HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-211 Transmittal to City of Renton 12 29 2016 1016-211 Transmittal to City of Renton.doc
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
38210 SE 92nd Street, Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 425-785-1357 mlloydassociates@gmail.com
December 26, 2016
TRANSMITTAL
To: Clark Close/
From: Michael Lloyd
Subject: Depositional Mitigation Dredging Permit Application
Grade and Fill Permit Application
Shorelines Substantial Development Permit Application
Attached please find the Grade and Fill Permit Application and the Shorelines Substantial Permit
Applications for a “Special Permit” for Depositional Mitigation Dredging at Eagle Cove.
This Transmittal consists of multiple submittals for a Grade and Fill Permit, as well as, for a Shorelines
Substantial Development Permit. This submittal is organized as follows (applicable application
item/sections are provided in parentheses):
Land Use Master Application Form (11 Copies)
(Item 4 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 3 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Pre-Application Meeting Summary (5 copies)
(Item 1 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 1 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Waiver Form (5 copies)
(Item 2 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 2 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Title Report Summary (3 copies)
(Item 3 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 9 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Environmental Checklist (12 copies)
(Item 5 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 6 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Project Narrative (12 copies)
(Item 6 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 5 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Construction Mitigation Description (5 copies)
(Item 7 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 8 - Shorelines Substantial Development, Includes:
Shoreline Exemption for Environmental Enhancements and Mitigation)
Fee Statement Summary
(Item 8 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 4 - Shorelines Substantial Development
Neighborhood Detail Map (12 copies)
&
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 17
(Item 9 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 11 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Grading Plan /Engineering Report (12 copies)
(Item 10 - Grade and Fill Permit / Items 29 & 31 - Shorelines Substantial Development
Biological Assessment (Meridian Environmental, Inc., 3 Copies)
(Item 17 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 20 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Geotechnical Report (12 copies)
(Item 13 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 22 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Standard Lake Study (Meridian Environmental, Inc., 12 copies)
(Item 17 – Grade and Fill Permit / Item 20 - Shorelines Substantial Development Permit)
Plan Reductions (1 copy each, see submittal items for Special Grading Plans and Neighborhood
Detail Map. Includes digital version provided with this Transmittal
(Item 24 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 33 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Shoreline Tracking Worksheet
(Item 32 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Digital Copy (provided with this transmittal)
(Item 34 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Application Materials to be provide as separate submittals
Colored Maps for Display
(Item 25 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 35 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Public Information Sign(s)
(Item 10 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Traffic Study (to be prepared and submitted separately, as necessary. See Item 7 – Construction
Mitigation Description (Grade and Fill Permit), and Item 30 - Shorelines Substantial
Development)
SPCC Plan (Contractor Provided)
(Submittal to be provided to City of Renton prior to in-water work
Dredging Report (submittal to be provided to City of Renton, post-dredging
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 17
Land Use Master Application Form (11 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 4 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 3 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016‐211 Final Master Appliction.doc Rev: 08/2015
Planning Division
LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION
NAME: Lake Houses at Eagle Cove PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
Sediment Deposition Mitigation
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 359
CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98057
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
3905, 3907, 3909, 3979 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N
98056, and 4001 WELLS AVE N 98056
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR’S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
051850-1150, 334270-0005, 334270-0007,334270-
0009, and 334270-0011
NAME: c/o Robert Cugini EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential
COMPANY (if applicable): Barbee Forest Products PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential,
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 359t EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
Residential
CITY:
Renton, WA
ZIP:
98057
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable) Residential High and Medium Density
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 426-226-3900 EXISTING ZONING: Boathouse lot - R-10,
Lots A, B, C, D - R-6
CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): No Change
NAME: R. Michael Lloyd SITE AREA (in square feet): 91,000 sf
COMPANY (if applicable):
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: N/A
ADDRESS: 255 Camaloch Dr, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
N/A
CITY:
Camano Island, WA
ZIP:
982825
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable) N/A
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable)
N/A TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS:
425-785-1357
mlloydassociates@gmail.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
N/A
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 17
Pre-Application Meeting Summary (5 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 4 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 3 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING COMMENTS FOR
EAGLE COVE DREDGING
PRE16-000617
CITY OF RENTON
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
September 8, 2016
Contact Information:
Planner: Clark H. Close, 425-430-7289
Public Works Plan Reviewer: Justin Johnson, 425-430-7291
Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425-430-7024
Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425-430-7290
Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider
giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the
project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use
and/or environmental permits.
Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and
schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before
making all of the required copies.
The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on
the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The
applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the
proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project
submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or
concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director,
Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development
Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 29, 2016
June 20, 2011
TO: Clark Close, Planner
FROM: Justin Johnson, Plan Review
SUBJECT: Eagle Cove Dredging
3905-3979 Lake Washington Boulevard, Renton, WA 98056
PRE16-000617
NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-
binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official City decision-makers. Review
comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by
City staff or made by the applicant.
I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced proposal located at parcel(s)
0518501150, 3342700005, 3342700007, 3342700009, and 3342700011. The following comments are
based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant.
Transportation
1. The location of the staging lot will need to be submitted and the following conditions shall apply
to the lot as well as the project.
2. The Project will need and Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan for the project that complies with the City of Renton Amendments to 2009
County Surface Water Design Manual. The ESC Plan will need to include measures to control
dust and tracking of sediments on to streets during construction.
3. A traffic control plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
Construction hours be in accordance with City standards (Monday – Friday 7:00 AM – 8:00 PM,
hauling: Monday - Friday 8:30 AM – 3:00 PM) or as established in the approved traffic control
plan.
H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\15-000170
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 8, 2016
TO: Pre-Application File No. 16-000617
FROM: Clark H. Close, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Eagle Core Dredging
General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-
referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting
issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant
and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information
contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official
decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator,
Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City
Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design
changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review
all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are
available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall
or online at www.rentonwa.gov.
Project Proposal: Eagle Cove Aquatic Land Management is proposing to continue periodic
dredging of Lake Washington near the May Creek Delta as a result of soil and sediment
accumulation at the Lake Houses at Eagle Cove (“Project Site”). The project site is located
immediately south of the May Creek Delta from 3905-3979 Lake Washington Blvd N, including
the boat house parcel. Soils and sediments at the project site are principally fine to medium
sands with some gravels arising from erosion in the May Valley which causes substantial
deposition in Lake Washington at the mouth of May Creek.
Dredging of Lake Washington is being requested every 3 to 5 years to preserve navigational
access to the docks, boathouse and recreational access for swimming, boating, canoeing, and
water sports. The amount of sediment deposition has been described as increasing over the
years from 3,000 to 4,000 CY every 3 to four years throughout the 1990’s to 4,000 to 6,000 CY
per year at the present. Periodic dredging could entail as much as 4,000 to 8,000 CY every 3 to 4
years. All work would be conducted below the Ordinary High Water Line.
No additional fill is anticipated, except as previously approved in a Shoreline Exemption granted
by the City of Renton (May 27, 2016). Approximately 20 CY of “fish rock” would be placed along
the rockery to enhance shallow water habitat.
Current Use: The property site includes four (4) single family parcels (334270-0005, -0007,
-0009, and -0011) and one boathouse parcel (0518501150). The existing shoreline is largely built
up and hardened with a rockery to protect the lots from shoreline erosion.
Zoning: The residential properties are located within the Residential Medium Density (RMD)
land use designation and the Residential-6 (R-6) zoning designation. The boathouse is located
Eagle Cove Dredging, PRE16-000617
Page 2 of 4
September 8, 2016
H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\16-000617
within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation and the Residential-10 (R-10)
zoning designation.
Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, “Development
Standards for Residential Zoning Designations” effective at the time of complete application. In
addition, the project would also be subject to the City of Renton’s Shoreline Master Program
(SMP), such as RMC 4-3-090, “Shoreline Master Program Regulations,” and RMC 4-9-190,
“Shoreline Permits” because the subject project is located within Lake Washington. Many of the
R-6 and R-10 development standards would not be applicable because of the nature of the
subject project. As such, the following report only addresses the applicable development
standards and/or shoreline regulations.
Shoreline Regulations: The project area is in the May Creek Reaches (MC-A) near the May Creek
Delta within Lake Washington. The project area has a shoreline designation of Shoreline High
Intensity. Dredging shall not be performed within the delta of May Creek except for purposes of
ecological restoration, for public flood control projects, for water-dependent public facilities, or
for limited maintenance dredging in conformance with RMC 4-3-090F.3.c. Dredging may be
permitted only in cases where the proposal, including any necessary mitigation, would result in
no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and is limited to maintenance dredging for access to
existing legally established boat moorage slips including public and commercial moorage and
moorage accessory to single family residences; provided, that dredging shall be limited to
maintaining the previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width.
Dredging shall be disallowed to maintain depths of existing private moorage where it results in a
net loss of ecological functions. The subject project would result in impacts to Lake Washington
and the May Creek Delta, as such a Biological Assessment was completed for the Cugini
Property Boathouse Expansion of the Existing Lake Washington Dredge Prism. A Lake Study
containing the information specified in RMC Section 4-8-120D would be required to be
submitted with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
Regulations on Permitted Dredging, RMC 4-3-090F.3.d Review Criteria: The applicant is
responsible to ensure that the following regulations are complied with before and during a
permitted dredging operation:
ii. All proposed dredging operations shall be designed by an appropriate State-licensed
professional engineer. A stamped engineering report and an assessment of potential impacts on
ecological functions shall be prepared by qualified consultants and shall be submitted to the
Renton Planning Division as part of the application for a shoreline permit.
iii. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the
proposed dredging operation.
iv. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate that:
(a) There will be no net loss of ecological functions including but not limited to adverse
effect on aquatic species including fish migration.
(b) There will be no adverse impact on recreational areas or public recreation enjoyment of
the water.
v. Adjacent Bank Protection:
(a) When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be disturbed
unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry
out practices to protect the banks.
Eagle Cove Dredging, PRE16-000617
Page 3 of 4
September 8, 2016
H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\16-000617
(b) If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access to the dredging area,
the responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out a method of restoration
of the disturbed area to a condition minimizing erosion and siltation.
vi. Avoidance of Adverse Effects: The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate the
proposed dredging will avoid conditions that may adversely affect adjacent properties including:
(a) Creating a nuisance to the public or nearby activity.
(b) Damaging property in or near the area.
(c) Causing substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or near the
area.
(d) Endangering public safety in or near the area.
vii. The applicant shall demonstrate control of contamination and pollution to water, air, and
ground through specific operation and mitigation plans.
viii. Disposal of Dredge Material: The applicant shall demonstrate that the disposal of dredged
material will not result in net loss of ecological functions or adverse impacts to properties
adjacent to the disposal site.
(a) The applicant shall provide plans for the location and method of disposing of all dredged
material.
(b) Dredged material shall not be deposited in a lake, stream, or marine water except if
approved as habitat enhancement or other beneficial environmental mitigation as part of
ecological restoration, a contamination remediation project approved by appropriate State
and/or Federal agencies, or is approved in accordance with the Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis evaluation procedures for managing in-water-disposal of dredged material
by applicable agencies, which may include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to
Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) and Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permits, and
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife hydraulic project approval.
(c) In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a shoreland area that would result
in the clearing of native vegetation. Temporary stockpiling of dredged material is limited to
one hundred eighty (180) days.
(d) If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the applicant shall propose
and carry out a method of disposal that complies with all regulatory requirements.
(e) Permanent land disposal shall demonstrate that:
(1) Shoreline ecological functions will be preserved, including protection of surface
water and groundwater.
(2) Erosion, sedimentation, flood waters or runoff will not increase adverse impacts to
shoreline ecological functions or property.
(3) Sites will be adequately screened from view of local residents or passersby on public
rights-of-way.
(4) The site is not located within a channel migration zone.
Additional Notes to the Applicant: Dredging shall require a shoreline conditional use unless
associated with existing water-dependent uses, habitat enhancement, a remedial action plan
Eagle Cove Dredging, PRE16-000617
Page 4 of 4
September 8, 2016
H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\16-000617
approved under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Model Toxics Control Act, or public recreation facilities or uses.
For excavation or grading in excess of five hundred (500) cubic yards, the Hearing Examiner shall
review, approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the location of the site and its effect on
the surrounding area via a Hearing Examiner Special Fill and Grade Permit after a public hearing
per RMC 4-9-080.
Environmental Review: The subject project is subject to Washington State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) because it is located in lands covered by water. Therefore, an environmental
checklist is a submittal requirement. An environmental determination will be made by the
Renton Environmental Review Committee. This determination is subject to appeal by either the
project proponent, by a citizen of the community, or another entity having standing for an
appeal.
Permit Requirements: A Hearing Examiner Special Fill and Grade Permit and a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) shall be required. The proposal would also require
Environmental ‘SEPA’ Review. All applications can be reviewed concurrently in an estimated
time frame of 12 weeks with an additional 21-day appeal period for the SSDP with the
Washington State Department of Ecology once a complete application is accepted. The 2016
Hearing Examiner Special Fill and Grade Permit application fee is $2,500, the Shoreline
Substantial Permit application fee is $2,000, and the SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist)
application fee is $1,000. There is an additional 3% technology fee at the time of land use
application. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is available on the
City of Renton website for your review.
In addition to the required land use permit, a separate construction permit would be required.
The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but
cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods.
Public Information: The applicant will be required to install a public information sign on the
property. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is
provided in the attached handouts.
A handout listing Renton’s development-related fees is available on the City of Renton website
for your review.
Next Steps: When the formal application materials are complete, the applicant is strongly
encouraged to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor front
counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Please call Clark H. Close, Senior
Planner at 425-430-7289 for an appointment.
Expiration: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit, construction
activities, or a use or activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to the Shoreline
Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline
permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. A permit
authorizing construction shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years after the effective
date of a shoreline permit. However, the Planning Division may authorize a single extension for
a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been
filed with the Planning Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension
is given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology.
Project Area
BNSF Railroad
PURPOSE: Enhance Environment APPLICANT: Barbee Company PROPOSED: Environmental Enhancement
REFERENCE: USACE NWS-2007-1019-NO WATERBODY: Lake Washington
DATUM: USACE / Seattle District (NAD83)LOCATION ADDRESS:
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 3901 Lake Washington Blvd. N. VICINITY MAPBarbee Company Renton, King County, WA 98055
Barbee Mill Development Section Township Range: NW 32 24 05
Burlington Northern-Sante Fe Lat: 47N 31' 40" Long: 122W 12' 29"
5/11/2016 L&AI
VICINITY MAP
Barbee
Environmental
Enhancement
Area Area
N
Scale (ft)
5000 1000
3
1
Barbee Mill
Development
Exit 7 I-405
Lake
Washington
N. 40 th Meadow Avenue. N.Park Avenue.2
Mercer
Island
3
1
2
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 5 of 17
Title Reports (3 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 3 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 9 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
First American Title
First American Title Insurance Company
818 Stewart St, Ste 800
Seattle, WA 98101
Phn - (206)615-3206
Fax - (425)551-4107
King County Title Team Four
Fax No. (866) 859-0429
Kristi K Mathis Michelle Treherne Jessica Smith
(206) 615-3206 (425) 635-2100 (425) 635-2205
kkmathis@firstam.com mtreherne@firstam.com jessmith@firstam.com
Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 Stewart Street #800, Seattle, WA 98101
To: Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, WA 98004-5149
Attn: Warren Koons
File No.: 4220-2668534
Customer Reference: 3905 3907 3909
3979 Lake, Washington Blvd. N ,
and 4001 Wells Avenue North,
Renton, WA 98056
Re: Property Address: 3905 3907 3909 3979 Lake, Washington Blvd. N , and 4001 Wells
Avenue North, Renton, WA 98056
Third Report
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 2 of 14
First American Title
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued by
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Agreement to Issue Policy
We agree to issue a policy to you according to the terms of this Commitment.
When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A.
If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy.
Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following:
The Provisions in Schedule A.
The Requirements in Schedule B-I.
The General Exceptions and Exceptions in Schedule B-II.
The Conditions.
This Commitment is not valid without Schedule A and Section I and II of Schedule B.
First American Title Insurance Company
Kristi Mathis, Title Officer
=
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 3 of 14
First American Title
= SCHEDULE A
1. Commitment Date: November 10, 2016 at 7:30 A.M.
2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX
Basic Rate
Standard Owner’s Policy $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow
Proposed Insured:
To Follow
Simultaneous Issue Rate
ALTA Extended Loan Policy $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow
Proposed Insured:
To Follow
3. (A) The estate or interest in the land described in this Commitment is:
Fee Simple
(B) Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
Barbee Forest Products, Inc., a Washington Corporation, as to Lots B, C and D of Parcel A and
The Lake Houses at Eagle Cove LLC, a Washington limited liability company, as to Parcel B and
Lot A of Parcel A
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows:
The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
=
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 4 of 14
First American Title
= SCHEDULE B
SECTION I
REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements must be met:
(A) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured.
(B) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy.
(C) Documents satisfactory to us creating the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured
must be signed, delivered and recorded:
(D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get
an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional
requirements or exceptions.
(E) Releases(s) or Reconveyance(s) of Item(s):
(F) Other:
(G) You must give us the following information:
1. Any off record leases, surveys, etc.
2. Statement(s) of Identity, all parties.
3. Other:
SCHEDULE B
SECTION II
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
PART ONE:
A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing
authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.
B. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could
be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession
thereof.
C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records.
D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts
which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.
E. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing
the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters
excepted under (A), (B) or (C) are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or
Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes.
F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or
hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement
charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity.
H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in
the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the
proposed insured acquires of record for value the escrow or interest or mortgage(s) thereon
covered by this Commitment.
=
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 5 of 14
First American Title
= SCHEDULE B
SECTION II
EXCEPTIONS
PART TWO:
Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction.
The printed exceptions and exclusions from the coverage of the policy or policies are available from the
office which issued this Commitment. Copies of the policy forms should be read.
1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if
unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78%.
Levy/Area Code: 2100
2. General taxes for the year 2016, which have been paid.
Tax Account No.: 334270000501
Amount: $ 8,751.01
Assessed Land Value: $ 595,000.00
Assessed Improvement Value: $ 66,000.00
Affects: Lot A of Parcel A
3. General taxes for the year 2016, which have been paid.
Tax Account No.: 334270000709
Amount: $ 28,567.63
Assessed Land Value: $ 831,000.00
Assessed Improvement Value: $ 1,329,000.00
Affects: Lot B of Parcel A
4. General taxes for the year 2016, which have been paid.
Tax Account No.: 334270000907
Amount: $ 28,078.49
Assessed Land Value: $ 856,000.00
Assessed Improvement Value: $ 1,267,000.00
Affects: Lot C of Parcel A
5. General taxes for the year 2016, which have been paid.
Tax Account No.: 334270001103
Amount: $ 35,442.04
Assessed Land Value: $ 1,103,000.00
Assessed Improvement Value: $ 1,577,000.00
Affects: Lot D of Parcel A
6. General taxes for the year 2016, which have been paid.
Tax Account No.: 051850115000
Amount: $ 15,916.15
Assessed Land Value: $ 966,000.00
Assessed Improvement Value: $ 237,000.00
Affects: Parcel B
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 6 of 14
First American Title
7. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and
latecomer charges for sewer, water and public facilities of King County Water District No. 107 as
disclosed by instrument recorded under recording no. 8104010618.
Affects: Parcel B
8. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof.
Grantor/Trustor: Barbee Forest Products, Inc., a Washington Corporation
Grantee/Beneficiary: U.S. Bank National Association
Trustee: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association
Amount: $500,000.00
Recorded: December 21, 2010
Recording Information: 20101221001483
Note: This Deed of Trust contains Line of Credit privileges. If the current balance owing
on said obligation is to be paid in full in the forthcoming transaction, confirmation should be
made that the beneficiary will issue a proper request for full reconveyance.
Affects Lot A of Parcel A
Modification and/or amendment by instrument:
Recorded: December 10, 2013
Recording Information: 20131210000329
9. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof.
Grantor/Trustor: Barbee Forest Products, Inc.
Grantee/Beneficiary: U.S. Bank National Association
Trustee: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association
Amount: $892,500.00
Recorded: December 02, 2014
Recording Information: 20141202002830
Affects Lot B of Parcel A
Modification and/or amendment by instrument:
Recorded: February 12, 2015
Recording Information: 20150212000542
10. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof.
Grantor/Trustor: Barbee Forest Products, Inc.
Grantee/Beneficiary: U.S. Bank National Association
Trustee: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association
Amount: $1,437,000.00
Recorded: June 02, 2015
Recording Information: 20150602000795
We note that said Deed of Trust contains an erroneous legal description. If said Deed of Trust is
not released in connection with this transaction, it should be re-recorded to correct the legal
description.
Affects Lot C of Parcel A
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 7 of 14
First American Title
11. Evidence should be submitted prior to closing of the authority of the officers, if other than Alex
Cugini, Jr. as President and Robert A. Cugini as Vice President of Barbee Forest Products, Inc., to
execute the forthcoming instrument.
12. Evidence of the authority of the individual(s) to execute the forthcoming document for The Lake
Houses at Eagle Cove LLC, copies of the current operating agreement should be submitted
prior to closing.
*** THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS AFFECTS PARCEL A ***
13. Any and all offers of dedication, conditions, restrictions, easements, boundary discrepancies or
encroachments, notes and/or provisions shown or disclosed by Short Plat or Plat of Hillmans Lake
Washington Garden of Eden #2 recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page(s) 64.
14. Conditions, notes, easements, provisions and/or encroachments contained or delineated on the
face of the Survey recorded under Recording No. 9205119002.
15. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:
Recording Information: 9305131867
In Favor of: City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation of King County
For: Public utilities
16. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:
Recorded: August 19, 1993
Recording Information: 9308190545
In Favor Of: Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington corporation
For: Electric transmission and/or distribution system
17. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "City of Renton, Washington
Ordinance No. 4774"
Recorded: April 9, 1999
Recording No.: 9904091058
18. Reservations and exceptions, including the terms and conditions thereof:
Reserving: Minerals
Reserved By: The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, a
Delaware Corporation (formerly Burlington Northern Railroad
Company)
Recorded: September 26, 2001
Recording Information: 20010926000601
NOTE: No examination has been made to determine the present record owner of the above
minerals, or mineral lands and appurtenant rights thereto, or to determine matters which may
affect the lands or rights so reserved.
19. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:
Recording Information: 20050705001268
In Favor of: Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington Corporation
For: Nonexclusive perpetual easement
This easement replaces and supersedes that easement dated January 13, 2003, and recorded
February 27, 2003, under King County Recording Number 20030227000990, Records of King
County, Washington.
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 8 of 14
First American Title
20. Access Easement Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof:
Between: Conner Homes at Barbee Mill, LLC
And: Barbee Forest Products, Inc.
Recording Information: 20060929003431
Modification and/or amendment by instrument:
Recorded: August 14, 2008
Recording Information: 20080814000715
21. Terms, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, boundary discrepancies and
encroachments as contained in recorded Lot Line Adjustment (Boundary Line Revisions):
Recorded: October 02, 2006
Recording Information: 20061002900012
22. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:
Recording Information: 20061002002086
In Favor of: City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation
For: Utilities
23. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:
Recording Information: 20061002002087
In Favor of: City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation
For: Emergency access and utilities access
24. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements; but deleting any covenant, condition or
restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, family status, or national origin to the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions
violate Title 42, Section 3604(c), of the United States Codes:
Recording Information: 20101223000033
Affects: Lots B, C and D of Parcel A
25. Any question as to the true location of the lateral boundaries of the Shorelands.
26. Any questions that may arise due to shifting or change of the line of high water of Lake
Washington.
27. Any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvements of the land resulting from
the right of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use
any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water.
28. Paramount rights and easements in favor of the United States for commerce, navigation, fisheries
and the production of power.
*** THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS AFFECTS PARCEL B ***
29. Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof:
Between: Clarissa D. Colman
And: United States of America
Recording Information: 429598
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 9 of 14
First American Title
30. Reservations and exceptions, including the terms and conditions thereof:
Reserving: Minerals
Recording Information: 467141
We note no examination has been made regarding the transfer or taxation of the reserved rights.
31. Access Easement Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof:
Between: Conner Homes at Barbee Mill, LLC
And: Barbee Forest Products, Inc.
Recording Information: 20060929003431
Modification and/or amendment by instrument:
Recorded: August 14, 2008
Recording Information: 20080814000715
32. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:
Recording Information: 20071224000192
In Favor of: Comcast of Washington IV, Inc.
For: Broadband communications system
33. Any and all offers of dedication, conditions, restrictions, easements, boundary discrepancies or
encroachments, notes and/or provisions shown or disclosed by Short Plat or Plat of Barbee
Mill recorded in Volume 246 of Plats, Page(s) 25 through 39.
34. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements; but deleting any covenant, condition or
restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, family status, or national origin to the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions
violate Title 42, Section 3604(c), of the United States Codes:
Recording Information: 20080606001208
35. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements; but deleting any covenant, condition or
restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, family status, or national origin to the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions
violate Title 42, Section 3604(c), of the United States Codes:
Recording Information: 20080613001522
Said document is a Restated and Amended declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions
of Barbee Mill, Recorded under Recording No. 20080208000183
Modification and/or amendment by instrument:
Recording Information: 20100713000747 and 20101004002608
36. Provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of the Barbee Mill Community
Organization, and any tax, fee, assessments or charges as may be levied by said association.
37. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein:
Recording Information: Barbee Mill Co., Inc.
In Favor of: Ingress, egress and other purposes
For: 20080814000714
Said easement is a re-recording of easement recorded under recording number 20060929003429
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 10 of 14
First American Title
38. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Development Agreement"
Recorded: October 03, 2011
Recording No.: 20111003000168
39. Any question that may arise due to the shifting and/or changing in the course of May Creek.
40. Any questions that may arise due to shifting or change of the line of high water of Lake
Washington.
41. Rights of the State of Washington in and to that portion of said premises, if any, lying in the bed
or former bed of Lake Washington, if it is navigable.
42. Any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvements of the land resulting from
the right of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use
any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water.
43. Paramount rights and easements in favor of the United States for commerce, navigation, fisheries
and the production of power.
=
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 11 of 14
First American Title
=
INFORMATIONAL NOTES
A. Potential charges, for the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge, as authorized under
RCW 35.58 and King County Code 28.84.050. Said charges could apply for any property that
connected to the King County Sewer Service area on or after February 1, 1990. Note: Properties
located in Snohomish County may be subject to the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity
Charges.
B. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to
standardization of recorded documents, certain format and content requirements must be met
(refer to RCW 65.04.045). Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the
recorder or additional fees being charged, subject to the Auditor's discretion.
C. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment
or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First
American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it.
D. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization
requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured.
LOTS A-D, CITY OF RENTON LLA NO. LUA-96-153LLA-LND-30-0152, REC. 20061002900012 AND
LOT 115, BARBEE MILL, VOL. 246, P. 25-39, KING COUNTY
APN: 334270000501
APN: 334270000709
APN: 334270000907
APN: 334270001103
APN: 051850115000
E. All matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy. The
coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's
standard coverage policy to be issued.
F. The following deeds affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 36
months of the effective date of this commitment: NONE
Property Address: 3905 3907 3909 3979 Lake, Washington Blvd. N , and 4001 Wells
Avenue North, Renton, WA 98056
NOTE: The forthcoming Mortgagee's Policy will be the ALTA 2006 Policy unless otherwise noted on
Schedule A herein.
NOTE: We find no judgments or Federal tax liens against the vestee herein, unless otherwise shown as a
numbered exception above.
NOTE: A FEE MAY BE CHARGED UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THIS COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO
WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THIS COMPANY.
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 12 of 14
First American Title
CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
(a)"Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument.
(b)"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title
according to the state law where the land is located.
2. LATER DEFECTS
The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances
that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment
Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We
shall have no liability to you because of this amendment.
3. EXISTING DEFECTS
If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may
amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or
encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this
information and did not tell us about it in writing.
4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY
Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its
Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this
Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment
when you acted in good faith to:
comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I
or
eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section II.
We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our
liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you.
5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to
the land must be based on this commitment and is subject to its terms.
cc:
cc: Barbee Forest Products, Inc.
=
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 13 of 14
First American Title
=
First American Title Insurance Company
818 Stewart St, Ste 800
Seattle, WA 98101
Phn - (206)615-3206
Fax - (425)551-4107
Privacy Information We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information - particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our subsidiaries we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information that you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. Information Obtained Through Our Web Site First American Financial Corporation is sensitive to privacy issues on the Internet. We believe it is important you know how we treat the information about you we receive on the Internet. In general, you can visit First American or its affiliates’ Web sites on the World Wide Web without telling us who you are or revealing any information about yourself. Our Web servers collect the domain names, not the e-mail addresses, of visitors. This information is aggregated to measure the number of visits, average time spent on the site, pages viewed and similar information. First American uses this information to measure the use of our site and to develop ideas to improve the content of our site. There are times, however, when we may need information from you, such as your name and email address. When information is needed, we will use our best efforts to let you know at the time of collection how we will use the personal information. Usually, the personal information we collect is used only by us to respond to your inquiry, process an order or allow you to access specific account/profile information. If you choose to share any personal information with us, we will only use it in accordance with the policies outlined above. Business Relationships First American Financial Corporation's site and its affiliates' sites may contain links to other Web sites. While we try to link only to sites that share our high standards and respect for privacy, we are not responsible for the content or the privacy practices employed by other sites. Cookies Some of First American's Web sites may make use of "cookie" technology to measure site activity and to customize information to your personal tastes. A cookie is an element of data that a Web site can send to your browser, which may then store the cookie on your hard drive. FirstAm.com uses stored cookies. The goal of this technology is to better serve you when visiting our site, save you time when you are here and to provide you with a more meaningful and productive Web site experience. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fair Information Values Fairness We consider consumer expectations about their privacy in all our businesses. We only offer products and services that assure a favorable balance between consumer benefits and consumer privacy. Public Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for society, enhances consumer choice and creates consumer opportunity. We actively support an open public record and emphasize its importance and contribution to our economy. Use We believe we should behave responsibly when we use information about a consumer in our business. We will obey the laws governing the collection, use and dissemination of data. Accuracy We will take reasonable steps to help assure the accuracy of the data we collect, use and disseminate. Where possible, we will take reasonable steps to correct inaccurate information. When, as with the public record, we cannot correct inaccurate information, we will take all reasonable steps to assist consumers in identifying the source of the erroneous data so that the consumer can secure the required corrections. Education We endeavor to educate the users of our products and services, our employees and others in our industry about the importance of consumer privacy. We will instruct our employees on our fair information values and on the responsible collection and use of data. We will encourage others in our industry to collect and use information in a responsible manner. Security We will maintain appropriate facilities and systems to protect against unauthorized access to and corruption of the data we maintain.
