HomeMy WebLinkAboutBiological Evaluation - Habitat Data ReportBIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
Southport Bulkhead Repair and
Shoreline Float Project - Renton, WA
Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
Prepared on behalf of: Greg Krape, SECO Development, Inc.
June 2016
THE
WATERSHED
COMPANY
B I O L O G I C A L E V A L U A T I O N
for Sensitive Fish and Wildlife Species at
the Southport Bulkhead Repair and
Shoreline Float Project on Lake
Washington, Renton, King County, WA:
NWS-2016-___
Prepared for:
U. S Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District – Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Prepared on behalf of:
Greg Krape
SECO Development, Inc.
1083 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Suite 50
Renton, WA 98056
Prepared by:
June 2016
The Watershed Company Reference Number:
150809
The Watershed Company Contact Person:
Sarah Sandstrom
i
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Page #
1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1
2 Description of Proposed Action ........................................................ 1
2.1 Location ........................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Project Description ......................................................................................... 3
2.3 Construction Sequence .................................................................................. 4
2.4 Minimization Measures ................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Timing Restriction ............................................................................................. 6
2.4.2 Construction Measures ..................................................................................... 6
2.4.3 Overwater shading ............................................................................................ 6
2.4.4 Removal of predator habitat ............................................................................. 7
2.5 Action Area ...................................................................................................... 7
3 Listed Species ..................................................................................... 8
4 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 10
Species Information and Site Use ......................................................... 13
4.1 Chinook Salmon ............................................................................................ 13
4.2 Bull Trout ....................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Steelhead ....................................................................................................... 16
5 Effects of the Action ......................................................................... 17
5.1 Direct Effects on Salmonids ......................................................................... 17
5.1.1 Noise ................................................................................................................. 17
5.1.2 Water Quality (substrate disturbance and discharge of waste products) . 18
5.1.3 Habitat ............................................................................................................... 19
5.1.4 Lighting ............................................................................................................. 20
5.1.5 Direct Mortality ................................................................................................. 20
5.2 Indirect Effects on Salmonids ...................................................................... 20
5.2.1 Water Quality .................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Effects to Critical Habitat .............................................................................. 21
5.3.1 Chinook Salmon .............................................................................................. 21
5.3.2 Bull Trout .......................................................................................................... 22
5.3.3 Steelhead .......................................................................................................... 24
5.4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 24
6 Determination of Effect .................................................................... 25
6.1 Chinook Salmon ............................................................................................ 25
6.2 Bull Trout ....................................................................................................... 26
6.3 Steelhead ....................................................................................................... 26
6.4 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................... 27
6.4.1 Chinook Salmon .............................................................................................. 27
ii
6.4.2 Bull Trout .......................................................................................................... 27
6.5 Effect Determinations Summary .................................................................. 28
7 Essential Fish Habitat ...................................................................... 28
7.1 Project Description ....................................................................................... 29
7.2 EFH Conservation Measures ........................................................................ 29
7.3 Species Description and Site Use ................................................................ 30
7.3.1 Chinook Salmon .............................................................................................. 30
7.3.2 Coho Salmon .................................................................................................... 30
7.4 Effects of the Project .................................................................................... 31
References ............................................................................................... 32
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B Structural Observation Report
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map from King County iMAP (Electronic reference) ..................... 2
Figure 2. Aerial view of proposed project parcels (outlined in yellow) from City of
Renton COR Maps (Electronic reference). .............................................. 2
Figure 3. General depiction of project action area (yellow), with area of potential
airborne noise (0.8-mile radius) in red (Google Earth). The aquatic action
area extends approximately 33 feet from project operations. ................... 8
Figure 4. Looking northeast near the center of the bulkhead. Note the existing
bulkhead, piles, waler, and sheet piles to be removed/repaired. ............. 12
Figure 5. Looking southwest from the pier in the northeast corner. Note the existing
bulkhead, piles, and waler to be removed/repaired. ............................... 13
Figure 6. Detail of timber waler, pile, timber spacer, sheet pile and anchor. Note the
rotted condition of the timber sheet pile closest to the concrete bulkhead.
............................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7. Relationship (logarithmic function) between the mean juvenile Chinook
salmon density and the shoreline distance (km) to the mouth of the Cedar
River in south Lake Washington, 2003. .................................................. 15
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1. Applicable work window. .......................................................................... 6
Table 2. Listed species that may use the project area (NMFS/USFWS as of May
27, 2016). ................................................................................................. 9
Table 3. Assessment of primary constituent elements for Chinook salmon. ......... 22
Table 4. Assessment of primary constituent elements for bull trout. ..................... 23
Table 5. Determination of Effect. .......................................................................... 28
1
B I O L O G I C A L E V A L U A T I O N
SECTION 7, E NDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Applicant: SECO Development
Corps Reference #: NWS-2016-___
1 INTRODUCTION
The applicant proposes to repair a degraded bulkhead and install two separate
floats adjacent to a new development on Lake Washington. This Biological
Evaluation is prepared to facilitate Section 7 consultation requirements between
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the National Marine Fisheries Service
and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Location
The proposed project is located on the southeastern shoreline of Lake
Washington, in Renton. The property is located at 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N,
Renton, Washington 98055 (SW ¼ of Section 05, Township 23 North, Range 5
East; 47.503467 N Latitude, -122.205303 W Longitude; Figures 1 & 2). Tax parcel
numbers: 052305-9075 and 052305-9076. The project area falls within the Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Water Resource Management Area (WRIA 8).
2
Figure 1. Vicinity map from King County iMAP (Electronic reference)
Figure 2. Aerial view of proposed project parcels (outlined in yellow) from City of
Renton COR Maps (Electronic reference).
Project Location
3
2.2 Project Description
The Southport development includes the Bristol I and II apartment buildings
(completed), a hotel (under construction), and a 3-building office and parking
garage complex (soon to be under construction). To support the Southport
development and the public pedestrian easement, SECO Development proposes
the following shoreline modifications:
repair the existing bulkhead
install two new floats
install a pump-out facility along the existing wharf
remove up to 87 derelict piles
remove 2 dolphins (total of 14 piles)
remove 1 finger pier (5 feet wide by 17 feet long)
remove 10-foot-wide by 14-foot-long ell end dock
Construction activities are expected to take approximately 45 days.
Bulkhead Repair
Engineers from CG Engineering evaluated the structural integrity of the existing
bulkhead and determined that repair was required to maintain the structural
integrity (CG Engineering 2016). Bulkhead repair is proposed to ensure the
structural stability of the bulkhead, as well as safety of waterfront users. Repair
will consist of the following, as shown in project plans (Appendix A):
The outermost row of rounded timber piles (approximately 20)
supporting the bulkhead will be removed.
The inner row of rounded timber piles supporting the bulkhead will be
cut below the low water line and fitted with a steel sleeve. In some areas,
piles are missing in this inner row of rounded timber piles. Where
missing piles are encountered, new 8”-diameter steel piles will be
driven.
A new timber waler will be added to the waterward side of the steel
sleeved pile. Existing anchors will be reconnected or replaced, as
needed.
The inner timber sheet pile will be cut below the low water line. A steel
plate will be driven along the waterward edge of the timber sheet pile
and bolted to the remaining portion of the timber sheet pile.
The area behind the steel plate will be filled with concrete.
4
The outer steel-sleeved pile and steel plate will extend vertically above
the high water mark and will support a new grated apron. The apron
will be flush with the adjacent sidewalk and will cover remaining
exposed bulkhead components.
Floats
In addition to the bulkhead repair activities, two separate floats will be installed
along the shoreline. The floats will provide watercraft access to the Southport
facilities, as well as recreational opportunities for the hotel users, apartment
owners, and public.
The first float will be located in the western portion of the waterfront, halfway
between the existing timber wharves. This float will extend approximately 80.5-
feet from the face of the bulkhead. A 4-foot-9-inch wide by 30-foot ramp will lead
to a 50-foot-long by 8-foot-wide float. Together, the ramp and float will total
approximately 530 square feet. Both the ramp and the float will be fully grated.
No piles are proposed for the float, rather a total of four anchors will be installed
to secure the float.
