lake Washington. Coarse sands and gravels are deposited in the delta as a consequence of upstream erosion. This deposition is most prevalent during severe storm events. Finer materials (silts and clays) are carried further into Lake Washington where they eventually settle out. The proposed dredge profile of the May Creek Delta covers an area of approximately 55,000 ft2 (see plans, Sheets 1-4). Historically, approximately 3,000-4,000 l of material accumulates in the delta area every 3 to 4 years. Deposition rates are not constant by any means and are driven by the weather and the amount of material eroded from the May Creek Valley. This upstream erosion is beyond the control of the Barbee Mill Company. The purpose of this project is to mitigate the impacts of sand and gravel deposition in the May Creek Delta as a consequence of upstream erosion. The Barbee Mill facility has largely discontinued operations although facility cleanup, demolition, shoreline restoration, and eventual site development activities are underway or planned for the near future. Conduct of flood mitigation dredging over the next ten years, as proposed in this permit application; will eventually be assumed by a homeowners association after site development. Nevertheless, the need to conduct flood mitigation dredging in the near future by the Barbee Mill Company and successors/assigns in the context of site development is essential to mitigate the potential for flooding under any scenario or sequence for continued operations, facility cleanup, demolition, shoreline restoration, and site development. 4.2 Land Use and Project Permitting May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging will require a dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Incorporated into the USACE permit is the consultation with NOAA and National Marine Fisheries Service for Endangered Species Act compliance. Locally, the Barbee Mill Company will require a permit for Special Permit for Grade and Fill from the City of Renton. Additionally, the Barbee Mill Company will require a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit from the City of Renton. Finally, the Barbee Mill Company will require a Water Quality Certification from the Washington Department of Ecology. Required permits and approvals are summarized below: Item" -Project NarrarivelL&AI 4 • 1 May Creek Delta -Flood Miti.on Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • Special Grade and Fill Permit -City of Renton • • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit -City of Renton • Maintenance Dredging Permit -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Hydraulic Project Approval-Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife • Water Quality Certification -Washington State Department of Ecology 4.3 Existing and Projected Zoning The Barbee Mill Company facility is currently a non-conforming industrial use within COR zoning. Beyond the project area the site is largely developed as a lumber mill with the exception of the May Creek corridor. Immediately south is residential zoning. Over the next several months cleanup activities, structure demolition, and site development will occur. The non- conforming industrial zoning will ultimately disappear. 4.4 Special Site Features The Barbee Mill Facility is a unique property on Lake Washington. The facility occupies over 22 acres and over 1500 feet of waterfront. On the eastern side of the mill property is May Creek. May Creek drains the May Valley Watershed and terminates at the southern end of the facility. East of May Creek, elevations increase toward Lake Washington Boulevard and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way. Most of the built up facility is built on land that gently slopes toward Lake Washington to the west. 4.5 Soil Types and Drainages Soils at the Barbee Mill Company are principally well-draining coarse sand and gravel typical of those to be dredged at the May Creek Delta. Historically, May Creek meandered across a larger area that was to eventually become land when Lake Washington was lowered. Currently, the facility is served by several storm drains that discharge to Lake Washington. These discharges will be substantially modified with future development, but will be unaffected by this project. 4.6 Proposed Development Although the current property has non-conforming industrial zoning, tlle site is currently proposed for development, consistent with COR zoning. This permit application for dredging of the May Creek Delta is consistent with mitigating the impacts of flooding within an industrial context or within future development on the site. Dredging of the May Creek Delta to mitigate the impacts of flooding is required to help protect the property from potential flood damages, present and future. No plats are anticipated in conjunction with this proposal for dredging. Proposed uses of the property and scope of the proposed site development is considered elsewhere. 4.7 Facility Access Item" -Project Narrative/L&AI '-2 May Creek Delta -Flood M iti.on Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • Access to the property is currently by gated access from Lake Washington Blvd. N. The facility can also be reached from the water (Lake Washington). Completion of this project will not affect site access in any way. Other than removing coarse sand and gravel in the May Creek Delta, the facility will not be impacted. No off-site improvements (sidewalks, fire hydrants, etc) are proposed or reasonably related to this work. 4.8 Total Estimated Construction Cost and Estimate Fair Market Value of the Proposed Project Dredging of the May Creek Delta is anticipated to occur at least three times over the next 10 years. Assuming that approximately 4,000 y3 of sand and gravel are dredged, and that dredging will require 8 to 10 days (using a small rig), then estimated project costs would range from $275,000 to $325,000. If dredging must be conducted more frequently, or if severe storm events substantially increase the amount of upstream erosion, the project cost would increase proportionately. Likewise, estimated coats do not include the cost of future regulatory or permitting changes that may be required. The cost of handling materials upland may be offset by sale of clean sand and gravel for off-site use as clean fill. The fair market value of the proposed project is more difficult to estimate. Estimated project costs are similar to an insurance premium against the potential risk of flooding. 4.9 Estimated Dredge Quantities As mentioned earlier, dredging of the May Creek Delta will typically require dredging of 3,000 to 4,000 i every 3 to 4 years. However, because the accumulation of coarse sand and gravel at the mouth of May Creek is largely dependent upon the weather (assuming that erosion of the May Valley will continue) and those severe storms that scour May Creek and discharge erosional materials into Lake Washington. Therefore, the frequency and quantity of material to be dredged can be highly variable and unpredictable. Nevertheless, the estimated dredge quantity for this project is at least 12,000 y3 over the next 10 years and may range as high as 40,000 y3 to maintain proposed dredge contours if severe storms result in upstream erosion and sediment deposition in the May Creek Delta. Rather than proposing estimated dredge quantities, this permit application seeks to maintain a dredge profile as provided in project plans (see Item 10 and Exhibit I). 4.10 Upland Vegetation Removal Completion of flood mitigation dredging at the May Creek Delta will not require removal of any upland vegetation or trees of any size or type. 4.11 Land to be Dedicated to the City of Renton No land will be dedicated to the City of Renton. Nevertheless, if the City of Renton wishes to assume responsibility for dredging of May Creek Delta, something could be worked out! 4.12 Proposed Number, Size or Range of Sizes of the New Lots and Density Item" -Project :"'\arratinJL&'\1 4·3 May Creek Delta -Flood M iti.on Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • Completion of dredging at the May Creek Delta will not create any new lots and/or increase density of any size or range. 4.13 Any Proposed Job Shacks, Sales Trailers, etc. No job shacks, sales trailers, and/or model homes will be necessary to complete flood mitigation dredging in the May Creek Delta. 4.14 Proposed Land Use Modifications The Barbee Mill Company is not requesting any land use modifications for dredging in the May Creek Delta. However, because the cost of permitting is substantial, and the need for certainty in flood mitigation capability, the Barbee Mill Company is requesting a IO-year permit for flood mitigation dredging. No rezones, variances, or other conditional use permits are anticipated. 4.15 May Creek -Waterbody Flood mitigation dredging of the May Creek Delta, as shown in project plans, will occur in the water below the ordinary high water line (OHWL, 21.8 ft, USACE datum). The existing shoreline in the immediate area adjacent to the proposed flood mitigation dredging is modestly armored. In general, the shoreline of the facility has a mix of concrete bulkheads near the log haul-out area, and light shoreline armoring consisting of rock and some untreated piling. 4.16 Viewsheds along the Shoreline No residential or commercial units (current or future) will have any long-term obstructed views as a consequence of completing periodic flood mitigation dredging at the May Creek Delta. Views will be unavoidably impacted by dredging equipment during periodic dredging events over the course of this permit and future permits for flood mitigation dredging. Item" -Project Narrative/L&AI 4-4 • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee MiU Company -2005 DEVELOPMENT PI.AN CITY OF RENTON NING JAN 3 I 2006 RECEIVED Item 11 Project Area Rehabilitation Planning Flood Mitigation Dredging in the May Creek Delta will have remarkably little upland impact on the Barbee Mill Company or on future homeowners when built out. No trees will be removed, and no structures are planned that will result in any floor plans 'or architectural elevations. 12.1 Dewatering Area Rehabilitation There are two proposed dewatering areas adjacent to the May Creek Dredge Area as shown in project Plans (see Sheet 3 of 4). As dredge materials are taken from the May Creek Delta, they will be placed in one of two proposed dewatering areas. The last materials to be dredged from the May Creek Delta will remain in place and the area(s) will be graded to pre-dredge conditions. Once site development is substantially complete, the northern area adjacent to the shoreline may not be available for sediment dewatering. In this circumstance, only temporary StoragelDewatcring Area 2 will be utilized. 12.2 Shoreline Rehabilitation/Shading As noted in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation (Item 14), the existing shoreline areas adjacent to the May Creek Delta will be planted with native plants to provide additional shading for fishes and to help stabilize the shoreline. In major part, this work is considered in overall development plans for the Barbee Mill Site. Shoreline native plantings will be planted and maintained for the duration of the permit. Essentially, a buffer area at least ten feet wide, adjacent to the dredge area shoreline of the May Creek Delta will be planted to stabilize the shoreline and provide additional shading for fishes. The planting plan will follow planting protocols similar to those established for the Cugini Dock. Project. The north shore of the May Creek Delta (Area A) compriscs an area of approximately 1,800 ft2 The south shore of the May Creek Delta comprises an area of approximately 2,400 ft2 as shown in the figure on the next page. A native plant list and anticipated typical plant type/quantity is provided in the following table. The conceptual planting scheme can be summarized as follows: \ (1) Taller native shrubs and trees will be planted at the cast ends of both Areas A & B (2) Shorter native shrubs and ground covers will be planted toward the west-end of the peninsulas to maintain viewsheds. (3) Willows will predominate on the southern shoreline adjacent to the delta to provide maximum shading impact for fishes. (4) Habitat areas will be 10 to 12 feet wide, as measured from the OHWL. (5) If there is a conflict between this plan and planned habitat areas along the shoreline under existing site development plans, then site development plans will take precedent. Item 11-Rehabilitation Planning/L&AI ""'OJ I I • • • • + May Creek Delta ~l- Shoreline Habitat Area B -2,400 sf Rood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington PROJECT LOCATION • Barbee Mill Company \ } .' , / ( / Shoreline Habitat Area_A -1,800 sf I / ( , , / / , I " , , , , I , , , , , , / , , , I , IN: Lake Washington AT: 4300 lake Washington Blvd. N. King County, Renton, WA 98056 Shoreline Planting Plan SHEET 1 of 1 , , , , , I / , , ,I , ~ Cd ~ 9/18/05 .. • • Area A 1,800 Area B 2,700 Shoreline Plant Ust Botanical Name Common Name Size Trees Comus Nuttallii Pacific Dogwood 5gal Acer Circintum Vine Maple 5gal Pinus Contorta Shore Pine 109al Willows Salix hookeriana Hooke~s Willow Culling Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow Culling Salix sitchensis Sitka Williow Cullin9 Shrubs Amelancher alnifola Serviceberry 4" pots Comus sto/onifolia Red Twig Dogwood 1 gal Sambucus racemosa Red Elderberry bare root Rosa Nootka Nootka Rose bare root Rhododendron Macroe.h'tJlum Pacific Rhodendron 59al Groundcovers Carex obnupta Slough Sedge 4" pots Gaultheria shallon Salal 4" pots Iris Tenax Native Iris 1 gal Juncus acuminatus Tapered Rush bare root Juncus ensifolius Dagger Leaf Rush bare root Glyceria elata Tall Mannagrass seed Descrie.fi°nlConcee.t Habitat Area A Greater height trees and shrubs at mouth of creek Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Predominately shrubs and groundcovers at end of peninsula Provides some shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Habitat Area B Predominately willows and taller shrubs/trees near bridge to west Provide shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Willow density increase to east sf sf Est. Quan. Est. Quan. 4 6 6 12 2 4 16 48 16 48 16 48 6 9 12 24 18 32 16 32 4 6 24 24 24 24 24 24 48 64 48 64 100 100 Area 1,800 ft2 2,700 It" Total Quanity 10 18 6 64 64 64 15 36 50 48 10 48 48 48 112 112 200 • rri1QT~ Lloyd & Associates, Inc. ~ '!!38!!!2~IO~S!!!E~9~2-nd~s!"treet,--~s-noq""uaImi~'-e,~w!!'as"!h"in-gt-on~98!!!06!!'5~4~2!!'5-8~88:-.I~90!!!5~(."!/f)!!""'rmI~@en~v~Uo-y"!d.-co-m---------'" February 3, 2006 Susan Powell, Project Manager North Application Review Section Department of the Army Seattle District, Corps of the Engineers Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Subject USACE Reference #200501279 Barbee Mill Company Dear Susan Powell: DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON FEB -7 2006 RECEIVED Thank you for your letter of 1118/06 regarding the proposed flood mitigation dredging project at the Barbee Mill Company. I also appreciate your taking my call on the 31 st. This response addresses the following major issues: • Necessity for dredging • Proposed location for dredging • Acquisition of clean fill for the commercial sale of the material • Mitigation considerations • Construction contract considerations NecesssitylPuroose of DredgiD:g;Dredging work at the ·mouth·of May Creek to remove accuniulated sands and gravel has been conducted by Barbee Mill Company for many decades, dating back to the 1940's to mitigate the impacts of sediment depOsition and"p6tential flood impacts. Dredging of the May Creek Delta has also been identified in the May Creek Basin Plan -Final "(King CotiritY, 200 I) as the only viable solution to the problem Ulltil such time that effective erosion/source control measures in the upper May Creek Valley/Channel are implemented:' "Until funding for such a project becomes available, continued dredging fat the May Creek Deltaf is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial operations at the milL Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on channel habitat are localized and minimaL This recommendation recognizes the need for dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded. Even a long-term solution likely will include some need for ongoing maintenance dredging." (May Creek Basin Plan. p 48). The expressed purpose of the project is to mitigate the potential flood damages to the Barbee Mill Company, its property and the interests of any successors/assigns. Proposed location for dredging. I strongly take exception with the statement that I somewhat agreed "that the stated purpose of the project would not be accomplished by dredging at the proposed location". It would be accurate to say we agreed that dredging of the delt does not represent a permanent fix to the problem of continuing upstream erosional impacts on the Barbee Mill Company; "The acknowledgment by all permitting agencies lhiIt dredging of the delta is reasonable, through the recommeirdedIacilitation of permit acquisition; . will allow dredging to continue." (idayCreek BasIDPlaD;'p 67j. '., '.,1 '-.. ,<,-:','~ : ' , ',." "-"; ;.; Acq ... iisitibiiOf clemi' fill forthe commerCial' sale of the material:. The Barbee MiIICoinpany'is not interestediri the material for the purposes of obtaining clean fill or the commercial sale of the material. The cost alone to permit this project will far exceed any potential value represented. As we have discussed with the Department of 2006·5 Letter to USACE.doc Page I ofl Lloyd & Associates, Inc. February 3, 2006 • •• Natural Resources, sale or other use of the materials will only offset a very small fraction of the costs to provide a measure of flood protection for the property. Mitigation considerations. Our proposal for May Creek Delta Dredging irlcludes substantial shoreline habitat enhancement (native plantings) along the banks of the May Creek Delta. Stuart Reinbold (Department of Fish and Wildlife) and I have also discussed several options for mitigation, including removal of the rock bulkhead near the bridge at the mouth of May Creek. We also discussed the potential for leaving more of the accreted sand and gravel at the immediate shoreline. Both options are viable althougb removal of the rockery and shoreline plantings appears to provide the better solution for mitigating potential flooding. As we discussed on the telephone, there are other options as well, including potentially removing the bridge and widening the restricted stream flow into Lake Washington. Construction contract considerations. I can assure you that we will not be awarding construction contracts until all permits are in place. Nevertheless, it is our intent to dredge accumulated sands and gravels in the May Creek Delta .as soon as possible during the next window of opportunity. 'The potential for flooding is substantial at this time. You have also asked that we provide requested information within the next 30 days. I cannot guarantee that we will have the suggested mitigation/drawing changes until such time that we have a better understanding and consensus from permitting entities. We are in the middle of a "multiple track" permitting process which includes the City of Renton, Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and State of Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology. Working out the details will take some time. As soon as we hear from the City of Renton, I hope to organize a meeting of permitting interests. It is my hope that one of the primary recommendations of the May Creek Basin Plan for the Lower Basin Subarea [May Creek Delta] is implemented: "Facilitate Permillingfor May Creek DelJa Dredging" (May ow; Basin Pbm,P16). As stated at the beginning of this letter, the Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for many decades. This proactive approach to flood control has been very successful in minimizing damages to their property 'from the ravages of flooding. Currently, the Barbee Mill facility is .ulldergoing substantial change. A majority of the upland mill facilities have been removed, and the site is being prepared for future development. Regardless of the land use context, securing the property against flooding is the primary purpose of this project. Historically, dredging at the facility was also necessary to maintain navigational depths for moving of log booms, etc. In the present context of this permit application, this work will also diminish potential damages to adjacent properties from increased flooding, sediment deposition, and navigational access to docks and boathouse to other recreational, residential and commercial interests on Lake Washington. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. R. Michael Lloyd cc. City of Renton Department of Natural Resources Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006-5 Letter to USACE.doc Page 2 of2 • MAY CREEK DELTA FLOOD MITIGATION DREDGING , --", Lake Washington • NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP oevaOPMENT PlANNING CITY OF RENTON JAN 3 1 2006 RECEIVED Prepared by L&AI 9/25/05 ,'2-, 0t[;C • • • The May Creek Delta receives depositional coarse sand, gravel and rounded rock from the May Creek Valley during severe storm events. Finer sands and silts are typically carried past the delta area to settle our further into Lake Washington. The Barbee Mill Company is requesting a 10 year Maintenace Dredging permit to mitigate the impacts caused by flooding of May Creek; to protect property along May Creek; and to maintain navigational depths. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington Mj"'-I'roportyo..n..,;· .. _----_ ..... _ .... "._ .... ,-----._ ... -,~--... ,,., .. -.,-..... -.. oo.RM lJSII<::E/SoooonIor->:::t. _~ orAl<;(~ wo,) ..-.-<>N 31'''' , l<>¢rlo 122l1lI 12 'B' PROJECT LOCATION IN: Lake Washington AT: 4300 lake W<I!Ohlngton Blvd. N . King County, Renton, WA 98056 APPUCATlON BY Barbee Mill lake BIvd.N JAN 3 1 2006 RECEIVED SHEET 1 of4 Lake Washington + + -1- =" ' .... "0 >C_ -j- '~/' ",,~J i V; '. ~-,i\ ~arbe~ Mill C07[T1P?9~Y. .i'i! .'<"--_'@iJ~lt> ,J' --, -'-, _/ V,"":) j. -.,:? -,t-;/I. /' )<------- -----~v-----------..." -/j (p / ill _ // / > . . ,'. ) -:0;-[l" --; ~. '>-....... .' _, /, /": I Office '--'-i;--",'I i:-''/i ,:./ JY . Formerl).r.edg~DewateringArea ''', ,:-;/ i:Z-l~'>:1:/:..-:-~ ;'cl _ -_ . . '\ ) ['/.-1 I jj;.I, //«,..... . '\"' . / __ + +-,--\"::;/ ,-r _ ( _;4"/ '" --1-, • <>! ;: /' '/.;/' '-\-, 1"/ . . .~ 'v~, -§f<~ ... >' / >;--~ /;/.-\ ~-'.. .;Vi( ? ' I~ ", ;3// '-----, I '" -" -, 'J .-~ -'-. .\,\\", " /1 "~ • " /,' -~ ._;. '~I ','_ _ /!I v//~-......... • \ I ." If ":.-/ ~/ -l \ ~' \ \ " /"" -<~ j \\ \\, ','~ ,/;t "',/// ~'" May Creek Delta ' \1 _,\\ --c,"':'-, -1,,:;~/ \-->-! )~ \\~':~;:\ '\, ~ ---~~:r:<>~,/://~I\;~ ~D-eO}eLinils . t: f" -.:,"':" ~""" / ) ~O#: '-1-,\ \' ,<"" "-c-1--,,' ,,' ----;/1-/ # 4fn,,' \~,<~~~:~--.:::~-~:;,:~:;:;,:> / / -;1; jf-,/ :'" "r~~ __ ,/ ,",-',' t:f/ / " .. \ .. ~~~\ --: _<~\/ /'?-f < ./~ ">// j~-::?;::~L~--\\(/t: ~~/r:'(' . f // ,,;' : W;" / -:-71~ fJ../ ;!/> ,-,<.1/ " J / ,/I;)'#~;/-' /' / , I" 'I ", t' u,,/ ,-:; /. • " J f 'f; { / f.,,'/ 0y..~ ,> I , '/ Jpf '(1-ff-nl' --~ I 't, t(,) ',;r',J 'ff <//,::,/ -,/ ;' f ,1-:.. {,/, ': ' ~/ ,. .' / '/ • '/ '~~'.".' ';c' _--'\.' t ,'--j;"-"'-:'-;" v /,,~ /~7 fY-; of':F'!.: " ,.;Ii . \ I. J"N // ' / ,+-/' -~ ,( .",/.;\jI" \\ \ ;, /! ,'./ f // 01/ '/ / ,:> <., ,.::."Q ~" ,,1/ ,"'" '/f?'.~ '/' h / ;'--, Jt..,:,-j",,-'---.)( !' If ,A~;,(/:;// /;f:-/ / ~ l,/,fiA ~(.' 0 I ,f // ':,:!:~/ »,r::.,--.., _f,,,"/ "/ / J :,.; IJJ~:,j' , ,: /i,;"/>;:':;;~~l'//I/ )h;//,:'/ / // ~d\';'---"=--~-.' ,: :--<-,/'!.!§i'/,:Y ,-///.-/ / -',--/ :%!i;:;>/ -. ' ___ "L:J,./))~"I; .t/ /// /-;.'" " ::1:/ / ~l . 'p ~ y 'i'~ j+ /,'1/ /-/ / /-V--'l-//j;il>-' . -:.'1';,1 "f~,/1'f'/<""'_~";:;/>///' /;y~? " ,(" :~t /t J' , 'y ,_/,,~//. y(;/ / ///' /~/.,;-// /-~~;p .. ,-,-(/1/. '-"',, _____ , .. ,,--,,;:-,';(/. {/' f/>'//' / /// /" Notes: //!;!IL::.:-!""..-----,·· / //, ,fj/ l, .... / ./" .. '/ " / //# / _,' "---------------- Exlstr'g ~tltvatims as rI May, 2005 (sWject to ch¥o\Je MIll stum--.Is). Exf.rng Q:ntw--s 1'1'11 ViII)' from year to year ~ on §1Dnn eY!Sl1s (frtq~/".tel"6lty) that~tt sand and I7avd troded from the M~ Creek Valley, ~ _ wlll'lWde ~I ~,. frO'It rlthe BoaIhWse ID manta,. navigalknal dI!pII1s /I'ld auess ~ credge devatIcns / CCfIICUS shoIon 00 Sheet ] rI ~. Lakt Elevatl:ln lTlIIintafled by USN:E. OrdInary High water In (OH'M.) .. 21.8 ~t D-edr,/e elMtbls/nd Iocaticns based on N40/83. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington DA1lJM: USACE f Sei'lttle OIst,o::l Base Mi>p: OTAK (Kirkland, WI<) LMII~: 47N ]1' 40" , longtWOe 122W 12 '29" Section Townstup RanOe: rffl 32 2'" 05 PROJECT LOCA~ IN: t.1ke WashflgIoo O\T: 1300 ~ Washr9Cf1 Blvd, /j Kn} Coorty, Rentcr1, w. 9&JS6 APl'UCAT1ON BY BarbeeMIII~1 4300 W WastP;j!Dn BM1 N Rertoo, WA 98056 ~(ft) = " • • .. EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATIONS SHEET 2 Df 4 ~ =::!J RMoI: ~+- Lake Washington " + .. NOTES: . .L.. , -+ _L , SIll SIet1 4 ror OoI$·SKtioos ~,"', e.B", c·e + May Creek Delta .l , TwoCIewIItW"'<lrus,resOOtoo. DreOg"'QMfCSIllrfSb~ ... utlmiclredOt""""totlr"_ICQuerddT_fa'*/IM"(1ul1ll. DloOJo'mltmllo ./eco,,, ........ "'~Ind ~_, .ow:oo"'"'telyl.oooll>4.00lC,lDbo~MrI)-4ytm~""",mm~""IVrUr. DrtU}IIrjttlbo~..tn.dlmlheltlrl:l!lfrllm.~rn;Jodtdnatle_ N:)sttxli*IO .... ""_.,r.._. Flood Mitigabon Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta flake Washington DAM: USACEfSeattleDWict. Base~; OTAI< (KrlJand, WA) lMitlJ:Ie: 47N 31" 40", toogrll.de lUW 12 '19" 5ectICI1 Township RwIge: WI 12 2~ 05 PROJECT lOCATlOIl IN: Ykc WashirqtOO AT: 4300 lake Washt'gtoo BM:I. N. Kng Cotrty, Rent(J1, WA 98OS6 APPUCATION 8Y BirtIee Mil COmpany ~300 Lake W~ BNd. N Rtnton, WA 90056 ry(ft) " • '" / '/ ///-_..: /// / / V .,/' /, '/ /.' /_ 1/ .. ··· //,,/ / ,T;';; '.// / /,0'1 ///, / /<~</ PROPOSED DREDGING CONTOURS SHEET 3 of 4 $ ~ =:!J _:~~05 Cross-Sections A-A', 6-6', and C-C' (See sheet 3 of 4) CEJ ~ ,., I ~~"'ll!!!~: .~~ -----u .. ----02-.---. _:~.;~: ~ ~ -1 """""-Cross-SectIon A-A' runs north to south (see Sheet 3). Maximum dredge depth Is B.. = 10', @ B' X5 .:~, "'i:::-::~:~ ·····----~~ ____ . ___ . __ ,.::._ .. _:===c2~:2~-::.=:i :: "",,0;;;: Della Cross-section B-B' runs west to east tIlrough Mav Creek DcItc (see Shett 3). Maximum dredge depth is 8... = 10'. ~·k-----'~=~i.:.~~~~~~c;=;;r Cross·SectIon C-C' runs north to south (see Sheet 3). MiJximum dredge depth is EL .. 10', M.n;imum clewatering area depth shown is EL,. 20' (will depend on Lake WashIngton 8evatJon) Scale 0' " SO' 100' 200' NOTES: ~WltNndl!l:i'Itot..dn!d\JI!dnoSl\!epef1ll/ln 2:lsbpetomltlmtreb.ln<fttIII.ICn Oo!watemg .......:.) I!O«>MIted 10 U. 2a (hI\1Wllow .... d!!pendng on lJII<I! Elevlltion). "portiJn of materUlllO t.:! used tor Dem1 iIrOI.O'd Clewatert1Q are!! Doewat~mo arm(s) to be fftUmed to orIIIlnd Olr\djtlOn and hydroseeded <'PM ~~lIon Oo!wat~t1n\I_ ..... WIll be dlKOOt1nue<l wlth.~ _""""",t (ruhM-.. )'N~) Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington DATUM: USACE { Seattle District. Base Map: OTAK (Kiltland, WA) latitude: 47N 31' 40". Lor.gitude 122W 12 '29" Section Township Range: t-m J2 24 05 PROJECT LOCATION IN: Lake Washington AT: 4300 lake Washington Blvd. N. King County, Renton, WA 98056 APPUc;ATION BY Ba~MIllCOmPilny 4300 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, WA 9SOS6 DREDGE AREA CROSS-SECTIONS 400' SHEET 4of4 • • .~ ==::!J Revision 619/05 • • DATE: February 23, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed dredging of May Creek DeHa to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximatefy 3.000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. PROJECT LOCATION: 4300 lake Washington Boulevard OPTIONAl DETERMINATION OF NON-5IGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNs-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that sJgnificant environmental impacts are untikely to result from the proposed project Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.ll0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNs-M process to give notice that a DN5- M is likery to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNs-M are integrated into a single comment period. There Will be no comment period f~lowing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significanoe- Mitigated (DNs-M). A 14-dayappeal period win follow the Issuance of the DNs-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPlETE APPLICATION: January 31, 2006 February 23, 2006 APPlICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Michael lloyd, LLoyd & AssocIate., Inc.; Tel: (':!5) 888-1905; Eml: rml@centuryfel.net PermitslReview Requested: Environmental (SEPAl Review, Special Grading Permit, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Other Permits which may be required: Grading license, Hydraulic Project approval (WDFW), Water Quality Certificate (DOE), Maintenance & Dredging PermH (Corps of Engineers) Requested Studies: location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Biological Evaluation, Engineering Report PlanninglBuildingIPublic Worits Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 18. 2006 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Han located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated CommerciaVOffice/Residential (COR) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and CommerciaVOffice/Residential (COR) on Ihe Cily's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-090. Shoreline Master Program. 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations. 4-4-060 Grading, Mining and Excavation Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. • • Proposed Mitigation Measures: The fortowing Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by exfsting codes and regulations as cited above. • -The ~ppli~nt will be required to comply with the recommendations found In tlie -BIOlOgICal Evaluation. Comments on tho above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Associate Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on March 7, 2006. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 18. 2006, at 9:00 AM. Counal Chambers, Seventh Floor. Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. If)'Ou are interested in attending the hearing, please contact lhe Deveiopment Services Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted In writing by the date indicated above, ~ may stW appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If)'Ou have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail. please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and wiD be notified of any decision on thfs project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill K. Ding. Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219 I PLEASE INCLUDE lHE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I MAY CREEK DELTA flOOD MmGATION DREDGING If you would like to be made a party of rerord to receive further information on this proposed project. complete this form and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way. Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Lake Washington/May Creek DredginglLUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO:' ________ _ , • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: -------------------------- JAN 3 I 2006 RECEIVED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 - I • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: • May Creek Delta ·Flood Mitigation Dredging 2. Name of applicant: Barbee Mill Company 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Robert A. Cugini Barbee Mill Company 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98057 425-226-3900 4. Date checklist prepared: June 27, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92"d Street Snoqualmie, WA 90965 425-888-1905 425-785-1357 (cell) City of Renton -Planning/Building/Public Works 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Dredging will occur periodically, as necessary, for the duration of this permit beginning in the fall of 2005. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes and No. Additional plans and activities are certainly related to this proposal. Anticipate future activities include environmental cleanup, shoreline restoration, demolition of mill structures, and site development. Regardless of future plans this proposal to dredge the May Creek Delta is largely independent of future site activity since flood mitigation dredging needs to be done regardless of other site activity or development to protect the property from potential flooding cause by severe storm events. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The Barbee Mill Company has previously secured Grade and Fill Permits and aHending environmental information for this continuing project in presentations and permit applications to the City of Renton. In addition, a Biological Evaluation/Assessment (Meridian Environmental) is in preparation for submiHal to the U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE) and National Marine Fisheries. This environmental information builds upon previous biological survey work conducted by the Barbee Mill Company. A copy will be aHached to this application as an Exhibit. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3·2 • • May Creek Delta ~ Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, a 10 year Maintenance Dredging Permit is in preparation and will be submitted to the USACE. A copy of this permit application will be provided to the City of Renton. Additionally, future site development proposals affecting the property have or will be reviewed and considered by the City of Renton, Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fisheries. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Maintenance Dredging Permit -U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Project Approval-Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Certification -Washington State Department of Ecology 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 45 years. The purpose of this dredging is to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. Additionally, dredging is proposed to maintain navigational depths. No change in use is necessitated by this proposal. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 ff. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Barbee Mill Company is located on Lake Washington at 4300 Lake Washington Boulevard N., Renton, WA. From Interstate-405 take Exit 7 to Lake Washington Boulevard North. NWSEC:32 Township: 24 N Range: 05 E County: King 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (underline/highlight one); FLAT, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ _ The Barbee Mill Company is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The property is flat and gently sloping downward to the west. East of May Creek the land slopes upward to Lake Washington Bou/evard and the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad right-of-way. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Item 3 -Environmental Cht:cklist 3 - 3 • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 There are no steep slopes adjacent to the proposed dredge area. The steepest slopes are adjacent to Barbee Mill Company Office approximately 125 feet away. The approximate slope is 1:1.5 (vlh). c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils at the Barbee Mill Company are fundamentally coarse sands and gravels with very little sill or clay content. Not coincidentally, these soils are very similar to those to be dredged at the mouth of May Creek. There is no farmland at this industrial site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is no history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity although severe storms (flooding) have periodically eroded banks of May Creek and damaged the mill properly (see cover photograph). e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The primary purpose for dredging of the May Creek Delta is to mitigate the effects of severe storms, which deposit coarse sands and gravels. As these materials accumulate, the risk of flooding mill properly increases (see cover photograph of the effects of severe storms). Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No filling is proposed. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion will not occur as a result of this project. As stated above, the purpose for this project is to mitigate the erosional effects caused by storm events and to minimize the impacts of such storms on the Barbee Mill Company and any future development. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surlaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Dredging of the May Creek Delta will not increase the area of impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR This project is proposed to mitigate the impacts of erosion from the May Creek Valley on the Barbee Mill properly. Materials to be dredged are coarse sands and gravel with very little sand or sill content. As these materials are dredged, they will be placed in a bermed dewatering area, then moved offsite or stored on-site for use as clean fill during development or environmental cleanup. In future years (af/er site development), dredged materials will be placed in a dredge scow, transporled to Quendall Terminals (or other potential facility on Lake Washington) for off-loading and sale as clean fill. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3-4 • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • Heavy equipment for dredging will generate diesel exhaust emissions typical of large equipment. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Maintaining equipment in good operating order will minimize emissions to the air. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. This project is proposed to occur in Lake Washington at the delta of May Creek, which is a year-round stream. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The project will occur in Lake Washington. Plans are included in this application. Plans include site map, current (May 2005) delta contours, proposed dredge contours, and dredge cross-sections. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sands and gravel will be removed from Lake Washington at the May Creek Delta. Currently dredging is required every 3-4 years, but the deposition rate is dependent upon severe storm events, so dredging may occur on a more or less frequent basis as necessary. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general deSCription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. The level of Lake Washington is maintained the U. S. Army corps of Engineers at the proposal area. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 - 5 • May Creek Deha -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 b. Ground Water: • 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Ground water will not be withdrawn. Sediments will be allowed dewater and to infiltrate into the ground and eventually back to Lake Washington within the dewatering area(s) adjacent to the shoreline. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No industrial or domestic discharges will result from this project. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Currently, May Creek flows into Lake Washington. During storm events, May Creek transporls substantial quantities of erosional sediments. This project will not reduce this occurrence of severe storms, but will mitigate the depositional impacts at the May Creek Delta and reduce the impacts of flooding of the properly. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Dredging of clean coarse sands and gravels will not generate any waste materials that will enter ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The main purpose for conducting this project is to reduce, control or mitigate surface, runoff water impacts caused by continued upstream erosion from the May Creek Valley. Dewatering areas for dredged sediments will be bermed to prevent run-on or run-off of surface water. 4. PLANTS a. Check, cireie, or identify types of vegetation found on the site: __ ,,_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other (principally alder and maple) __ ,,_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other (principally fir, cedar) -..:'.... shrubs (principally native plants, willow, rhododendrons,etc,) -..:'.... grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other -..:'.... water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other (elodea, milfoil) -..:'.... other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 - 6 ·~:!.-. #Wl kt$! dl:t __ •• ;1 r~~~~~.~!S; .'fit!) "tWnp,lJ!fl, .t'~,i'. ],2)(, 'J~~ •.• ,1M,:",; --)\~,,~;':itfl!t" ":~" -Ai", ( -J4:.!f4! __ ,ti,jtJ ')$tf,-'1 ,'l 1', ~ IIIlll 111;'111[ 'iIiT ; 51(J;JII jill. till. 1II1! p nlll nil. lit;; 1IiI il" 1.1'.1 HIII(_lIpr>.nIUJ~I.'1I.' It 'orf. air! 00II11 ........ ' .. . " ... .' .. . '. , .. ' W L $.~," ........ , "" .......... a .... ; ...... _ ......... ".~_>·'''.M''''' ....... ''; .. > __ ".~ ... "'"._j .. , ... , _ill 3 1M: -tl-_r pOI L_1'0_ J-e ,Jrr@C .. !r ILL 0 • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbtt Mill Company -2005 None. • c. list threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon and other threatened or endangered fish are known to on or near the site during seasonal migration runs. See Biological Evaluation/Assessment prepared and at/ached as an exhibit to this application. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Upon completion of this project, the shoreline adjacent to the May Creek Delta will be landscape with native vegetation to stabilize the shoreline, provide habitat for birds and animals, and to provide shading for fishes. This work will be completed in conjunction with site development as previously proposed. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle (Identify) any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawks, Eagles, Osprey, Jays, and other birds have been observed on or near the site. The Barbee Mill Company has set up a webcam to monitor the Osprey nest which resides on top of the sawdust collection bin. Mammals: Deer have been observed. Additionally, we have observed probable traces of beaver in the May Creek area. Fish: Bass, salmon, trout, freshwater clams, and crawfish have been observed along with numerous other small fishes (see Biological Evaluation/Assessment (Meridian Environmental) b. list any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon are known to be in Lake Washington and have been observed in May Creek, which is a salmon spawning creek. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain May Creek is a salmon spawning creek upstream from the Barbee Mill Company. Migratory birds also use Lake Washington as a stopover and winter rest. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance Wildlife, if any: The Barbee Mill Company will be conducting a number of measures to preserve or enhance wildlife. These measures are associated with other permits and proposals considered or to be considered by the City of Renton. These measures include sawmill demolition, shoreline restoration, environmental remediation, as well as, numerous measures associated with site development. For example, during site development the May Creek corridor through the property will be widened and substantially enhanced for wildlife and fishes. As mentioned in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation, the shoreline immediately adjacent to the dredge area will be revegetated with native plants to provide additional shading and shoreline enhancement. ltenl 3 -Environmental Checklist 3·7 -------, , • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES • a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating. manufacturing. etc. The primary energy need for this project will include fuel for construction equipment during dredging and material handling operations. No other energy needs are anticipated. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Proper maintenance and operation of equipment will minimize or control energy impacts. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion. spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Operation of heavy equipment poses a serious risk of injury to workers conducting the work. No exposure to toxic chemicals or hazardous waste is antiCipated. Care will be maintained to minimize leaks or drips from heavy equipment. Petroleum sorbent boom will be readily available for deployment. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Special emergency services that might be required include ambulance or related emergency services for workers that may be injured. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The selected contractor for this work will be required to provide a spill prevention plan including containment / absorbent boom to control and to cleanup any leaks or spills of petroleum products. The barge-mounted dredge will arrive on site fueled and will not require refueling during the project. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise in the area will not affect dredging. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 -8 • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • The noise of heavy equipment operation will occur during dredging operations. Dredging is anticipated to occur during weekday daylight hours in compliance with City of Renton noise limitations. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The largest source of noise is the dredge generator at the rear of the dredge. Noise generation will be directed away from shoreline residences. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Currently the Barbee Mill Company is a lumber mill. However, operations have decreased substantially in recent years .. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The site has numerous buildings and structures associated with lumber mill operations, including a saw mill, planer building, warehouses, dry kiln, etc. These structures will be demolished as site development occurs in the future (not a part of this proposal). d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. This project will not require or result in any structure demolition. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Currently the site is a non-conforming, industrial classification. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? COR g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? COR h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes and no. Although we are unaware of any specific "classification", the shoreline areas abut important shallow water habitat for fishes. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 7 to 8 people will be present onsite during dredging operations. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 -9 • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dreuging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: This proposal to mitigate the impacts of upstream erosion and deposition at the May Creek Delta (which contributes to flooding) is compatible with the protection of any existing and projected land use plans or development actions. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s}, not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s} proposed. No structures are proposed in conjunction with this proposal. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. Dredging is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 -10 • May Creek Della -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 None. • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Lake Washington provides an abundance of water related recreational opportunities, including boating, fishing, swimming, etc. All of these opportunities are available in the immediate vicinity of the project area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No impacts on recreation will result as a consequence of dredging the May Creek Delta. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. The site was originally underwater prior to the lowering of Lake Washington early in the 1900's. There are no known landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Barbee Mill Company is located on Washington Boulevard N. near exit 7 of Interstate 405. Site plans are provided in the Master Application. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest transit stop is several miles away at the park-n-ride at exit 9 on Interstate 405. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 -II . . • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. No parking spaces will be eliminated or created by the project. d. Will the proposal. require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Dredging of coarse sand and gravel from the May Creek Delta may in future years may use water transport of dredged materials for off-loading and eventual upland use/sale. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No vehicular trips will be generated by the completed project. However, during dredging operations as many as 150 to 200 truckloads of sand and gravel may be moved offsite for sale/use over a 3 to 6 week time frame. A portion of the clean fill may be used on site during development and/or site cleanup activities. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Transportation impacts will be temporary and of short duration as sands and gravel are transported off site for upland uses .. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No long-term, permanent need for public services is anticipated although short term needs for emergency medical services may be required if there is an accident associated with heavy equipment operations. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Workers will be directed to exercise all due caution to avoid accidents when operating heavy equipment. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle (Identify) utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary services are present on the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 -12 • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Bartl,. Mill Company -2005 c. SIGNATURE • I, the undersigned, stale that to the best of my knowledge the above information is tnue and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. "-""' ~ I~~ Name Printed: RObertACUQinj Date: Cf-/9 -D5 hem 3 -Environmental Checklist 3. 13 . "'0,.._<'.,".:'., ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Lake WashlngtoniMay Creek Dredging PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-13B, SP, SM, ECF LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd N (King County Parcel No. 322405-9034) DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to dredge the May Creek Detta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential. damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The proposed dredging area is approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel are proposed to be dredged every 3 to 4 years. A 10 year approval is requested. No filling is proposed. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMIITEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental detenninatlon must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 3, 2006. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing examiner. City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code SectIon 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's OffIce, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 18, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SPECIAL GRADING PERMIT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. . ., . -:.'.' " .. .'.' . "-.' . , """.' . . . . <i;" .•. '. . ,~I:W:JH~~ENt()N;\'.<J..", L '. ..~'.. .:'. . .- .. ' ~ . . ......... ·Q~TERMINATJONOr'NON~SIGNJj:1CANC~-MJTI9At~p '. .• ......•.•..•.... .• . . ..~jriGATi.6NIViEASURES:··· .'; ..... ...... : .~ . ',-.: .,::.'. : ··'LuAq5c138.~P.ECF .'. ,. . . ~ . . -:.' .. ,' ~ke Wf;lshinglpnIMay Creek Dredging. '.-'_ .. '-'. -, -. . . --' . ·PE~~WTioN;Clf.P~OPOSf\L: '.' " .. ·,4,pPlkaptptoptises lo~redge the. ~.ay~rejjk Del~ 19 remove b?a,:>e . "'sands andgrcwels thaI acwmulf;lte al thElmol[t!l:of r,1ay Cree~and substanbally JOc:rea5e lI'Ie ff~ksan.d polential ;i#ilTi<ip:estt:oni.llj)odinQ of llie Baibee;t,iillpIl3Perlyby Mayct~L In adaitiori.tha~oj}()l;~ddr~gii1gWould rnain.lairrn!!viglltiona/ depth:;,. The proposed ,dredgfng area is apprC?ximatElI}!.~5.!HlOsq\lare feet. AiJprqxim;llely . 3.000104;000 cubi~'yards ofcOOrses'~ild 'a~d~velare propos8(llobedredglid every 3 toA'years: A 10year ·iJPProval.isreQueS~d. !'i6flliing. is proposed;. .... ..... . . " ... 43()(tLake.washingto~ ,BlvdN '. .'C_. .' •• ,:. : ··.·.·.lEA0 AGENCY: '... '. , .'. . .; .... Mlj-IGATIONMEASuR€s: . . ,-.' , -.... , ..... .. , ..... '. (:. c : ": ~ ;:_ . ---.. -' .. ".' ~" '. - ','," .. -. -':;, . -; ' .. : , .. " ..... .-.. : . ',; . ; :" ~: . .. ' .. :-.'" ' .. " . .. ,', ... -,' : .. "" ':,;: " . .' .:.: .' ,. ~ :_\. ' '. ,; .-... . ER~M%~~~nMe~ ...• :;' ""-:,.,0.:,,:-.- < ... ;.--' :'; , . '-';' .' ... ' .' '.-' . .. " . ::.; -.'. '._-,'-.' .. ' ,", . , . '.:' '-.,: . ' .. ' ,'---.. " " . :.:,:-, -. .-':". ~ -.... . . .. -. '.; -:'\ .. " .' . ... y: '': -:; .... .~, :" ... ': .. " <' ,.,"",' CITY OF RENTON .' j , , ' , ' DI!'rERMJNA:nON' O,F NON.SIG~IF:19ANCE~M1TIGA:rED ADVISORY NOTES , , ,'. 'APf>LICATKiNNO(S): ' '. " [UA05-138,SP, ECF ,~arliee Mill Company, " APPLICANT: kR6JECT NAME: . lillie .w~shin!ltonlMay Creek 'Ored!ling. ,;" .' . . .. ,' '. . '. ' ....... ;.:. ,', "OI,:S~~/PTION OFPROp6s~: . " • APplicant proposes tqdreage tIleMayCre~k .Diilta to~emoveooarse ~~I)d~ and gravels thatac¢ullilJlate':attlle mouth of May c:reek 'and'Substanti?IIYln~reasetlleflsks 1ll1d pote!1tial' '" '~ages from flooding of tile l3am.ee ~i'l property by May C(eek.ln' addition. ,the proposed dredginllvv()uld, ......... m~I!JI?in navigational depths,' TIlePI'Qp'psed:dnildging.are8is approxirnatelyl}!5,OOOsQUlire feet.· APproximately . ; '. ,3.009,,0 4,000 c:ubicyardsof tqarSe~~d andgrnvel ani propo8!)d to bedtedgEjd every 3to 4. years, A 10 year' approval is requested: No filling,ls.propOSeci, . .' '.' < .. . '. . . . . '.' . ";'>lOCATION OF PROPOSAl' " . . ~ ... " . .: . .' '-- .,' ' .• l;gA[jAGENCY: . , .~ ..... . , . '1:' I'i!?i'{lies,aretrig!;lered: .... \;,:-"'..:.:. 4300 lake WastiingtonBlvdN .. ' '. .' ;":., .' !' '.-.-"," . . : ,,:. , • 'c .. " -. ;. . '," :' , PllijyRtiView: ' . . . .' . , . , .. ,.'., ." .. , 1,,'A,d9~~!riicQOrl Planindi'catinghaul route. and hours;,COllsWi;t;on hoursalld ~'. traf!l~ ,control Plansh~il,b~.~ttet!i;'" " 'apgrclval:i>r1or'tbanypermifbeing issue~, Haul hourisncil) be restricied [08:30 a~iTi to 3:30 p,rn;iJrne~sap~r,o~~in :ativan'i;:e'by the Developmerit ServiCes Division: '" ' , '. "", .. : ," -.' ,~-' .. ', '.' . '.'. ' .", ' -' ,..,.. ','. ,-- '.' .' -- .,:>:-; . .-'; , '. . . ' . .-:,-> ::.; . ,,:' : ":,:'"' . " . . ~:.S '1,-'· ~!:,'-" . '.-<l"~'1,~c.."il~ . ~. , ,.; , ", ,.-.. ", -: , . ','. -. ,., . ',',- -.,J,: ,,,_-''; ,;-.~. -.. , --,.,,' CITveoF RENTON ~~-City Clerk ____ ~_~~~~~_BnnnieL.WaltllD October 5, 2006 . Barbee Mill Company P.O. Box 359 Renton, W A 98057 Michael Lloyd Lloyd and Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92nd St. Snoqualmie, W A 98065 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5125/2006; Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging Perinit -LUA-05-138 Dear Appellant and Representative: At the regular Council meeting of September 25, 2006, the Renton City Council took action on the referenced appeal by adopting the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to modifY the decision of the Hearing Examiner. A copy of the Planning and Development Committee report is enclosed . . ',.', . '. Unless the appropriate land use appeal· of the decision of the City Oouncil is filed with King County Superior Court as indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of the City Council will be final. For information regarding the process, you may call the Development Services Division at 425- 430-7200. Please feel free to contact me if! can provide further information or assistance. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker Council President Randy Corman lennifer Henning, Principal Planner Jill Ding, Development SerVices Div. -1-05-5-S-0U-th~Gra~dy-W~aY---R-e-n-to-n.-W-ash~in-gt-o-n-9-8-05-5---(4-2-5)-4-3-0--65-1-0~/-FAX~-(4-2-5)-4-30-6~5-1-6-~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE tL?:"iO.llED.B'Ll _______ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITT~E~E,---_~C:_T_'l_C_O_U_N_C_I_L_ • • COMMITTEE REPORT () u-• ()/ Date L-6;J -",,0, I<i September 25, 2006 .' Appeal of Lake WashiilgtonlMllY Creek predging Permit . '. . File LUA-05-1·38;SP, EM; ECF ... ' '. . (iReferred}ljly 10, 2006) .' . : ....•. '. The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on September 21, 2006. Applicant Robert Cugini appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision, conditions Nos. I and 2.' Applicant otherwise accepts the remaining conditions. The Committee recoriunends that the Council fud a substantial error of fact and thereby modify the Hearing Examiner's Decision No. 1 from a 5 year period to a 10 year period. The Committee further recommends that the Council find an error oflaw in No.2 and strike that provision of his decision. The subject property is located to the west of Lake Washington Boulevard North and approximately north ofN. 40th Street. The site iscurrently()wned and utilized by the Barbee Mill Company. However, a portion of that site,is currently.s1atl:d for multi family residential development. This property contains part of May Creek which flows through the southeastern portion of the property and dischargtis into Lake Washington. Applicant sought a permit to dredge the,mouth Of May Creek. There is nothing in the City Code that requires the Applicant to dredge. tIiJweve!, in.order,to maintain navigational waters and prevent flooding, Applicant has maintainooctrea~gat this sit~ in'ithepast. In order to undertake the dredging, Applicant is required' to obtaina'Sp&:ial Perrnit'jmrSuant to RMC 4-9-080(F)(2): In the past, Applicant applied for a 5, year pennit. Applicant now seeks a 10 year permit (which is consistent with the Army Corp.'o(Engineer's permit) citihg,extensive costs associated with preparing for the application aIldthe history of having maintained.,c&edging in the area. Applicant also objects to condition No.2 requiring Applicanho,.provide documents regarding joint and several liability to future homeowners. Applicant finds this condition not only onerous, but vague and difficult to implement. ,,," Pursuant to RMC4-8-11 OF(5) and (6), the Planning and Development Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner'S Report, the Notice of Appeal and the Submissions by the Parties. Having done so, the Planning and Development Comrnittee hereby recommends to the Council that it find a. substantial error in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. As to Condition No. I, the Committee recommends that the Council find that a 10 year period forlhe permit is more appropriate and better meets the conditions set out in RMC 4-9-080(F)(2). Therefore, the Council should modify the Hearing Examiner's Decision No. I to read, "The permit shall be for a period not to exceed ten years." As to Condition No.2, the Committee recommends that the Council fud an error of law in that the requirements stated therein are vague and difficult to enforce given that the dredging requirement is optional and the future homeowners of the property are uilknown at this juncture. Accordingly, Condition No; 2 should.bestricken. The Committee recommends that the remaining' conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Decision remain the same. Planning'and Development ~ttee Report I ______ ----=-Page 2 ~_ _ , __ ... " :~, .. " " '. ',' .. ~ . -., -':~~i"::.~~~.~.;~~~ :::':~:._ ".-. " ~-, , ~I Dan Clawson, Vice chaiT cc: 'Neil Watts -Jennifer Henning LaWrenceJ, Warren Fr~~ KClI-C.Fwtcm -' , '" ;-'." • '';:'., ~ '. ..:~' . " , " " >, " -, , , ..... : . ~-• • September 25, 2006 Monday, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PROCLAMATION Mayor's Day of Concern for the Hungry -9/30/2006 SPECIAL PRESENTATION Community Services: Liberty Park, Outdoor Cinema APPEAL Planning &.Development Committee .. Appeal: Lake WAIMay Creek_ .. Dredging Permit, Barbee Mill Company, SP-05-138 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of A lIegiance to the flag. RANDY CORMAN, Council President; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW; TERRI BRIERE; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON. KATHY KEOLKER, Mayor; JA Y COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Administnitor; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; TERRY HIGASHIY AMA, Community Services Administrator; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; JERRY RERECICH, Recreation Director; COMMANDER KATIE MCCLINCY, Police Department. A proclamation by Mayor Keolker was read declaring the day of Septeniber 30,2006, to be "Mayor's Day of Concern for the Hungry" in the City of Renton, and strongly urging citizens to join the Emergency Feeding Program and the local food banks in their efforts to nourish those who are hungry. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Captain Terry Masango from the Renton Salvation Army and Arthur Lee, Executive Director of the Emergency Feeding Program accepted the proclamation. Both recipients encouraged citizens to participate in the food drive. Jerry Rerecich, Recreation Director, reviewed the Renton Cinema at Liberty Park program. He reported that the total attendance this year was 2,600 and the event lasted eight weeks. Describing the event, Mr. Rerecich stated that the outdoor cinema series is similar to a drive-in movie experience. He also noted that Liberty Park was an ideal location because of the abundance of . parking and the playground equipment. As a symbol of thanks for their co-sponsorship, Mr. Rerecich presented a plaque to Eric Temple, President, Spirit of Washington Dinner Train, commemorating the event. Mr. Temple expressed his gratitude and, turning to the subject of the Dinner Train's impending move, he thanked Council for their support over the years. Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding the Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging Permit appeal filed by Robert Cugini. The Committee heard this appeal on 9/21/2006. The applicant, Robert Cugini, appealed the Hearing Examiner's. Decision, conditions No. I and 2. The applicant otherwise accepts the remaining conditions. The Committee recommends that the Council find a substantial _error of fact and thereby modify the Hearing Examiner's Decision No .. I from a five-year period to a ten-year period. The Committee further recommends that the Council find an error oflaw in No.2 and strike that provision of his decision. The subject property is located to the west of Lake Washington Blvd. N. and approximately north ofN. 40th St. The site is currently owned and utilized .~ . 25,2006 Renton Council Minutes 320 by the Barbee Mill Company. However, a portion of that site is currently slated for multi-family residential development. This property contains part of May Creek, which flows through the southeastern portion of the property and discharges into Lake Washington. The applicant sought a permit to dredge the mouth of May Creek. There is nothing in City code that requires the applicant to dredge. However, in order to maintain navigational waters and prevent flooding, the applicant has maintained dredging at this site in the past. In order to undertake the dredging, the applicant is required to obtain a Special Permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-080(F)(2). In. the past, the applicant applied for a five-year permit. The applicant now seeks a ten-year permit (which is consistent with the Army Corp. of Engineer's permit) citing extensive costs associated with preparing for the application and history of having maintained dredging in the area. Applicant also objects to condition No.2 requiring the applicant to provide documents regarding joint and several liability to future homeowners. The applicant finds this condition not only onerous, but vague and difficult to implement. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-IIOF(5) and (6), the Planning and Development Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the Submissions by the Parties. Having done so, the Planning and Development Committee herby recommends to the Cuuncil that it find a substantial error in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. As to Condition No. I, the Committee recommends that the Council tind that a ten-year period for the permit is more appropriate and better meets the conditions set out in RMC 4- 9-080(F)(2). Therefore, the Council should modify the Hearing Examiner's DecisionNo. I to read, "The permit shall be for a period riot to exceed ten years." As to Condition No.2, the Committee recommends that the Council find an error of law in that the requirements stated therein are vague and difficult to enforce given that the dredging requirement is optional and the future homeowners of the property are unknown at this juncture. Accordingly, Condition No.2 should be stricken. The Committee recommends that the remaining conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Decision remain the same. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLA WSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2006 and beyond. Items noted included: <I> Saturday, September 30, is the Mayor's Day of Concern for the Hungry. In Renton, the Salvation Army Renton Rutary Food Bank will be collecting donated food during the day at the QFC on 4th Ave. in the Highlan_d.~, the QFC in th",. Cascade Neighborhood, and th.~_Thriftway on Grady Way. Food also can be dropped off at the food bank, located at 206 S. Tobin St. The Emergency Feeding Program, which has a major distributions site in Renton at St. Matthew's Church and provides two-day packs of emergency food, will be collecting donations at the downtown Safeway store. <I> The first "Steppin' Out to Stop Domestic Violence Walk-a-Thon" will be held Saturday, September 30. The six-mile walk-a-thon will start at 10:00 __ ... "?",-o_ --=,"~_ • • ___ ~I.),l,A!'!i'lU~"(;_~ DEVELOPM;El'IT COMMITTEE . COMMITTEE REPORT September 25, 2006 A.P?F.10VEDB'l __ '1~ Ci'iV COUNCIL . -.... _--~~~--- Date 9-6S--·).t:J()~ Appeal of Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging Permit . -'.' . File LVA-05-J.38, SP, EM, ECF CR.eferred July 10, 2006) The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on September 21, 2006. Applicant Robert Cugini appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision, conditions Nos. I and 2. Applicant otherwise accepts the remaining conditions. The Committee recommends that the Council find a substantial error offact and thereby modify the Hearing Examiner's Decision No. 1 from a 5 year period to a 10 year period. The Committee further recommends that the Councirfind an error oflaw in No.2 and strike that provision of his decision. The subject property is located to the west of Lake Washington Boulevard North and approximately north ofN. 40th Street. The site is currently owned and utilized by the Barbee Mill Company. However, a portion of that site is currently slated for multi family residential development. This property contains part of May Creek which flows through the southeastern portion of the property and discharges into Lake Washiilgton. Applicant sought a permit to dredge the mouth of May Creek. There is nothing in the City Code that requires the Applicant to dredge. However, in order to maintain navigational waters and prevent flooding, Applicant has maintained dredging at this site irithepast. In order to undertake '.' . the dredging, Applicant is required'to obtain a Special Permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-080(F)(2). In the past, Applicant applied for a 5 year permit. Applicant now seeks a 10 year permit (which is consistent withthe Army Corp. of Engineer's permit) citing extensive costs associated with preparing for the application and the history of having mruntained dredging in the area. Applicant also objects to condition No.2 requiring Applicant to provide documents regarding joint and several liability to future homeowners. Applicant finds this condition not only onerous, but vague and difficult to implement.' Pursuant to RMC 4-8-IIOF(5) and (6), the Planning and Development Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the Submissions by the Parties. Having done so, the Planning and Development Committee hereby recommends to the Council that it find a substantial error in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. As to Condition No.1, the Committee recommends that the Council find that a 10 year period for the permit is more appropriate and better meets the conditions set out in RMC 4-9-080(F)(2). Therefore, the Council should modify the Hearing Examiner's Decision No.1 to read, "The permit shall be for a period not to exceed t'i!n years." As to Condition No.2, the Committee recommends that the Council find an error of law in that the requirements stated therein are vague and difficult to enforce given that the dredging requirement is optional and the future homeowners of the property are unknown at this juncture. Accordingly, Condition No.2 should be stricken. The Committee recommends that ,the remaining conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Decision remain the same. •. '.", Planning and Development co6ee Report __ ---lPageL Dan Clawson, Vice Chair ee: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning LawrenceJ. Warren Fr~~ KCl/.(FwtQrl """ .. '-, ~-.' . . .', 1 "~-;y--.. > ~.. <, ' ... ,. ':,' c. ':. ~:.:!~-.. ;: "-.--~' --."" ,.,. .' ;; . . ~ "",:; ::" _. ""-" ........ , -.', ". '~. -.. ~.--... -.-:; . :--.... CIT~F RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor August 8, 2006 Renton City Council CITY OF AION"!' AUG 1 5 2006 RECEIVED CITY CLEAK'S OFFICE APPEAL FILED BY: Michael Lloyd, Representative for Barbee Mill Company RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/25/2006 regarding the Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging permit application for a lO-year Special Permit to dredge the mouth of May Creek, located at 4300 Lake Washington Blvd, NE, (File No. LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above-referenced item on the following date: Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:00 p.m, 7th Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton· 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Sincerely, Vuu·~ Terri Briere, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council ----[0-5-5-S-ou-th-G-ra-dY-W-.Y-.-R.:..e-nt-on-,-W-as-h-in-gt-0-n-9-8-05-5-.-(4-2-5)-4-30-.-65-0-[----~ * This paper oontains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAU OF THE CURVE Michael Uoyd Uoyd & Associates, Inc. • • PARTIES OF RECORD MAY CREEK/LAKE .'ItIA DREDGING LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF John Hannsen 38210 SE 92nd Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 -qIo?' tel: 425-888-1905 Barbee Mill Company Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 tel: 425-226-3900 . (owner I applicant) 4005 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 -1511 tel: 425-430-1498 (party of record) eml: rml@centu,?tel.net (contact) Updated: 03/17/06 (Page 1 of 1) 2006 Appeal: Lake W A/May Creek Dredging Permit, Barbee Mill Company, SP-05-138 Community Services: Disaster Relief Supply Building, Fire District #25 & American Red Cross Development Services: Finseth Short Plat, ROW Dedication, Morris Ave S, SHP-05-027 Development Services: Pelton NE 20th St Short Plat, ROW Dedication, SHP-05-119 Development Services: Annies Place 11 Short Plat, ROW Dedication, Lyons Ave NE, SHP-05-167 Finance: Bond Issuance, S Lake W A Infrastructure & S W 27th StiStrander Blvd Extension Projects UNFINISHED BUSINESS Utilities Committee Utility: Sanitary Sewer Flows, Skyway Water and Sewer District Finance Committee Finance: Vouchers RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution #3827 Utility: Sanitary Sewer Flows, Skyway Water and Sewer District Renton Council Minutes 239 City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Lake Washington/May Creek dredging permit application; appeal filed on 6/8/2006 by Barbee Mill Company, represented by Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates, Inc., 38210 SE 92nd St., Snoqualmie, 98056, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Community Services Department recommended approval of a joint agreement and memorandum of understanding with King County Fire Protection District #25 and the American Red Cross, serving King and Kitsap Counties, concerning the disaster relief supply building and its supplies. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of dedication for additional right-of-way at Morris Ave. S. to fulfill a requirement of the Finseth Short Plat. Council concur. Development Services Division.recommended acceptance of a deed of dedication for additional right-of-way at the corner of Edmonds Ave. NE and NE 20th St. to fulfill a requirement of the Pelton NE 20th St. Short Plat. Council concur. Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of dedication for additional right-of-way at the corner of Lyons Ave. NE and NE 2nd St. to fulfill a requirement of the Annie's Place II Short' Plat. Council concur. Finance and Information Services Department requested approval of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $20,665,000 for constructing transportation and utility infrastructure improvements for the South Lake Washington and the SW 27th St. and Strander Blvd. projects. Council concur. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an interiocal agreement with Skyway Water and Sewer District to allow for the conveyance of a portion of the district's flow through the City'S system. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for resolution.) Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 249943 -250357 and two wire transfers totaling $3,310,151.65; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 64061 -64424, one wire transfer, and 635 direct deposits totaling $2,101,203.45. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an interlocal agreement with the Skyway Water and Sewer District to provide, within the subject area, the option of the district connecting its sewer facilities to Renton's sewer facilities. MOVED BY CLA WSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. --------- ~ OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND.ILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board .. Staff Contact. ..... AJLS/City Clerk Bonnie r. Walton lAIN 8. e. For Agenda of: 07110/2006 Agenda Status Subject: -----------------1 Consent ............. . Public Hearing .. Correspondence .. Appeal of Hearing regarding the Lake permit. Examiner's decision dated 5/25/2006 WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging UA-05-l38, SP, SM, ECF) (File No. L Ordinance ............ . Resolution ........... . Exhibits: ____________ --j Old Business ....... . New Business ...... . A. City Clerk's let ter (6/20/2006) Study Sessions ..... . B. Appeal -Micha el Lloyd (6/8/2006) Information ........ . C Request for Rec onsideration (6/8/206) & Response (6113/2006) D. Hearing Exami ner's Report & Decision (5/25/2006) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning a nd Development Committee. Legal Dept. ....... . Finance Dept. .... . Other. ............. . Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment ...... . Amount Budgeted ..... Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget Ci Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACT ION: Appeal of the Hear was tiled on 6/8/20 ing Examiner decision on the Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging permit 06 by Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates, Inc., Representative for Barbee ompanied by the required $75 fee. Mill Company, acc ST AFF RECOMME NDATION: Council to take action on the Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging permit appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren ReOlonnct/agnbill1 bh x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- • CIT. OF RENTON Kathy Kooiker, Mayor City Clerk BoDDie I. Waltoo June 20, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: Michael Lloyd, AttsFlle), Representative for Barbee Mill Company RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/25/2006 regarding the Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging permit application for a lO-year Special Permit to dredge the mouth of May Creek, located at 4300 Lake Washington Blvd NE. (File No. LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging permit application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is June 30, 2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by. the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liason will notify all parties of record ofthedaie and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liason at 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached are a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liason -,"""'os-s-S-Ou-th--Gr-a-dy-W-ay"--R-e-n-\o-n,-W-as-h-j-ngt-o-n-9-g-0S-S---(4-2-S)-4-3-0--6-SI-O-'-FAX--(4-2-S)-4-3-0--6S'--'-6-~ * Thispaper~5O%recydedmateriaJ.3O%postconsumer-AHEAD OF THE CURVE • • CITY OFROO"ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION. 0 8 2006 . .. TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL JUN .. FILE NO. Ltt,& OS_oj ~j5;:; 5111, ;e-C!..P REQf~\lED ~'''1f,'>ll APPUCAl1()N NAME f.¥<JE ~IAIGYMJ /J14 VaE..7J( 7tiPi197A!ft'.,...OFFlC~ ( The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated !!Iaq Z L , ~ L IDENTIFICATIONOFPARTY APPElLANT: Name: '8:trk<: //dllf ~117 Address: -Z O. Z3ba: 3,,£3 REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: Jj,c!t'J¥-l--~cJvb ILtA.J:\ ~ U)4 tj'cf'057- Address: 382Lc-> S"B 7'2,A/l:>,sT. -:5&C:>t2o.4LM ~£ . mit-7BlJ6S-I 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: ~£ A@cAed COrrection: ______________________________________________ ___ CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: See M-t1.c/ec/ COrrection: ______________________________________________ ___ OTHER: No_ Error: ~ £. A 7T Itc.tt£ ?-:> Correction: ______________________________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUES1ED The City Counc9 is ~uested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) 5e;r /J7I?<ck..d. Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other ~~~ Date ' NOTE: Please refer to Tdle IV, Chapter 8, 01 the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11 OF, for specific appeal procedures. H:ICITY CLERK\APPEALIAPPEAL to Council.doc Cc.. '. 4,.rt'y' tJaH C-J1, c. 0/ /f7fy tflal ,t/If tis ':::;ev 5"c:5 p,dcf17.r . peel f4q~I1/-!1Ii¥/;.,5ga"'.,.~~ • • City of Renton Municipal Code; Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals ") . .i, 4-8-IlOC4 ,.,. Jhe notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of Ihe City, (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-11OF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner reqnires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2, Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal, 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional leiters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or .additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the patty offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Exatniner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Exatniner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the bearing record before the Hearing Exatniner. (Ord. 4389,1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Reqnired: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050FI, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to ElI:aminer for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-I-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of !be Hearing Exatniner should be disregarded or modified, !be City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. COrd 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660. 3-17-1997) n=1Lz~~~~O~Y~d~&~A~SS~o~cl_'a~te~s~'~I~n~c~. ~~~~4t~~~~ .. ~~ ______ ___ ~ 38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 425·888·1905(vll) nnl@envlloydcom June 8, 2006 City Council City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's ORDER Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging File No. LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF Attention: City Council Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 of the City of Renton Code, the Barbee Mill Company appeals portions of the ORDER of the Hearing Examiner dated May 25, 2006 for a Special Permit for Grade and fill (hereafter, Permit). Specifically, tlte Barbee Mill Company is appealing Permit approval Conditions No. I and 2 of the Special Permit for Grade and Fill. 1 Concurrently witlt this appeal, the Barbee Mill Company is making a Request for Reconsideration to tlte Office of tlte Hearing Examiner of Permit approval Conditions No. I and 2. If the Barbee Mill Company is successful in the Request for Reconsideration, this appeal will be withdrawn. These two Permit conditions provide: I. The permit shall beforaperiod not to exceedfive years. The applicant shall be entitled to apply for a new Permit under the regulations that exist when a new permit application is submitted 2. The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of jUture homeowners in the cu"ently approved plat for paying for the foture permitting and dredging operations. These documents shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. I. The Hearing Examiner's Decision to limit the Permit duration (Condition No. I) to only five Years was an error in judgement not supported by law or facts presented in the admitted case file and supPOrting documentation. City of Renton staff reports, or by testimony offered at the public hearing. As stated in the transmittal letter of the May Creek Mitigation Dredge Application (Lloyd & Associates, Inc., September 27, 2005), "flood mitigation dredging is necessary to protect the property and future homeowner's interests" from flood dantages, and tltat "the importance of establishing a longer term Permit is an essential and fundamental step in providing a measure of certainty to tlte Barbee Mill Company and future property owners." We agree in ml\ior part with Ms. Kayren Kittrick's (City of Renton, Development Services Division) statement presented at tlte Public Hearing that: "tlte people who move into this new development will have a severe interest in this process, both monetarily as well as the impacts to tlteir daily lives." As presented in tlte public hearing, the cost of securing Permits is a substantial burden I The BarlJee Mill Company takes no exception to Conditions J, 4, and 5 of the Special Pennit for G11Ide and Fill. of the Pennit for Grade that will eventually be carried by homeowners. We also agree with Conclusion No. I that "Both life and property could be harmed if the creek overflows its banks"z as this would severely impact their daily lives. Adding the uncertainly caused by a shorter Permit duration to the mix does not protect the monetary or personal impacts on people's lives, or the interests of the current owner, The Barbee Mill Company. The ORDER further states in Conclusion No.3 that granting a ten year Permit will create an "unduly long period" before another review, limiting the options of future homeowners to participate in the process. The implication is that the people who may live at the new development will be bound by a ten year Permit and will not have the opportunity to participate in the process for an unduly long period. This is incorrect. There is nothing in the Permit, application materials, project files, public testimony or the ORDER which limits future owners' options for submitting a new Permit application to the City of Renton specific to their wishes. Alternatively, they could seek a revision in the Permit, which would likely trigger a full review process by the City of Renton. Finally, the residents, if they so desire, could simply not dredge the May Creek Delta. The ORDER does not place any requirement to dredge the May Creek Delta to mitigate potential flooding. Nor does the ORDERR require the Barbee Mill Company to transfer the permit to the homeowners. Implementation of the permitting process and dredging has been a voluntary burden that has been funded to date entirely by the Barbee Mill Company. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 50 years for navigational and flood protection purposes. The permitting process has resulted in numerous hearings before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Renton. The request for a ten year Permit does not represent an unduly long period of time for a maintenance dredging Permit given that dredging has been conducted for decades and will be necessary for many more decades or until such time that May Creek Basin source control measures are effectively implemented to minimize the deposition of sediments in the May Creek Delta. A ten year Permit duration is also reasonable in the context of site development. Site build-out will take a number of years from the point in time that all Permits have been secured, infrastructure improvements constructed, and mitigation work is implemented before residents will be able to move in. A ten year Permit is not an unduly long period of time by any stretch of the imagination and will only afford the owner's a short buffer of time before new permits (local, state, and federal) must be secured to conduct dredging. The Findings of Fact also recognize the participation of numerous state and federal agencies directly involved with every dredging event. These regulatory entities include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology. Each of these regulatory entities provides substantial process and review prior to issuing conditioned approvals or Permits. During the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner posed the rhetorical question, "Should nature be allowed to take its natural course?" The implication is that there is some rationale or fact to suggest that dredging is unnecessary. As referenced in the Biological Assessment,) The May Creek Basin Action Plan (April 200 I), makes the primary conclusion and recommendation that "continued dredging is the only viable alternative,,4 [until such time as effective erosion control measures are implemented in the May Creek Drainage Basin]. The City of Renton Council and the City of Renton BuildingIPlanninglPublic Works Department were participants in developing the May Creek Basin 'See Conclusion No. I orlbe attached ORDER, p. 7 3 The Biological Assessment (Meridian Environmental, Inc.) was presented as Item 14 of the Land Use Pennit Application and submitted to the City of Renton . • May Creek Basin Action Plan, p.3-23 Page 2 of4 of the Penni! for Grade Action Plan. In response to the Examiner's remarks about the necessity of dredging, there is no support for this inference in the referenced scientific literature, project files, application materials, public testimony, City of Renton policies, guidelines, or adopted planning documents. If the purpose for the judgement, which conditions the Permit with a five-year duration is based on speculative questions of necessity of dredging in the future, then Condition No. 1 of the Decision is not grounded in fact. One of the primary recommendations of the adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan was that fpublic policy should] "Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging."s This policy of "facilitating Permitting" as identified by the May Creek Basin Action Plan does not mean that shorter Permit cycles facilitates the public interest in mitigating potential flood damages to life and property. Rather, the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Committee recognize the necessity of dredging the May Creek Delta and that facilitation of this action should be promoted and not burdened by the additional cost of permitting and uncertainty that is created with every Permit process. Conclusion No. 3 of the ORDER provides that "dredging has apparently not created any untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise." Recent dredge events have been of considerably larger scope than flood mitigation/maintenance dredging permitted by the ORDER. While these dredging events have occurred at the site, the facility has existed within a largely residential community6 for many years without untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise arising from dredging. The City of Renton recognized the non-conforming land use status of former mill operations with the COR land use designation in 1993. Conclusion No. 3 also states that "conditions have changed since the last Permit was issued." While it is true that mill operations have been discontinued, the residential nature of immediately adjacent properties has not. Development of the Barbee Mill property will create additional immediately adjacent residential area subject to these impacts. However, there is a substantial difference, and it is more that just proximity. Residents at the new community will have a vested interest in protecting their property from flooding; This is a distinctly different perspective than that which is entertained by the current adjacent residential community. The Barbee Mill Company is sensitive to the potential for short-term equipment noise and truck traffic impacts that are an unavoidable consequence of dredging. As discussed in our Permit application materials and as presented at the public hearing, at build-out we will mitigate these impacts to the extent possible by off-loading dredged materials at Quendail Terminals. The net resillt is that noise to nearby homeowners will be reduced substantially and heavy truck traffic within the development can be eliminated. If effective erosion control measures are ever implemented in May Creek Valley, then the "changed conditions argument" would take on a meaning that we could all agree with. Given the high cost of Permitting and the uncertainty of a shorter Permit cycle, the benefits of a predictive level of certainty over a ten year period is a substantial benefit to the Barbee Mill Company and to future homeowners. Rather than accept the high cost and uncertainty associated with a five year Permit, the Barbee Mill Company will retain title to the Permit for the next ten years. While this is not the most desirable situation, this is an acceptable condition to the Permit for a Special Grade and Fill Permit provided that Condition No.2 is waived and that other unacceptable terms or conditions are not added to the current Permit. 2. Condition No. 2 of the Decision requires: "The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat for 'Recommendation No 10, May Creek Basin Action Plan, April 2001, p3-l 6 See the List of Surrounding Property owners provided in [tern 6 of the Dredge Pennit Application. Page 3 of 4 ------ oflbe Permit for Grade paying for the future Pennitting and dredging operations," subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. This condition presents an unnecessary and unreasonable interference in private contracting matters. Rather than argue the legal basis of this Permit condition, the Barbee Mill Company is prepared to retain ownership of the Pennit and to seek compensation from the homeowner's without involving the City of Renton. Acceptance of The Barbee Mill Company's offer to retain title to the Special Pennit for Grade and Fill for the next ten years effectively obviates the need for submitting documents outlining the joint and several responsibility for future homeowners to the City of Renton. There is a certain efficiency to this result. The City of Renton can maintain a prudent distance from having to approve of the process and contractual tenns by which responsibility for payment of dredging will be implemented. Alternatively, if Condition No.2 cannot be waived, the Barbee Mill Company requests that a document "outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat" be delayed until such time that such a transfer is contemplated. Respectfully submitted this 8111 day of Jun1' 2006 fii#t,,tc/!~r LLOYD & ASSOClA TES, INc. J R. Michael Lloyd cc. R. Cugini, Vice President, Barbee Mill Company Page 4 of4 o~~ . +~.+ CIT~ )F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman oo·~!~ .- ~-. ~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor &>NrrO~. --------------------- June 13, 2006 R. Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92"" Street Snoqualmie, W A 98055 Re: Lake Washington May Creek Dredging, LUA~-I38, SP, SM, ECF Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Lloyd: This office has reviewed your request for reconsideration; This office sees no reason to change the original deciilion or attached conditions. Since an appeal has already been filed, the imliter Will be forwarded to the City Clerk for appropriate processing. _. Sincerely, -Qd~~~ . Fred Kaufman . IJearingExaminer City,of Renton CC:. Neil. Watts, Development ~ces Jerinirer Henning,D.,welopment Services . ". R. Cugini, Vice President, Barbee Mill: Coinparty ... ' " .' • CITY OF RENTON ~ ~~~!~~~l":sd~E'::9~;;:n~d~:!:~~S~O~~~ia~ut~:~~~;.~:..~n~h~~n~~n~9~806~5~4~25~'8::8~::-'~'90~5~(vO:;IO:-nn~'@en~V~1I0~Yd~.co;;;;m~J"'Uii:"E"~"E8"IV"~iiiD ... 06 June 8, 2006 Office of the Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's ORDER Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging File No. LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3' '1::-a, 11'< .• JS Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City of Renton Code, the Barbee Mill Company submits this Request for Reconsideration of the ORDER (May 25,2006) granting a Special Permit for Grade and fill (hereafter, Permit). Specifically, the Barbee Mill Company is requesting reconsideration of Permit approval Conditions No. I and 2 of the Special Permit for Grade and Fill.' These two Permit conditions provide: 1. The permit shall be for a period not to exceed five years. The applicant shall be entitled to apply for a new Permit under the regulations that exist when a new permit application is submitted 2. The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of foture homeowners in the currently approved plat for paying for the future permitting and dredging operations. These documents shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. 1. The Hearing Examiner's Decision to limit the Permit duration (Condition No. 1) to only five years was an error in judgement not supported by law or facts presented in the admitted case file and supporting documentation, City of Renton staff reports, or by testimony offered at the public hearing. As stated in the transmittal letter of the May Creek Mitigation Dredge Application (Lloyd & Associates, Inc., September 27, 2005), "flood mitigation dredging is necessary to protect the property and future homeowner's interests" from flood damages, and that "the importance of establishing a longer term Permit is an essential and fundamental step in providing a measure of certainty to the Barbee Mill Company and future property owners." We agree in major part with Ms. Kayren Kittrick's (City of Renton, Development Services Division) statement presented at the Public Hearing that: "the people who move into this new development will have a severe interest in this process, both monetarily as well as the impacts to their daily lives." As presented in the public hearing, the cost of securing Permits is a substantial burden that will eventually be carried by homeowners. We also agree with Conclusion No. I that "Both life and property could be harmed if the creek overflows its banks,,2 as this would severely impact their -daily lives. Adding the uncertainly caused by a shorter Permit duration to the mix does not protect the 1 The Barbee Mill Company takes no exception to Conditions 3. 4. and 5 of the Special Permit for Grade and Fill. 2 See Conclusion No. , of the attached ORDER, p. 7 Request for Reconsideration of '. oaring Examiner's ORDER granting a Sped" .:u-t for Grade and Fill monetary or personal impacts on people's lives, or the interests of the current owner, The Barbee Mill Company. The ORDER further states in Conclusion No. 3 that granting a ten year Permit will create an "unduly long period" before another review, limiting the options of future homeowners to participate in the process. The implication is that the people who may live at the new development will be bound by a ten year Permit and will not have the opportunity to participate in the process for an unduly long period. This is incorrect. There is nothing in the Permit, application materials, project files, public testimony or the ORDER which limits future owners' options for submitting a new Permit application to the City of Renton specific to their wishes. Alternatively, they could seek a revision in the Permit, which would likely trigger a full review process by the City of Renton. Finally, the residents, if they so desire, could simply not dredge the May Creek Delta. The ORDER does not place any requirement to dredge the May Creek Delta to mitigate potential flooding. Nor does the ORDERR require the Barbee Mill Company to transfer the permit to the homeowners. Implementation of the permitting process and dredging has been a voluntary burden that has been funded to date entirely by the Barbee Mill Company. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 50 years for navigational and flood protection purposes. The permitting process has resulted in numerous hearings before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Renton. The request for a ten year Permit does not represent an unduly long period of time for a maintenance dredging Permit given that dredging has been conducted for decades and will be necessary for many more decades or until such time that May Creek Basin source control measures are effectively implemented to minimize the deposition of sediments in the May Creek Delta. A ten year Permit duration is also reasonable in the context of site development. Site build-out will take a number of years from the point in time that all Permits have been secured, infrastructure improvements constructed, and mitigation work is implemented before residents will be able to move in. A ten year Permit is not an unduly long period of time by any stretch of the imagination and will only afford the owner's a short buffer of time before new permits (local, state, and federal) must be secured to conduct dredging. The Findings of Fact also recognize the participation of numerous state and federal agencies directly involved with every dredging event. These regulatory entities include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology. Each of these regulatory entities provides substantial process and review prior to issuing conditioned approvals or Permits. During the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner posed the rhetorical question, "Should nature be allowed to take its natural course?" The implication is that there is some rationale or fact to suggest that dredging is unnecessary. As referenced in the Biological Assessment,3 The May Creek Basin Action Plan (April 2001), makes the primary conclusion and recommendation that "continued dredging is the only viable alternative'''! [until such time as effective erosion control measures are implemented in the May Creek Drainage Basin]. The City of Renton Council and the City of Renton BuildingIPlanninglPublic Works Department were participants in developing the May Creek Basin Action Plan. In response to the Examiner's remarks about the necessity of dredging, there is no support for this inference in the referenced scientific literature, project files, application materials, public testimony, City of Renton policies, guidelines, or adopted planning documents. If the purpose for the judgement, which conditions the Permit with a five-year duration is based on speculative J The Biological Assessment (Meridian Environmenta~ Inc.) was presented as Item 14 of the Land Use Permit Application and submitted to the City of Renton . • May Creek Basin Action Plan, p.3-23 Page 2 of4 for Reconsideration Examiner's for Grade and Fill questions of necessity of dredging in the future, then Condition No. I of the Decision is not grounded in fact. One of the primary recommendations of the adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan was that UJublic policy should] "Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging.,,5 This policy of "facilitating Permitting" as identified by the May Creek Basin Action Plan does not mean that shorter Permit cycles facilitates the public interest in mitigating potential flood damages to life and property. Rather, the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Committee recognize the necessity of dredging the May Creek Delta and that facilitation of this action should be promoted and not burdened by the additional cost of permitting and uncertainty that is created with every Permit process. Conclusion No. 3 of the ORDER provides that "dredging has apparently not created any untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise." Recent dredge events have been of considerably larger scope than flood mitigation/maintenance dredging permitted by the ORDER. While these dredging events have occurred at the site, the facility has existed within a largely residential community6 for many years without untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise arising from dredging. The City of Renton recognized the non-conforming land use status of former mill operations with the COR land use designation in 1993. Conclusion No. 3 also states that "conditions have changed since the last Permit was issued." While it is true that miIl operations have been discontinued, the residential nature of immediately adjacent properties has not. Development of the Barbee Mill property will create additional immediately adjacent residential area subject to these impacts. However, there is a substantial difference, and it is more that just proximity. Residents at the new community will have a vested interest in protecting their property from flooding. This is a distinctly different perspective than that which is entertained by the current adjacent residential community. The Barbee Mill Company is sensitive to the potential for short-term equipment noise and truck traffic impacts that are an unavoidable consequence of dredging. As discussed in our Permit application materials and as presented at the public hearing, at build-out we will mitigate these impacts to the extent possible by off-loading dredged materials at Quendall Terminals. The net result is that noise to nearby homeowners will be reduced substantially and heavy truck traffic within the development can be eliminated. If effective erosion control measures are ever implemented in May Creek Valley, then the "changed conditions argument" would take on a meaning that we could all agree with. Given the high cost of Permitting and the uncertainty of a shorter Permit cycle, the benefits of a predictive level of certainty over a ten year period is a substantial benefit to the Barbee Mill Company and to future homeowners. Rather than accept the high cost and uncertainty associated with a five year Permit, the Barbee Mill Company will retain title to the Permit for the next ten years. While this is not the most desirable situation, this is an acceptable condition to the Permit for a Special Grade and Fill Permit provided that Condition No.2 is waived and that other unacceptable terms or conditions are not added to the current Permit. 2. Condition No. 2 of the Decision requires: "The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat for paying for the future Permitting and dredging operations," subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. This condition presents an unnecessary and unreasonable interference in private contracting matters. Rather than argue the legal basis of this Permit condition, the Barbee MiIl Company is prepared to retain ownership of the Permit and to seek compensation from the 'Recommendation No 10, May Creek Basin Action Plan, April 2001, p3-1 6 See the List of Surrounding Property owners provided in Hem 6 of the Dredge Permit Application. Page 3 of4 i J Request for Reconsideration of • learing Examiner's ORDER granting a Spec.nnit for Grade and Fill homeowner's without involving the City of Renton. Acceptance of The Barbee Mill Company's offer to retain title to the Special Permit for Grade and Fill for the next ten years effectively obviates the need fot submitting documents outlining the joint and several responsibility for future homeowners to the City of Renton. There is a certain efficiency to this result. The City of Renton can maintain a prudent distance from having to approve of the process and contractual terms by which responsibility for payment of dredging will be implemented. Alternatively, if Condition No.2 cannot be waived, the Barbee Mill Company requests that a document "outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat" be delayed until such time that such a transfer is contemplated. Respectfully submitted this 81b day of June, 2006 <],,/ /: 2.;J/' ;/ /O(//'f1C/tt~Jy 1/--1 /{ LwYD & AsSOCIATES, INC. J R. Michael Lloyd ce. R. Cugini, Vice President, Barbee Mill Company Page4of4 Minutes OWNER/APPLICANT: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: • • May25,2006 OmnCEOFTBEHEAruNGE~ThffiR CITY OF RENTON Barbee Mill Company PO Box 359 Renton, W A 98057 Michael LIoyd Lloyd & Associates 38210 SE 9200 Street Snoqualmie, W A 98065 Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging File No.: LUA 05-138, SP, SM, ECF 4300 Lake Washington Blvd. Applicant seeks a IO-year Special Permit for grade and fill in order to dredge the mouth of May Creek where sediments collect. Removal of fill will prevent flooding of the Barbee Mill property and maintain navigational depths. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April II, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The foUowing minutes are a summary of the AprU 18, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 9:0 I a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testifY were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map and Zoning application, proof of posting, proof of publication and Map other documentation pertinent to this reQuest. Lake. Washington/May CreeAdging File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, Srr.ECF May 25, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.3: Map of ExiStiitg Contour Elevations of May Creek Delta Area Exhibit No.5: Cross Sections AA-BB-CC for Proposed Dredging Area Exhibit No.7: Exhibit 6 from Preliminary Plat Hearing showing the Southern Portion of the Plat • Exhibit No.4: Proposed Dredging Contotifs Mthe May Creek Delta Area Exhibit No.6: Video Showing 1990 Flooding of May Creek The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The subject's property is quite large and is zoned Commercial Office Residential. May Creek flows through the southeastern portion of the property and discharges into Lake Washington at the southern terminus of the property. The mouth of May Creek is where the proposed dredging would occur. The subject site is located to the west of Lake Washington Boulevard North and approximately north of North 40th Street. The existing uses to the north include vacant property and residential property, to the east are residential properties, to the south are residential properties and to the west is Lake Washington. . The site is currently utilized by the Barbee Mill Company, however a residential development proposal is being reviewed. The preliminary plat has been approved and the project is waiting for site plan review and approval. The applicant is requesting a 10-year permit to dredge the mouth of May Creek, they estimate that the dredging would occur three times over the next 10 years. The have requested that the frequency and amount of material to be removed remain flexible, that amount can vary dependent upon the weather conditions. They are estimating that the total amount of dredging over that I O-y~ar p.criod ~ould be anywhere from 12,000 -40,000 cubic yards to maintain the proposed dredge contours. The project was last reviewed at a public hearing on December 16, 1997, at that time they requested an annual dredging permit for a 5-year period. The dewateting areas are located to the north of the site with an alternate dewatering area that is located to the south. The altemate site has been proposed due to the development projected for the north. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the project with 2 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The material could be removed via Lake Washington by boat, a portion is proposed to remain on site and some of it could be removed by trucks to Lake Washington Blvd. The applicant has identified a 608 square yard dewatering area to the north of the proposed dredging area and a 487 square yard dewatering area to the south of the proposed dredging area. During the dredging operations, it is estimated that as many as 150-200 truck loads of sand and gravel may be moved off site over a three-six week time frame. A portion of the clean fill may be used on site. The traffic impacts are expected to be limited in duration and are not anticipated to cause significant adverse impacts to the existing roads. No screening, landscaping, fencing or setbacks are required for the dredging area. The proposed dewatering area required compliance with the DOE 2001 Storm Water Management Manual for erosion and sedimentation Lake. Washington/May Cree.dging File No.: LUA..()5-138, SP, SM, ECF May 25, 2006 Page 3 control. ill addition a shoreline restoration plan with a IO-foot vegetative buffer was proposed as part of the biological assessment that was submitted to the US Anny Corps of Engineers. The plan proposed a variety of native shrubs, trees and groundcover to provide habitat areas along that shoreline. The dredge material would temporarily be stockpiled on the dewatering areas to dewater the spoils. The applicant will need to remove the spoils from the temporary storage areas to an upland location within six months of each dredging cycle. The applicant intends to sell the majority of the dredge spoils, some maybe used on site as fill during the site development of the residential development. The noise levels are anticipated to be limited in duration during the dredge cycles. The water from the spoils would drain out into the soil and eventually back into Lake Washington. No testing of the dredge soils has been recommended at this time. Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates, 38210 SE 92"" Street, Snoqualmie, W A 98065 stated that in terms of the volume of materials to be dredged, the number is higher than obviously what is anticipated, but the weather is not always predictable. Three to four thousand yards seems to have been the historical tradition in this area. The dewatering site on the north shore has been used in the past for eight to ten years. It has worked very effectively, as the material go into the stockpile, it was not necessary to use trucks, the dredge materials themselves rapidly dewater. If the development should occur, the area to the south, alternate dewatering area, should work just fine, it will result in a slightly slower pace but not extensive modification of the pace of the work. Typically testing is done at each dredging, they have always been very clean, it is not a big issue to grab a sample and run it through a lab. Robert Cugini, Barbee Mill Co., PO Box 359, Renton, WA 98057 stated that the reason for the IO-year permit is to deal with the issues for the future with May Creek and the development of the property as residential property. This will provide some surety that all issues will be dealt with in the future. ill the past they have operated under five-year permits that resulted in one or two dredges during that time. The cost of getting the permits is substantial, in fact the permitting cost associated with obtaining one is generally larger than the cost of doing the work. The mouth of May Creek has been dredged since 1947 on a 3-5 year cycle. The southern dewatering area has been chosen because of the development going on in the northern section. Lot 48 in the new plat is the former northern dewatering area. The southern dewatering area is a storm water detention area and is scheduled as open space, there is some discussion as to how the turnarounds will work in this area. There is residential to the south, that land is also under the ownership of the Cugini's. The material could be moved off-site via water, there is potential for reuse on the Quendall site, which is the site just to the north. A video was shown of the January 1990 flooding on May Creek. The water was 10-20 times more than normal for the creek. The dredging was on a cycle of every two to three years. As development grows in the area, the cost of the dredging will be turned over to the homeowners. The last permit cycle was approximately $200,000 and that does not include the dredging, just the cost of obtaining a permit. There are 115 homes proposed for the development. ill the last cycle there were bark and wood waste issues in front of the pre-existing sawmill and that was included in some of the costs. Lake. Washington/May Cree.edging File No.: LUA~5-I38, SP, S~ECF May25,2006 Page 4 • Kavren Kittrick, Development Services stated that there is a storm drairiage pond that is part of the erosion control for the plat on the south shore, directly adjacent to the boathouse lot. A scow has been used in the past for dredging portions of the creek/river and the resultant sand and gravel was transported to another site. This prevents any stockpiling close to the creek. Dewatering can be accomplished without stockpiling on site. Truck traffic is more difficult. The roads inside this plat are not specifically designed for large amounts of traffic. The property owners would most likely not be happy with this kind of traffic every three to four years. The Examiner questioned if ten years was appropriate for this permit. The future homeowners would be burdened with a large expense every three to four years with this process. Should nature just be allowed to takes its natural course? Ms. Kittrick stated that the Cedar seems to be mellowing out, May Creek uplands are still significantly underdeveloped and most likely will remain that way. If nature would be allowed to take its course, she was not sure what it would do without some sort of study to see what would happen, the fact that it has been dredged all this time, the greater concern seems to be with testing the site. The Corps of Engineers and DOE most likely have that well covered. Because this is a ten year request, the people who move into the new development will have a severe interest in this process, both monetarily as well as the impacts to their daily lives. Although a ten-year pennit could be granted, the Corps of Engineers and the DOE still would review each and every dredging process. Mr. Cugini stated that regarding the potential for contamination in the spoils that are removed during the dredging. They test every time they dredge and have found nothing. The site is removed from the potential contamination to the north and separated by quite a distance. The May Creek channel is quite far from any potential issues. They will continue to sample the dredge material and validate that there are no issues. At this point all three sites along the lake had some contamination from the industrial activity over the years. The Quendall Tenninal site was the site of the Riley Tar and Creosote Manufacturing facility and of the three sites has the most issues. Both the Barbee Mill site and the Allen site to the north have been undergoing voluntary clean up under the DOE supervision. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:0 I am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates, filed a request for approval of a Special Pennit for dredging the mouth of May Creek, 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was ·entered into the record as Exhibit #1. . 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal. Lake. WashingtonlMay Cree.aging File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF May25,2006 Page 5 • 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 4300 Lake Washington Boulevard. The site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. May Creek flows southwest across the site. 6. A plat has been approved for the former lumber mill operation that occupied the subject site. The proposed use and past use are located on both sides of the creek. 7. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December 1959. 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitabkfor the development of Office and Residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies oflhe Plan. 9. The subject site is zoned COR (Center: Office/Residential) a category applied in June 1993 with the enactment of Ordinance 4404. 10. The applicant proposes a new permit that would extend approval for the periodic dredging of materials that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek. An existing five (5) year permit was approved for the site in December 1997. That permit has expired. The applicant would like a ten (10) year permit. The applicant noted that permit process is time-consuming and costly. In addition, the applicant needs an Army Corps permit, which has a duration of ten years so that the time periods would coincide if this permit were also issued for 10 years. II. As indicated above this site was reviewed for a previously approved permit. Until recently there have not been many changes in the area but a plat for detached single-family homes has been approved for the subject site. 12. The proposed project area is approximately 55,000 square feet. The applicant has estimated that between 12,000 to 40,000 cubic yards of material would be dredged from the mouth of May Creek. The amount is an estimate and varies depending on the storm conditions and the amount of material deposited by those storm events. The accumulated materials interfere with flows of the creek and the impeded creek can cause flooding. Routine maintenance is a permitted exemption allowed the applicant under the Shoreline Management Program. 13. Materials would be stockpiled on the site and dewatered 10 reduce their weight and make them suitable for other uses. The dewatering will occur north of the mouth of the creek but could get displaced if the plat were developed during the permit period. Water will drain from the materials back into the lake. This area will provide temporary storage while water drains from the materials. There is also a possibility that the materials would be taken away from the site by barge if stockpiling locations become limited. 14. The applicant proposes selling the materials. Some materials, if suitable, could be used for the development ofthe subject site. 15. Each dredge event requires separate review by both the State Departments of Ecology and Wildlife (for fisheries review). Actual dredging would be dictated by storm events and the amount of material that such events deposit in the delta area. There may be years without any need to dredge. The estimate is Lake. Washington/May CreekAdging File No.: LUA-05-l38, SP, Sr.nCF May 25,2006 Page 6 • that over the life of a ten-year pennit dredging would occur approximately three times. The historic trend has been to remove approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of material every three to four years. 16. The process will be subject to erosion and sedimentation control measures under State Department of Ecology guidelines. There will be a ten-foot shoreline restoration plan along the shoreline, which was required by the Army Corps. Staff was concerned that screening and buffering for the potential residential development was not included and recommended that a plan be submitted. 17. The removal of the materials from the site would require approximately 100 to 200 round trips for the exportation of materials. These trips will depend on how much material is deposited by flood and normal accretion. The haul route would be via Lake Washington Boulevard. Staff indicated that the temporary nature of the hauling would not substantially interfere with traffic in the area. Staff has recommended that all spoils be removed from the site within six months and that no storage, after dewatering, occur within 200 feet from the edge of the planted area of May Creek. 18. Testing in the past has demonstrated that the materials show no significant levels of contamination. Sampling of materials will continue as needed since their use at other sites could cause liability if it were not clean and most sites that accept materials also require the materials to be tested. 19. All operations will be monitored by appropriate state and federal agencies to assure that fisheries are not interfered with and water quality is maintained. 20. The new pennit would potentially allow dredging after the plat is developed and occupied. That could affect the pennit and issues like stockpiling, haul routes and noise. There will also be a multiplicity of ownerships if the property is platted as proposed. There probably should be a way to provide notice to those purchasing homes in the plat that they might be responsible for periodic but substantial dredging . costs. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed dredging operation appears to serve the public use and interest. If the materials proposed to be dredged were left in place they would lead to flooding along May Creek. Both life and property could be hanned if the creek overflows its banks. The removal of the materials building up at the delta will prevent flood damage and should be approved: 2. As in the past, the applicant will have to work under pennits issued by other jurisdictions to avoid an interference with fish migrations. All operations will remain subject to review by agencies with appropriate jurisdiction and expertise. 3. In the past, the dredging has apparently not created any untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise. But conditions have changed since the last permit was issued. Approval has been granted for a substantial residential development immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed dredging. The dredging does create impacts that might not affect the industrial character of the existing area which would definitely affect a residential community if the plat were ultimately developed . .Dredging, hauling and noise are just some of the possible cOllsequences of this operation. Again, those impacts on the current area probably are negligible but that would not be the case if the area were surrounded by single-family homes or other residential uses. Therefore, rather than create an unduly long period before another review that would occur for a ten year permit, this office believes that a shorter permit is appropriate even given some of the issues raised by the applicant. Clearly, convenience and timing with an Army Corps permit would be nice but the Army Corps is not interested Lake. WashingtonlMay Cree.dging File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF May 25, 2006 Page 7 • in the affects on a residential community that might be developed in the next year or two. Therefore, the permit shall be issued for five years. 4. The applicant shall remain under the same constraints as were found in the earlier permit. The materials will have to be removed from the subject site within a reasonable time. Staft's recommendations are appropriate for the length of stockpiling, location and movement. 5. The other previous conditions regarding the temporary storage of the materials on the site in a location that is at least 200 feet from the outer edge of any landscaping located along May Creek or the shoreline of Lake Washington are still appropriate. 6. Any storage or placement of materials on the site that results in any permanent or topographical changes of the applicant's property shall be subject to separate review under the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance unless permitted under the platting development regulations for the currently approved plat. 7. The conditions recommended by staff are appropriate given the sensitive nature and location of the subject site. 8. The size and intensity of the operation and restoration efforts appear appropriate given the nature of the site and its current uses. The additional truck traffic will not unnecessarily burden the adjoining streets. DECISION: The Special Permit for Grade and Fill is approved subject to the following conditions: I. The permit shall be for a period not to exceed five years. The applicant shall be entitled to apply for a new permit under the regulations that exist when a new permit application is submitted. 2. The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat for paying for the future permitting and dredging operations. These documents shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. 3. The applicant shall be required to comply with all of the ERC Mitigation Measures. 4. A plan indicating how the dredging activities and dewatering areas will be screened from the proposed residential development shall be submitted to the Development Services Division Project Manager prior to the issuance of residential building permits on the upland portion of the subject site. 5. The dredging spoils are to be temporarily stored in the area described in this permit for no more than six months from the date that the dredging is completed for each dredging cycle. The applicant shall provide the City with the date the maintenance dredging is started and completed, and the date by which the dredging spoils are to be removed each year that it is necessary to complete the maintenance dredging. This will avoid any confusion between the applicant and City staff. ORDERED THIS 25th day of May 2006. Lake. Washington/May Cree.dging File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF May25,2006 PageS HEARING E INER TRANSMTITED TIUS 25" day of May 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates 38210 SE 920d Street Snoqualmie, W A 98065 Barbee Mill Company POBox 359 Renton, W A 98057 Robert Cugini Barbee Mill Company PO Box 359 Renton, W A 98057 TRANSMTITED TIHS 25" day of May 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire • Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division .-. Kayren Kittrick Development Services Div. Renton, W A 98056 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 8,2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 8, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing ofthe fIle. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in . Lake. WashingtonIMay Cree._!ting File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, S~CF May25,2006 • Page 9 private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. City of _ PIBiPW DoP8I1menl LAKE WASH/NGTON/MA YCREEK DREDGING PUBUCHEARINGDATE: Apri/18, 2006 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PreI/mInaJy fII>pot1 to the HearIng Examiner LUA05-138, SP, ECF, SM i'age4of7 Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended) on March 14, 2006 the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Detennlnation of Non-Signiflcance -Miligated (DNS-M) for the project. The DNs-M included 2 miligation measures. A 14-dayappeal period commenced on March 20, 2006 and ended on ApriJ 3, 2006. No appeals of the threshold detennination were filed. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review . Committee (ERG) issued the following miligation measures with the Detennlnation of Non-Signiflcance -Mttlgated: 1. The applicant shall provide a Temporruy Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of EcoJogy's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services DMsion. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the Biological Evaluation prepared by Meridian Environmental, LLC. dated June 28, 2005. ----- -~ --- e···· ZONING .'~. Pi'BIIT' TEcmoCAL BBIlVlCBS -I%IJ8II)f ',::' ... C4 n T24N R5E W . Lake Washington + + .. '.~ , I" . -... + I + ~ . ~ ~jll+ ~ ~~ '~.".' ~! c ~ Zz ~ : : ~; .. ' '." " , .•.• ;' "t' '.:',' . ........ ~ ... , .... , I .. '1,." ~"\I ....... "V:_'.~ . . .' . .. . . '. '.. .". '. former·.oil!!tg{(~r:fA9.Ahla· . . . .: .' -,,': ...... '+.'. '.' . . • "T"" '. ' . . . May Creek Delta ""-"""" ..... ,==~=:"WlfYl'lld ~""Ottt_. '''3 .J; RioGdMltlgattoh Mainten<tnce'Qredglng ··May ~~~ IlJ:iJs~ W$~hl'ngton .'. . .' " .•... '. ' .. .'.' . .~, . 'C', ,'... ....•. ~. " 'SHfiE'f .... ' . ",'..,. , . if,,,,,,~~"'~1'.G.' .'~m;oUR.f!;5VA~!vNS.. 201'4, o:~,.', ." ~':h'i;i-·;./'i);:.<;;\;."-·:;:' .'. ;'.':.' , .......... " ........... _.~.;' .• :~:.> " 0.""'.' ." •.•.. , ". '. "'--.'" " ' .. ' .. ' . ":.... . "" ...... . ... ;. .' " -' .... . ~ . :' '. '~. '. ',.:" ., .,.' .'. ' .. '. . .... .. -., . .... ; ." . !' . !' !i • 01 " J. . f !if 1 il .R I If ! I II ! .. ! I '''11 ,. !~ l II ." ·il , ~ gl : ~i I 11 '." -'. ft, .. u b. @. co ,I ': ..... ~=============~~ ".,~ .. '.'; -i .... ; T • • ·0 + May Creek Delta Shoreline Habitat Area B -2,400 sf Rood Mitigation _ Dredging • May Cleek Delta (!like WasiJIngton • Barbee Mill Company ) / ~, Shoreline Habitat Areq..A -1,800 sf , f , , / '-. / , / / I , , , , , f , , , , , , , I Shoreline Planting Plan SHEET 1 of 1 • • 6/2112006 - City Clerk's letter to regarding the appeal was re-sent to Parties of Record on 6121/2006 to include attachments. ~ Jason Seth 6/2112006 • • June 20, 2006 CERTIFICA IE OF MAILING SI A TE OF WASHINGTON ) ) § COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 20th day of June, 2006, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties ofrecord, notice of appeal filed by Michael Lloyd, attorney, representing the Barbee Mill Company, of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging Pernlit application. (LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF). Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk ary Public in and for the State of W shington, residing in Renton --,-------.~ ,". ". ',' '.i <, " .. ' r " : < '. '. . " .. , .. '. . ,' . . , .' ',.' .. ",' . ,:CITve>F :~ENT(jN . • t',' • ' .. '", . -. ,,', -'". -.. .' . . , .... , .. " . ." " " ~:.. -".';' ,; ' .... ','. " " ,CitY Clerk,: ' ." ... ' ." .. " \, . -t '.' ,.:. Kathy Kooiker, Mayor' : BoD'nie I. Walton ':, .. , , "'-' .. ' . ., . ." ", '-, ' . ; . ,." --". June 20, 2006. , '. ' , , -, ." , "o! .', • I • ..... • .• '. . .' ' ~. . .' -. '. " .' , " :.:,:' . -'. '.", . -'" ," "APPE~l, ~IL~~B~:' Mic~~~i L;~yd:Att~mey', Rep;es~~t~tive f~~ Ba~bee Mill Compa~y . ,: ..... :', " -.! ":. ,'; '" ,'~.' .. --.::, ,~''''-. " "'", ," ';'. . 'RE: . Appeal 6fHearing J;:xaminer'sdeci.siOridated.5i25/2P06 regarding the Lake. ',<. . . '.' ':'.' WashirigtoniMayCreek Dredging.permit applicatioq for a lO-yearSpe~ial' Permit to, .' .. '.' .',' ~dredgetherIlouth of May. Creek; located at 430p:Lake:Washingtoii ,BlvdNIl, .(FileNo, ; . LUA-05_138, SP, SM, EGf) :. . ,. " , ",' ,', ' ; . , i. . To' Parti'e's ~'f R~c~rd'i :'. ?:', i.': ,.', , 0- ", " . ~ ',~, . <,,' J ' " PU;sual1t 16 Tjife'IV,Chap;e~ 8,.Rento·n ~ity Code ofOrdi;a~~es; writ;~~appe~i'oiihehea~ing: , , :.', exaniiner's.decision 9n the,Lake WashingtonlMay·Gn:ek Dredging permit application has been '," . " ," filed with the City Clerk: '" ...... ', . ', •. ,' . .. .:., ',:" " ," ... ~~: .t,'," .~,~::.; .• :.;,,,,,:,"':':.: .. :..\' ; .. ~.'T.;.~._~' "" .. ".: .. : ': ',; .-... -: ... _ .•... :-'~: .•. J ... -~~.~.;<>i' ...•. '-... :".; .. ,:,'.:':.;. '. '. .. '. In 'a:ccordimce ,with' Renton Muriicipal Code Se'ction' 4:8-11 OF,the':CityClerk 'shall-notify all'.,· '. : .,: • ;,' : ,parties ot:re~of(j:ofthe. re~eipl.of iheappeaLp'ther parties:~ff,ec()i'd Imiysllbmit:letlersli~~ied ,', ". : . : '. ... ' to'support of thm P9sltIons \Vlthtnte!l (l O)d,!y~, of the-date ofmalhng:ofthe notIficatlo)1 of the" : " ' " filing of the appeal. The deadline for submissioh of additional letters is :June .30,2006,,' '" ~, . ',". f .""" '.'~: ~ .• ,:,r. o ,'."':": ~~. "::.",',, '. ,:-~::." '.~ ,,: •• ~',.~ ':" ".: "'_:""'~'" ~:: ~~f ',:, _ .. -"~.-,:'~,)" •• ,.' .~:: • ~ •• ' : •• " "~ •• ~ ;, .~", " ", . ':, NOTICE IS.HEl3-EBX GIVENthat.the written a]Jpeala'ndother.p~rtinent cJocu'ments will be'_'.,·. .," .' .' ',r.eviewed by the Council's Plant~ing,and Revelopme'nt Committee, 'The, Counctl Liason'~ill ",. ':, ' , notify all parties'pf re'cord of the.daie and, time'of the Pjanning and Developnie!lt Conimjttee i: ' '.~ :": , meeting, If you are not listed ill local telephon~airectoiies ,and ,wish to atte.nd the meeting,:' , .... . please call the,CounciI' Liason at 425-430-6501'for'infom1ation, ,The,recommendation of tne.' , . ,.' , . . .:' ' Committee 'will'be' presented for: considera~ion' by the full Co'uncil 'ai a s~bsequent, <;ouncil ' ," ", -···:,,· ... meeting.~·~ .~. ': .' ... ' ,;.... ,.).'."" . ~ ,.; .. , -. ""~"c ,. .'~ ,'," 'j:.'-, ,_ .~ ... 1,_.. r <,." ,.: " c' ,,: •• , '::.,."'.;"-~;:'.'" ;;.,' .!", \," .~,.,.\,\.: .. ':< ',.-.', -_ .... "".'.~ ,:-." .... ~ .,.'. '''':.: """~:"': "",.' ,Attached are a copy o{t~eappealand a copy of the Rentori Municipal Coderegardingapp"als o~,. . .: ,: ' , 'Hearing Examine~ decisions or recommendatioris."Please note that.the"City COlin~i! will be ', ... ! c!:msidering th~ merits:ofthe'appeal bas¢d upon t!le writtef!' record p,reviousIy'esi?blislied:, ';" ,'. ,. " ,Unjess a'showing can be madetha(additioiml evidence could:)1ot reasonajJly have' been availajJle, ""', .. . ,.," .... ,at ihep'riorhearing held by the Hearing Examiner, 'no:ftirther evidence or'testimonY·on this: "" . ".~, 'matter will.De'accepted bY,tne City COlulciL .. '. . ' ",( : . , " . " -, ' ' , .. ".\~ ... ~ ... -~ ,,"',,",,"'---"','\', " ~.;., '..," ... ,:.).: ..... '." ... , '.,':- " " " .. " ", For additional information or assistance,'please feel.fnie to call me at 425;430-6502,., (,. '.' "",;1',' ",,'". ""f •• 'J' • ..': ::::. '>./~' t.:: \.,: .... : ,. ..... ". ..~' .. ' . . "';':"';""Si!i~~r'el~/ ~".:,. ",' ".;"",.';:':;)"""" """ ",;" ~: ':' ~:",',',., :,-:,~, '. . ".~ . -.. . . . "'. ~, ,~ . ::,' ~:'Jjjah;;)~.',·" ., ,.'" , '" 0- . '~. -('- " . . . ' ","'.' --: " :', . "'..-! .'...~.:. ::'.'. . • .' . ··.i ;' .. >.' . • ": '~ - ..: '": (; w, , ; , , ,< , , \," " . ," ' .:; .... ~ I " " , ', ... ' I • ~~', ' ~, ' . ." ~ , . ',' . ',' . " , 4, r ' .. '. ,.,',. " " .",. ~.:: . r·.· ... ., . ;',~ ~ .. " . '.1,.,' " .' .1 • • .. . " . . . . . . . ~'~. '.~. i. • Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92nd Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 tel: 425-888-1905 eml: rml@centurytel.net (contact) Updated: 03/17/06 • • PARTIES OF RECORD MAY CREEK/LAKE WA DREDGING LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF Barbee Mill Company Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 tel: 425-226-3900 (owner / applicant) John Hannsen 4005 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: 425-430-1498 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) " • • CITY Of RENTON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION. 0 8 200" . TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL JUN II. FILE NO. i...£l& OS -/ ~..5;:; 51!1, z=~F REC I'IED 9',34 eM1 APPLICATION NAME L,(}Ir% /JJ,f):SII!AJG:lW /j(4 C(~?K 7;iFW!&-OFFIC~ ~ { The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated -...J&~tt~:t:Mf"'f!4.~Z~L~--_, 20~ l. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: /,?~. A •• Name: 'E:trbec Miff ~ 7 Address: 70. ~ 557 ~, t..O& f~'1 REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: 4/,CI/4£f-Lu:h"'''~ IL-;A.z:\ Address: 3:?y 0 5~ 92 .lJi>.s.T. SNC:>Qa,4LM ~£-, W~ '7&"ll6S-, 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: 7££ Atfocit?d Correction: __________________________ _ CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: _"""3:::..-'=.:e:.:::~=..Lft:....:+f,~;::(:.:::c::.1j;~e.:::c::.,,( _______________ _ Correction: __________________________ _ OTHER: No. Error::3& £. A 7T 1TCd(£ (':::> Correction: __________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Se;;-z:;;-l17I~cU. Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other Date ' NOTE: Please refer to nle IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. Cc. '. Lc-.,//( 1dhA',e'11 C,ly /Iffy HICITYCLERKIAPPEALIAPPEALtoC<Juncil.doc Alai ,t/at/.s. C>ev Stlc:5 p{Yf'cfcr' /. ><C"v-,:::,el i4l{ffffL2 d/ ;1l"d."-;"'5 C}:"",If 1'1 • • City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-IIOC4 ,_'. : .;, The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of 3 ;1, ,,',.; "the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-I I OF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures I, Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2, Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City CounciL No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council detennines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. 10 the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Councill'!lthorizing.new or additional _ . evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord, 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties, 7. Findiugs aud Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050Fl, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, 8, Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1'{)50F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of tbe Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: 10 any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner, Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record, The hurden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) , " . , • • rr=n()~ Lloyd & Associates, Inc. ~3~82!iil~O S:!!E~9~2n~d~S~treet.""'s!iin~oqiiU~almii,"'·e,"!!w~as~h"in"'gtiiioniii9!!!8~o6~5~4~25!i!.8~88!!"'~I9()~5~(v-!/fI~nn-!I@~ali;eniiivl!\"IOiiiYd!".coiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" June 8, 2006 City Council City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's ORDER Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging File No. LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF Attention: City Council Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 of the City of Renton Code, the Barbee Mill Company appeals portions of the ORDER of the Hearing Examiner dated May 25, 2006 for a Special Permit for Grade and fill (hereafter, Permit). Specifically, the Barbee Mill Company is appealing Permit approval Conditions No. I and 2 of the Special Permit for Grade and Fill. I Concurrently with this appeal, the Barbee Mill Company is making a Request for Reconsideration to the Office of the Hearing Examiner of Permit approval Conditions No. I and 2. If the Barbee Mill Company is successful in the Request for Reconsideration, this appeal will be withdrawn. These two Permit conditions provide: 1. The permit shall befor a period not to exceedjive years. The applicant shall be entitled to apply for a new Permit under the regulations that exist when a new permit application is submitted. 2. The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of foture homeowners in the currently approved plat for paying for the future permitting and dredging operations. These documents shall be subject to review and approval of the City A /torney. I. The Hearing Examiner's Decision to limit the Permit duration (Condition No.1) to only five years was an error in judgement not supported by law or facts presented in the admitted case file and supporting documentation, City of Renton staff reports, or by testimony offered at the public hearing. As stated in the transmittal letter of the May Creek Mitigation Dredge Application (Lloyd & Associates, Inc., September 27, 2005), "flood mitigation dredging is necessary to protect the property and future homeowner's interests" from flood damages, and that "the importance of establishing a longer term Permit is an essential and fundamental step in providing a measure of certainty to the Barbee Mill Company and future property owners." We agree in major part with Ms. Kayren Kittrick's (City of Renton, Development Services Division) statement presented at the Public Hearing that: "the people who move into this new development will have a severe interest in this process, both monetarily as well as the impacts to their daily lives." As presented in the public hearing, the cost of securing Permits is a substantial burden I The Barbee Mill Company takes no exception to Conditions 3, 4. and 5 of the Special Permit for Grade and Fill. ----------- .. . 'APpeal orthe Hearing Examiner's AER granting a Special Permit for Grade and'" that will eventually be carried by homeowners. We also agree with Conclusion No.1 that "Both life and property could be harmed if the creek overflows its banks,,2 as this would severely impact their daily lives. Adding the uncertainly caused by a shorter Permit duration to the mix does not protect the monetary or personal impacts on people's lives, or the interests of the current owner, The Barbee Mill Company. The ORDER further states in Conclusion No.3 that granting a ten year Permit will create an "unduly long period" before another review, limiting the options of future homeowners to participate in the process. The implication is that the people who may live at the new development will be bound by a ten year Permit and will not have the opportunity to participate in the process for an unduly long period. This is incorrect. There is nothing in the Permit, application materials, project files, public testimony or the ORDER which limits future owners' options for submitting a new Permit application to the City of Renton specific to their wishes. Alternatively, they could seek a revision in the Permit, which would likely trigger a full review process by the City of Renton. Finally, the residents, ifthey so desire, could simply not dredge the May Creek Delta. The ORDER does not place any requirement to dredge the May Creek Delta to mitigate potential flooding. Nor does the ORDERR require the Barbee Mill Company to transfer the permit to the homeowners. Implementation ofthe permitting process and dredging has been a voluntary burden that has been funded to date entirely by the Barbee Mill Company. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 50 years for navigational and flood protection purposes. The permitting process has resulted in numerous hearings before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Renton. The request for a ten year Permit does not represent an unduly long period of time for a maintenance dredging Permit given that dredging has been conducted for decades and will be necessary for many more decades or until such time that May Creek Basin source control measures are effectively implemented to minimize the deposition of sediments in the May Creek Delta. A ten year Permit duration is also reasonable in the context of site development. Site build-out will take a number of years from the point in time that all Permits have been secured, infrastructure improvements constructed, and mitigation work is implemented before residents will be able to move in. A ten year Permit is not an unduly long period of time by any stretch of the imagination and will only afford the owner's a short buffer of time before new permits (local, state, and federal) must be secured to conduct dredging. The Findings of Fact also recognize the participation of numerous state and federal agencies directly involved with every dredging event. These regulatory entities include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology. Each of these regulatory entities provides substantial process and review prior to issuing conditioned approvals or Permits. During the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner posed the rhetorical question, "Should nature be allowed to take its natural course?" The implication is that there is some rationale or fact to suggest that dredging is unnecessary. As referenced in the Biological Assessment,3 The May Creek Basin Action Plan (April 2001), makes the primary conclusion and recommendation that "continued dredging is the only viable alternative',4 [until such time as effective erosion control measures are implemented in the May Creek Drainage Basin]. The City of Renton Council and the City of Renton BuildingIPlanningiPublic Works Department were participants in developing the May Creek Basin 2 See Conclusion No. I of the attached ORDER, p. 7 J The Biological Assessment (Meridian Environmental, Inc.) was presented as Item 14 of the Land Use Permit Application and submitted to the City of Renton. 4 May Creek Basin Action Plan. p.3-23 Page 2 of4 · 'Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's AER granting a Special Pennit for Grade and ", Action Plan. In response to the Examiner's remarks about the necessity of dredging, there is no support for this inference in the referenced scientific literature, project files, application materials, public testimony, City of Renton policies, guidelines, or adopted planning documents. If the purpose for the judgement, which conditions the Permit with a five-year duration is based on speculative questions of necessity of dredging in the future, then Condition No. I of the Decision is not grounded in fact. One of the primary recommendations of the adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan was that [public policy should] "Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging."s This policy of "facilitating Permitting" as identified by the May Creek Basin Action Plan does not mean that shorter Permit cycles facilitates the public interest in mitigating potential flood damages to life and property. Rather, the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Committee recognize the necessity of dredging the May Creek Delta and that facilitation of this action should be promoted and not burdened by the additional cost of permitting and uncertainty that is created with every Permit process. Conclusion No. 3 of the ORDER provides that "dredging has apparently not created any untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise." Recent dredge events have been of considerably larger scope than flood mitigation/maintenance dredging permitted by the ORDER. While these dredging events have occurred at the site, the facility has existed within a largely residential community6 for many years without untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise arising from dredging. The City of Renton recognized the non-conforming land use status of former mill operations with the COR land use designation in 1993. Conclusion No.3 also states that "conditions have changed since the last Permit was issued." While it is true that mill operations have been discontinued, the residential nature of immediately adjacent properties has not. Development of the Barbee Mill property will create additional immediately adjacent residential area subject to these impacts. However, there is a substantial difference, and it is more that just proximity. Residents at the new community will have a vested interest in protecting their property from flooding. This is a distinctly different perspective than that which is entertained by the current adjacent residential community. The Barbee Mill Company is sensitive to the potential for short-term equipment noise and truck traffic impacts that are an unavoidable consequence of dredging. As discussed in our Permit application materials and as presented at the public hearing, at build-out we will mitigate these impacts to the extent possible by off-loading dredged materials at Quendall Terminals. The net result is that noise to nearby homeowners will be reduced substantially and heavy truck traffic within the development can be eliminated. If effective erosion control measures are ever implemented in May Creek Valley, then the "changed conditions argument" would take on a meaning that we could all agree with. Given the high cost of Permitting and the uncertainty of a shorter Permit cycle, the benefits of a predictive level of certainty over a ten year period is a substantial benefit to the Barbee Mill Company and to future homeowners. Rather than accept the high cost and uncertainty associated with a five year Permit, the Barbee Mill Company will retain title to the Permit for the next ten years. While this is not the most desirable situation, this is an acceptable condition to the Permit for a Special Grade and Fill Permit provided that Condition No.2 is waived and that other unacceptable terms or conditions are not added to the current Permit. 