Form 50-PRIVACY (9/1/10) Page 1 of 1 Privacy Information (2001-2010 First American Financial Corporation)
Form No. 1068-2 Commitment No.: 4220-2668534
ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 14 of 14
First American Title
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Exhibit "A"
Vested Owner: Barbee Forest Products, Inc., a Washington Corporation, as to Lots B, C and D of Parcel A
and The Lake Houses at Eagle Cove LLC, a Washington limited liability company, as to Parcel B and Lot A
of Parcel A
Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows:
PARCEL A:
LOTS A, B, C AND D OF CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LUA-96-153LLA-LND-30-0152,
RECORDED OCTOBER 02, 2006 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20061002900012, IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
PARCEL B:
LOT 115, BARBEE MILL, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 246 OF PLATS,
PAGES 25 THROUGH 39, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
Tax Parcel Number: 334270000501, 334270000709, 334270000907, 334270001103 and 051850115000
Situs Address: 3905 3907 3909 3979 Lake, Washington Blvd. N , and 4001 Wells Avenue North, Renton,
WA 98056
LOT BLOT ALOT CLOT DLOT 115PARCEL BPARCEL ALAKE WASHINGTONCITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTNO. LUA-96-153LLA-LND-30-0152REC. NO. 20061002900012”98102-3513
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST
SEATTLE, Washington
LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
FAX# (206) 323-7135
(206) 323-4144
1-800-935-0508
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY
DAVIS, WRIGHT, TREMAINE, LLP
VIC. OF WELLS AVE N AND N 40TH PL
RENTON,KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON IN THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 32, T. 24 N., R. 5 E.,W.M\\Brh02\cad\C3D\2016\2016116\SURVEYING\DWG\XS-ALTA-00.dwg, 11/17/2016 2:24:57 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3, 1:1
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 6 of 17
Environmental Checklist (12 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 5 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 6 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Sediment Deposition Mitigation - The Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 1
Item 5 - Environmental Checklist (12 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 5 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 6 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
A. BACKGROUND
5.1 Name of proposed project:
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Project Area: Approximately 91,000 sf
Addresses/Properties:
King County Parcel Description Address
051850-1150 Boathouse Lot 4001 Wells Avenue N. Renton, WA 98056
334270-0005 Lot A 3979 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98056
334270-0007 Lot B 3909 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98056
334270-0009 Lot C 3907 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98056
334270-0011 Lot D 3905 Lake Washington Blvd. Renton, WA 98056
5.2 Name of applicant:
Lake Houses at Eagle Cove - Homeowner’s Association
5.3 Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
c/o: Barbee Forest Products
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
425-226-3900
Contact Representative:
R. Michael Lloyd
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
255 Camaloch Drive
Camano Island, WA 98065
425-785-1357
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 2
5.4 Date checklist prepared:
Checklist Revised December 1, 2016
5.5 Agency requesting checklist:
City of Renton, Department of Community and Economic Development
5.6 Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Working in Lake Washington is subject to environmental restrictions to protect fisheries.
Currently, dredging can only be conducted yearly between July 16 and September 15
through 2026. The current HPA allows for in-water work yearly from July 16 to
December 31, 2021. As we understand the conflict in dates, dredging or placement of
materials are subject to the smaller work window while environmental enhancement
work could potentially be allowed from July 16th through December, 31st.
We are requesting a 10 year permit from the City of Renton to allow in-water work to be
conducted in 2 Phases. The first phase would include dredging and mitigation/
environment enhancement work in the summer of 2017. The timing of the second phase
(dredging) will be determined by the effectiveness of sediment mitigation measures,
weather, and the vagaries of sediment deposition in the project area. As has been stated
in the past permit applications, the major problem is continued deposition of sediments
eroded in the May Creek Drainage Basin that are delivered to Lake Washington during
severe storm events. Until such time that meaningful measures are implemented to
reduce erosion or deal with the impacts substantial sediment deposition, dredging will be
necessary to mitigate the impacts of uncontrolled erosion in the May Valley and the
downstream impacts of sediment deposition.
Dredging is estimated to be required every 3-5 years, although the frequency is
completely dictated by extreme weather conditions and the severity of storm water flows
in May Creek that result in sediment deposition. Although estimates, based on predicting
the weather are limited, approximately 2,500 to 4,000 CY of sediment will be dredged
during each dredging event to maintain access to the water at the boathouse, boat ramp,
and support recreational uses throughout the project area.
5.7 Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain/
No. Nevertheless the applicant will eventually apply to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
in the future for an amendment to their existing permit to allow for more comprehensive
management of aquatic land throughout the project area of Eagle Cove, This future
permitting action will reconcile differences between the permits and consider future
dredging events throughout the Eagle Cove project area.
5.8 List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 3
There is a long history of dredging and environmental enhancement in Lake Washington at
the project site, preceding this application. Much of this information has been summarized
by Meridian Environmental in their Biological Assessment prepared for the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineer (USACE, 2012). This Biological Assessment was reviewed by and
concurred with by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the USACE in 2014,
the effective date of the Biological Assessment. A copy of the Biological Assessment was
submitted with our pre-application to the City of Renton. Biological Assessments have
been previously prepared in the project area dating back to 1994.
5.9 Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
At this time there are no other applications pending for governmental approvals or other
proposals directly affecting this project. However, the project proponents will eventually
seek to have federal permits in closer concurrence with state and local permits. Currently
federal permits are focused on the north end of the project site. This focus will likely
change as the May Creek Delta continues to expand at ever increasing rates with loss of
habitat, increased impermeable surfaces, and stronger stormwater surges that are generated
in the May Valley.
5.10 List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Washington Department of Ecology
Concurrence with Shoreline Permit from City of Renton)
Water Quality Certification
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Amendment of existing Hydraulic Project Approval
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Amendment of existing USACE permit to reconcile differences (future amendment
date, to be determined).
5.11 Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site.
Applicants seek to mitigate the impacts of uncontrolled sediment deposition in Lake
Washington, arising from storm water surges in the May Creek Drainage Basin. As the
May Creek Delta expands, access to the shorelines will become more limited. Currently,
access to the boathouse is severely limited. As sediment deposition increases in the project
area, use of the boathouse, boat ramp and shared use dock will be impacted along with
other protected and unprotected recreational uses. Additionally, the use of a kayak float
will be impacted as well. These recreational uses are dependent on access for use and
enjoyment of the Lake Washington.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 4
The project site is composed of five waterfront lots in Eagle Cove. The project site is
approximately 91,000 sf within the inner harbor line of Lake Washington. While it is true
that the majority of the dredging work will occur in the north end of the project area, the
owners cannot take a limited short-time perspective on the problems of uncontrolled
sedimentation impacts on the project area. Rates of sediment deposition will continue to
increase in the project area with increasing impact(s) on the environment at Eagle Cove and
ultimately northwards to the Barbee Mill Development, a residential community.
5.12 Location of the proposal, address, etc.
4001 Wells Avenue N. and residences at 370, 3909, 3907, and 3905 Lake Washington
Boulevard, Renton, WA 98056
NW 32-2- 05 (47° 31' 38.85"N, 122° 12' 18.43"W)
Vicinity Map and Legal descriptions (See Exhibit 1)
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site
The entire project site consists of near-shore aquatic lands within the Inner Harbor
Line. Aquatic lands are owned by project proponent(s). No upland work is proposed
in conjunction with this permit.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The steepest slope is at the north end of the project area where the slope below the surface
of Lake Washington is approximately is approximately 2:1 This slope was generated by
sedimentation arising from erosion sources in the May Valley.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site?
Sediments in the project site (arising from May Creek depositional events) tend to be fine
to medium sands (SP - MP) grading to gravels in closer proximity to May Creek.
Sediments distal to May Creek trend to finer materials and some silt. Within the May
Creek delta, larger rocks and gravels tends to predominate. For example, a recent severe
storm event deposited a rounded rock approximately 12 inches long with a diameter of 6
inches, testifying to the power of stormwater flows scouring the May Creek Basin.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe
No. There are no current indications of unstable soils in the proposed project area.
However, upland soils at the shoreline are less stable. These unstable soil problems were
resolved many years ago with the armoring of the shoreline immediately adjacent to the
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 5
project area. During armoring, aquatic lands were increased as the immediate shoreline
was pulled back, when the basaltic rockery was constructed.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area
of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
The purpose of this project is to maintain adequate navigational and shoreline access ay
Eagle Cove. Currently, ignoring future depositional from May Creek, approximately 2,500
to 3,000 CY should be dredged to restore navigational access to the boathouse. This affects
an area of approximately 25,000 sf at the north end of the project site, within the USACE
permit prism.
No filling is proposed as part of this dredging project, However, in mitigation for potential
habitat impacts to the May Creek Delta, project proponents will place 20 CY of “fish rock”
adjacent to the rockery to improve shallow water habitat and decrease the hardening impact
of the rockery adjacent to Lots A to D. This aspect of the proposed work has been
previously approved by the City of Renton in a Shoreline Exemption granted in 2016.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
No. The project will not involve clearing or any upland construction.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
None. There will be no impervious surfaces created before, during, or after construction.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
None.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction,
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe
and give approximate quantities if known.
Diesel exhaust emissions will result from operating heavy equipment during construction
(dredging and environmental enhancement) work. Dredging equipment will operate
approximately 8o hours over a 10 day period. Once construction work is complete, there
will be no operations or maintenance emissions.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
No.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 6
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Equipment will be tuned and well maintained prior to construction activity. If at any time
equipment is not operating properly and needs maintenance, equipment will be taken out of
service until repairs are completed and emissions are within acceptable operating criteria.
All operating equipment will not be idled when not in active use.
3. WATER
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
The project site is located in Lake Washington, immediately south of the May Creek
Delta. The entire project site is composed of aquatic lands in Lake Washington. May
Creek is a year-round stream that flows into Lake Washington just north of the project
site. May Creek, the May Creek Drainage Basin, and impacts on Lake Washington
have been extensively investigated. Probably the best discourse on the subject was
prepared by King County and the City of Renton (May Creek Drainage Basin Action
Plan (2001). To a limited extent, flooding in the upper reaches of May Creek appears
to have been abated by channelizing May Creek to minimize flooding. The
consequence of this “action” (whether intentional or ignoring consequences) is to
substantially increase the volume of storm water surge, causing an increase in erosion
and sediment deposition in Lake Washington.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
The project will require work over Lake Washington. Barge-mounted dredges or a
barge mounted excavator will operate over the aquatic lands within the project
boundaries. As stated earlier, there are two major components to the work (1)
Dredging approximately 2,500 CY of accumulated sediment, and (2) completing
environmental enhancement / mitigation work. Environmental Enhancement work
includes the following:
Placement of 20 CY “fish rock” along the rockery as well as several yards of
fish rock adjacent to the boat ramp on Lot A
Replacement of a solid wood float with a grated float that maximizes light
transmission.
Replacement of 3 treated wood piles securing the old float with two 10”
galvanized pipe piles.
Extraction of two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each), at the south
end of the project site with a single 12” galvanized pipe pile at each location
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 7
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Based on current bathymetry (hydrographic contours (pre-dredge 2016), approximately
2,500 CY of depositional sediments would be dredged. However, this estimate is
subject to dramatic increase during the rainy season of Fall 2016 to Spring 2017. There
is no way to estimate the quantity of sediment from erosional processes in the May
Creek Drainage basin, because predicting the weather and probable severe storm events
is not a winning bet. It is entirely possible that there will be no increase in sediment
deposition or that there could be a banner year of 10,000 CY to the May Creek Delta
from the May Creek Drainage Basin. The percentage of depositional “fill“that will be
deposited in the navigational access channel to the boathouse and project site is
completely unknown. Our most optimistic estimate is that in 2017 there will be
approximately 2,500 of depositional infill to be dredged to maintain access.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
No. Lake Washington elevations are controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). There is no 100-years floodplain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes?
If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate
quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known
No.
2) Impact on Groundwater.
None.
3) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 8
following chemicals. ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
No waste material(s) will be discharged.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this
water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
There will be no unpermitted runoff (including, storm water at the project dredge area.)
In major part the response to this question is addressed in 3)(b)(1) proceeding.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
No waste materials will be discharged to ground or surface waters.
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the
site? If so, describe.
No. The proposed work will not alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the
vicinity of the site. This is unfortunate, since it would be great to solve sediments
deposition problems in Lake Washington arising from uncontrolled erosion in the May
Creek Drainage Basin (necessitating this proposal to mitigate the damages caused by
upstream erosion arising in the (May Creek Drainage Basin).
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage
pattern impacts, if any:
Some return water from dredged materials, as placed on a barge, is anticipated. It is
extremely import to understand that the dredged material is highly porous and drains
very quickly during dredging as the bucket is raised out of the water. This return water
is the subject of the Water Quality Certification approved by the Department of
Ecology. Notably, there is very little silt or clay content in dredged materials as
indicated in recent sediment testing. Essentially, the sediments are near “dry” as loaded
onto the barge. The perimeter of the barge will be lined with hay bales wrapped with
filter fabric to reduce potential turbidity in Lake Washington. This is not a theoretical
exercise. Dredging was completed in 2011 following these protocols without problems
of either excessive return water or exceeding water quality criteria.
4. PLANTS
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 9
There are no plants within the proposed dredge area (not counting aquatic plants,
principally milfoil) that will be disturbed by the work. The presence of aquatic plants is
discussed in Biological Assessments prepared by Meridian Environmental (particularly
2010, and 2012). In major part Milfoil has limited native aquatic plant development
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None. No upland vegetation will be removed or altered at the project site at the Lake
Houses. Milfoil in the aquatic environment will be temporarily disturbed. Unfortunately,
milfoil will return in abundance.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Listed salmon species, steelhead, bull trout, bald eagles,
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any.
None. All work will be in-water, and uplands will not be impacted
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
The most common and pervasive plant species is milfoil which is present throughout Lake
Washington.
5. ANIMALS
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site. Examples include:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: eagle, osprey, crows, water fowl, herons and
Canadian Geese
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: coyote, deer
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, salmon, trout, bass, sunfish, crayfish and
turtles.
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Yes, May Creek is a known spawning stream for fishes as long as anyone can remember.
Migratory fowl are also known to stop over in Lake Washing in summers and winters
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 10
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
A shoreline exemption was granted by the City of Renton for environmental
enhancement work which includes the following major components:
Placement of 20 CY “fish rock” along the rockery, as well as, several yards of
fish rock adjacent to the boat ramp on Lot A
Replacement of a solid wood float with a grated float that maximizes light
transmission.
Replacement of 3 treated wood piles securing the old float with two 10”
galvanized pipe piles.
Extraction of two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each), at the south
end of the project site, and replacing the dolphins with a single 12” galvanized
pipe pile at each location
In addition to environmental enhancement work previously permitted by the City of
Renton, we are also proposing to enhance the north end of the project boundary adjacent to
the May Creek Delta with placement of Large Woody Debris (LWD) that helps stabilize
shorelines and provides vital habitat for salmon and other animals. Preserving and even
increasing the amounts of large woody debris along shorelines is important for keeping
our aquatic areas healthy and improving the survival of native salmon and other animals.
A few of the benefits of LWD include:
It provides refuge for juvenile and adult fish at a wide range of river flows, such as
flood events common to the May Creek Delta,
It creates pools for juvenile fish and hydraulic complexity and roughness along the
creek bank,
It provides food sources and habitat for aquatic insects and wildlife along
shorelines, and
It helps stabilize shorelines and reduce excessive erosion.
An additional benefit of placing LWD at the edge of the May Creek delta is that root wads
create an area of still water where sediments will drop out and potentially reduce deposition
impacts in the project area.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Bass are potentially the major fish known to be at the project site. Bass are predators that
feed on fry and other small fishes,
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 11
No energy resources will be required to meet completed project’s energy needs.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any
None. There will be no energy consuming sources (see b. above)
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this
proposal? If so, describe.
The primary health or environmental exposure that could occur would be a spill of
hydraulic fluid or other petroleum product during construction by dredging equipment.
Most contractors have switched from petroleum based hydraulic fluid to vegetable based
materials, particularly peanut oil.
Sediments from the dredge area have been tested multiple times and are known to be clean
materials resulting from sediment deposition by May Creek. The most recent sampling and
analysis occurred in July, 2016.
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
The major source of potential contamination arises from Quendall Terminals (a
superfund site) approximately 2000 feet north of the project site. When tested,
sediments at Eagle Cove were substantially below MTCA Residential Cleanup levels as
well as open water disposal action levels. As a point of reference, detected levels of
PAH compounds were below background levels for the Puget Sound region.
There is another potential source of contamination that may contribute petroleum
hydrocarbons. Working boom boats were often moored at the site of the Boathouse.
This area was dredged in 2011 after sediment testing indicated that diesel and motor oil
residues that were detected were substantially (orders of magnitude) below levels of
concern. Recent sampling and analysis indicates the petroleum hydrocarbon residues
are substantially below aquatic cleanup criteria.
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas
transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
There are no existing hazardous chemicals and conditions that would affect the
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 12
proposed dredging. Indeed, sediments are acceptable for all beneficial uses upland
without restriction. There are no gas lines within the project area although there is a
natural gas line upland that serves the City of Renton.
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced
during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the
operating life of the project.
Hazardous chemicals or materials will not be stored, used, or produced during or after
construction. Heavy equipment requires petroleum and vegetable oil (specifically for
hydraulic systems) products to operate properly. These products may be become
hazardous under special conditions ( fire, spill, etc)
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
During construction (dredging in-water, environmental enhancement work), there is
always the potential for a work place accident that may require medical emergency
services. In the event of a spill of petroleum or other material spill, specialized
cleanup services may be required.
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Prior to beginning construction on this project, a kickoff meeting will be held to review
the overall project, detail specialized risks, and review emergency response measures
with project team management and construction crew members. Representative from
the City of Renton, USACE and other regulatory/administrative personnel will be
invited to attend. The purpose is to provide information, and respond to questions, and
to be clarify potential risks, and to discuss means to mitigate known and unknown risks.
During construction, daily health and safety meetings will be conducted with
construction crews, to alert them to special risks that may be present during planned
work efforts for the day. In addition to daily health and safety meetings, equipment
will be inspected daily to minimize the potential for equipment failures which may
contribute to environmental health hazards. The intent is to foster a work environment
that is protective of workers and the environment.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
None.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 13
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Operation of dredging equipment and upland heavy equipment (frontend loaders, etc)
will generate expected noise levels during construction of up 80 to 90 decibels on a
short-term basis only during construction. No long-term noise levels will be created.
Construction noise will only occur during daylight hours between 7 AM and 7 PM,
Monday through Saturday. No work will occur on Sunday.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Noise impacts of heavy equipment operation will occur, but will be limited to the
extent that equipment will be properly maintained and muffled to the extent possible
such that noise levels may be reduced to the minimum. The short duration of work
over Lake Washington will mean that noise impacts will be temporary.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect
current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
As described in the Project Narrative, the current use of the site is for single family homes
and a boathouse at the north end. This proposal will not affect current land uses, but will
provide for the continued recreational and aesthetics enjoyment of waterfront living.
Adjacent properties to the south are also single family homes. To the north is the Barbee
Mill Development, a planned unit development. This proposal will not affect current land
uses on nearby or adjacent properties.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so,
describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance
will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have
not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be
converted to nonfarm or non-forest use?
No.
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land
normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of
pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 14
Structures at the site include four single family homes and a boathouse.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Residential-10 (R10) at the Boathouse Lot, and Residential-6 (R-6) zoning classification at
the four adjacent lots immediately south.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation at the Boathouse lot, and Residential
Medium Density (RMD) at the four adjacent lots immediately south.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
The shoreline designation for the waterfront homes is LW-D. The boathouse property is
part of the MC-A designated for the Barbee Mill Planned Unit Development.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so,
specify.
May Creek, immediately north of the project site, has been designated a critical area for
that portion of May Creek east of I-405.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
No change in the number of people residing or working will result with the completion of
this project.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Not Applicable.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 15
A fundamental purpose for completion of this permit application/process and subsequent
approval by the City of Renton, is to assure that the proposal is compatible with existing
and projected land uses and plans.
m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and
forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any:
None. There are no nearby agricultural or forest lands of long-term commercial
significance,
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
None..
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Not Applicable. No structures are proposed
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None. No views would be altered or obstructed.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None. There will be no aesthetic changes or impacts
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 16
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
None. No changes are proposed that will change or alter light or glare.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
None.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
The purpose of the proposed dredging and environmental enhancement work is to
encourage sustainability of both protected and informal recreational opportunities on Lake
Washington at Eagle Cove. Project proponents seek to preserve access to the boathouse,
shared-use dock, boat ramp, kayak float and amenities for boating, fishing, swimming and
shoreline enjoyment unique to Lake Washington. The loss of these designated and
informal recreational uses is not acceptable.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No. The proposed project will help sustain and promote existing and future recreational
uses.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
This entire project is promoted to reduce or to control impacts on recreational uses and to
promote the use and enjoyment of Lake Washington. Nothing would serve this effort more
than eliminating or controlling depositional impacts arising from erosion in the May Creek
Drainage Basin.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 17
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45
years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers
located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe.
No.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Is there any material
evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any
professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources.
To the extent that landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or
occupation may have been present at one time, these features have been not been observed
or simply covered with depositional sediments from May Creek . These changes include:
Lowering of Lake Washington during the construction of the Ballard Locks,
Reconfiguration and relocation of May Creek, (May Creek at one time entered
Lake Washington at the Quendall Terminals site, north of the project site.
Development of shorelines in the City of Renton, and
Sediment deposition at the Shoreline of lake Washington.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic
resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the
department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic
maps, GIS data, etc.
Methods to assess the potential impact of cultural and historic resources on or near the
project site are limited by site development and changes noted in 13.b immediately
preceding. To the best of site knowledge, going back at least 50+ years, dredging in the
proposed project area will not encounter or impact any sediments except those of recent
depositional origin (within the past 15 years).
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and
disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be
required.
Project plans for dredging will be limited to dredging accumulated sediment that has been
deposited over the past 15 years since the May Creek Delta was last dredged. Because
dredging will not reach the depths that may be of cultural or historical significance, this
will avoid such impacts.
14. TRANSPORTATION
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 18
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The Lake Houses at Eagle Cove are served by access through the Barbee Mill
Development. No changes are anticipated. Access is shown on the Vicinity Map.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally
describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Public transport is immediately available on Lake Washington Blvd. N.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project
proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?
None. No additional parking or elimination of parking spaces is proposed.
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian,
bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
No.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or
proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of
the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What
data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?
The completed project will not generate any additional vehicular trips per day. During
construction on Lake Washington, workers will make trips to the project site. Adequate
parking is available to accommodate this temporary increase in vehicular trips.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and
forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
No.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
i.
None proposed.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 5 – Environmental Checklist 5 - 19
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
No.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
None proposed.
16. UTILITIES
a. Check or circle utilities currently available at the site:
The following utilities are currently available to the Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
electricity,
natural gas,
water,
refuse service,
telephone, and
sanitary sewer
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which
might be needed..
No utilities are proposed for the project.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Proponent Signature:
Name of Signee (printed): R. Michael Lloyd
Position and Agency/Organization: President, Lloyd & Associated, Inc.
Date Submitted:
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 7 of 17
Project Narrative (12 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 6 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 5 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Project Narrative 5 - 1
Project Narrative (12 Copies)
Applicability:
Submittal 6 – Grade and Fill Permit
Submittal 5 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
6.1 Project name, size and location of site:
Project name: Sediment Deposition Mitigation – The Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Project size: Approximately 91,000 sf
Location: 4001 Williams Ave, and 3905 to 3909 Lake Washington Boulevard,
Renton, WA 98056 (see Neighborhood Detail/Vicinity Map).
6.2 Land use permits required for proposed project
The Lake Houses at Eagle Cove homeowners are applying for “Special Permit” for Grade and
Fill from the City of Renton to conduct Sediment Deposition Mitigation dredging. A Substantial
Shoreline Development Permit from the City of Renton is required. The project proponents will
also require concurrence with the Substantial Shoreline Development Permit by the Department
of Ecology.
Additional permits and approvals that will/may be required include:
Maintenance Dredging Permit Amendment – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hydraulic Project Approval Amendment – Department of Fish and Wildlife
Water Quality Certification Amendment – Washington Department of Ecology
6.3 Existing and Projected Zoning
Existing zoning is principally single family residential (R-10 at the Boathouse Lot, and R-6 at the
four lots immediately adjacent and to the south. No changes in any zoning are proposed.
6.4 Current use of the site and any existing improvements
Uplands at the project site in Lake Washington are residential, as described in 6.3 above.
Uplands consist of a boathouse on the north end lot and four single family residences on the
shoreline of Lake Washington. The Lake Houses at Eagle Cove are adjacent to aquatic lands
owned by project proponents. A shared-use-dock at the southern end of the project area was
constructed in 2006 serving the single family residences. In addition to the boathouse on the
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Project Narrative 5 - 2
north end, a boat ramp is located at lot A (see Title Report Summary). The boah ramp also
provides lake access, serving protected recreational uses.
6.5 Special Site Features (i.e. wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes)
The entire project site is located on aquatic lands within the Inner Harbor Line of Lake
Washington. North of the project area is the May Creek Delta. May Creek and the May Creek
Drainage Basin have been studied extensively in recent years. One of the best treatises’ on May
Creek and the May Creek Drainage Basin was prepared in 2001 by King County and the City of
Renton. There are no steep slopes within the project area. One of the most fundamental special
site features is the access to Lake Washington and the many protected and non-protected
recreational uses. The major purpose of this project is to sustain these special features and
recreational uses from uncontrolled erosion in the May Creek Drainage Basin which dumps
eroded sediments into Lake Washington, as a consequence of development and habitat loss in
May Valley.
6.6 Statement addressing soil type and drainage conditions
Soils and sediments at the project site are principally fine to medium sands with some gravels
arising from erosion in the May Valley resulting in substantial deposition in Lake Washington at
the mouth of May Creek. Sediments are very porous and drain rapidly (like pouring water into a
sandbox). Upland soils follow similar patterns with glacial sands and gravel outwash
predominating. Drainage conditions at Eagle Cove uplands are good and the work in Lake
Washington at the project site will not affect or otherwise impact upland drainages.
6.7 Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development
Property uses will not change with the proposed project to sustain and preserve aquatic lands
within the Inner Harbor Line. Rather, enhancement of the shoreline, maintenance of recreational
access for swimming, boating, canoeing, and water sports are special recreational features of the
upland properties at Eagle Cove. The purpose of the project is to maintain existing uses in the
face of uncontrolled erosion in the May Creek Drainage Basin that results in substantial
“unnatural” sediment deposition at the May Creek Delta and neighboring properties.
6.8 For plats indicate proposed number, net density and range of sizes of the new lots
Not applicable. No plats are proposed
6.9 Access to the Property
Gated and locked access is provided at the north end of the property from Wells Ave. Gated and
locked access has also been provided to the City of Renton near the south end of the project site
for utilities and emergency vehicles. Direct access to Lake Washington and the project site from
the boat ramp on Lot A is another special feature serving the houses at Eagle Cove.
6.9 Proposed off-site improvements
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Project Narrative 5 - 3
No off-site improvements (utilities, access, etc) are proposed. All work will occur in the water at
the project site from floating equipment.
6.10 Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed project
Estimated Costs are less than $300.000, not including substantial recurring permitting costs to
mitigate uncontrolled sediment deposition. The fair market value of the existing properties will
potentially decrease if the project is not completed and protected recreational uses and lake front
amenities are further compromised by sediment deposition arising from uncontrolled erosion in
the May Creek Drainage Basin.
6.11 Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed
No additional fill is anticipated, except as previously approved in a Shoreline Exemption granted
by the City of Renton (May 27, 2016). A copy of the Shoreline Exemption is provided at the end
of this section. Approximately 20 CY of “fish rock” (approved by the Washington State
Department of Fish & Wildlife, U. S Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Renton will be
placed along the rockery to enhance shallow water habitat adjacent to the rockery.
Dredging may be necessary every 3 to 5 years to preserve navigational access to the boathouse,
recreational access and other water related uses. The rate of sediment deposition arising from
May Creek, will dictate when dredging will be necessary, as well as, the quantity of material to
be dredged. Throughout the 1990’s May Creek deposited 3,000 to 4,000 CY ever 3 to 4 years.
In recent years the amount of material being deposited in Lake Washington has substantially
increased to a very roughly estimated at 4,000 to 6,000 CY per year. This is a substantial
increase and a huge cause of concern for Eagle Cove residents. In time this will become a
concern for the residents of the Barbee Mill Development as rising stream bed levels increase
risk of flooding.
Estimating future dredging requirements is difficult at best, since sediment deposition is entirely
dependent on weather, continued degradation of the May Creek Drainage Basin, and the vagaries
of nature. Nevertheless, future dredging could entail as much as 2,500 to 4,000 CY every 3 to 5
years. In major part we are proposing to dredge to a maximum profile to maintain access rather
than a fixed quantity. This approach is consistent with USACE permit conditions and reflects
the owner’s intent to dredge as little as necessary. This is a costly venture.
6.12 Number, type and size of any trees to be removed
None.
6.13 Explanation of any land to be dedicated to the City
None.
6.14 Any proposed job shacks, sales trailers, and/or model homes
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Project Narrative 5 - 4
None.
6.15 Any proposed modifications being requested (include written justification) for projects located
within 100 feet of a stream or wetland?
Dredging project will be located in Lake Washington and will include periodic dredging so as to
maintain navigational access to the boathouse, shared use dock and protected recreational access
to Lake Washington. Although there is not a current flood danger, as sediments continue to
accumulate at the mouth of May Creek, the base elevation of May Creek will also rise. For
example the Barbee Mill Development site was raised approximately 10 feet with fill to provide
a measure of protection from flooding. At the same time, major portions of the May Creek
Delta have risen as much at 20 feet. It is just a matter of time before the impacts of sediment
deposition will be shared by many land owners near May Creek.
All dredging work will be conducted below the Ordinary High Water Line. The Project is
located adjacent to the ever expanding May Creek Delta. The expanding delta provides a
particularly visual image of the consequences of uncontrolled erosion in the May Creek Drainage
Basin. The existing shoreline is largely built up and hardened with a rockery to protect the Lake
Houses at Eagle Cove.
.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 8 of 17
Construction Mitigation Description (5 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 7 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 8 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Includes: Shoreline Exemption for Environmental Enhancements and Mitigation (City of
Renton)
Sediment Deposition Mitigation - The Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 7 – Construction Mitigation Description 7 - 1
Construction Mitigation Description (5 copies)
Applicability:
Item 7 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 8 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
7.1 Proposed Construction Dates
In-water work at Eagle Cove will comply with the HPA (Hydraulic Project Approval)
requirements provided in our recent HPA (July 2016). This “fish window” runs from July 16th to
September 15th of each year during the 5 year permit duration. The intent is to protect potential
spawning salmon and other fisheries in Lake Washington and nearby May Creek. Pending
approval of permits from the City of Renton, the HPA will be amended.
7.2 Days and Hours of Operation
In-water work (Environmental Enhancement and Dredging) will occur during daylight hours
between 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays to minimize noise impacts to neighboring residences on
weekends and evenings. Daylight hours are also substantially more protective of worker safety.
Additionally, daylight hours will better allow for visual observation of dredging activities,
potential turbidity generation during dredging, salmon and other fishes observation
(preservation/protection), and dealing with potential emergencies that may arise.