Along the eastern portion of the shoreline area, a second float will be
constructed. This float will include a ramp that extends from the existing
bulkhead just east of the eastern existing wood-plank platform. The fully grated
ramp will measure 48-feet-long by 4-feet 9-inches-wide. The ramp will lead to a
series of fully grated floats that will extend up to 154 feet from shore. Two
separate ells, each approximately 81-feet-long will extend toward the west. All
floats will be 8-feet-wide. The entire float system will total approximately 2,500
square feet. As with the western float, no piles are proposed, rather 10 anchors
will be installed to secure the float system.
Pump-out Facility
A pump-out facility is proposed on the existing western wharf. The facility will
include connection to a sewer line under the wharf. The sewer line will
ultimately connect to a lift station located between the apartment buildings and
hotel.
2.3 Construction Sequence
Construction activities will occur in the following sequence:
Mobilization and existing pile, dolphin, and finger removal
1. Mobilize crew, crane barge, supply and debris barges, and materials on site.
Make sure that the barge doesn’t come in contact with the lake bottom.
5
2. Remove the existing dock finger structures consisting of the decking, timbers
and piles, and place on the debris barge for disposal. All piles will be
removed using vibratory extraction methods, or where piles are too
decomposed for vibratory extraction, they will be cut two feet below the
mudline and covered.
3. Remove the existing dolphins consisting of multiple piles.
4. Remove existing derelict piles near the bulkhead as depicted on the plans.
5. Tow the debris barge to the yard and dispose in an approved upland waste
location.
Bulkhead repair
1. Remove the outer row of piles associated with the bulkhead.
2. Cut the innermost row of rounded timber piles below the low water mark.
3. Drive steel plates along the waterward edge of the existing inner timber sheet
pile. Secure the steel plate to the timber sheet pile with bolts.
4. Fill the void behind the steel plate with concrete.
5. Sleeve the innermost row of rounded timber piles with a steel sleeve. Drive
new 8-inch-diameter steel piles, as necessary, in areas void of existing inner
row of rounded timber piles.
6. Replace the waler on the waterward side of the sleeved pile. Existing anchor
systems to be reconnected or replaced, as needed.
7. Install fully grated apron on top of sleeved pile and attach to improved
promenade/walkway surface.
Float installation
1. Install fixed ramp connections to existing bulkhead.
2. Secure fully grated floats to ramps.
3. Install helical anchoring systems as directed by the plans.
Pump-Out Facility
1. Install peristaltic pump at proposed pump-out facility on existing western
wharf.
2. Install 3” HDPE sewer line under wharf, as well as from the wharf to lift
station located between the apartment buildings and hotel. The pipe parallel
to the shore will be buried landward from the bulkhead.
6
2.4 Minimization Measures
The following measures will ensure that any disturbance to sensitive fish and
wildlife species utilizing the action area will be minimized.
2.4.1 Timing Restriction
No in-water work will occur from January 1st through July 15th and August 1st
through November 15th, per the protection policies of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Chinook salmon (O.
tshawytscha). The area is not mapped nor expected to support sockeye salmon (O.
nerka) spawning, so no additional timing restrictions are anticipated.
The combined fish and wildlife timing restrictions are depicted graphically in
Table 1. The applicant would comply with any amendments made to the timing
restrictions following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), NMFS, USFWS,
and WDFW review.
Table 1. Applicable work window.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Federal &
State fish
protection
No in-water work No in-water work
2.4.2 Construction Measures
Several conservation measures will be employed during construction to
minimize potential effects on sensitive fish species.
New pilings and the steel plates will be installed using a vibratory driver
to limit noise impacts during construction.
All in-water work will be staged from a barge.
The barge will not be allowed to ground.
A containment boom will surround each work area to ensure that all
removed components that enter the lake will be captured, loaded onto the
debris barge, and disposed in an approved upland disposal site.
2.4.3 Overwater shading
The proposed floats will be fully grated, and the size of flotation material has
been minimized to allow light penetration. No piles are proposed as part of the
two floats; the floats will be attached to small helical anchors.
7
2.4.4 Removal of predator habitat
A total of 310 square feet of fingers/ells will be removed from the site. In
addition, two dolphins, consisting of 14 total piles will be removed. Individual
creosote-treated piles, totaling approximately 87, will also be removed. These
actions will reduce the area of habitat conditions known to support predators of
juvenile salmonids.
2.5 Action Area
“Action area” is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the
proposed action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” The
aquatic action area is based on the distance for aquatic noise to attenuate to
background conditions. Disturbance effects of this project on Chinook salmon,
bull trout and steelhead would be realized within 33 feet of project operations
based on a practical spreading loss equation from vibratory pile driving of 8 and
10-inch diameter steel piles (see Section 6.1 for further explanation). Airborne
noise from construction is expected to attenuate to background levels within a
0.8-mile radius of the pier. This distance was calculated with the practical
spreading loss equation (WSDOT 2014), using inputs based on estimated noise
levels for a vibratory pile driver at 94 dB, based on pile size, at 50 feet from the
source and ambient noise of 55 dB measured 50 feet from the source. No other
areas would be affected directly or indirectly. The project action area is displayed
in Figure 3.
8
Figure 3. General depiction of project action area (yellow), with area of potential
airborne noise (0.8-mile radius) in red (Google Earth). The aquatic action
area extends approximately 33 feet from project operations.
3 LISTED SPECIES
The action area is located within the geographic range of three federally listed
species of salmonids: 1) Chinook salmon of the Puget Sound Evolutionary
Significant Unit (ESU) (Reaffirmed as Threatened, U.S. Federal Register, 28 June
2005), 2) bull trout of the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) (Threatened, U.S. Federal Register, 1 November 1999), and 3) steelhead of
the Puget Sound DPS (Threatened, U.S. Federal Register, 11 May 2007). Coho
salmon of the Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia ESU are also present in the
watershed and are currently considered a Species of Concern (U.S. Federal
Register, 15 April 2004), indicating that they are under less active consideration
for formal listing. An ESU of Pacific salmon is considered to be a DPS and thus a
“species” under the Endangered Species Act. All of these species may be present
in the action area during a portion of their life cycle (Table 2).
9
The project area is also located within critical habitat that has been formally
designated for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Coastal-Puget Sound bull
trout. Critical habitat for Chinook salmon includes the Lake Washington
Subbasin (Watershed Code 17110012-03) of the Puget Sound ESU (U.S. Federal
Register, 2 September 2005), and critical habitat for bull trout of the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS includes Lake Washington, which is in Critical Habitat Unit 28
– Puget Sound (U.S. Federal Register, 26 September 2005). Critical habitat for
steelhead excludes Lake Washington (U.S. Federal Register, 24 February 2016).
Table 2. Listed species that may use the project area (NMFS/USFWS as of May 27,
2016).
Species Federal Status ESU/DPS/Region Critical
Habitat
Chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Threatened, August 19991
Reaffirmed, June 20052 Puget Sound DPS Yes
Bull trout
Salvelinus confluentus Threatened, November 19993 Coastal-Puget
Sound DPS Yes
Steelhead
Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened, May 20074 Puget Sound DPS No
1Federal Register, 2 August 1999.
2Federal Register, 28 June 2005.
3Federal Register, 1 November 1999.
4Federal Register, 11 May 2007.
In addition to listed salmonids, the US Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the
following listed species as occurring in King County: Oregon spotted frog,
northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, yellow-billed cuckoo, Canada lynx,
gray wolf, grizzly bear, and golden paintbrush.
The Oregon spotted frog requires perennial bodies of water adjacent to
expansive meadow or wetland vegetation to complete their life cycle. The
aquatic action area does not contain suitable habitat; therefore, the project will
have no effect on Oregon spotted frog and this species will not be further
addressed in this document.
There are no mature coniferous forests located within or in the vicinity of the
action area that contain breeding or foraging habitat suitable for northern spotted
owls or marbled murrelets. Northern spotted owls do not normally nest outside
of mature, closed-canopy forests, which are not present in the action area, and
trees of preferred perching and roosting size are not available on the site.