2. Condition No. 2 of the Decision requires: "The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat for S Recommendation No 10, May Creek Basin Action Plan, April 200 I, p3-1 I.> See the List of Surrounding Property owners provided in Item 6 of the Dredge Permit Application. Page 3 of4 • ..• 'APpeal of the Hearing Examiner's AER granting a Special Penn it for Grade and " paying for the future Permitting and dredging operations," subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. This condition presents an unnecessary and unreasonable interference in private contracting matters. Rather than argue the legal basis of this Permit condition, the Barbee Mill Company is prepared to retain ownership of the Permit and to seek compensation from the homeowner's without involving the City of Renton. Acceptance of The Barbee Mill Company's offer to retain title to the Special Permit for Grade and Fill for the next ten years effectively obviates the need for submitting documents outlining the joint and several responsibility for future homeowners to the City of Renton. There is a certain efficiency to this result. The City of Renton can maintain a prudent distance from having to approve of the process and contractual terms by which responsibility for payment of dredging will be implemented. Alternatively, if Condition No.2 cannot be waived, the Barbee Mill Company requests that a document "outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat" be delayed until such time that such a transfer is contemplated. cc. R. Cugini, Vice President, Barbee Mill Company Page 4 of4 . . • CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425·430·6510 o <;ash Ikftheck No. 2] 11 I Description: o Copy Fee !BJI\.ppeaJ Fee • Receipt N:. 0579 o Notary Service 0 _________ _ Sf.,/5/r~1 EeL Lf:' U.k5t"!5b;itlU; UI'"l j}p{fr~'i . j I 1.. v A -0 r -/?2 is' • 7 I Amount $ JS, 00 Funds Received From: / ,illeil 'if. I L I pyt7 Name !3. £; ~// /J •• t/ , /', " ~« c. ( 'Ot~&i7"? Address City/Zip i---~- I I I i I I I • • ------------1 1 1 1 1 I 7 3 1 4 I J I City Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal, Lk W A/May Creek Dredging LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF June 8, 2006 King County Journal City Attorney Larry Warren City Council * Julia Medzegian EDNSP/Economic Development Alex Pietsch Fire Dept/Fire Prevention Stan Engler Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties of Record** PBPW / Administration Gregg Zimmerman PBPW/Development Services Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Larry Meckling Kayren Kittrick PBPW/Transportation Services Peter Hahn PBPW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby LUA-05-J38 •. *City Clerk letter & POR List only • **Parties of Record number may change; review Hearing Examiner's Report for accurate number I I • Kathy Keolker. Mayor June 13,2006 R. Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92,d Street Snoqualmie, W A 98055 Re: Lake Washington May Creek Dredging, LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Lloyd: This office has reviewed your request for reconsideration. This office sees no reason to change the original decision or attached conditions. Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Since an appeal has already been filed, the matter will be forwarded to the City Clerk for appropriate processing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufinan Hearing Examiner City of Renton F1Unt cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services R. Cugini, Vice President, Barbee Mill Company ----IO-S-S,-s-ou-th-G-r-ad-,y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-,-W-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-S0-S-S---(4-2S-)-4-30--6-S-IS----~ (ii[') This paper contains 50%~ material. 30% oostcoosumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON • • ~~L~lO~Y~d~&~A~S~S~O~Ci~a~re~S~' ~In~C~.~~~~~~~~~~JU~N~O_8~~~06 ~ 38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie. Washington 98065 425-888-1905(vlO nnl@onvlloyd.com RECEIVED June 8, 2006 Office of the Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's ORDER Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging File No. LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3';~< 0,11-(, JS Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City of Renton Code, the Barbee Mill Company submits this Request for Reconsideration of the ORDER (May 25, 2006) granting a Special Permit for Grade and fill (hereafter, Permit). Specifically, the Barbee Mill Company is requesting reconsideration of Permit approval Conditions No. I and 2 of the Special Permit for Grade and Fill.1 These two Permit conditions provide: I. The permit shall befor a period not to exceedjive years. The applicant shall be entitled to apply for a new Permit under the regulations that exist when a new permit application is submitted. 2. The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of foture homeowners in the currently approved plat for paying for the future permitting and dredging operations. These documents shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. I. The Hearing Examiner's Decision to limit the Permit duration (Condition No.1) to only five years was an error in judgement not supported by law or facts presented in the admitted case file and supporting documentation, City of Renton staff reports, or by testimony offered at-the public hearing. As stated in the transmittal letter of the May Creek Mitigation Dredge Application (Lloyd & Associates, Inc., September 27, 2005), "flood mitigation dredging is necessary to protect the property and future homeowner's interests" from flood damages, and that "the importance of establishing a longer term Permit is an essential and fundamental step in providing a measure of certainty to the Barbee Mill Company and future property owners." We agree in major part with Ms. Kayren Kittrick's (City of Renton, Development Services Division) statement presented at the Public Hearing that: "the people who move into this new development will have a severe interest in this process, both monetarily as well as the impacts to their daily lives." As presented in the public hearing, the cost of securing Permits is a substantial burden that will eventually be carried by homeowners. We also agree with Conclusion No. I that "Both life and property could be harmed if the creek overflows its banks,,2 as this would severely impact their " daily lives. Adding the uncertainly caused by a shorter Permit duration to the mix does not protect the I The Barbee Mill Company takes no exception to Conditions 3,4, and 5 of the Special Pennit for Grade and Fill. 2 Sec Conclusion No. I of the attached ORDER, p. 7 • . Req~est for Reconsideration of the ang Examiner's ORDER granting a Special p.tI for Grade and Fill monetary or personal impacts on people's lives, or the interests of the current owner, The Barbee Mill Company. The ORDER further states in Conclusion No.3 that granting a ten year Permit will create an "unduly long period" before another review, limiting the options of future homeowners to participate in the process. The implication is that the people who may live at the new development will be bound by a ten year Permit and will not have the opportunity to participate in the process for an unduly long period. This is incorrect. There is nothing in the Permit, application materials, project files, public testimony or the ORDER which limits future owners' options for submitting a new Permit application to the City of Renton specific to their wishes. Alternatively, they could seek a revision in the Permit, which would likely trigger a full review process by the City of Renton. Finally, the residents, if they so desire, could simply not dredge the May Creek Delta. The ORDER does not place any requirement to dredge the May Creek Delta to mitigate potential flooding. Nor does the ORDERR require the Barbee Mill Company to transfer the permit to the homeowners. Implementation of the permitting process and dredging has been a voluntary burden that has been funded to date entirely by the Barbee Mill Company. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 50 years for navigational and flood protection purposes. The permitting process has resulted in numerous hearings before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Renton. The request for a ten year Permit does not represent an unduly long period of time for a maintenance dredging Permit given that dredging has been conducted for decades and will be necessary for many more decades or until such time that May Creek Basin source control measures are effectively implemented to minimize the deposition of sediments in the May Creek Delta. A ten year Permit duration is also reasonable in the context of site development. Site build-out will take a number of years from the point in time that all Permits have been secured, infrastructure improvements constructed, and mitigation work is implemented before residents will be able to move in. A ten year Permit is not an unduly long period of time by any stretch of the imagination and will only afford the owner's a short buffer of time before new permits (local, state, and federal) must be secured to conduct dredging. The Findings of Fact also recognize the participation of numerous state and federal agencies directly involved with every dredging event. These regulatory entities include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology. Each of these regulatory entities provides substantial process and review prior to issuing conditioned approvals or Permits. During the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner posed the rhetorical question, "Should nature be allowed to take its natural course?" The implication is that there is some rationale or fact to suggest that dredging is unnecessary. As referenced in the Biological Assessment/ The May Creek Basin Action Plan (April 2001), makes the primary conclusion and recommendation that "continued dredging is the only viable alternative',4 [until such time as effective erosion control measures are implemented in the May Creek Drainage Basin]. The City of Renton Council and the City of Renton BuildingIPlanninglPublic Works Department were participants in developing the May Creek Basin Action Plan. In response to the Examiner's remarks about the necessity of dredging, there is no support for this inference in the referenced scientific literature, project files, application materials, public testimony, City of Renton policies, guidelines, or adopted planning documents. If the purpose for the judgement, which conditions the Permit with a five-year duration is based on speculative J The Biological Assessment (Meridian Environmental, inc.) was presented as Item 14 of the Land Use Permit Application and submitted to the City of Renton. 4 May Creek Basin Action Plan, p.3~23 Page 2 of4 Req~est for Reconsideration of the ttmg Examiner's ORDER granting a Special P_ for Grade and Fill questions of necessity of dredging in the future, then Condition No. I of the Decision is not grounded in fact. One of the primary recommendations of the adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan was that [public policy should] "Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging."s This policy of "facilitating Permitting" as identified by the May Creek Basin Action Plan does not mean that shorter Permit cycles facilitates the public interest in mitigating potential flood damages to life and property. Rather, the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Committee recognize the necessity of dredging the May Creek Delta and that facilitation of this action should be promoted and not burdened by the additional cost of permitting and uncertainty that is created with every Permit process. Conclusion No. 3 of the ORDER provides that "dredging has apparently not created any untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise." Recent dredge events have been of considerably larger scope than flood mitigation/maintenance dredging permitted by the ORDER. While these dredging events have occurred at the site, the facility has existed within a largely residential communitl for many years without untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise arising from dredging. The City of Renton recognized the non-conforming land use status of former mill operations with the COR land use designation in 1993. Conclusion No.3 also states that "conditions have changed since the last Permit was issued." While it is true that mill operations have been discontinued, the residential nature of immediately adjacent properties has not. Development of the Barbee Mill property will create additional immediately adjacent residential area subject to these impacts. However, there is a substantial difference, and it is more that just proximity. Residents at the new community will have a vested interest in protecting their property from flooding. This is a distinctly different perspective than that which is entertained by the current adjacent residential community. The Barbee Mill Company is sensitive to the potential for short-term equipment noise and truck traffic impacts that are an unavoidable consequence of dredging. As discussed in our Permit application materials and as presented at the public hearing, at build-out we will mitigate these impacts to the extent possible by off-loading dredged materials at Quendall Terminals. The net result is that noise to nearby homeowners will be reduced substantially and heavy truck traffic within the development can be eliminated. If effective erosion control measures are ever implemented in May Creek Valley, then the "changed conditions argument" would take on a meaning that we could all agree with. Given the high cost of Permitting and the uncertainty of a shorter Permit cycle, the benefits of a predictive level of certainty over a ten year period is a substantial benefit to the Barbee Mill Company and to future homeowners. Rather than accept the high cost and uncertainty associated with a five year Permit, the Barbee Mill Company will retain title to the Permit for the next ten years. While this is not the most desirable situation, this is an acceptable condition to the Permit for a Special Grade and Fill Permit provided that Condition No.2 is waived and that other unacceptable terms or conditions are not added to the current Permit. 2. Condition No. 2 of the Decision requires: "The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat for paying for the future Permitting and dredging operations," subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. This condition presents an unnecessary and unreasonable interference in private contracting matters. Rather than argue the legal basis of this Permit condition, the Barbee Mill Company is prepared to retain ownership of the Permit and to seek compensation from the 5 Recommendation No 10, May Creek Basin Action Plan. April 2001, p3-1 6 See the List of Surrounding Property owners provided in Item 6 of the Dredge Permit Application. Page 3 of4 · Req~est for Reconsideration of the img Examiner's ORDER granting a Special pit for Grade and Fill homeowner's without involving the City of Renton. Acceptance of The Barbee Mill Company's offer to retain title to the Special Permit for Grade and Fill for the next ten years effectively obviates the need for submitting documents outlining the joint and several responsibility for future homeowners to the City of Renton. There is a certain efficiency to this result. The City of Renton can maintain a prudent distance from having to approve of the process and contractual terms by which responsibility for payment of dredging will be implemented. Alternatively, if Condition No.2 cannot be waived, the Barbee Mill Company requests that a document "outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat" be delayed until such time that such a transfer is contemplated. Respectfully submitted this 8th day of June, 2006 L:'!4' / ~ 2JJ/',;J ~A/l{~~1 t1 !~1 /{ LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. J R. Michael Lloyd cc. R. Cugini, Vice President, Barbee Mill Company Page 4 of4 !l!'" , ". ¥'! " ff. Q'I:O>" , , ~' . . " ..... --""!II.~-.. ""-.. ~' "--""-'--'_.-"'r--' ---• '-jiI , • ",. • ., ~I t ( '" 1.1 IT I' 5 Ii. II' ( : JILT t r r , e , r .. , , ''l • '.-'. ''> , • • 1 ......... _" ...... ".,." .... " ........ '_.-••••..................... , • .1" ... .-'... j;"U 1':1 ~-'",·~·~+· •• • ........ tJ.r1 •••••.• ,.O"'.'., ..... , ...... .., ........... ,"', •. ,..,.,-'" •... " ,",,', .1,..'11"" ""....",.."."~".. cil ... · ~ ...... --" .~ . ...." ........ ---.,. .. - '.t_ . .r , , $, , .. " •• • "'?'"~ . .v.;i :1 5 , lilt , '"WI _ ........ ' ....... ," .......... , ... , ........... , ...... -.. ,.,,.., ... ""' ....... -...... '., ............................ , ........ j~.' .... '.'-................... , ...... -'.J ............. -....... .. • • City of Renton Municipal Code: Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-IlOC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-IIOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures I. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or reconnnendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Cle,*, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-l3-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required. the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050FI, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Conncil Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-I -D50F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-I 982) 10. Conncil Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) • • CITY OF RENTON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDA TION. 0 8 ""Oli' , , TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL JUN LU , FlLENo.Lit10S--/35;..-:o;::;' 51V( 1~c..F, , '. RECEI~D 'O',51~/lfl APPUCA TION NAME LaKe:? WI}:'ZIJAJfi7N<.1 /fl& vCKE?J< ~TW1!«.,-OFFlC~ t The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated diaq Z ;,/ , 2~ 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: 'l Name: 'ikrke JI1f1f ~'!1<J Address: 70. @?;t 35'3 Kt31t!@Z, Wit f ,ft/.5'; REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: U,e f/4:f&'-Lt..c:>v7::o iLr'z'}J: \ Address: 3g;UC> .5'l? <Z2..v1'>-.$T. SN~QoALM(~.CV~ 7g~6S-I 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No._ Error: ~r-Atlp.c/&d COrrection: ____________________________________________________ __ CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: .:3ee. Jl:ff~ c,/eel Correction: ____________________________________________________ __ OTHER: No. Error: ~ £. A 71/tCd/c ?::> Correction: ____________________________________________________ __ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) S~Z:;-M~ck.J. Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other Date ' NOTE: Please refer to Tnle IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specifiC appeal procedures. CC', Lc../ry Wtwr-e::,1, C,{y /fily H:ICITY Cl.ERK\APPEALIAPPEAL to Council,doc, A/c."i Iv" tis veJ Sd 5 jJ,ddv I::;"'elf:til(f'~ "/ ftC-a,,..;"} 7~I~r .----.-.-_._ ... ----,~-- • • rr=n()~ Lloyd & Associates, Inc. ~~ ~38~2~IO~S~E~9~2n~d~S~~~l~S~n~~~u~mm~i~~~W~~~h~in-gt-on-9~8~~~5~42~5~.8~88~.~'~~5~(V-I!~)-~-'~@·en-v'~'O-Yd~.~-)m----------- June 8. 2006 City Council City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's ORDER Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging File No. LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF Attention: City Council Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 of the City of Renton Code, the Barbee Mill Company appeals portions of the ORDER of the Hearing Examiner dated May 25, 2006 for a Special Permit for Grade and fill (hereafter, Permit). Specifically, the Barbee Mill Company is appealing Permit approval Conditions No. I and 2 of the Special Permit for Grade and Fill.' Concurrently with this appeal, the Barbee Mill Company is making a Request for Reconsideration to the Office of the Hearing Examiner of Permit approval Conditions No. 1 and 2. If the Barbee Mill Company is successful in the Request for Reconsideration, this appeal will be withdrawn. These two Permit conditions provide: 1. The permit shall befor a period not to exceedjive years. The applican/ shall be entitled to apply for a new Permit under the regulations that exist when a new permit application is submit/ed. 2. The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of fUture homeowners in the currently approved plat for paying for the fUture permitting and dredging operations. These documents shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. I. The Hearing Examiner's Decision to limit the Permit duration (Condition No.1) to only five years was an error in judgement not supported by law or facts presented in the admitted case file and supporting documentation. City of Renton staff reports. or by testimony offered at the public hearing. As stated in the transmittal letter of the May Creek Mitigation Dredge Application (Lloyd & Associates, Inc., September 27, 2005), "flood mitigation dredging is necessary to protect the property and future homeowner's interests" from flood damages, and that "the importance of establishing a longer term Permit is an essential and fundamental step in providing a measure of certainty to the Barbee Mill Company and future property owners." We agree in major part with Ms. Kayren Kittrick's (City of Renton, Development Services Division) statement presented at the Public Hearing that: "the people who move into this new development will have a severe interest in this process, both monetarily as well as the impacts to their daily lives." As presented in the public hearing, the cost of securing Permits is a substantial burden t The Barbee Mill Company takes no exception to Conditions 3. 4. and 5 of the Special Pennit for Grade and Fill. Appeal of the Hearing ExaminerLER granting a Special Pennit for Grade an_I that will eventually be carried by homeowners. We also agree with Conclusion No. I that "Both life and property could be harmed if the creek overflows its banks,,2 as this would severely impact their daily lives. Adding the uncertainly caused by a shorter Pennit dllration to the mix does not protect the monetary or personal impacts on people's lives, or the interests of the current owner, The Barbee Mill Company. The ORDER further states in Conclusion No.3 that granting a ten year Permit will create an "unduly long period" before another review, limiting the options of future homeowners to participate in the process. The implication is that the people who may live at the new development will be bound by a ten year Permit and will not have the opportunity to participate in the process for an unduly long period. This is incorrect. There is nothing in the Permit, application materials, project files, public testimony or the ORDER which limits future owners' options for submitting a new Permit application to the City of Renton specific to their wishes. Alternatively, they could seek a revision in the Permit, which would likely trigger a full review process by the City of Renton. Finally, the residents, if they so desire, could simply not dredge the May Creek Delta. The ORDER does not place any requirement to dredge the May Creek Delta to mitigate potential flooding. Nor does the ORDERR require the Barbee Mill Company to transfer the permit to the homeowners. Implementation of the permitting process and dredging has been a voluntary burden that has been funded to date entirely by the Barbee Mill Company. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 50 years for navigational and flood protection purposes. The permitting process has resulted in numerous hearings before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Renton. The request for a ten year Permit does not represent an unduly long period oftime for a maintenance dredging Permit given that dredging has been conducted for decades and will be necessary for many more decades or until such time that May Creek Basin source control measures are effectively implemented to minimize the deposition of sediments in the May Creek Delta. A ten year Permit duration is also reasonable in the context of site development. Site 'build-out will take a number of years from the point in time that.a11 Permits have been secured, infrastructure improvements constructed, and mitigation work is implemented before residents will be able to move in. A ten year Permit is not an unduly long period of time by any stretch of the imagination and will only afford the owner's a short buffer oftime before new permits (local, state, and federal) must be secured to conduct dredging. The Findings of Fact also recognize the participation of numerous state and federal agencies directly involved with every dredging event. These regulatory entities include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology. Each of these regulatory entities provides substantial process and review prior to issuing conditioned approvals or Permits. During the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner posed the rhetorical question, "Should nature be allowed to take its natural course?" The implication is that there is some rationale or fact to suggest that dredging is unnecessary. As referenced in the Biological Assessment,3 The May Creek Basin Action Plan (April 2001), makes the primary conclusion and recommendation that "continued dredging is the only viable alternative'"' [until such time as effective erosion control measures are implemented in the May Creek Drainage Basin]. The City of Renton Council and the City of Renton BuildingIPlanninglPublic Works Department were participants in developing the May Creek Basin 2 See Conclusion No. I of the attached ORDER, p. 7 J The Biological Assessment (Meridian Environmental, Inc.) was presented as Item 14 of the Land Use Pennit Application and submitted to the City of Renton. 4 May Creek Basin Action Plan, p.3-23 Page 2 of4 'A~peal of the Hearing Examiner,AER granting a Special Pennit for Grade and tt Action Plan. In response to the Examiner's remarks about the necessity of dredging, there is no support for this inference in the referenced scientific literature, project files, application materials, public testimony, City of Renton policies, guidelines, or adopted planning documents. If the purpose for the judgement, which conditions the Permit with a five-year duration is based on speculative questions of necessity of dredging in the future, then Condition No. I of the Decision is not grounded in fact. One of the primary recommendations of the adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan was that [public policy should] "Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging."s This policy of "facilitating Permitting" as identified by the May Creek Basin Action Plan does not mean that shorter Permit cycles facilitates the public interest in mitigating potential flood damages to life and property. Rather, the recommendations of the May Creek Basin Action Committee recognize the necessity of dredging the May Creek Delta and that facilitation of this action should be promoted and not burdened by the additional cost of permitting and uncertainty that is created with every Permit process. Conclusion No. 3 of the ORDER provides that "dredging has apparently not created any untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise." Recent dredge events have been of considerably larger scope than flood mitigation/maintenance dredging permitted by the ORDER. While these dredging events have occurred at the site, the facility has existed within a largely residential community6 for many years without untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise arising from dredging. The City of Renton recognized the non-conforming land use status of former mill operations with the COR land use designation in 1993. Conclusion No.3 also states that "conditions have changed since the last Permit was issued." While it is true that mill operations have been discontinued, the residential nature of immediately adjacent properties has not. Development of the Barbee Mill property will create additional immediately adjacent residential area subject to these impacts. However, there is a substantial difference, and it is more that just proximity. Residents at the new community will have a vested interest in protecting their property from flooding. This is a distinctly different perspective than that which is entertained by the current adjacent residential community. The Barbee Mill Company is sensitive to the potential for short-term equipment noise and truck traffic impacts that are an unavoidable consequence of dredging. As discussed in our Permit application materials and as presented at the public hearing, at build-out we will mitigate these impacts to the extent possible by otI-loading dredged materials at Quendall Terminals. The net result is that noise to nearby homeowners will be reduced substantially and heavy truck traffic within the development can be eliminated. If effective erosion control measures are ever implemented in May Creek Valley, then the "changed conditions argument" would take on a meaning that we could all agree with. Given the high cost of Permitting and the uncertainty of a shorter Permit cycle, the benefits of a predictive level of certainty over a ten year period is a substantial benetit to the Barbee Mill Company and to future homeowners. Rather than accept the high cost and uncertainty associated with a five year Permit, the Barbee Mill Company will retain title to the Permit for the next ten years. While this is not the most desirable situation, this is an acceptable condition to the Permit for a Special Grade and Fill Permit provided that Condition No.2 is waived and that other unacceptable terms or conditions are not added to the current Permit. 2. Condition No. 2 of the Decision requires: "The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat for 5 Recommendation No 10, May Creek Basin Action Plan. ApriI200}, p3-1 6 See the List of Surrounding Property owners provided in Item 6 of the Dredge Permit Application. Page 3 of4 Appeal of the Hearing ExaminerLER granting a Special Pennit for Grade an_I paying for the future Permitting and dredging operations," subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. This condition presents an unnecessary and unreasonable interference in private contracting matters. Rather than argue the legal basis of this Permit condition, the Barbee Mill Company is prepared to retain ownership of the Permit and to seek compensation from the homeowner's without involving the City of Renton. Acceptance of The Barbee Mill Company's offer to retain title to the Special Permit for Grade and Fill for the next ten years effectively obviates the need for submitting documents outlining the joint and several responsibility for future homeowners to the City of Renton. There is a certain efficiency to this result. The City of Renton can maintain a prudent distance from having to approve of the process and contractual terms by which responsibility for payment of dredging will be implemented. Alternatively, if Condition No.2 cannot be waived, the Barbee Mill Company requests that a document "outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat" be delayed until such time that such a transfer is contemplated. cc. R. Cugini, Vice President, Barbee Mill Company Page 4 of4 ,I ,. • CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 o <;ash IH'theck No, k71 / , o Copy Fee IHI\ppeal Fee • Receipt N .... 0579 o Notary Service 0 _________ _ ."' J Description: f/:'i,Pt'o I /1 ( &ne f EYC2e"f/ rU',.-5 (il"/;t / . 1..1/,4 , 0 r= .!~ 'if Sf >S;l> Ec;::: 4: Ida S!1,75"5,{t4r G",l !~t6:'i Funds Received From: I /' "I, cil tit I /. I of' 1 Name . Eo-Ira 4ft!1 (1im,;h,!,V Amount $ Address' --?7 <"q /. ()l5ox ::c ~ I-, City/Zip • • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 25th day of May 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: d~v ,2006. / -1-...£.===--'-----, therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging File No.: LUA 05-138 SP, SM, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. . , Minutes OWNER/APPLICANT: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: ----------------------- • • May 25, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Barbee Mill Company PO Box 359 Renton, W A 98057 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates 38210 SE 92'd Street Snoqualmie, W A 98065 Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging File No.: LUA 05-138, SP, SM, ECF 4300 Lake Washington Blvd. Applicant seeks a 10-year Special Permit for grade and fill in order to dredge the mouth of May Creek where sediments collect. Removal of fill will prevent flooding of the Barbee Mill property and maintain navigational depths. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April II, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 18, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 18,2006, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record:, Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map and Zoning application, proof of posting, proof of publication and Map other documentation pertinent to this request. Lake. WashingtonlMay Creek aging File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF May 25, 2006 Page 2 . Exhibit No.3: Map of Existing Contour Elevations of May Creek Delta Area Exhibit No.5: Cross Sections AA-BB-CC for Pro~osed DredginR Area Exhibit No.1: Exhibit 6 from Preliminary Plat Hearing showing the Southern Portion of the Plat • .. . Exhibit No.4: Proposed Dredging Contours of the M~ Creek Delta Area Exhibit No.6: Video Showing 1990 Flooding of May Creek The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding. Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The subject's property is quite large and is zoned Commercial Office Residential. May Creek flows through the southeastern portion of the property and discharges into Lake Waslrington at the southern terminus of the property. The mouth of May Creek is where the proposed dredging would occur. The subject site is located to the west of Lake Washington Boulevard North and approximately north of North 40th Street. The existing uses to the north include vacant property and residential property, to the east are residential properties, to the south are residential properties and to the west is Lake Washington. The site is currently utilized by the Barbee Mill Company, however a residential development proposal is being reviewed. The preliminary plat has been approved and the project is waiting for site plan review and approval. The applicant is requesting a 10-year pennit to dredge the mouth of May Creek, they estimate that the dredging would occur three times over the next 10 years. The have requested that the frequency and amount of material to be removed remain flexible, that amount can vary dependent upon the weather conditions. They are estimating that the total amount of dredging over that 10-year period would be. anywhere from 12,000 -40;000 cubic yards to maintain the proposed dredge contours. The project was last reviewed at a public hearing on December 16, 1997, at that time they requested an annual dredging pennit for a 5-year period. The dewatering areas are located to the north of the site with an alternate dewatering area that is located to the south. The alternate site has been proposed due to the development projected for the north. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the project with 2 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The material could be removed via Lake Washington by boat, a portion is proposed to remain on site and some of it could be removed by trucks to Lake Washington Blvd. The applicant has identified a 608 square yard dewatering area to the north of the proposed dredging area and a 487 square yard dewatering area to the south of the proposed dredging area. During the dredging operations, it is estimated that as many as 150-200 truck loads of sand and gravel may be moved off site over a three-six week time frame. A portion of the clean fill may be used on site. The traffic impacts are expected to be limited in duration and are not anticipated to cause significant adverse impacts to the existing roads. No screening, landscaping, fencing or setbacks are required for the dredging area. The proposed dewatering area required compliance with the DOE 2001 Storm Water Management Manual for erosion and sedimentation , . " , Lake. Washington/May Creek Dr!ng File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF May 25, 2006 Page 3 • control. In addition a shoreline restoration plan with a IO-foot vegetative buffer was proposed as part of the biological assessment that was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers. The plan proposed a variety of native shrubs, trees and groundcover to provide habitat areas along that shoreline. The dredge material would temporarily be stockpiled on the dewatering areas to dewater the spoils. The applicant will need to remove the spoils from the temporary storage areas to an upland location within six months of each dredging cycle. The applicant intends to sell the majority of the dredge spoils, some may be used on site as fill during the site development of the residential development. The noise levels are anticipated to be limited in duration during the dredge cycles. The water from the spoils would drain out into the soil and eventually back into Lake Washington. No testing of the dredge soils has been recommended at this time. Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates, 38210 SE 920d Street, Snoqualmie, W A 98065 stated that in terms of the volume of materials to be dredged, the number is higher than obviously what is anticipated, but the weather is not always predictable. Three to four thousand yards seems to have been the historical tradition in this area. The dewatering site on the north shore has been used in the past for eight to ten years. It has worked very effectively, as the material go into the stockpile, it was not necessary to use trucks, the dredge materials themselves rapidly dewater. If the development should occur, the area to the south, alternate dewatering area, should work just fine, it will result in a slightly slower pace but not extensi ve modification of the pace of the work. Typically testing is done at each dredging, they have always been very clean, it is not a big issue to grab a sample and run it through a lab. Robert Cugini, Barbee Mill Co., PO Box 359, Renton, W A 98057 stated that the reason for the lO-year permit is to deal with the issues for the future with May Creek and the development of the property as residential property. This will provide some surety that all issues will be dealt with in the future. In the past they have operated under five-year permits that resulted in one or two dredges during that time. The cost of getting the permits is substantial, in fact the permitting cost associated with obtaining one is generally larger than the cost of doing the work. The mouth of May Creek has been dredged since 1947 on a 3-5 year cycle. The southern dewatering area has been chosen because of the development going on in the northern section. Lot 48 in the new plat is the former northern dewatering area. The southern dewatering area is a storm water detention area and is scheduled as open space, there is some discussion as to how the turnarounds will work in this area. There is residential to the south, that land is also under the ownership of the Cugini's. The material could be moved off-site via water, there is potential for reuse on the Quendall site, which is the site just to the north. A video was shown ofthe January 1990 flooding on May Creek. The water was 10-20 times more than normal for the creek. The dredging was on a cycle of every two to three years. As development grows in the area, the cost of the dredging will be turned over to the homeowners. The last permit cycle was approximately $200,000 and that does not include the dredging, just the cost of obtaining a permit. There are 115 homes proposed for the development. In the last cycle there were bark and wood waste issues in front of the pre-existing sawmill and that was included in some of the costs. Lake. WashingtonlMay Creek aging File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF May25,2006 Page 4 • Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated tluit there is Ii storm drainage pond that is part of the erosion control for the plat on the south shore, directly adjacent to the boathouse lot. A scow has been used in the past for dredging portions of the creek/river and the resultant sand and gravel was transported to another site. This prevents any stockpiling close to the creek. Dewatering can be accomplished without stockpiling on site. Truck traffic is more difficult. The roads inside this plat are not specifically designed for large amounts of traffic. The property owners would most likely not be happy with this kind of traffic every three to four years. The Examiner questioned if ten years was appropriate for this permit. The future homeowners would be burdened with a large expense every three to four years with this process. Should nature just be allowed to takes its natural course? Ms. Kittrick stated that the Cedar seems to be mellowing out, May Creek uplands are still significantly underdeveloped and most likely will remain that way. If nature would be allowed to take its course, she was not sure what it would do without some sort of study to see what would happen, the fact that it has been dredged all this time, the greater concern seems to be with testing the site. The Corps of Engineers and DOE most likely have that well covered. Because this is a ten year request, the people who move into the new development will have a severe interest in this process, both monetarily as well as the impacts to their daily lives. Although a ten-year pennit could be granted, the Corps of Engineers and the DOE still would review each and every dredging process. Mr. Cugini stated that regarding the potential for contamination in the spoils that are removed during the dredging. They test every time they dredge and have found nothing. The site is removed from the potential contamination to the north and separated by quite a distance. The May Creek channel is quite far from any potential issues. They will continue to sample the dredge material and validate that there are no issues. At this point all three sites along the lake had some contamination from the industrial activity over the years. The Quendall Terminal site was the site of the Riley Tar and Creosote Manufacturing facility and of the three sites has the most issues. Both the Barbee Mill site and the Allen site to the north have been undergoing voluntary clean up under the DOE supervision. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:0 I am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates, filed a request for approval of a Special Permit for dredging the mouth of May Creek. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was·entered into the record as Exhibit #1. . 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal. , I I I Lake. Washington/May Creek Drting File No.: LUA-05-l38, SP, SM, ECF May 25, 2006 Page 5 - ---------- ------- • 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The sul>ject site is located at 4300 Lake Washington Boulevard. The site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. May Creek flows southwest across the site. 6. A plat has been approved for the former lumber mill operation that occupied the subject site. The proposed use and past use are located on both sides of the creek. 7. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December 1959. 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Office and Residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The subject site is zoned COR (Center: OfficelResidential) a category applied in June 1993 with the enactment of Ordinance 4404. 10. The applicant proposes a new permit that would extend approval for the periodic dredging of materials that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek. An existing five (5) year permit was approved for the site in December 1997. That permit has expired. The applicant would like a ten (10) year permit. The applicant noted that permit process is time-consuming and costly. In addition, the applicant needs an Army Corps permit, which has a duration often years so that the time periods would coincide if this permit were also issued for 10 years. II. As indicated above this site was reviewed for a previously approved permit. Until recently there have not been many changes in the area but a plat for detached single-family homes has been approved for the subject site. 12. The proposed project area is approximately 55,000 square feet. The applicant has estimated that between 12,000 to 40,000 cubic yards of material would be dredged from the mouth of May Creek. The amount is an estimate and varies depending on the storm conditions and the amount of material deposited by those storm events. The accumulated materials interfere with flows of the creek and the impeded creek can cause flooding. Routine maintenance is a permitted exemption allowed the applicant under the Shoreline Management Program. 13. Materials would be stockpiled on the site and dewatered to reduce their weight and make them suitable for other uses. The dewatering will occur north of the mouth of the creek but could get displaced if the plat were developed during the permit period. Water will drain from the materials back into the lake. This area will provide temporary storage while water drains from the materials. There is also a possibility that the materials would be taken away from the site by barge if stockpiling locations become limited. 14. The applicant proposes selling the materials. Some materials, if suitable, could be used forthe development of the subject site. 15. Each dredge event requires separate review by both the State Departments of Ecology and Wildlife (for fisheries review). Actual dredging would be dictated by storm events and the amount of material that such events deposit in the delta area. There may be years without any need to dredge. The estimate is Lake. WashingtonlMay Creek rt!tging File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF May 25,2006 Page 6 • that over the life of a ten-year pennit dredging would occur awroximateltthtee times. The historic trend has been to remove approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of material every three to four years. 16. The process will be subject to erosion and sedimentation control measures under State Department of Ecology guidelines. There will be a ten-foot shoreline restoration plan along the shoreline, which was required by the Army Corps. Staff was concerned that screening and buffering for the potential residential development was not included and recommended that a plan be submitted. 17. The removal of the materials from the site would require approximately 100 to 200 round trips for the exportation of materials. These trips will depend on how much material is deposited by flood and normal accretion. The haul route would be via Lake Washington Boulevard. Staff indicated that the temporary nature of the hauling would not substantially interfere with traffic in the area. Staff has recommended that all spoils be removed from the site within six months and that no storage, after dewatering, occur within 200 feet from the edge of the planted area of May Creek. 