HomeMy WebLinkAboutMSA_Joos_BE_04152016_Final
Joos New Dock and Beach Mitigation Plan
Biological Evaluation/Lake and Stream Study Report
April 15th, 2016
For:
Paul Joos
2909 Mountain View Avenue North
Renton, WA 98056
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 2
Contents
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 4
A. Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 4
B. Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 4
B. Lake and Stream Classifications .......................................................................................................... 4
C. Site Description .................................................................................................................................... 5
D. Ecological Functions of Lake Washington along the Study Area ....................................................... 5
E. Fish and Wildlife Use or the Area ........................................................................................................ 5
F. Project Details ....................................................................................................................................... 5
G. Action Area .......................................................................................................................................... 6
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 6
A. Species Information.............................................................................................................................. 6
III. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ................................................................................................................. 9
A. Direct Effects........................................................................................................................................ 9
B. Indirect Effects ................................................................................................................................... 10
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects .................................................................................................... 12
D. Take Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 13
E. Conservation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 13
F. Determination of Effect ...................................................................................................................... 14
G. Net-Loss Determination ..................................................................................................................... 14
IV. SHORELINE MITIGATION PLAN.................................................................................................... 15
A. Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................... 15
B. Performance Standards ....................................................................................................................... 15
C. Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................................. 16
D. Maintenance and Contingency ........................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 18
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 3
FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 1. Existing site plan...................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2. Proposed site plan .................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 3. Shoreline plan view ................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 4. Proposed beach mitigation ....................................................................................................... 24
ATTACHMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Attachment 1. Photographs of the site .................................................................................................... 25
Attachment 2. U. S. Fish and Wildlife species list in the project vicinity .............................................. 30
Attachment 3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment .................................................................................. 33
Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook............................. 35
Attachment 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound Bull Trout ......... 37
APPENDIX A: Shoreline Mitigation Planting Map and Plant List............................................................ 40
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 4
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location
¼ Section SE31, Township 24N, Range 05E.
2909 Mountain View Avenue North
Renton, WA 98056
Latitude: 47.517977° N Longitude: 122.210715°W
B. Project Description
The proposed project is to construct a new dock and boat lift and to stabilize the existing bulkhead and
removing the dilapidated face of the bulkhead and removing debris at 2909 Mountain View Avenue
North, Renton, WA 98056. The subject property is located along the eastern shore of Lake Washington in
the City of Renton). The proposed dock would provide moorage and facilitate access to Lake Washington
for the residents of the property and their guests.
The subject property is located along Lake Washington, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance as
provided in RMC 4-3-090F1, and a Shoreline of the State under RMC 4-11-190. This Lake Study is
prepared in accordance with the requirements of RMC 4-8-120D with respect to the Lake Washington
shoreline of the subject property. May Creek, a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2), is located
approximately 0.7 miles north of the site. The Cedar River enters Lake Washington approximately 1.2
miles south of the site.
A number of factors were considered in determining the location of the proposed pier and boat lift. In
establishing design parameters for the proposed pier and boat lift, it was required that it not interfere with
the general public's use and enjoyment of Lake Washington, that it not pose a navigation hazard to
boaters, and that it not interfere with the use of existing or future neighboring docks or piers.
B. Lake and Stream Classifications
As mentioned above, as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance (RMC 4-3-090F1), Lake Washington is
included in the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-11-190). Lake Washington is a Class 1 lake
as it is a perennial salmonid-bearing body of water classified as a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-11-
190S1). May Creek is an important salmonid stream that is classified by the City of Renton and the State
of Washington as Class 1 waters and included within the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-
090F2).
The Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark for Lake Washington is the line of mean high water (RMC 4-11-
150 Definitions 0). The Lake Washington water depth is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers at
the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks and is at 21.8' of lake elevation.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 5
C. Site Description
Vegetation
The existing vegetation at the site consists of: two small patches of small fruit bulrush (Scirpus
microcarpus) and two small patches of dune grass (Leymus mollis), saplings of big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), and unidentified grass species (lawn). Non-native invasive species observed included:
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and English holly (Ilex aquifolium).
Mitigation Options
Many mitigation targets were identified on the shoreline riparian area in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed shoreline stabilization replacement. In addition to the substantial amounts of non-native
invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) along the top of the existing bulkhead, there is also
one English holly (Ilex aquifolium) that can be removed. The entirety of the existing rock riprap and
concrete bulkhead is in disrepair and eroding into the waters of Lake Washington, Its removal is
suggested for mitigation. Additionally, the cove on this shoreline has retained a fair amount of trash and
derelict debris such as washed up floats and booms, dislodged creosote logs, and various miscellaneous
trash, all of which can be removed as mitigation.