Marbled murrelets inhabit mature, coniferous forests in dense coastal stands and
forage in marine nearshore areas, neither of which are present in the action area.
Yellow-billed cuckoos are extremely rare in Washington and are restricted to
willow and cottonwood forests along large rivers, which are not present in the
action area. Therefore, the project will have no effect on northern spotted owl,
marbled murrelet, or yellow-billed cuckoo or their designated critical habitats
and these species will not be further addressed in this document.
10
Grey wolf, Canada lynx, and grizzly bear suitable habitat may occur in eastern
King County, but not in the urban and suburban areas of western King County.
Therefore, the project will have no effect on grey wolf, Canada lynx, or grizzly
bear and these species will not be further addressed in this document.
The action area does not contain suitable prairie conditions needed to support
golden paintbrush, and there is no historical record of golden paintbrush
occurring in the action area. Therefore, the project will have no effect on golden
paintbrush, and this species will not be further addressed in this document.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The baseline conditions that Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout presently
face in the Lake Washington watershed are described in the Endangered Species
Act Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake Washington, Lake
Sammamish, and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union (Corps et al. 2001); Salmon
and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for WRIA 8 (Kerwin 2001); and the
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan (WRIA 8 2005). This discussion describes the relevant site-
specific baseline conditions within the action area, in particular focusing on those
items that are different in condition from Lake Washington as a whole.
The Southport development is located in the former location of the Shuffleton
Steam Plant. The plant was demolished in 2001. The entire aquatic area of the
project area was historically dredged. A large intake and outfall structure for the
steam plant have been removed, and the locations of the historic structures now
house one outfall for treated stormwater from the SECO development, and one
large outfall for stormwater from the entire surrounding area. One 5-foot by 7-
foot finger pier and one 165-foot long log boom walkway were removed from the
site by the project applicant following decommissioning of the Shuffleton Plant.
Sarah Sandstrom of The Watershed Company conducted a site visit on October 6,
2015. At the time of the site visit, the lake level was approximately 19.7 feet
(Corps of Engineers 1919 datum) (Corps, electronic data). Lake levels in Lake
Washington reach an average maximum elevation of 21.80 feet in the summer
months. The following description of existing conditions is based upon
observations from the site visit and from materials supplied by the applicant.
The property features a bulkhead along the entire ~580 feet of shoreline. The
bulkhead consists of a combination of round and sheet timber piles, steel
tiebacks, and concrete ecology blocks. The timber portion of the bulkhead
consists of 8” x 12” timber sheet piles. A row of timber piles spaced
approximately at 8-feet on center are located directly waterward of the sheet
11
piles; although some of these piles are missing. The piles vary somewhat in size
but are generally 12” in diameter. A 10” x 10” timber waler runs along the
outside of the piles with tieback anchors spaced at approximately 15-feet on
center.
The top of the timber sheet piles and the round timber piles are located
approximately 30” below the adjacent grade (and slightly below the OHWM).
The sheet piles and rounded piles support a single row of 3-foot x 3-foot x 3-foot
ecology blocks with a 10” concrete cap on top. The row of ecology blocks bears
on the soil directly behind the sheet pile wall. The piles support the base of the
existing concrete ecology blocks, which support the subgrade for the waterfront
promenade. Waterward of the bulkhead are an additional approximately 87
piles, which do not presently serve a purpose.
In the eastern portion of the shoreline, there is a concrete outfall structure that is
used to discharge treated stormwater from the Southport site. This outfall was
formerly the intake structure for the steam plant. A 20-foot-wide by 34-foot-long
(measured parallel to the shoreline) wood-plank platform covers the concrete
outfall structure.
In the central portion of the shoreline, a wood-plank 20-foot-wide by 130-foot-
long (measured parallel to the shoreline) wharf structure is located directly
adjacent to and waterward from the bulkhead.
The western portion of the shoreline (associated with the office parcel) includes a
21-foot-wide by 204-foot-long wooden wharf, which covers what is now a
stormwater channel for upland areas other than the Southport site. The wharf is
situated perpendicular to the shoreline. Two dolphins, composed of 7 creosote-
treated piles each, are located adjacent to the wharf. The wharf also includes one
5-foot-wide by 17-foot-long finger pier and one 10-foot-wide by 14-foot-long ell.
Upland conditions adjacent to the waterfront are impervious pavement or semi-
pervious compacted gravel. There is very little existing vegetation; with the
exception of some non-native species present along the shoreline at the extreme
northeast corner of the project area. Existing depths along the bulkhead range
from 8 feet to 17 feet at high water.
The property also features a hotel composed of two 12-story buildings (under
construction), and a mixed-use apartment complex composed of four 5-story
buildings with a basement/parking. Three separate office buildings will also be
under construction shortly. A public pedestrian easement and an emergency
vehicle access easement occupy the space between the face of the bulkhead and
the apartment and hotel buildings. Immediately adjacent to the northeast of the
subject property is Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, a 57-acre lakeside park
12
owned and operated by the City of Renton. The park includes walking trails,
tennis courts, and playground and picnic areas. The property immediately
adjacent to the southwest of the subject property is owned by the Boeing
Company and is used to produce 737 jet airplanes. The western wharf will
become a public pedestrian easement if public access is provided waterward
from the adjacent Boeing property to the west.
Figure 4. Looking northeast near the center of the bulkhead. Note the existing
bulkhead, piles, waler, and sheet piles to be removed/repaired.
13
Figure 5. Looking southwest from the pier in the northeast corner. Note the existing
bulkhead, piles, and waler to be removed/repaired.
Figure 6. Detail of timber waler, pile, timber spacer, sheet pile and anchor. Note the
rotted condition of the timber sheet pile closest to the concrete bulkhead.
SPECIES INFORMATION AND SITE USE
Site-specific information about each species is presented below. General and
lake-specific life history information related to temperature, diet, and migration
is contained in the Federal Register listings (Table 2), the Endangered Species Act
Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake Washington, Lake
Sammamish, and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union (Corps et al. 2001), and the
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan (WRIA 8 2005).
All anadromous fish spawning in streams, rivers, and lakes in the Lake
Washington basin must travel through the Ballard Locks, Lake Union and the
Lake Washington ship canal on their way to and from Puget Sound and the
Pacific Ocean. Some of these salmonids may migrate along the Renton portion of
the Lake Washington shoreline.
4.1 Chinook Salmon
In the Lake Washington watershed, Chinook salmon are broken into two stocks:
1) the Cedar River, and 2) the Sammamish River (City of Seattle 2008). The
14
majority of summer/fall-run Chinook salmon migrate through the Lake
Washington ship canal to reach spawning habitat in either the Cedar or
Sammamish River systems, while a smaller proportion of Chinook salmon
spawn in other Lake Washington tributaries. The Lake Washington basin has
seen an average escapement of 1,214 returning Cedar Chinook salmon and 1,269
returning Sammamish Chinook salmon from 2004 to 2015 (WDFW SCORE
electronic reference).
Occasional beach spawning within Lake Washington has also been observed
(Hendry and Quinn 1997). Adults migrate into freshwater in late July through
early September and spawn in the tributaries to Lake Washington between
August and November (City of Seattle 2008). Typically, Chinook salmon travel
through the ship canal in two or fewer days at depths of approximately 20 feet
(City of Seattle 2008).
Graphs of trapping data indicate that juvenile Chinook salmon migrating from
the tributaries into Lake Washington exhibit two basic strategies: 1) direct
migration to the lake as fry without extended stream rearing; and 2) migration to
the lake as parr or smolts (average length 100 mm), following extended stream
rearing. Chinook fry begin entering Lake Washington around the first of the
year, peaking in February, while parr and smolts enter the lake from April
through July, peaking in late May (Tabor et al. 2006). Early in the period of lake
residency, Chinook salmon fry are typically found along the shorelines in waters
less than 1.6 feet deep (Tabor et al. 2006, 2011). Juveniles entering the lake as fry
rear until they emigrate as smolts beginning in April. The majority of the juvenile
Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington basin emigrate from the system via the
Lake Washington ship canal by mid-summer, peaking in June, and most of the
remaining juveniles have left by September. However, some juveniles exhibit
extended rearing in the Lake Washington basin (emigrating as 2-year olds), while
a small fraction have been observed to residualize in the lake.