7.3 Proposed Hauling/Transportation routes/Preliminary Traffic Control Plan
The materials to be dredged are principally fine to medium sands with some gravel that is well-
draining fill material. Sediments do not contain any substantial silt or clay. There are three
potential options for handling this material.
Option 1 - Off-loading at the boat ramp on Lot A and trucking the materials off site
Option 2 – Off-loading the barge at a site on Lake Washington or Lake Union (TBD)
Option 3 – Open Water, Ocean Disposal
Option 1. It may be possible to off-load sediments directly to trucks at the Boat Ramp at Lot
A. Sediments would be placed on a flat barge and allowed to “dry” to the extent that water will
not leak during transit. If “free” water is observed, then trucks will be lined to eliminate
drippage on public highways. The major downside to this option is having to haul sediments
through the Barbee Mill Development and potentially disturb residents more than other options.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation - The Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 7 – Construction Mitigation Description 7 - 2
Dry sediments would be hauled off-site for sale or other beneficial use. Clean sands are a
commodity in demand, so this is a viable option in that regard.
Option 2. Clean sediments can be dredged to a barge and off-loaded to another site on Lake
Washington (outside of the City of Renton or Lake Union for off-loading and beneficial reuse.
Currently, negotiations have been underway for a site (not in the City of Renton) that may be an
opportunity for receiving sediments for beneficial reuse. For example, it may be that the City of
Renton or other “lake municipalities” will have an interest in obtaining clean sands and gravels
delivered to their door.
Option 3. Ocean disposal is an option for receiving clean sediments from the project site at
the Puget Sound Open Disposal site. Additional sediment sampling may be necessary to meet
USACE requirements for ocean disposal. While ocean disposal is available, it seems to be a
counter-intuitive use for clean materials that can be beneficially reused.
7.4 Measures to be Implemented to Minimize Dust, Erosion, Mud
Dust Abatement. Because sediments are well draining, they will be damp but not wet with a low
potential for generating dust. No special dust abatement measures are anticipated during
dredging and handling on site. If sediments are trucked off-site, all trucks will be covered to
minimize dust generation or potential wind generated loss...
Erosion Control. No upland soils or structures will be impacted or modified in any way at the
project site. Sediment deposition mitigation dredging should not cause any in-water impacts
as regulated by the Department of Ecology in their Water Quality Certification. Potential
turbidity will be monitored in real time during in-water work Dredged sediments will be
placed on a flat barge that will be lined with straw bales wrapped in erosion control fabric to
minimize potential turbidity in return water, as sediments further dewater in accord with
anticipated Water Quality Certification.
If either Option 1 or Option 2 is implemented for handling sediments, a detailed Traffic
Control Plan will be generated and implemented (see section 7.5)
Mud Control. Dredging operations will be conducted at all times to minimize disturbance or
siltation to adjacent waters. Because dredged materials are principally sandy sediments with
nominal silt or clay, virtually no mud will be generated by this project. In the event of
excessive turbidity, fish distress, fish kill, or other water quality problem, dredging
operations and placement will be stopped until the problem is corrected, and the Department
of Ecology has been notified.
Noise Control. Dredging will occur during daylight hours to minimize noise to neighboring
businesses and residences during weekend and nighttime hours. Some temporary increase in
noise is unavoidable from the operation of heavy equipment. Noise levels will approximate
those generated by equipment operated at the former sawmill. Potential noise impacts may
be limited by utilizing equipment that is well muffled. Because sound travels over water
Sediment Deposition Mitigation - The Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 7 – Construction Mitigation Description 7 - 3
very well, baffles on the dredging equipment will be installed if noise levels are
unacceptable.
Other Noxious Characteristics. Sediments have been previously sampled and tested for potential
contamination. Test results from multiple testing events over the years indicate that
sediments are clean sands and gravels. No sediment quality criteria have been exceeded, and
sediments present no substantial environmental threat to human health or the environment.
Nevertheless, a spill of petroleum products (hydraulic fluid, diesel, other) is always a
concern. All equipment operating over-water will be enclosed with a containment boom to
capture a potential spill and to aid in cleanup by not allowing a potential spill to spread or
disperse. Most dredging contractors now use a peanut or other vegetable –based hydraulic
oil to minimize petroleum releases.
Contractors will carry spill control materials on board floating equipment so that in the event
of a spill or leak, there will be no delay in containment to minimize potential impacts. An
approved Spill Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan) is required by the Coast
Guard for all equipment operating in/over water. A copy of the selected contractor’s plan
will be provided to the City of Renton. This plan will be implemented in case of a spill, or
leak. Because of this potential for a spill, prevention and a proactive approach is always the
best measure. A trained and educated work force, trained in spill protection and cleanup is
essential. Additionally, it is critical that all equipment is maintained in good operating
condition and all hydraulic lines and fittings be routinely inspected on a daily basis. The
most common leak to the waters of the state arises from failing hydraulic hoses and fittings.
Refueling of equipment over the water will not be allowed during the short duration of the
project. . These risks can and will be minimized with maintained equipment, trained
personnel, equipment inspections, containment booms, and related proactive measures to
minimize the potential impacts arising from a spill or a leak into the waters of the state..
7.5 Preliminary Traffic Control Plan
In Section 7.2 above, we detailed and discussed the primary options for beneficial reuse or
disposal of sediments. A full traffic control plan will be prepared, and submitted to the City of
Renton for review and approval of a “hauling permit” if dredged materials are trucked off site on
public highways.
It is currently anticipated that approximately 2,500 to 3,000 CY of sandy sediments will be
moved during the next dredging event. This would translate to approximately 350 truck loads.
If tandem trucks are used, the number of trips would be reduced by 50%. If dredging occurs
over 10 day period, that would equate to approximately 35 tandem trucks per day during
approved hauling times of lower traffic volume. Hauling of sediments will not occur on
weekends.
The preliminary haul route for trucks will leave the project site is as follows:
Travel north on Lake Washington Boulevard N,
Continue to destination on I-405.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation - The Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 7 – Construction Mitigation Description 7 - 4
Off site movement of dredged materials will comply with Traffic control permit requirements
detailed below:
Obtain City approval of the Traffic Control Plan in compliance with the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Comply with all traffic regulations of the City of Renton and the State of Washington.
No street or lane closures are anticipated.
Notify emergency services (253-852-2121) as soon as possible for any street or lane
closures in the event of a truck break down or other traffic impediment.
Indemnify and hold harmless the City of Renton from any and all claims, actions, and
judgments, including all costs of defense and attorney’s fees incurred in defending
against same, arising from and related to implementation of the approved traffic control
plans including claims arising from towing of private vehicles and the acts of the Permit
Holder’s agents and employees.
The City of Renton shall be entitled, in its reasonable discretion, to settle claims prior to
suit or judgment, and in such event shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any
such claims paid, including the City’s reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs
incurred resulting from such claim.
In the event any claim or suit is brought against City within the scope of this Agreement,
Permit Holder will pay for legal counsel chosen by the City to defend against same.
Flagger and sign placement are subject to revision by the City Inspector on site, if needed
to address traffic or pedestrian safety or travel.
Work Zone Traffic Control shall be in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) and shown by sketch or reference to WSDOT.
The plan must be submitted to the City’s PW/Transportation Division for review and/or
approval at least three working days prior to work.
Approved Temporary Traffic Control Plan must be at the work site during work hours.
Contractor or entity must call Renton School District (425-204-4455) or any
public/private agency to be affected by a temporary lane or road closure.
•Complete assistance and accommodation shall be provided to all kinds of pedestrian
traffic when sidewalk or walkway is impeded.
Total road closure lasting more than 24 hours is subject to the approval by the City
Council.
Any vehicle, equipment, barricade, or portable tow-away sign used within the work area
must display a company logo or any legally acceptable sign showing the company name,
address, and telephone number at a conspicuous place on the vehicle or equipment. In
the case of Temporary No Parking Zones, all the following apply in addition to previous:
Contractor must complete form to show limits of Temporary No Parking Zone
identifying barricade locations for vacate parking or curb lane usage.
•Contractor must post notice of dates and time of Temporary No Parking Zone with at
least two signs per block 72 hours in advance of effective date and time.
The cover sheet of this Traffic Control Plan form must be attached to each Temporary No
Parking Sign on the project site.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation - The Lake Homes at Eagle Cove
Item 7 – Construction Mitigation Description 7 - 5
Temporary traffic control devices must be removed immediately when work is done or
no construction activities are going on. If deemed abandoned.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 9 of 17
Fee Statement Summary (1 Copy)
Applicability:
Item8 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 4 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
2016 Grade and Filling Permit (Hearing Examiner) $2,500
2016 Substantial Shoreline Development Permit ) $2,500
2016 SEPA $1,500
Subtotal $6,500
3% Technology Surcharge Fee $175
Total $6,675
2017 Grade and Filling Permit (Hearing Examiner) $5,000 + 3% Technology Surcharge Fee
2017 Substantial Shoreline Development Permit ) $3,000 + 3% Technology Surcharge Fee
2017 SEPA $1,000 + 3% Technology Surcharge Fee
2017 Grade and Filling Permit (Hearing Examiner) $5000
2017 Substantial Shoreline Development Permit ) $3000
2017 SEPA $1,500
Subtotal $9,500
3% Technology Surcharge Fee $275
Total $9,775
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 10 of 17
Neighborhood Detail Map (12 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 9 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 11 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Project Area
BNSF Railroad
PURPOSE: Sediment Deposition Mitgation APPLICANT: Lake Houses at Eagle Cove PROPOSED: Environmental Enhancement
WATERBODY: Lake Washington
DATUM: USACE / Seattle District (NAD83)LOCATION ADDRESS:
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 3901 Lake Washington Blvd. N.NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP
Barbee Forest Products/Lake Houses Renton, King County, WA 98055
Barbee Mill Development Section Township Range: NW 32 24 05
Burlington Northern-Sante Fe Lat: 47N 31' 40" Long: 122W 12' 29"
9/22/2016 L&AI
Neighborhood Detail Map
Sediment Depostion -
Mitigation
Environmental
Enhancement at Eagle
Cove
N
Scale (ft)
5000 1000
3
1
Barbee Mill
Development
Exit 7 I-405
Lake
Washington
N. 40 th Meadow Avenue. N.Park Avenue.2
Mercer
Island
3
1
2
N. 44 th
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 11 of 17
Grading Plans (12 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 10 – Grade and Fill Permit
Items 29 & 31 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Note: Includes Proposed Mitigation – Large Woody Debris
Sediment Deposition Mitigation - Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Item 10 Grading Plan 10 - 1
Grading Plans (12 copies)
Applicability:
Item 10 – Grade and Fill Permit Application
Item 30 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application
Grading Plans
All plan sheets are provided in reduced form on 8.5” x 11” paper. Larger versions (22” x 34”) can be
generated as necessary. Each plan sheet indicates graphic scale and north arrow. Dimensions of all
properties are provided.
Because the entire project is located in the water, shoreline structures are only generally located as they
will not be changed, altered or affected by dredging work in Lake Washington; Similarly, no drainages
or other surface changes, (above the Ordinary High Water Level) or utilities will be impacted.
As discussed in the Project Narrative the volume of material to be dredged exceeds 500 CY. The
following project plans are provided”
Sheet 1 of 5 – Existing Lake Bed Elevation Contours as of July, 2016 when last surveyed.
Because the May Creek Delta is an extremely active source of sediment t deposition arising
from uncontrolled erosion process in the May Valley, Lakebed elevations will continue to
change as more sediments are deposited at the project site. Existing contour lines are drawn
at two-foot intervals.
Sheet 2 of 5 – Proposed Dredging Contours (Grading) are provided. The proposed contours
provide the deepest that we are proposing to dredge. However, for any given dredging event,
it may be that less material may be dredged than permitted by the City of Renton. For
example, during the last permit cycle, the City of Renton permitted the dredging of the May
Creek Delta, however, the permit obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers
encompassed a much smaller area.
Sheet 3 of 5 – Cross Section A1 to A-2 provides a graphical presentation of existing and
proposed dredging contours. To facilitate understanding of the profile, the cross-section at
A1 to A2 is also provided as a 4X vertical exaggeration.
Sheet 4 of 5 – Cross Section B1 to B-2 provides a graphical presentation of existing and
proposed dredging contours. To facilitate understanding of the profile, the cross-section at
B1 to B2 is also provided as a 4X vertical exaggeration.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation - Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Item 10 Grading Plan 10 - 2
Sheet 5 of 5 – Mitigation/Environmental Enhancement / Large Woody Debris. Applicant
seeks to place Large Woody Debris at the northern property line at the north end of the
project site as recommended/suggested by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Six
root wads will be secured to existing boom logs to enhance shallow water habitat for fishes at
the periphery of the May Creek Delta.
Because of the variability and unpredictability of sediment deposition, it is entirely like that contours
shown in Sheet 1 of 4 will change. Upon completion of dredging, finished contours in the project area
will be provided to the City of Renton. In major part, this grading plan also incorporates rehabilitation
planning for mitigating uncontrolled sediment deposition to the project site.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 12 of 17
Biological Assessment (3 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 17 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 29 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Note: Biological Assessment prepared by Meridian Environmental, Inc. Reviewed/Approved by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service (2014)
.
Cugini Property Boathouse
Expansion of the Existing Lake
Washington Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment
Action Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared by
Meridian Environmental, Inc.
August 27, 2012
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page i
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
CONTENTS
I. Background / History ................................................................................................................... 1
A. Project and Federal Action History ............................................................................................... 3
II. Description of the Action and Action Area .................................................................................... 4
A. Federal Action and Legal Authority .............................................................................................. 4
B. Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 4
Timing and Duration of Work ....................................................................................................... 5
Sediment Disposal ........................................................................................................................ 5
Conservation Measures ................................................................................................................ 6
C. Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions ............................................................................. 7
D. Project Area and Action Area Defined .......................................................................................... 7
III. Status of Species and Critical Habitat ........................................................................................... 9
A. Species Lists from the Services (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS) ..................................................... 9
Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DPS ............................................................................... 9
Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH ......................................... 10
B. Description of Species ................................................................................................................. 11
Chinook Salmon .......................................................................................................................... 11
Steelhead .................................................................................................................................... 15
Bull Trout .................................................................................................................................... 17
Coho Salmon ............................................................................................................................... 20
IV. Environmental Baseline .............................................................................................................. 22
A. Description of the Action Area and Project Area........................................................................ 22
Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington) ......................................................................... 22
Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 25
B. Description of the Environmental Baseline ................................................................................ 39
Environmental Baseline Matrix .................................................................................................. 39
V. Effects of The Action on Fish Species .......................................................................................... 46
A. Direct Effects ............................................................................................................................... 47
Direct Effects on Fish .................................................................................................................. 47
Direct Effects on Habitat ............................................................................................................ 48
Direct Effects on Water Quality .................................................................................................. 49
B. Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................................ 50
C. Effects from Interdependent and Interrelated Actions .............................................................. 50
D. Effects from Ongoing Project Activities ...................................................................................... 50
E. Description of How the Environmental Baseline would be Affected ......................................... 51
F. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................... 51
G. Take Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 51
H. Critical Habitat Effects Analysis .................................................................................................. 52
VI. Effects Determination for Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat ................................... 53
VII. Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................. 53
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page ii
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
A. Description of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 54
B. Appropriate Fisheries Management Plan(s) ............................................................................... 54
C. Effects of the Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 54
D. Proposed Conservation Measures .............................................................................................. 54
E. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 54
References ......................................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix A Site Maps – Dredge Area Expansion
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the proposed project area. ..................................................................... 2
Figure 2. High elevation aerial photograph of the proposed project area and action area in Lake
Washington. .............................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3. May Creek delta 2012 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations. .......................................... 26
Figure 4. Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet during the 2005 SCUBA survey
(Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005). ...................................................................................... 27
Figure 5. Photograph of juvenile coho observed near the existing boathouse structure during
the 2012 SCUBA survey (located inside the yellow rectangle). .............................................. 31
Figure 6. Photograph of prickly sculpin observed along transect 1 during the 2012 SCUBA
survey. ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 7. Photo graph of the culvert structure located at the eastern end of transect 1 (2012
survey). .................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 8. Historical aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site. .............................................................. 33
Figure 9. Riparian condition at the confluence of May Creek with Lake Washington in 2012
(looking west from the boathouse dock at the proposed expanded dredging area). ............ 33
Figure 10. Curly‐leaf pondweed photographed along transect 6 (2012 SCUBA survey). ........................ 35
Figure 11. Riprap cobble substrate and caddisfly larvae observed along transect 1 during the
2012 SCUBA survey. ................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 12. Gravel substrate observed along transect 2 during the 2012 SCUBA survey. ........................ 37
Figure 13. Silt substrate observed along transect 4 at a depth of approximately 16 feet during the
2012 SCUBA survey. ................................................................................................................ 37
Figure 14. Existing riparian conditions along lower May Creek, located to the north of the
proposed action area. ............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 15. The dock and boathouse dock structures located to the east of the proposed
expanded dredging area. ......................................................................................................... 39
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page iii
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of recent ESA dredging consultations. ...................................................................... 3
Table 2. Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson‐Stevens Act (MSA) Species. ..... 10
Table 3. Summary of May 3 and May 17, 2012 SCUBA survey results within the proposed
project area. ............................................................................................................................ 29
Table 4. Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental baseline on
relevant indicators. .................................................................................................................. 40
Table 5. Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11 days of sampling over
the dredging period). ............................................................................................................... 50
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 1
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
I. BACKGROUND / HISTORY
This Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to obtain a modification of the Cugini’s existing U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) programmatic permit (NWS‐2007‐1019‐NO) which allows
maintenance dredging activities in the amount of 2,000 to 4,000 cubic yards from a 10,000‐square‐
foot area of Lake Washington near the May Creek delta over a 10‐year period (Figure 1). The
proposed action is to allow dredging of up to an additional 2,700 cubic yards (up to 14,000 square
feet of lakebed) adjacent to the existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). This expansion of
the dredge prism would align it with the dredge area permitted by the City of Renton in 2006;
expand the current permitted dredge footprint to the west by approximately 160 feet (to the Inner
Harbor Line), and align the dredge footprint along the property line on the north of Lot A (Appendix
A, Sheets 1 through 4). The purpose of this proposed expansion is to facilitate safe navigational
access to the boathouse and promote future recreational uses.
While periodic maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments has occurred within and
near the May Creek delta for over 50 years, the proposed expanded dredging project addressed in
this BA is focused on the zone shown in Appendix A, Sheets 1 through 4). Based on the project
proponent’s experience over the past 50 years, dredging of this area would be necessary every 3 to
5 years to maintain navigational depths and other project objectives. In addition to expanding the
existing dredging prism, the proposed action would involve three environmental enhancements in
the local area. These include placing 10 cubic yards of rounded river rock adjacent to the existing
boat launch and boathouse to enhance shallow water habitat for fishes; removing two dolphins (6
creosote piles) at south side of Lot D and replacing them with two 12‐inch‐diameter galvanized pipe
piles; and removing three large creosote pilings near the delta, coupled with the installation of a fish
friendly float with grated decking.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 2
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the proposed project area.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) directs federal departments
and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, and/or conducted by them are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such species. Section 7(c) of the ESA
requires that federal agencies contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), subsequently referred to as the Services, before beginning any
construction activity to determine if federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species or
designated critical habitat may be present in the vicinity of a proposed project. A BA must be
prepared if such species or habitat are present. With respect to the proposed action, federal
permits from the USACE would be needed to complete the project. The Services have determined
that T&E species, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and Coastal/Puget
Sound bull trout may be present in the proposed project action area; therefore, this BA is required
by the ESA to ensure that the proposed expanded dredging project would not jeopardize the
continued existence or recovery of these listed species.
This document also contains an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment in accordance with section
305(b)(2) of the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C.
1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. The MSA includes a mandate that NMFS
identify EFH for federally managed marine fish. In addition, federal agencies must consult with
NMFS on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded or undertaken by the agency that
may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for
the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fish and coastal pelagic fisheries. The ESA
consultation process can be used to address EFH (NMFS 2001). This BA addresses EFH for Chinook
and coho salmon, which are the only MSA‐managed species that may be present in the project area.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 3
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
The objective of this BA is to review all pertinent and available information on the potential effects
of the proposed project on MSA managed species, EFH, ESA listed T&E species, and associated
critical habitats under NMFS and USFWS jurisdiction.
Based on our analysis in Section V, the proposed project would likely cause a short‐term negligible
increase in turbidity/suspended sediment in the action area and a reduction in benthic invertebrates
in the dredging zone. However, overall water quality would likely be improved over the long term
through the removal of the toxic creosote pilings near the dredging area. Primary productivity and
the fish forage base within the project vicinity would also be improved through the installation of a
fish friendly float and the placement of additional “fish rock” along the Lake Washington shoreline.
For these reasons, implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project
would be expected to benefit listed Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. Take of any listed species is
very unlikely, and designated Chinook and bull trout critical habitat would not be destroyed or
adversely modified by the project. Therefore, the proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to
adversely affect" Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. In addition, the proposed project would not
adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, and would not hinder a sustainable
fishery for these two species.
A. PROJECT AND FEDERAL ACTION HISTORY
Dredging of the May Creek delta and boathouse area has occurred for over 50 years on a 3‐ to 4‐
year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. Since the delta area was dredged
in 2002, an estimated 20,000 to 24,000 cubic yards have been deposited at the delta in Lake
Washington. The most recent dredging occurred in 2011. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards
of sediment have been removed during each dredging cycle. The dredged material was previously
stockpiled on upland areas of the Barbee Mill property (owned by the Cugini family) and sold as
clean construction fill material. Previous consultations with the USACE were completed for May
Creek delta dredging and for bark debris removal in Lake Washington adjacent to Barbee Mill. Bark
removal work was voluntarily undertaken to restore aquatic habitat under lease agreements with
the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Most recent consultations for these projects at
the Barbee Mill site (summarized in Table 1) resulted in a “not likely to adversely affect”
determinations for listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout.
Table 1. Summary of recent ESA dredging consultations.
Year
USACE Project
Reference # Action Consultation
Implementation
Date
2001 195-2-0097 May Creek delta dredging "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" for all species 2001
2002 1995-2-00997 Lake Washington bark removal "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" for all species 2002
2008 NWS-2007-1019-NO May Creek delta dredging "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" for all species 2011
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 4
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND ACTION AREA
A. FEDERAL ACTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
It is anticipated that the USACE would be the lead federal agency for this ESA consultation, as USACE
permits are the only federal approvals (i.e., federal action) required for the proposed dredging
project. Therefore, this BA follows the USACE BA template. This BA is required by the ESA to ensure
that dredging actions that may be authorized by the USACE under section 404 of the federal Clean
Water Act are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed
species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed action would involve amending the current USACE programmatic permit to allow
dredging of an additional 2,700 cubic yards of sediment (1,400 square feet of lakebed) in an area
located adjacent to the existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). This expansion of the dredge
prism would align it with the Cugini property and inner harbor lines, facilitate safe navigational
access to the boathouse, and promote future recreational uses. The current permit reference is
NWS‐2007‐1019‐NO.
For decades, the Barbee Mill site (owned by the Cugini family) and May Creek delta have been
affected by ongoing development in the upper May Creek valley. Upstream development has
resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased impervious surface in the watershed. Peak
flows have increased approximately 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions for
the 2‐, 25‐, and 100‐year flood event return intervals (King County 2001). In addition, this increased
run‐off has resulted in severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper basin, which is
deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. Subsequently, wave action in Lake
Washington transports fine sediment from the delta to the boathouse area, which is located to the
south of the May Creek delta.
Dredging of the May Creek delta and Cugini property boathouse area has occurred for over 50 years
on a 3‐ to 4‐year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. As is allowed under the
existing permit, a small dredge and clamshell bucket would be used and the material would be
disposed of at an approved upland location. The sediment from this area has been tested in the
past using the procedures specified by the Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) and
the DMMP has determined that all of the material is suitable for appropriate beneficial use.
Under the proposed action, dredging events would continue to occur in both the existing and
expanded dredge prisms over a 3‐ to 5‐day period every 3 to 5 years within the approved in‐water
work period. Up to a maximum of 2,700 cubic yards of additional sediment would be removed to
accomplish the desired navigational depth profile. Dredging would deepen the expanded dredge
prism by approximately 10 feet over 1,400‐square‐feet of lake bed (Appendix A). Periodic
evaluation of sediment depth would trigger future dredging activities. As is currently permitted,
accumulated sediments would be removed with a small dredge and clamshell bucket. Portions of
the work may also be conducted with a long‐reach excavator from the land or an excavator
mounted on a fenced flat barge. Use of any other type of dredge would require prior approval from
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 5
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
the USACE and Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Sediments would be loaded on a
barge, transported, and off‐loaded at an approved fill material stockpile zone for beneficial upland
uses.
Based on monitoring records from previous and currently permitted dredging actions at the site,
conservation measures such as silt curtains to reduce turbidity should not be required. During 2002
dredging, the highest turbidity values recorded were less than 7 NTU. However, turbidity would be
monitored during future dredging. Conservation measures, such as silt curtains, would be deployed
as necessary following conditions set by the WDOE 401 certification for this project. It is anticipated
that the WDOE would require the deployment of a silt curtain if turbidity in the dredging zone
exceeds 10 NTU above background levels.
To enhance aquatic habitat in the project vicinity, the project proponent is also proposing to place
an additional 10 cubic yards of 3‐ to 6‐inch diameter “fish rock” along the Lake Washington
shoreline just south of the existing boathouse. The Cuginis would also extract and replace three
existing creosote piles with two 8 inch diameter galvanized pipe piles and demolish and replace the
existing solid‐surface 38‐foot float with a grated float that is 24 feet long. The grated float would
increase light transmission to the shallow water habitat. Grating specifications would comply with
previously approved permit conditions for light transmission. In addition to these measures, two
dolphins (six creosote piles) at the south side of Lot D would be extracted and replaced with two 12‐
inch diameter galvanized pipe piles. Piles would be pulled concurrent with the Area 2 enhancement
work. As previously approved in the existing USACE permit, all creosote treated pilings would be cut
into 4‐foot lengths and disposed of in an approved upland landfill, consistent with existing permit
requirements.
Timing and Duration of Work
Conducting all dredging and habitat enhancement work addressed in this BA within the existing
NMFS approved in‐water work period and implementing conservations measures detailed in this BA,
would minimize or avoid impacts to listed fish species and their habitat in the action area. Detailed
information for each project element is presented below. The NMFS approved Lake Washington in‐
water work time, which is designed to limit impacts to aquatic species, is July 16th to September
15th (NMFS 2008). Consistent with the existing permit, the proposed expanded dredge area would
be dredged during this time frame, once approximately every 3 to 5 years over the existing permit’s
10‐year period.
Sediment Disposal
Sediments from the expanded dredge area would be dredged and transported by barge for off‐
loading at the adjacent Quendall Terminals located immediately north of the delta. Dredged
materials would be loaded into a dredge scow and unloaded with a long‐reach excavator.
Sediments would be used for upland beneficial uses, subject to an assessment of sampling results
and chemical analysis. All debris (larger than 2 feet in any dimension) would be removed from the
dredged sediment prior to disposal.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 6
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures are activities that the applicant would implement to avoid or minimize take
of listed species and avoid or reduce impacts to their habitat. As part of the proposed action, the
applicant would implement several conservation measures to minimize impacts to listed species.
These measures are consistent with the existing dredge permit and are listed below.
The applicant would:
1. Limit the duration of in‐water work to the extent necessary to accomplish project objectives,
estimated to be 7 to 10 days of work, once every 3 to 5 years. Work would be conducted during
the approved NMFS Lake Washington in‐water work time (July 16 to September 15).
2. Monitor water quality during each dredging event in accordance with the WDOE 401 water
quality certification. Monitoring would be conducted at least daily within and adjacent to the
dredging zone in order to determine the background turbidity level and any increases caused by
dredging.
3. If construction induced turbidity levels in the work zone exceed 10 NTU over background levels,
modify dredging activities by employing standard methods such as silt curtains to reduce the
opportunity for fish exposure to turbidity. Dredged material would not be stockpiled on a
temporary or permanent basis below the ordinary high water line.
4. If oil or other unknown substances appear on the water surface or in dredged material while
equipment is being operated, cease operations immediately to identify the source of the
contaminant and remedy the problem. If necessary, use an oil absorbent boom secured to a
debris boom to encircle the work zone to capture sheen or potential floating debris.
10. Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline north of
the dredging zone to protect nearshore habitat that may be used by rearing Chinook salmon or
steelhead.
11. Conduct a post‐dredge bathymetry survey to ensure that only the specified amount of material
was removed.
12. Confine dredging impacts to the minimum area necessary to complete the project. During
dredging, the Cuginis would have a boat available on site at all times to retrieve debris from the
water.
13. Prepare and make available a summary report documenting monitoring activities immediately
following the dredging to confirm that these conservation measures were implemented.
14. Comply with any additional measures that are currently required in the existing Biological
Opinion (NMFS 2008) and Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WDOE 2008).
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 7
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
C. RELATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO OTHER ACTIONS
The proposed expansion of the dredge prism is directly related to the existing (permitted) dredging
activities occurring just south of the May Creek delta. The purpose of this proposed expansion is to
align it with the existing property and inner harbor lines, facilitate safe navigational access to the
boathouse, and promote future recreational uses.
D. PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA DEFINED
The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402‐02). The action area for this
proposed project is in the Lake Washington shoreline corresponding to the immediate vicinity of
3901 Lake Washington Boulevard Avenue, near Renton (Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section
32). The action area includes EFH for Chinook salmon and coho salmon. Appendix A shows the
proposed expanded dredging zone. The removal of up to a maximum of 2,700 cubic yards of
sediment would disturb approximately 14,000 square feet of substrate in Lake Washington.
In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during dredging, the action
area for this project encompasses the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington
within approximately one half mile of the May Creek delta (Figure 2). It is anticipated that the one
half mile action area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in turbidity
during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in the delta.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 9
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
III. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
A. SPECIES LISTS FROM THE SERVICES (NOAA FISHERIES AND USFWS)
A list of federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species and critical
habitat that may occur in the action area was compiled using the NMFS and USFWS electronic
species list websites and critical habitat designations. The USFWS and NMFS websites were
accessed on June 1, 2012.
Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DPS
On March 24, 1999, the NMFS listed Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Puget
Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the ESA (64 FR 14308), and the
listing was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of
Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits of Juan De
Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South
Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Washington, as well as twenty‐six artificial
propagation programs.
Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss) were listed as threatened under the ESA on May 11, 2007 (72 FR
26722). The Distinct Population Segment (DPS) includes all naturally‐spawned anadromous winter‐
run and summer‐run steelhead populations in streams in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to the west by the Elwha River (inclusive)
and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek (inclusive), as well as the Green River
natural and Hamma Hamma winter‐run steelhead hatchery stocks.
The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS was listed as threatened under the ESA on November 1,
1999 (63 FR 31693). The Coastal‐Puget Sound DPS comprises all Pacific coast and Puget Sound bull
trout populations within Washington State, including the Snohomish River and its tributaries. This
population segment is geographically segregated from other subpopulations by the Pacific Ocean
and the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range. It is significant to the species as a whole because it is
thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the coterminous United States.