D. Ecological Functions of Lake Washington along the Study Area
The proposed planted riparian vegetation will add significant organic matter to the lake substrate in the
form of leaves and woody debris that fall and wash into the lake. This will provide additional source of
food, shelter and shade for aquatic invertebrates and fish. This increased vegetation will also provide food
and shelter for terrestrial insects, and in turn provide an additional food source for birds and animals that
feed upon them. The addition of riparian vegetation to this site should also help water quality by filtering
pollutants, removing nutrients and reducing sediments in any runoff from the adjacent upland
development. The increased overhanging vegetation should facilitate the migration of juvenile salmon.
E. Fish and Wildlife Use or the Area
Salmonids known to be present in southern Lake Washington include Puget Sound chinook salmon, coho
salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and cutthroat trout. Puget Sound chinook, Puget
Sound steelhead and bull trout are all listed as threatened under the ESA. The restored gravel substrate
and gently sloping bottom of the proposed cove beach should provide favorable habitat for winter rearing
of salmon fry.
F. Project Details
The project consists of construction a new dock (951 ft²) that will extend 140’ into lake Washington from
a shoreline stabilization replacement structure (Figures 1-3). The existing bulkhead is failing badly as
seen in Attachment 1. The replacement shoreline stabilization will be located immediately landward of
the existing bulkhead.
The replacement shoreline stabilization will be constructed landward of the existing bulkhead and then
the existing bulkhead will be removed (Figure 3). A cove beach area will also be added immediately in
front of the replacement shoreline stabilization.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 6
The proposed dock structure will be composed of a 3’-11” by 30’ then 5’-11” by 110’ main dock
structure. A 5’-11’ by 21’-1” dock section will be added at a right angle to the main dock section. An
additional 1’-11’ by 21’-1” finger dock section will also be added to the main dock section to provide a
boat slip (Figure 2). Twenty 6” diameter galvanized steel pilings will support the dock and two 10”
diameter galvanized steel pilings will be installed to facilitate boat moorage.
A freestanding boatlift will be located adjacent to the proposed dock 60’ from the replacement bulkhead
(Figure 2). An additional freestanding 8’ by 10’ grated platform lift will be located adjacent to the small
finger dock.
The dock will have glulam sides, ACZA stringers and galvanized steel caps and galvanized steel pilings.
ThruFlow plastic grating (43% open area) will be installed on the dock. The piling will be driven with an
impact hammer, using a thick wooden block as a sound attenuation measure, the wood block will be at
least 6” thick.
G. Action Area
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the project location. This area
includes potential turbidity and noise impacts from the construction process.
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. Species Information
In the project area, the Puget Sound chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed under the Endangered
Species Act as a threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 56 / March 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.). On May 11, 2007, NMFS
also listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA
(Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations). Bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) in October of 1999.
On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and
the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for
the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Federal Register / Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules
and Regulations). USFWS has designated critical habitat in Lake Washington for Coastal-Puget Sound
bull trout (Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations).
Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the king salmon, are distinguished from all
other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget Sound are “ocean-type” and
migrate to the marine environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). They may enter
estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm., or they may
enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80
mm. (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 7
crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into neritic
habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and euphausiids
(Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most
dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival.
In the Lake Washington system, adult chinook salmon usually arrive at the Chittenden Locks in July,
although there are some arrivals before and after July (Synthesis of Salmon Research and Monitoring.
2008). According to Fresh et al. (2000), the total time for salmon migration from the Locks to arrival
at their tributary spawning grounds "can take up to 55 days, but averages less than 30." During much
of this time, salmon hold in the upstream area from the Locks before moving through the Ship Canal
and Lake Union. Fresh et al. (2000) found the average holding time to be from 17 to 19 days. After
reach their spawning streams between September and November, spawning occurs from October to
December.
According to Tabor et al. (2006), "Fry emerge from their redds from January to March. Juvenile
Chinook salmon appear to have two rearing strategies: rear in the river and then emigrate in May or
June as pre-smolts, or emigrate as fry in January, February, or March and rear in the south end of
Lake Washington or Lake Sammamish for three to five months.” In the project area vicinity, juvenile
chinook salmon from the Cedar River enter Lake Washington and rear in the south end of the lake
primarily from January to May.
Tabor et al. (2006) also reported that:
Similar to results of 2002, juvenile Chinook salmon were concentrated in the south end of Lake
Washington from February to May.....Therefore, it appears that the lake shore area near the natal
stream is an important nursery area for juvenile Chinook salmon. In Lake Washington, the major
part of this nursery area appears to be roughly from Pritchard Beach on the west shoreline and the
mouth of May Creek on the east shore and the south part of Mercer Island. In this area, the
number of Chinook salmon would be expected to be relatively low until mid-May or June.
The project site is approximately 0.7 miles south of May Creek.
In the same study cited above, it was found that marked chinook did not move far from their release
site at Gene Coulon Park (approximately 0.98 miles south of the current project site). Marked
juveniles were observed 1, 7, 15, and 21 days after release at Gene Coulon Park. All of the marked
salmon that the investigators observed had moved less than 150 m from their release site at the park.