The project site is located near the southern end of the lake, approximately 0.8
km east-northeast from the mouth of the Cedar River. Most naturally produced
Chinook salmon juveniles in Lake Washington originate in the Cedar River, and
a smaller number of juveniles originate in Bear Creek, a tributary to the
Sammamish River (Celedonia et al. 2008). Past studies of juvenile Chinook
salmon in Lake Washington indicate that juvenile Chinook salmon were
concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington from February to May and the
density of Chinook salmon fry using lake shorelines in the spring decreases
logarithmically with increasing distance from the mouth of the Cedar River
(Figure 7, Tabor et al. 2006).
Despite the proximity of the project area to the mouth of the Cedar River, the
project area is within a previously dredged basin, and depths (8-17 feet adjacent
to the bulkhead at high water) are much greater than those preferred by Chinook
15
salmon fry. Shallow water depths occur to the east of the project area, adjacent to
Bird Island and Gene Coulon Park. Therefore, Chinook salmon fry may be
expected to migrate past the project area, but would not be expected to occur in
significant densities within the proposed aquatic action area.
Figure 7. Relationship (logarithmic function) between the mean juvenile Chinook
salmon density and the shoreline distance (km) to the mouth of the Cedar
River in south Lake Washington, 2003.
From Tabor et al. 2006. West shoreline=o, east shoreline=, and Mercer Island=x.
In conclusion, juvenile Chinook salmon may migrate past the action area from
January through September. However, based on the existing depths in the action
area, it is unlikely that significant numbers of Chinook salmon fry rear in the
area. Chinook salmon parr and smolts may occur in the area later in the spring.
Adult Chinook salmon may pass through the action area from June through
September, but would not be expected in the nearshore area where pier
construction work would occur.
16
4.2 Bull Trout
Native char are not commonly observed within Lake Washington. Bull trout are
observed at the Ballard Locks every year with numbers observed or caught
varying from three to nine fish per year (F. Goetz, pers. comm., 14 May 2004).
Bull trout entering and exiting the ship canal would likely occur between
February and June, with those fish coming from North Puget Sound tributaries.
They are observed/caught at the Locks between May and July (note: little or no
monitoring occurs at the Locks from February through April, so data are not
available for that period). In 2003, two bull trout were observed entering the ship
canal in June (F. Goetz, pers. comm., 14 May 2004). In Lake Washington, bull
trout have been captured during winter and spring, typically in the south Lake
Washington/Cedar River area.
Little is known about bull trout distribution or habitat use within Lake
Washington, and any current projections are generally based on extrapolation of
similar information from other bull trout populations. Bull trout would not be
expected within the littoral zone when nearshore temperatures exceed 15˚C
(generally, from May through mid-October). Juvenile bull trout remain in
headwater streams until the onset of piscivory, at a body length of approximately
300 mm, at which point they migrate as subadults in search of improved
foraging opportunities. Subadult bull trout often migrate with adults to
headwater streams during the summer and fall, and return to larger rivers to
overwinter. Bull trout may be attracted to spawning aggregations of prey fish.
Many native char in populations from north Puget Sound exhibit anadromy,
migrating to marine waters in late winter (F. Goetz, pers. comm., 14 May 2004).
In conclusion, the expected presence of juvenile bull trout in Lake Washington
near the project area is very limited to unlikely. Adult and subadult bull trout
would avoid the littoral zone during the summer due to excessive temperatures
and are not expected to use the nearshore areas where pier construction activities
for the proposed project would occur.
4.3 Steelhead
Steelhead are currently present in the watershed. The Cedar River and South
Lake Washington Winter steelhead are identified as a discrete stock within the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS. These steelhead are characterized as a native stock
with wild production. Historic steelhead escapement for the Lake Washington
basin was estimated at 1,816 in 1986 and has steadily declined since that time. In
2002 their stock status was adjusted downward from “depressed” to “critical”
due to chronically low escapements and severe short-term declines in
escapement in 2000 and 2001. The Cedar River saw an average escapement of 11
returning steelhead from 2004 to 2015, with zero fish returning in 2009, 2012, and
2014 (WDFW SCORE electronic reference).
17
Steelhead are documented to have spawned historically in many Lake
Washington and Lake Sammamish tributaries. Adult steelhead may pass
through the ship canal from February through June (City of Seattle 2008). The
steelhead spawning period in the Lake Washington basin currently extends from
March to September (City of Seattle 2008), with most adult fish in the run
typically returning to the Cedar River. Both anadromous (steelhead) and resident
(rainbow trout) life forms of O. mykiss (based on life history characteristics) are
likely present in the Lake Washington basin.
Juveniles generally emigrate as smolts between April and June, after two years of
stream residence. However, the duration of freshwater rearing can range from
one to seven years before juveniles grow large enough (>170 mm) to undergo
smoltification. Steelhead exhibit a highly variable anadromous life history.
Steelhead in the Lake Washington basin are winter run fish, characteristic of
coastal streams. They enter freshwater from November to April and spawn
shortly thereafter (Busby et al. 1996). Summer surface temperatures in the Lake
Washington system often exceed the thermal preferences of most salmonids,
including steelhead.
In conclusion, juvenile steelhead may emigrate through Lake Washington
throughout the year, but would likely not rear in Lake Washington. Adult
steelhead would not be present in the action area until after the construction
period had ended.
5 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
The proposed project could potentially affect Chinook and coho salmon, bull
trout and steelhead in generally similar manners. Effects may often occur
through impacts to their forage species. Thus, unless otherwise noted, there will
be no distinction between listed salmonids in the following discussion.
5.1 Direct Effects on Salmonids
5.1.1 Noise
The removal of the existing piles and the driving of new piles as part of the
bulkhead repair activities will produce temporary noise and vibration resulting
from use of the barge, vibratory extractor/driver, and other construction
equipment. Underwater noise from vibratory extraction and driving of piles will
be greater than that of other construction equipment. Underwater noise
generated from the vibratory pile driving would be expected to be less than 150
dB RMS (CALTRANS 2007). This estimate is based on results from vibratory
driving of 12-inch steel piles in numerous marine projects throughout Northern
18
California. Actual underwater noise from vibratory driving of new 10” and 8”
steel piles would be expected to be even lower. Using a practical spreading loss
equation (WSDOT 2014), noise would be attenuated to a level below “effective
quiet” and the disturbance threshold for small fish (150 db) at a distance of
approximately 33 feet from the project area.
In conclusion, noise levels are not anticipated to cause direct injury to salmonids,
although fish present within 33 feet of the project activities could display an
avoidance response, which could force them away from preferred rearing areas.
In order to minimize the impacts on Chinook and coho salmon, bull trout, and
steelhead, the above timing restriction (no in-water construction from January 1st
through July 15th and August 1st through November 15th) would be followed.
This restriction is adequate to minimize the probability that those species would
be in the action area during construction. By constructing during the approved
work windows, noise impacts are rendered insignificant and discountable.
5.1.2 Water Quality (substrate disturbance and discharge of waste
products)
Pile and finger removal could produce temporary, localized sediment plumes
that would dissipate following cessation of activity. To minimize construction
impacts associated with increased turbidity and the potential for release of toxic
chemicals during construction, the following timing restrictions and conditions
are proposed:
No in-water construction activity will occur at a minimum from
January 1st through July 15th and August 1st through November 15th
for protection of fish.
A floating containment boom will be installed and maintained around
the work area for the duration of in-water work.
The contractor will stockpile any debris on the barge pending off-site
disposal.
No hazardous materials will be mixed or stored in or near the water.
No cleaning of materials will be performed in or near the water.
A Spill Prevention Plan has been developed and will be implemented.
In addition, a Spill Kit is maintained and secured on the barge at all
times.
The barge will not be allowed to ground.
All debris will be properly disposed of on land in such a manner that
they cannot enter into the waterway or cause water quality
degradation (Section 13, Rivers and Harbors Act).