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon (O. kisutch) are not listed under the ESA; however, they
were classified as a Species of Concern on April 15, 2004 due to specific risk factors. The ESU
includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon from drainages of Puget Sound and Hood
Canal, the eastern Olympic Peninsula (east of Salt Creek), and the Strait of Georgia from the eastern
side of Vancouver Island and the British Columbia mainland (north to and including the Campbell
and Powell Rivers), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope.
Table 2 summarizes the federally‐listed, proposed, and candidate fish and marine mammal species
that are known to occur near the action area or that may be potentially affected by the propose
action. The table also indicates whether critical habitat or EFH has been designated or proposed for
each species.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 10
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Table 2. Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and MagnusonStevens Act
(MSA) Species.
Species
ESA Status
(Listing Unit)
Designated
ESA Critical
Habitat
Proposed
ESA Critical
Habitat
MSA Managed
with EFH
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened (Puget Sound ESU1) No Yes Yes
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ESA listed Threatened (Puget Sound DPS2) N/A under development No
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Threatened (Coastal / Puget Sound DPS2) No Yes No
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Species of Concern (Puget Sound / Strait of Georgia ESU) N/A N/A Yes
1 Evolutionary Significant Unit 2 Distinct Population Segment
Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH
The NMFS issued a final rule designating critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on
September 2, 2005 (with an effective date of January 2, 2006). Designated critical habitat Puget
Sound Chinook salmon includes Lake Washington (freshwater rearing and freshwater migration);
however, no critical habitat is designated in May Creek. On January 19, 2007, the NMFS adopted a
final ESA recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Shared Strategy Development Committee
2007). The plan includes specific protection and restoration actions for each watershed in the Puget
Sound region as well as actions at the regional ESU scale. The action area contains juvenile Chinook
salmon rearing and migration primary constituent elements (PCEs) and adult Chinook salmon
migration PCEs.
ESA critical habitat was proposed by the USFWS for the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS on June
24, 2004 (50 CFR Part 17). Proposed critical habitat for the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS includes Lake
Washington, but does not include any Lake Washington tributaries, except the upper Cedar River.
Lake Washington is proposed as foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO) critical habitat for
bull trout.
Proposed Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Steelhead is currently under review by the NMFS. A
recovery plan has not yet been developed for the Puget Sound Steelhead DPS.
The MSA defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary for fish use in spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity. MSA manages species that may occur in the action area, including
Chinook and coho salmon. Freshwater EFH for these salmon species includes all those streams,
lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to these species
in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Lake Washington is designated EFH for Chinook and
coho salmon. There are four major components of freshwater EFH for salmon including 1) spawning
and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration corridors
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 11
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
and adult holding habitat. The components of EFH in the action area include juvenile rearing and
migration corridors, and adult migration corridors and holding habitat.
B. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES
Chinook Salmon
Status of the ESU
The Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has been defined to include all
PS Chinook salmon populations residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long‐standing
natural water falls) in the Puget Sound region from the Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the
Olympic Peninsula, inclusive. The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is assessed
based on their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. Within the action area in
Lake Washington, there are two native populations (the North Lake Washington population and the
Cedar River population) that use the area from rearing and migration. A third population, the
Issaquah stock, is not included in the assessment because they are a non‐native stock from the
Issaquah Hatchery that has been in operation since the 1930s (WDFW 2004).
Overall abundance of this ESU has declined substantially from historical levels, and many
populations are small enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively high
(March 9, 1998, 63 FR 11494). Historic abundance has been estimated to be approximately 609,000
adult returns (Myers et al. 1998), while average present day (1998‐2002) abundance of natural
origin spawners is 30,182 fish (NMFS 2005). NMFS (Good et al. 2005) listed approximately 331
geometric mean spawners in North Lake Washington population and 327 in the Cedar River
population, and no estimates of historical abundance for comparison. The general trend in the
abundance for the North Lake Washington Tributary Chinook salmon has remained generally
consistent, with escapements between 200 and 500 adults (WDFW 2004). The Cedar River Chinook
salmon have shown a long‐term negative trend in escapements and chronically low escapement
values (WDFW 2004).
The lambda (productivity estimate) for North Lake Washington Chinook (short term trend) is 1.07
(±0.07) (Good et al., 2005), indicating the population is just replacing itself. For the Cedar River,
short term lambda is (0.99±0.07) also indicating the population is probably just replacing itself.
Significant population growth would require an increase in productivity. For salmon recovery, the
target goal lambda amount is 3.4 to increase abundance to a level that would remove the
populations from the threat of extinction.
Genetic analysis of the three populations in the Lake Washington basin indicated that the North
Lake Washington Tributary population and the Cedar River Chinook are significantly different
(WDFW 2004). Therefore, the genetic differentiation between the two populations increases the
possibility for recovery when faced with an environmental change and an increase of available
habitat.
Life History and Habitat Requirements
Throughout their range, Chinook salmon exhibit diverse and complex life history strategies.
Differences exist in age at seaward migration; freshwater, estuarine, and ocean residence; and in
age and season of spawning migration (Healey 1991, page 314; Myers et al. 1998, page 9). Most of
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 12
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
this variation is exhibited in two distinct behavioral forms commonly referred to as stream‐type and
ocean‐type (Healey 1991, page 314). Stream‐type Chinook rear in freshwater for a year or more
before migrating to sea, perform extensive offshore migrations, and return to their natal river in
spring or summer, several months prior to spawning. Ocean‐type Chinook typically migrate to sea in
their first year of life, only a few months after emergence, remain in nearby coastal areas, and
normally return to their natal river in the late summer or fall, a few days or weeks before spawning.
Ocean residence for both stream‐type and ocean‐type Chinook usually ranges from 1 to 6 years;
however, a small proportion of yearling males, called "jacks" mature in freshwater or return to
freshwater after 2 to 3 months in salt water. Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU typically
exhibit an ocean‐type life history; however, a number of spring‐run populations in the ESU include a
high proportion of yearling smolt emigrants.
Adult Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound typically return to freshwater in August and spawn in the
lower and middle reaches of rivers from late September through January (WDF et al. 1993).
Preferred water temperatures for spawning range from 42.1 and 57°F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979).
Often, the preferred spawning sites are located near deep pools and in areas with abundant
instream cover. Adequate spawning area, abundant clean gravel (0.5 to 4 inches in diameter), a
relatively stable stream channel (with minimal bedload movement), and sub‐gravel flow are very
important in the selection of redd sites (Healey 1991, page 323). Depending on water temperature,
incubation takes between 90 and 150 days.
While rearing in freshwater, juvenile Chinook are normally associated with low gradient,
meandering, unconstrained stream reaches. As they grow, submerged and overhead cover in the
form of rocks, submerged aquatic vegetation, logs, riparian vegetation, and undercut banks provide
food and shade and protect juveniles from predation. When adult Chinook return to spawn, they
often rely on deep pools for resting. These pools provide an energetic refuge from river currents, a
thermal refuge from high summer and autumn water temperatures, and protection from potential
predators.
Chinook stocks in Lake Washington exhibit ocean‐type life history patterns, with juveniles typically
migrating to sea within the first three months after emergence. However, juveniles have also been
found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended time periods
(Wydoski and Whitney 1979). In Lake Washington, Tabor et al. (2004) found that juvenile Chinook
salmon prefer shallow, low‐gradient delta and shoreline habitats composed of sand and gravel
substrates with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris accumulations. The preferred
temperature range for Chinook salmon fry ranges from 54 to 56.8°F (Reiser and Bjornn 1979).
After a variable freshwater residence time, Chinook salmon juveniles migrate to estuaries.
Migrations occur primarily during spring and early summer, but continue at lower levels through the
fall (USFWS 1983). Chinook salmon in the Skagit River estuary occupied the inner estuarine salt
marshes for 2 to 3 days before emigrating farther out in the estuary (USFWS 1983). Smolts
congregated in tidal streams at low tide, with the majority of fish observed in deep, slow water over
soft substrates (USFWS 1983). The highest nearshore juvenile Chinook salmon densities occurred in
tidal areas without any freshwater influence (Shepard 1981).
Factors of Decline
Threats to the Chinook salmon include watershed development, such as forest practices, mining,
agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water manipulation and
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 13
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
withdrawal. Over‐fishing, artificial propagation and introduction of nonnative species have also
impacted Chinook salmon. Forest practices, mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower
development and water withdrawal have resulted in increased sedimentation, changes in flow
regimes and channel morphology, decrease in water quality and quantity, loss of riparian habitat,
loss of large woody debris (LWD), and loss of LWD recruitment, higher water temperatures,
decreased gravel recruitment, reduction in pools and spawning and rearing areas, rerouting of
stream channels, degradation of streambanks and loss of estuarine rearing areas (Bishop and
Morgan 1996; Myers et al. 1998). These changes have affected the spawning and rearing
environment of Chinook salmon. Harvest, hatchery practices and the introduction of nonnative
species have also impacted the expression of the varied life history strategies of Chinook salmon
within the ESU.
Current and future development pose many risks to the Chinook salmon populations in Lake
Washington, primarily through increased water pollution and further habitat degradation by such
mechanism as increased impervious surface, which alters stream hydrology causing increased
erosion and sedimentation of Chinook spawning grounds. A detailed discussion of Chinook limiting
factors in the Lake Washington basin is given in Kerwin (2001).
In addition to extensive shoreline development, other factors that can compromise the survival of
juvenile Chinook salmon include poor water quality and high water temperatures in the Ship Canal
and Ballard Locks. All juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids must pass through the Ship Canal
during migrations to and from saltwater. The significant differences in water temperature and
salinity encountered at the Ballard Locks require a rapid transition by the fish and may cause severe
stress. For example, recorded delays in egg development in returning adult salmon may be
connected to the temperature transition when entering freshwater and prolonged exposure to high
temperatures in the Ship Canal (Kerwin 2001). In addition, the sharp demarcation between the
fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a stressor for juvenile
salmonid out‐migrants. The Locks are also a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation on adult
salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem.
Hatcheries continue to pose risk to natural spawning Chinook salmon in Lake Washington, although
hatchery impacts are becoming increasingly recognized and efforts are being made to reduce
hatchery effects listed populations. Several hatcheries and hatchery programs exist in the Lake
Washington basin. Releases of fall‐run Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington system accounted
for about five percent of all Puget Sound releases from 1991 through 2000, with about 2.6 million
fish per year. In Puget Sound, hatchery fish greatly outnumber natural origin fish in terms of
juvenile out‐migrants and adult returns (NMFS 2003).
Detailed descriptions of harvest rates for Lake Washington Chinook stocks are provided in (NMFS
2003). While harvest rates frequently change, the harvest rate of Lake Washington Chinook has
diminished over time. The total exploitation rate for Chinook salmon returning to the Lake
Washington watershed was 67 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 26 percent from 1997 through
2000.
Local Stock Information
The primary Chinook salmon stock in the project vicinity (the southern portion of Lake Washington)
originates from the Cedar River. The Cedar River Chinook run, although a naturally spawning
population without current supplementation from hatchery stocks, is not native to Lake
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 14
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Washington. May Creek is not thought to have a self‐sustaining Chinook salmon run and individuals
using the stream are likely strays from the Cedar River. Chinook are reported to use the lower three
miles of May Creek for limited spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Lucchetti (2002) rated the
lower May Creek sub‐basin (from mouth to RM 3.0) as moderate to high for spawning habitat. This
rating signifies areas in which Chinook are known to spawn and that are characterized by adequate
flows and physical attributes (e.g., channel size, gradient, and substrate) that typically support
Chinook spawning (Lucchetti 2002). According to King County (2011), nearly all spawning occurs in
the lower two miles of May Creek, though spawning has been observed up to RM 3.0. The number
of Chinook observed in May Creek varies between zero and 12 fish annually (pers. comm. Aaron
Bosworth, WDFW, November 15, 2010, as cited in King County 2011).
Adult Cedar River Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington through the Ballard Locks from late June
through September, with the run peaking in late August. Spawning occurs from mid‐September
through mid‐ to late‐November, with a peak in early to mid‐October (WDF et al. 1993). In the Cedar
River, fry probably begin to emerge in February and continue through March and perhaps April (City
of Seattle 2000), which is also probably true in May Creek as well.
Unlike most systems in which juvenile Chinook rear in rivers and estuaries, juvenile Chinook in Lake
Washington rear in the littoral areas of the lake from January to July. While rearing in the south end
of Lake Washington, the nocturnal distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon appears to be related to
slope, substrate, and depth. Tabor et al. (2004) studied juvenile Chinook salmon use of shoreline
habitats in Lake Washington and found that juvenile Chinook were concentrated in very shallow
water, approximately 1.3 feet in depth, and prefer low gradient shorelines and deltas with
substrates composed of sand and gravel. In comparison to lake shore reference sites, the delta sites
had a higher density of juvenile Chinook salmon. On average, the delta sites had almost twice as
many fish as the lake reference site. Of the delta sites studied, Tabor et al. (2004) found that
juvenile Chinook appeared to use low gradient and shallow deltas that were close to natal streams
(such as the Cedar River).
Tabor et al. (2004) also found that juvenile Chinook had no preference for woody debris piles alone;
however, they did show a preference for woody debris piles in combination with overhanging
vegetation. In fact, over 80 percent of juvenile Chinook observed during the study were found along
shallow sites in association with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris.
The majority of juvenile Chinook observed by Tabor et al. (2004) were concentrated in the south end
of Lake Washington from February to May, with peak abundance occurring in May. The last
shoreline survey was conducted on July 14, when only one juvenile Chinook was observed out of
five sample sites.
The lower 912 feet of May Creek and the May Creek delta (convergence pool) were included in the
study sites evaluated by Tabor et al. (2004). Tabor et al. (2004) also surveyed a lake reference site
located approximately 2,000 feet south of the May Creek delta (the Kennydale Beach Park swim
beach). In March of 2002, only two Chinook salmon were observed during the surveys, one in the
convergence pool and one in a pool in May Creek. The density of juvenile Chinook salmon was
similar between the lake reference site and delta area.
Juvenile coho salmon were also present primarily in the convergence pool, while large trout
primarily occupied the upstream pools. Small resident trout were scattered throughout the study
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 15
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
reach. Tabor et al. (2004) noted that predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by large trout has been
documented in Lake Washington (Tabor and Chan 1996) and the Cedar River. Few predatory fish
were present in the shallower deltas, which were used by up to 10 times more Chinook compared to
the May Creek delta. Based on habitat preference, Tabor et al. (2004) hypothesized that the
presence of large trout and large sculpin in the large tributaries may inhibit the use of the
convergence pool and other stream habitats by Chinook. It may be that the lack of juvenile Chinook
in the deep delta habitat has more to do with this habitat type being preferred by predatory fish,
and not that deep delta habitats are not "good" Chinook habitat.
Steelhead
Status of the DPS
The NMFS defined the Puget Sound Steelhead DPS to include naturally spawning steelhead stocks
below natural and manmade impassable barriers, in streams and rivers ranging from the Canadian
border (Nooksack River basin), south through Puget Sound and Hood Canal, north and west to the
Elwha River, which empties into the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Puget Sound Steelhead are
at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, and were listed as threatened on June 11,
2007 (72 FR 26722). The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is assessed based on
their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. The two populations of steelhead
found in lake Washington use the lake for migrating, holding and rearing.
Early abundance analysis from catch records in 1889 indicate that the catch peaked at 163,796
individuals in 1895 (Little, 1898). Assuming a harvest rate of 30 to 50 percent, Little (1898) estimated
that the peak run size ranged from 327,592 to 545,987 fish. In the 1990s the total run size for major
stocks in this DPS was greater than 45,000, with total natural escapement of about 22,000, a
fraction of the 1889 abundance. The abundance treat for the Cedar River population is decreasing.
Counts between 1980 and 2004 estimate an escapement of 137.9 natural spawners, and more
recent data (2000‐2004) has the estimates at 36.8, showing a steep decline (Hard et al. 2007). The
Lake Washington population shows a similar declining trend with 308.1 natural spawners between
1980 and 2004, and 36.8 between 2000 and 2004 (Hard et al. 2007).
To estimate existing productivity in Lake Washington steelhead, Scott and Gill (2006) used
escapement data or indices of escapement from the previous eight years to create a time series.
Population viability analyses were conducted under the assumption that only anadromous spawners
contribute to the abundance of each population. This assumption may result in estimates of
extinction that are too high because the presence of resident forms of O. mykiss (rainbow trout)
may reduce the likelihood of extinction. The Lake Washington winter‐run steelhead last escapement
data was listed at 44, with a growth rate estimate of ‐0.16, indicating a decrease in productivity. The
relative risk of extinction for populations of steelhead in the Puget Sound region is very high,
because productivity is poor. More recent productivity analysis included lambda calculations,
showing Cedar River steelhead lambda at 0.808 (±0.004), and Lake Washington steelhead lambda at
0.802 (±0.002) (Hard et al. 2007), supporting Scott and Gill’s (2006) productivity decline.
Allozyme analysis of steelhead sampled in the Cedar River in 1994 clusters them with winter
steelhead in the Green, White, and Puyallup rivers, and with some Snohomish basin steelhead
stocks (WDFW 2004). The Cedar River population is a distinct population that has undergone
minimal hatchery introgression (Hard et al. 2007).
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 16
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
The status of the Lake Washington winter steelhead was defined in the SaSI report (WDFW 2004).
Based on the chronically low escapement and short‐term severe decline in escapements, the stock
status declined from “depressed” in 1994 to “critical” in 2002. Past hatchery practices by WDFW
included planting of steelhead fry throughout tributaries in the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish
Basin and were unsuccessful in producing return adult spawners. The Cedar River has a naturally
spawning population of steelhead and weekly surveys are conducted annually to assess abundance.
Redd counts have been steadily declining and 2010 surveys observed only one redd (pers. comm.
Hans Berge, King County, November 22, 2010, as cited in King County 2011).
Life History and Habitat Requirements
Unless otherwise cited, the following steelhead information is summarized from the federal register
proposal to list Puget Sound steelhead as threatened (50 CFR Part 223). Steelhead is the name
commonly applied to the anadromous form of the biological species Oncorhynchus mykiss, which
includes rainbow trout). The present distribution of steelhead extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east
to Alaska, and extending south along the Pacific coast to the U.S. Mexico border.
O. mykiss exhibit a complex suite of life‐history traits and can be anadromous (i.e. steelhead), or
freshwater residents (rainbow or redband trout), and under some circumstances yield offspring of
the opposite life‐history form. Steelhead juveniles generally migrate to sea at age 2 to 3, but can
spend up to 7 years in freshwater. Peak outmigration to the sea is generally in the late spring and
early summer. Steelhead generally spend 1 to 2 years at sea before returning to freshwater to
spawn. O. mykiss may spawn more than once, whereas the Pacific salmon species are principally
spawn once and die. As with most salmonids, spawning typically occurs in streams where the water
is cool, clear, and well oxygenated. The optimum spawning temperature for steelhead is about
45°F, but they have been reported spawning at temperatures of 39 to 55°F.
After emergence, steelhead fry form small schools and inhabit the margins of the stream. As they
grow larger and more active, they slowly begin to disperse downstream. Steelhead prefer relatively
small, fast flowing streams with a high proportion of riffles and pools. Most steelhead in their first
year of life in riffles, but some larger fish also inhabit pools or deep fast runs. Instream cover such as
large rocks, logs, root wads, and aquatic vegetation are very important for juvenile steelhead. This
cover provides resting areas, visual isolation from competing salmonids, food, and protection from
predators. Often steelhead densities are highest in streams with abundant instream cover. The
preferred water temperature for rearing steelhead ranges from 50 to 55°F.
Factors of Decline
Factors leading to the decline of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS are essentially the same as
described previously for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and generally include habitat degradation by
human disturbance such as forestry, agriculture, and general urbanization. Access to large reaches
of spawning and rearing habitat has been blocked by dams and other manmade barriers. Existing
regulatory mechanisms inadequately protect steelhead habitats as evidenced by the historical and
continued threat posed by the loss and degradation. Hatchery practices have had genetic and life
history effects, and lead to competition between naturally produced and hatchery fish. Over‐
harvest has also reduced abundance throughout the DPS.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 17
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Local Stock Information
Steelhead occurring in the project action area are part of the Lake Washington winter‐run
population (a native stock). They typically enter fresh water between November and April and
spawn from mid‐December through early June. Abundance of this stock has greatly declined over
the past decade. The escapement goal for Lake Washington winter steelhead is 1,600 adult fish.
However, from 2000 to 2004, the total Lake Washington winter steelhead spawner escapement
estimate ranged from only 20 to 48 fish, far below the escapement goal. WDFW considers the
status of the Lake Washington stock as "critical" due to chronically low escapements and a short‐
term severe decline in escapement.
Steelhead spawning occurs throughout the Lake Washington basin including the Sammamish River
and its tributaries, Issaquah Creek, Coal Creek, May Creek, the lower Cedar River and several smaller
Lake Washington tributaries. Survey data from 1984 through 1987 observed steelhead in the lower
reaches of May Creek (Newcastle 2002 as cited in King County 2011). Data from the WDFW Salmon
Scape website report that steelhead have been observed in the lower three miles of May Creek.
Bull Trout
Status of the DPS
Bull trout, a member of the family Salmonidae, are a char native to the Pacific Northwest and
western Canada. The species historically occurred in major river drainages in the Pacific Northwest
from about 41°N to 60°N latitude, from the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern
California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest
Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). The Coastal‐Puget Sound DPS comprises all Pacific
coast and Puget Sound bull trout populations within Washington State. This population segment is
geographically segregated from other subpopulations by the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the
Cascade Mountain Range. It is significant to the species as a whole because it is thought to contain
the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the coterminous United States.
The USFWS conducted a 5‐year review of the ESA listing status for bull trout in the coterminous
United States that was published in April, 2008 (USFWS 2008a). This review includes the following
observations: most population trends are unknown; there is a broad distribution of risk across the
landscape; most core area bull trout populations are at high risk or at risk of extirpation; and the
smallest core areas tend to be at a higher risk. Ultimately, the USFWS determined that “threatened”
status remains warranted for bull trout, including the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS. The 5‐year review
final report indicated the USFWS would initiate a new, separate assessment to identify the
individual status of each current DPS and determine if they need reorganization (possibly into
smaller spatial units). This effort has not yet been completed.
Although bull trout remain threatened in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS, many of the local
populations are apparently healthy enough to sustain angling and harvest in the Puget Sound region
in several core areas. The Skagit and Snohomish River basins are seasonally open to angling and
harvest of bull trout. This is a significant distinction, as on a rangewide basis, most core areas are
closed to angling and harvest of bull trout.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 18
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Life History and Habitat Requirements
Throughout their range, bull trout are primarily freshwater species that exhibit both resident and
migratory life‐history patterns. The entire lifecycle of the resident bull trout takes place in
headwater streams. Resident fish spawn, rear, and live as adults generally in one headwater
stream, although short migrations may occur. Migratory bull trout spawn and rear in headwater
streams, then after two to four years rearing in their home stream, juveniles migrate downstream to
larger rivers (fluvial) or lakes and reservoirs (adfluvial) where they grow to maturity. Migrations can
range from a few miles to well over 50 miles (Goetz et al. 2004). Mature adults migrate back
upstream to spawn in headwater reaches. There is increasing evidence that several coastal and
Puget Sound populations have an anadromous or amphidromous component in Washington
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Kraemer 1999; Goetz et al. 2004; Volk 2000; Goetz et al. 2004).
Adult anadromous char are thought to prey primarily on fish. A study by Brenkman (2002) at the
mouth of the Hoh River on the Olympic Peninsula found that surf smelt (Hypomesus pretious) was
the primary prey item and was found in 96 percent of the stomachs analyzed; other species included
herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and sculpin (Cottus spp.).
Other limited stomach content work and feeding observations in Skagit Bay and Port Susan also
indicate that anadromous char feed most commonly on surf smelt, and other fish such as herring,
sand lance, pink and chum salmon fry, and a number of invertebrates (Kraemer 1999). Kraemer
(1999) and Brenkman (2002) suspected the distribution of char in marine waters is closely tied to
the distribution of forage fish, especially spawning beaches for surf smelt and herring.
Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall from late August into December (timing varies based on local
conditions) and is thought to be correlated with particular flows, water temperatures, and photo
period. Peak spawning usually occurs in September and October for most populations (Brenkman et
al. 2001). Bull trout spawning generally occurs when water temperature drops below 48°F. Bull
trout spawn in substrate ranging from large sand to gravel over 2 inches in diameter. In western
Washington, bull trout spawning occurs above an elevation of 1,000 feet or in streams with very
cold temperatures similar to high elevation streams (Kraemer 1999). Fry emerge from spring into
the summer months (McPhail and Murray 1979). Mature adult bull trout can spawn more than
once in a lifetime. First spawning is often noted after age four, with individuals living ten or more
years (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Sexual maturity for both sexes has been documented in fish
smaller than 6 inches fork length in resident populations (Hemmingsen et al. 2001).
Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids (Rieman and
McIntyre 1993), requiring cold clean water and a high degree of habitat complexity (Dambacher et
al. 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Water temperatures over approximately 50°F are thought to
limit their distribution; however, bull trout may be able to migrate through reaches with elevated
water temperatures for short durations.
Factors of Decline
Bull trout are threatened by habitat degradation and fragmentation from past and ongoing land
management activities such as mining, road construction and maintenance, timber harvest,
hydropower, water diversions/withdrawals, agriculture, and grazing. Bull trout are also threatened
by interactions and hybridization with introduced non‐native fishes such as brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Although some strongholds still exist, bull trout
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 19
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
generally occur as isolated sub‐populations in headwater lakes or tributaries where migratory fish
have been lost.
Although the bull trout distribution in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS is less fragmented than the
Columbia River DPS, bull trout subpopulation distribution within individual river systems has
contracted and abundance has declined. The decline of the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS has
been attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers, interaction with introduced species,
water quality degradation, and past management practices. Commercial and recreational fisheries
also impact native char populations in Puget Sound. Native char are occasionally caught in sport and
commercial fisheries in Puget Sound, as well as by in‐river net fisheries. They are common in
nearshore marine areas of Puget Sound from Everett north, and are vulnerable to beach seine and
set net fisheries. Current and future population pressures on bull trout in Puget Sound and Lake
Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook.
Local Stock Information
The following Lake Washington bull trout information is summarized from USFWS (2004) unless
otherwise cited. The Cedar River watershed upstream of the Masonry Dam supports the only
known self‐sustaining population of bull trout in the Lake Washington basin. The Chester Morse
Lake bull trout core area is located within the Cedar River in the upper reaches of the Cedar River
drainage, upstream of a natural migration barrier at Lower Cedar Falls (river mile 34.4). The level of
emigration of bull trout occurring from Chester Morse Lake to the lower Cedar River is unknown.
The only means for bull trout to leave the reservoir complex and pass to the lower Cedar River is
during use of the emergency spill gates and/or the smaller spillway near the south end of the
Masonry Dam. These gates are rarely opened except under emergency conditions of high reservoir
elevation (e.g., 1990 flood) or for special operational purposes. It is presumed impossible for live
fish to pass through the other structure used to release water from Masonry Pool (Masonry Dam
spill valve/Howell‐Bunger valve) at the base of the Masonry Dam. It is possible that bull trout do
successfully pass through the spill gates when water is released and thereby gain access to the
‘canyon reach’ and the lower Cedar River, but no accurate estimate of numbers of fish passing the
dam has been made.
No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning populations are
known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse. The
potential for spawning in the Lake Washington basin is believed to be very low as a majority of
accessible habitat is low elevation, below 500 feet, and thus not expected to have the proper
thermal regime to sustain successful spawning. However, there are some coldwater springs and
tributaries that may come close to suitable spawning temperatures and that may provide thermal
refuge for rearing or foraging during warm summer periods. These include Rock Creek (tributary to
the Cedar River below Landsburg Diversion) and Coldwater Creek, a tributary to Cottage Lake Creek
immediately below Cottage Lake. In addition, the upper reaches of Holder and Carey creeks, the
two main branches of Issaquah Creek, have good to excellent habitat conditions and may hold
potential for bull trout spawning due to their elevation and aspect. However, despite survey efforts
by King County (Berge and Mavros 2001), no evidence of bull trout spawning or rearing has been
found.
The connection with the Chester Morse Lake core area is one‐way only, and currently the level of
connectivity with other core areas is unknown. However, a number of observations of subadult and
adult sized bull trout have been made in Lake Washington and at the Ballard Locks (Shepard and
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 20
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Dykeman 1977; KCDNR 2000). Observations of bull trout in the Ballard Locks and cursory
hydroacoustic tagging suggest that these fish may be migrating to the Lake Washington area from
other watersheds such as the Stillaguamish or Snohomish systems (Goetz et al. 2004). Bull trout
have been caught in Shilshole Bay and the Ballard Locks during late spring and early summer in
recent times. In 2000, eight adult and subadult fish (mean size 370 millimeters; 14.5 inches) were
caught in Shilshole Bay below the locks between May and July. These fish were found preying upon
juvenile salmon (40 percent of diet) and marine forage fish (60 percent of diet) (Footen 2000, 2003).
In 2001, five adult bull trout were captured in areas within the Ballard Locks and immediately below
the locks. One bull trout was captured in the large lock in June, and in May one adult was captured
while migrating upstream through the fish ladder in the adult steelhead trap. Three adult bull trout
were also captured below the tailrace during the peak of juvenile salmon migration on June 18
(Goetz et al. 2004).
Coho Salmon
Status of the ESU
The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon ESU includes populations from drainages of Puget
Sound and Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula east of Salt Creek, and the Strait of Georgia from the
east side of Vancouver Island (north to and including Campbell River) and the British Columbia
mainland (north to and including Powell River), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope. WDF
et al. (1993) identified 40 coho populations within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Strait of
Georgia ESU. While most were sustained by natural production, only three of these populations
were determined to be of native origin.
Weitkamp et al. (1995) noted that while coho salmon within the Puget Sound ESU were abundant,
and with some exceptions run sizes and natural spawning escapements generally stable, there are
substantial risks to whatever native production remains. The Puget Sound coho ESU remains a
candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. From 1991 through 2000, the
annual run size of coho populations entering Puget Sound was 669,000, of which 44 percent were
derived from natural spawning. Over this same period, wild coho escapement increased, which is
primarily attributed to a reduction in Puget Sound fisheries, allowing more fish to reach spawning
grounds even though total run sizes decreased. High harvest rates and a recent decline in average
size of spawners is a concern because of the potential for reduced fecundity and/or productivity
(Weitkamp et al. 1995). Hatchery coho programs are also intensive in Puget Sound, influencing
population trends. From 1991 through 2000, an average of approximately 24 million hatchery‐
produced juvenile coho were released into Puget Sound annually. Over this period, total hatchery
releases decreased from about 40 million in 1991 to less than 10 million in 2000 (PSMFC 2002).