After moving slowly away south Lake Washington, juveniles reach the Chittenden Locks during the
period between May and August, with peak migration through the Locks taking place in June.
According to Kerwin (2001) chinook, coho, sockeye and winter steelhead use May Creek for
spawning, rearing and migration. However, volunteers from the Volunteer Salmon Watchers Program
have been observing salmon in May Creek since 2000. They have reported that only sockeye are seen
consistently, while chinook, coho, cutthroat trout and kokanee salmon are less commonly seen.
Hammer (2011) reported that the number of chinook varies from 0 to 12 fish annually in May Creek.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 8
WDFW reported three live chinook and one redd in 2010 spawner surveys.
Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California (at
present they are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the
Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon
family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea
(for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold
water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout
distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to
larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before returning to smaller streams
to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the streams where they were reared.
Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal-Puget
Sound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only
anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States (Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 /
November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations).
Two subpopulations of bull trout (also known as "native char") are considered within the Lake
Washington area: the Chester Morse Reservoir population and the Issaquah Creek-Sammamish River
population (Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations). “Only
two ‘native char’ have been observed during the past 10 years in the Issaquah Creek drainage and
none have been observed in the Sammamish River system. It is questionable whether a viable
subpopulation remains.” (Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / November 1, 1999 / Rules and
Regulations).
Puget Sound Steelhead: Wild winter steelhead enter the Lake Washington system in mid-December
with peak spawning taking place in May. There have been high rates of predation by California sea
lions at the Ballard Locks, which is one of the leading factors in the declining steelhead production in
the Lake Washington system (1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory.
Appendix One - Puget Sound Stocks. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.).
According to Kerwin (2001):
The Lake Washington system supports one native winter steelhead stock but not a summer
steelhead stock (SASSI 1994). The winter steelhead stock was listed in SASSI as “Depressed” but
has recently shown some evidence of rebounding. A limited hatchery program utilizing the native
winter steelhead stock was initiated in 1997 as a supplementation type program to assist in
recovery of winter steelhead populations in the north Lake Washington tributaries. The sharp
decline in Lake Washington winter steelhead was noted as a reason for concern by NMFS in their
stock status review (Busby 1996).
However, in a more recent analysis, between 1986 and 2004 escapement for the Lake Washington
winter-run steelhead ranged from 1,816 (1986) to 44 (2004) (WDFW 2004). However, the
escapement in 2015 was reported as only 6 (SCoRE). Based on the chronically low escapement and
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 9
short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock status has decreased from its 1992 “depressed”
status to “critical” in 2002.
WDFW has reported steelhead in the lower 3 miles of May Creek (Salmon Scape, 2010).
Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of
their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation
and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species
(WDW, 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive
for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt and other small schooling fish, and feed on
invertebrates.
The project site is located in an urban environment adjacent to a major highway. There is a high level
of ambient noise in the project vicinity. There is no nesting habitat near the site. Therefore, it is
unlikely that murrelets will be present in the project vicinity.
III. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project has
been described and the action area defined. When reviewing all the data, the potential direct and indirect
effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered.
A. Direct Effects
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project
will immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts
caused by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity.
Pile driving noise: The piling will be driven with an impact hammer, using a thick wooden block as a
sound attenuation measure, the wood block will be at least 6” thick. Feist et al. (1992) reported that
salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000' from the source. Based
on the studies at the Everett Homeport, these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the
distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon.
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could, under certain circumstances, have adverse
effects on salmon and bull trout. The effects depend on duration of exposure, concentration of
turbidity and the life stage of the salmon during the increased exposure. The effects can be discussed
in terms of lethal, sublethal or behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a and Simenstad, editor,
1988). A silt containment curtain will be installed in the project area to contain and minimize turbidity
impacts.
To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids and bull
trout, inwater construction work will take place during the approved work window from July 16 to
December 31. Overwater work can proceed outside of the inwater work window.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 10
B. Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might
include alteration of juvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation and reduction in
prey resources and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure.
Migratory pathway alteration:
Freshwater: There were no studies specifically investigating the effects of piers on salmonid
migration in lakes cited by Kahler et al. (2000) in their review of pier-related impacts in lakes.
Concerning the lake environment, Kahler et al. (2000) state, “The question remains whether juvenile
salmonids in lakes migrate under, or otherwise utilize, piers, or if they avoid them and/or traverse
their perimeter.”
However, more recent reports have provided additional information concerning salmon responses to
overwater structures.
Tabor and Piaskowski (2002) noted that, "In February and March, chinook salmon were found using
overhead structures (piers, docks, and overhanging vegetation) during the day but in April and May,
no chinook salmon were ever observed using overhead structures. At night, chinook salmon rarely
used overhead structures." The authors hypothesized that the overhead structures were being used as a
substitute for natural overhead cover during the days in February and March.