Turbidity is generally considered an undesirable condition for salmonids, as
exposure to potentially contaminated or abrasive sediments suspended in the
water column is thought to result in lethal and sub-lethal effects (Newcombe and
19
MacDonald 1991). However, localized episodic turbidity events from an
individual construction activity would not represent a permanent sediment
source and would not produce conditions of chronic exposure necessary to
produce a direct detrimental effect on juvenile fishes (Newcombe and
MacDonald 1991).
Considering that the turbidity produced by any construction activity would be
localized and temporary, the most probable impact on juvenile salmonids would
be a behavior modification (avoidance response), rather than injury or reduction
in growth potential. An avoidance response could expose juvenile salmonids to
increased predation or force them away from preferred rearing areas.
The most effective strategy for minimizing or eliminating potential construction-
related impacts would be to restrict construction to periods when the presence of
Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, and bull trout is improbable. The
combined fish-protection prohibitions on in-water construction by NOAA
Fisheries, USFWS and WDFW result in an allowable in-water construction
window of July 16th through July 31st and November 16th through December 31st.
This window is adequate to minimize the probability that Chinook salmon,
steelhead, or bull trout would be in the action area during construction. Thus,
temporary water quality impacts associated with the proposed project are
discountable.
5.1.3 Habitat
Past studies in Lake Washington have found that juvenile Chinook salmon prefer
shallow water habitats with overhanging vegetation, with an approximately 4.5:1
ratio of fish using overhanging vegetation to fish occurring away from
overhanging vegetation (Tabor et al. 2004, 2006). Virtually no overhanging
vegetation is currently present in the project area.
During the period from mid-February to mid-April, juvenile Chinook salmon
rear along shorelines less than 1.6 feet in depth, and they are typically found
within 30 feet from the OHWM (Tabor et al. 2006). As noted above, at high
water, depths adjacent to the bulkhead range from 8 to 17 feet; therefore, the
project is not expected to affect shallow water rearing habitats.
Juvenile Chinook salmon display avoidance behavior of piers. Surface water
observations found that upon approaching a pier, juvenile Chinook salmon will
move into deeper water and either pass under or swim around the pier (Tabor et
al. 2006). Similarly, in acoustic tracking studies, Chinook smolts avoided areas
under overwater structures and changed course to move around such structures
(Celedonia et al. 2008). The change in light levels associated with piers and other
overwater structures may make it difficult for juvenile Chinook salmon to detect
predators (Tabor et al. 2006), and salmon predators like smallmouth bass are
often associated with pier piles (Celedonia et al. 2008). The proposed project will
20
reduce potential predator structure through the removal of 87 piles. The
proposed project will remove 310 square feet of existing solid-decked overwater
structures. The 3,530 square feet of new ramps and floats will be fully grated, and
flotation materials minimized to maximize light transmittal. Additionally, the
proposed floats will be anchored rather than supported through new piles.
Through the removal of 87 piles, the project will significantly minimize in-water
structures that may attract predators to juvenile salmonids. The effects of new
overwater structures will be minimized through the use of grated decking and
through the use of helical anchors instead of new piles.
5.1.4 Lighting
Juvenile salmonids on Lake Washington are attracted to bright artificial lighting
(Tabor et al. 2015), which can potentially make them more vulnerable to
predation. Any lighting associated with the proposed floats will be shielded to
avoid direct lighting to the surrounding lake waters.
5.1.5 Direct Mortality
The potential to kill Chinook salmon, bull trout, steelhead, or coho salmon exists
as long as they are present in the action area during construction activities. In
order to minimize the project impacts on these salmonids, the previously stated
timing restriction (no in-water construction at a minimum from January 1st
through July 15th and August 1st through November 15th) would be followed.
This restriction is adequate to minimize the probability that salmonids would be
in the action area during construction activities such that potential for direct
mortality is discountable.
5.2 Indirect Effects on Salmonids
The effects resulting from the activity that are later in time could include changes
in water quality experienced by juvenile salmonids.
5.2.1 Water Quality
The proposed project is expected to affect water quality associated with boat use
in the vicinity. The nearest existing pump-out facility is 3 miles to the northwest
at Parkshore Marina. The proposed pump-out facility would help to ensure that
sewage is properly disposed of and that it is not released into Lake Washington.
The new floats may attract additional boat traffic, including non-motorized and
small, motorized watercraft. The potential exists for small spills associated with
motorized boat use. However, permanent moorage at the proposed floats is not
anticipated, so the potential for fuel or oils spills associated with the use of the
new floats is minimal.
21
5.3 Effects to Critical Habitat
5.3.1 Chinook Salmon
Critical habitat was designated for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon DPS on 2
September 2005 (U.S. Federal Register), specifically including the Lake
Washington sub-basin (Watershed Code 1711001203). Critical habitat includes
areas with physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or protection.
Primary constituent elements of Chinook salmon critical habitat are listed as:
1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and
substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development.
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.
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.
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.
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 boulders,
and side channels.
6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including
aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Project activities that introduce or remove physical elements to and/or from Lake
Washington, or that contribute to short-term changes in water quality, may alter
certain primary constituent elements (Table 3). For the proposed project, this
includes structure/pile removal and float installation.
22
Table 3. Assessment of primary constituent elements for Chinook salmon.
Primary Constituent
Elements Direct, Indirect, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects
1. Freshwater spawning
Typically not applicable in a lake environment. Chinook rarely
spawn in Lake Washington. The same threats exist under the
present site conditions and no change in usage of the site would
occur with the proposed project.
2. Freshwater rearing
The proposed project may result in avoidance by juvenile Chinook
salmon during construction activities. Impacts will be minimized
appropriately by following the conservation measures and timing
restrictions mentioned previously.
Impacts of the overwater structure will be minimized by using fully
grated decking, minimizing flotation area, and using helical anchors
rather than piles.
3. Freshwater migration
Juvenile and adult Chinook salmon migrate past the project site.
The proposed project may result in avoidance behavior during and
following construction. Impacts will be minimized by following the
conservation measures and timing restrictions mentioned
previously.
4. Estuarine areas The project would have no effect on estuarine areas.
5. Nearshore marine areas The project would have no effect on nearshore marine areas.
6. Offshore marine areas The project would have no effect on offshore marine areas.
As stated in Table 3, it is unlikely that Chinook salmon would migrate past the
project site during the construction period. Indirect effects associated with water
quality would be insignificant. Given the direct, indirect, interrelated, and
interdependent effects from the proposed action, the proposed project:
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the critical habitat of the
Puget Sound Chinook salmon DPS.
5.3.2 Bull Trout
The action area includes critical habitat for bull trout, which has been defined for
lakes as “the perimeter of the water body as mapped on standard 1:24,000 scale
maps” (U.S. Federal Register, 26 September 2005). The action area is in the Puget
Sound Unit (Unit 28), Lake Washington CHSU (critical habitat subunit). Bull trout
critical habitat includes these primary constituent elements (excerpted from the
final rule, U.S. Federal Register, 26 September 2005):
1. Water temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 [deg]F (2 to 15 [deg]C), with
adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this
range. Specific temperatures within this range will 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;
23
2. Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side
channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths,
velocities, and instream structures;
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. A minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 in
(0.63 cm) in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are
characteristic of these conditions;
4. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within
historic ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to
support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day
fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural cycle of flow levels
corresponding with seasonal variation;
5. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to
contribute to water quality and quantity;
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;
7. An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin,
aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish;
8. Few or no nonnative predatory, interbreeding, or competitive species
present; and
9. Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal
reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited.
According to the Federal Register, Lake Washington “provides FMO [foraging,
migratory and overwintering] habitat for amphidromous bull trout outside of
currently delineated core areas in the Puget Sound Recovery Unit.” Project
activities that introduce or remove physical elements from the lake, or that
contribute to short-term changes in water quality may alter certain primary
constituent elements (Table 4).
Table 4. Assessment of primary constituent elements for bull trout.
Primary Constituent Elements
(PCEs) Direct, Indirect, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects
1. Water temperature The project would have no effect on water temperature.
2. Complex stream channel N/A in a lake environment.
3. Substrate N/A in a lake environment.
24
Primary Constituent Elements
(PCEs) Direct, Indirect, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects
4. Natural hydrograph The project would have no effect on the natural
hydrograph.