Life History and Habitat Requirements
The coho salmon life history roughly consists of 18 months of freshwater rearing followed by 18
months of ocean rearing (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon typically spawn in relatively shallow
tributary streams from October through February. Spawning generally occurs in temperatures
ranging from 42 to 49°F. Coho salmon spawning gravel ranges from 0.5 to 4 inches (Reiser and
Bjornn 1979). Fry emerge in the spring and occupy most stream habitats, but are usually associated
with the channel margin. Coho salmon fry densities are greatest in backwater pools, beaver dam
pools, and off‐channel areas (WDW 1991).
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 21
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
At least one year of freshwater residence is normal for coho salmon juveniles (USFWS 1986a). Coho
salmon parr are frequently associated with side channels, wetlands, and off‐channel sloughs for
rearing (Sandercock 1991). Other important juvenile habitats include large wood accumulations,
undercut banks, and complex pool habitats. Coho salmon juveniles are generally absent in channels
lacking cover. Mason and Chapman (1965) reported that coho salmon juveniles are aggressive and
territorial soon after emergence, and establish intraspecific dominance hierarchies. Where coho
and Chinook salmon juveniles occurred together in streams, the coho were socially dominant,
defending optimum feeding territory (Stein et al. 1972). Water temperatures that average between
50 to 59°F in the summer are considered optimum for juvenile coho salmon rearing (USFWS 1986a).
Bell (1973) reported the upper lethal limit to be 78.5°F. Out‐migration of smolts to marine areas
usually occurs from April to August of the year following their hatching, with peak migrations in May
in nearly all areas (USFWS 1986a).
Factors of Decline
Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho salmon stocks include high harvest rates, widespread
habitat degradation, hatchery practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions. The genetic fitness of
Puget Sound coho salmon stocks has been affected by widespread artificial propagation that
includes inter‐basin transfers of brood stock, and by hatchery fish escapement and introgression
with wild populations (Weitcamp et al. 1995). Current and future population pressures on coho
salmon in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook.
Local Stock Information
Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production; therefore, recent
studies have not been able to fully evaluate the status of self‐sustaining naturally spawning coho
populations in the region. Trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are
showing a decline that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation,
and poor ocean conditions (Fresh 1994; WDF et al. 1993). Naturally spawning coho escapement
(which could be a mix of native and hatchery origin coho) in Lake Washington was as high as 30,000
fish in 1970 and declined to less than 2,000 in 1992 (Fresh 1994).
Index escapement values for Cedar River coho in the 1990s have declined to levels far below those
observed in the 1980s, so the stock is now rated depressed by WDFW due to both the long‐term
negative trend in the index values and the chronically low nature of the indicator values. The Lake
Washington/Sammamish tributaries coho stock is also rated as depressed by WDFW for the same
factors (WDFW 2002). Available spawning survey information for May Creek suggests the same
negative trend. Spawning surveys conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found peak coho adult
spawner densities in lower May Creek at 23, 5, and 55 coho per mile, respectively, while surveys in
1992 and 1993 found peak densities of only 2 fish per mile (Foster Wheeler 1995).
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 22
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private
actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal
projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and
the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process
50 CFR § 402.02(d). The baseline provides a reference for NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS to
evaluate the species’ current status in relationship to the proposed action.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND PROJECT AREA
The action area for the proposed project encompasses the southern portion of the May Creek Delta
(southern Lake Washington) (Figure 2). The environmental baseline of the action area is generally
described below, including the Lake Washington basin, May Creek watershed, and the project area.
Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington)
May Creek
May Creek drains approximately 14 square miles between the Coal Creek and Cedar River basins.
The basin contains approximately 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres
of wetlands (Foster Wheeler 1998). The mouth of May Creek is located on Lake Washington
approximately two miles north of the Cedar River in Renton, Washington.
Historically, the May Creek watershed was forested with predominantly coniferous stands. Over
recent decades, land uses in the western one‐third of the basin have changed to intensive
residential development, with some industrial development in the lowermost reaches, including the
Barbee Lumber Mill. The eastern two‐thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural residential,
small farms, and some forested areas (King County 2001). Developed communities in the watershed
include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honey Creek, and Lake Kathleen (Foster
Wheeler 1998).
The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban‐scale development from
encroaching on the headwaters of the basin. Land development in the lower basin has substantially
reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces, and filled wetlands. Currently, the amount of
effective impervious surface coverage basin‐wide is approximately 7 percent. In addition, under
current zoning, full build‐out would result in approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being
covered in impervious surfaces (King County 2001). This is significant, as basin‐wide impervious
surface areas of 10 percent or greater have been found to have significant impacts on the health of
aquatic ecosystems (May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991). Logging, coal mining, and
agricultural activities have resulted in channelized streams, floodplain encroachment, and eroding
slopes in the May Creek watershed.
The lower four miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the creek
experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of LWD (Foster Wheeler
1998). The lack of LWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 23
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to forest removal, the presence of rock
quarries, and the expansion of road networks. Vegetation removal throughout the basin has
resulted in higher maximum flows and lower minimum flows. Higher flows than what naturally
occurred can result in stream substrate scour, which may negatively impact salmon redds (Foster
Wheeler 1998). The increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding
and sediment deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and
flooding and sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 2001). Peak flows
have increased moderately in May Valley, on the order of 15 to 20 percent greater than the
predevelopment conditions for the 2‐, 25‐, and 100‐year return intervals (King County 2001).
From approximately RM 3.9 to 7.0, the riparian area of May Creek is heavily impacted by grazing
(Foster Wheeler 1998). Agricultural activities in May Valley have drained historic wetlands and
channelized May Creek (Buchanan 2003). The South Fork of May Creek starts at RM 7.0. Portions of
the South Fork go dry in the summer from RM 7.0 to 9.1. A 128‐foot‐long culvert blocks
anadromous fish passage at RM 7.7. The North Fork of May Creek parallels State Route (SR) 900,
resulting in degraded riparian conditions and channelization. Three quarries along the North Fork
contribute to high sediment loading in the system (Foster Wheeler 1998). The East Fork of May
Creek flows into the South Fork at RM 7.2. Habitat conditions in the East Fork are highly degraded
due to the presence of man‐made berms, culverts, and man‐made ponds (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Almost all of the basin’s nearly 80 identified wetlands have been disturbed by deforestation, filling,
draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring since the
wetlands were first inventoried in 1983 (King County 2001).
The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) includes several goals, one of which is to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin. Implementation of
habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on funding availability. Restoration
work along May Creek has recently taken place; the Barbee Mill Company has substantially
improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge
to Lake Washington Boulevard by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native
vegetation. In this area (located upstream from the proposed dredging area), the vegetated stream
buffer ranges in width from 5 to over 100 feet in width.
Despite the current habitat conditions, the lower reaches of May Creek experience the heaviest use
by fish (Foster Wheeler 1998). Steelhead, cutthroat trout, Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon
spawn in May Creek. Spawning gravel, although embedded, likely supports successful incubation
(Buchanan 2003). The primary limiting factor for Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is
available spawning area and incubation success (Foster Wheeler 1998). The primary limiting factor
for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and
over‐wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Lake Washington
Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state of Washington with 80 miles of
shoreline, including about 30 miles along the shore of Mercer island (Shared Strategy, 2007). Over
82 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored and is shaded by more than 2,700 piers and
docks (Shared Strategy, 2007). Regulated lake levels and extensive armoring have hampered
sediment transport and sandy beaches need to be augmented by periodic sediment supplies.
Additional factors affecting the habitat features in the Lake Washington basin include a lack of
riparian vegetation due to clearing and development; loss of channel and shoreline complexity
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 24
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
including a lack of woody debris and pools; the development of fish passage barriers with the
construction of road crossings, weirs, and dams; and degraded water and sediment quality caused
by increases in pollutants and high temperatures (Shared Strategy, 2007).
The Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and
Sammamish, and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It also
includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain into the
system from the north.
Historically, Lake Washington had a vegetated shoreline of wetlands, trees, brush, and other mixed
vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for juvenile salmonids. The shoreline’s natural
structural complexity was beneficial for fish and other aquatic species. Larger conifers that grew in
the riparian area provided shade and contributed plant material (branches, needles) and terrestrial
insects to the aquatic food chain. The United States Fish Commission Bulletin published in 1898
describes the lake as follows; “Only in a few places along the shore of the entire lake is the bottom
sufficiently free from snags, fallen trees, and other material to permit the successful hauling of
nets”.
In the past 150 years, the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish watershed has been dramatically
altered from its historical condition. Habitat degradation started with heavy logging of old growth
forest throughout much of the watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle
began diverting water out of the upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910
through 1920, the natural Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake
Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake
Washington to Lake Union and then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake
that was not connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of
the Lake Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to 10 feet
and the loss of over ten miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake
margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for juvenile
salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. During that same decade, the Cedar River was
redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington.
In the ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been
the expansion of urban and suburban development. In the upper Cedar River, land is devoted
almost entirely to preservation of forests. Residential, industrial, and commercial uses prevail in the
lower reaches of virtually all the streams. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing
shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change
shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into the lake, introducing a different pattern of
shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from
complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). Piers are also
used heavily as ambush cover by non‐native species such as bass, which may prey heavily on native
juvenile salmonids. The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant
community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat.
The current lake level is artificially regulated within a two‐foot range. The high water/low water
regime is reversed from the natural state. High water occurs during the summer for extensive
operation of the Ballard Locks. Low water occurs during the winter protect property from winter
wave action.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 25
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Despite the heavy alteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support numerous
salmonid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest salmonid populations, the
Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye, coho, kokanee, steelhead,
rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char. Some of the small independent Puget
Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and cutthroat. Maps illustrating known and presumed
distributions for each of these species are available in Kerwin (2001). Additionally, at least 40 non‐
native fish species (of which approximately 24 persist) have been introduced into the Lake
Washington basin, most notably smallmouth and largemouth bass, creating numerous trophic
interactions with native species, most notably predation on native salmonids. Sockeye salmon in
the lake system are believed to be primarily the descendants of fry transplanted from Baker Lake in
the 1930s. While many species have been introduced, native species such as Cedar River pink and
chum salmon have been extirpated.
Project Area
On May 3 and May 17, 2012, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed detailed aquatic
habitat and fish presence surveys in the area of Lake Washington located immediately south of the
May Creek delta. The objective of these surveys was to document the existing aquatic habitat
conditions; determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and
describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the survey. An
additional objective was to compare the results of 2005 surveys with the results of fish habitat and
fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in 1993, 2000, 2001, and 2005
(Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001, Meridian Environmental Inc.
2005). It should be noted that the timing of the 2012 surveys was designed to coincide with the
expected residence period of juvenile coho, steelhead, and Chinook.
Survey Methods
Eight underwater (SCUBA) transects were placed between the south end of the May Creek delta and
the existing dock and log boom located at the south end of the proposed project area (Figure 3).
Transects ranged from 75 to 250 feet in length, and extended approximately 480 feet into Lake
Washington. Transects 1, 2 and 8 were shallow‐water snorkel survey transects located along the
north and southeast shoreline. Transects 4, 5, and 6 paralleled each other, oriented from roughly
20° to 200°, and transect 3 extended from an area located just southeast of the osprey nesting
platform to the end of the log boom (Figure 3).
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 27
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Two fisheries biologists used SCUBA gear/snorkeling equipment to swim each of the eight survey
transects approximately 3 feet above the surface of the lake bed. While swimming each transect,
surveyors counted and identified fish to species. Fish age classes and species associations were also
noted. In addition, divers recorded the depth, dominant substrate, macrophyte species composition
and density, and underwater visibility at a series of five square yard stations along each transect.
Aquatic macrophyte densities were visually estimated classified as low (less than or equal to 10
stems per square yard), moderate (11 to 100 stems per square yard), or high (greater than 100
stems per square yard). Underwater photographs of representative habitat conditions and fish
were also taken along selected transects.
Survey Results
Fish Use
Over the past 19 years numerous salmonid species have been documented at or near the project
site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, and rainbow and cutthroat trout (Figure 4). Non‐
salmonid species documented during surveys included largemouth and smallmouth bass,
pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three‐spine stickleback, prickly sculpin,
dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005, and Meridian
Environmental Inc. 2005).
Figure 4. Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet during the 2005
SCUBA survey (Meridian Environmental Inc. 2005).
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 28
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Fish species observed during the May 3 and May 17, 2012 surveys included Chinook and coho
salmon, rainbow trout/steelhead, three‐spine stickleback, and prickly sculpin (Table 3) (Figures 5
and 6). As in past years, the majority of all fish observed were found in relatively shallow water (less
than 6 feet deep) along transects 1, 2, and 8. Typically these fish were associated with overhead
and underwater cover in the form of riprap, emergent vegetation, submerged logs, the existing
boathouse dock, and the small culvert located adjacent to the existing boathouse dock. In 2012, the
coho and Chinook were observed adjacent to and under the boathouse dock (at the eastern end of
transect 1 and northern end of transect 2) (Figure 7); however, coho and rainbow trout were also
observed using nearshore emergent vegetation as cover along transect 1.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Biological Assessment Page 29 Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx Table 3. Summary of May 3 and May 17, 2012 SCUBA survey results within the proposed project area. Transect Number Survey Method Bearing Distance (feet) Depth Range (feet) Substrate Aquatic Macrophyte Density Aquatic Macrophyte Species Comments / Fish Observations May 3, 20102 Survey Comments / Fish Observations May 17, 20102 Survey 1 Snorkel Survey 80° and 65° 185 0-4 Sand, cobble, and gravel NA Abundant emergent riparian vegetation and floating American waterweed (Elodea canadensis), Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyillum spicatum), and pondweed (Potamogeton spp.). One Chinook (fry) and 5 coho (fry) near the boat dock; 1 sculpin (sp.), 1 crayfish, abundant neomysis, and caddisfly larvae. Water temperature 47.3°F. Ten three-spine stickleback, 2 sculpin (sp.), 7 coho yearlings, 1 coho fry, 6 trout fry (not identified to species), 1 adult (12”) smallmouth bass, and 7 pond turtles. Yearling coho were observed under the dock. Water temperature 61.0°F. 2 Snorkel Survey 40°, 45°, 0°, and 330° 250 0-4 Sand, cobble, rip-rap, and gravel NA Floating American waterweed, Eurasian watermilfoil and pondweed. No fish observed. Abundant neomysis, and caddisfly larvae. One 8” smallmouth bass and 1 western pond turtle. Abundant neomysis and caddisfly larvae. 3 SCUBA Survey Stations 1-5 240° and 200° 250 8-23 silt High (<12 feet deep) to none (>16 feet deep) American waterweed and Eurasian watermilfoil No fish observed. Several “holes” in the silt substrate measuring approximately 18” in diameter and 6” deep. Abundant neomysis and approximately 10 fresh water mussels. Visibility 6-8 feet. One sculpin (sp.) and 1 (8”) smallmouth bass. Abundant neomysis and fresh water mussels. Visibility approximately 4-5 feet. 4 SCUBA Survey Stations 1-5 200° 235 3-21 Silt, sand (at depths less than 5 feet) High (<12 feet deep) to none (>16 feet deep) American waterweed and sparse Eurasian watermilfoil. No fish observed. Abundant neomysis and several fresh water mussels. Spooked 1 unidentified large fish. Macrophyte line at 16 feet deep. Sediments from the May Creek delta appear to inhibit macrophyte growth. 5 SCUBA Survey Stations 1-5 200° 185 3-12 Silt, sand (at depths less than 8 feet) High (<12 feet deep) to none (>16 feet deep American waterweed and Eurasian watermilfoil No fish observed. Abundant neomysis and several fresh water mussels. Numerous holes in the silt substrate (possibly resulting from past dredging). One 8” diameter log. Spooked 2 unidentified large fish. Abundant caddisfly larvae. 6 SCUBA Survey Stations 1-5 200° 185 2-12 Silt, sand (at depths less than 5 feet) High at depths ranging from 5-9 feet. American waterweed, Potamogeton (sp.), and Eurasian watermilfoil. No fish observed. Abundant neomysis and fresh several water mussels. One (3”) pumpkinseed sunfish, 1 three-spine stickleback, and 1 juvenile (2”) smallmouth bass.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism Biological Assessment Page 30 Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx Transect Number Survey Method Bearing Distance (feet) Depth Range (feet) Substrate Aquatic Macrophyte Density Aquatic Macrophyte Species Comments / Fish Observations May 3, 20102 Survey Comments / Fish Observations May 17, 20102 Survey 7 SCUBA Survey 5 Parallel to the south dock 185 6-12 Silt, sand (at depths less than 5 feet) Medium to high American waterweed, Potamogeton (sp.), and Eurasian waterilfoil. No fish observed. Six juvenile smallmouth bass (2-3”) using the dock as cover. One dead juvenile smallmouth bass. 8 Snorkel Survey Parallel to the north dock 75 2-7 Sand and silt Medium to high American waterweed, Potamogeton (sp.), and Eurasian watermilfoil. No fish observed. One western painted turtle under the boathouse dock. No fish observed.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 31
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Figure 5. Photograph of juvenile coho observed near the existing boathouse
structure during the 2012 SCUBA survey (located inside the yellow
rectangle).
Figure 6. Photograph of prickly sculpin observed along transect 1 during the
2012 SCUBA survey.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 32
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Figure 7. Photo graph of the culvert structure located at the eastern end of
transect 1 (2012 survey).
Riparian Condition
Historically, the Barbee Mill property, located adjacent to the May Creek delta, was highly modified,
with mill operations dominating the land use (Figure 8). Approximately 85 percent of the site was
covered by impervious surfaces in the form of pavement associated with mill operations and
approximately 15 structures used for mill offices, log handling, sawing, milling, and storage of wood
products.
In the past 5 years, coinciding with the construction of the Barbee Mill housing development, the
Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area
at the confluence with Lake Washington and upstream from the lowermost bridge by planting
willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native vegetation. In this area (located to the north of the
proposed expanded dredging area), the vegetated stream buffer ranges in width from
approximately 5 to over 100 feet in width. Immediately adjacent to the May Creek delta, the
riparian area is characterized by willow shrub, blackberry, and grass cover (Figure 9). In addition,
the Barbee Mill Company has placed clean gravel over 2,100 square feet of the shoreline along the
rockery shoreline to the south of the boathouse dock to enhance shallow water habitat for fish.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 33
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Figure 8. Historical aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site.
Figure 9. Riparian condition at the confluence of May Creek with Lake
Washington in 2012 (looking west from the boathouse dock at the
proposed expanded dredging area).
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 34
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Aquatic Macrophytes
Six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented within and near the proposed expanded
dredging area during past SCUBA/snorkel surveys. These include American waterweed (Elodea
canadensis), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), white‐stemmed pondweed
(Potamogeton prelongus), curly‐leaf pondweed (P. crispus), American wild celery (Vallisneria
americana), and common water nymph (Najas guadalupensis) (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian
Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001; Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2005). American waterweed is a
native species found throughout most of Lake Washington. It is nodally rooting and forms large
mats in shallow water, nearshore areas. Eurasian watermilfoil is a non‐native species that first
appeared in Lake Washington in the mid‐1970s. This species spreads rapidly and now dominates
the aquatic macrophyte community in the nearshore areas of the lake (Harza 1993; Meridian
Environmental, Inc. 2005). According to Kerwin (2001), Eurasian watermilfoil has colonized a large
percentage of the littoral zone and replaced much of the native aquatic vegetation present in littoral
areas of Lake Washington. Curly‐leaf pondweed also forms mats of vegetation in lakes and streams,
and provides a large area of leaf surface. It is native to Europe, introduced in North America, and
known to occur in both central and western Washington. American wild celery is native to eastern
North America; however, Hitchcock et al. (1969) notes that it was introduced into several lakes in
Washington, including Lake Washington (Harza 1993). Common water nymph exists throughout
Washington and is often found in ponds, lakes and sluggish streams to depths of 12 feet.
In addition to the above species, the surveyors documented low densities of Brazilian elodea (Egeria
densa) along transects 1 and 2 during the 2012 surveys. Brazilian elodea is a noxious, non‐native
freshwater perennial plant found in both still and flowing waters including lakes, ponds and quiet
streams. This aggressive aquatic plant has spread into many western Washington lakes including
Lakes Washington, Union, and Sammamish. When it is introduced into freshwater, it forms dense
beds that reduce water quality and impede recreational activities1.
Based on the results of underwater surveys conducted in 1993, 2000, 2001, 2005, and 2012 (Harza
1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001, Meridian Environmental, Inc.
2005), the distribution and abundance of these macrophyte communities fluctuates considerably on
a seasonal basis within the survey area. In general, high densities of American waterweed, Eurasian
watermilfoil, and curly‐leaf pondweed have been observed in the nearshore portion (depths less
than 12 feet) of the proposed expanded project area during the summer months. The highest
abundance is typically seen in depths of 6 to 9 feet. Along the deeper water transects (greater than
12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and less abundant. Very few if any
macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15 feet (Harza 1993 and 2000; Meridian
Environmental Inc. 2005). During the winter and early spring the densities of these species are
relatively low, as most of their growth occurs during the summer months.
In 2012, biologists observed high densities of American waterweed and Eurasian watermilfoil and
relatively low densities of pondweed and Brazilian elodea in the proposed expanded dredging area
at depths less than approximately 12 feet (Table 3). At depths greater than 12 feet, aquatic
macrophyte densities (all species) were very low. Densities were highest along transects 5 and 6,
and the northern end of transect 4 at depths less than 12 feet (Figure 10) and lowest along the
1 http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious‐weeds/weed‐identification/brazilian‐
elodea.aspx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 35
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
shallow portions of transects 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 (at depths less than 3 feet) and deeper portions of
transects of 3, 4, and 5 (at depths greater than 16 feet). As in past surveys, American waterweed
was the dominant aquatic plant species both in distribution and abundance throughout the
proposed project area.
Figure 10. Curlyleaf pondweed photographed along transect 6 (2012 SCUBA
survey).
Shoreline Condition
As discussed previously, the littoral zone and shoreline of Lake Washington has been extensively
modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake level; construction of piers, docks, and
bulkheads; removal of LWD; and the expansion of Eurasian watermilfoil and other non‐native
aquatic macrophytes (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000). Riparian habitat, once dominated by hardstem
bulrush and willow, has been replaced by developed and hardened shorelines with landscaped
yards. According to Toft (2001), an estimated 71 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is
armored with riprap or bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers have been built. This
loss of natural shoreline has reduced the occurrence of complex shoreline habitat features such as
overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen trees with branches and/or
rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches, which in turn has reduced the availability of refuge
habitat and forage for juvenile salmonids.
Like most of the shoreline along Lake Washington, the shoreline in the proposed project area is
armored with riprap; however, emergent vegetation (soft rush, grasses, sedges, etc.) was observed
growing along transect 1, with a substantial increase in the amount of vegetation observed in 2012.
In 2005 and 2012, juvenile rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, coho salmon, sculpin, and sticklebacks
were observed using this using this emergent vegetation as cover.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 36
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Substrate
As in past SCUBA/snorkel surveys, the substrate in the proposed project area was observed to be a
mixture of silt and sand, riprap cobble, and gravel patches. Riprap cobble, sand, and gravel were the
dominant substrates observed along transects 1 and 2 (Table 3). The riprap cobble and gravel was
typically located within 6 feet of the shoreline to a depth of approximately 3 feet (Figures 11 and
12). Silt was the only substrate type observed along transect 3 and silt and sand were the dominant
substrates along transects 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (Figure 13).
Figure 11. Riprap cobble substrate and caddisfly larvae observed along transect 1
during the 2012 SCUBA survey.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 37
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Figure 12. Gravel substrate observed along transect 2 during the 2012 SCUBA
survey.
Figure 13. Silt substrate observed along transect 4 at a depth of approximately 16
feet during the 2012 SCUBA survey.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 38
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Overall Aquatic Habitat Complexity
While the recent riparian plantings and added gravel along the Lake Washington shoreline near the
proposed project area have greatly improved nearshore aquatic habitat conditions in the past 5
years (Figure 14), complex habitat features (other than aquatic macrophytes and the log boom)
remain extremely limited in the planned expanded dredging area. Silt and sand are the dominant
substrates and the western portion of the expanded dredge area appears to be continually impacted
by large amounts of sediment (primarily sand) entering the lake from May Creek.
The dock, boathouse dock, and culvert located to the northeast of the project provide overhead
cover for juvenile salmonids at depths less than approximately 2 feet (Figure 15). At depths greater
than 2 feet, these structures also appeared to provide cover for juvenile smallmouth bass; however,
no adult large or smallmouth bass were observed near the boathouse dock or under the dock
located to the south of the dredging area in 2012.
The riprap surrounding the May Creek delta and southeastern shoreline also limits the amount of
shallow‐water refuge habitat for juvenile salmonids and other fish species by preventing the
establishment of shoreline vegetation cover. However, the large interstitial spaces found within the
riprap shoreline did appear to provide ambush habitat for native cottids (also known to prey on
juvenile salmonids).
In summary, aquatic habitat conditions have greatly improved within and near the May Creek delta
in the past 5 years. However, juvenile salmonid rearing habitat conditions in the proposed
expanded dredging area are still considered poor due to the lack of shallow water structure such as
large and small woody debris and brush.
Figure 14. Existing riparian conditions along lower May Creek, located to the
north of the proposed action area.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 39
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Figure 15. The dock and boathouse dock structures located to the east of the
proposed expanded dredging area.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Environmental Baseline Matrix
For proposed actions that affect freshwater habitat, the Services usually define the biological
requirements for listed species in terms of a concept called properly functioning condition (PFC).
PFC is the sustained presence of natural habitat‐forming processes in a watershed (e.g., riparian
community succession, bedload transport, precipitation runoff pattern, channel migration) that are
necessary for the long‐term survival of the species through the full range of environmental variation.
PFC, then, constitutes the habitat component of a species’ biological requirements. The indicators
of PFC vary between different landscapes based on unique physiographic and geologic features. For
example, aquatic habitats on timberlands in glacial mountain valleys are controlled by natural
processes operating at different scales and rates than are habitats on low‐elevation coastal rivers or
lake systems.
In the NMFS PFC framework, baseline environmental conditions are described as “properly
functioning” (PFC), “at risk” (AR), or “not properly functioning” (NPF). USFWS also has a PFC
framework that defines baseline environmental conditions in terms of “functioning appropriately”
(FA), “functioning at risk” (AR), or “functioning at unacceptable risk” (UR). The PFC concept includes
a recognition that natural patterns of habitat disturbance will continue to occur. For example,
floods, landslides, wind damage, and wildfires result in spatial and temporal variability in habitat
characteristics, as would anthropogenic perturbations. If a proposed project would be likely to
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 40
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat,
or retard the long‐term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it would usually be found likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both,
depending upon the specific considerations of the analysis. Such considerations may include, for
example, the species’ status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the particular reasons for
listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the quality of the available
information.
In this section of the BA, we summarize existing environmental conditions and parameters for the
action area and present the status of each indicator as PFC, AR, or NPF following the NMFS and
USFWS "pathways and indicators" matrices (Table 6). For the purposes of this analysis we have
integrated the NMFS and USFWS matrices in order to facilitate an analysis of the effects of the
proposed project on bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook salmon simultaneously. For consistency we
have used the terms PFC, AR, or NPF (NMFS terminology) for rating specific environmental
indicators applicable to bull trout from the USFWS (1998) matrix. For practical purposes, PFC, AR, or
NPF (NMFS terminology) are equivalent to FA, AR, and UR (USFWS terminology). Criteria for PFC, AR
and NPF are described in detail in NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998), but summarized for each
indicator following Table 4 along with justification for the status of each indicator in the action area.
The effects that the proposed project may have on each environmental indicator are analyzed
subsequently in Section V.
It is important to note that the current status of a particular environmental indicator may not be
related to a proposed project. For example, road density in the Lake Washington basin may rate as
“not properly functioning” under existing conditions even though the proposed project has no
influence on this indicator. In addition, the 1996 NMFS matrix was originally designed by the U.S.
Forest Service to evaluate timber harvest activities on rangeland watersheds. Therefore, not all of
the parameters below are necessarily applicable to the small spatial scale of the proposed project,
although it is still a useful tool in characterizing the baseline conditions, which can be used to assess
potential effects of the proposed project.
Table 4. Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental
baseline on relevant indicators.
Pathway
Indicators
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Function Description
Cause of Degradation from
PFC
Water Quality
Temperature NPF High water temperatures present during bull trout spawning, incubation, and migration, and during Chinook and steelhead spawning, rearing, and migration
Loss of riparian vegetation due to development; natural low watershed elevation, and naturally warm lake surface during the summer
Sediment/Turbidity NPF High sediment loads in May Creek and Lake Washington Increased runoff due to development has increased bank erosion and sediment transport in May Creek and resultant fine sediment in the project area of Lake Washington
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 41
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Pathway
Indicators
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Function Description
Cause of Degradation from
PFC
Chemical Contamination/ Nutrients
NPF 303(d) reaches present Residential and commercial development has increased polluted runoff (point and non-point sources); agricultural / hobby farm run-off to May Creek flows into the lake adjacent to the project site
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers AR Man-made instream structures present Ballard Locks is a predation bottleneck and is a quick transition between salt and freshwaters, which is undesirable for salmon smolts
Habitat Elements
Substrate NPF High fine sediment loads in May Creek and Lake Washington Increased runoff due to development has increased bank erosion and sediment transport in May Creek and resultant sediment accumulation in the lake at the project site
Large Woody Debris NPF Little LWD along the lake shore Development, historic wood removal, loss of riparian forest
Pool Frequency and Quality NPF NA not applicable to lake habitat type NA
Off-Channel Habitat NPF Little if any wetland/off-channel habitat present along the lake shore Wetland degradation and wetland loss due to development, lowering of Lake Washington
Refugia NPF No pristine PFC aquatic habitat present in the action area Wide -scale urbanization has degraded the Lake Washington subbasin
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio NPF NA (not applicable) to lake habitat type NA
Streambank Condition NPF Lake Washington's shore is extensively hardened with bulk- heads and piers
Shoreline armoring along the lake for residential and commercial development
Floodplain Connectivity NPF Limited floodplain connectivity Lake Washington was lowered, permanently dewatering shallow wetlands and lake margin habitat.
Flow/Hydrology
Change in Peak/Base Flow NPF Not applicable to lake habitat type NA
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 42
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Pathway
Indicators
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Function Description
Cause of Degradation from
PFC
Increase in Drainage Network NPF Not applicable to lake habitat type NA
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and Location NPF High road density Lake Washington is a highly urbanized area with a well-developed road network
Disturbance History NPF Massive human caused landscape altering events have occurred Diversion of the Cedar River, lowering of Lake Washington and general urbanization have dramatically altered the historic landscape
Riparian Reserves NPF Few forested areas compared to historic conditions Wide-spread clearing in the Lake Washington subbasin
Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria)
Population Size NA No local bull trout subpopulation in the action area, although foraging individuals may be present from other basins such as the Snohomish and Stillaguamish, or from the upper Cedar River
No bull trout subpopulations are known or suspected to occur in May Creek; the Cedar River population is resident above a natural barrier and was not historically connected to Lake Washington
Growth and Survival NA Same as above Same as above
Life History Diversity and Isolation NA Same as above Same as above
Persistence and Genetic Integrity NA Same as above Same as above
Water Temperature
For Chinook and steelhead, NMFS (1996) defines PFC as water temperatures ranging from 50 to
57°F. AR conditions range from 57 to 60°F for spawning and from 57 to 64 ° for migration and
rearing. NPF is defined as greater than 60°F for spawning and greater than 64°F for rearing. USFWS
(1998) defines PFC for bull trout as water temperatures ranging from 35.6 to 41°F for incubation,
39.2 to 53.6°F for rearing, and 39.2 to 48.2°F for spawning. NPF is defined as temperatures outside
the above criteria, with rearing areas and migration corridor temperatures over 59°F.