In a later study, Tabor et al. (2006) noted slightly different results. They state that, "When migrating
Chinook salmon approach a pier they appeared to move to slightly deeper water and either pass
directly under the structure or swim around the pier. Most likely they move to deeper water as a way
of reducing their predation risk." The pier where these findings we made is approximately 7.8' wide,
138' long and had solid decking. The dimensions of the piers in the earlier study are not known. The
results from the later study were noted in May and July, whereas the 2002 study results were for the
earlier months of February and March.
In another study, Tabor et al. (2011) reported that, “Juvenile Chinook salmon were rarely observed
under an overwater structure during either daytime or nighttime.” There were no details concerning
the type of overwater structure where these observations were made – sold decking or grated
overwater structures.
The results of Celedonia et al. (2008) were similar to those of Tabor et al. (2000). Celedonia et al.
stated, "Juvenile Chinook salmon generally avoided areas directly beneath overwater structures.
However, areas along the edges of structures (within about 2 m horizontal distance) were sometimes
used for prolonged periods (up to 2 hours in one case)." However, these authors offered the following
qualifying statement:
These observations may be representative of holding fish near structures in general, but may not
be an accurate indication of how untagged Chinook salmon would generally behave upon
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 11
volitionally entering these specific areas. Actively migrating fish (i.e., most fish released off-site
and observed at the Seattle Tennis Club site) often appeared to change course as they approached
a structure. Structure width and water depth appeared to influence degree of avoidance. Fish
appeared less hesitant to pass beneath narrow structures. Fish also appeared to move into deeper
water to travel beneath or around structures.
These authors also observed:
Behavior at structures differed (i.e., swim beneath or travel around perimeter), and may have been
related to such interrelated factors as: fish size, light levels beneath the structure, degree of
contrast at the light-dark edge, width of the structure, height of the structure above the water
surface, and water column depth beneath the structure. Further study is needed to conclusively
determine how these and other factors interact to influence Chinook salmon behavior.
Marine Waters: In the marine environment, it is generally accepted that overwater structures can
alter migration behavior of juvenile salmon (though the effects may vary depending on the design and
orientation of the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light), and reduce salmon
prey resources and refugia by shading aquatic plant life (Simenstad et al. 1999; Nightingale and
Simenstad 2001b). However, the significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad et al. state,
“We found no studies that described empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of
juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats was reflected in changes in survival.” Nightingale and
Simenstad (2001b) state, “Presently, although we know that under some conditions small juvenile
salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline movements when encountering an overwater
structure, the conditions under which this behavioral modification is significant to the fishes’ fitness
and survival is relatively unknown.”
A study by Williams et al. (2003) at the Mukilteo ferry terminal, found that, “Salmon fry were
observed in all nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). The fry were
observed under a wide range of PAR values (0.0 µmol m-2 s-1 to 2370 µmol m-2 s-1). Fry were
observed both outside the terminal and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by
the 10-m-wide terminal structure did not appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location.”
There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns – that is not in dispute.
As seen in the study by Williams and in many other studies (see the literature review by Weitkamp -
2003), there are studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence of
overwater structures. Of course, there are other studies indicating migration patterns are altered by
overwater structures.
Increased predation: An additional concern about the impacts of overwater structures on migrating
salmon is that they will be forced to move out into deeper water, where they will be consumed by
predatory fish species. However, in a study conducted in the marine environment, Williams et al.
(2003) noted:
We found no evidence that avian, marine mammal, or fish predators consumed more juvenile
salmon near WSF terminals than along shorelines without overwater structures. Few species
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 12
appeared to be targeting abundant fry in nearshore habitats, and we observed only two occasions
in which predators (one tern sp., one staghorn sculpin) had consumed juvenile salmon.
The authors also state,
Our analysis of fish diets at the Mukilteo ferry terminal provides one piece of conclusive evidence
that juvenile salmon were not a major dietary component of predatory fish species during our
study.
It should be noted that the Williams study was conducted in the marine, not lake, environment.
In Lake Washington, smallmouth bass migration into the littoral zone corresponds with the peak
occurrence of migrating salmonids in this zone (Fresh et al. 2001). Because of these similar migration
patterns, salmonids are most at risk of predation from smallmouth bass in Lake Washington. Bass
prefer complex, natural cover for their foraging environment. When there is a scarcity of natural
cover for foraging, as is the situation in Lake Washington, they tend to use the dominant structures in
the environment, such as pilings and piers, for foraging cover (Kahler et al. 2000). There is concern
that increasing the number of overwater structures will increase the predation success of smallmouth
bass on migrating salmonids.
Tabor et al. (2004) investigated predation of juvenile chinook salmon in three areas of the Lake
Washington Basin. One of the areas they looked at was the south end of Lake Washington, an
important rearing area. The investigators found that:
The only predators observed to consume Chinook salmon were cutthroat trout, prickly sculpin (C.
asper), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and largemouth bass (M. salmoides).