5. Spring, seeps,
groundwater sources and
subsurface water connectivity
The project would have no effect on groundwater sources
or connectivity.
6. Migratory corridors with
minimal physical, biological, or
water quality impediments
between spawning, rearing,
overwintering and foraging
habitats
The proposed project would not create any barrier to
migration, particularly as lake bull trout are larger fish that
are not generally subject to predation-pressure and are not
oriented near the shoreline.
7. Abundant food base The project would have little to no effect on food supplies.
8. Few or no nonnative
predatory, interbreeding, or
competitive species
The proposed project is not expected to increase
populations of any predatory, interbreeding or competitive
species.
9. Permanent water of
sufficient quantity and quality such
that normal reproduction, growth
and survival are not inhibited.
The same threats exist under the present site conditions
with some change in recreational usage of the site
expected as a result of the proposed project. Impacts will
be minimized appropriately by following the conservation
measures and timing restrictions mentioned previously.
Given the direct, indirect, interrelated, and interdependent effects from the
proposed action, the proposed project:
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the critical habitat for the
Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS.
5.3.3 Steelhead
Critical habitat was designated for Puget Sound steelhead on February 24, 2016
(Federal Register). The entire Lake Washington watershed was excluded from
the proposed critical habitat area for economic reasons. Because steelhead critical
habitat is not designated for Lake Washington, the project will have no effect on
critical habitat for steelhead.
5.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts were assessed through the review of aerial photos and a site
visit. Proposed upland developments are described elsewhere in this BE. These
developments were evaluated through an Environmental Impact Statement in
2001. Any plans for other activities subject to local, but not federal, regulation
would comply with all applicable ordinances governing construction and soil
disturbance near water. These regulations are becoming increasingly restrictive
to the benefit of sensitive fish and wildlife in response to the listings of Chinook
salmon, bull trout, and steelhead, and the potential listing of coho salmon in the
25
future. There are no significant wildlife habitats or special habitat elements
present on the property that would be disturbed by any foreseeable activity.
6 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT
Several measures of the proposed project will be implemented to avoid,
minimize, and offset potential impacts. These include: timing the project to occur
during a period when listed salmonids are least likely to be present in the action
area and implementing measures to minimize habitat disturbance. Because these
measures will be implemented, potential effects of the proposed project are
expected to be insignificant or discountable, as described in Section 6.
Therefore, given the direct, indirect, interrelated, and interdependent effects
from the proposed action, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect, Chinook salmon, bull trout and steelhead. Species-specific
effect determination details are provided below.
6.1 Chinook Salmon
The project may affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon because:
Summer/fall-run Chinook salmon are documented in Lake Washington
Juvenile Chinook salmon may migrate past the action area from January
through September and adult Chinook salmon may pass through the
action area from June through September.
The project is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon
because:
Few Chinook salmon fry, which emigrate from the Cedar River early in
spring and prefer shallow waters, are expected to occur in the action area
as a result of the depth within the project area. Adult Chinook salmon
would not be expected in the shallow nearshore area where project
activities would occur.
In-water work will be limited to the approved work window when
Chinook salmon are least likely to be present.
Water quality impacts will be minimized through the use of construction
best management practices. In the long term, the pump-out facility may
contribute to improved water quality throughout south Lake
Washington.
26
Noise impacts will be minimized through the use of a vibratory pile
driver.
Habitat impacts will be minimized by using fully grated decking for light
transmission and limiting the number and using helical anchors rather
than piers for the floats.
6.2 Bull Trout
The project may affect Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout because:
Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout are documented as occurring in Lake
Washington. Therefore, though unlikely, bull trout could be present
within the action area.
The project is not likely to adversely affect Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout
because:
The presence of juvenile or spawning bull trout in Lake Washington is
unlikely. Adult and subadult bull trout are not expected to use the
nearshore areas where construction activities for the proposed project
would occur.
Water quality impacts will be minimized through the use of construction
best management practices. In the long term, the pump-out facility may
contribute to improved water quality throughout south Lake
Washington.
Noise impacts will be minimized through the use of a vibratory pile
driver.
In-water work will be limited to the approved work window per the
protection policies of NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, and WDFW for bull
trout.
6.3 Steelhead
The project may affect Puget Sound steelhead because:
Puget Sound steelhead occur in Lake Washington. Juveniles may
emigrate through the lake at any time of the year and could be present
within the action area.
The project is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead because:
Steelhead are not expected to use the shallow nearshore areas where
construction activities for the proposed project would occur.
27
Water quality impacts will be minimized through the use of construction
best management practices. In the long term, the pump-out facility may
contribute to improved water quality throughout south Lake
Washington.
Noise impacts will be minimized through the use of a vibratory pile
driver.
In-water work will be limited to the approved work window when
steelhead are least likely to be present.
6.4 Critical Habitat
Given the direct, indirect, interrelated, and interdependent effects from the
proposed action, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the designated critical habitat of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon and
Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout. Species-specific effect determination details are
provided below.
6.4.1 Chinook Salmon
A “may affect” determination is warranted for Puget Sound Chinook salmon
critical habitat because:
The project occurs in a designated critical habitat area.
Primary constituent elements for Chinook salmon critical habitat that are
in the project action area include freshwater rearing and migration.
The project is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical
habitat because:
In the long term, the pump-out facility may contribute to improved water
quality throughout south Lake Washington.
Habitat impacts will be minimized by using fully grated decking and
using helical anchors rather than piers for the floats.
6.4.2 Bull Trout
A may affect determination is warranted for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout
critical habitat because:
The project occurs in a designated critical habitat area.
According to the Federal Register, Lake Washington “provides FMO
[foraging, migratory and overwintering] habitat for amphidromous bull
trout outside of currently delineated core areas in the Puget Sound
Recovery Unit.”
28
The project is not likely to adversely affect Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout habitat
because:
In the long term, the pump-out facility may contribute to improved water
quality throughout south Lake Washington.
6.5 Effect Determinations Summary
Determination of effect for all species and their respective assessment areas are
listed in Table 5. The proposed bulkhead repair and float installation project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Coastal-
Puget Sound bull trout and Puget Sound steelhead.
Given the direct, indirect, interrelated, and interdependent effects from the
proposed action, the proposed project would not adversely modify the critical
habitat of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon or the Coastal-Puget Sound bull
trout.
Table 5. Determination of Effect.
Species Overall Project Effect Effect on
Critical Habitat
Puget Sound DPS Chinook salmon May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Coastal-Puget Sound DPS Bull trout May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Puget Sound DPS Steelhead May affect, not likely to
adversely affect No Effect
7 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
The following is a description of Pacific salmon essential fish habitat (EFH) per
the federal Fisheries Management Plan (FMP). EFH for the Pacific coast salmon
fishery means those waters and substrate necessary for salmon production
needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon
contributions to a healthy ecosystem. To achieve that level of production, EFH
includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently viable
water bodies and most of the habitat historically accessible to salmon in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. 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 (as
identified by the Pacific Fishery Management Council), and longstanding,
29
naturally-impassable barriers (e.g., natural waterfalls in existence for several
hundred years).
Pacific salmon EFH relates to habitats used by Chinook, coho, and pink salmon.
Within the Lake Washington basin, pink salmon are not present. Discussions
regarding EFH related to Pacific salmon present in the Lake Washington basin
are indirectly included in this Biological Evaluation (BE) through discussions of
potential effects to Chinook salmon. The information below identifies where
these discussions are located within this BE, provides additional information
related to the life histories of coho salmon, and concludes with a determination
of effect. In accordance with prior concurrence letters from NOAA Fisheries, this
discussion should be considered sufficient to make this determination.
7.1 Project Description
The project description and location are described within Section 2 of the BE.
This description gives a thorough explanation of the bulkhead repair, pile
removal, and float installation activities.