18. Testing in the past has demonstrated that the materials show no significant levels of contamination. Sampling of materials will continue as needed since their use at other sites could cause liability if it were not clean and most sites that accept materials also require the materials to be tested. 19. All operations will be monitored by appropriate state and federal agencies to assure that fisheries are not interfered with and water quality is maintained. 20. The new pennit would potentially allow dredging after the plat is developed and occupied. That could affect the pennit and issues like stockpiling, haul routes and noise. There will also be a multiplicity of ownerships if the property is platted as proposed. There probably should be a way to provide notice to those purchasing homes in the plat that they might be responsible for periodic but substantial dredging costs. CONCLUSIONS: I. The proposed dredging operation appears to serve the public use and interest. If the materials proposed to be dredged were left in place they would lead to flooding along May Creek. Both life and property could be harmed if the creek overflows its banks. The removal of the materials building up at the delta will prevent flood damage and should be approved.' 2, As in the past, the applicant will have to work under permits issued by other jurisdictions to avoid an interference with fish migrations. All operations will remain subject to review by agencies with appropriate jurisdiction and expertise. 3. In the past, the dredging has apparently not created any untoward problems in the way of traffic, contamination or noise. But conditions have changed since the last permit was issued. Approval has been granted for a substantial residential development immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed dredging. The dredging does create impacts that might not affect the industrial character of the existing area which would definitely affect a residential community if the plat were ultimately developed. Dredging, hauling and noise are just some of the possible cOJ1sequences of this operation. Again, those impacts on the current area probably are negligible but that would not be the case if the area were surrounded by single-family homes or other residential uses. Therefore, rather than create an unduly long period before another review that would occur for a ten year permit, this office believes that a shorter permit is appropriate even given some of the issues raised by the applicant. Clearly, convenience and timing with an Army Corps permit would be nice but the Army Corps is not interested Lake. WashingtonlMay Creek Dring File No.: LUA-05-l38, SP, SM, ECF May 25, 2006 Page 7 • in the affects on a residential conununity that might be developed in the next year or two. Therefore, the permit shall be issued for five years. 4. The applicant shall remain under the same constraints as were found in the earlier permit. The materials will have to be removed from the subject site within a reasonable time. Staffs recommendations are appropriate for the length of stockpiling, location and movement. 5. The other previous conditions regarding the temporary storage of the materials on the site in a location that is at least 200 feet from the outer edge of any landscaping located along May Creek or the shoreline of Lake Washington are still appropriate. 6. Any storage or placement of materials on the site that results in any permanent or topographical changes of the applicant's property shall be subject to separate review under the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance unless permitted under the platting development regulations for the currently approved plat. 7. The conditions recommended by staff are appropriate given the sensitive nature and location of the subject site. 8. The size and intensity of the operation and restoration efforts appear appropriate given the nature of the site and its current uses. The additional truck traffic will not unnecessarily burden the adjoining streets. DECISION: The Special Permit for Grade and Fill is approved subject to the following conditions: I. The permit shall be for a period not to exceed five years. The applicant shall be entitled to apply for a new permit under the regulations that exist when a new permit application is submitted. 2. The applicant shall provide documents outlining the joint and several responsibility of future homeowners in the currently approved plat for paying for the future permitting and dredging operations. These documents shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. 3. The applicant shall be required to comply with all of the ERC Mitigation Measures. 4. A plan indicating how the dredging activities and dewatering areas will be screened from the proposed residential development shall be submitted to the Development Services Division Project Manager prior to the issuance of residential building permits on the upland portion of the subject site. 5. The dredging spoils are to be temporarily stored in the area described in this permit for no more than six months from the date that the dredging is completed for each dredging cycle. The applicant shall provide the City with the date the maintenance dredging is started and completed, and the date by which the dredging spoils are to be removed each year that it is necessary to complete the maintenance dredging. This will avoid any confusion between the applicant and City staff. ORDERED THIS 25 1h day of May 2006. Lake. WashingtonlMay Creek D!ging File No.: LUA-05-l38, SP, SM, ECF May 25, 2006 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of May 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates 38210 SE 92"" Street Snoqualmie, W A 98065 Barbee Mill Company POBox 359 Renton, W A 98057 Robert Cugini Barbee Mill Company PO Box 359 Renton, W A 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of May 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire • Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Kayren Kittrick Development Services Div. Renton, W A 98056 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Jnne 8,2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies ofthis ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .. June 8, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendatiou or Decision contains the reqnirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be reqnired prior to approval by City Council or final processing ofthe fIle. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in Lake. WashingtonlMay Creek Dtting • File No.: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF May 25, 2006 Page 9 private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members ofthe City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. City at Renton PIB/PW Depattmenl LAKE WASHINGTONIMAY CREEK DREDGING PUBLIC HEARING VA TE: Aprl118. 2006 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Preliminary Re{JOft 10 /he Hearing Examiner LUA05-138, SP, ECF, SM Page 4017 Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended) on March 14, 2006 the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-SignifICance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the project. The DNS-M included 2 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on March 20, 2006 and ended on April 3,2006. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the followfng mitigation measures wfth the Determination of Non- SignifICance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall comply wfth the recommendations found in the Biological Evaluation prepared by Meridian Environmental, llC, dated June 28, 2005. - - ------'- ~ ZONING o = TsaooCAL _VlCIlS COR o 'h!l too C4 32 T24N R5E W :JJ m (') !!! < m o ~" .. . . . ... '." . •• .': . .' ... . .... : .. .' .' <, .: .:.. '... . ... ~ .... .. ' . '" .. " - ,". : -i. . . . . . :. "7j) . . Lake Washington + u + + + ~ , Qp3+ :(~ '~VI "'.:'.,"'~ " 1'onner"~))~~r:lng:Atea' " ' . : '+':, ',+.','., . . '. . . , . May Creek Delta ---Iilm Notes: ~ --PnttIotl:!l'lllU~autMBr. 2O)S (M)cctlDcf'IIII»e''''''1bnI~ ~O:rJIrus'fltlW'/m_Ili_~tft*'!!l""=_;'· ... ., .. "',' ...... 4III!~I'IIt~_ancIVM ~,h!ltbt""'Otd:_, ~Ji!'!II"'~ Cocasb"4"i\itla;.(dH~ftJ_., /ih'oIItniI"Iid--. ~~tlM!b./ClrlltUutown tIi$r'atld4. . . ..... """'" -0..,. UsIa. ~"""iW"" IOIW\). "' .... ~~~~~~. ',,' . '''. .± Aood MItigation Maintenance'Dredglng -Nay ~Elk Delta I ~!<E! WashIngton. .. , '. '.. ... .. ·~N~O(}NtoUR·ELEVATIO~S .-",' , ·:sHEfi:> :jbt4 .. • :tI ,sm, 'm·:, 0·' ..•. ' Ctb$~Se:clI~sA.k,e.I3',andc-<:;' ($~ $.h~ ~ onb ~A-A'.I\InSOOrth~~(_stWIetl). ~cfrtdge~IIB.. irt. ~ B .. ..... ~ "--' ........ _ .. ""'-............ toeo ...... 3J. ~_ ..... " ........ Scale '. c:::;;;: ~ ~ C<" runs north 10 IOtIth (lie Sheet.i). MlD:Imt.m dn:dot dtJIIh IS B.. lD'. MDmun dewatMlo aree cIept:h IfIOwn II s.,;, I'D' ('lIS d-.r on Uki!: ~ Bewdon) 'lOtr:' ",. !D' !<ICi". s.:..-.... u ..... lIIchdriWn.; .... ., m ... ,,·IIIWItiIa~~ :, :;'5::$~ .. ;;:*~;j,~~~'~·~-.. ~~·~ .. ~~~~ .. --.:--....:,. _,I' '.' ,>. .. -" ----_. __ ._._-, ---.--- -: ,.:.., "~' .. - , .:. .. ~ .", . : ':~ .. ' .. , 'ft': ,,", .·":i::(,,~~ .. ;.~; ~ , :. .~?: • .; , ~::':.' ." .' ::~.: ' . • :"j 'v._ "':·2 .'-': ~~::~:j~ :":'.:'.:f~ " . . . T • /", • o ( \ '. \"-. + • '". " May Creek Delta Shoreline Habitat Area B -2,400 sf Rood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging· May Creek Delta I lake Washington PROICT LOCATION • Barbee Mill Company Shoreline Habitat Areq..A -1,800 sf , " ,_-' ,I' ! , I , , , , : I , , , , , , I , , , , , , , I , IN: ~ WimIII'Igton AT: 1300 I.t<.e Wlshngton BI'td. N. k1nQ County, Re:ntor\ WA 98056 Shoreline Planting Plan SHEET 1 of 1 • CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 11 th day of April, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Barbee Mill Company John Hannsen (Sf90""" of S,"d")~ d~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) Contact Owner Party of Record I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker Representing signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. "",,'''~I\\\\II ".... '-YNN N;.!', Dated: J...j -\ i-olP Notary (Print): My appointment expires: \t\rnh"C (;)-19-10 L '-I b n t-b qgl')"u. V\ i Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF ~.",." ..... \'''\\\I", ... ~", ,,~'\t;. '-:101.. flt,;,co. <'I., J- • To: From: • • Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Jennifer Henning, Development Planning I~~~~ Honey Creek View Estates (Ding) LUA5-118, PP, CAR, V-H, ECF The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 78,512 square foot (1.8 acre) parcel located within the Residential-l0 (R-l0) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation into 9 lots, a stormwater detention tract (Tract A), and a native growth protection tract (Tract B). An existing residence Is proposed to be removed. The lots would be proposed for the future construction of detached single family residences. The lots range in area from 3,000 square feet to 4,333 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via a new 42-foot wide road (Road A) proposed to be dedicated as right-of-way. The proposed Road A terminates In a hammerhead turnaround. A class 3 stream (Honey Creek) flows across the eastern portion of the subject site; in addition Protected Slopes and a category 3 wetland are located on the eastern portion of the subject site. Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging (Ding) LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF Applicant proposes to dredge the May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially Increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The proposed dredging area is approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel are proposed to be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No filling is proposed. Hoquiam Annexation Prezone (Conkling) LUA6-006, A, RZ, ECF The applicant for the proposed Hoquiam Annexation has requested that the City rezone the subject 20.S-acre site, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330, so that zoning will be in place at the time the subject site comes into the City. The City is proposing R-8 zoning for the site since this is consistent with the current Residential Single Family land use designation shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed prezone is considered to be a non- project action under SEPA. Perkins Annexation Prezone (Conkling) LUA6-007, A, RZ, ECF The applicant for the proposed Perkins Annexation has requested that the City rezone the subject 15-acre site, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330, so that zoning will be in place at the time the subject site comes into the City. The City is proposing R-4 zoning for the site since this is consistent with the current Residential Single Family land use designation shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed prezone is considered to be a non- project action under SEPA. • • Querin Annexation Prezone (Conkling) LUA6-008, A, RZ, ECF The applicant for the proposed Querin (Expanded) Annexation has requested that the City rezone the subject 24.1- acre site, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330, so that zoning will be in place at the time the subject site comes into the City. The City is proposing R-8 and R-4 zoning for the site since this is consistent with the current Residential Single Family and Residential Low Density land use designations shown on the Comprehensive Pian Land Use Map. The proposed prezone is considered to be a non-project action under SEPA. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer B. Wolters, EONSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S. Engler, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind. Economic Development L. Warren. City Attorney ® ERe AGENDA 3·14·06 Page 2 ------- .. '. ¢rty OF RE~T9N-';i, . HEARING EXAMINER -. . PUBLIC HEARING" April 18, 2006 . AGENDA COMMENCING'AT:9:00AM, . . ....... ' .. . COUNClbCHAMBERS7THFl.:OOR RENTON CI1'v·HAl.:I..· 'The·~~kl·icaii~h;s~lisle~}~re :n.order.lJfapPlic:tilJn'nUniber.onIY~nifnol:~~sSarilY~~~()rder in which Ihey·wi\1 ~e' heard;"llemli1will~C<iII~dforhearing allhe discrelionof Ih,e He!3fir:)gExaniiner. •. :.-. .•.• ..' PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-05-138, SP, SM, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks a ten year Special Permit for grade and fill in order to dredge the mouth of May Creek where sediments collect. It is estimated that the ten year permit, if granted, would allow for the removal of 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of material every 3 to 4 years to prevent flooding of the Barbee Mill property and to maintain navigational depths. HEX Agenda 4-18-06 PUBLIC HEARING • • City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: Project Name: Contact! Address: Owner/Applicant Address: File Number: Project Description: Project Location: April 18, 2006 Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging Michael LloY<!J.Joyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92 Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Barbee Mill Company P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF Project Manager: Jill K. Ding The applicant seeks a ten year Special Pennit for grade and fill in order to dredge the mouth of May Creek where sediments collect. It is estimated that the ten year pennit, if granted, would allow for the removal of 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of material every 3 to 4 years to prevent flooding of the Barbee Mill property and to maintain navigational depths. 4300 Lake Washington Blvd. (King County parcel no. 322405-9034) 4 City of Renton PIB/PW Department • LAKE WASHtNGTONIMA Y CREEK DREDGtNG .reliminary Reporl to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-138, SP, ECF, SM PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: April 18. 2006 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. 2. 3. Owner of Record: Zoning Designation: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Page 20f7 The Barbee Mill Company COR (Commercial Office Residential) Commercial Office Residential 4. Existing Site Use: Industrial (Sawmill), however an approval is being processed for a residential development on the property. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Vacant & Residential East: Residential South: Residential West: Lake Washington 6. Access: Lake Washington Blvd N 7. Site Area: 55,000 sf 8. Project Data: area Existing Building Area: New Building Area: Total Building Area: C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Com prehensive Plan Zoning Annexation Special Perm it Special Perm it Special Permit Special Perm it Preliminary Plat D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Land Use File No. LUA99-058, SP LUA97-156 LUA93-066 LUA78-133 LUA02-044 N/A N/A N/A comments Ordinance No. 5099 5100 1804 Water: 12" Watermain in Lake Washington Blvd. Date 11/01/04 11/01/04 12/8159 6128/99 1/08/98 7/11/94 5/11/78 3/21/05 Sewer: 12" Sanitary Sewer main in Lake Washington Blvd. HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton PIB/PW Department • LAKE WASHINGTON/MAY CREEK DREDGING .reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-138, SP, ECF, SM PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: April 18, 2006 Page 3 0'7 Surface Water/Storm Water: 2. Fire Protection: 3. Transit: 4. Schools: 5. Recreation: 6. Other: Land surface slopes towards Lake Washington and/or May Creek. City of Renton Fire Department N/A N/A N/A N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-2-0200 COR Zoning standards 2. Section 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations 3. Section 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element -Commercial/Office/Residential 2. Environmental Element G. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND HEXRPT.DOC The applicant seeks a ten year Special Permit for grade and fill in order to dredge the mouth of May Creek where sediments build up. The applicant has requested an extended approval for the dredging of May Creek for a period of 10 years. The applicant estimates that the dredging of the May Creek Delta will occur 3 times over the next 10 years. The applicant requests that the frequency and the amount of material they are permitted to remove remain flexible as the frequency of the need for dredging and the amount of material required to be removed is dependant upon weather conditions. The applicant estimates that the total amount of dredging that will be required over the next 10 years could be any where from 12,000 cubic yards to 40,000 cubic yards to maintain the proposed dredge contours. The applicant requests that rather than proposing estimated dredge quantities for the issuance of the required permits, that the applicant be permitted to maintain the dredge profiles as shown on the submitted plans. This project was last reviewed at a public hearing on December 16,1997. At that time, the permit proposed annual dredging for a five year time period. The applicant is now seeking a new ten year permit under which it is estimated 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of material would be removed every 3 to 4 years in order to remove the sediment that is anticipated to collect at the mouth of May Creek. City of Renton PIB/PW Department a LAKE WASHINGTON/MAY CREEK D"'Iff!DGING .reliminaty Reporl to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-138, SP, ECF, SM PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: April 18, 2006 Page 4 of 7 2, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended) on March 14, 2006 the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the project. The DNS-M included 2 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on March 20, 2006 and ended on April 3, 2006. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Storm water Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the Biological Evaluation prepared by Meridian Environmental, LLC, dated June 28, 2005. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DREDGING APPROVAL CRITERIA To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that the activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner shall consider, but not be limited to, the following: GENERAL CRITERIA: A. SIZE AND LOCA TION OF THE ACTIVITY HEXRPT.DOC The project site is located on the west shore of Lake Washington at the point where May Creek enters the lake. The applicant is seeking a ten year permit that would allow the removal of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of sediment every 3 to 4 years from May Creek. It is unlikely that the applicant would need to dredge the mouth of May Creek each year. The dredging cycle is determined by the storm events that carry the sediment downstream and deposit them at the delta area. The applicant estimates that dredging of the May Creek Delta will occur 3 times over the next 10 years. The applicant requests that the frequency and the amount of material they are permitted to remove remain flexible as the frequency of the need for dredging and the amount of material required to be removed is dependant upon weather conditions. The applicant estimates that the total amount of dredging that will be required over the next 10 years could be any where from 12,000 cubic yards to 40,000 cubic yards to maintain the proposed dredge contours. The applicant requests that rather than proposing estimated dredge quantities for the issuance of the required permits, that the applicant be permitted to maintain the dredge profiles as shown on the submitted plans. City of Renton PIB/PW Department • LAKE WASHINGTON/MAY CREEK DREDGING .preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-138, SP, ECF, SM PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: April 18, 2006 Page 50f7 In addition, the submitted plans identify a 608 square yard dewatering area located to the north of the proposed dredging area and an alternate 487 square yard dewatering area located to the south of the proposed dredging area. B. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PA TTERNS; The applicant estimates that to maintain the proposed dredging contours approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of maintenance dredging would occur every 3 or 4 years. During dredging operations as many as 150 to 200 truckloads of sand and gravel may be moved offsite for sale/use over a 3 to 6 week time frame. A portion of the clean fill may be used on site during development and/or site cleanup activities Access to and from the subject site would be provided via a gated access onto Lake Washington Blvd N or from the water (Lake Washington). The temporary increase in truck activity would be of a limited duration and is not anticipated to cause significant adverse impacts to the roads. C. SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, FENCING AND SETBACKS; HEXRPT.DOC No screening, landscaping, fencing or setbacks are required by the City of Renton's Development Standards for the dredging of the May Creek Delta as the proposed dredging would occur in Lake Washington and the mouth of May Creek. In addition, no screening, landscaping, fencing, or setbacks are required for the proposed dewatering area, however the applicant will have to submit an erosion control plan to the Development Services Division demonstrating compliance with the 2001 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for erosion and sedimentation control. A shoreline restoration plan consisting of a 10-foot vegetated buffer along the shoreline is proposed as apart of the Biological Assessment that was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed planting plan indicates that a variety of native trees, shrubs, and ground cover would be installed to provide habitat areas. The lack of any existing development surrounding the proposed dredging location and dewatering areas does not necessitate the need for any additional screening, landscaping, fencing, or setback requirements. However a preliminary plat has been approved on the upland portion of the subject site. Due to potential conflicts between the proposed dredging activities and the proposed residential development, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that a plan indicating how the dredging activities and dewatering areas will be screened from the proposed residential development be submitted to the Development Services Division Project Manager prior to the issuance of residential building permits on the upland portion of the subject site. The dredge material will be temporarily stockpiled in order to dewater the spoils before transportation. The applicant will need to remove the dredge spoils from the temporary storage area to an upland location within six months of each dredging cycle. The applicant intends to sell the majority of the dredge spoils as fill material, however a portion of the clean fill may be used on site during development of the proposed residential project (LUA02-040) and thus no specific upland disposal area is provided at this time. However, if the dredge spoils remain unsold at the end of the six month period of each dredging cycle or has not been reused on site for the residential development, the applicant will need to remove them from the temporary storage area and relocate them to an upland area. If the dredging spoils are to be stored on an upland portion of the Barbee Mills property, then a site should be selected that is a minimum of 200 feet from the edge of the planted area along May Creek. If the spoils are stored in an upland area, the applicant will need to install and maintain temporary erosion control measures, in accordance with Code-requirements, around the upland site until the spoils are permanently removed from this site. Due to the potential for erosion resulting from the construction of the dewatering areas, the City's Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. City of Renton P/BIPW Department • LAKE WASHINGTON/MAY CREEK DREDGING .reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-138, SP, ECF, SM PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: April 18, 2006 Page 60f7 D, UNSIGHTLINESS, NOISE, DUST; Noise will be associated with the dredging of the area and the removal of the dredging spoils after they are dewatered. These noise levels are anticipated to be limited in duration. Thus, the potential noise levels are not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties. It is anticipated the temporary erosion control measures that the applicant will be required to comply with per the mitigation required by the City's Environmental Review Committee (see above discussion) would prevent dust from becoming a problem. E. SURFACE DRAINAGE; The dredging spoils will be placed in a bermed temporary storage area where they will be dewatered. The water from this area will infiltrate the ground and eventually run back into Lake Washington, The dredging spoils have been tested for contamination in past years due to the proximity of the Baxter site where soil contamination has been found. No significant levels of contamination were found within the dredging spoils. 6, REUSE OF SITE A preliminary plat has been approved on the upland portion of the project site and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner was held. The preliminary plat was approved March 21, 2005. 7, TRANSFERABILITY OF SPECIAL PERMIT This permit will run with the land and should be transferred to future property owners. 8, PERMIT EXPIRATION: Staff recommends that the permit should expire ten (10) years from the date of approval. This special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not begun the activity within six (6) months after the granting of the permit, unless the Hearing Examiner grants an extension of time. If the applicant can not obtain a window for the dredging from State and Federal agencies within six months of the date of approval of this permit, the applicant needs to inform the City in writing of the dates when the dredging will occur. 9, REVOCATION OF A PERMIT: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department is authorized to revoke any annual license issued pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance if after due investigation they determine that the permittee has violated any of the provisions of this Ordinance. Notice of revocation shall have reasonable time not to exceed forty-five (45) days in which to remedy the defects or omissions specified. In the event the licensee fails or neglects to do so within the time period, the order of revocation shall be final. A total or partial stop work order may be issued for good reason. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Lake Washington/May Creek Maintenance Dredging, Project File No, LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall be required to comply with all of the ERC Mitigation Measures. HEXRPT.DOC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Renton P!BIPW Department • LAKE WASHINGTON/MAY CREEK DREDGING PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: April lB. 2006 .reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-138, SP, ECF, SM Page 70f7 (2) A plan indicating how the dredging activities and dewatering areas will be screened from the proposed residential development shall be submitted to the Development Services Division Project Manager prior to the issuance of residential building permits on the upland portion of the subject site. (3) The dredging spoils are to be temporary stored in the area described in this permit for no more than six months from the date that the dredging is completed each dredging cycle. The applicant shall provide the City with the date the maintenance dredging is started and completed, and the date by which the dredging spoils are to be removed each year that it is necessary to complete the maintenance dredging. This will avoid any confusion between the applicant and City staff. (4) This permit shall expire ten years from the date of approval. HEXRPT.DOC ZONING PIBIFW TBCIINlCAL SEB.V1CES W28/I)f --------------------_____ ,'c---/ COR ----Iler!.ton Clv Umlt,. o :00 tr' C4 1",.,00 32 T24N R5E W :%J m (") ~ m o . '~".~. . . . 'Former·.~.~r1ng~Area· '. Lake Washington + <+>:::. :+ ...... '/;~ . . - t..M''' ~ .. ' May Creek Delta + u-I -... + + ~ Qj!l+ :<!ij -_ ..... Oil: ;;m Notes: m ~ ExIsttIg CDnIIlu'dMlknlSd MIy, 2!XI!i (Jubjed"d8'I\JI!wlhIbmMntl). ~ ~ Eid:lD'9Ctmus WI"'6o'n"'1D_~. " onJtDnnMU~lhItdepoct"nlP'I!I ftIkod!tan!he M8)' CrtdtYaDleT. Oz Dred;e.nawll fttdI!oa:asb'III~" ft'CI'Itdlle!oelhcUelDrrdDtI~"IIII«CaL Z Z ~ftdge ~/a:no.nftMnai ~ 3rt". . Z lite BMtIan rnuam1 '" USt(!. 0\trIay ~ WIt!r I.ft. (aM'L) • 2:LI1'e!t G') Dredge~ a'Id mtIont bIRd (II fW)f83. , .. 3. ;l Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington , . OAnJM: ~ I s.cu. DIstItt ea_ MaJI: OTA!( (~,WA.) '. EXISTING CONtOUR ELEVATIONS .sHEET·' 2of.4 • , -.l . . :XJ m o m -< m c + + + Lake Washington + + + + May Creek Delta + + + ~ olD ~!6 + o:r:: ~~ NOTES: z"'tJ S.St*l4I'\1fO---'H ...... OC at; r., ~;-.-em..~" ~-, ......... ,.taIII.oqa-•• ~.~1'I'IItD11t ..... ct.. zZ ~nlllllr~hl.~.-.d~ __ .~~. . __ . Z ~~tII4,CIOncr"bI"'MIJ).4"""''''IIrnIIt..-,IIIII'''''''- . ~ Ortd;IIjtD:bI~""·_~rDIIl_~cnr.:.M,.~~ .• ,~II, ... wiIIr: Rood Mitigation Maintenance Dr'edglng -May Creek Delta flake Washington OII.'TUM: USACE I SeeUl! DIItrIct Base...,: OTAK (ntdIncI, WA) utI:lde:"1n 31' 4(J'. l/:nGftllde 122W 12 '1!1' ~ ~ Rar9t:"tN(32 ~ 05 -':"i,'- , , ,'.i ' $ 1'" . ':zs. l PROPO~ED DREDGING CONTOURS ,~Ho~EJ' " , " . ',:', ;0 m o ~ m o . ~. Cross-Sections A-A', 6-6', and e-C' (See sheet 3 of 4) ©A ~~~-----.u----~ ____ ~ __ ~ @e ... °1 c Scale ~ e' o-o.-SectIon 8-8' AN west to east ~ May Oeek Dda (lei!! Sheet: 3), MaImun dredge dI!pth II a... 10'. Cross-5ectIon C<" runs north to!lQUl;l'l (!lei!! ShI!et 3). MaxImum dredge depth Is B. .. 10'. Maxlnun dewatl!!rtng I1'M depth shown IS B. .. 20' (WIn depend on lake Wasl*Igton EIeva1Ion) ,. SO' 'OCI' 200' ~....,., cIeI!II tD Ndl'edgieclno"'tt.I 2:1 ~ 1D,,**"1a"~ . ~--<I)~IOa..ZO'~,~on ..... ~). ApI)ItbI~"""'lDbI_lbrbtnn-..:fdeJlllllrtlo_ o-tIrtIg ...(.) lobi ICwned 100't;lhll CIIftdIIIoo't nI~-'11IXIrI ~ '~~UMwilbI~wlltllIii.~~~}. '. , . ~ . ,--, . ' , ·Mitig~tib~M~interianc~ 6r~ging -May creekDeii:a:I.Lak~Wa~hington .. .. . .:;;'~,~~(=-"",~ PR~ecr~~~~£A1!9'tl!Y.~~E{)GEAR~ CROSS-SECTIONS . -. - "-'." ., . ,.-.. ~', .. : -:. Ttj;:",,!·:·; •.. - C' ..,. . SHEET. AQf4 . •.... ;"~ .,-. ".': T' // /.' // / " / ..-, " / " /' , .' i : ( :, \ \ \ . , , ' ,', + \. " " ".' • May Creek Delta Shoreline Habitat Area B -2,400 sf Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta flake Washington PROJECT LOCATION ·) Barbee Mill Company ,) , / / Shoreline Habitat , " ,Ii / / Ar¥ -1,800 s;fw~b~~.~ / ;' ! / , , I , , , , / / , , , , , , / / ~ I , , , , , , , , , I , , IN: Lake Washington AT: 4300 lake Washington Blvd. N. KIno COunty, Renton, WA 98056 Shoreline Planting Plan SHEET 1 of 1 / I / / , / , , / ,/ ~ ~ ~ 9/18/05 Area A 1,800 Area B 2,700 Shoreline Plant Ust Botanical Name Common Name Size Trees Comus Nuttal/ii Pacific Dogwood 5gal Acer Circintum Vine Maple 5gal Pinus Contorta Shore Pine 10 \lal Willows Salix hookeriana Hooker's Willow Cutting Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow Cutting Salix sitchensis SitkaWilliow Cuttin\l Shrubs Amelancher alnifola Serviceberry 4" pots Comus stolonifolia Red Twig Dogwood 1 gal Sambucus racemosa Red Elderberry bare root Rosa Nootka Nootka Rose bare root Rhododendron Macroehtlum Pacific Rhodendron 5\lal Groundcovers Carex obnupta Slough Sedge 4" pots Gaultheria shal/on Salal 4" pots Iris Tenax Native Iris 1 gal Juncus acuminatus Tapered Rush bare root Juncus ensifolius Dagger Leaf Rush bare root Glyceria e/ata Tall Mannagrass seed DescrietioniConceet Habitat Area A Greater height trees and shrubs at mouth of creek Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Predominately shrubs and ground covers at end of peninsula Provides some shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Habitat Area B Predominately willows and taller shrubs/trees near bridge to west Provide shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Willow density increase to east sf sf Est. Quan. Est. Quan. 4 6 6 12 2 4 16 48 16 48 16 48 6 9 12 24 18 32 16 32 4 6 24 24 24 24 24 24 48 64 48 64 100 100 Area 1,800 ft2 2,700 tt> Total Quanity 10 18 6 64 64 64 15 36 50 48 10 48 48 48 112 112 200 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE lody Barton, being first duly sWOrn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County lournal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County lournal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on March 20, 2006. The full amount·of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $134.40. -------""'~'." ,. ~ ........ -...... ~y O)fU}~lIl ~ ---~~--, .. ",-I..y~'" -,'.-., '. , ,: .' !,.'S;:),O'" .... '.' ..... , -'\-1'\ ..... '~. , : ... .;:; '-1""-0'" " : :0 ,,",\OTA~, '-<:,', ~ J ; :CJ \' ·r" "i"n: * Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal ~ ! .... ~~'~ if) : : ., (I) • 1""-. ~.~ .• -• "" Subscribed. and SWOrn to me this 20th day of March, 2006. ~;..\ '-. ,'~Llv .: ~:: ,"1','-1 -' 0 :: '" '~"'-9.-1i;-OJ,,";'f'.: Kathy Dalseg " 0 """, ~"'"'" ~ WASI'I\ •••• -'\\\',,,,,"'" ............. Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Covington, Washington PO Number: NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVlRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEABING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigatcd for the fol- lowing project WIder the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Lake WashingtonIMay Creek Dredging LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF Location: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd N. Applicant proposes to dredge the May Crcck Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navi- gational depths. The proposed dredging area is approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel arc pro- posed to be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No filling is proposed. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 3,2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Rcnton Municipal Code Sec- tion 4-8-110.B.Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (42.1) 43()'s51O. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on April 18, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Special Permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: March 20, 2006 Published in the King County Journal March 20, 2006. #848990 • • / ·' • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (ONS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: L .... WuhlngtonlMq Creek Dredging PROJECT NUMSER: LUA05-13I. SP, SM. ECF LOCATION: 4)00 l ..... w .... lngton Blvd N (King County P • ..,.' No. 312""5-8034) DeSCRIPTION: AppUcan1 prop_s to dredge tIM Uq C ... k 0.11:. to .. mo ... coa ..... nc!. and .,..,.. ... th_ ... .,umut.t. at the mouth of Mq C ... k .nd aubstantl.ny Inc .. '" the rbks and pohIrdl.' d.mage. from ftoodlng of the BafbM Mg, property by "by Creek. In addition. 11M pfOPOSoIId dndglng would malntlln n .... g..tIon. doopths. T'" ptopOMd d .. dglng __ Is apptoxlmat.1y 55,000 .,q .... "'t. Appro.i ...... ty 3,000 to 4,000 cubic , ...... of ~.and and grw.1 .... proposed 10 be d ..... d __ ry 310" y ..... ,,'0 par app ...... .a ,. ,.que"", No nnln; 's propowd. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAl REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERe) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION OOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT" ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. ~ ... of the environmental detIInnIrwUon mud be fIIad In ... rttln; on or to.f_ 5:00 PM on April 3, 200&. """"- mud to. iliad In wrltII>g logathar with tha .-.qul .. d $75.00 applicalon .... ...tth: .... aring E .. ...,.'. City of Ranton. 11155 South Grady W"Y. Ranton. WA 1S055. Appoalo tha E .... rnlnar _ go ......... by City of Ranton Mu~ Coda SKtlon ..... 110.8. Additional Infonnatlon Ngarding tha appaal p ........ rna)' to. obtooInad from tha Ranton City Clartt·. Off\col, (42111430-6$10. CERTIFICA TION I, J\rek J a,/c.~ h b Of h S w 0' ere y certl y t at copies of the above document ere posted by me In ---.l conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: !::I1t-loe, SIGNED: DR d -.L....<:...:-~"" .. ~===="-----... ~''''''\\'''\41 A TIEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public. in and for the State of Washington residing in ~~~' ~"'~I~f~"'I' : ............ ~.,~. ,:1:1. ',. ~ = ~,+o,;\., ott"~'"~ ~ ~<,;S\c..-.onthe D~"" dayof \'\XV><'I" Q~lA td~~lfif-::~or1~'+i%l\ NcJTARYPUBciCSIGN :~, ~IJ .. ~v ",,-~~~,~,bllC j = '" ,*",,,, $-10 ",->":+: 'VII •• t''''''\\\''-,,>; -:<.,,0 ~ Ilt,,~=~, ....... ' ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd N (King County Parcel No. 322405--9034) DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposos to dredge the May Croak Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The proposed dredging area is approximately 55.000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel are proposed to be dredged every 3 to 4 years. A 10 year approval Is requested. No filling is proposed. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 3, 2006. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clark's Offlea, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 18, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SPECIAL GRADING PERMIT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION • Kathy Keolker, Mayor March 17, 2006 Michael Lloyd. Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 92nd Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 SUBJECT: Dear Mr .. Lloyd: Lake Washirigton/May· Creek Dredging LUA05·138, SP, SM; ECF . CITY.F RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Ziinmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non· Significance·Mitigated with Mitigation Measures: Please refer to the enclos!"d ERC Report and Decision, Section C for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 3, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the. required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4~8·110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. . A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council.Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady ""ay, Renton; Washington, on April 18, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Special Grading Permit. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fUlly, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-721 9. For the Environmental Review Committee, 2:::!i{, :i21J' /-7Jill K. Ding V Associate Planner cc: Barbee Mill Company / Owner(s) John HannsEm / PartY(ies) of Record Enclosure tOSS South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 ® 1 his paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% postconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-138, SP, ECF APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes to dredge the May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The proposed dredging area is approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel are proposed to be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No filling is proposed. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd N The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 3, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: ennis Culp, Administrator Community Services March 20, 2006 March 14, 2006 vA /'\ 7( l't("tf ~A~le-x~p~,e~t~s~Ch-,~A~d~m~i~ni~st~ra~-r--~~L---J ate EDNSP • CITyeF RENTON PIanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department· Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator March 17. 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a oopy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 14,2006: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd N (King County Parcel No. 322405, Applicant proposes to dredge the May Creek. Delta to remove . coarse sands and gravels· that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the· risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In . addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational . . depths. The proposed dredging area is approximately 55,000 square ,feet. Approximately 3,000 to· 4,000. cubic yards of coarse s·and. and gravel are proposed to be dredged every 3 to 4 years. A 10 year approval is requested. No filling is proposed. Appe.als of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 3, 2006. Appeals must be filed in' writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,·WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipai Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional infoimation·iegarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please Call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review.Committee, 1{ :i27J' :?Jill K. Ding Associate Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Regiori Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation -E-nc-lo-s-u-re----l-O-55-S-0-U~th-Gr-a-dY-,--,W-a-Y---R-en-t-on-,-W-a-s-h,-.n-gt-o-n-9-g-0-55-------.~ C'i) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post conSumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • ·CITYOFRENTON • . DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES' . ApPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ·L0.A,oS-138, SP, ECF Barbee Mill Company . LakeWashington/May Creek Dredging. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: . APplicant proposes to dredge the May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate althe mouth·of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee"Mili property by May Creek, In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths, The proposed dredging area is approximately 55,000 square feet Approximately 3,000 t04,OOOcubic yards of coarse sand and gravel are proposed to be dredged every 3 to 4years, A 10 year approval is requested, No filling is propos~d, LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 4300,Lake Washington Blvd N The City of Renton Department'ofPlanning/Building/Public Works .,'D'~veloplT]ent Planning'Section ,,';1'" d'''\ "".,\ . . ~. ~, ~'~. .~ ;7 ~, ... ·to' ~,... .,;: . 1, The applicant shall provide a Tempbrary Erosion and Sedimentation coliifolPlan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's ErosionandSedimentControl,~equiremenis, outlined,in VolLlme II dfthe2001 Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall-be s6bject'-tii thii'reView and:approvat;ofthe Development Services ~ Division. " -'" ," '~'. ",.if~:'.: t :·!:i;;~~;ti~~"_:>~(~~~:~;f~.\i; 7::, ,,~\;.: ~~ ",,; .2, The applicantshall.comply with the recommendationsfoLlna,in'the BioldgicalEvaluation,prepared by Meridian Environmental,LLC, dated JUnel8, 200~\:';:i; ?~i;, ':~?::;.;." /' . .' •. ' . 0"?" . 1:, ERG Mitigation Measures :,' ... -. • ...... ",", .",". ',~, , Page 1 of 1 '. " CITY OF RENTON .' 'DETERMINATION OF NON-SiGNIFICANCE"MITIGATED , ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-138, SP, ECF APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington/May Creek'Dredging DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes to dredge the, May' Creek Delta to remove, coarse sand's and gravels that accumulate at llie mouth of May Creek and substantially increas~ the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the 'proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. Tile proposed dredging area is approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse s<ind and gravel are proposed to be 'dredged every 3 t04 years, A 10 year' approval is requested. No filling is proposed.' , LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd N , , LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Departnienlof'Planning/Building/Public Works , ,.;0 Developmerit PlanniiigSection -_:~!" .{'·"fl >~:. ";.-~' ,,("jJ,ditis15tyNoies to APplicant\,,', . The following notes are supplementahnfor?na~ioli'p'rovidedin' conjuhc@ril'!'ith the environinentaldetermination. , Because these notes are provided as information only, they areoiiot'subject,to the appeal process for , 'ii. ,e?v:~~~r:~rdete~rninations; "\ ' 'Planninao ,,' '~'O.~~~~?:-'~'"'''' !})'" 5" . :~. . ·f--'_.' fi;.~:': ,,>'f' ~r . ',I, The applicant is.to obtain applicable City bf Rentbn C6nstru'ction Permits ",; 'j" .\ \ (";~"<;'~:"": /.t-", ~< -'::: .. ' i" .• , .'_ , 2. The applicant is to obtain a City ofHentoh.shoreline Substantial Development,Permit. . :\, :,:~.".\ :L .'~"'" , " ': ;. -.-",','p ..... -': "iii' . . , 3. Other permits from other agencies m,~y .be'l'Et,quirEjdprior to constructi!?n .. , R!lQuired permits may include but are not limited to a Department of Ecology Wa.ter',quality,Cjirtificatioll, Washingt0l!iState Department of Fish and Wildlife ,Hydraulic Project Approval, and an Arm'Y~Y.orps of Engineers dredge.P_ermit. '. ,,"'\..,--, ) ,!~ . "'·1-",: .. _,." Property Services: . ·1.', No fees are triggered. 'Plan Review: ,1.' A, construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shail be submitted for ,. approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in " advance by the Development Services Division:' ERe Advisory Notes Page 1 of 1 STAFF REPORT • • City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERe MEETING DA TE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: , Project Description: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gs(: ercrpt_ 1110 ycr~ekd redgi" g. doc March 14,2006 May Creek Dredging LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF Jill K. Ding, Associate Planner Applicant proposes to dredge the May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The proposed dredging area is approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel are proposed to be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No filling is proposed. (Project Description continued on following page) 4300 Lake Washington Blvd N (King County Parcel No. 322405-9034) N/A Site Area: 55,000 sq. ft. (1.3 acres) City of Renton P/B/PW Department ..a LAKE WASHINGTON/MAY CREEK D~/NG REPORT AND DECISION OF (MARCH 14, 2006) PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND (CONTINUED) EnVic.tal Review Committee Staff Report LUAOS-138, SP, SM, ECF Page20f4 The Barbee Mill Company has been dredging the May Creek Delta for more than 45 years. The purpose of the proposed dredging is to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek due to upstream erosion problems. The applicant has requested an extended approval for the dredging of May Creek for a period of 10 years. The applicant estimates that dredging of the May Creek Delta will occur 3 times over the next 10 years. The applicant requests that the frequency and the amount of material they are permitted to remove remain fiexible as the frequency of the need for dredging and the amount of material required to be removed is dependant upon weather conditions. The applicant estimates that the total amount of dredging that will be required over the next 10 years could be any where from 12.000 cubic yards to 40.000 cubic yards to maintain the proposed dredge contours. The applicant requests that rather than proposing estimated dredge quantities for the issuance of the required permits. that the applicant be permitted to maintain the dredge profiles as shown on the submitted plans. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINA TION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGA TlON MEASURES DETERMINA TlON OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. xx Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the Biological Evaluation prepared by Meridian Environmental. LLC. dated June 28. 2005. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The topography of the subject site is relatively fiat with a gentle slope to the west towards Lake Washington. The soils found on the subject site are coarse sands and gravels with little silt or clay content. these same soil types are found within the May Creek Delta. which is proposed to be dredged. The proposed dredging of 3.000-4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel is proposed to occur approximately every 3-4 years, although the applicant requests that the volume and timing of the grading remain flexible due to variable weather conditions. The applicant instead requests permission to maintain the proposed post dredging contours of the May Creek Delta. In addition two bermed areas adjacent to May Creek are proposed as dewatering areas for the dredged material. The material will then be used onsite as fill or will be sold and removed from the subject site. The last of the material dredged from May Creek will remain onsite in the dewatering areas and the dewatering areas will be regraded to their original condition. It is anticipated that during the course of the 10 year dredging permit requested that development of the upland portion of the subject site will occur and that the northern location for dewatering may not be available. If that occurs only the southern dewatering area may be utilized. ercrpCmaycreekdredging.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department A LAKE WASHINGTON/MAY CREEK D~ING REPORT AND DECISION OF (MARCH 14, 2006) --- ----------- EnVir.tal Review Committee Staff Report LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF Page30f4 Due to the potential for erosion resulting from the construction of the dewatering areas, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Policy Nexus: N/A 2, Air Impacts: Only minor adverse impacts are anticipated to the air quality during the dredging of May Creek and while the dredge spoils are dewatered. Exhaust from the dredging equipment and vehicles needed to transport the material will be a source of air pollution, Maintenance of the equipment to meet State and Federal air quality requirements will mitigale the potential adverse impacts. Wind blown dust from the dredge spoils would also have an adverse impact on the air quality. However, for most of the time that the material is stored at this location, the dredge spoils will be dewatering and should retain enough moisture to hold the material in place. The applicant will also have temporary erosion control measures in place to prevent wind erosion from occurring. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended Nexus: N/A 3. Water Impacts: The proposed dredging along May Creek and Lake Washington and the installation of plant materials along May Creek could have some short-term adverse impacts. The dredging itself will stir up some sediment in the water but the sediments should settle out of the water fairly quickly after the dredging has been completed. The planting along the stream could also release some sediment into the stream but again this should not be the cause of a significant amount of erosion. The plantings in the long term should help to stabilize the creek's banks during time periods of high water or flooding. The dredging of the sediment that has built up in the delta will reduce the flooding potential of the creek. The applicant submitted a Biological Evaluation prepared by Meridian Environmental, Inc. dated June 28, 2005. According to the report, the proposed dredging is not anticipated to adversely affect any fish at the proposed location due to the work windows proposed and the proposed 10-foot buffer of plantings along the shoreline. The conceptual planting scheme is as follows (see attached): 1. Taller native shrubs and trees will be planted at the east ends of both Areas A & B; 2. Shorter native shrubs and ground covers will be planted toward the west-end of the peninsulas to maintain viewsheds; 3, Willows will predominate on the southern shoreline adjacent to the delta to provide maximum shading impact for fishes; 4. Habitat areas will be 10 to 12 feet wide, as measured from the OHWL; 5. If there is a conflict between this plan and the planned habitat areas along the shoreline under proposed site development plans, the site development plans will take precedent. The plantings along the shoreline are anticipated to provide suitable habitat for juvenile fish species. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the Biological Evaluation prepared by Meridian Environmental, LLC, dated June 28, 2005. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. 4, Noise ercrpt_maycreekdredging.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department A LAKE WASHINGTONIMA Y CREEK DlWG'NG EnVic.ntal Review Committee Staff Report LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF (MARCH 14. 2006) Page4014 Impacts: The proposed project will result in some additional short-term noise impacts during the proposed dredging activities. Generally. noise impacts will come from the operation of the heavy construction equipment. The applicant indicates that all the construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur during daylight hours. No unusual noise impacts are proposed, which would require further levels of mitigation. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant . .lL-Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 31, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations Planning: 1. The applicant is to obtain applicable City of Renton Construction Permits 2. The applicant is to obtain a City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 3. Other permits from other agencies may be required prior to construction. Required permits may include but are not limited to a Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval, and an Army Corps of Engineers dredge Permit. Property Services: 1. No fees are triggered. Plan Review: 1. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. ercrpt_maycreekdredging.doc ZONING PIBIPW 'l'BCHNICAL BBllV1CB8 UJl8I04 CDR ----Retr.toD Clv Umlt. <[ U o 200 po 11~OO R C4 32 T24N R5E W ~NING MAP Bodk C2 Rp;sIDENTJAI ~ RHource CODsC!"aUOD ~ RellideoU .. 1 I dulac a ReridenUal .. dulac ~ ReddenUal 8 dulac t ~ t Residential "anuraclured Homes 111-10 I RuideDU.1 10 dulac t II-I" I Retlid"nUal 1" dulac t R"-rl Residential Multi-Vamily III .... t I Ruidenlial MulU-Family Traditional IRI'I-U I RQidenUal .hdli-Family Urban CenleT· MOO;P pSf! CENTER ~ Center vma.e lue-NII Urban Center -North ~ Urban C"DU!r -North 2 ~ Center Dcnrnto'IFD" I COR I Commercial/Ortlce,/Rn:ldenUal COMMERCIA! o Commercial Arterial- ComlXu,rcbl Nelcbborbood INDUSTRIAl W Industrial -8eavy o )Ddu"trial -Medium o IndWltrial -U,ht (P) Publicly owned _____ Renlon City Umill __ Adjacent City UmJa _ Book rac. BoUlldaT)' ... ., lnc1ude OYerl.., Dtslrids. See Appendl:l: map •. For additional reeul.Uonll ID o.erla,. Dialricl8, ple.lle sell IUIC 4-3 .. _ _ .. - -- - Print.! by Print & Mail Svcs, City of Renton 'i"' • t rv + May Creek Delta j Shoreline Habitat Area B -2,400 sf Rood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta !Lake Washington PROJECT lOCAnON Barbee Mill Company ) / ( '-".""' ........ Shoreline Habitat Are;p -1,800 sf ',- --~ I , , , , , , , , , I , , , IN: l..1Ike Wasl1lngtoo AT: 4300 lake Washington Blvd, N. King County, Rentoo, WA 98056 Shoreline Planting Plan SHEET 1 of 1 , , , I I , , , I , -~ d6 ~ 9/18/05 Area A 1,800 Area B 2,700 Shoreline Plant Ust Botanical Name Common Name Size Trees Comus Nuttallii Pacific Dogwood 5 gal Acer Circintum Vine Maple 5gal Pinus Contorta Shore Pine 10 !lal Willows Salix hookeriana Hooker's Willow Cutting Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow Cutting Salix sitchensis SitkaWililow Cuttin!l Shrubs Amelancher alnifola Serviceberry 4" pots Comus sto/onifolia Red Twig Dogwood 1 gal Sambucus racemosa Red Elderberry bare root Rosa Nootka Nootka Rose bare root Rhododendron Macroe.hyjlum Pacific Rhodendron 5 !lal Groundcovers Carex obnupta Slough Sedge 4" pots Gaultheria shallon Salal 4" pots Iris Tenax Native Iris 1 gal Juncus acuminatus Tapered Rush bare root Juncus ensifolius Dagger Leaf Rush bare root Glyceria elata Tall Mannagrass seed Descrie.tion/Concee.t Habitat Area A Greater height trees and shrubs at mouth of creek Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Predominately shrubs and groundcovers at end of peninsula Provides some shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Habitat Area B Predominately willows and taller shrubs/trees near bridge to west Provide shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Willow density increase to east sf sf Est. Quan. Est. Quan. 4 6 6 12 2 4 16 0 48 16 48 16 48 6 9 12 24 18 32 16 32 4 6 24 24 24 24 24 24 48 64 48 64 100 100 Area 1,800 ft2 2,700 fl" Total Quanity 10 18 6 64 64 64 15 36 50 48 10 48 48 48 112 112 200 :D m o m <: m o ... ~,. fonner·.Oiedgi. Dewatering. Area . Lake Washington + . -+. : : : . '. +'. . ____ 0 'I ere ; --- May Creek Delta + + + ~ Q!!l+ :;!!il ,/ ~ -......... 0:1: ;;;m Notes: m~ ExSttIQ aJJ!I:U elMtlcnasciMry, lOO5 (sut:;:d.1D dIq! wItIlb:rm etm~ ~ C E:dstt'Ig CDmn II1II.,.., I'Iam )UI' ID.,.. ~ en strm evns ~~) IhIt depasft snt In! P'Mf aoded ft"CIn the ...., QMI: Viler. o Z Drmge nil wit td.dI! occasIcJIII cftdIIl'IQ ~ rrmt tithe iIcIII!taJse to mil'" ~ .. erd ICCeSS. Z Z PrqxRd cndge eIMtkns I tDItDUs stDWI en 9Ieel3 d 4. Z Lake EIMIb'I rnatIIIh!!d br USACE. Qdnary HItj;I WIlIer Ln! (otM'l.) • 2U led: G') [)edge eINItIcns ..:I mIDIS bIsed cn NADr'8J. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington CAruM: USACe I SeIIII:He DlctI1d; __ Map: orAl{ (KIr'klWId, WA) l.JII;Ituo;Io!:: 47N 31' 040". I.OngItuda 122W 12 '29" ~ T~1p Renge: NW 32. 24 ~$ PRlEt lDCATlDN "IN: Lia! Wastqtm AT: 4JXI_~1IIYd.1l ", D"4I CrUJty, ~ w~ !lIOS6 AI'IUOODI rf ..... HI_ : " 4l(JJ UIce WII!itIhg\I:r1I1¥d. N . IemI, WA !IBm6 ',.< T'.. l . EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATIONS SHEET '2of4 ::xJ m (') m ~ o + + + Lake Washington + + + .. -------"'f='~. + " + ®t ~A - + ~ om _r- ::;!!6 + 03: ;;~ NOTES: m + 2-0 S.sr.t4b'~U.~"",(.(' May Creek Delta + ~C '1WIIdaroItIrIIO_ .. __ ~-aIlllr ... ~ ... tdllel""_"IIiI""".~~b' ...... o...lIL ~z ~_ ... _lnIroI;rMInI""""'. Z ~3,IOCI1D4,ClIO'YlDblthd;Id..,JoI",,"""~lIImIhqlrqln....,. ~ \lNd;IIngtlbe~wlhldlntlllllld:etmIUVInwtld-. Jt:I~"'III"""''''IIII!r. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Oeek Delta I Lake Washington OII.TUI: lJS,toQ;/SeIII1eDlstlt:l Base~: aTN.:{IQ1I;t;lnd,WA,l l.athde: "7N 31'~, l.ongIucIe 122W U '29" Secttcn TOIIrI5Np Rqe: PIN 12 2~ os " .' PImCT UJC<TD< IN: L*WiI5hhgID1 AT; 43OJIllkeWl5tqta1I1M1.N. OIl! Ctuty. ~ WI. 98056 '. >.' APfW1IDIt " BIItIIit HI! CcI'r1*tY 4300 '* WasNng\al Blvd. N RImI\. WA ge05& -', ,,- 1"'.. ± PROPOSED DREDGING CONTOURS ..... " SHEET 3 of4 @ ~. 2!J'" '. RI?isi!I: " :D m o m <: m c ". ~"" .. ", '-» :z u.> - " ' ',', :''-,'r Cross-Sections A-A', 6-6', and C-C' (5eesheet 3 of 4) ~------,~.------------, A ©B '·"1 me ~U'I Scale ~ ~~ ... --Cross-SettIonA-A' runs north to bJth (!iII!e SheetJ). Mmdmum d~ depth Is a. 10', B' Crass-Sectlon " MIS west: to east tl'nqh Mev O'eek DeIte (see Sh!I!t 3). Mllxlnun dredge depth Is a _ 10'. Crc:Is$-SectIon C<" MIS north to so..n (see SI'eet 3), M8xImum cll!!dg! depth Is a. 10', Ma:drmITI cIewatertng lire!! ~ shown Is a -20' (wfB depen:t on lalli! WastVngton 8evatkJn) 25' '" "" "" 9J:n 5q;IlS wII:hrl deb III be~ no ..... 1IIIn l;1"'1II1I'rinIzII ** InlIIm ~o DMeIe1ng 1nII(') QIlMI\ed 10 B.. 2f1 (Nghw/blftr, ~ 011 wa ElMIIon). II patIOII rillNIIe1II to bellied ItIr tIIrm InUtd ~_ ~ ~"'Jtobll!ntunldto~mnclllc:lnm:l~1CXII ~1dbI ~m OeMtI!Itng_LallwllbII!~~"'~(l'IIIInyw.s). i!l~ 1/ c I ~_.1IaItO.a .... ~I~~ 1 '~ c~ ,z~ . 'I lood MitigatiOnMai~teriance Dr~ging -. May Creek Delta I Lake. WaShington' . I ~. ~ I ' " "SHEET ' DATUM, USACE 1-""""'" PROJECT lOCATION APPLICATION IN ,DREDGE AREA CROSS-SECTIONS 4 f 4 C> <> BneMap: OTAK(klrtdand,.WA) IN: LakeWMhlngton BarbMlMIDcompalTf' . '" 0 .' , , Letltude: "7N Jl''Kl''. LongIbJde 122W 12'29" AT: ,_"300 lake Washington Blvd, N. • ~~:~BIvd. N " ,,-,~, SectIon Township Range: mi 32 ~ 0,5 KIng County, Renton. WA 98056 , , -I I RI!ivisfon 6/9/05 :,' ) .'"',, :-, .:,. ',<-,~ , i: • • ,t.., .J ... ,: • .>:, , ~':'~'~ Cita.ton Department of Planning I Building I ~orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9 2006 APPLICATION NO: ECF DATE CIRCULATED: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor M",or Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment MInor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth HOiiSiiiG Air Water Plants LandlShore/ine Use Animals ~ Envfronmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources .~:;v,;, C; B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact Of areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. db/) 'K,Q 3/zo-ob Signature of Director or Authorized ReP!tsentative "'D!.a~te""''''---''''-''--------- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: .. •• PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM March 7, 2006 Jill Ding Juliana Fries (x:7278) Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging -LUA 05 -138 4300 Lake Washington Blvd I have reviewed the application for the dredging pf Lake Washington/May Creek and have the following comments: 1. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 2. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. cc: Kayren Kittrick C/~n Department of Planning / Building /"s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Tax. .1 j.irYl COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-138, SP, SM.'ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2006.. u,' v, " APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding nC\,;/:/VED PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries FEB 21 'nnt: SITE AREA: 55,000 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A AJ "' LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd I WORK ORDER NO: 77505 'UIVIS/ON SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feel. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin Air Aesthetics Water _L!!lhtIGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public SetVices Energy/ Historic/Culturaf Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment to,ODO Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS alion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or alion is needed to properly assess this proposal. uthorized Representative Date C/~n 'Department of Planning / Building /"'s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 5ur:ftre/Wil,~J I ~ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-13B, SP, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2006 APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT MANAGER: Jill DinQ PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 55,000 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A 1"'1"'0 ~ .. ~nnc LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washinoton Blvd WORK ORDER NO: 77505 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and grav~IIr!;ll~~l?rh'(JPaI~~t the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feel. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mote Element of the Probable Probable Mote Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Infonnatlon Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housi Air Aesthetics Water Li ht/Glare Plants Recreation LancilShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Heanh Pub/ic SetVices Energyl Historic/CuHuraf Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infor, n is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date , CI,. Department of Planning / Building /"s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pla-n Re..vle.vJ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2006 APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Comoanv PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dino CIII vr"""'V'~ PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washinoton/Mav Creek Dredoino PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries I1l:v\;I' ..... SITE AREA: 55,000 square feet BUILDING AREA (oross): N/A FEB 2' 2006 LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd WORK ORDER NO: 77505 D' ,n,.,'" f""I\IJ\S\()N SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feel. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g, Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable MOle Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Informat/on Environment Minor Major Informat/on Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shorefine Use Uti/ffiBS Animals Trans alion Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Hlstorlc/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C, CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS ~~ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas ;n which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wee additional infor ion is needed to properly assess this proposal. 3-6-06 Sign Date CI_n Department of Planning / BUilding /"'s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Rrc., COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRU kRY23r2006~ f' n n" r::: I Ii " J"'=" ,'-" LS U ,~ / APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dirl ti •. .' I L'" ! f\ .. 'II /1 ii' I PROJECT TITLE: Lake WashingtonlMay Creek Dredging PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries Iii I , II ,I SITE AREA: 55,000 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/AI '-' U i I LD I. j 2006 ILU '; WORK ORDER NO: 77505 I l / )1 LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd PT I r.:~,... ~ ';:' '".1 fthf SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands1ana H","els:tI:!at-accumulate at the I mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek_ In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square fee!. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major InfonnaUon Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Eanh Housir)g Air Aesthetics Water Li ht/Glare Plants Recreation LandiShorefine Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet IJA B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have revi wed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where dditional infor, ion is needed to properly assess this proposal. epresentative Date CI_n Department of Planning / Building /"'5 ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICA'TION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pro(JeYN SVG5 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-138, SP, ~M, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 200h ...... _ ... , APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Comnanv PROJECT MANAGER: Jill DinQ nl;\,C/VI:U PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washinaton/Mav Creek Dredoino PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries FFR ? 'I "1!~ SITE AREA: 55,000 souare feet BUILDING AREA (a ross): NIA LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd I WORK ORDER NO: 77505 ,u"' UTILITY SYSTEMS SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feel. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable M"", Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Informat/on Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth HouSiiiii Air Aesthetics Water UOhtlGfare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans alion Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. o We hav eviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or Wl\(infO a:O(r;d8dto p per/yassessthisproposa/ 2/2,q/20LCe re of Director or Authorized Representative Date • • MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 -172nd Avenue SE. Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 Jill Ding Associate Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 March 7, 2006 RE: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF Dear Ms. Ding: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Proposed Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M), the environmental checklist and the Biological Assessment (dated June 28, 2005) for the above referenced project. Thank you for sending the Biological Assessment (BA) subsequent to sending us the DNS-M and the checklist. As you know, the DNS-M references the BA for the proposed mitigation measures for impacts associated with this project; without the BA, it is impossible to assess the mitigation measures. We are offering the following comments in the interest of protecting and/or restoring the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's fisheries resources. This project proposes to dredge 3000-4000 cubic yards of fine sediment and gravel from an area covering 55000 square feet at the mouth of May Creek and Lake Washington. Initially, this dredged material will be placed in an upland dewatering cell on the current Barbee Mill site and will either be sold and trucked off site or used as clean fill in an upland area of the Barbee Mill site. Future dredged material may be off-loaded to the adjacent Quendall Terminals property. The project proposes to conduct such dredging whenever the dredge zone reaches + 18 feet mean sea level, approximately every 3-4 years (storm dependent) over the next 10 years. As mitigation for this 10 year dredging effort, the project proposes to replant 250 lineal feet of shoreline on both sides of the detail with willow stakes to a width of 4 feet. Cattail is also proposed to be planted as emergent vegetation to a width of 2 or 3 feet depe~ding on plant depth. In addition, ten Christmas tree piles will be added to the shoreline to provide temporary shallow water cover. Finally, the BA notes that the areas immediately to the north and south of the dredging zone area (unspecified) will be "allowed to accrete naturally to increase shallow water habitat along the delta points". No other mitigation is proposed for this and future dredging. Project Need The DNS-M and the BA fail to justify that this project is actually needed. There is no demonstration that flooding of at the site has occurred since 200 I that jeopardizes mill operations and public safety. The information in the BA is dated (photos of I 990 flooding) and does not reflect current conditions and the dredging activities since 200 I conducted under Corps Permit 195-2-0097. Furthermore, according to the King County Journal, the mill site is closed (see http://www.kingcountyjournaJ.com/sited/storv/htmJf21 5862). The need for this project is not established and the potential impacts as a result of dredging 3000-4000 cubic yards for each dredging cycle over the next 10 years are significant and will occur without sufficient mitigation. Impacts to salmon, habitat, and water quality Based on our review of the documents, this project has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to salmonids, their habitat, and water quality of both Lake Washington and May Creek. Potential impacts include, but • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to May Creek Delta Dredging LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF • March 7, 2006 Page 2 are not limited to, the elimination of any existing and future shallow littoral habitat for juvenile chinook and other salmon ids in the project area for the next 10 years. The spatial and temporal loss of habitat was not fully discussed in the BA. Also, the project may cause adverse impacts to salmonids as a result of turbidity, which were not fully considered in the BA. The BA relies on data from the 2002 wood removal project and does not analyze any existing turbidity data, including any data available from the 200 I dredge activity. Dredging can cause adverse impacts to water quality and potentially fish as a result of creating turbidity levels that are harmful to fish; potential impacts as a result of dredging need to be based on dredging in relation to the current water quality. The BA also fails to consider any potential impacts to dissolved oxygen. Water temperature impacts were not sufficiently analyzed either. The water temperature assessment was based on data collected from the Mercer Slough, not May Creek. The BA and DNS-M also lack an analysis about existing chemical contamination data available for the site as part ofthe Barbee Mill site or Quendall Terminals Superfund site. The physical habitat characterization in the BA is incomplete and fails to discuss existing conditions of May Creek and Lake Washington in the project area. Finally, the BA speculates that dredging is needed to maintain access for adult salmon to May Creek without providing any data to support the concept that the unnatural filling of the delta has caused a blockage for migrating salmon. Cumulative Impacts The BA and the DNS-M fail to fully discuss and analyze the potential for cumulative impacts to occur not only as the result of this project but also as a result of other projects within the vicinity of the project area and beyond. The BA specifically states that the proposed dredging project has no direct relationship to other actions, yet the City of Renton is in the process of approving the proposal for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal (City of Renton file #LUA-02-040) on the same parcel. This plat proposal has several components that may affect May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline including a potential new bridge crossing on May Creek and the potential for docks to be built for the future individual owners living along the Lake (personal communication on February 17, 2006 with Monica Durkan, Washington Department of Natural Resources). Other related projects not analyzed in the BA or DNS-M include the adjacent shoreline restoration work proposed on leased Washington Department of Natural Resources land and the Cugini Joint Use Dock (Corps Permit 200200724) immediately south of the proposed project area. The BA also fails to discuss any potential impacts that may occur as a result ofthis project to pending clean-up activities on the Barbee Mill and Port Quedall Terminals property immediately to the north. The BA mentions dredging at the boat house in the project area, but fails to quantifY the amount of dredging, the extent of dredging, the frequency of dredging and any mitigation that occurred for this dredging. The BA and DNS- M fail to discuss the potential for the Renton Airport to dredge a portion of Lake Washington, which we were notified about last year. In addition, the Washington Department of Transportation is planning on widening the 1- 405 Bridge crossing of May Creek in the near future, which may affect May Creek and its riparian area. Finally, there are several proposed annexations and/or developments upstream that will be discharging storm water to May Creek tributaries (i.e. Querin annexation rezone Renton file LUA-06-008) that may also cause cumulative impacts to May Creek that were not analyzed. The BA also fails to discuss any impacts that may have occurred as a result of past dredging of the May Creek delta in 200 I under a Corps Permit 195-2-0097 and mitigation measures as a result of that dredge activity. The BA also fails to discuss impacts to Cedar River chinook that occurred as a result of dredging of the Cedar River in 1998 that resulted in a significant over-dredge to the river and additional impacts that have yet to be mitigated. The projects noted above represent a few of the projects/activities that have the potential to adversely affect salmon ids originating from May Creek and the Cedar River, their habitat, and water quality. In conclusion, based on the concerns identified above, we recommend that the City withdraw the proposed DNS-M for this project and issue a Determination of Significance for this project work. An Environmental Impact Statement should be required, with a detailed analysis of how flooding at the site adversely affects vacated mill operations and an alternatives analysis that looks at actions with less environmental impacts. " • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to May Creek Delta Dredging LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF • March 7, 2006 Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 876-3116. ~:wta: =- Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Susan Powell, USACOE, Regulatory Branch Kitty Nelson, NOAAF Stewart Reinbold, WDFW, Region 4 Alice Kelly, WDOE, NW Region Monica Durkan, WDNR, Aquatic Lands References Phone conversation with Monica Durkan, Aquatic Lands, Washington Department of Natural Resources, February 17,2006, 1144 AM. City oeton Department of Planning I Building I PUb. arks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pcu"'k-s COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23,2006 APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Comnanv PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dina PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washinaton/Mav Creek Dredaina PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 55,000 SQuare feet BUILDING AREA (arass): N/A LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd I WORK ORDER NO: 77505 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Baribee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Moro Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor MajOl' Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Water Licht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shorefine Use Utllltfes Animals TranSilOiiation Environmental Health Public Services E""'!JYI Historic/Culturaf Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment :~:~F .. t 1 Feet 72~ ,-, . B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS ;JhM-aM. M ~~Ic ~/J. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ditiona/ information is ne e to properly assess this proposal. Date ~ , - - ---------------- City of Re.n Department of Planning / Building / Public .S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fl.1 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-138. SP. SM. ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23.2006 ... U""".u;, APPLICANT: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dinq t1 t l,; t I V E D PROJECT TITLE: Lake WashinqtoniMay Creek Dredging PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries FEB 2 ':I Inn!: SITE AREA: 55.000 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 4300 Lake Washington Blvd I WORK ORDER NO: 77505 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAl: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition, the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55.000 square feet. Approximately 3.000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable M"", Environment Minor Major Informat/on Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Informat/on Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use utilities Animals Trans ation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS AlONG C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wherfJ additional information is needed to perty assess this proposal . . " '- Date DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: February 23. 2006 LUA05-133, SP, SM, ECF LaIo.eWa.hinglonIM..,er..k ~ • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to ,.."".". COlII'M und8 and gtlIvt4 that uIate lit the mDUlll 01 May Creek and lul:>,tanbally 1rn::rNH \he I1lka and pot_aI damagn from "oodIng of the = Min roperty by May Creel<. In addI~on, the proposed dredging would maintain navlQatklNl ~!IIs, ~he proj~ ... 10 be ~redged covers 811 aru 01 approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to -4,000 cubiC yards caarH eand snd !lfIVill wi" be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No 11111 propOSed. PROJECT LOCATION; 4300 lake Washington Boulevard OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON.SIGNIFICANCE, IAma.ufO (ONS-M): As the Lead AQW>CY, the ~~~~ twa delermlned thai .~lficant •• wironmenlal :~ac\8ton~8 ur:'llk~ ~= =.~ep'=: g:':~ee thai. DNs.. permmed under the RCW 43.21C.' 10, the City en I usng ed ONS M a,a mlegraled ,n\o. single oomm.m M ~ likely to be Islued. Commem pertodt lor the project ii, nd the P~8 Thr"~d OBtenn;naUon of Non-SiQr1'1\can(;e-p.tiod. T~ >MIl btl no comment period fo/kwrIb1g the, HUiIfICe Mlllo-tllCl (ONs-M) A 14-!:1ay appeal paned will follow the ,Uuance of \hOI DNS-M PERMIT APPLICATION DATE; NancE Of COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 31, 2006 Februlll)' 23, 2006 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTA.CT PERSON: Mlch .. 1 Uoyd. Lloyd & ","oclat .. , Inc.: hi: (":lS) 888-1105: Eml: rmlQcentvryt.l.net Other P.rmlts which may b ... qul .. d: R.qu.sact Studle.: l.o<:atlon whe .. application may Mf1IYlawed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: ZonlngA.and U .. : Enylronmantool Documents that Eyaluate tha Propoead Proiact: Oeyalop"...nt RltGulaUons U,ed For Projec:t Mitigation: Environm.nbli (SEPA.) R.ylaw. SpKlal G .. dlng Permit. Sho .. Une SublLlntlal Dav.lopmen1 Permit Grading Llcen ... Hydraulic ProjKt approyal (WOFWi. Water Quootlt)' Certlflcat. (OOE), M.lnt .... nc. & Dredging P.rmlt (Corps of Engln .... ) Biological Eyaluatlon, Engln .. rlng R.port PlannlnglBulldlnglPubllc Won.. Department, Dey,lopment Servlcea Dlylalon, Sh,th Floor Renton City HIlL. 1055 Seuth Gl'edy Way. R.nton, WA. .. ,,' Pub!ic; hfmrioo I' !MI!!IIyn!y IdJ!!d'lI!!d IN April" 20011 bofore It" R,.nton HaMoQ EumjQ!{ in BtOloo C"'IOCI' Chamber). HeIInngs begin 819.00 AM on \tK!I7th floor of \tK!IMW Renton CUy l-1li11 klcal8d Bt 1055 South Grady Way. The IWbied 8~e Is d&llgnalad Comm"'cialiOffi""'RB~IIa1 (COR) on the City of Renloo Comprehen.iv& Land Use Map and COmmerciallOff'>oalealdenbel (COR) on the Ctty's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPAl Checklill The project"oYill be subject 10 tha City's SEPA ordinance. RMC 4-3-090, ShoI'BIII MHter ProgfStD 4-4-030 Oo:tvaIopmenl G~ and RegulationS. 4-4-U Gf8dtng, Mining' and Excavation R"gulBllonl end other applicable codes a regulatlOn. as appropriate • The foIIawIng M,tJoation "''''sures will ~kely be imposed on the propoaed project. These recommended MIIIga~on "'euuras addreaa Projecl Impacts not coveracl by ",",~ng codea and regulationl as o::rted aboY.. • The .ppllr:altt wm be r.qulrwl fO comply wtrh lit. rwo;:ommandatlons found In lite Blologlc., Eyaluaflon. Comments on 1M aboya application m ... t be IUbmitted In wrltlnll to Jill Dlnll ...... _1_ Planne •• Oeyelopment S'Nicn OM,jon, 1055 South Gradv WIV, Renton, WA. 911055, by 5:00 PM on March 7, 20011. Thil mattar Is llao tentatlyely achaduled for a pUblic hearing on April 11. 200S, at g:OO AM, Counal Chambon Sewonth Floor Renlon Ctty~, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. 11)'00 are "" .. flSled In IIttending the hllflng. pleue ';;"'tecl !he ~opmenl Sorvica DMslon 10 enlJUf'e thB1 tho hlanng ha. no! been rnchedu!ed at (425) 43i).72t12. II oomments cannot be subm,tted In wrffi09 by \he dale Indicated above. )'00 mly s~lI appeer at u... heannll and protent your comment. 00 Iha prtIpOI8I before the Heemg Exanlnef. II you h8vt QUlStiona about IhII proposal, or"';l/1 10 be made a party 01 record and r_lye additional 'nlormalion tly mall. pl_ CQntact th" project maru"!III". Anyone who submJlS written comments will 8UIOmatlcaly bec:oma B party 01 recon:I and wi! be notified or eny dedsk:n on !his project CONTACT PERSON: Jill K. Ding. Assoc(ate Planner; Tel: (425) 430.7219 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FilE iDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further infonnetion on this proposed project, complete thiS form and return to: City 01 Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055. Name/File No.: Lake Washington/May Creek Oredging/LUA05·138, SP, SM. ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: CERTIFICATION I, J ,'II ]) :~ , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspIcuous places or nearby the descnbed property on DATE:-.::...C2-4-I_d-.:'l __ _ ,on the day of _-,-F--,e~\:)='-_0=-=Q~"-'-"f-I ___ . i ',., '. , • • LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300·FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430·7200 Fax: 425-430·7231 G/Ty OF~~ Pl,ANrv/A'" eNtON "U JAN 3 1 2006 PROJECT NAME:_---'!M""A'-'-Y-"C'-'R""EE""K'-'D""E""L T.!..!A"-'F'-'L""O""O""D.!!M!!.IT'-"IG><!Al!T-'-'IO""N!..!D~R~E~D~G~IN!-"G,---_R_S_C-=E",IL~ ... E~DI- APPLICATION No:--'WA=-<--"O"'-E:c""--"'13"-''O=-__________________ _ The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME Berry, Lana McLaughlin Properties Youngblood, Jon C. Wywrot, Lois R. Igelmund, Darrell & Linda Hutton, Ronald Luger, Therese Igelmund, Darrell & Linda Gurel, Mehmet Gibson, Lance Smith, Taryn Barbee/owners.doc ADDRESS 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N.· A101 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N.· A102 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A103 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A104 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A201 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A202 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A203 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -A204 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B101 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B102 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B103 Renton, WA 98056 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 2212000010-Ne S<..tl.h ~ 311le'o 2212000020 -No ~lOo- 3i1\ia.. 2212000030 -No 5.% ~ 3i\\~ 2212000040 -NO Such.jj,. b\t\e1o 2212000050-r\O slWltv.tr 3\1\010 2212000060 -)\,\.J <>l.\(\o, t!:- '0\ II Db 2212000070 -t..,) <> 'iLUl-t ~ 3\dlJb 2212000080·-NoS,"",,, j,jo :,\\1<"1.. 2212000090·· No'i.U{(.,"",- o\\\~ 2212000100~~ '5u.£h~ 2>\t\c:;., 2212000110-f\J'<=> S<.ti1h fI:- ~\I\N> 5/31105 , • • NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Kelly, Kimberly Ann 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B104 2212000120-t-lo sc;ll£.h-tt Renton, WA 98056 ~\\\oI. Pak, Sung Hyun 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B201 2212000130 _~l> s"d,.it> Renton, WA 98056 31'1ac. Gurel, Mehmet 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B101 2212000140 ~t-X>5<.llVllA' Renton, WA 98056 ?J\\\fJ1v Carl, Kenneth 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B203 2212000150-~S..uiAll> Renton, WA 98056 !>\\\c&> Robinson, Laura Anne 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -B204 2212000160-\-lC':>uLh ~ Renton, WA 98056 311\~ Jelinek, Jane M. 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C101 2212000170-~ ">'-'<VI tI:. Renton, WA 98056 b1.,\~ Ernst, lee 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C102 2212000180-\J.1)~ \I- Renton, WA 98056 z,\,\b\o Foster Rich, Inc. 4101 lake Washington Blvd. N. -C103 2212000190 -~OSw.i-l i!:- Renton, WA 98056 3hlt/.. Stonich, Linda 4101 lake Washington Blvd. N. -C104 2212000200-~'S~.a Renton, WA 98056 3i1\(5I, Good, Bruno & Ann 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C201 2212000210 -\lD~~ Renton, WA 98056 No Su.d1 fl;;3111~ ~h\Cip Wallace Holdings, LLC 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C202 2212000220 _ ~~'bLt-Ci-.:t:f Renton, WA 98056 3\,n Egenes, Dane 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C203 2212000230 -N05u.Cn~ Renton, WA 98056 ~H01o Muscat, James & Jane 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -C204 Renton, WA 98056l~S~4: :3h\~ 2212000240-/'l."~#-z,\, t'Jl. Lee, Tae 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0101 2212000250-\\)oS,u.v,.. -Il: Renton, WA 98056 ?>1I\(:Sl.. Newing, Andrew 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0102 Renton, WA 98056 -No Such ~ 3\1 \0\0 2212000260-"\c>"dJiir.~ o\\\~ Allen, Colleen 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0103 2212000270-~ <::6.1lh·!t Renton, WA 98056 3\ \\tio Wagner, Beverly 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0104 2212000280 .-\.l."f:illh~ Renton, WA 98056 .~Mtlb C:IMY DOCUMENTSlBarbeelDredging 200S\City of RentonIOWNERS.DOC 2 --------------------------------------------- • . 1 • • NAME Boots, She rice Houser, Paul & Amy Nagamine, Akira & Hideko Brace, Jeanette Quendall Terminals Burlington Northern Sante Fe Barbee Forest Products Hicks, Gardner W. Lange, Robert H. Port Quendall Company Thompson, Neil Helina, Patricia Fawcett, Clarissa Boydston, Tony Zilmer, Mark & Rosemary Hunt, Timothy & Jen Hunt, Thomas & Caryl Bruno, Nicoli & Sarah ADDRESS 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0201 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0202 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0203 Renton, WA 98056 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -0204 Renton, WA 98056 Nt9 Suil! #-3/J/(5Tp 4503 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 1741 4th Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98134 4300 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 4008 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 4017 Park Ave. N. Renton, WA 98056 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 4016 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 ~fed (let- ~euf\ '~/4ftrfo 4004 N 40th St. Renton, WA 98056 4008 Meadow Ave. N. RENTON WA 98056 3901 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 3837 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 1129 N. 40th St. Renton, WA 98056 1125 N. 40th St. Renton, WA 98056 3404 Burnett Ave. N. Renton, WA 98056 C:IMY DOCUMENTS\BarbeelDredging 2005\City of Renton\OWNERS.DOC ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 2212000290 -\-i<;)biliil.iI- 3\1\Cb 2212000300-~D~\ \ i,..~ i!. I <:5l, 221200031 0 -N. 0 ~1..I.J2.\rI* 3\I\Clo 2212000320 -N.DSu.c~# 3\1 \0\- 2924059002-A-Ibnpkd I-t.,.t ~3lll~ 2924059005 _~o\-delj~ruPi( Ql, o.ctl.\~, ~3'e'\p 3224059034-\-lC Su£h ~ "0 \\ \I:::{p 3224059036 3224059039 3224059049 3224059050 3224059058 3224059081 3342700070 3342700080 3342700415 3342700425 3342700427 3 • . \ • • Applicant Certification I, __ -"R4 . ..!>M",ic",h",a"e,,-1 =.LI"'o'l'yd"----____ ~, hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: NOTARY ~Cribed a -'sworn before me, a Notary PWJlic, in an for the State of Washington, . on the &::....~ay of "=;f":.<.A....J:..<'-------" 20tUL· -For . of Renton Use···· CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, ~ -\lM.¥'ec , hereby certify that notices of the proposed ap '. (City Employee) ~~attitM(O NOTARY PUBLIC each listed property owner on d\23\tN, Sign~~.~~ .. STATE OF WASHINGlON Date: __ J).._\,--J...3~J:~;;::;l':!"~t:\~,~SlLU~~!!'n~EX~<PIRES~...."..{ , 2006 NOTARY A TT~T: ~ubscribed and sworn before me, a tary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at ~~ on 2-3"" 'day of @ ,20 66. Si ned :;;:;- C:IMY DOCUMENTSI8arbeelDredging 20051City ofRentonIOWNERS.DOC 4 , . '-• • CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 23'd day of February, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, PMT's See Attached Barbee Mill Company -Accpt Ltr & NOA Owner/Applicant Michael Lloyd, Lloyd & Associates -Accpt Ltr Contact (Signature of Sender): ~/./ "' .... .!JtJd,A/ ('!.lAC. ';c.-'F.' KOKKO ./ a NOTARY PUBliC STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 19, 2006 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated:_:l.L.p,---,~,+/~O-,-C_ Notary Public in and for the Sate of Washington Notary (Print):_--,C",,-. =:i~F7-'r~~-,-r---LK.=~.!..:...Jc!:...-~ ______ _ My appointment expires: ~ ( (1(Ob Project Name: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging Project Number: LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 • • AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190160" Ave SE 39015 -172"" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 . WSDOT Northwest Region' Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program' Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172" Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72" Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipalliason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 Soulh Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-Ol W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing ~y ~~~ +.:m + ~~~ ~N;f9 • • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: February 23, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA05-138, sp, SM, ECF PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed dredging of May Creek Delta to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. In addition. the proposed dredging would maintain navigational depths. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 square feet. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged every 3 to 4 years. No fill is proposed. PROJECT LOCATION: 4300 lake Washington Boulevard OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As !he Lead Agency, !he City of Renton has detennined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DN8- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DN8-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: January 31, 2006 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 23,2006 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Lloyd, LLoyd & Associato., Inc,; Tel: (425) 888-t905; Eml: nnl@centurytel.net Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Special Grading Permit, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Grading License, Hydraulic Project approval (WDFW), Water Quality Certificate (DOE), Maintenance & Dradging Permit (Corps of Engineers) Biological Evaluation, Engineering Report Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 18. 2006 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program, 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations, 4-4-060 Grading, Mining and Excavation Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. • • Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations found In the Biological EvaluatJon. Comments-on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Associate Plan"!r, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on March 7, 2006. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 18, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Coundl Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please oontact the Development Services Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (42S) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of reoord and receive additional infonnation by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments wJ1l automaticaUy beoome a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill K, Ding. Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I l.. MAY CREEK DELTA FLOOO MITIGATION DREDGING If you 'NOuld like to be made a party of reoord to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging/LUA05-138, SP, SM, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: • CITY.F RENTON Kathy Keolker. Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department" Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator February 23. 2006 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates. Inc.' 38210 SE 92"d Street Snoqualmie. WA 98065 Subject: . Lake Washington/May Creek Dredging LUA05-138. SP. SM. ECF Dear Mr. Lloyd: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submillal requirements and. therefore. is accepted for review. It is' tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Eflvironmental Review Committee on March 14. 2006. Prior to that review. you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition. this mailer is tentatively scheduled for.a Public Hearing on April 18, 2006 at ·9:00 AM. Council Chambers, Seventh Fi6or. Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions . . Sincerely, CjJJ 1{, j2' alK.Ding U Associate Planner cc: Barbee Mill Company I Owner -------------lO-S-S-s-ou-th-G-r-w-y-W-a-y---R-en-t-on-,-w-M-hl-'n-~-o-n-9-80-S-S------------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled ~aterial. 