Consumption of Chinook salmon by cutthroat trout was observed in February, March and early
April. Predation by prickly sculpin was only observed in February. Smallmouth bass consumed
Chinook salmon in May and June. Few largemouth bass were collected; however, we did
document a largemouth bass that had consumed a Chinook salmon in June. We estimated a total
of 1,400 Chinook salmon fry were consumed by littoral predators from February to mid May.....
Based on consumption estimates and expected abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon, predatory
fishes probably consumed less than 10% of the fry that entered the lake from the Cedar River.
The investigators in this study did not comment on the impacts of overwater structures on the predation
rate found in south Lake Washington.
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects
Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not
otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions
that could affect species regulated under ESA will occur because of this project.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 13
D. Take Analysis
"Take" is defined as, "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to
engage in any such conduct.” The USFWS further defines “harm” as “significant habitat modification or
degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns
such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” It is likely that no “take” will result from this project.
E. Conservation Measures
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by this project, inwater work should
take place between July 16 and December 31. It is requested that overwater work be allowed to take place
outside of this work window. Additional impact reduction and mitigation measures will reduce adverse
impacts of the project. They include:
1. The main dock section is 30’ long and 3’-11” wide then 110’ long and 5’-11” and fully grated.
2. Only 6” diameter steel pilings will be used to support the dock to minimize migration obstacles for
young salmonids that prefer the more shallow areas.
3. The construction barge will not be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime.
4. A slit fence will be installed during shoreline stabilization construction to minimize sedimentation
impacts.
5. Native vegetation will be planted along the project site shoreline (See the attached Planting Plan).
6. Fifty cubic yards of 2” minus spawning gravel will be spread as seen in Figure 4. One and one half
inch spawning gravel may be substituted if 2” minus is not obtainable.
7. Debris and old bulkhead material will be removed from the shoreline.
8. A cove beach area will be constructed in front of the replacement shoreline stabilization.
Siltation Management: Several methods are suggested to prevent siltation in the Washington State
Department of Ecology's STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND
BASIN, often termed "the Technical Manual". (WDOE 2012).
The following precautions for siltation prevention during construction processes are
suggested in Volume II “Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention” in the
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. These Best Management
Practices (BMPs) are as follows:
BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation
BMP C102: Buffer Zones
BMP C103: High Visibility Fence
BMP C105: Stabilized Construction Entrance / Exit
BMP C106: Wheel Wash
BMP C107: Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 14
BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding
BMP C121: Mulching
BMP C122: Nets and Blankets
BMP C123: Plastic Covering
BMP C124: Sodding
BMP C125: Topsoiling / Composting
BMP C126: Polyacrylamide (PAM) for Soil Erosion Protection
BMP C130: Surface Roughening
BMP C131: Gradient Terraces
BMP C140: Dust Control
BMP C150: Materials on Hand
BMP C151: Concrete Handling
BMP C152: Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention
BMP C153: Material Delivery, Storage and Containment
BMP C154: Concrete Washout Area
BMP C160: Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead
BMP C162: Scheduling
Please refer to Volume II “Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention” in the Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington for BMP details.
F. Determination of Effect
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the effect determinations for the impacts of the project,
as designed, are:
1. Puget Sound chinook – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
2. Bull trout – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
3. Puget Sound steelhead – "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
4. Marbled murrelet – “No effect”
This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be
beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting construction work to the approved work window will
reduce direct impacts on the listed species. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be
minimized by the conservation measures discussed above.
G. Net-Loss Determination
All measures have been taken to avoid and minimize potential impacts resulting from the proposed
project through conservation measures above. In consideration of the unlikely impact to ESA species as
well as the proposed shoreline mitigation planting suggested below to enhance the habitat, we determine
that no net-loss of ecological function will result from this project’s unavoidable impacts due to its’ water
dependent use. Additionally we believe that this project reflects the goal of the Shoreline Master Program
by balancing access to the environment with the preservation of that environment.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 15
IV. SHORELINE MITIGATION PLAN
A. Mitigation
Mitigation is required for this site as the proposed work will be conducted on a shoreline of Lake
Washington. It is meant to provide compensation for unavoidable impact that may occur as a result of
this project as well as to restore and enhance the shoreline where a failing bulkhead currently exists. This
plan includes the removal of all invasive species of plants, mainly Himalayan Blackberry along the top of
the existing bulkhead, and one English Holly tree in the lawn. Additionally, as a part of the reconstruction
of the shoreline stabilization, the existing bulkhead that is failing and all derelict trash and debris on this
shoreline will be removed for mitigation. A mitigation planting plan with native plant species has been
developed by the proponents’ landscaper (Shapiro Ryan Design) and this plan involves extensive planting
of trees, shrubs, and herbs. Please refer to Appendix A for the shoreline mitigation planting map and
plant list.