7.2 EFH Conservation Measures
The following impact minimization measures are being incorporated into the
proposed project in order to reduce the collective impact of the project on
salmonids:
1. Timing Restriction: In-water work will be limited to the period between July
16th and July 31st and November 16th and December 31st, per the protection
policies of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). This work window is adequate to minimize the probability that
Chinook and coho salmon would occur within the action area.
2. Construction practices: Several conservation measures will be employed
during construction to minimize potential effects on sensitive fish species.
o New pilings and the steel plates will be installed using a vibratory
driver to limit noise impacts during construction.
o All in-water work will be staged from a barge.
o The barge will not be allowed to ground.
o A containment boom will surround each work area to ensure that all
removed components that enter the lake will be captured, loaded onto
the debris barge, and disposed in an approved upland disposal site.
30
3. Habitat: Impacts to nearshore fish habitat will be minimized through design
of fully grated ramps and floats. New piles will not be used for either float.
Existing derelict piles will be removed.
7.3 Species Description and Site Use
7.3.1 Chinook Salmon
A description of the life histories and site use of Chinook salmon is provided in
Section 4.1 of the BE.
7.3.2 Coho Salmon
In the Lake Washington watershed, coho salmon are broken into two stocks: 1)
the Cedar River, and 2) the Lake Washington/Sammamish River Tributaries
(WDFW electronic reference). Adult coho salmon migrate through Lake Union
and the ship canal to reach tributaries suitable for spawning from late-September
through November. Adults spawn from October through February, peaking
between November and December in most tributaries (City of Seattle 2008).
Most juvenile coho enter Lake Washington from tributaries as smolts (average
length >100 mm) in mid-May to late June or as young-of-year fish (City of Seattle
2008). Beak Consultants Incorporated (1998) reported that the peak coho smolt
migration from the Sammamish River into Lake Washington occurs April
through mid-May, coinciding with releases from the Issaquah hatchery. In
general, peak coho outmigration takes place in May (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Thus,
the majority of juvenile coho are not rearing in Lake Washington for extended
periods; rather, they are emigrating via the ship canal, only spending a matter of
days in the system before transitioning to saltwater (City of Seattle 2008).
However, a small number of coho juveniles have been found to migrate out of
the Lake Washington system one or two years later than the bulk of the
population (DeVries et. al. 2005). This variation in juvenile salmonid emigration
timing may be attributable to increasing water temperatures, primarily caused
by increasing air temperatures throughout the northwest (Wetherbee and Houck
2000). Smolts may respond to water temperatures through: 1) avoidance (~15˚C),
2) smoltification ability (15-16˚C), and 3) changes in growth (19-20˚C) (City of
Seattle 2008). Juvenile coho may avoid the high temperatures in the littoral zone
during the summer, and are likely to migrate from the littoral zone or from the
lake before water temperatures exceed 17˚C, which often occurs in shallow areas
by mid- to late-June.
In conclusion, juvenile coho salmon may emigrate through Lake Washington
from mid-March through June. Given the life-history strategy of juvenile coho
salmon, juvenile rearing in the action area is not expected. Adult coho salmon
may occur in the action area from August to December, but would not be
31
expected in the nearshore area where bulkhead repair and float installation
activities would occur.
7.4 Effects of the Project
A description of the effects of the project are described in Section 6 of this BE.
The potential effects to coho salmon are expected to be the same as those
described for listed salmonids in Section 6. As described in Section 6 of the BE,
potential direct effects are related to noise, water quality, and habitat disturbance
from bulkhead repair, pile removal, and float installation. Potential indirect
effects may include improving water quality through the new pump-out facility,
as well as potential effects on water quality from increased small boat traffic.
Conclusion: All of the proposed project’s potential impacts on Pacific salmon
EFH are considered collectively. While there are both beneficial and detrimental
effects that could result from the proposed project, the detrimental effects have
been minimized. Thus, the collective impact of the proposed project:
will not adversely affect, Pacific salmon EFH.
32
REFERENCES
Beak Consultants Incorporated. 1998. Final Lakepointe Technical Report on Natural
Resources. Section 3.0 Fisheries. Prepared for Pioneer Towing, Kenmore, WA.
April 1998. 108 pp.
Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, et al. 1996. Status review of west coast
steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-
27.
California Department of Transportation. 2007. Compendium of Pile Driving Sound
Data. Prepared by Illinworth & Rodkin, Petaluma, CA.
Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, D.W. Lantz, and I. 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. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA.
CG Engineering. 2016. Structural Observation Report- SECO Development Bulkhead.
City of Renton. Electronic Reference. COR Mapping. Available at:
http://rp.rentonwa.gov/SilverlightPublic/Viewer.html?Viewer=COR-Maps
[Accessed May 27, 2016.
City of Seattle. 2008. Synthesis of Salmon Research and Monitoring (Investigation
Conducted in the Western Lake Washington Basin). Prepared by Seattle Public
Utilities (SPU) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Seattle Division.
December 31, 2008.
DeVries, P. and 18 others. 2005. PIT tagging of juvenile salmon smolts in the Lake
Washington Basin: Fourth year (2003) pilot study results and synopsis of 2000-
2003 findings. Final Technical Report to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle District, and Seattle Public Utilities.
Federal Register. Volume 81, No. 36, 24 February 2016. Final Rule: Endangered and
Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River
Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead.
_____. Volume 73, No. 200, 15 October 2008. Final Rule: Fisheries off West Coast States;
West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 14; Essential Fish Habitat
Descriptions for Pacific Salmon.
_____. Volume 72, No. 91, 11 May 2007. Final Rule: Endangered and Threatened Species:
Final listing determinations for Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
33
_____. Volume 70, No. 185, 26 September 2005, Final rule. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Designation of critical habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus).
_____. Volume 70, No. 170, 2 September 2005. Final rule: Endangered and Threatened
Species; Designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of
west coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho -
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.
_____. Volume 70, No. 123, 28 June 2005. Final rule: Endangered and Threatened
Species: Final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of West coast salmon, and final
4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs - Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
_____. Volume 69, No. 73, 15 April 2004, Notice of establishment of species of concern
list. Endangered and Threatened Species; Establishment of species of concern list,
addition of species to species of concern list, description of factors for identifying
species of concern, and revision of candidate species list under the Endangered
Species Act. Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
_____. Volume 64, No. 210, 1 November 1999. Final rule: Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Determination of threatened status for bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus) in the coterminous United States.
_____. Volume 64, No. 147, 2 August 1999. Final rule: Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Listing of Nine Evolutionarily Significant Units of Chinook
Salmon, Chum Salmon, Sockeye Salmon and Steelhead.
Goetz, Fred. Fishery Biologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Personal
communication, e-mail to Dan Nickel (The Watershed Company), 14 May 2004.
Hendry, A.P. and T.P. Quinn. 1997. Variation in adult life history and morphology
among Lake Washington sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) populations in
relation to habitat features and ancestral affinities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Science 54: 75-84.
Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar-
Sammamish basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation
Commission, Olympia, WA. 587 pp.
King County IMAP. Electronic reference. Available at:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMAP.aspx [Accessed May 27,
2016]
34
Tabor, R.A., A. Bell, D. Lantz, C. Gregersen, and H. Berge. 2015. Artificial Lighting
Experiments in Lake Washington (2014) and Lake Sammamish (2015).
Tabor, R.A., H.A. Gearns, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore Habitat
Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington
Basin, Annual Report, 2003 and 2004. U.S. Fish and Wild Service. Olympia, WA.
Tabor, R. A., J.A. Sheurer, 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 Wild Service. Olympia, WA.
Tabor, R.A., H.A. Gearns, C.M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2003 and 2004. Prepared by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office,
Fisheries Division. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Electronic Reference. http://www.nwd-
wc.usace.army.mil/nws/hh/www/index.html#. [Accessed May 27, 2016]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Special Public Notice: Endangered
Species Act Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake
Washington, Lake Sammamish, and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union. 11
pp.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Electronic Reference. SCoRE:
Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine.
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/maps/map_details.jsp?geocode=county&
geoarea=King. [Accessed May 27, 2016].
Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2015. Biological Assessment
Preparation for Transportation Projects – Advanced Training Manual.
Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8). 2005. Lake Washington/ Cedar/
Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Conservation Plan. Volume 1.
Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S.
Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and
California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24. 258 pp.
Wetherbee, P. and D. Houck. 2000. Reconnaissance Analysis of Water Quantity and
Quality Trends in the Lake Washington Watershed. Presentation and Extended
Abstract presented at the Workshop – Chinook Salmon in the Great Lake
Washington Watershed. HDR, Inc. and King County Department of Natural
Resources, Wastewater Treatment Division. M.W. 2004. Analysis
1
A P P E N D I X A
Project Plans
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
1
A P P E N D I X B
Structural Observation Report
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT
Project: Seco Development Bulkhead Purpose: Structural Evaluation
Location: 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA Date: April 1st 2016
CG Project: 16027.10 Report: 1
Client: Seco Development General Contractor: Unknown
Field Rep: Dennis Titus, PE, SE, Stephen Tabert
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
A field representative of CG Engineering was on site on February 2, 2016 to evaluate the condition of an
existing bulkhead located on the south side of Lake Washington. While on site we met with the Greg Krape
from Seco Development.
EXISTING BULKHEAD
The existing bulkhead is constructed form a combination of timber and concrete. Refer to SS-1. The bulkhead is
approximately 585ft long and spans two properties. It was originally constructed in the mid 1920’s when the
site was originally developed for a previous power plant. The bulkhead retains a sidewalk. The north portion of
the sidewalk was improved during a recent site development. A concrete sidewalk and pavers were
constructed and a guard rail was added along this length of the bulkhead. The sidewalk to the south, which
leads to the Boeing property, is relatively unimproved and consists of a gravel base with an asphalt sidewalk. A
small pier is located at the center of the bulkhead which extends approximately 20ft into Lake Washington. The
bulkhead continues behind the pier.
The timber portion of the bulkhead consists of 8x12 timber sheet piles. A row of timber piles spaced
approximately at 8ft on center and are located directly outboard of the sheet piles. The piles vary in size but
are close to 12” diameter. A 10x10 timber waler runs along the outside of the piles and tiebacks were observed
spaced at approximately 15’ on center. Along most of the bulkhead the waler was no longer present and the
tiebacks were no longer attached.
The top of the timber sheet piles and the round timber piles are located approximately 30” below the adjacent
grade. A single row of ecology blocks are located upland of the sheet pile wall. The ecology blocks are 3x3x3ft
with a 10” concrete cap on top. The area below the ecology blocks was probed and it appears that only one
ecology block is present which bears on the soil directly behind the sheet pile wall. The ecology blocks appear to
be part of the original construction or installed shortly after the timber portion of the bulkhead was
constructed. The timber bulkhead appears to support the base of the existing concrete ecology blocks which
supports the subgrade for the sidewalk.
OBSERVATIONS
At the time of the observation the lake water level was low in anticipation of upcoming rainfall, which left the
tops of the piles visible. The piles, sheet piles and walers were observed during the site visit. Each was visually
inspected for structural deficiencies. They were probed above and below the water level. They were also
sounded for core rot.
Seco Development Bulkhead June 3, 2016
Project number: 16027.10 Page 2 of 9
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
Piles
In general, the portions of the piles that were constantly submerged were in good condition. Very minor
structural defects or rot was observed below the water level. Areas of rot were observed in the portion of the
piles that were occasionally or consistently above the water level.
Sheet Piles
The sheet piles are the main retaining element of the bulkhead. They extend above the water level for a large
part of the year. The tops of the sheets piles all showed signs of deterioration above the water level. Below the
water level they were probed and were found to be in good condition.
Walers
The walers span between the piles and are used to attach the bulkhead system to the anchors. In many
locations the walers were missing. The walers that were present were observed. The waler conditions varied
but areas of rot were observed in several of them. Others showed signed of wear but were otherwise
structurally sound. Many of the walers were missing.
Tiebacks
The tiebacks were observed throughout the bulkhead. They appeared to be 7/8” or 1” diameter steel rods
which extended upland under the sidewalk. The spacing was somewhat irregular but appeared to be close to
15ft on center. Typically tiebacks of this era would be connected to a concrete deadman located behind the
wall but this could not be verified during the site visit.
The tieback rods were mostly submerged. Where the tiebacks were visible they appeared be corroded. In their
current condition it does not appear that the tiebacks are functioning as there were intended.
Ecology Blocks
The ecology blocks are located behind the sheet piles. The area below the ecology blocks was probed and it
appears that they consist of only one course of blocks and do not extend below grade. In some areas they were
slightly undermined. In the area that had been improved during the recent development, the sidewalk and
pavers were installed up to the ecology blocks. The ecology blocks were observed along the length of the
bulkhead and appeared to be in good condition.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the age of the bulkhead it is in good condition. The portion of the bulkhead that is permanently below
the water level appears to be in good condition with little signs of structural defects. Where the timber portion
of the bulkhead is periodically or permanently exposed to air, rot and structural defects were observed. This is
common of freshwater timber construction. Typically rot will affect the wood at the air water interface. Behind
the sheet piles the ecology blocks also appear to be in good condition.
The surrounding site is currently being redeveloped. To maintain the integrity of the bulkhead for the new
development we recommend upgrading portions of the bulkhead.
The exposed portions of the round piles and sheet piles will need to be repaired. A pile cap repair could be
designed for each of the round piles. It would likely involve a steel jacket that would go over the piles and
extend below the mudline. The damaged portion of the sheet piles will also need to be repaired. A steel sheet
Seco Development Bulkhead June 3, 2016
Project number: 16027.10 Page 3 of 9
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
could be installed on the face of the sheet pile wall and the void behind would be filled with concrete. The
concrete would be mechanically anchored to the existing ecology block and sidewalk slab. Refer to SS-2.
The majority of the walers were also missing. The walers are used to attach the bulkhead to the anchors. We
recommend that the walers be replaced. The waler could be replaced with a galvanized steel waler. All of the
anchor rods that were visible were corroded and did not appear to be functional. The anchors are used to
laterally support the bulkhead above grade. The anchors would be reconnected where possible. Where it is not
possible to re-use the existing anchors, additional support would be provided by a new wood waler anchored to
the concrete sidewalk.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the condition of the timber bulkhead below the water line it is not unreasonable to assume that it could
have an operational life of another 30-50 years provided the recommended repairs are completed. The timber
portion of the bulkhead below the air water interface will be protected from decay by water.
DISCLAIMER
This observation is the professional opinion of CG Engineering PLLC based on the information available during this assessment or evaluation. This report
does not warrant or guarantee that all conditions were discovered at the time of the observation. This report was prepared subject to the standard of care
applicable to professional services at the time the services were provided.
04/1/2016
Seco Development Bulkhead June 3, 2016
Project number: 16027.10 Page 4 of 9
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
Photo 1 – Aerial Image of Project Site
Photo 2 – Bulkhead at Improved Sidewalk
BULKHEAD W/
UNIMPROVED
SIDEWALK
PIER W/ BULKHEAD
BEHIND
BULKHEAD W/ IMPROVED
SIDEWALK
Seco Development Bulkhead June 3, 2016
Project number: 16027.10 Page 5 of 9
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
Photo 3 – Bulkhead at Unimproved Bulkhead
Photo 4 – Typical Construction
WALER
12” DIA PILE
TIMBER
SPACER
SHEET PILE
Seco Development Bulkhead June 3, 2016
Project number: 16027.10 Page 6 of 9
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
Photo 5 – Probing Piles above Water Level
Photo 6 – Rot in Pile above Water Line
Seco Development Bulkhead June 3, 2016
Project number: 16027.10 Page 7 of 9
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
Photo 7 – Probing Piles below Water Level
Photo 8 – Deterioration in Pile above Water Line
Seco Development Bulkhead June 3, 2016
Project number: 16027.10 Page 8 of 9
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
Photo 9 – Sound Pile at Waterline
Photo 10 – Missing Waler
Seco Development Bulkhead June 3, 2016
Project number: 16027.10 Page 9 of 9
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 | f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
Photo 11 – Typical Top of Sheet Pile
Photo 12 – Typical Anchor (Waler Missing)