Water temperatures in the area (East Mercer Channel) are generally below 50°F during the winter
and between 62 and 75°F during the summer at depths of 3.3 feet. At a depth of 33 feet, water
temperatures are about 45°F in the winter and between 59° and 68°F during the summer
(http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/site0840.htm). Under the USFWS (1998) criteria these
values would rate as NPF for bull trout spawning and incubation and summer migration corridors.
Under the NMFS (1996) criteria, these values would rate between NPF and AR for Chinook and
steelhead spawning, rearing and migration.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 43
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Sediment/Turbidity
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as containing less than 12 percent fines in gravel, and
NPF is defined as having greater than 17 percent surface fines (greater than 20 percent surface fines
under USFWS 1998).
The surficial substrate in the proposed expanded dredging zone is comprised of silt and sand. This
condition is likely caused by the increased erosion and sedimentation deposition occurring in May
Creek and in the May Creek delta. According to King County (2001), sediment deposition has
occurred from natural erosion but has been accelerated by increased storm water runoff from
upstream development and changes in the watershed land cover. Based on the documentation of
increased erosion and sedimentation, this indicator is likely NPF.
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as characterized by low levels of contamination with no
303(d) designated reaches, and NPF is defined as high levels of chemical contamination and
nutrients and more than one 303(d) listed reach.
Lake Washington is a 303(d) water body for fecal coliform concentrations. In addition, Ecology has
given several public warnings regarding Lake Washington fish consumption due to high levels of
mercury contamination (Ecology 2004). Based on known water quality degradation in Lake
Washington, this indicator rates as NPF.
Physical Barriers
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as man‐made barriers that allow upstream and
downstream passage at all flows without significant levels of mortality or delay, and NPF as man‐
made barriers that do not allow upstream and downstream fish passage at a range of flows.
The fish passage facilities at the Ballard Locks provide adult access to Lake Washington and smolt
passage to the Puget Sound; however, the locks are a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation
on adult salmon at the locks is a common and recurring problem. In addition, the sharp
demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely
a stressor for juvenile salmonid out‐migrants. Therefore, the “Physical Barriers” indicator should be
considered AR.
Substrate
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as reach embeddedness of less than 20 percent and NPF
as embeddedness greater than 30 percent.
The substrate in the project area is comprised of sand and silt, based on the results of multiple
SCUBA surveys. According to King County (2001) fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek is an
ongoing problem. This fine sediment is transported immediately to the south to the boathouse area
by wave action. Based on chronic fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek and the boathouse
area, this indicator rates as NPF.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 44
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Large Woody Debris
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as greater than 80 pieces of wood per mile, which are
greater than 24 inches in diameter and greater than 50 feet long. NPF is defined as wood that does
not meet the criteria of PFC and sources of LWD recruitment are lacking.
This indicator does not apply to the proposed action.
Offchannel Habitat
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for off‐channel habitat as many backwaters with cover
and low energy, off‐channel areas, including ponds and oxbows. NPF is defined as a watershed with
few or none of these habitat types.
Lowering of Lake Washington in the early 1900s resulted in the loss of over 10 miles of shoreline and
approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered
to be high‐quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon.
Based on loss of wetlands, this indicator rates as NPF.
Refugia
NMFS (1996) defines PFC for refugia as habitats that are adequately buffered by intact riparian
reserves of sufficient size, number and connectivity to maintain viable populations and
subpopulations. NPF is defined as no adequate habitat refugia.
USFWS (1998) defines PFC for refugia as habitats capable of supporting strong and significant
populations of bull trout that are protected, well distributed, and connected for all life stages and
forms. NPF is defined as the absence of habitat refugia.
The action area has been extensively altered over the past 100 years by human development and
the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed is likely one of the most highly disturbed urban
watersheds in the state. Although adequate bull trout habitat exists in the upper Cedar River, no
bull trout refugia exists in the action area due to high summer water temperatures. The action area
also lacks adequate local refugia for Chinook and steelhead due to extensive riparian, instream, and
shoreline habitat alterations. Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF.
Streambank Condition
NMFS (1996) defines PFC as greater than 90 percent (80 percent under USFWS criteria) of any
stream reach of which 90 percent or more is stable NPF is defined as less than 80 percent stability.
The USFWS (1998) defines NPF as less than 50 percent of any stream reach that is characterized as
at least 90 percent stable.
The shoreline along the action area is developed and bulkheaded. The banks are not actively
eroding, but the bulkheads have disrupted natural shoreline processes. In addition, over 2,700 piers
extend into Lake Washington. Lowering of the lake in the early 1900s substantially altered the Lake
Washington shoreline, resulting in the loss of approximately 10 miles of lake shore perimeter. Due
to extensive alteration of the Lake Washington shoreline, this indicator rates as NPF. However,
streambank condition adjacent to the proposed project site has improved substantially in the past 5
years.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 45
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Floodplain Connectivity
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as well‐connected, off‐channel areas with overbank
flows of sufficient frequency to maintain function. NPF is defined as a severe reduction in
hydrologic connection with off‐channel habitats.
Lake Washington has been lowered, disconnecting the mouths of streams from their floodplains.
Therefore this indicator rates as NPF.
Road Density and Location
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as less than 1 mile of road per square mile with no valley
bottom roads and NPF as greater than 2.4 miles of road per square mile with many valley bottom
roads.
The action area has been heavily urbanized and has a well‐developed road network. Road densities,
although not estimated for this analysis, likely rate as NPF.
Disturbance History
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as having less than 15 percent equivalent clear‐cut area
(entire watershed) with no concentration of disturbance in unstable or potentially unstable areas,
and/or refugia, and/or riparian area; and for Northwest Forest Plan area (except adaptive
management areas), 15 percent retention of late successional old growth timber in the watershed.
The “Disturbance History” indicator rates as NPF based on extensive historic and ongoing
development.
Riparian Reserves
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as a riparian reserve system that provides adequate
shade, LWD recruitment, habitat protection, and connectivity to all sub‐watersheds. This reserve
must be greater than 80 percent intact and the vegetation must be greater than 50 percent similar
to the potential natural community composition.
Riparian habitat in the action area along Lake Washington has been highly altered and extensively
cleared, primarily for residential development. This indicator rates as NPF.
Population Size
USFWS (1998) defines FA as the mean subpopulation size or a local habitat capacity of more than
several thousand individuals and all life stages evenly represented in the subpopulation. AR is
defined as fewer than 500 adults in a subpopulation, but more than 50.
The Lake Chester Morse bull trout population in the upper Cedar River would be classified as FA
under the USFWS criteria; however, this is a naturally resident population located upstream of a
passage barrier. In addition, the Cedar River historically was not connected to Lake Washington.
There are no known current or historic (but now extinct) bull trout populations located within the
Lake Washington basin, except for the Chester Morse population. However, it appears that
individuals from the Chester Morse population may pass downstream into Lake Washington and
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 46
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
that anadromous bull trout migrate to the Lake Washington vicinity from other basins such as the
Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and possibly the Skagit River basins.
Bull trout typically exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine watersheds. There is no indication
that a bull trout population historically would have occupied May Creek. Generally, self‐sustaining
local bull trout subpopulations are only found in watersheds that have accessible stream habitat
above the average winter snow line (where winter snowpack accumulates) which is approximately
900 feet in western Washington (USFWS 2004). The May Creek watershed headwaters only extend
to an elevation of approximately 500 feet, with no areas of winter snowpack accumulation. Bull
trout spawning in May Creek would not be expected currently or historically because the water
temperature regime is likely too warm due to the low elevation and lack of substantial cold springs,
glaciers, or winter snowpack. As there is no current or historic local self‐sustaining bull trout
population or subpopulation indigenous to the action area, this indicator is not applicable.
Growth and Survival
USFWS (1998) defines FA as a subpopulation with the resilience to recover from short‐term
disturbances in 5 to 10 years. Additionally, the subpopulation is increasing or stable, with at least 10
years of data to support such a trend.
As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the
action area, therefore this indicator is not applicable.
Life History Diversity and Isolation
USFWS (1998) defines FA as presence of the migratory form with subpopulations in close proximity
to other spawning and rearing groups. There is high likelihood of neighboring subpopulations
straying and adults mixing with other groups. UR is defined as an absence of the migratory form and
the subpopulation is isolated to a local stream and unlikely to support more than 2,000 fish.
As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the
action area; therefore, this indicator is not applicable. While this indicator is meant to apply to local
subpopulations within an action area, there may be migratory bull trout straying from other basins,
such as the Snohomish and Stillaguamish River basins or the upper Cedar River.
Persistence and Genetic Integrity
USFWS (1998) defines FA as possessing high connectivity among more than five subpopulations with
at least several thousand fish each. UR is defined as having little or no connectivity and
subpopulations that are in low numbers or in decline. As discussed above, there is no known
current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area; therefore, this indicator is
not applicable.
V. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON FISH SPECIES
“Effects of the action” means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the listed species or
critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent
with that action, that would be added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02). Effects of the
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 47
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
action that reduce the ability of a listed species to meet its biological requirements may increase the
likelihood that the proposed action would result in jeopardy to that listed species or in destruction
or adverse modification of a designated critical habitat.
The proposed action may affect Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout by causing physical changes to
the environmental baseline and through indirect effects to the species. These effects may impact
migrating and rearing juvenile Chinook and steelhead within the action area. The major concern of
the proposed action is the alteration of Chinook and bull trout critical habitat caused by dredging in
the proposed expanded dredging prism (Appendix A).
A. DIRECT EFFECTS
In this section we analyze the direct effects of the proposed project on three primary elements that
may be influenced by the action. These elements are direct effects on individual fish, such as
harassment or actual mortality through contact with the dredging equipment, pile removal, and root
wad placement; direct effects on habitat by physically disturbing the substrate and removing
sediments from the proposed expanded dredging area; and direct effects on water quality during
dredging and fish rock placement.
Direct Effects on Fish
Take of bull trout in the nearshore area of Lake Washington during the summer is extremely
unlikely. Water quality monitoring in 2002 (within the silt curtain of the dredging zone and
immediately outside the silt curtain) strongly suggest that water temperatures during July and
August (proposed dredge timing) exceed the generally reported upper limit of bull trout
temperature tolerance of approximately 59°F. Temperatures in the dredging zone (within the silt
curtain) from July to late September 2002 exceeded 65°F and averaged 69.4°F. Due to probable
high water temperatures outside the species tolerance range in the dredging zone during summer, it
would be extremely unlikely for bull trout to be present in the dredging area and, therefore, take of
individual bull trout is not expected.
Adult Chinook typically migrate into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid‐June, peaking in
late August (Kerwin 2001). Spawning typically occurs from mid‐September through November
(Kerwin 2001). Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from approximately January through June (Kerwin
2001). Most juvenile Chinook move through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the
entire out‐migration period is unknown (Kerwin 2001). Limiting in‐water work to the NMFS
approved July 16 – September 15 work window would minimize the potential to adversely affect
juvenile Chinook, as the vast majority of juveniles in Lake Washington are expected to migrate prior
to July. Because the proposed in‐water work window would overlap with the adult Chinook
migration period, there is some chance that adult Chinook salmon may be present in the dredging
zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by dredging activities. However, it is
anticipated that adult Chinook would avoid direct contact with the clamshell dredging equipment,
and would not be physically injured or killed by the dredging activities. Short term increases in
turbidity are not expected to adversely affect adult Chinook.
Adult steelhead spawn from mid‐December through early June in the Lake Washington basin.
Adults migrate to spawning grounds beginning in the fall. Adult steelhead do not necessarily die
after spawning and post‐spawn adults (kelts) migrate downstream back to saltwater after spawning.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 48
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Therefore, adult steelhead could be present in Lake Washington from the fall through the early
summer. Juveniles can spend several years in freshwater before migrating to saltwater and could be
present in Lake Washington all year. Similar to Chinook, there is some chance that adult or juvenile
steelhead may be present in the dredging zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by
dredging activities. However, it is anticipated that adult and juvenile steelhead would avoid direct
contact with the clamshell dredging equipment, and would not be physically injured or killed by the
dredging activities.
Coho begin entering Lake Washington in late August and continue to enter the lake through early
December. Most coho spawning occurs in November and December (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho
typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater. In Lake Washington, the peak of the outmigration
occurs in early May (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho are present in the project area in the spring and
adult coho are known to spawn in May Creek in the fall. The proposed dredging period, while
optimally designed to avoid the presence of juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids, does overlap
with the coho rearing and out‐migration time and adult coho migration. It is most likely that coho
juveniles may be present during dredging and may be temporarily displaced, but as with Chinook
and steelhead, it is not anticipated that coho would come into direct contact with dredging
equipment and be physically injured or killed.
Direct Effects on Habitat
It is apparent from Tabor et al. (2004) that juvenile Chinook salmon in the south end of Lake
Washington prefer shallow (1 to 2 feet in depth) stream delta habitat with sand and gravel
substrates. Water depths in the proposed expanded dredging zone are generally deeper than those
preferred by rearing juvenile Chinook. In addition, the aquatic habitat located immediately to the
south of the May Creek delta and along the shoreline of the lake to the south is not heavily used by
juvenile Chinook (Tabor et al., 2004 and Table 4). Even though the proposed project would impact
habitats that are not known to be preferred by juvenile Chinook, the project proponent would
enhance the lakeshore margin with a "fish rock" gravel mix to create additional shallow water
habitat, which Tabor et al. (2004) suggests might be preferred by rearing Chinook.
Similar information regarding juvenile steelhead and coho use of Lake Washington shoreline habitat
is not available; however, many rainbow trout (same species as steelhead) and coho were observed
by Tabor et al. (2004) and during the SCUBA surveys conducted in 2005. Based on the recent SCUBA
survey observations within and near the proposed project area, it appears that juvenile steelhead
and coho prefer the shallow water habitat located along the shoreline to the north and northeast of
the proposed expanded dredging area, and are typically associated with overhanging brush and
emergent vegetation. Juvenile coho were also abundant in the shallow water areas (<3 feet deep)
located along the northeastern corner of the boathouse dock. No steelhead or coho were observed
at depths greater than approximately 3 feet. Based on these findings, it appears that juvenile
steelhead and coho habitat would not be directly affected by the proposed action.
Due to the overall low numbers of bull trout, if any, and lack of information concerning their habitat
use in Lake Washington, effects of dredging on bull trout habitat use is unknown, but is suspected to
be negligible.
The effect on forage species habitat is likewise unknown, but due to the relatively small area, the
effect is suspected to be discountable.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 49
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Direct Effects on Water Quality
The proposed dredging project has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e., reduce water clarity) and
increase total suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action area. Turbidity and TSS
levels have been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect
salmonid survival. The potential for adverse effects depends upon several factors, including the
duration of TSS increases, the area of the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambient water
(dilution factor), and the size of suspended sediments. In the case of the proposed project,
increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and
increases would last for only short periods of time, expected to be less than several hours.
Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as such
conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms, landslides, or other
natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic exposure to increased turbidity
that has been found to be the most potentially damaging to salmonids (The Watershed Company et
al. 2000). Studies have found that when habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid
localized areas of increased turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological
impacts (Bisson and Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003). Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of
unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and Martens 1991), although they may seek out areas of
moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a,
1987b). Studies have found that fish that inhabit waters with elevated TSS may experience a
reduction in predation from piscivorous fish and birds (Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases,
salmonids may actually increase foraging activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from
predators (Gregory 1993). However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in
excess of 70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by
adult salmon returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mg/L
suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/L of suspended volcanic ash
were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982).
The highest turbidity values recorded during recent dredging activity in 2002 were less than 7 NTU,
and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less than 1.4 NTU greater than
turbidity outside the dredging zone (Table 5). Overall turbidity values of less than 7 NTU are very
low, and the effect of slightly increasing turbidity by 1 or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be
considered discountable. Washington state water quality regulations allow a short term increase of
10 NTU when background turbidity is less than 50 NTU (WAC 273‐201A‐030). Based on the 2002
monitoring results, future dredging would likely meet this standard.
Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short‐term (7 to
10 days every 3 to 5 years) and localized elevation of turbidity (less than 5 NTU elevation above
background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed project would rise to the levels that would
be expected to cause harm to Chinook, steelhead, or bull trout that may be present in the dredging
zone.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 50
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Table 5. Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11 days of
sampling over the dredging period).
Within silt curtain
(in dredge zone)
Outside silt curtain
(out of dredge zone)
Minimum 1.1 NTU 1.1 NTU
Average 2.1 NTU 1.4 NTU
Maximum 5.2 NTU 3.1 NTU
In‐water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the spill of
toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging or pile placement equipment. This
potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by maintaining
a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a SPCCP would specify areas
for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention and emergency response strategies,
requirements for keeping emergency response spill containment kits onsite, and for having trained
personnel be onsite during in‐water work. A SPCCP would be developed by the dredging contractor
and approved by appropriate agencies, such as the WDOE, before dredging occurs. Preparation of a
SPCCP would limit the potential for toxic material spills during dredging and pile replacement.
B. INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects associated with the proposed project could affect the Chinook, bull trout, steelhead
and coho prey base (e.g., aquatic macroinvertebrates and small forage fish), or through the creation
of deep water habitat conditions that favor species known to prey on juvenile salmonids (i.e., large
trout, bass, and sculpin). ESA‐listed salmonids feed on certain macroinvertebrates, and therefore
any loss of these prey items via dredging or disposal may harm these species. However, these
effects would be localized to deepwater areas of low importance to these species. As a result,
short‐term impacts to macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity are likely to be limited. In
addition, the continued growth of overhanging riparian vegetation along the delta (as a result of
recent habitat enhancement) would likely increase the abundance and rate of terrestrial insects
falling into the shallow margins of the lake to some degree, which would result in an increase in the
juvenile salmonid prey base along the lake margin.
C. EFFECTS FROM INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED ACTIONS
No interdependent or interrelated actions have been identified in association with the proposed
expanded dredging project.
D. EFFECTS FROM ONGOING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
These effects are the same as previously described under direct effects of dredging. The only
ongoing portion of the proposed project would be the periodic dredging of the boathouse area to
maintain navigational depths every 3 to 5 years.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 51
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
E. DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE WOULD BE
AFFECTED
As discussed previously, the PFC framework for ESA consultation characterizes baseline
environmental conditions as “properly functioning,” “at risk,” or “not properly functioning.” If a
proposed project is likely to impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning
of already impaired habitat, or retard the long‐term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it is
usually found likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or adversely modify its
critical habitat, or both, depending on the specific consideration of the analysis. Such considerations
may include, for example, the species’ status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the
particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the
quality of available information. Actions that do not compromise a species’ biological requirements
to the degree that appreciably reduces the species’ viability and chances of survival in the action
area are considered not to reduce or retard.
The project would provide an overall increase in water quality by removing the toxic creosote
pilings, increasing primary productivity and the fish forage base within the lake by increasing light
transmission, and increasing shallow water habitat along the shoreline. Therefore, the proposed
project would result in an overall improvement to the aquatic habitat environmental baseline of
Lake Washington.
F. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are defined in 50 CFR § 402.02 as "those effects of future State, tribal, local or
private actions, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action
area.” All areas within approximately 1 mile of the May Creek delta could be affected cumulatively
by the proposed action. Potential cumulative effects may arise due to increased development in the
action area. Expansion of the local economy and diversification would likely contribute to
population growth. This growth is expected to increase demand for electricity, water, and buildable
land in the action area which would, in turn, increase demand for transportation, communication
and other social infrastructure. These actions would affect habitat features such as water quality
and quantity which would directly affect the listed aquatic species. This is currently evidenced by
the fact that runoff, erosion, and sedimentation has increased in May Creek as development has
increased. It is expected that this trend would continue and be further exacerbated as additional
development occurs and as impervious surfaces increase upstream in the watershed. As sediment
deposition increases in the delta and sediment is transported to the boathouse area by wave action,
more frequent dredging may be required to maintain navigational depths.
G. TAKE ANALYSIS
Steelhead and Chinook would likely avoid the proposed expanded dredging zone; therefore, direct
mortality of these species is not expected. The potential displacement of a few Chinook should not
be considered harassment because the attributes of the proposed expanded zone are not
considered preferred habitat for Chinook, based on recent SCUBA surveys and on the data
presented in Tabor et al. (2004). Similarly, potential displacement of a few steelhead should not be
considered harassment, as there appears to be ample nearby habitat of similar condition which any
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 52
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
displaced steelhead could occupy. Therefore, take of Chinook and steelhead should be considered
discountable.
Due to the overall lack of migratory bull trout within the Lake Washington basin, take of bull trout as
a result of the proposed project is extremely unlikely.
H. CRITICAL HABITAT EFFECTS ANALYSIS
This critical habitat effects analysis determines whether the proposed project would destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat for listed species by examining any change in the
conservation value of the essential features of that critical habitat. This analysis relies on statutory
provisions of the ESA, including those in Section 3 that define “critical habitat” and “conservation,”
those in Section 4 that describe the designation process, and those in Section 7 that set forth the
substantive protections and procedural aspects of consultation; and on agency guidance for
application of the “destruction or adverse modification” standard. With respect to designated
critical habitat, the following analysis relies only on the statutory provisions of the ESA, and not on
the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” at 50 CFR 402.02.
The action area is designated critical habitat for Chinook. Juvenile Chinook may use the Lake
Washington shore adjacent to the proposed expanded dredging area for foraging and rearing and
adult Chinook may use the area as a migration corridor. The proposed project would have no
influence on the ability of adult Chinook to migrate to spawning tributaries. Furthermore, current
habitat conditions in the project area would not be considered optimal for juvenile Chinook rearing
(Tabor et al. 2004). The proposed project would improve habitat conditions for rearing juvenile
Chinook by creating additional shallow‐water shoreline and instream habitat. Primary productivity
and the fish forage base would be improved by allowing greater light penetration to the lakebed
substrate by removing the three existing creosote pilings and replacing the floating platform with a
more fish friendly float with grated decking.
While the effects of this project may temporarily affect water quality through increased turbidity
and reduce the fish forage base by removing lake sediments that contain benthic invertebrates,
overall these attributes would be improved by increasing primary productivity as a result of
increased light transmission, removing the toxic creosote pilings, and enhancing shallow‐water
habitats with gravel. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in long‐term destruction or
adverse modification of designated Chinook salmon critical habitat, but would result in a net
improvement of critical habitat.
Due to the very small project area and overall lack of migratory bull trout juveniles or adults within
the Lake Washington basin, we conclude that bull trout critical habitat primary constituent elements
would not be affected by the proposed project. Designated bull trout critical habitat would not be
destroyed or adversely modified.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 53
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND
DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The primary objective of this BA is to determine the effect the proposed project would have on ESA‐
listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. This determination will be used by NMFS and
USFWS to determine whether the proposed project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the listed species or to adversely modify their critical habitats (if applicable). To facilitate and
standardize the determination of effects for ESA consultations, the Services use the following
definitions for listed species (USFWS and NMFS 1998):
No effect: This determination is only appropriate "if the proposed project will literally have no
effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect or an effect that is
unlikely to occur." Furthermore, actions that result in a "beneficial effect" do not qualify as a no‐
effect determination.
May affect, not likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when effects on the species
or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial effects
have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat.
May affect, likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when there is "more than a
negligible potential to have adverse effects on the species or critical habitat." In the event the
overall effect of the proposed project is beneficial to the listed species or critical habitat, but may
also cause some adverse effects to individuals of the listed species or segments of the critical
habitat, then the proposed project is "likely to adversely affect" the listed species or critical habitat.
It is not possible for NMFS to concur on a "not likely to adversely affect" determination if the
proposed project will cause harm to the listed species.
Implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project would benefit listed
Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout by increasing light penetration (primary productivity) and
shoreline shallow water habitat (fish gravel), which has been shown to be used more by juvenile
Chinook when compared to existing conditions. Take of any species is unlikely, and designated bull
trout and Chinook critical habitat would not be destroyed or adversely modified. Therefore, the
proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to adversely affect" Chinook, steelhead, and bull
trout.
VII. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
The MSA‐established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species
regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to the MSA, federal agencies must
consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the
agency, that may adversely affect EFH (Section 305(b)(2)).
Essential Fish Habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting this definition of EFH, “waters”
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 54
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used
by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; “substrate”
includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological
communities; “necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the
managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth
to maturity” covers a species' full life cycle (50 CFR 600.10). “Adverse effect” means any impact that
reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical
disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site‐specific or habitat‐wide
impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810).
An EFH consultation with NMFS is required for any federal agency action that may adversely affect
EFH, including actions that occur outside EFH, such as certain upstream and upslope activities. The
objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed project would adversely
affect designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise
offset potential adverse effects to EFH.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project and action area are described in Section II of this document.
B. APPROPRIATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN(S)
Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for
three species of federally‐managed Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon
(PFMC 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and
other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California, except areas upstream of certain impassable man‐made barriers, and longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers (PFMC 1999). Detailed descriptions and identification of EFH for
salmon are found in Appendix A to Amendment 14 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). In
the Lake Washington basin, EFH is designated for Chinook and coho salmon; therefore, EFH is
designated in the action area of the proposed project.
C. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
As previously described in Sections V and VI of this document, the proposed project would result in
the improvement of aquatic habitat. The effects on Chinook salmon critical habitat are the same as
for designated EFH.
D. PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES
Proposed conservation measures to minimize impacts to designated Chinook and coho salmon EFH
are the same as those described in Section II B.
E. CONCLUSION
Following the listed conservation measures, as outlined in Section II B of this document, the
proposed project may cause a short‐term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended sediment and a
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 55
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
reduction in benthic invertebrates in the dredging zone. However, overall long‐term water quality
would be improved by removal of the toxic creosote pilings. Primary productivity and the fish
forage base would be improved as a result of increased light penetration into the lake, and shoreline
and instream habitat quality would be improved through the addition of fish rock. Therefore, the
proposed project would not adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, and
would not hinder a sustainable fishery for these two species.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 56
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
REFERENCES
Bell, M.C. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, North
Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. Contract DACW57‐68‐0086.
Berge, H.B., and B.V. Mavros. 2001. King County Bull Trout Program: 2000 Bull Trout Surveys.
King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington.
Biological Review Team (BRT). 2005. Status review update for Puget Sound steelhead, 26 July
2005. 2005 Puget Sound Steelhead Biological Review Team, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington .
Bishop, S., and A. Morgan, (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural Chinook
salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State. Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA 105 pp.
Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371‐374.
Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of bull trout and the effects of
human activity on the species. pp.1‐4 In: Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan (eds.).
Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the Am.
Fish. Soc., Corvallis, OR.
Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems –
measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings of
the Watershed ’93 Conference. U.S. GPO, Washington D.C.
Brenkman, S.J. 2002. Unpublished data on bull trout investigations. Olympic National Park.
Washington.
Brenkman, S.J., G.L. Larson, and R E. Gresswell. 2001. Spawning Migration of Lacustrine‐
Adfluvial Bull Trout in a Natural Area. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
130:981‐987.
Brenkman, S.J., S.C. Corbett, and E.C. Volk. 2007. Use of otolith chemistry and radiotelemetry to
determine age‐specific migratory patterns of anadromous bull trout in the Hoh River,
Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1‐11.
Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerances of young Pacific salmon. Oncorhynchus. J. Fish. Res.
Board Can. 9(6):264‐323.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 57
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brevin. 1997. Distribution Maps for Bull Trout in Alberta. pp.206‐ 216
In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita (eds.). Friends of the Bull Trout
Conference Proceedings.
Buchanan, K. 2003. Stream Habitat Conditions During Low Flow Conditions: Coal Creek, May
Creek, Lower Cedar River, and Selected Tributaries, I‐405 North Renton. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Carrasco, K., S. Foley, B. Mavros, and K. Walter. 1998. 1998 Chinook spawner survey data
technical report for the Lake Washington watershed. King County Department of
Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe.
Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus
(Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64:139‐174.
City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public
Utilities. Seattle, WA. April 2000.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in
Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53‐70.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in
Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71‐91.
Dambacher, J.M., M.W. Buktenica, and G.L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, abundance and habitat
utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon.
Pages 30‐36 in P. L. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart
Mountain bull trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society,
Corvallis, OR.
Footen, B. 2000. Preliminary results of an investigation into the impacts of piscivorous
predation on juvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and other salmonids in
Salmon and Shilshole Bays, King Co. Washington. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
Presentation at the 2000 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by
King County Department of Natural Resources.
Footen, B. 2003. Piscivorous impacts on Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Salmon
Bay estuary, the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Sammamish. Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe. Presentation at the 2003 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop,
Sponsored by Seattle Public Utilities.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 58
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1995. May Creek Basin Phase 1 Solutions Analysis.
Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water
Utility, November 1995. Bellevue, Washington.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report.
Prepared for King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Bothell,
Washington.
Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. In: Lake and Reservoir
Management. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 148‐151.
Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous
salmonids in the Lake Washington watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525‐544
in E.E. Knudsen, C.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser (editors).
Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton.
Goetz, F.A., E. Jeanes, and E. Beamer. June 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore, preliminary draft.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/Prelim_Bull_Trout_Report.p
df
Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile Chinook
salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241‐246.
Gregory, R.S., and C.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile Pacific
salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(2):275‐285.
Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization Assessment for
the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993. Prepared for Lloyd and
Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA.
Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311‐
393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press.
Vancouver, B. C.
Hemmingsen, A.R., S.L. Gunckel and P.J. Howell. 2001. Bull trout life history, genetics, habitat
needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon, 1999 Annual Report.
Project Number 199405400, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, and M. Ownbey. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest.
Part 1: vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. University of
Washington Press, Seattle.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 59
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Howell, P., J.B. Dunham, P. Sankovich, and G. Chandler. 2005. Water temperatures used by
migratory bull trout from the Lostine River. Presentation made at the Oregon Chapter
of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, February 18, 2005, Corvallis, OR.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long‐neglected aspect of water resource management.
Ecological Applications, 1:66‐84.
Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar‐
Sammamish basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 2001. Washington
Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA. 587 pp.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of
Renton. April 2001.
King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 2000. Literature review and
recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Seattle, Washington.
Kraemer, C. 1999. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the north Puget
Sound region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington.
Leary, R.F., and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Notes – genetic confirmation of sympatric bull trout and
Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
126:715‐720.
Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, and J.E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale assessment
of aquatic species and habitats. in T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide, editors. An
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin, USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR.
Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri‐county urban
growth areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources.
April 2002.