Plants should be installed in late fall or early spring following the construction work. During these times
plants are semi-dormant and soils are easier to work. Plants will be laid out by hand generally following
the spacing specified on the planting plan map (Appendix A). The plants will be installed by digging a one
to two foot hole, loosening the soil, placing plant in ground after loosening soil around root ball. The hole
must be deep enough to ensure that roots are straight, but not so deep as to bury plants too far above the
root collar. Once the plant is in place the hole will be backfilled and tamped lightly. Mulch should be
applied 3” deep around plants, being careful not to touch stem of plant.
No extraordinary measures are proposed at this time to protect the installed plants other than mulching,
weeding and watering. Substitutions might be necessary for species or individuals that cannot be found at
local nurseries. All plant substitutions will be approved by the project biologist prior to installation to
ensure their suitability for the site.
B. Performance Standards
Performance standards are measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives of the
mitigation project are being achieved. If the proposed benchmarks are not achieved by comparing the
surveys to the mitigation goals, then contingency plans will need to be implemented.
Performance Standard # 1 (survival rate): Immediately after planting, all plants will be counted and
documented. At the end of each growing season (late Aug- early Sept) plots will be visited and a count of
surviving plants will be documented. The percent survival for the plots will be calculated by dividing the
total number of plants after planting by the total number of surviving plants at the end of the season.
Photo stations for each replanting site will be determined and a photograph of each transplant location
will be taken on an annual basis. Individual plants that die must be replaced with native species in order
to meet the survival performance standards.
Performance Standard # 2 (percent cover): The percent cover standard will be monitored by looking at
each monitoring unit of the enhanced areas from above and estimating the area covered by the individual
species. The percent cover within an area can be quantified as a total greater than 100% because plants
(in tree, high/low shrub and herbaceous layers) overlap in cover.
Performance Standard #3 (invasive removal): All areas where invasive plants were removed will be
surveyed visually and categorized with photo stations. This is to ensure that 0% (none) of the targeted
Invasive species (Evergreen Blackberry and Iris) will be present and have not reestablished within each
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 16
monitoring year.
C. Monitoring Plan
An as-built drawing and report will be submitted as documentation of the implementation of the approved
planting plan within one month of installation. The plan will include vegetation description and photo
documentation from established photo stations. A panoramic photo of the entire mitigation site will also
be provided. Photos should be taken June - August, during the growing season. Monitoring will take
place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season (late August or early September) of
each monitoring year. The performance standards will be monitored by measuring plots in zones within
the planting area that will be established and mapped after planting occurs, on the as-built plan. There
will be photo points for each plot and they will be referenced on the as-built plan. Each year, the photo
points that are established at each site, will be used for comparison. Photos will be taken at all points for
all years as visual documentation of the performance standards progress, or lack of. In addition to photos
at designated points, photo documentation must include a panoramic view of the entire planting area.
Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8 1/2 by 11 paper, dated with the date the photo was
taken, and clearly labeled with the direction from which the photo was taken. The photo location points
must be identified on an appropriate drawing. Collected data and photos will be compiled into an annual
Riparian Planting report each year and submitted by November 30 of each monitoring year for five years.
Each annual monitoring report shall include written and photographic documentation on plant mortality
and replanting efforts and must document whether the performance standards are being met. Monitoring
results will determine whether or not contingency measures will be needed.
Performance Standards #1 & 2
Year 1: Achieve 100% survival success of replanted natives into mitigation areas
Year 2: Achieve 100% survival success at end of second year into mitigation areas
Year 3: Achieve 80% survival success at end of third year into mitigation areas
Year 4: Achieve 80% survival success at end of fourth year into mitigation areas
Year 5: Achieve 80% survival success at end of fifth year into mitigation areas
Performance Standard #3
Year 1: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 2: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 3: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 4: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 5: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 17
D. Maintenance and Contingency
Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the survival of all native
species within the mitigation area, including volunteer natives. Watering by hand or sprinkler may be
necessary during year number one until the plants are established. Water requirements will depend on the
timing of planting with the seasons and weather conditions. Once plants are established, extra watering
may not be necessary. Hand weeding will be necessary around all plants that are being monitored for
survival and coverage. If the required survival rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, plants
lost to mortality will be replaced to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above.
Prior to replacement, an appropriate assessment will be performed to determine if the survival was
affected by species/site selection, animal damage, or some other factor. Subsequent contingency actions
must be designed to respond directly to the stressor(s), which are increasing mortality of planted native
species. If a particular species is shown not to endure site conditions then another, more appropriate
species will be selected. If excessive damage is observed, protective measures will be introduced.
Monitoring years may be added if significant re-planting becomes necessary. Monitoring on an annual
basis for five years will occur with photographs to determine the survival rate of the transplanted area. If
100% success is achieved before reaching the five-year mark, monitoring will continue without extra
replanting efforts. Within the five year time period, transplanting will occur on an annual basis to replace
any plants that are lost until 100% success is achieved.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 18
REFERENCES
Celedonia, M. T., Roger A. Tabor, Scott Sanders, Daniel W. Lantz, and Ian Grettenberger.