30% post consumer AHE,\D DF TIlE CURVE • City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT JAN 3 f 2006 MASTER APPLICATIONRECElvED PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: Barbee Mill Company PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging ADDRESS: 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Renton, WA 98057 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98057 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-226·3900 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 322405-0034-00 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): Industrial/COR . PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COR COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: COR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable): COR TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING:lndustrial/COR CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): COR NAME: Michael Lloyd SITE AREA (in square feet): approximately 55,000 sf. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED COMPANY (if applicable): Lloyd & Associates, Inc. FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): Not Applicable ADDRESS: 38210 SE 92nd Street PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): Not Applicable CITY: Snoqualmie, WA 98065 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): Not Applicable E NUMBER AND E·MAIL ADDRESS: 425-888-19051 nnl@centu!)1el.net NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Not Applicable Item 1 -Master Application PROJ~ INFORMATION (r ,IUe" NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: $325,000 Not Applicable ~ARF FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY LDINGS (if applicable): Not Applicable CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): Shoreline, 55,OOOsf. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Not Applicable 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not Applicable 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. fl. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. fl. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Not Applicable 0 NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): Not A, .hl .. 181 SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 55,000 sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE 0 WETLANDS sq. ft. NEW PROJECT (if applicable): Not Applicable LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY , legal ... · Ion ' sheetwith the ;"~I, ,ft. ,d\ SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (See Exhibit) TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES all land use applications being applied for: Shoreline Substantial Develol2ment ;25z;x:J. tt:> 2. Sl2ecial Permit for Grade and Fill "2., XD.~ :5 .fvV ~ ozV. Sta will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Robert A. Cugini, declare that I am (please check one) IRl the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and be4 . I certify that' know or have satisfactory evidence that ~C/: ~1fW ' ... .. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and vOiUll;ry act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of Owner/Representative) • My appointment exPires:_-=£Z;t-rk.JL,.;;R;,k'-""'rt<-__ _ Item I -Master Application • ~~ ~L~lo~y~d~&~A~s~s~o~cl~·a~te~s~,~In~c~.~ ____ ~~~~~ __ ~~--. ______________ __ ~ 38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 425-888-1905(v/t) rml@envlloyd.com February 3, 2006 Susan Powell, Project Manager North Application Review Section Department of the Anny Seattle District, Corps of the Engineers Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Subject USACE Reference #200501279 Barbee Mill Company Dear Susan Powell: DEVELOPMENT pLANNING ~11Y OF RENTON FEB-72006 RECEIVED Thank you for your letter of 1118/06 regarding the proposed flood mitigation dredging project at the Barbee Mill Company. I also appreciate your taking my call on the 31". This response addresses the following major issues: • Necessity for dredging • Proposed location for dredging • Acquisition of clean fill for the commercial sale of the material • Mitigation considerations • Construction contract considerations Necesssity/Purpose of Dredging, Dredging work at the mouth' of May Creek to remove' accumulated sands and gravel has been conducted by Barbee Mill Company for many decades, dating back to the 1940's to mitigate the impacts of sediment deposition and potential flood impacts. Dredging of the May Creek Delta has also been identified in the May Creek Basin Plan -Final (King COUlity, 2001) as the only viable solution to the problem until such time that effective erosion/source control measures in the upper May Creek Valley/Channel are implemented: "Until funding for "uch a project becomes available, continued dredging fat the May Creek DeltaJ is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial operations at the milL Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on channel habitat are localized and minimal. This recommendation recognizes the need for dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded. Even a long-term solution likely will include some need for ongoing maintenance dredging." (May Creek Basin Plan, p 48). The expressed purpose of the project is to mitigate the potential flood damages to the Barbee Mill Company, its property and the interests of any successors/assigns. Proposed location for dredging. I strongly take exception with the statement that I somewhat agreed "that the stated purpose of the project would not be accomplished by dredging at the proposed location". It would be accurate to say we agreed that dredging of the delt does not represent a pennanent fix to the problem of continuing upstream erosional impacts on the Barbee Mill Company. "The acknowledgment by all permitting agencies Ihat dredging of the delta is reasonable, through the recommended facilitation of permit acquisition, will allow dredging to continue." (May Creek Basin Plan, p 67). Acquisition of clean fill for the commercial sale of the material. The Barbee Mill Company is not interested in the material for the purposes of obtaining clean fill or the commercial sale of the material. The cost alone to pennit this project will far exceed any potential value represented. As we have discussed with the Department of 2006-5 Letter to USACE.doc Page I of2 -------------------~ ----- Lloyd & Associates, Inc. February 3, 2006 • • Natural Resources, sale or other use of the materials will only offset a very small fraction of the costs to provide a measure of flood protection for the property. Mitigation considerations. Our proposal for May Creek Delta Dredging includes substantial shorel ine habitat enhancement (native plantings) along the banks of the May Creek Delta. Stuart Reinbold (Department ofFish and Wildlife) and I have also discussed several options for mitigation, including removal of the rock bulkhead near the bridge at the mouth of May Creek. We also discussed the potential for leaving more of the accreted sand and gravel at the immediate shoreline. Both options are viable although removal of the rockery and shoreline plantings appears to provide the better solution for mitigating potential flooding. As we discussed on the telephone, there are other options as well, including potentially removing the bridge and widening the restricted stream flow into Lake Washington. Construction contract considerations. I can assure you that we will not be awarding construction contracts until all permits are in place. Nevertheless, it is our intent to dredge accumulated sands and gravels in the May Creek Delta as soon as possible during the next window of opportunity. The potential for flooding is substantial at this time. You have also asked that we provide requested information within the next 30 days. I cannot guarantee that we will have the suggested mitigation/drawing changes until such time that we have a better understanding and consensus from permitting entities. We are in the middle of a "multiple track" permitting process which includes the City of Renton, Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and State of Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology. Working out the details will take some time. As soon as we hear from the City of Renton, I hope to organize a meeting of permitting interests. It is my hope that one of the primary recommendations of the May Creek Basin Plan for the Lower Basin Subarea [May Creek Delta] is implemented: "Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging" (May Creek Basin Ptan,p ]6). As stated at the beginning of this letter, the Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for many decades. This proactive approach to flood control has been very successful in minimizing damages to their property from the ravages of flooding. Currently, the Barbee Mill facility is undergoing substantial change. A majority of the upland mill facilities have been removed, and the site is being prepared for future development. Regardless of the land use context, securing the property against flooding is the primary purpose of this project. Historically, dredging at the facility was also necessary to maintain navigational depths for moving of log booms, etc. In the present context of this permit application, this work will also diminish potential damages to adjacent properties from increased flooding, sediment deposition, and navigational access to docks and boathouse to other recreational, residential and commercial interests on Lake Washington. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. R. Michael Lloyd cc. City of Renton Department of Natural Resources Department ofFish and Wildlife 2006-5 Letter to USACE.doc -------------- Page 2 of2 January 13, 2006 Michael LIoyd Lloyd & Associates, mc. 38210 SE 92"" Street Snoqualmie, W A 98065 • CITY. RENTON PlanningIBuilding/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Follow-Up on Additional Submittal Items -May Creek Delta Dredging Cit)iofRenton File No. LUA05-138 Dear Mr. Lloyd: In the City's letter dated 1110912005 we advised you that we needed additional information to proceed with your project. We appreciate your submittal of the (I) current title report and the (2) revised table .of contents for the Biological Assessment for the May Creek Delta Dredging. However, we are unable to begin project review until we have received: • 5 copies of an Engineering Report as required by Renton Municipal Code Section 4- 3-090L6. . We look forward to receiving this information as soon as possible so that we may begin review of your project. Please be advised that once your application package is complete enough for routing, your project manager may also identify additional information or changes as necessary to ensure compliance with City code requirements; my review did not evaluate the content of the submitted items. If you would like additional information please contact me at 425-430-7294. Sincerely, . Ill~ c1:::ay. Senior Planner cc: File No. LUA05·138 -------------1o~5~5-S-0u-ili-G-r-a-dy-W--~---R-en-t-on-,-W-~-rn-.n-~-o-n-9-8-05-5------------~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE i Laureen Nicolay -Re: Engineering Report From: To: Date: Subject: • Laureen Nicolay rml@envlloyd.com Tuesday, November 22,200512:33:28 PM Re: Engineering Report • Below is the complete excerpt from our shoreline program relating to dredging. The engineering report should address the proposal's compliance with these regulations. Hope this helps somewhat and I'm sorry I that I don't have more specifics on report content for you. RMC 4-3-090L6 Dredging: a. Definition: The removal of earth or sediment from the bottom or banks of a body of water. b. Permitted Dredging: Dredging is to be permitted only when: i. Dredging is necessary for flood control purposes, if a definite flood hazard would exist unless dredging were permitted. ii. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality, when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or recreational areas. iii. Dredging is necessary to obtain additional water area so as to decrease the intrusion into the lake of a public, private or marina dock. This type of dredging may only be allowed if the following conditions are met: The water of the dredged area shall not be stagnant or polluted; and the water of the dredged area shall be capable of supporting aquatic life. iv. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and maintenance of public shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which the public is provided access. Dredging may be permitted where additional public access is provided and/or where there is anticipated to be a significant improvement to fish or wildlife habitat, provided there is no net reduction upon the surface waters of the lake. v. Dredging may be permitted to maintain water depth and navigability. vi. Dredging is performed pursuant to a remedial action plan, approved under authority of the Model Toxics Control Act or pursuant to other authorization by the Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer or other agency with jurisdiction. c. Prohibited Dredging: i. Dredging is prohibited in unique or fragile areas (see RMC 4-11-210) except for the purposes identified in subsection L7a of this Section where appropriate Federal and/or State authorization has been received, and any required environmental review and mitigation is conducted. ii. Dredging solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or construction material, which dredging is not directly related to those purposes permitted in subsection L7a of this Section, is prohibited. d. Regulations on Permitted Dredging: i. Report by Engineer Required: All proposed dredging operations shall be planned by an appropriate State licensed professional engineer. An approved engineering report shall be submitted to the Renton Development Services Division as part of the application for a shoreline permit. ii. Applicant's Responsibility: The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposed dredging operation. iii. Minimal Adverse Effect: The responsibility further rests with the applicant to demonstrate that there will be a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and/or on recreational areas. iv. Timing: The timing of any dredging operation shall be planned so that it has minimal impact or interference with fish migration. v. Adjacent Bank Protection: When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out practices to protect the banks. If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access to the dredging area, the responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out a method of restoration of the disturbed area to a condition minimizing erosion and siltation. vi. Adjacent Properties: The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate a method of eliminating or preventing conditions that may: Create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity. Damage property in or near the area. Cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or near the area. Endanger public safety in or near the area. Page 1 i I Laureen Nicola~ -Re: Engineering Report • • vii. Contamination: The applicant shall demonstrate a method to control contamination and pollution to water, air, and ground. viii. Disposal of dredged material: The applicant shall demonstrate a method of disposing of all dredged material. Dredged material shall not be deposited in a lake or stream except if the material is approved as part of a contamination remediation project approved by appropriate State andlor Federal agencies. In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a shoreland area. If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the applicant shall propose and carry out a method of disposal that does not contaminate or pollute water, air, or ground. Laureen Nicolay City of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7294 Fax: (425) 430-7231 Inicolay@ci.renton.wa.us >>> <rml@envlloyd.com> 11/22/05 12:07:46 PM »> Can you provide some guidance for the engineering report? As there are no structures or utilities to be constructed, I am not very clear as to what the scope of work should be. Michael Lloyd CC: Henning, Jennifer Page 21 • • ~ ~L~lo~y~d~&~A~s~s~o~c&ia_t~es~,~In~c&. __ ~~~~~~~~~~ ________ __ 38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 425-88&-1905(v/t) rml@envlloyd.com November 16,2005 TRANSMITI AL Laureen Nicoley Senior Planne Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055 Subject: May Creek Flood Mitigation Dredging LUA-05-138 Current Title Report Dear Ms. Nicoley Thank you for your letter of 11/9/05. I am enclosing 3 copies of a current title report where work will occur. To the best of our knowledge, work will only occur on parcel 322405-9034. Thank you for your assistance. _L~OYD &ASSOD~.1 R. Michael Uoyd, PhD/JD ~ 425-888-1905(0)/425-785-1357 (cell) Enclosed (Title Report - 3 Copies) cc. Robert Cugini L&AI transmittal to COR 2005· 7.doc.doc • • ~ ~L~lo~y~d~&~A~s~s~o~c.ia.t~es~,~In~c~.~ ______ ~~~ __ ~ ____________ __ 38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 425·888-1905(vll) nnl@cnvlloyd,com November 16,2005 TRANSMITIAL Laureen Nicoley Senior Planne Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055 Subject: May Creek Flood Mitigation Dredging LUA-05-138 Revised BA Table of Contents Dear Ms. Nicoley DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON NOV 1 8 2005 RECEIVED Thank you for your letter of 11/9/05. I am enclosing 12 copies of a revised Table of Contents for the Biological Assessment. I anticipate submitting the engineering report as requested as soon as possible. Hopefully this will not stop the City of Renton from proceeding with its review of our application. Thank you for your assistance. L7YD & ASSOCIATES,1/fv J R. Michael Lloyd, PhD / JD 425-888-1905(0) / 425-785-1357 (cell) Enclosed (Revised BA Table of Contents -12 Copies) cc. Robert Cugini L&AI transmittal to COR 200S-8.doc I Laureen Nicolay -Engineering Report for LUA05-138 From: To: Date: Subject: • Laureen Nicolay rml@envlloyd.com Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:34:08 AM Engineering Report for LUA05-138 • Thank you for providing the revised table of contents and the title reports. The only item we now lack is the engineering report. We still need this report to begin processing your application. We look fOlWard to receiving it soon. Laureen Nicolay City of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7294 Fax: (425) 430-7231 Inicolay@ci.renton.wa.us Page 11 ~ ~ • CITY"·RENTON . Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator November 9,2005 Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc .. 38210 se 92nd St. Snoqualmie, W A 98065 . Subject: Additional Submittal Items--May Creek Delta Dredging, City Land Use File #LUA 05-138 Dear Mr. Lloyd: This letter is sent to advise you that we need additional information in order to begin the land use permit review process for the May Creek Delta Dredging project. As we discussed yesterday, we are lacking several required applicatioll materials and are unable to begin project revie~ until we receive the folloWingadditional information (see also attached Submittal Requirements for 'Shoreline Substantial Development Perinit for furtherdetails): I. 3 copies of a current title report for all parcels. where work will occUr (apparently 322405- 9034 and 334270-0005 based on site plans submitted). . 2. Please correct,the table ,,[contents fa', theBiologi~al Assessm~nt and submit 12 copies of the revised table Of contents. . .. ,3. Scopies of an "EngineetfugReport" as required by Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3- 090L6. We look forward to receiving this'inforrilation as soon as possible so that we may be~ review of your project. Please be advised that once your application package is complete enough for routing, your project manager may also identify additional information or changes as necessary . to ensure compliance with City code requirements. My review did not evaluate the 'content of submittals. If you would like additional information, please contact me at 425-430-7294 .. Sincerely, a::.. , .' 17~~ ... aureen Nicolay . Senior Planner enclosures c: Jill Hall, Project Manager Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner File #LUA05-138 ------------~lO~5~5~S~o-ut~h~G~ra~d~y7.W~a-y--~R-en~to-n-,7.W~a~Sh~in-g~to-n~98~O~575------------~ * This pa~rconlains 50% recyded materia!, 30% po~t consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • • rnwT~ Lloyd & Associates, Inc. ~ ~3~82~IO~s~E~92i"n~d S~tr"ee;;it,~sniioiiqu~a1iim,"'·e.'!:w~as~h'~·ngt~oiin~9~8o~65~4~25:-:.8::!8!!'8.~19::::05~(v~/t)~nn~I@~e~nv-':lIiioy~d.iicoiim;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;iiiii Novemberf 3, 2005 TRANSMITIAL Varerie Kinast Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Original Signed Land Use Master Application Special Permit for Fill and Grade/Shoreline Substantial Development See Enclosed R. Michael Lloyd, PhD / JD 425-888-1905(0) / 425-785-1357 (cell) L&AI transmittal to COR 2005-4.doc Page I of I • • ~~ ~L~IO~y~d~&~A~S~S~o~c~ia~t~e~s~,~I~n~c~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ________ _ ~ 38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie. Washington 98065 42S·888-1905(v/f) nnl@envlloyd.com November 4,2005 TRANSMITIAL Varerie Kinast Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Fees/Land UsePermit Master Application Special Permit for Fill and Grade/Shoreline Substantial Development Submittal 2005-5 $3000 Check Enclosed to City of Renton ~~J R. Michael Lloyd, PhD/JD 425-888-1905(0)/425-785-1357 (cell) L&AI transminal to COR 2005-5.doc Page I of I i Valerie Kinast -Barbee Mill, May Creek Dredging Permits From: To: Date: Subject: Dear Mr. Llyod, • Valerie Kinast rml@envlloyd.com 10/28/200510:11:52 AM Barbee Mill, May Creek Dredging Permits • I've gone through the materials that you left for your land use permits for the Barbee Mill, May Creek dredging project. In order to start processing the application we will need the original signed and notarized Master Application form. Also, we ask that you please add to the Shoreline Planting Plan, a legend clarifying which plant species and sizes will be planted where. We need 11 copies of this plan. We will also need a check for $3000 to cover the cost of SEPA review, the Grading and Filling Permit and the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Please submit these items to me on the 6th floor of Renton City Hall. For further questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7289. Valerie Kinast City of Renton -Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7289 Fax: (425) 430-7231 e-mail: vkinast@cLrenton.wa.us Page 11 • • ~~ ~L~lo~y~d~&~A~ss_o_c~ia_te_s~,~I_nc~.~ ____ ~~~~~ ____ ~ ______________ __ 38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 425-888-1905(vJf) nnl@envlloyd.com January 26, 2006 TRANSMITTAL Laureen Nicolay, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Engineering Report (5 copies) May Creek Flood Mitigation Dredge Permit Application City of Renton File No LUA05-138 Dear Ms. Nicolay: DEVELOPMENT P qTY OF RENT~~~ING JAN 3 1 2006 RECf.~'VED Thank you for your reminder about the engineering report. While we had not forgoton about the the additional information required for the City of Renton to proceed with its review of the May Creek Flood Mitigation Dredge Permit Application, I do apologize for delays in working around holidays, and the time it took for us to locate a firm with the expertise and experience to work with our project team. B&T Desib'll and Engeering, Inc. (Issaquah, WA) has reviewed the permit application and made several recommendations which we incorporate into the project and this application. We believe that our application, as reviewed by B&T Design and Engineering, meets the intent and purpose of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-090L6. This project is for minimizing the potential risks of flooding caused by the accumulation of extensive deposits of sand and gravel at the mouth of May Creek. While we clearly recognize that flood mitigation dredging will not eliminate upstream sources of erosional outwash from the May Creek Drainage Basin during severe storm events, the Barbee Mill Company is committed to protecting its property interests. We very much appreciate that the City of Renton is a partner in these same concerns. Concurrent with our application to the City of Renton, we have also submitted our application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Department of Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Natural Resources. While we recognize that this is often a long and involved process, I hope we do not lose site of the fundamental purpose for dredging the May Creek Delta. That purpose is to mitigate the potential risks and economic damages that can result from flooding. This is a problem that we all share, including the City of Renton. The Barbee Mill Company and our project team looks forward to this opportunity to proactively mitigate the potential impacts of flooding. As the City of Renton is very aware, this dredging work has been proposed, permitted, and conducted successfully for many years and remains an essential component of future site development. If you have any questions, please call. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. • • rF B & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC. II & P.o. BOX 595· ISSAQUAH. WA 98027 1===;;;; (425) 557-0779· (425) 557-0765 (fAX) L10y & Associates, Inc. 38210 S.E. 92Dd Street Snoquamue, VVas~on 98065 Attn: Michael Lloyd, PhD I JD President .Re: May Creek Flood Mitigation Dredging permit application review And Engineering Report Submittal Review. ICity of Renton land use Application (LUA-05-138] Dear Mr. Lloyd, January 25, 2006 "'L()~MENT PI.ANNING OF RENTON JAN 3 I 2006 RECEIVED This letter is to submit our report on the conformance of the "Dredging Application" document for the dredging permit for May Creek on the Barbee Mill Company Renton site. Upon review, the proposal of dredging the May Creek Delta area for fines that cause flooding to the surrounding upland property. The dredging request is to protectthe current and future property owners from storm water flood damage due to storm disturbance of silts and clays carried downstream. Our review of the Flood Mitigation Dredging Land Use Permit Master Application, Environmental Checklist, Project Narrative, Drainage Control Plan, Fill Source Statement, and Construction Mitigation Description falls within conformance with the regulations ofRMC 4-3-090L6. B & T Design and Engineering, Inc. assigned project engineer will be on site for the entire dredging construction process and will document dredging procedures, drainage control, and fill export destination reports to align with this "Flood Mitigation Dredge Permit Application". These daily reports will be documented and submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division and Barbee Mill Company for their records. Please call if you have any questions regarding our engineering review and approval of the enclosed "Dredging Permit Application" for the Barbee Mill Company at 4101 Lake VVashington Blvd., Renton, VVashington 98057 prepared by Lloyd & Associates, Inc. dated September 27, 2005. Sincerely, Jim Trueblood Vice President Cc: Barbee Mill Company, Robert Cugini, Property Owner &LOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION • WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Cards (one per monument) 1 i may waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section DATE:~~-+~~~ ________ __ Q:\WEB\Pw\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 07129/2005 , . ~ ~ '.' ';-, • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVIS. WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS .,.,:.,." .. , ... , .... Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement. Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Development Planning Section " ',Q:IWEBIPWIOEVSERVlFormslPlanninglwaiver.x1sc ,,0712912005 ' . ----~~ ; • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 5.1 Proposed Construction Dates/Hours • ItemS Construction Mitigation Planning Flood Mitigation Dredging will occur in compliance with an anticipated HPA (Hydraulic Project Approval) permitted window in accordance with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements. Typically, dredging is anticipated to occur in late fall or early winter. Work will be timed to protect potential spawning salmon fisheries in Lake Washington and May Creek. Dredging will occur during daylight hours on weekdays to minimize noise to neighboring residences and businesses. Daylight hours are also more protective of protect worker safety. Additionally, daylight hours will better allow for visual observation of dredging and potential impacts. 5.2 Proposed HaulinglTransportation routes/Preliminary Traffic Control Plan Coarse sand and gravel to be dredged from the May Creek Delta provides well-draining fill material. This fill material will be sold and trucked off-site or potentially used on-site during site development and/or environmental cleanup activities. Any material to be hauled off-site will follow principally Interstate 405 as accessed from the Barbee Mill Company at Lake Washington Boulevard to Exit 7 on 1-405 during daylight hours. 5.3 Measures to be Implemented to Minimize Dust, Erosion, Mud Dust Abatement. Because sediments are wet, no special dust abatement measures are required or necessary during dredging and handling. Sediments arc principally sand and gravel with a very low potential for dust generation, even when dry. A road sweeper will be used to pick up sand and gravel that may fall on paved areas of the facility to minimize the potential for dust generation. Erosion Control. Flood mitigation dredging should not cause any in-water or upland erosional impacts. The Barbee Mill Company appreciates the irony that this flood mitigation dredging is necessary because of the lack of effective erosion control measures in the May Creek Drainage Basin upstream from the Barbee property. Placement of dredged materials behind berms in the dewatering areas will faciltate dewatering, increase ease of handling, and minimize overland flow of water and stormwater. Hem 5 -Construction Miligation Planning/L&AI 5-1 , • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • Mud Control. Dredging operations shall be conducted at all times to minimize disturbance or siltation to adjacent waters. Because dredged materials are principally sand and gravel, very little mud will be generated or encountered during the project. Control measures include placement of wet sediments behind berms for dewatering to minimize off-site transport impacts. In the event of excessive turbidity, fish distress, fish kill, or other water quality problem, then dredging operations will be stopped until the problem can be corrected. Historically, dredging of coarse sand and gravel from May Creek Delta does not generate any mud that will end up on the site or off-site, if transported. Noise Control. Dredging will occur during daylight hours to minimize noise to neighboring businesses and residences. Some temporary increase in noise is unavoidable from the operation of loaders, trucks and dredging equipment. Noise levels will approximate those generated by equipment operated at the sawmill by Barbee Mill Company. Other Noxious Characteristics. Sediments have been previously sampled and tested for potential contamination. Test results indicate that sediments are clean sand and gravel. No sediment quality criteria have been exceeded, and sediments present no substantial environmental threat to human health or the environment. Materials to be dredged are principally coarse sand and gravel. Item 5 -Construction Mitigation PlanninglL&AI 5·' '. • • • May Creek Delta -flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee MiU Company -2005 DEVaCITYOPMENT PlANNING OF RENTON JAN 3 I 2006 RECEIVED Item 11 Project Area Rehabilitation Planning Flood Mitigation Dredging in the May Creek Delta will have remarkably little upland impact on the Barbee Mill Company or on future homeowners when built out. No trees will be removed, and no structures are planned that will result in any floor plans or architectural elevations. 12.1 Dewatering Area Rehabilitation There are two proposed dewatering areas adjacent to the May Creek Dredge Area as shown in project Plans (see Sheet 3 of 4). As dredge materials are taken from the May Creek Delta, they will be placed in one of two proposed dewatering areas. The last materials to be dredged from the May Creek Delta will remain in place and the area(s) will be graded to pre-dredge conditions. Once site development is substantially complete, the northern area adjacent to the shoreline may not be available for sediment dewatering. In this circumstance, only temporary Storage/Dewatering Area 2 will be utilized. 12.2 Shoreline Rehabilitation/Shading As noted in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation (Item 14), the existing shoreline areas adjacent to the May Creek Delta will be planted with native plants to provide additional shading for fishes and to help stabilize the shoreline. In major part, this work is considered in overall development plans for the Barbee Mill Site. Shoreline native plantings will be planted and maintained for the duration of the permit. Essentially, a butTer area at least ten feet wide, adjacent to the dredge area shoreline of the May Creek Delta will be planted to stabilize the shoreline and provide additional shading for fishes. The planting plan will follow planting protocols similar to those established for the Cugini Dock. Project. The north shore of the May Creek Delta (Area A) comprises an area of approximately 1,800 ri. The south shore of the May Creek Delta comprises an area of approximately 2,400 ft2 as shown in the figure on the next page. A native plant list and anticipated typical plant type/quantity is provided in the following table. The conceptual planting scheme can be summarized as follows: \ (I) Taller native shrubs and trees will be planted at the east ends of both Areas A & B (2) Shorter native shrubs and ground covers will be planted toward the west-end of the peninsulas to maintain viewsheds. (3) Willows will predominate on the southern shoreline adjacent to the delta to provide maximum shading impact for fishes. (4) Habitat arcas will be 10 to 12 feet wide, as measured from the OHWL. (5) If there is a conflict between this plan and planned habitat areas along the shoreline under existing site development plans, then site development plans will take precedent. \ \ \\ ~1t-em~II~-~R~e~ha~b~ili~t.~ti-on~P~'.-n~ni-ng~II~.&~A~I----------------------------------------------------~II--~I--~ , • • Barbee Mill Company + ""'., ........ ,/ V), "-"-. /' '~'.~:::.""/~ May Creek Delta Shoreline Habitat AreciA -1,800 sf I -o~~ ==="----.======~i- Shoreline Habitat Area B -2,400 sf Aood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging· May Creek Delta I Lake Washington PROJECT LOCATION " IN: lake Wastllflgton AT; 4300 lake WaShington B""d. N. King County, Renton, WA 98056 Shoreline Planting Plan , j , , , --~ , , j , , I I , , , , , I , SHEET 1 of 1 , , , , / , , ~// / ...-~ ~ ~ 9/18/05 • , • • Area A 1,BOO Area B 2,700 Shoreline Plant Ust Botanica/ Name Common Name Size Trees Comus Nuttall;; Pacific Dogwood 5 gal Acer Circintum Vine Maple 5gal Pinus Contorta Shore Pine 10 Ijal Willows Salix hookeriana Hooker's Willow Cutting Salix /asiandra Pacific Willow Cutting Salix sitchensis Sitka Wililaw Cuttina Shrubs Ame/ancher a/nita/a Serviceberry 4" pots Comus st%nita/ia Red Twig Dogwood 1 gal Sambucus racemosa Red Elderbenry bare root Rosa Nootka Nootka Rose bare root Rhododendron Macroe.htf/um Pacific Rhadendron 5 aal Groundcovers Carex abnupta Slough Sedge 4" pots Gaultheria shallon Salal 4" pots Iris Tenax Native Iris 1 gal Juncus acuminatus Tapered Rush bare root Juncus ensitolius Dagger Leaf Rush bare root G/yceria e/ata Tall Mannagrass seed Descrie.tianiCancee.t Habitat Area A Greater height trees and shrubs at mouth of creek Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Predominately shrubs and graundcavers at end of peninsula Provides some shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Habitat Area B Predominately willows and taller shrubsltrees near bridge to west Provide shading for fishes in May Creek Delta area Lower height native plants at west to maintain views of Lake Washington Willow density increase to east sf sf Est. Quan, Est. Quan. 4 6 6 12 2 4 16 48 16 48 16 48 6 9 12 24 18 32 16 32 4 6 24 24 24 24 24 24 48 64 48 64 100 100 Area 1,800 ft2 2,700 ft2 Total Quanity 10 18 6 64 64 64 15 36 50 4B 10 48 48 48 112 112 200 May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigatio.edging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITYOF RENTON JAN 3 1 2006 RECEIVED Item 16 Drainage Control Planning Dredging of the May Creek Delta will have minimal impact on existing drainages. Existing upland drainages will not be aitered, impacted during dredging, or in any way changed. No new drainages will be created. 16.1 On-Site Dewatering Dredged materials from the May Creek Delta will be placed in a bermed dewatering area (see project plan sheets) adjacent to the shoreline. The purpose of the bermed dewatering area is to reduce the water content of dredged material, so that dredge materials can be efficiently handled and move. As discussed previously, proposed dredge materials are coarse sands and gravels, which rapidly drain. The bermed dewatering area also eliminates potential turbidity returning to Lake Washington. A dewatering area adjacent to the shoreline has been very successfully employed in previous-dredging with no problems observed. 16.2 Off-Site Transport In the event that the site is developed, and it is no longer feasible to place dredged materials in a bermed dewatering area adjacent to the shoreline, dredged materials will be placed on a dredge scow, moved to Quendall Terminals (or other off-loading facility on Lake Washington) for off-loading. In previous work dredge scows were off-loaded at Barbee Mill with an excavator during the Bark and Wood Debris Removal Project several years ago. Therefore, we do not anticipate any special problems at Quendall Terminals. If necessary, a dewatering area can be constructed at Quendall Terminals, which would be very similar to those currently planned at Barbee Mill adjacent to the dredge area. The biggest impact is that the material must be handled twice if the materials are taken to Quendall Terminals (or other off- loading facility on Lake Washington). 16.3 Dewatering Area Inspections Dewatering areas will be inspected daily to assure that they are free draining and that containment berms are in good condition and have not been disturbed by heavy equipment. As soon as the last dredged materials are removed from a dewatering area, the area will regraded to pre-existing conditions and shoreline plantings of native plants (see BEIBA, prepared by Meridian Environmental) will further stabilize the shoreline and enhance shallow water habitat for fishes. Hem 16-Drainage Control Planing/l,&AI 16 -1 May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • • YI-Z- ~ ~------------------------------------~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 - PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: JAN 3 1 2006 RECEIVED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about govemmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the govemmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Item 3 -Environmt:ntal Checklist 3 -I • May Creek Delta -Flood Miligalion Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging 2. Name of applicant: Barbee Mill Company 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Robert A. Cugini Barbee Mill Company 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98057 425-226-3900 4. Date checklist prepared: June 27, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: Michael Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, Inc. 38210 SE 9:td Street Snoqualmie, WA 90965 425-888-1905 425-785-1357 (cell) City of Renton -Planning/Building/Public Works 6. Proposed timing or schedule (induding phasing, if applicable): Dredging will occur periodically, as necessary, for the duration of this permit beginning in the fall of 2005. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes and No. Additional plans and activities are certainly related to this proposal. Anticipate future activities include environmental cleanup, shoreline restoration, demolition of mill structures, and site development. Regardless of future plans this proposal to dredge the May Creek Delta is largely independent of future site activity since flood mitigation dredging needs to be done regardless of other site activity or development to protect the properlY from potential flooding cause by severe storm events. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The Barbee Mill Company has previously secured Grade and Fill Permits and attending environmental information for this continuing project in presentations and permit applications to the City of Renton. In addition, a Biological Evaluation/Assessment (Meridian Environmental) is in preparation for submittal to the U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE) and National Marine Fisheries. This environmental information builds upon previous biological survey work conducted by the Barbee Mill Company. A copy will be attached to this application as an Exhibit. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 - 2 • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, a 10 year Maintenance Dredging Permit is in preparation and will be submitted to the USACE. A copy of this permit application will be provided to the City of Renton. Additionally, future site development proposals affecting the property have or will be reviewed and considered by the City of Renton, Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fisheries. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Maintenance Dredging Permit -U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Project Approval-Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Certification -Washington State Department of Ecology 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The Barbee Mill Company has dredged the May Creek Delta for over 45 years. The purpose of this dredging is to remove coarse sands and gravels that accumulate at the mouth of May Creek and substantially increase the risks and potential damages from flooding of the Barbee Mill property by May Creek. Additionally, dredging is proposed to maintain navigational depths. No change in use is necessitated by this proposal. The project area to be dredged covers an area of approximately 55,000 rf. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Barbee Mill Company is located on Lake Washington at 4300 Lake Washington Boulevard N., Renton, WA. From Interstate-405 take Exit 7 to Lake Washington Boulevard North. NWSEC:32 Township: 24 N Range: 05 E County: King B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (underline/highlight one); FLAT, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ _ The Barbee Mill Company is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The property is flat and gently sloping downward to the west. East of May Creek the land slopes upward to Lake Washington Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad right-of-way. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 - 3 • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 There are no steep slopes adjacent to the proposed dredge area. The steepest slopes are adjacent to Barbee Mill Company Office approximately 125 feet away. The approximate slope is 1:1.5 (v/h). c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils at the Barbee Mill Company are fundamentally coarse sands and gravels with vety little silt or clay content. Not coincidentally, these soils are vety similar to those to be dredged at the mouth of May Creek. There is no farmland at this industrial site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. f. g. There is no histoty of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity although severe storms (flooding) have periodically eroded banks of May Creek and damaged the mill property (see cover photograph). Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The primary purpose for dredging of the May Creek Delta is to mitigate the effects of severe storms, which deposit coarse sands and gravels. As these materials accumulate, the risk of flooding mill property increases (see cover photograph of the effects of severe storms). ApproXimately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel will be dredged evety 3 to 4 years. No filling is proposed. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally l'.r>p;>SJ describe. ~ D ...,.,r Erosion will not occur as a result of this project. As stated above, the purpose for thiS(JlV-'\';" -~ project is to mitigate the erosional effects caused by storm events and to minimize the ill.-v-l. ' impacts of such storms on the Barbee Mill Company and any future development. ~.:;t-ocSP"" About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example. asphalt or buildings)? Dredging of the May Creek Delta will not increase the area of impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR This project is proposed to mitigate the impacts of erosion from the May Creek Valley on the Barbee Mill property. Materials to be dredged are coarse sands and gravel with vety little sand or silt content. As these materials are dredged, they will be placed in a bermed dewatering area, then moved offsite or stored on-site for use as clean fill during development or environmental cleanup. In future years (after site development), dredged materials will be placed in a dredge scow, transported to Quendall Terminals (or other potential facility on Lake Washington) for off-loading and sale as clean fill. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (I.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3-4 • • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 3. Heavy equipment for dredging will generate diesel exhaust emissions typical of large equipment. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. . fYl~5~\ Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: <2..<t"j P ul/ ",to. _-\<-<1- cftYLr~ '~< ;on5 Maintaining equipment in good operating order will minimize emissions to the air. ~\ E1Y\.' Cl c. WATER '"05 . a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. This project is proposed to occur in Lake Washington at the delta of May Creek, which is a year-round stream. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described k.. waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. ~ uJ<'-' r l . "-'I -" vJl Yes. The project will occur in Lake Washington. Plans are included in this application. wor-"C . :I- Plans include site map, current (May 2005) delta contours, proposed dredge contours, 0 c..G~ ';)... and dredge cross-sections. -t h..o-fY)OVJ 0'+ ty\~ ~<>K. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of coarse sands and gravel will be removed from Lake Washington at the May Creek Delta. Currentfy dredging is required every 3-4 years, but the deposition rate is dependent upon severe storm events, so dredging may occur on a more or less frequent basis as necessary. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) No. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. The level of Lake Washington is maintained the U. S. Army corps of Engineers at the proposal area. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 - 5 • May Creek Della -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 b. Ground Water: • 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Ground water will not be withdrawn. Sediments will be allowed dewater and to infiltrate into the ground and eventually back to Lake Washington within the dewatering area(s) adjacent to the shoreline. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No industrial or domestic discharges will result from this project. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Currently, May Creek flows into Lake Washington. During storm events, May Creek transports substantial quantities of erosional sediments. This project will not reduce this occurrence of severe storms, but will mitigate the depositional impacts at the May Creek Delta and reduce the impacts of flooding of the property. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Dredging of clean coarse sands and gravels will not generate any waste materials that will enter ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The main purpose for conducting this project is to reduce, control or mitigate surface, runoff water impacts caused by continued upstream erosion from the May Creek Valley. Dewatering areas for dredged sediments will be bermed to prevent run-on or run-off of surface water. 4. PLANTS a. Check, circle, or identify types of vegetation found on the site: ~ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other (principally alder and maple) ~ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other (principally fir, cedar) ~ shrubs (principally native plants, willow, rhododendrons,etc,) __ ./_ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ ./_ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other (elodea, milfoil) __ ./_ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3-6 May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigatiun Dredging Barbee Mill Cumpany -2005 None. • • c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon and other threatened or endangered fish are known to on or near the site during seasonal migration runs. See Biological Evaluation/Assessment prepared and attached as an exhibit to this application. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Upon completion of this project, the shoreline adjacent to the May Creek Delta will be landscape with native vegetation to stabilize the shoreline, provide habitat for birds and animals, and to provide shading for fishes. This work will be completed in conjunction with site development as previously proposed. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle (Identify) any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawks, Eagles, Osprey, Jays, and other birds have been observed on or near the site. The Barbee Mill Company has set up a webcam to monitor the Osprey nest which resides on top of the sawdust collection bin. Mammals: Deer have been observed. Additionally, we have observed probable traces of beaver in the May Creek area. Fish: Bass, salmon, trout, freshwater clams, and crawfish have been observed along with numerous other small fishes (see Biological Evaluation/Assessment (Meridian Environmental) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon are known to be in Lake Washington and have been observed in May Creek, which is a salmon spawning creek. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain May Creek is a salmon spawning creek upstream from the Barbee Mill Company. Migratory birds also use Lake Washington as a stopover and winter rest. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The Barbee Mill Company will be conducting a number of measures to preserve or enhance wildlife. These measures are associated with other permits and proposals considered or to be considered by the City of Renton. These measures include sawmill demOlition, shoreline restoration, environmental remediation, as well as, numerous measures associated with site development. For example, during site development the May Creek corridor through the property will be widened and substantially enhanced for wildlife and fishes. As mentioned in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation, the shoreline immediately adjacent to the dredge area will be revegetated with native plants to provide additional shading and shoreline enhancement. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3·7 • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES • a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The primary energy need for this project will include fuel for construction equipment during dredging and material handling operations. No other energy needs are anticipated. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Proper maintenance and operation of eqUipment will minimize or control energy impacts. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Operation of heavy equipment poses a serious risk of injury to workers conducting the work. No exposure to toxic chemicals or hazardous waste is anticipated. Care will be maintained to minimize leaks or drips from heavy equipment. Petroleum sorbent boom will be readily available for deployment. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Special emergency services that might be required include ambulance or related emergency services for workers that may be injured. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The selected contractor for this work will be required to provide a spill prevention plan including containment / absorbent boom to control and to cleanup any leaks or spills of petroleum products. The barge-mounted dredge will arrive on site fueled and will not require refueling during the project. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise in the area will not affect dredging. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Itt:m 3 -Environmental Checklist 3·8 May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • • The noise of heavy equipment operation will occur during dredging operations. Dredging is anticipated to occur during weekday daylight hours in compliance with City of Renton noise limitations. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The largest source of noise is the dredge generator at the rear of the dredge. Noise generation will be directed away from shoreline residences. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Currently the Barbee Mill Company is a lumber mill. However, operations have decreased substantially in recent years .. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The site has numerous buildings and structures associated with lumber mill operations, including a saw mill, planer building, warehouses, dry kiln, etc. These structures will be demolished as site development occurs in the future (not a part of this proposal). d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. This project will not require or result in any structure demolition. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Currently the site is a non-conforming, industrial classification. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? COR g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? COR h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes and no. Although we are unaware of any specific "classification", the shoreline areas abut important shallow water habitat for fishes. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 7 to 8 people will be present onsite during dredging operations. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3-9 • May Creek Delta -Flood Miligation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: This proposal to mitigate the impacts of upstream erosion and deposition at the May Creek Delta (which contributes to flooding) is compatible with the protection of any existing and projected land use plans or development actions. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. No structures are proposed in conjunction with this proposal. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. Dredging is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3·10 • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 None. • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Lake Washington provides an abundance of water related recreational opportunities, including boating, fishing, swimming, etc. All of these opportunities are available in the immediate vicinity of the project area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No impacts on recreation will result as a consequence of dredging the May Creek Delta. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. The site was originally underwater prior to the lowering of Lake Washington early in the 1900's. There are no known landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Barbee Mill Company is located on Washington Boulevard N. near exit 7 of Interstate 405. Site plans are provided in the Master Application. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest transit stop is several miles away at the park-n-ride at exit 9 on Interstate 405. Item 3 -Environmental Checklist 3· II • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. No parking spaces will be eliminated or created by the project. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Dredging of coarse sand and gravel from the May Creek Delta may in future years may use water transport of dredged materials for off-loading and eventual upland use/sale. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No vehicular trips will be generated by the completed project. However, during dredging operations as many as 150 to 200 truckloads of sand and gravel may be moved offsite for sale/use over a 3 to 6 week time frame. A portion of the clean fill may be used on site during development and/or site cleanup activities. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Transportation impacts will be temporary and of short duration as sands and gravel are transported off site for upland uses .. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No long-term, permanent need for public services is anticipated although short term needs for emergency medical services may be required if there is an accident associated with heavy equipment operations. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Workers will be directed to exercise all due caution to avoid accidents when operating heavy equipment. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle (Identify) utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary services are present on the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. hem 3 -Environmental Checklist 3 -12 , . May Creek Delta -Rood Mitift8lion Dredging BlII1>ee Mill C_any -2005 C. SIGNATURE • • I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete, It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full d,~sur~ ~ my pr-~ \ Proponent: ~ (~~ Name Printed: ~ Date: 0/-/9 -D5 Item 3 Environmental Checklist 3 a 13 • • The May Creek Delta receives depositional coarse sand, gravel and rounded rock from the May Creek Valley during severe storm events. Finer sands and silts are typically carried past the delta area to settle our further into Lake Washington. The Barbee Mill Company is requesting a 10 year Maintenace Dredging permit to mitigate the impacts caused by flooding of May Creek; to protect property along May Creek; and to maintain navigational depths. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington .t.d}OC ..... "-'Y~; 1 ... __ .... ___ , ... '._T ___ ... _ .... --... __ ,/. ....... -... "" ..... ,._ ... ,.,..,. ~..:>N3:1'J/t1'.~lZZN12'2!T Sooan'l~~NN320!4!li PROJECT LOCATION IN: Lake Washington AT: 4300 Jake Washington Blvd. N. Kin", County. Renton, WA 98056 BY Blvd. N SHEET 1 of4 JAN 31 2006 RECEIVED Lake Washington / // I " , /, f't:w 'O' J6 Ii' , / 14 / / :~,/f .. -,,~,~~j I ',' v:' , / ---,_ r" FormerO.r.~g~· Dewatering Area . IT; " + -+ ''''''-'' / /, " / / ! , ! "'\ , 1 /uC '. , 12 '~ -::.;,:;;p ~ ,'-----------~ <om, • r '", '-------, --------~~ ,~. '----_______ ------\\11 ""'··----L ___ --~\\ May Creek Delta " -r----------.( , \ 1 ) / ./ /// i ~~-____ // ./ /:// / "'--% ~ /' /' /" ,-..------/",/ / -----.. -=---::::.: --------,/ // / ---------~~ ,,/'1 ~--,/( G_:;;:>;>/----~ ~ r ..... ----------/ =~ -1-\, -+-_.---'/ -1-" / l~ /" 7. ~1l'i1te~1in~ Notes: Ext5tiY,l conlW elevatb:ls asd May, 2005 (sooject to change with slam events). Existo;I Ccro:us wll wry fro'n)O" to ys-deperIcIilg!WI sttm1 MJJtS (fIWJ!nC'r{ht:err;ity) that cIe!Xfiit san:! i!IId!riWd ~ I'rtrn ~ Mal' Creek valley. Dredge area will f1d.de oa:as.ooal ctedgng In ft1:nI d the IIoatI'K:u;e 10 mai'ltall ~I depths ard atctSS Prq:Josed cRdge eieYatioos { cootl:iu:'o shown 00 Slleet 3 rI ~ ~ ElevabJO rnalltlll'led by l.6ACE, ()'dn¥y HiI}/1 Weln! (0IMt)" 21.8 ~ Ctedge elevabooi i!IId IocaIJms based 00 WD/BJ. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington ... .. , " • "" OAnJM: us.r.CE {Seawe DliWk:t Bilse Map: aTA ... (KI.kland, WI'.) PRQJECT LOCA11Ot1 IN' take Washngtm APPUCATlaI BY BartIee Min ~y EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATIONS Latitude: 47N 31' 40", lorlgltude 122W 12 '29"' ~ TowllShlP R.mg", f'(W 32 2"1 05 AT: ~JOO!are WoMIngtoo Blvd. N, ~ Cwlty, Rtntal, WA 9B056 ~300 lake WlIShhgtoo Blvd. N Rental, WA 98056 SHEET 20f4 ~ c:=!J ReImI: 5{JIJ/05 " +. Lake Washington --"""'" NOTES: " .+ --1- -+ ~S/'ftI4I11rero...-SectIonoA-A',B-B·,C.(' " May Creek Delta --t-- Twcdewol""'Ootel$,,!n:-. ~.~_*~""\IIII!e~Orftlg!scowtot.."'*"-.QJtn~T_IIIr~IIS,*"IiI. ~""""'"",<OI ... _and'l' ..... landllP"lty_. "W'<><-I<t; l,oooto 4,000r;y1O t.. ~ Mryl-<4~oe~1IP<" 5Um~"""":' trd~. ~lOt..arrt*ttd...nidltr\slldl~Irtrn.~......uoaw. ,-.~ ... t..aIowed"'h_. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta / Lake Washington DATU-1: USACE/5eattleDistrlct Base Map: OTAI( (I(nIard, WA) Latlb.de: 17N 31" 40", lor9l\l.M;1e 122w 12 '29" SectUl T~ Range: NW 32 24 05 PROJecr LOCATION m: LaI\e Washllgton AT: 4300 lake Wi!5hi'lgtoo BIYtI. N. Kil9 Ccunty, Rtnloo, WA 9B056 APPUCATlON BY Bartlee Mil COOlpaly 4300 L.1ke Washlngloo!IM:I. N P.entm, WA 98056 4(fl) " • " -,,' / / /' ~ -/ / / '\.- -;/ ~' //1/···· ".,/ / / ;1;//;': /'/ // / / / // . ! '.// " / , ,/. PROPOSED DREDGING CONTOURS SHEET 3 of 4 ~ ~ =:!J ReIiaI:6/5/rti Cross-Sections A-A', 6-6', and C-C' (See sheet 3 of 4) CK~ ~ ,.h "l ~ -;:A_ _ .: .. -: ___ . __ ~~ ~ ____ , ____ ., ___ , __ , __________ , .. _ , .... ___ , ___________ ,_.______ __ _ __ _ A' -".~&:=:, .,'===, -=: -,-,~=-,--------=--'''--=,:-::-~=--,:;;::~-=~,=--------d MlryCn!D:Do!IliI Cross-Secboo A-A' runs north to south (see Sheet 3). Maximum dre:lOe depth is El = 10'. @~ B' .lJrdgio _____ _ '0.:'" B... .. . .-----------------'-3 -"l~~:::::::-::::-m-----..mn_____ -_ _ ____-:: ::: HI'y 6idI bi!!Iti Cross-Section 8-B' runs west to east through May Creek Delta (see Sheet 3). Maximum dl1!dge depth is EL -10', ~";f-~""'~::'~ .~ '~~-:;--~_n gJ Cross-5ection C.c' runs north to south (see Sheet 3). Maldmum d~ge depth is EL '" 10'. Maximum dew;,tering area depth shown is EL • 20' (wIll depend on Lake Washtngton Elevation) Scale " ,. so· 100' 200' NOTES: 5qIes wlltu" ddIiI to ~ cndOed no s~ ItIIIO 2;1 sllJpe to mIlmtze blink I!rOSiJr1 Dewatert"og area(s) O!>:cawte:I til fL .. 21l' (I'oqler/_. dI!!po!ndI\G on ~ EII!vatD'1) "portrln,.1TI/IlerloS to be used for bam aran:I dewllll!rtlg IIrI'!II Do!~ ~r&'I(s) to be relmned to ~ o:ndmcn and hyllrOSftded upon Dlmpletjon C-tl'oiI'Ig .... use MIl be dl5COlltJOued w.,., Ill! ~ (1'UtIn! ...-.oj. Flood Mitigation Maintenance Dredging -May Creek Delta I Lake Washington DATUM: USACE I Seattle Dlsbict. Base Map: OTAK (Kirkland, WA) latitude: 47N 31' 40', longitUde 122W 12 '29" Section Township Range: NW]2 24 05 PROJECT LOCAnON IN: lake Washington AT: 4300 lake Washington BIvI;L N. KIng ColJnty, Renton, WA 98056 APPUCATION BY Barbee Mill Company 4300 Lake WastUngton Blvd. N Renton, WA 98056 ~ ..... 1II:!aItoouse DREDGE AREA CROSS-SECTIONS .,.,' SHEET 4of4 • • ~ ==:D Revision 6/9/05 , ' . ' • CHICAGOTITLE IN~URANCE C{JMPAN~EV~TP:~f~~LANN/NG 701 fifTH AVENUE; #3400. SEA'n"LE. W!\ 98104 " ,ON, ALTA COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Customer Number: Title Unit: U-lO Buyer(s): , Phone: ' (206)628-5623 , Fax: (206)628-5657 Officer: HARRIS/EISENBREY Commitment Effective Date: SEPTEMBER 12,2005 1. Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy B 92 EXTENDED COMMERCIAL OWNERS ,EXTENDED RATE' Proposed Insured: , Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA Loan Policy Proposed InSured: Policy or Policies to be issued: at 8:00A.M. Amount: Premium: Tax: , Amount: Premium: Tax: ,JAN 312006 SECON~NT Order No.: -ii6486ff"-" $0.00 ALTA LoanPolicy Amount: $0 .00 Premium: Proposed Insured: 2 • The estate or interesi in the land which is covered by this Commitment is: 'FEE SIMPLE Tax: 3 . Title to the estate or interest in the land is at the effective date hereof vested in: BARBEE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION ,(21) '4 ~ The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT' .. (:i) • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AL.T A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.:· U64869 Your No.: BARBBR PORBST PRODUCTS . . . . LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT . (Paragraph 40f Schedule A continuation) THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION: 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF SECOND CLASS SHORELANDS ADJOINING, LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILRAOD RIGHT OF WAY;· EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, OF SAID SHORELANDS DESCRIBED AS LYING NORTH OF THE WESTERLY PRODUCTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 . CLTACMA4/~~ (,'" ... J . " .... ~ • CHfCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ALTA COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB. • Order No,: 1164869 Your No.: URBBB: FOREST PRODUCTS Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters ' unless the same are disposed of tothe satisfaction of the Company, ' GENERAL EXCEPTIONS A Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records, B, Encroachments; overlaps, boundary Iioe disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the' premises, C. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records: , ' , 'D, Any lien, or right to a lien, for oontributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' , compensation, or for services, labor, or material ,heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the public records, , , E. Taxes or special ~mentS which are not shown as existing iiens by the public recOl'ds, F. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, tap, Capacity or construction charges for sewer, water, 'electricity, other utilities, or garbage collection and disposal" .. ,G, Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights', including easements or equitable servitudes, H, Water rights, claims, or title to water, 'L 'Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse cInims or other matters, if anY,created, first appearing in the public records, or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, ' , SPECfAL EXCEPTIONS FOLLOW . • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY· A.L.TA. COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB . (Continued) Order No.: 0011.64869 .l~ Your No.: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS A 1. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE:. PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING ·NUMBER: PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION LINE A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES NOVEMBER 15. 1957 4850684 B 2. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC UTILITIES A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES DECEMBER 19. 1972 7212190390 c 3. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE.: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING·NUMBER:. INGRESS. EGRESS AND UTILITIES THE EAST 60 FEET AS DESCRIBED IN SAID INSTRUMENT FEBRUARY 15. 1996 9602150689 D 4. EXCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS CONTAINED IN DEED FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,WHEREBY THE GRANTOR.EXCEPTS AND RESERVES ALL OIL, GASES, COAL, ORES, MINERALS, FOSSILS, ETC., AND THE RIGHT OF· ENTRY FOR OPENING, DEVELOPING AND WORKING· THE SAME AND PROVIDING THAT SUCH RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE EXERCISED UNTIL PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR FULL PAYMENT OF ALL DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY REASON OF SUCH ENTRY; RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 467141.· B .5, RELEASE OF DAMAGE AGREEMENT. AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: AND: . RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: CLARISSA D. COLMAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCTOBER 24, 1906 429598 CLTACMBI/RDA/0999 . _ ... ,. • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AL.T A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB (Continued) • . Order No.: .1164869 Your No.: IWtSEE FOREST PRODUCTS . SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS RELEASING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL FUTURE CLAIMS. FOR DAMAGES . RESULTING FROM: CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION., AND MAINTENANCE OF CANAL LOCKS,·· SHIPWAYS, ·WATERWAYS AND THE RAISING AND· LOWERING· OF THE WATER LEVEL OF LAKE WASHINGTON . , .6. QUESTION OF LOCATION OF LATERAL BOUNDARIES OF SAID SECOND CLASS ·TIDELANDS OR SHORELANDS. G 7. ANY PROHIBITION OR LIMITATION OF USE, OCCUPAl~CY OR IMPROVEMENT OF THE H LAND RESULTING FROM THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC OR RIPARIAN OWNERS TO USE ANY PORTION.WHICH IS NOW OR HAS BEEN FORMERLY COVERED BY WATER. 8. PARAMOUNT RIGHTS AND EASEMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES FOR COMMERCE, NAVIGATION, FISHERIES AND THE PRODUCTION OF POWER. I 9. PAYMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX, IF REQUIRED. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SITUATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF RENTON. PRESENT RATE IS 1.78t. ANY CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE OFFICIAL WASHINGTON STATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT. THE APPLICABLE EXCISE TAX MUST BE PAID ·AND THE AFFIDAVIT APPROVED AT THE TIME OF THE RECORDING OF THE CONVEYANCE DOCUMENTS .. . J 10. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY.15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF .DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: .LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: 2005 322405-9034-00 2100 $ 9,345,000.00 $ 539,000.00 BILLED: $ 117,299·.53 PAID: $ 58,649.77 CLTAOtB1IRDA/r:eR . -\: • , CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB , (ContUiued) • Order No.: 1164869 ". Your No.: BARBEE FORBST PRODUCTS SPEClAL EXCEPTIONS UNPAID: $ .58,649.76 u11.' NOTWITHSTANDING PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE INSURING CLAUSES OF THE POLICY, THE ACCESS COVERAGE REFERENCED IN SAID PARAGRAPH 4 IS LIMITED TO THE ACCESS ALLOWED IN ANY CROSSING PERMIT WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE OWNER OF,THE ADJOINING RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY (OR FORMER RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY), SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS THEREIN. 12. TO PROVIDE AN EXTENDED COVERAGE OWNER'S (,OLlCY GENERAL EXCEPTIONS A THROUGH D WILL BE CONSIDERED'WHEN OUR ,INSPECTION AND/OR REVIEW OF "SURVEY, IF REQutRED, IS COMPLETED. 'GENERAL EXCEPTIONS E THROUGH H WILL REMAIN IN THE OWNER'S POLICY TO ISSUE. A SUPPLEMENTAL COMMITMENT WILL FOLLOW. IF THE ANTICIPATED CLOSING DATE IS LESS'THAN 4 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THIS COMMITMENT, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR TITLE OFFICER IMMEDIATELY. L 13. PRIOR TO ISSUING AN EXTENDED FORM OWNER'S POLICY, THIS COMPANY REQUIRES THAT THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION PROVIDE AN ALTA/ACSM CERTIFIED, AS-BUILT SURVEY. M 14. THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMED' CORPORATION AND A COpy SUBMITTED: BARBEE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. N 15. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THIS COMMITMENT IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH ,THE APPLICATION AND THE PUBLIC RECORDS AS DEFINED IN THE POLICY TO ISSUE. THE PARTl:ES TO THE FORTHCOMl:NG TRANSACTION MUST NOTIFY THE TITLE INSURANCE ,COMPANY PRl:OR TO CLOSING IF THE DESCRl:PTION, DOES NOT CONFORM TO THEIR EXPECTATIONS. o 'NOTE 1:" THE PREMIUM FOR THE EXTENDED COVERAGE' OWNER'S POLICY IS ITEMIZED AS FOLLOWS: DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ,STANDARD COVERAGE: $ CLTACMBZIRDA/0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.T A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB (Continued) ••••••• Order No.: ·1164869 Your No.: BARBEB P'ORKST PRODUCTS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS · SALES TAX: EXTENDED COVERAGE SURCHARGE: SALES TAX ON SURCHARGE: $ $ $ TOTAL PREMIUM, INCLUDING TAX·: . $.' p NOTE .2; i , , A SURVEY RAS BEEN RECORDED·UNOER RECORDING NUMBER 20050111900015. Q NOTE 3: EFFECTIVE JJI.NUAR¥ 1, 1997, DOCUMENT· FORMA'£ AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS a~VE BEEN IMPOSED BY WASHINGTON LAW. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT· IN RE.JECTION OF THE DOCUMENT .BY THE COUNTY· RECORDER OR IMPOSITION OF A $50.00 SURCHARGE. FIRST PAGE OR COVER SHEET: 3"TOP MARGIN CONTAINING NOTHING EXCEPT THE RETURN ADDRESS. 1" SIDE AND BOTTOM MARGINS CONTAINING NO MARKINGS OR SEALS. TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS. RECORDING NO. OF ANY ASSIGNED, RELEASED OR REFERENCED DOCUMENT(S) . . GRANTORS NAMES· (AND PAGE NO. WHERE ADDITIONAL NAMES CAN BE FOUND). GRANTEES NAMES (AND PAGE NO. WHERE ADDITIONAL NAMES CAN BE FOUND) . · ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION (AND PAGE NO. FOR FULL DESCRIPTION) . · ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL NUMBER(S). RETURN. ADDRESS . (IN TOP 3" MARGIN). **A COVER SHEET CAN BE ATTACHED CONTAINING THE ABOVE FORMAT AND DATA IF THE. FIRST PAGE DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL REQUIRED DATA. ADDITIONAL .PAGES: .1" TOP, SIDE AND BOTTOM MARGINS CONTAINING NO MARKINGS OR·SEALS. ALL ·PAGES: . . NO STAPLED OR TAPED ATTACHMENTS . EACH ATTACHMENT MUST BE A SEPARATE . PAGE. ALL NOTARY AND OTHER PRESSURE SEALS MUST BE SMUOGEDFOR VISIBILITY.FONT SIZE OF 8 POINTS OR.LARGER. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON· THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED TO COMPLy WITH THE· REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION·IS NOT·A SUBSTITUTE ·FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHICH MUST ALSO APPEAR IN THE BODY OF THEOOCUMENT: CtTACMD'Z/RDA/0999 • . CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY· A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB (Continued) Order No.: 1164869 ~ .. ' -.:: .. Your No.: BARBE'S FOREST PRODUCTS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS PTNGL i,SECTION 32-24-5. ·THE TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER FOR SAID PREMISES IS 322405-9034-00. END OF .SCHEDULE B . ,' • • STEWART TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 1201 Third Avenue, suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101 Senior Title Officer, Robert L. Ludlow Senior Title Officer, Mike Sharkey Title Technician, Linda Lamson Unit No. 12 FAX Number 206-343-1330 Telephone Number 206-343-1327 Lloyd & Associatell, Inc. 38210 Southeallt 92nd Street Snoqualmie, Wallhinqton 98065 Attention: JoAnne Lloyd Title Order No.: 210616 A. L. T. A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Effective Dat •. , April 26, 1993, at 8:00 a.m. 1. Policy or Policies to be issued: A. B. .ALTA Owner's Policy Standard (X) Extended ( ) Proposed Insured: 'XO I'OLLOW WOR!( CHARGE Amount Tax Amount Tax PREMIUM TO BE AGREED UPON $350.00 $ 28.70 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this commitment is fee simple. 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Commitment vested in: BARBEE FOREsT PRODUCTS, INC. (NOTE: SEE SPECIAL EXCEPTION NUMBER 4 REGARDING EXECUTION OF THE FORTHCOMING DOCUMENT(S) TO BE INSURED). 4. The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the County of Kinq, State of Washington, and described as follows; All that portion of Government Lot 1, Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, and of Second Class Shore Lands adjOining, lying westerly of Northern Pacific Railroad right-of-way- EXCEPT that portion, if any, of said Shore Lands lying north of the westerly production of the north line of said Government Lot. --._----""_ .. . del • STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT • Schedule S Order No. 210616 I. The following are the requirements to be complied with: A. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. B. Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. II. Schedule B of the Policy or Pol"icies to be issued (as set forth in Schedule A) will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other mattera, if any created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior ~o the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record "he estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. B. CENERAL EXCEPTIONS. 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Public or private easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public record. 3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate surveyor inspection of the premises. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, or Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. S. Any title or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons, corporations, governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or sound, or lands beyond the line of the harbor lines as estabhshed or changed by the United States Government. 6. (a) Unpa"ented mining claims; (b) reservations or excep"ions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) water rights~ claims or title to· wa"er. 7. Any service, ins"alla"ion, connection, maintenance, capacity, or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. S. General taxes not now payable or matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding the same becoming a lien. 9. Indian tribal codes or .regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes . C. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: As on Schedule S, attached. --------------------------------... -• SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS I A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Page 2 -. Order No. 210616 1. EASEMENT ANI) nm TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE I !'URPOSE: AREA AFFECTED I RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: City of Renton !'ublic utilities, including water and sewer The easterly 10 feet, measured perpendicularly to the easterly line of the northerly 230 feet, measured along the easterly line December 19, 1972 7212190390 2. GENERAL TAXES I FIRST HALF DELINQUENT MAY 1; SECOND BALF DELINQUENT NOVEMBER 1; YEAR: AMOUNT BILLED I AMOUNT PAIDI AMOUNT DUE: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODEI : CURRENT ASSESSED VALUEI 1993 $33,688.24 $ 0.00 $33,688.24 32240S-9034-00 2100 Land: Improvements: $2,094,100.00 $ 481,300.00 NOTE: If the taxes cannot Qe diVided equally Qy 2, the higher amount must Qe paid for the first half payment. 3. Assessments, if any, which will follow Qy supplemental report. 4. Evidence of the corporation existence of Barbee Forest Products, Inc., a corporation, must be submitted, together with evidence of tha corporate identity and authority of the officers thereof to execute the forthcoming instrument. S. NotWithstanding the insuring clauses of this policy, the Company does not insure against any loss or damage by reason of lack of access to and from the land. 6. Until the amount of the policy to be issued is provided to us, and entered on the commitment as the amount of the policy to be issued, it is agreed by every person relying on this commitment that we wil: not be required to approve any policy amount over S100,000, and our total liability under this commitment shall not exceed that amount. (cont:i.nued) ~. • ------------------------------------------- A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Paqe 3 -. Order No. 210616 7. Title is to vest in persons not yet revealed and when so vested will be subject to matters disclosed by a search of the records a9ains~ their names. END OF.SCHEDULE B .' . Title to this property was examined by. Russ Gamman Any inquiries should be directed to one of the title officers Bet forth in Schedule· A. 1--' RG/dkh/8471E • -. ::,'YA¢. t-i .. >~..\ STEWART TITLE COMPANY -. : .~ of Washington, Inc. , -NJ:;.-;fII! ORDER NO. --"H::t..::O=:::-lt:"~/..::6~-..:.,/...:2=-_ IMPORTANT: Thl. I. not a Plat of Survey. It I. furnisned as a convenience to locale tne land indicalod horeon witn releronce 10 ItrHto and olner lind. No liability I, ."umod by re ... on 01 ralionce nereon. ,,' ~ ' .. ':''' 1 I 4 r I PI" ---_.( .. -,- \ \ \ \ . , i. \ " V. ............ ,.. I, I' .1 i . ·· .. · .. ······ .. _ .. 1 ..... " ...... . I !/ I '\ > \ 1 \ I \ ~. " _J J , 1 , ;. • -----;::¢;;::;t' -_::.::=-f5f-'t? ____ ~1· -'-H" ". ,- ----. -:------_."-~-.~-.---... y I' , , .......................... '- I / , ~ • , / I / , , I I - kOAlN .... ": . .~'. ;., ... -.. , F~' iJ TITUi iN~~"~ ._- PiW lor II-a 01 !Ioq_1 .c ''''\ "&(I ." .... 101 11(0"-'4' \ IIW • . ,,'o'l1'IoIONOt .,', \ud! .. ~. ~':!~'lON:: KIN~ ~1)llH II Qull CICIim Deed BARREE HILL CO •• 1He:. Iww" __ 01 BARBEE rO~ST PRODUCTS, INC. IC1nq 3.00 ,':.'~ cow ... _0 tICIa TAl Dren 1984 'F.080:;4?S: Government Lot 1, S.ctioft Jl. Town.hip ~ c.at, N.M., klnq County, W.'lhin",ton Burl1ntiton Northern R411road RiCJh" o( no iaprov ... nta. ~4 NOrth. Ranqe lyln'J Wo.Co ot WAY· Lond on1 y- -0900 ·,·f·; ..... J -- J I '1 ') , I ." , . ;\... _r -, '-, I °1.; , ."';" ~; ,. . I:J , . I 1 I 1 I I ! I , I I I I I • •• --fJ!lJ PlOHEE" NATION ..... -';<i'·" mUll IN5t.tllAHa , ... , .,.." .101""0 ,,, "'0"" ~ "'" ._-"" .......... ..-01 _I ..... I~T., lllAH. MeAnr.R, RAN~EH' • .sx, '211 B'!'RCE~SER RE o F CA HSI. II 11 -lrd AV • ., SuItt lJno • UIQ C\:.urII"t' 8s. st, 1 •• WA "101 '::;) (lClI( IAI ...... e JUH 281965 EOB30?(;t) IARDEE ~l~ CO •• INC. ..... Gov~rnMent Lo~ On. (1), l.e~lon Thirty-twa (la), ~~.hip TVenty·!our (~4' Nortn, n.n~. rive (,> ~.\, W.N .• ~ln9 County, W~.hlnqton Ly1nq WeRt ot l\,Idinqt.on Nort)",::tn Rdll')ed R19ht or Way, vlth 14j.eent Ihor,\ond. Lan4 only -no t.~~veaent •• Oil ~.oo · .. ··l " 78 I .00 .... ..... tr f IllS ~ r.:; .. ~ N -;; ... iil ;; !:Ii S i"-._----------------_._.- . , .,. '.' - • . , lH . .lH.!i! 'IliIS IN~TRUMEHT. made this !!t...day of Aev4?xfi..e&/ I 9~; by and between 1L 1<fu .)')¥.l1 ~~:;..~::.=..' __ . _____ _ ..-_________________________ and ____________________ __ ___________________________ and • ..-__________________ ...- ______________ ---'ind . ..------------ hereinafter cAlled "Grantor(s)". and the CITY OF R£NTON, a Municipal COl'1loretion of King County. lIashinliton. hereinafter caned "GranteQ'. WITNESSE'Ili: That said Grantor(s). for and in consideration of the sum of S 1.00 Pilj~ by GNntee. and other valuable consideret10n. -::aor;:--.b7:y--:1tn:-:e:;s-=e~p:cre=s-=e-=nt;-:~:-• ...."g-=ra:-:n:':'t. ~"r9ain. sell. convey, and warrant unto the said Grantee. its succ~ssors and assigns. an easement for public utilities (including water and sewer) with necessary appurtenanceS over. through. across and upon t.'1e follo\oling described property in King County, Washington, more particularly descri be d as follows: A utility easement over the Easterly 10 feet, measured perpendicularly to the Easterly line thereof. of the Northerly Z30 feet, measured along the Easterly line, of the following described property: ALL that portion of Government Lot 1 in Section 32. Township 24 North. Range 5 East; W.M. lying Westerly of the Burlington Northern (Northern Pacific) railroad right-of-way; TOGE.HER with the Shorelands adjoining. Together with a temporary construction usellllnt described as: 30 feet in width over the Easterly 30 feet of the Northerly 230 feet of t~e above described property. ·Said temporary construction easement snall remain 1n force dur1ng construction and until luch tilre as the utilities ar.d a~~"rtenances have been accepted for the '~.~"~.t!~n I.nd '"aint""dnCP. by the Grantee but not later than _________ _ I .. .... 0 cr ,., 0 cr N N r- \. • tt "" ... ~ • ....,. ,'. \r~'Il:"'" ~ ... ~ •• "' \III".' ••• " 'tp, , t. of ~'," :'"'o't".,.,,-.,---'-_ .•.. __ . • S.id heretofore .lMntioned gr.ntee. its successo" or ",19n5 , sh,11 "h.ve the r'~ht. without orior notiCe or procee~ing at law •• t such tiNs as ....y be ne"", .. ry to enter upon "id above described property for the purpose of cOfIstructing , ln4int41ni"9. f"'tP,irins:. ~1t.rin9 or rec:onstruct1ng said utility. or m.kin~ 4ny eonnect,ons therewith, w~tnout incurring lny le9" Obl1gHil,)"' or lhbiHty !he"fol"'t, pro",oed. thtt SUCh construction. rna.1n- t.)in'"g, repairing. ~lte""n~ or ~coMt"uction Of such utility snall be accol1l'lisned in suCh a manner that the privat~ ill't)roverrents existing in the r"\c;nt rigllt(I)-or-way sh.ll not Oe dl,turbeo or dam.~.d. or In the .. ent tney art disturbed or dam.ged. they will oe reol"ed in as good. cnnditlon as they were i_dlataly before the property wl\.~n:t~,?,.d: upon by the Grantee. The Grantor shall 'vII, <Sf "nd'·.nj'Qy"~h.· 'afo~described premises. Incl.,ding the right to reuin the right to use the surface of said right-of-way if such use does not tnterferoe with installation and Nin,'(.ent!lnce of tl'le util11.jI line. Hewevef, the grantor s"~ll .. no.t erect bui'~in9S or structures over. under or acro~s the right-of-way durin~·-th. e.iHence of such uti11ty. This usement. shall be a covenan' running with the land and shall be bind- ing on tl'\, Grantor, his succeuors, heirs and &$signs. Grantors covenant that they are tho 1 ... ful owners of the above properties .nd th.t they h,v. a ,good and lawful right to .. aeute thiS a9""aent . h~!ii':#Z~ STATE Of WASHINGTON cOLlm Of KING ·1 .nd 55 on tht. "'I-d.y o! ~~y197.a..l>e!o" .... tbe un4ln1c .. d • • lIoury fubll. 1n end lor tht~ .. to of ~hLn'ton, dilly a_LuLoned .nd oworn rar~or:.llY "Fptlred 64ftf '!...~ ,aNS to ~ kno~n to b, tho ~ and I rcupectivoly, o~ I~'~U Ce .. ~, t'" lCo'l'pot.~1on th't Ix.cute4 tho t'ore&o1.n& inlcrutr4nt. and nckn~led,ed the lAid inatrUMnt to 'be 'l"Ie tre. Ind Y~lunt.ry let end 61l.d of IIid corporation. tor tbe u ••• and purpo .. , theroin untionr.d, and on. o.ath .Uted 'ti1SIZI='n$. ~ luthor1ced to exeeuU the •• '4 i.n'''~ij;ant IncS tbOt the .tI.l aUi.xed L. thl c:oTporete .,.1 ot .. 1d eo~por.tion. IIITICESS !Sy bend nnd oU1a~1 ... 1 he.a\o .!Und tile day .114 ye.r 111 thh ... tUlo .... ~_ wrltten. ",,1-;,·'···. ~" ......... ""." .. ~ •••. ~.'oIC ~ U·('· ••• ~~ ....... ,\ ,' ..... , .. ~ ... .." ::; c.''"\'' .... ~ .,,. ~ ~.:;,.\ ~!! ,-l ,..., ,.. : ~ c:>V'J. ~ ~ "/' • , . ' .......... 0" ..... ,~". t".' 0'. " I ••• "~"; I'" oj ~, .... ". ~~' " .. ~ I ~ ~"\ ,,' ...... " ........ .. --_.---.. -._, I •• q n l!i I I o 0-..... <=> .,.. .... '" .... N ... ... ... o o Q "'~ .... ~ .. .' FILED for Record at Request ot r 1I.t.O tor RM'Of d at ROQ\MI J .,= ;reb, q !'rcaJ • RECCROEO •••••• OF •••••••••• ...... REOVESi 0' 1m DE(!~ 1M /I 30 DNeTOR IICCOII08 " EL&CTlOHS ICIHG "UNTY, WASH. • May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation t.dging Barbee Mill Company -2005 4.1 Introduction Item 4 Project Narrative The Barbee Mill Company is seeking a permit from the City of Renton to conduct flood mitigation dredging at the mouth of May Creek where it enters Lake Washington. Coarse sands and gravels are deposited in the delta as a consequence of upstream erosion. This deposition is most prevalent during severe storm events. Finer materials (silts and clays) are carried further into Lake Washington where they eventually settle out. The proposed dredge profile of the May Creek Delta covers an area of approximately 55,000 ft2 (see plans, Sheets 1-4). Historically, approximately 3,000-4,000 l of material accumulates in the delta area every 3 to 4 years. Deposition rates are not constant by any means and are driven by the weather and the amount of material eroded from the May Creek Valley. This upstream erosion is beyond the control of the Barbee Mill Company. The purpose of this project is to mitigate the impacts of sand and gravel deposition in the May Creek Delta as a consequence of upstream erosion. The Barbee Mill facility has largely discontinued operations although facility cleanup, demolition, shoreline restoration, and eventual site development activities are underway or planned for the near future. Conduct of flood mitigation dredging over the next ten years, as proposed in this permit application; will eventually be assumed by a homeowners association after site development. Nevertheless, the need to conduct flood mitigation dredging in the near future by the Barbee Mill Company and successors/assigns in the context of site development is essential to mitigate the potential for flooding under any scenario or sequence for continued operations, facility cleanup, demolition, shoreline restoration, and site development. 4.2 Land Use and Project Permitting May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation Dredging will require a dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Incorporated into the USACE permit is the consultation with NOAA and National Marine Fisheries Service for Endangered Species Act compliance. Locally, the Barbee Mill Company will require a permit for Special Permit for Grade and Fill from the City of Renton. Additionally, the Barbee Mill Company will require a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit from the City of Renton. Finally, the Barbee Mill Company will require a Water Quality Certification from the Washington Department of Ecology. Required permits and approvals are summarized below: Hem" -Project NarrativelL&AI 4 - I May Creek Delta -Flood Miligationtedging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • Special Grade and Fill Permit -City of Renton • • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit -City of Renton • Maintenance Dredging Permit -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Hydraulic Project Approval-Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife • Water Quality Certification -Washington State Department of Ecology 4.3 Existing and Projected Zoning The Barbee Mill Company facility is currently a non-conforming industrial use within COR zoning. Beyond the project area the site is largely developed as a lumber mill with the exception of the May Creek corridor. Immediately south is residential zoning. Over the next several months cleanup activities, structure demolition, and site development will occur. The non- conforming industrial zoning will ultimately disappear. 4.4 Special Site Features The Barbee Mill Facility is a unique property on Lake Washington. The facility occupies over 22 acres and over 1500 feet of waterfront. On the eastern side of the mill property is May Creek. May Creek drains the May Valley Watershed and terminates at the southern end of the facility. East of May Creek, elevations increase toward Lake Washington Boulevard and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way. Most of the built up facility is built on land that gently slopes toward Lake Washington to the west. 4.5 Soil Types and Drainages Soils at the Barbee Mill Company are principally well-draining coarse sand and gravel typical of those to be dredged at the May Creek Delta. Historically, May Creek meandered across a larger area that was to eventually become land when Lake Washington was lowered. Currently, the facility is served by several storm drains that discharge to Lake Washington. These discharges will be substantially modified with future development, but will be unaffected by this project. 4.6 Proposed Development Although the current property has non-conforming industrial zoning, the site is currently proposed for development, consistent with COR zoning. This permit application for dredging of the May Creek Delta is consistent with mitigating the impacts of flooding within an industrial context or within future development on the site. Dredging of the May Creek Delta to mitigate the impacts of flooding is required to help protect the property from potential flood damages, present and future. No plats are anticipated in conjunction with this proposal for dredging. Proposed uses of the property and scope of the proposed site development is considered elsewhere. 4.7 Facility Access Item" -Project NarrativeJL&AI 4·2 , , May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation .dging Barbee Mill Company -2005 • Access to the property is currently by gated access from Lake Washington Blvd. N. The facility can also be reached from the water (Lake Washington). Completion of this project will not affect site access in any way. Other than removing coarse sand and gravel in the May Creek Delta, the facility will not be impacted. No off-site improvements (sidewalks, fire hydrants, etc) are proposed or reasonably related to this work. 4.8 Total Estimated Construction Cost and Estimate Fair Market Value of the Proposed Project Dredging of the May Creek Delta is anticipated to occur at least three times over the next 10 years. Assuming that approximately 4,000 l of sand and gravel are dredged, and that dredging will require 8 to 10 days (using a small rig), then estimated project costs would range from $275,000 to $325,000. If dredging must be conducted more frequently, or if severe storm events substantially increase the amount of upstream erosion, the project cost would increase proportionately. Likewise, estimated coats do not include the cost of future regulatory or permitting changes that may be required. The cost of handling materials upland may be offset by sale of clean sand and gravel for off-site use as clean fill. The fair market value of the proposed project is more difficult to estimate. Estimated project costs are similar to an insurance premium against the potential risk of flooding. 4.9 Estimated Dredge Quantities As mentioned earlier, dredging of the May Creek Delta will typically require dredging of 3,000 to 4,000 y3 every 3 to 4 years. However, because the accumulation of coarse sand and gravel at the mouth of May Creek is largely dependent upon the weather (assuming that erosion of the May Valley will continue) and those severe storms that scour May Creek and discharge erosional materials into Lake Washington. Therefore, the frequency and quantity of material to be dredged can be highly variable and unpredictable. Nevertheless, the estimated dredge quantity for this project is at least 12,000 y3 over the next 10 years and may range as high as 40,000 y3 to maintain proposed dredge contours if severe storms result in upstream erosion and sediment deposition in the May Creek Delta. Rather than proposing estimated dredge quantities, this permit application seeks to maintain a dredge profile as provided in project plans (see Item 10 and Exhibit I). 4.10 Upland Vegetation Removal Completion of flood mitigation dredging at the May Creek Delta will not require removal of any upland vegetation or trees of any size or type. 4.11 Land to be Dedicated to the City of Renton No land will be dedicated to the City of Renton. Nevertheless, if the City of Renton wishes to assume responsibility for dredging of May Creek Delta, something could be worked out! 4.12 Proposed Number, Size or Range of Sizes of the New Lots and Density Item" -Project N"arrath'e/L&AI 4·3 , , May Creek Delta -Flood Mitigation .dging Barbee M ill Company -2005 • Completion of dredging at the May Creek Delta will not create any new lots and/or increase density of any size or range. 4.13 Any Proposed Job Shacks, Sales Trailers, etc. No job shacks, sales trailers, and/or model homes will be necessary to complete flood mitigation dredging in the May Creek Delta. 4.14 Proposed Land Use Modifications The Barbee Mill Company is not requesting any land use modifications for dredging in the May Creek Delta. However, because the cost of permitting is substantial, and the need for certainty in flood mitigation capability, the Barbee Mill Company is requesting a IO-year permit for flood mitigation dredging. No rezones, variances, or other conditional use permits are anticipated. 4.15 May Creek -Waterbody Flood mitigation dredging of the May Creek Delta, as shown in project plans, will occur in the water below the ordinary high water line (OHWL, 21.8 ft, USACE datum). The existing shoreline in the immediate area adjacent to the proposed flood mitigation dredging is modestly armored. In general, the shoreline of the facility has a mix of concrete bulkheads near the log haul-out area, and light shoreline armoring consisting of rock and some untreated piling. 4.16 Viewsheds along the Shoreline No residential or commercial units (current or future) will have any long-term obstructed views as a consequence of completing periodic flood mitigation dredging at the May Creek Delta. Views will be unavoidably impacted by dredging equipment during periodic dredging events over the course of this pem1it and future permits for flood mitigation dredging. Item 4 -Project Narrative/L&AI 4-4 Payn entM erE: rATYOFRENTON Wif.o55S .GradyW ay R en lon, W A <:J3055 Land Use Actions RECElPT Penn it#: LUA.o5-138 11,{B,f005 04 d3 PM • Rece ptNLJT1 tEr. RCBBJ71 TolalPaynent 3,.0.0.0 .0.0 P~: 8ARBEE M LL CO • NC . CUlTBltPaym entM ade to the Fo lbw ilg ]an s: Trans Account Code [Escription 501.0 .000.345.81 . .00 . .0.0.07 Environmental Review 5014000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5019000.345.81 . .0.0 . .0.016 ShorelIne Subst [Ev Payments m ade ibrth'srecept Trans Method [Escription Payment Check ACCDunt8amces Trans Account Code #1.02225 [EscrIption 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 .0.0.0.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 .000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 501.0 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 501200.0.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013000.345.81.00.001.0 Pc.O 5014000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016000.345.81.00.0013 MJbile f-bme Parks 5017000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019000.345.81.00.0016 ShorelIne Subst [Ev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5033 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 590900.0.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000 .341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.000.0 Spec ia I [Epos ItS 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 599B 000.231.7.0.00.0000 Tax Rem anilg BaIrce Due: SD 00 Armunt 3, 000.00 Armunt 500.00 2,000.00 500.00 Ba lance llJe .00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00