Mason, J.C., and D.W. Chapman. 1965. Significance of early emergence, environmental rearing
capacity, and behavioral ecology of juvenile coho salmon in stream channels. J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 22(1): 172‐190.
Mavros, B., S. Foley, K. Burton, and K. Walter. 1999. 1999 Chinook spawner survey data
technical report for the Lake Washington Watershed. King County Department of
Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe.
May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on
small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4):
483‐494.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 60
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life‐history
and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries
management report no. 104. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.
McPhail, J.D., and R. Carveth. 1992. A foundation for conservation: the nature and origin of the
freshwater fish fauna of British Columbia. Fish Museum, Department of Zoology,
University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.
McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life‐history and ecology of Dolly Varden
(Salvelinus malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Department of Zoology and Institute of
Animal Resources, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 2001. Cugini property May
2001, aquatic habitat and fish population survey and joint‐use dock biological
assessment. June 25, 2001.
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand, F.W.
Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon
from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS‐NWFSC‐35, 443 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act
determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale.
Environmental and Technical Services Division Habitat Conservation Branch. August
1996.
NMFS. 2001. Guidance for integrating Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act EFH consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7
consultations. January 2001.
NMFS. 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management
Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW.
Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003.
NMFS. 2005. Biological Opinion ‐ Section 7 Endangered Species Act Interagency Consultation
and Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat Consultation for the Strosahl/Niven New Pier and Maintenance Deck and Tosti
New Pier Projects, Lake Washington, HUC 171100120301, King County, Washington,
March 11, 2005.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon
Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse
Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Portland, Oregon (March 1999).
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 61
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2002. Regional mark information service
December 2002 database search of hatchery release information by the William Douglas
Company, Seattle, Washington.
Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide (Eds). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the
Interior Columbia Basin And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume I. U.S.
Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management with assistance from the Pacific
Northwest Forest Experiment Station. PNW‐GTR‐405. Pages 1‐351.
Redding, J.M., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and
steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 116:737‐744.
Reiser, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids. In: W.R.
Meehan (ed). Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish
habitat in western North America, pp. 1‐54. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW‐96.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for
conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain
Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), In C. Groot and L.
Margolis (eds.), Pacific salmon life histories, pp. 396‐445. University of British Columbia
Press, Vancouver.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Ottawa.
Servizi, J.A., and Martens, D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute
lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 48: 493–497.
Seymour, A.H. 1956. Effects of temperature upon young Chinook salmon. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Shepard, M.F. 1981. Status and review of the knowledge pertaining to the estuarine habitat
requirements and life history of chum and Chinook salmon juveniles in Puget Sound.
Final Rep. Wash. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Shepard M.F., and R.G. Dykeman. 1977. A study of the aquatic biota and some physical
parameters of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Sheffleton Power Plant, Renton,
Washington 1975‐1976. Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 62
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between juvenile coho
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon.
Journal of the Fishery Research Board of Canada 29:1737‐1748.
Tabor, R.A., and J. Chan. 1996. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by piscivorous fishes in the
lower Cedar River and southern Lake Washington. Miscellaneous report. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, Washington.
Tabor, R.A., J.A. Scheurer, H.A. Gearns and E.P. Bixler. 2004. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile
Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries
Division, Lacey, Washington, February 2004.
Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for King
County Department of Natural Resources.
TRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team). 2002. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines
for the delisting and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Unit. April 30, 2002.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Management of
anadromous fish habitat on public lands. Report No. BLM‐ID‐PT.
U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service (USFWS). 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental
requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) – Chinook salmon.
USFWS, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS‐82/11.6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
TR EL‐82‐4.
USFWS. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes
and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) – coho salmon. USFWS Biol. Rep. 82(11.48) U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL‐82‐4.
USFWS. 1998. DRAFT ‐ A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout
Subpopulation Watershed Scale, February 1998.
USFWS. 2004. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat;
candidate species, and species of concern in western Washington web page.
http://westernwashington.fws.gov/se/SE_List/endangered_Species.asp. Prepared by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Olympia,
WA.
USFWS and NMFS. 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation
and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Version: 19
May 2002 IX.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Biological Assessment Page 63
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Washington Department of Fisheries and Washington Department of Wildlife, and eastern
Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and Steelhead
stock inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington salmonid stock
inventory: bull trout and Dolly Varden. Wash. Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 437 p.
WDFW. 2002. Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/
Washington State Department of Health (WDOH). 2004. Final Report: Evaluation of
Contaminants in Fish from Lake Washington King County, Washington. September
2004. Prepared by: Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health
Assessments. Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1991. Management recommendations for
Washington’s priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife,
Olympia, Washington.
Watershed Company, M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of
bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA‐
listed salmonids in lakes. Prepared for the City of Bellevue. July 12, 2000.
Weitkamp LA, TC Wainwright, GJ Bryant, GB Milner, DJ Teel, RG Kope, and RS Waples. 1995.
Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA
Technical Memorandum. NMFS‐NWFSC‐24. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon. 1982. Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on
Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society, 111:63‐69.
Wydoski, R. S. and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle, University of
Washington Press.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Appendix A
Site Maps – Dredge Area Expansion
Cross-Section A-B (amended dredge area)
A_ ~
_,,'~I-------r ----------r ---r ----------
:: ====== ~==~b..::;~;; ~= ========== :: ====== ~=~:;"-r'!J!-7-------:5 Q !
• f-. I • ! ! ~ i • I •
~ I ! i ~ • '1 • !
SCALE An 2t £ 1~
+ + +
Cross-Section B-C (amended dredge area)
B_
+
+
Sheet 6 -Notes:
1. See Sheet 3 of 6 for location of sample
cross-sections.
2. The vertical elevation on cross sections A-B and
B-C have been exagerated 2X to better illustrate the
proposed dredging profile .
2. Cross-Section A-B provides an indication of May
Creek Delta sedimentation that continues to impact
navigational access to the boathouse. As shown in
Sheet 2, the major sedimentation impact is on the north
side of the navigational access and within the proposed
dredge area expansion
3. Cross-Sectioo B-C has not chaoged substantially
since the approved permitted area was dredged in 2011.
c._
OHWL2,2<!'t-------------------------------
_. ::
I'!!!£O!!!! ...... ~-.In blu. :: "".
---::~~~-----------~~ :: ::
:~ _.
Q ~ ~ ~ ~I J •
•
~ !
~I ;
•
SCALE An I 1 ,L
Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area
Reference: NWS-2007-1019-NO
Applicant: Barbee Company
~ ~ ~ ~ t ~I •
,
~I
Dredge Area Cross-Sections
Supplemental Sheet 6 of 6
M. Lloyd 8/21/2012
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 13 of 17
Geotechnical Report (12 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 13 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 22 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Note: Includes Analytical Chemistry Data
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 30
Sediment Sampling and Analytical Results
Barbee Maintenance Dredging
Barbee Company, P.O. Box 359
Renton, Washington
Prepared by:
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
255 Camaloch Dr.
Camano Island, WA 98282
Revised: December 12. 2016
SUBMITTED TO:
USACE/
DREDGE MATERIAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 30
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
Site History – Historical Dredging
Sediment Sampling Results Summary
Suitability for Open Water Disposal
2.0 Sediment Sampling
Sample Stations
Sampling Equipment
Field Sampling Procedure
Equipment Decontamination
Composite Preparation
Chain-of Custody
Grain Size Distribution/Field Observations
3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses
Sediment Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides and PCBs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Dioxins and Furans
4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary
Sediment Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides and PCBs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Dioxins and Furans
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Sediment Sampling Considerations
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 30
Table of Contents (continued)
Figures and Tables
Figure 1-1: Site Photograph
Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations
Figure 2-2: Sediment core 071021/Barbee/G-
Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution
Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations
Table 2-2: Grain Size Data
Table 3-1: Sediment Results / Conventional Parameters
Table 3-2: Sediment Results / Total Metals
Table 3-3: Sediment Results / Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Table 3-4: Sediment Results / Pesticides and PCBs
Table 3-5: Sediment Results / Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 3-6: Sediment Results / Dioxins & Furans
Table 4-1: QA Summary / Conventional Parameters
Table 4-2: QA Summary / Total Metals
Table 4-3: QA Summary / Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Table 4-4: QA Summary / Pesticides and PCBs
Table 4-5: QA Summary / Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 4-6: QA Summary / Dioxins & Furans
Attachments
Attachment A – Sediment Sampling Logs
Attachment B – Grain Size Distribution
Attachment C - Laboratory Reports and Quality Control Summary
Attachment D – Historical Sampling and Analysis Results
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 30
1.0 Introduction
This report provides results of sediment sampling and chemical testing of sediments
in conjunction with proposed Maintenance Dredging. The purposes of this sampling
and analysis program are: (1) to chemical collect data regarding the level(s) of
contamination that may or may not be present within sediments of the permitted
dredge area; and (2) to assess the suitability of dredged materials for open-water
disposal. The purpose of the proposed dredging is to maintain navigational and
recreational access. As currently permitted, we anticipate approximately 2500 to
2700 CY of material will be dredged in 2017 based on 2016 hydrographic data.
Site History – Historical Dredging
The project area (see Figure 1-1) has been dredged for many decades. In recent
history, the area was dredged in 1994, 1997, 2001/2002 and 2011. The boathouse
was constructed in the 1950’s, and has been in continuous use. A portion of the
Barbee Boathouse Navigational Dredge area was last dredged in 2011, concurrent
with boathouse renovation under USACE Permit Reference #NWS-2007-10 19.
Figure 1-1: Site Navigational Access Photograph. Photograph looking west toward
Mercer Island, showing the current status of the Navigational Access to the Boathouse. The
navigational assess “channel” is immediately to the left of the line of piling and boom logs.
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 5 of 30
North of the former Barbee Mill facility (approximately 2000 ft), is Quendall
Terminals. Quendall Terminals is a CERCLA (superfund) site managed by EPA.
Primary contaminants at this site are creosote residues (PAH compounds) and
petroleum hydrocarbons. Barbee Lumber Mill operations occurred north of the May
Creek Delta, and south of Quendall Terminals. Lumber mill operations were
essentially shut down in 1999. The boathouse area has been periodically dredged
since the early 1950’s to maintain navigational access to the boathouse. There is no
record of spills or other discharges impacting sediments in the proposed dredge area
although low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected during sampling and
chemical analysis in 2008. Sediments in the proposed dredge area arise principally
from deposition during severe storm events (high energy) when sediment loadings
carried from the May Valley Drainage Basin are substantial.
Sediments to be dredged in the future are derived from depositional events that have
occurred at the May Creek Delta for many years. The project proponents seek to
dredge depositional sediments that have infilled the navigational access to the
boathouse. The Barbee Company has secured all permits to dredge the area from the
USACE and is currently updating permits from state and local jurisdictions.
As permitted by USACE, our proposal is to dredge the permitted profile approved by
USACE. This profile will not reach depths that will encounter sediments that are
older than dredging work completed in 2011 or in previous dredging events. In all
respects we will not be dredging to depths that at or below 10-12’ elevation (MSL,
Corps Datum). In 2002 the depth at the western edge of the dredge footprint was
approximately 15-20 feet deep, well below proposed dredge profile. In 2005, for
example, the water depth at the Eagle Roost (also periodically referred to the Osprey
Nest) was approximately 10’ (12’ El. MSL). Since 2005, there has been over 10’ of
depositional infill from on going erosional events. While the numbers are not well
developed, the volume of material deposited in Lake Washington at the May Creek
Delta is at least 25,000 CY (and likely substantially higher).
The point is that the project proponents are not dredging older lakebed sediments by
any means. We are simply looking at dredging the least amount of depositional
material possible to maintain access to the boathouse, boat ramp, and shoreline access
for protected recreational uses. The proposed depth profile for dredging will occur
within recent infill/deposition.
These results are also to be considered a supplement to previous sediment sampling
and analysis work conducted in 2007 (reported in 2008) and years prior (see
Attachment D – Historical Summary Data Summary).
Sediment Sampling Results - Summary
Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-1) is very
limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for
all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some
motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 6 of 30
range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry
basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis).
Suitability of Dredged Material for Open Water Disposal
All data indicate that detected chemical contamination levels are below all low-level
screening criteria, and that the materials are acceptable for disposal at a DMMP open-
water disposal site.
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 7 of 30
2.0 Sediment Sampling
Sediment sampling at the Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area was conducted on Monday
July 4, 2016. Sediment samples were collected, composited and preserved for next
day delivery to Analytical Resources, Inc. (Seattle, WA). This section provides a
summary of sediment sampling information. Sediment Sampling Logs are provided
in Attachment A.
Sample Stations
Differential GPS was utilized to locate sediment sample stations. Sampling occurred
close to proposed locations as moderated by observed field and gusty weather
conditions. Sampling locations are summarized in Table 2-1 below. All data was
collected using North America Datum (NAD83-Washington North). Lake Elevation
at the time of sampling was provided by the USACE at Chittenden Locks. Lake
elevation was 20.6 feet (MSL), approximately 1.2 feet below the Ordinary High
Water Line (OHWL).
Table 2-1 Sample Stationing
Actual Sampling Mudline Proposed Sampling
Sample Location Easting Northing Elevation Design EL. Thickness (ft)
SED-1 SSE about 39' from Osprey pole 1301394.0 195430.7 18.5 14.5 4.0
SED-2 South of peninsula about 38' 1301509.0 195448.0 19.1 16.0 3.1
SED-3 Adjacent to Boathouse Door 1301612.5 195476.9 13.0 12.0 1.0
Average Thickness (ft) = 2.7
Notes
SED-1 Moved south nearer to sharp increase in depth
SED-3 Boathouse door locked, sampled just outside of boathouse door
All elevations are in feet, MSL (USACE Datum)
State Plane (ft)
Monday, July 04, 2016
Sampling Equipment
Samples SED-1 and SED-2 were collected as drive samples using a gravity corer
from University of Washington. Sample recoveries were generally very good fro
Sample SED-2(> 70%) as shown in Sediment Sampling Logs provided in
Attachment A. However, recovery at SED-1 was poor due to nature of materials
sampled. The middle section of the drive met little resistance, and it is believed that
we hit a homogeneous loose sandy layer that was lost with extraction of the gravity
corer. A repeat drive was conducted with the same results. At no time did it appear
that we hit a hard substrate such as might be anticipated in a lake bottom. Because of
the consistency of core results (mostly fine to medium sand) all sediments appear to
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 8 of 30
of recent depositional origin. Because of the shallow sampling thickness, SED-3,
was collected with a small vanVeeen sampler with 100% recovery. Sediment
Sampling Stations are shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations (Proposed and Actual)
Field Sampling Procedure
Because of the recent substantial deposition (arising from May Creek), sampling was
accomplished by walking out to the sampling locations with the exception of the
boathouse sample (SED-3) which was collected just outside the boathouse from an
adjacent float. Depth to mudline (something of a misnomer, since no mud was
encountered) was measured with a weighted line. The 8’ gravity corer included a 24”
extension with an added drive weight. The sampler was generally easily extracted
and raised out of the water. The only problem encountered with sampling recovery
occurred at SED-1 where we hit a pocket of low resistance, believed to be
homogeneous sandy materials. Sediment cores at SED-1 and SED-2 had low water
content when extracted.
Once extracted from the lined sampler, the sample core was visually inspected and
logged. Core contents from within the dredge profile were retained in individual
stainless steel bowls. Mixing of the core contents was with a clean stainless steel
spoon. No attempt was made to select layers or otherwise alter the sample contents.
Equipment Decontamination
Prior to sampling, all sampling equipment was decontaminated by scrubbing with a
dilute solution of Alconox, rinsed with tap water, and then followed by two rinses of
distilled water. In the field, the samplers were rinsed with lake water and visually
inspected prior to moving to the next sampling station. A solvent rinse was not
utilized at any time.
Composite Preparation
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 9 of 30
A composite sample was constructed from SED-1, SED-2 and SED-3 sediments. The
composite was weighted 45% each of SED-1 and SED-2, and 10% of SED-3. It is
unlikely that dredging will occur at the boathouse (SED-3) in the near future because
recent sediment deposition patterns to the west predominate, and there is currently
adequate navigational depth. A pre-cleaned stainless steel bowl and spoon was
utilized to composite samples. Portions were well mixed to a homogenous
consistency. The composite sample was identified as 07042016/SED-C.
Chain-of Custody
The laboratory provided chain of custody was utilized to record basic sample
information and requested analyses. All samples were labeled, bagged in Ziploc
bags, chilled with ice, and delivered to the laboratory the next day under chain of
custody. A copy of the Chain of Custody is provided in Attachment C.
Grain Size Distribution Logs / Field Observations
Sediment Sampling Logs are provided in Attachment A. In general, sediment
sampling yielded good recoveries because of the cohesive nature of the sediment in
the sampling profile. However, recoveries at SED-1 were marginal as the lower
portions of the core were lost during sampler extraction. Grain Size Data is provided
in Table 2-2 and graphically presented in Figure 2-2. These sands appear to be
relatively recent origin and do not suggest that sediments below the proposed dredge
profile were encountered. Sediments from SED-1 and SED-2 were odor free and no
apparent sheen was observed in any grab sample although a light stringy sheen was
observed in SED-3. A transient “rotten” smell was also noticed in SED-3 The upper
few inches of each core was layered with coarse sand and pebbles with the exception
of SED-3 which had twigs, leaf litter, and milfoil stringers. Milfoil distribution was
extensive throughout shallow waters. However, in those areas of recent sediment
deposition, the surface was bare of vegetative growth as observed at SED-1 and SED-
2 Sampling Stations. All samples, as collected, were sandy and gritty to the touch.
Table 2-2 Grain Size Distribution Data
Sample: 07042016Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSEP Methodology
Sieve Microns Rep. - 1 Rep. - 2 Rep. - 3 Average (%)
3/8"100 100 100 100 Gravel
#4 4,750 83.6 80.9 84.6 83.0
#10 2000 80.1 76.4 80.6 79.0
#18 1000 75.9 72.4 76.6 75.0 Very Coarse Sand#35 500 62.4 59.9 63.4 61.9 Coarse Sand#60 250 24.0 23.6 25.6 24.4 Medium Sand
#120 125 5.5 6.0 7.2 6.2 Fine Sand
#230 63 2.2 2.9 4.0 3.0 Very Fine Sand
31.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 Silt
15.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
7.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3
3.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
2.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Clay
1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 10 of 30
Figure 2-2 PSEP Grain Size Distribution
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 11 of 30
3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses
All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources, Inc.,
Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. The composite sample was analyzed for both
conventional parameters, and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have
been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were
utilized to provide low level detection limits for COC’s. A rinsate sample was not collected,
as recommended by USACE/DMMP.
As provided in the Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan,1 the sediment samples, as a composite
was submitted for chemical analysis for the following parameters:
Conventional Parameters - EPA/PSEP Methods
Semi-Volatile Organics - EPA 8270D GC/MS (8270D SIM to achieve the required
screening level for 2,4-Dimethylphenol)
Total Metals - EPA 200.8; (Except as noted).2
Pesticides/PCBS – EPA 8081/8082 GC/ECD
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – NWTPH-D
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction/time to analysis) were acceptable
and in compliance with accepted PSEP protocols.
Conventional Testing Results
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for Total Solids, Preserved Total
Solids, N-Ammonia, Total Sulfides, and Total Organic Carbon. These results are provided in
Table 3-1 at the end of this section. Laboratory report forms for this data are provided in
Attachment C. Hexavalent Chromium was not detected, reported by ARI as a conventional
parameter. Total solids were reported at 80.5% and Total Organic carbon was reported at
less than 0.2%. These results are consistent with field observations of well draining sands
and gravels with only traces of organic matter.
There are no Marine or Fresh water screening levels for conventional parameters. Ammonia
levels were detected at 19.6 mg-N/Kg (dry basis), Total Sulfide was reported at 1.8 mg/Kg
(dry basis).
1 Draft Barbee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan. (L&AI, 2016) 2 Butyl tin compounds were not required for chemical analysis, per USACE)
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 12 of 30
Total Metals
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are
provided in Table 3-2. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Traces of
Arsenic, Cadmium, and silver were detected along with Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel,
and Zinc. Mercury was not detected. Antimony was analyzed as a supplemental parameter.
All detected and undetected metal concentrations were less than DMMP Screening Levels for
both Marine and Fresh Water.3
As requested by USACE, antimony is reported as a supplemental parameter extracted and
analyzed by ARI. All detected and undetected results were less than low-level Screening
Levels for both Marine (SL1) and Fresh Water (SL1).
Semivolatile Organics
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds by
GCMS Method 8270D per PSEP protocols. Results are provided in Table 3-3. Laboratory
report forms are provided in Attachment C. Several semivolatile organics were detected,
including: PAHs, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The total HPAH concentration was 328
ug/Kg-dry. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg-dry, just above the detection limit.
The carcinogenic PAH (cPAH, calculated quantity, as TEQ) was 36.3 ug/Kg-dry. Detected
and undetected parameters for all semivolatile organic compounds were less than DMMP
Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
Pesticides and PCBs
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/ECD
(Dual Column - Methods 8081A and Method 8082, respectively). Results are provided in
Table 3-4. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. As shown in Table 3-4,
no pesticides or PCBs were detected above detection limits. All reporting limits for all
pesticides and PCB’s were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh
Water.
Several supplemental parameters were subsequently analyzed by ARI. Results are included
in the data set tables, as requested by USACE / DMMP. All detected and undetected results
were less than DMMPSL1 Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by
GC/FID (Method NWTPH-Dx). Results are provided in Table 3-5. Laboratory report forms
are provided in Attachment C. Diesel was detected at 8.3 mg/Kg-dry, and Motor Oil was
detected at 39 mg/Kg-dry. As noted in sampling logs, a light stringy oily substance was
observed when sampling at Station SED-3. This transient type of sheen is typical of
decaying organic matter. There were no visible indications of a petroleum sheen in any grab
sample or the composite. All detected and undetected results were less than Screening
Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
3 Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern and from DMMP User’s Manual (current edition)
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 13 of 30
Dioxins and Furans
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method
1613B. Results are provided in Table 3-6. Laboratory report forms are provided in
Attachment C. Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents were measured and calculated at 0.65 pg/g-dry
(ppt or ug/Kg), substantially below the Marine Screening Level of 4 pg/g-dry (ppt).
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 14 of 30
Table 3-1: Sediment Results / Conventional Parameters
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method:Varies by Analyte*
MTCA Screening Levels (2)
Conventional Parameters Units Result Q RL Method A(1) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
Hexavalent Chromium mg/Kg-dry < 0.493 U < 0.493 19 - - - -
Total Solids Percent 80.75 0.01 - - - - - -
Preserved Total Solids Percent 74.44 0.01 - - - - - -
Total Volatile Solids Percent 1.12 0.01
N-Ammonia mg-N/Kg 19.6 0.98 - - - - - -
Sulfide mg/Kg-dry 1.8 1.28 - - - - - -
Total Organic Carbon Percent 0.182 0.02 - - - - - -
Notes:
* Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1)Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are shown above.
(2)Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
Table 3-2: Sediment Results / Total Metals
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Methods: EPA 200.8 (Except as noted)*
Results MTCA Screening Levels (2)
METALS mg/Kg-dry Q LOQ Method A(1) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
Antimony 0.25 U 0.25 150
Arsenic 2.1 0.2 20 57 14
Cadmium 0.081 J 0.115 2 5.1 2.1
Chromium 22.1 0.6 2,000 260 72
Chromium + 6 (see Conventionals)
Copper 13.9 0.6 - -390 400
Lead 4 0.1 250 450 360
Mercury (EPA 7471A)0.03 U 0.03 2 0.41 0.66
Nickel 28.2 0.6 - - - -38
Selenium 0.577 J 0.577 - - - -11
Silver 0.023 J 0.231 - -6.1 0.57
Zinc 48 5 - -410 3200
Notes:
* Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1)Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg
(2)Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 15 of 30
Table 3-3: Sediment Results / Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSDDA Samivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS*
Extraction Method: SW3546
Results MTCA Screening Levels(2)
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ug/Kg-dry QLOQ Method A(1) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
CHLORINATED ORGANICSl,4-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 110 - -
l,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 35 - -1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 31 - -
Hexachlorobutadiene < 9.6 U 9.6 - -Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 22 - -
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 0.49 7.2 - -
PAHs
Naphthalene < 19 U 19 5000(3)2,100 - -Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 - - 560 - -
Acenapthene 8.7 J 19 - - 500 - -
Fluorene 8.7 J 19 - - 540 - -
Phenanthrene 40 19 - -1,500 - -
Anthracene 9.6 J 19 - - 960 - -
2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000(3)670 - -1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000(3)- -- -
Total LPAH(5)67 5,200 - -
Fluoranthene 88 19 - -1,700 - -
Pyrene 66 19 - -2,600 - -
Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c- -1,300 - -
Chrysene 30 19 c- -1,400 - -
Benzofluoranthenes 55 38 c- -3,200(4) - -
Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 100(8)1,600 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c - - 600 - -
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 U 19 c - - 230 - -
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19 - - 670 - -
Total HPAH(6)328 - - 12,000 - -
Total cPAH (calc. w/ TEF) 36.3 - -- -- -
Total PAH(7)395 - -- - 17,000
PHTHALATES
Dimethylphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 71 - -- -
Di-n-Butylphthalate 8.7 J 19 - - 1,400 380
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 50 Q - - 1,300 500Diethylphthalate< 19 U 19 - - 200 - -
Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 - -63 - -Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19 - - 6,200 39
PHENOLSPhenol < 19 U 19 - - 420 120
2-Methylphenol < 9.6 U 9.6 - -4-Methylphenol < 19 U 19 - - 670 260
2,4-Dimethylphenol(9)< 19.1 U 19.1 - -Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 - - 400 1,200
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTIBLESBenzoic Acid <190 U <190 - - 650 2900
Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19 - -Carbazole < 19 U 19 - -- - 900
Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19 - - 540 200N-Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 9.6 - -28 - -
Notes:
*Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)(1)MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg)(2)Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and DMMP User's Manual (3)Total shown for Naphthalene, 1-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalene(4)Totals shown are for both b and k Benzofluoranthenes(5)Does not include undetected parameters or 1-and 2-methylnaphthalene, estimated (J) parameters at 1/2 reported(6)Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,Benzo(b/j/k)fluoranthenes
and Benzo(a)anthracene. Total does not include undetected parameters.(7)Total PAHs calculated er Table 8.2.3 DMMP User Manual(8)Method B - Soil Ingestion Pathway(9)Initial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re analyzed 2,4-dimethylphenol via 8270D SIM.
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 16 of 30
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSDDA Samivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS*
Extraction Method: SW3546Results MTCA Screening Levels(2)
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ug/Kg-dry QLOQ Method A(1) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
CHLORINATED ORGANICSl,4-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 110 - -
l,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 35 - -1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 31 - -Hexachlorobutadiene < 9.6 U 9.6 - -Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 22 - -beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 0.49 7.2 - -
PAHs
Naphthalene < 19 U 19 5000(3)2,100 - -
Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 - - 560 - -
Acenapthene 8.7 J 19 - - 500 - -
Fluorene 8.7 J 19 - - 540 - -
Phenanthrene 40 19 - -1,500 - -
Anthracene 9.6 J 19 - - 960 - -2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000(3)670 - -1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000(3)- -- -
Total LPAH(5)67 5,200 - -
Fluoranthene 88 19 - -1,700 - -
Pyrene 66 19 - -2,600 - -
Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c- -1,300 - -
Chrysene 30 19 c- -1,400 - -
Benzo(b/j/k)fluoranthenes 55 38 c- -3,200(4) - -
Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 100(8)1,600 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c - - 600 - -Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 U 19 c - - 230 - -
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19 - - 670 - -
Total HPAH(6)328 - - 12,000 - -
Total cPAH (calc. w/ TEF) 36.3 - - - -- -Total PAH(7)395 - - - - 17,000
PHTHALATESDimethylphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 71 - -- -
Di-n-Butylphthalate 8.7 J 19 - - 1,400 380
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 50 Q - - 1,300 500Diethylphthalate< 19 U 19 - - 200 - -
Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 - -63 - -
Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19 - - 6,200 39
PHENOLSPhenol < 19 U 19 - - 420 1202-Methylphenol < 9.6 U 9.6 - -4-Methylphenol < 19 U 19 - - 670 2602,4-Dimethylphenol(9)< 19.1 U 19.1 - -Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 - - 400 1,200
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTIBLES
Benzoic Acid <190 U <190 - - 650 2900
Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19 - -Carbazole < 19 U 19 - -- - 900Dibenzofuran< 19 U 19 - - 540 200N-Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 9.6 - -28 - -
Notes:
*Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)(1)MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg)(2)Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and DMMP User's Manual (3)Total shown for Naphthalene, 1-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalene(4)Totals shown are for both b and k Benzofluoranthenes(5)Does not include undetected parameters or 1-and 2-methylnaphthalene, estimated (J) parameters at 1/2 reported(6)Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,Benzo(b/j/k)fluoranthenes
and Benzo(a)anthracene. Total does not include undetected parameters.(7)Total PAHs calculated er Table 8.2.3 DMMP User Manual(8)Method B - Soil Ingestion Pathway(9)Initial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re analyzed 2,4-dimethylphenol via 8270D SIM.
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 17 of 30
Table 3-4: Sediment Results / Pesticides and PCBs
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: GC/ECD - Pesticides /PCBs*
MTCA Screening Levels(2)
Results Method A(1)
PESTICIDES & PCBS ug/Kg-dry Q LOQ/RL ug/Kg(1) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
Heptachlor < 0.49 U 0.49 - -1.5 - -
Aldrin < 0.49 U 0.49 - - 9.5 - -
Dieldrin < 0.98 U 0.98 - - 1.9 4.9
4,4 '-DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 - -9 - -
4,4 '-DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 - - 16 - -
4,4 '-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 - - 12 - -
Endrin Ketone < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - 8.5
trans-Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49 - - - - - -
cis-Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49 - - - - - -
2,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - - -
2,4'-DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - - -
2,4'-DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - - -
Oxychlordane < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - - -
cis-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - - -
trans-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - - -
sum of 2,4'-DDD & 4,4'DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - 310
sum of 2,4'-DDE & 4,4'DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - 21
sum of 2,4'-DDT & 4,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 - - - - 100
Total DDT(4)(5)< 0.98 U 0.98 3000 - - - -
Total Chlorodane(5)< 1.47 U 0.98 - -2.8 - -
Aroclor 1016 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - -
Aroclor 1242 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - -
Aroclor 1248 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - -
Aroclor 1254 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - -
Aroclor 1260 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - -
Aroclor 1221 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - - - - -
Aroclor 1232 < 3.9 U 3.9 - - 130 110
Total Aroclors < 3.9 U - -1000 130 110
Notes:
* Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1)MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg
(2)Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and DMMP User's Manual (current edition)
(4)Includes DDE, DDD, DDT
(5)Sum of cis & trans chlordane, cis & trans nonachlor, and oxychlorodane
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 18 of 30
Table 3.5: Sediment Results / Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: GC/FID - NWTPHD*
Resu;ts MTCA Screening Levels(2)
NWTPHD mg/Kg-dry Q RL Method A(1) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
Diesel 8.3 6.3 2000 - - 340
Motor Oil 39 12 2000 - - 3600
Notes:
* Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1)MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg
(2)Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual (current edition)
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 19 of 30
Table 3-6: Sediment Results Dioxins / Furans
Sample:4072016/Barbee/C
Description: Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B*
MTCA Screening Levels(2)
Results Method A(1)
Dioxins / Furans (ng/Kg) Q RL ng/Kg(1) Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.0776 BJEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.145 JEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.0737 BJEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF < 0.0563 U 0.970 - -- - - -
1, 2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.182 BJEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.114 BJEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.111 BJ 0.970 - -- - - -
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.136 BJEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.130 BJEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.242 BJEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.532 BJEMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.464 BJ 0.970 - -- - - -
1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDE 1.59 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,4.7,8,9-HpCDD < 0.101 U 0.970 - -- - - -
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 9.93 B 2.42 - -- - - -
OCFD 2.62 1.94 - -- - - -
OCDD 62.9 B 0.970 - -- - - -
- -- - - -
Total TCDF 0.911 EMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
Total TCDD 1.52 EMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
Total PeCDF 1.43 EMPC 1.94 - -- - - -
Total PeeDJ 1.06 EMPC 0.970 - -- - - -
Total HxCDE'3.15 EMPC 1.94 - -- - - -
Total HxCDD 5.46 EMPC 1.94 - -- - - -
Total HpCDF 4.34 1.94 - -- - - -
Total HpCDD 21.2 1.94 - -- - - -
Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents 0.64 - -4.0 - -
(ND = 0, Including EMPC)
Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents 0.65 - -4.0 - -
(ND = 0.5 Including EMPC)
Notes:
* Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1)MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ng/Kg or pg/g
(2)Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 20 of 30
4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary
All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources,
Inc., Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. As described in the previous
section, the composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters and the
measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have been identified by DMMP
as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide
low level detection limits for 07042016Barbee-C. Quality Assurance for the project
included (where applicable):
Matrix Spikes
Matrix Spike Duplicates
Blank Spikes
Certified Standard Reference Material SRM 1944
Puget Sound Reference SRM.