2008.Movement and habitat use of chinook salmon smolts and two predatory fishes in Lake
Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. 2004-2005 acoustic tracking studies. Final report
to Seattle Public Utilities.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 56 / March 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.
Feist, Blake E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. FRI-UW-9603,
Fish. Res. Inst., UW, Seattle, WA.
Fresh, K.L, E. Warner, R. Tabor, and D. Houck. 2000. Migratory behavior of adult Chinook salmon
spawning in the Lake Washington watershed in 1998 and 1999 as determined with ultrasonic
telemetry. Extended abstract and presentation prepared for the Washington Chinook Salmon
Workshop, November.
Fresh, K. L., D. Rothaus, K. W. Mueller and C. Mueller. 2001. Habitat utilization by predators, with
emphasis on smallmouth bass, in the littoral zone of Lake Washington (draft). WDFW.
Hammer, Misty, King County Road Services Division. 2011. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project.
Biological Evaluation Report for: Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout as protected under the
Endangered Species Act. May Creek, King County, Washington State. Prepared for: King County
Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 201 South Jackson
Street Ste 600,Seattle, WA 98104-3856.
Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 - 341. In: V.S.
Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Kahler, T., M. Grassley and David Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, pier and
other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. City of
Bellevue.
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish
Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA.
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 19
Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-
NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington
State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp.
Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington
State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp.
Rienman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull
Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 pp.
SCoRE. WDFW Salmon Conservation Report Engine.
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/population_details.jsp?stockId=6156
Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal
estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S.
Kennedy, (ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop
proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.
Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on
juvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowledge.
Report to WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903, Task A2, 116 pp. + appendices.
Synthesis of salmon research and monitoring. Investigations conducted in the Western Lake Washington
Basin. December 31, 2008. Seattle Public Utilities and the Army Corps of Engineers. Contributors:
Mike Cooksey Peter N. Johnson , Paul DeVries, Michele Koehler, Charles J. Ebel, Lynne Melder,
Frederick A. Goetz, Jim Muck, Julie Hall Eva Weaver
Tabor, R. A. and Richard M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook salmon in
lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102,
Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low, B. Footen and L. Park. 2004.
Predation of juvenile chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington
Basin. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Northwest Fisheries Science
Center.
Tabor, R. A. Howard A. Gearns, Charles M. McCoy III1, and Sergio Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat
use by juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2003
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 20
and 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries
Division. 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor, Roger A., Kurt L. Fresh, Richard M. Piaskowski, Howard A. Gearns & Daniel B. Hayes (2011):
Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Nearshore Areas of Lake Washington: Effects of
Depth, Lakeshore Development, Substrate, and Vegetation, North American Journal of Fisheries
Management, 31:4, 700-713
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus
marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI).
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft.
Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, WA.
Williams, G. D., R. M. Thom, D. K. Shreffler, J. A. Southard, L. K. O’Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V. I.
Cullinan, R. Moursund, and M. Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure - Related Predation Risk on
Juvenile Salmon: Field Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the
Washington State Department of Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S.
Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 21
FIGURES
Figure 1. Existing site plan
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 22
Figure 2. Proposed site plan
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 23
Figure 3. Shoreline plan view
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 24
Figure 4. Proposed beach mitigation
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 25
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Photographs of the site
Arrow indicates the project site.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 26
Looking south at the failing bulkhead and debris that will be removed as mitigation
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 27
Looking north along the failing bulkhead
Photo showing debris that will be removed and replaced with a cove beach and spawning gravel.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 28
Looking north at debris and failed bulkhead along site shoreline
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 29
More debris that will be removed as part of the mitigation measures.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 30
Attachment 2. U. S. Fish and Wildlife species list in the project vicinity
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 31
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 32
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 33
Attachment 3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS
on activities that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the relevant species.
According to the MSA, EFH means “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity.” For the Pacific West Coast, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council
(Council) has designated EFH for federally managed groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC
1998b) and Pacific salmon fisheries (PFMC 1999).
The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for
the relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize or otherwise offset
adverse effects on EFH.
B. Identification of EFH
The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean
high water line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington,
Oregon and California, seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) (PFMC
1998a, 1998b). The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for Pacific salmon species extends
from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent
of the exclusive economic zone (370 .4 km) offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of
Point Conception to the Canadian border PFMC, 1999).
Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other water
bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California,
except areas upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally-impassable
barriers.
Chinook salmon and coho salmon are the species with designated EFH that are found in Lake
Washington
C. Proposed Action
The details of the proposed project are seen above.
D. Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in
the Effects Analysis section of the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report. The project is likely to
have no permanent, long-term effects EFH designated for chinook and coho salmon.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 34
E. EFH Conservation Measures
The conservation measures mentioned in the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report will be
implemented to minimize possible adverse effects to EFH.
F. Conclusion
The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH the salmon species, but will not produce long-
term adverse effects on EFH for the above species. The construction of the cove beach and the addition of
spawning gravel will have positive impact on EFH.
G. Additional References
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan.
Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and
Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999).
PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998).
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 35
Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook
Project description: Construction of a new dock and replacement bulkhead on Lake Washington in
Renton,
This assessment covers the primary constituent elements (50 CFR Part 226, page 74581-2) determined
essential to the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha):
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting
spawning, incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: There are no suitable freshwater spawning sites at the project location.
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain
physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting
juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams
and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Material from the failing bulkhead and creosote-treated drift logs are scattered
along the site shoreline. This material will be removed as mitigation for the proposed project. In addition,
native vegetation will be planted along the shoreline.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and
natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and
boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover such as
submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels,
and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and
maturation.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as
submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 36
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater area.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and
fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater lake area.
Effects Analysis: A complete discussion of the effects of this project is seen in the BE/Lake and Stream
Study Report. Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity, which will be contained
by a silt curtain. The project will have no long-term impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions or
water temperature. Construction during work windows will prevent impacts to the listed fish species.
Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be reduced by design components of the proposed
project. The entire dock will be fully grated. Native vegetation will be planted along the shoreline. A
cove will be constructed and spread with spawning gravel.
Determination of Effect: “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 37
Attachment 5.
Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound Bull Trout
Applicant: Paul Joos
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus) are:
(1) Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with
temperatures from 32 to 72 F (0 to 22 C) but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from
36 to 59 F (2 to 15 C). These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage
and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian
habitat, and local groundwater influence. Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically
excluded from designation.
Existing Conditions: The project will take place in Lake Washington, a large body of fresh water.
Effects to PCE: The project is not expected to have any influence on the water temperature of Lake
Washington.
(2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut
banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in stream structures.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington - not in a stream environment
Effects to PCE: No effect
(3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter
survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal
amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter.
Existing Conditions: No spawning activity at the site
Effects to PCE: No effect
(4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if
regulated, currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout, or a hydrograph that
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 38
demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations
and minimizing departures from the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation:
This rule finds that reservoirs currently operating under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout
provides management for PCEs as currently operated.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington
Effects to PCE: The project does not involve any alteration in the lake level; therefore it will have no
impact on this PCE.
(5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity
as a cold-water source.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: This project will have no impact on springs, seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface
water
(6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between
spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers
induced by high water temperatures or low flows.
Existing Conditions: The shoreline is littered with material from the failing bulkhead and drift creosote-
treated logs
Effects to PCE: The proposed dock will incorporate design components that will decrease negative
impacts on foraging habitat and migratory corridors. The proposed dock will be fully grated. A cove will
be constructed and spawning gravel spread along the shoreline. The debris currently along the shoreline
will be removed.
(7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates,
and forage fish.
Existing Conditions: See 6 above
Effects to PCE: See 6 above
(8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and survival
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MS&A Joos New Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project• 39
are not inhibited.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above.
Effects to PCE: Pile driving may produce temporary turbidity impacts. These are expected to be short
term and are not expected to have a significant impact on critical habitat. Any debris associated with the
project construction phase will be contained by a silt containment curtain.
The replacement bulkhead will be located immediately landward of the failing bulkhead.
Determination of Effect: “No destruction or adverse modification”
Conservation Measures: Conservation measures for this project are seen in the BE/Lake and Stream
Study Report.
APPENDIX A: Shoreline Mitigation Planting Map and Plant List
I LaHoscatr February 25,2016
DISIGN Joos Residence
/3r5 w.cRttN IAKE DR N 2909 MOUntain VieWAVe N
Renton. WA 98056SEATTLE, WA 98I O3
PH 206/781 /i157 Shoreline Mitigation Plan
tAx 206/5251tg0,
-
Trees:
SHAPIRO
RYAN
DESIGN
Quantity Size Botanical Name Common Name
3 5'-6' Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry
3 1.5" caliper Betula jacquemonti Birch
Shrubs:
Quantity Size Botanical Name Common Name
183 #1@2'oc Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnickinnick
10 #5 Cornus sanguinea 'Midwinter Fire' Bloodtwig Dogwood
30 #1@2'oc Mahonia nervosa Oregon Grape
' 16 #5 Hydrangea quercifolia 'Pee Wee' Dwarf Oakleaf Hydrangea
7 #2 Spiraea densifolia Subalpine Spiraea
3 #5 Ribes sanguineum Red Flowering Currant
12 #1 Scripus microcarpus Small Fruited Bulrush
7 #1 Juncus ensifolius Daggerleaf Rush
Herbaceous:
Quantity Size Botanical Name Common Name
7 #1 lris tenax lris
2 4" flats Sedum spalhifolum Stonecrop
2 4" flats Sedum oreganum Stonecrop