Laboratory controls
Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were
acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and PSEP
protocols (see Attachment C)
Conventional Testing Results
The QA review summary for Conventional Parameters is provide in Attachment C /
Conventionals. Precision data was acceptable with an RPD less than 4 % (except for
Sulfide at less than 17%) for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was
acceptable for all parameters, and Standard Reference recoveries were greater than
80%. All Method Blanks were at or below reporting/detection limits. All
conventional data reported in Table 3-1 is believed acceptable as reported by ARI.
Total Metals
Composite Sample 07042016/SED-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are
provided in Table 3-2. Hexavalent Chromium was also analyzed and reported by
ARI as a conventional parameter.
As summarized in Attachment C / Metals. Precision data for metals (except
Mercury and Hexavalent Chromium) was with control limits for all matrix spike
duplicate data. Spike recoveries ranged from 90.3 to 120% and were deemed
acceptable. Laboratory Control Sample Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 21 of 30
data were within acceptable limits. Method Blank spike recoveries were acceptable,
although trace quantities of zinc and silver were detected in the method blank.
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met the Advisory Range for all
metals. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All metals
data presented in Table 3-2 are acceptable as qualified by the laboratory.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee/C was analyzed for semivolatile organics by
EPA GCMS Method 8270D, following PSDDA protocols. Sample reports and QC
reports are provided in Attachment C. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with
RPDs less than 20% for all parameters. Matrix spike and matrix spike recovery data
were acceptable, as well acceptably reproducible. Surrogate recoveries met EPA
method recovery limits/action criteria. Surrogate recovers were with QC warning
limits. Initial instrument calibration for bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate was out of control
and appropriately qualified, as Q.
Standard Reference (SRM-070716) recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory
acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits.
All semivolatile organic data reported in Table 3-4 is deemed acceptable as qualified.
Pesticides and PCBs
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by
GC/ECD (Dual Column - Methods 8081A and Method 8082, respectively) following
PSDDA protocols. As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PCBs were detected at
reporting limits. All reporting limits for all pesticides and PCB’s were not detected
and less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally, all
undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A - Soil Cleanup Levels for
Unrestricted Land Use.
A detailed quality assurance summary of pesticide and PCB data, respectively is
provided in Attachment 3. Surrogate recoveries were acceptable and duplicate
precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 17% for all pesticide parameters
and less that 6% for PCB’s. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50%. Spike
recoveries were greater than zero for all parameters and within acceptance criteria.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all
surrogates.
Standard Reference recoveries for Laboratory Controls for pesticides and PCBs
(SRM PSR) were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blanks
results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-5 is
deemed acceptable as reported by the laboratory.
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 22 of 30
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by
GC/FID (Method NWTHH-D). Results are provided in Table 3-6.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance
criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. Spike
recoveries gave acceptable precision, and spike duplicate analyses indicated
acceptable accuracy. All data reported in Table 3-6 for petroleum hydrocarbons is
acceptable as reported.
Dioxins and Furans
Analysis was performed using the application specific RTX-Dioxin 2 column, which
has a unique isomer separation for the 2378-TCDF, eliminating the need for second
column confirmation. Initial calibration and continuing calibration verifications were
within method requirements. However, the initial calibration verification fell outside
the control limits low for 13CI2-2,3,7,8-TCDF, 13CI2-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, and
13CI2-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF. All other compounds were within control limits.
Both extraction and cleanup surrogates had recoveries within control limits, and the
method blank contained reportable responses for several compounds. "B" qualifiers
were applied to associated results that were less than ten times the levels found in the
method blank.
.
The laboratory control sample gave percent recoveries were within control limits.
The PSR SRM (SRM-072116) was analyzed as a reference material. Specific results
have been flagged "EMPC", indicating a response not meeting all requirements of
positive identification. The EMPC values were treated as undetects.
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 23 of 30
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Sediment Sampling
Sampling work conducted at the Barbee Navigational - Maintenance Dredging area
was informative. Prior to sampling we had anticipated that medium to course sandy
materials would be encountered based on previous experience. Portions of the
proposed dredge area outside of the boathouse were most recently dredged in 2011
and previously in 2002. Depositional infill sediments, currently within the proposed
dredge profile, tend to be finer sediments unsuitable for shallow water fish habitat
enhancement along the rockery to the immediate south. Therefore, all dredged
materials will be disposed in open water.
Core sampling in sandy sediments was marginal at best at SED-1 where recoveries
were low at 37.5% Nevertheless, we arrived on site with a number of sampling
devices. The gravity corer worked out reasonable well, and the vanVeen sampler
worked great for the shallow sample near the boathouse. However, given the poor
recoveries at SED-1, a better choice for sample collection might be a vibrocore
sampler where a longer continuous core is desirable. Nevertheless, vibrocore
samplers have similar limitations in dealing with fine sands, as were encountered at
the project site. Based on our experience in sampling conditions encountered, it is not
clear that a vibrocore sampler would have worked out better.
Because actual proposed dredging depths are relatively shallow and generally less
than 10 feet, additional sampling data seems unnecessary although a Z sample could
be collected for conformational analyses. At no time will dredging reach former
lakebed elevations as dredged in 2002 or 2011. In major part the growth of the May
Creek Delta severely limits the steepness of slopes that can be sustained within the
project area. There are also financial considerations. The project proponent is not
interested dredging to the maximum that may be possible. The purpose is to maintain
navigational access, not see how much money can be spent to restore historical
lakebed elevations in Lake Washington.
Sediment Sampling Results - Summary
Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-1) is very
limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 24 of 30
all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some
motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel
range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry
basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis).
Based on Analytical Testing Data and Screening Level comparisons, sediments to be
dredged in 2017 at the project site are suitable for open-water disposal.
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 25 of 30
Attachment A – Sediment Sampling Logs
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.Sample Location:07042016SED-1
Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Sample Time: 1235
Sample Type: Gravity core
Location: About 45' S. of Osprey Nesting Pole Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL D (ft)Lithology Description
State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft)20.6 Lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual Water is very clear
Easting: 1,301,380 1,301,394
Northing: 195,438 195,431 18.5 2.1 Mudline Contact
Lake EL (MSL-ft):20.6 SP Fine to medium grained sand
Depth (D) to Mudline:2.08 Scatered gravel at surface
Dredged Profile El. (ft. MSL):14.5
SED Design Thickness:4.0 16.0 4.6 Loose material in middle of drive
% Recovery:37.5%fine sand to bottom with low
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT resistance to penetration.
2" Gravity corer driven to depth
Low recovery attributed to fine to medium 14.5 6.1 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
sand lost during extraction of corer Second core
drive gave same results
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Fine to medium sand (SP)
Density: Compact (very loose middrive)
Color: Grey
Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel
Odor : None
Stratification: Fine sand at 15.5 feet
Vegetation: None
Debris: None
Oily Sheen: None
Other:
NOTES/COMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Station moved to avoid milfoil bottom and deeper
water than anticipated
Density / Consistency estimated by resistance
to penetration of sampler. Sediment description
based on visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected:SED-1
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist
Note: Sediments collected have very little water
observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly
draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content
greater than 75%
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.Sample Location:07042016SED-2
Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Sample Time: 1115
Sample Type: Gravity core
Location: Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL D (ft)Lithology Description
State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft)20.6 Lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual
Easting: 1,301,509 1,301,509
Northing: 195,448 195,448
Lake EL (MSL-ft):20.6 19.1* 1.5 Mudline Contact
Depth (D) to Mudline:1.5 SP Surfce gravel/dense
Dredged Profile El. (ft. MSL):16.0 Medium to fine sand
SED Thickness:3.1
% Recovery:80.0% 16.0 4.6 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
2" Gravity corer driven to depth
Bottom 8" believed to be fine to medium sand
Sand lost during extraction of corer Second core
drive gave same results
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: SP
Density: moderately dense
Color: Grey * Revised 12/12 to correct typgraphical error.
Consistency: fine to medium sand
Odor : None
Stratification: Coarse grading to fine sand
Vegetation: None
Debris: None
Oily Sheen: None
Other:
NOTES/COMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Density / Consistency estimated by resistance
to penetration of sampler. Sediment description
based on visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected: SED-2
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan BertaProject Manager Registered Geologist
Note: Sediments collected have very little water
observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly
draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content
greater than 75%
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.Sample Location:07042016SED-3
Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Sunny and warm Sample Time: 0930
Sample Type: Grab
Location: Adjacent to Boathouse on west side Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL D (ft)Lithology Description
State Plane: NAD83 - WA South (ft)20.6 lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual 13.0 7.6 Mudline Contact
Easting:1201635 1,301,612 Leaf litter, stems
Northing:195475 195,477 Milfoil
Lake EL (MSL-ft):20.6 Silty with some coaser sand
Depth (D) to Mudline:7.6 12.6 8.0 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
Dredged Profile El. (ft. MSL):8.0
SED Thickness:0.4
% Recovery:100.0%
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
2" Van Veen Sampler
Penetration about 6"
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Grab
Density: Loose/soupy
Color: Grey to blackish brown
Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel
Odor : Slight rotting smell
Stratification: None
Vegetation: Milfoil
Debris: twigs, leaf litter (25)
Oily Sheen: None, looks like decaying leaf
Other:
NOTES/COMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Boathouse locked no access. Sampled near entry
of garage door.
Sample collected with a van Veen sampler
Sediment description based on
visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected:SED-3
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist
Project 2016-1 Sampling Information 4 20 16.xls Page 3 of 5
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.Sample Location:07042016SED-C
Sediment Sampling - Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Composite Time: 1300
Sample Type: Composite
Location: Barbee Sediment Section: DMMU-1
COMPOSITE SUMMARY
SED-1 45% of SED-1
SED-2 45% of SED-2
SED-3 10% of SED-3
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Composite
Density: Compact, rapidly draining
Color: Grey to Black
Consistency: gritty
Odor : None
Stratification: N/A
Vegetation: Minor leaf litter
Debris:
Oily Sheen: None
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist
Revised to
COMMENTS
The majority of material to be dredged arises near SED-1
and SED-2. It is unlikely that more than 1% of all material
to be dredged arises at SED-3 near the boathouse.
Weighting at 10 % is on the high side and may skew
chemical and physical testing data.
Project 2007-1 Sampling Information 4 20 16.xls Page 4 of 5
2016-213 Sediment Sampling Results DMMU-1
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 26 of 30
Attachment B – Grain Size Distribution
Geotechnical Analysis
Report and Summary QC Forms
ARI Job ID: BCWl
BCWi;leJi02iiO
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 14 of 17
Standard Lake Study (12 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 17 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 20 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Note: Lake Study prepared by Meridian Environmental, Inc.
LAKE STUDY
LAKE HOUSES AT EAGLE COVE
SEDIMENT DEPOSITION MITIGATION
Prepared for
Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Prepared by
December 23, 2016
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 2
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Contents
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 4
2.0 Existing Conditions and Ecological Functions...................................................................... 5
2.1 Description of the Study Area.......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Critical Areas and Habitat................................................................................................. 5
Lake Washington.....................................................................................................................5
May Creek............................................................................................................................... 9
Wetlands...............................................................................................................................12
Habitat ..................................................................................................................................12
Soils/Substrates ....................................................................................................................12
Wildlife..................................................................................................................................13
2.3 2016 Aquatic Habitat Survey..........................................................................................13
Survey Methods....................................................................................................................13
2016 SCUBA Survey Results..................................................................................................14
3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................19
3.1 Project Purpose..............................................................................................................19
3.2 Proposed Shoreline Modifications.................................................................................19
4.0 Analysis of Alternatives......................................................................................................20
5.0 Impact Evaluation..............................................................................................................21
5.1 Habitat............................................................................................................................21
5.2 Large Woody Debris .......................................................................................................22
5.3 Overwater Cover............................................................................................................22
5.4 Lighting...........................................................................................................................23
5.5 Water Quality (substrate disturbance and discharge of waste products).....................23
6.0 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................25
7.0 References .........................................................................................................................26
Tables
Table 1. Summary of observations recorded during the December 16, 2016 project area SCUBA
survey............................................................................................................................................15
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 3
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Figures
Figure 1. Project area map (Lloyd and Associates 2016)............................................................... 6
Figure 2. Coho salmon juveniles observed during the 2007 SCUBA survey.................................. 8
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (1990). .....................................................11
Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (2016). .....................................................11
Figure 5. 2016 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations............................................................14
Figure 6. Leaf litter substrate near the west end of Transect 1. .................................................16
Figure 7. Silt substrate with low densities of M. spicatum and P. crispus along Transect 2.......16
Figure 8. Dense stands of P. crispus observed along Transect 3.................................................17
Figure 9. Dense stands of M. spicatum observed along Transect 3 (note log boom at the
surface). ........................................................................................................................................17
Figure 10. Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crispus, and E. canadensis at the mid‐point of Transect 4.
.......................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 11. Gravel and cobble substrate (fish rock) observed along Transect 7. .........................18
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 4
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
LAKE STUDY
LAKE HOUSES AT EAGLE COVE
SEDIMENT DEPOSITION MITIGATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This Lake Study was prepared to obtain a 10‐year permit from the City of Renton to allow
dredging of an expanded area of Lake Washington located directly south the May Creek delta
(adjacent to the Lake Houses at Eagle Cove) (Figure 1; Appendix A). Periodic maintenance
dredging is needed at this location to preserve navigational access to the docks and boathouse;
and to preserve access for swimming, canoeing, and other water sports. While maintenance
dredging to remove accumulated sediments has occurred within and near the May Creek delta
for over 50 years, the proposed project addressed in this study is focused on the expanded
zone shown in Appendix A1, and could entail the removal of as much as 4,000 to 8,000 cubic
yards (CY) of sediment every 3 to 4 years, due to increasing volumes of sediment that are
delivered to the project area as a result of activities in the upper May Creek watershed.
In addition to expanding the dredging prism, the proposed project would involve seven
environmental protection and enhancement measures in the local area. These include the
following:
Place 20 CY “fish rock”2 along the rockery as well as several yards of fish rock
adjacent to the boat ramp on Lot A;
Replace a solid wood float with a grated float that maximizes light transmission;
Replace three treated wood piles securing the old float with two 10‐inch galvanized
pipe piles;
Replace two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each), at the south end of the
project site with a single 12‐inch galvanized pipe pile at each location;
Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline
north of the dredging zone to protect near‐shore habitat that may be used by
rearing Chinook salmon;
1 Currently federal permits are focused on the north end of the project site.
2 Spawning gravel sized substrate used to enhance nearshore aquatic habitat for salmonids.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 5
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Enhance the north end of the project boundary through the placement of large
woody debris (LWD) (approximately five to ten rootwads) to improve aquatic
habitat, help stabilize the shoreline, and facilitate sediment deposition to reduce the
need for future maintenance dredging; and
Conduct dredging only during the NMFS approved July 16 – September 15 work
window.
In Renton, shoreline areas are governed by the Shoreline Master Program and regulated
specifically by RMC 4‐3‐090. Because Lake Washington is considered a critical area by the City
of Renton, Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4‐3‐0S0‐F‐2(c) requires that a lake study be
conducted as part of any modification to a lake critical area. Specifically, the lake study must
demonstrate that the proposed modifications would result in no net loss, meaning the
applicant must demonstrate that the modifications, combined with any mitigation efforts,
would result in equivalent or better protection of shoreline functions. This lake study fulfills the
City’s requirement.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The proposed project area includes five waterfront lots in the Eagle Cove area of Lake
Washington located immediately south of the May Creek Delta at 3905 ‐ 3909 Lake Washington
Boulevard, Renton, WA 98056, including the boat house parcel (Figure 1). Appendix A shows
the proposed expanded dredging zone.
In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during dredging, the study
area includes the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington within
approximately one half mile of the May Creek delta. It is anticipated that the one half mile
project area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in turbidity
during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in the delta.
2.2 CRITICAL AREAS AND HABITAT
Lake Washington
Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state of Washington with 80 miles of
shoreline, including about 30 miles along the shore of Mercer island. Lake Washington is a
Shoreline of Statewide Significance and is classified as a Type‐S waterbody. Over 82 percent of
the Lake Washington shoreline is armored and is shaded by more than 2,700 piers and docks.
Regulated lake levels and extensive armoring have hampered sediment transport and sandy
beaches need to be augmented by periodic sediment supplies. Additional factors affecting the
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 6
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
habitat features in the Lake Washington basin include a lack of riparian vegetation due to
clearing and development; loss of channel and shoreline complexity including a lack of woody
debris and pools; the development of fish passage barriers with the construction of road
crossings, weirs, and dams; and degraded water and sediment quality caused by increases in
pollutants and high temperatures.
Figure 1. Project area map (Lloyd and Associates 2016).
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 7
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
The Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and
Sammamish, and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It
also includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain into
the system from the north. Historically, Lake Washington had a vegetated shoreline of
wetlands, trees, brush, and other mixed vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for
juvenile salmonids and other aquatic species.
Habitat degradation started with heavy logging of old growth forest throughout much of the
watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle began diverting water out of the
upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910 through 1920, the natural
Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake Washington Ship Canal
and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake Washington to Lake
Union and then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake that was not
connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of the Lake
Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to 10 feet and
the loss of over 10 miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake
margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for
juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. During that same decade, the Cedar
River was redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington. In the
ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been the
expansion of urban and suburban development.
Despite the heavy alteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support numerous
salmonid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest salmonid populations, the
Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye, coho, steelhead, rainbow
and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char (bull trout). Chinook salmon, steelhead trout,
and bull trout are currently listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA), and coho salmon are a Species of Concern under the ESA. Some of the small
independent Puget Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and cutthroat. Maps illustrating
known and presumed distributions for each of these species are available in Kerwin (2001).
Additionally, at least 40 non‐native fish species (of which approximately 24 persist) have been
introduced into the Lake Washington basin, most notably smallmouth and largemouth bass,
creating numerous trophic interactions with native species, including substantial predation on
native salmonids. Sockeye salmon in the lake system are believed to be primarily the
descendants of fry transplanted from Baker Lake in the 1930s. While many species have been
introduced, native species such as Cedar River pink and chum salmon have been extirpated.
Over the past 23 years3 numerous salmonid species have been documented at or near the
proposed project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout/steelhead,
and cutthroat trout (Figure 4). No bull trout spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been
3 Lake surveys associated with permitting dredging and other activities at the Barbee Mil site began in 1993.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 8
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
observed in May Creek, and no distinct spawning populations are known to exist in Lake
Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse.
Non‐salmonid species documented during surveys in the study area included largemouth and
smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three‐spine
stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental
Inc. 2007; and Meridian Environmental Inc. 2012). These findings are consistent with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
database list for the project site, which includes all of the above salmonid species, as well as
bull trout.
Figure 2. Coho salmon juveniles observed during the 2007 SCUBA survey.
Adult Chinook typically migrate into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid‐June, peaking
in late‐August (Kerwin 2001). Spawning typically occurs from mid‐September through
November. Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from approximately January through June. Most
juvenile Chinook move through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the entire
outmigration period is unknown (Kerwin 2001).
Adult coho begin entering Lake Washington in late‐August and continue to enter the lake
through early December. Most coho spawning occurs in November and December (Kerwin
2001). Juvenile coho typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater. In Lake Washington, the
peak of the outmigration occurs in early May (Kerwin 2001).
Adult steelhead spawn from mid‐December through early June in the Lake Washington basin.
Juveniles can spend several years in freshwater before migrating to saltwater. Therefore,
juvenile steelhead could be present in Lake Washington all year.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 9
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Adult sockeye salmon enter Lake Washington from late May to late August, and arrival peaks in
early July (Hodgson and Quinn 2002). Adult sockeye hold in the lake below the thermocline all
summer (Newell and Quinn 2005) and spawn in September–January. Juvenile sockeye rear for
1 or 2 years in the lake, although they are also found in the inlet and outlet streams of the lake.
Six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented in the project vicinity; elodea
(Elodea canadensis), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), white‐stemmed pondweed
(Potamogeton prelongus), curly‐leaf pondweed (P. crispus), American wild celery (Vallisneria
americana), and common water nymph (Najas guadalupensis) (Harza 1993; Harza 2000;
Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001). Elodea is a native species found throughout
most of Lake Washington. Eurasian milfoil is a non‐native species that first appeared in Lake
Washington in the mid‐1970s. According to Kerwin (2001), Eurasian milfoil has colonized a
large percentage of the littoral zone and replaced much of the native aquatic vegetation
present in littoral areas of Lake Washington. Curly‐leaf pondweed, American wild celery, and
common water nymph are also non‐native to Lake Washington and are often found in ponds,
lakes and sluggish streams to depths of 12 feet.
In general, high densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and curly‐leaf pondweed have been
observed in the nearshore portion of the proposed project area (at depths less than 12 feet)
during the summer months (Harza 2000). The highest abundance is typically seen in depths of
6 to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the deeper water transects
(greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and less abundant.
Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15 feet (Harza 1993 and 2000).
May Creek
The mouth of May Creek is located on Lake Washington approximately 2 miles north of the
Cedar River in Renton, Washington. The May Creek Basin drains an area approximately 14
square miles west of the Cascade Foothills between Issaquah Creek, Coal Creek, and the Cedar
River. The headwaters of the basin include Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and the East
Renton Plateau. The main stem of May Creek contains approximately 7 river‐miles of habitat
and is fed by 13 primary tributaries.
Historically, the May Creek watershed was forested with predominantly coniferous stands.
Over recent decades, land uses in the western one‐third of the basin have changed to intensive
residential development. The eastern two‐thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural
residential, small farms, and some forested areas (King County 2001). Developed communities
in the watershed include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honey Creek, and Lake
Kathleen (Foster Wheeler 1998).
The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington State
Growth Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban‐scale
development from encroaching on the headwaters of the basin. Land development in the
lower basin has substantially reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces, and filled
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 10
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
wetlands. Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage basin‐wide is
approximately 7 percent. In addition, under current zoning, full build‐out would result in
approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being covered in impervious surfaces (King
County 2001). This is significant, as basin‐wide impervious surface areas of 10 percent or
greater have been found to have considerable impacts on the health of aquatic ecosystems
(May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991). Logging, coal mining, and agricultural
activities have resulted in channelized streams, floodplain encroachment, and eroding slopes in
the May Creek watershed.
The lower 4 miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the creek
experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of LWD (Foster
Wheeler 1998). The lack of LWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool
habitat. Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to forest removal, the
presence of rock quarries, and the expansion of road networks. Vegetation removal
throughout the basin has resulted in higher maximum flows and lower minimum flows. The
increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding and sediment
deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and flooding and
sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 2001). Analysis of past,
existing, and forecast storm runoff and flooding conditions of the May Creek Basin indicate that
flooding will probably continue to increase as the basin is developed. As a result, the May
Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) includes several restoration goals, one of which is to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin. However,
implementation of habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on funding
availability.
Historically, the Barbee Mill property (located adjacent to the May Creek delta) was highly
modified, with mill operations dominating the land use (Figure 3). Approximately 85 percent of
the site was covered by impervious surfaces in the form of pavement associated with mill
operations and approximately 15 structures used for mill offices, log handling, sawing, milling,
and storage of wood products. Over the past 15 years, and coinciding with the construction of
the Barbee Mill housing development, the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the
vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area from its confluence with Lake Washington to
Lake Washington Boulevard by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native
vegetation (Figure 4). In this area, the vegetated stream buffer ranges from approximately 5 to
over 100 feet in width. In addition, the Barbee Mill Company has placed clean fish rock over
2,100 square feet of the shoreline along the lake’s rockery shoreline to the south of the
boathouse dock to enhance shallow water habitat for fish.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 11
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (1990).
Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (2016).
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 12
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
According to Foster Wheeler (1998), the lower reaches of May Creek experience the heaviest
use by fish. However, the primary limiting factor for Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is
available spawning area and incubation success. The primary limiting factor for coho,
steelhead, and cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and over‐
wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Wetlands
According to King County’s iMap database4 there are no wetlands located within the immediate
vicinity of the proposed expanded dredging site. Nor do any other publicly available data
indicate the presence of aquatic areas aside from Lake Washington and May Creek.
Habitat
As discussed above, the littoral zone and shoreline of Lake Washington have been extensively
modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake level; construction of piers, docks, and
bulkheads; removal of LWD; and the expansion of Eurasian milfoil and other non‐native aquatic
macrophytes (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000). The previously hardstem bulrush‐ and willow‐
dominated shoreline community has been replaced by developed and hardened shorelines with
landscaped yards. According to Toft (2001), an estimated 71 percent of the Lake Washington
shoreline is armored with riprap or bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers have
been built. This loss of natural shoreline has reduced the occurrence of complex shoreline
habitat features such as overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen
trees with branches and/or rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches, which has reduced
the availability of refuge habitat and forage for juvenile salmonids.
Like most of the shoreline along Lake Washington, the shoreline in the proposed project area is
armored with riprap; however, emergent vegetation (soft rush, grasses, sedges, etc.) grows at
depths less than 3 feet in areas to the north and east of the proposed dredge site. In 2007,
juvenile rainbow trout, coho salmon, and sticklebacks were observed using this emergent
vegetation as cover.
Soils/Substrates
Sediments in the proposed expanded dredge area (arising from May Creek depositional events)
tend to be fine to medium sands (SP ‐ MP) grading to gravels in closer proximity to May Creek.
Sediments distal to May Creek trend to finer materials and silt. Within the May Creek delta,
larger cobbles and gravels are the dominant substrates. Riprap, cobble, sand and gravel
generally occur at depths less than 3 feet to the north and east of the proposed dredging zone.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the property (upslope of the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) contains Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC) soil; however, this
area would not be disturbed by the project.
4 http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/imap.aspx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 13
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Wildlife
In addition to the fish species described above, the WDFW PHS database lists three bald eagle
nests within 1 mile of the project site. All three nests are located to the west of the May Creek
delta on the southeastern tip of Mercer Island. It is reasonable to assume that bald eagles may
fly over the project site and that they may forage in the project area based on the presence of
documented nest sites and potential forage species, such as waterfowl, seagulls, and salmon,
which occur in and around May Creek and the southern portion of Lake Washington.
There is an existing osprey nest platform at the mouth of May Creek that has been occupied
during the breeding season (March through September) in the past, but no nest was seen on
the structure in December 2016. In addition to osprey, Meridian biologists have observed a
variety of ducks, Canada geese, and turtles during fish habitat and fish population surveys in the
project area.
2.3 2016 AQUATIC HABITAT SURVEY
On December 16, 2016, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed detailed SCUBA‐
based aquatic habitat and fish presence surveys at the project site. Areas surveyed were (1)
within the proposed expanded dredging zone to the inner harbor line; and (2) along the eastern
and northern shoreline adjacent to the proposed dredging area; and (3) around the boat house.
The objective of these surveys was to:
• Document the existing aquatic habitat conditions during the winter of 2016;
• Determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and
• Describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the
survey.
An additional objective was to compare the results of 2016 surveys with the results of fish
habitat and fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in 1993, 2000,
2001, 2007, and 2012).
Survey Methods
A Meridian fisheries biologist established seven underwater transects between the south end
of the May Creek delta and the existing dock and log boom located at the south end of the
proposed project area (Figure 5). Transects were designed to cover a large portion of the
proposed expanded dredge prism, ranged from 100 to 225 feet in length, and extended
approximately 500 feet into Lake Washington.
Similar to previous surveys, two fisheries biologists then used SCUBA equipment to swim each
of the seven transects approximately 2‐3 feet above the surface of the lake bed. While
swimming each transect, divers recorded the water depth, dominant substrate, the species and
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 14
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
size class of any fish encountered, aquatic macrophyte composition and density, and
underwater visibility. Aquatic macrophyte densities were visually estimated and classified as
low (less than or equal to 10 stems per square yard), moderate (11 to 100 stems per square
yard), or high (greater than 100 stems per square yard). In addition, divers recorded
underwater video of representative habitat conditions along each transect.
Figure 5. 2016 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations.
2016 SCUBA Survey Results
As discussed in Section 2.2, numerous salmonid and non‐salmonid species have been
documented at or near the proposed project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon,
rainbow trout/steelhead, cutthroat trout, largemouth and smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed
sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three‐spine stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and
shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental Inc. 2007; and Meridian
Environmental Inc. 2012). All of these species were observed using the project site (primarily
along the margins of the lake) during spring, summer, and fall surveys. The 2016 survey
represents the first time that a winter aquatic habitat survey was completed at the site.
No fish were observed in the project area during the December 16, 2016 survey (Table 1).
While their absence from the project area was surprising, salmonids and other fish rearing in
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 15
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
freshwater have been found to shift to different habitats in the winter, and may have moved
into deeper water to overwinter.
Table 1. Summary of observations recorded during the December 16, 2016 project
area SCUBA survey.
Transect # General Aquatic Habitat Notes Fish Observations
1 Proceeded west from osprey nest pole heading offshore (Figure 5). 4-8’ depth following the edge of sandy shelf on delta. Substrate was comprised of mostly leaf litter with low to low densities of E. canadensis and M. spicatum (Figure 6).
None
2 Proceeded southeast from end of T1 to 2nd log boom piling (Figure 5). 18’ max depth approximately 14’ average depth. Substrate was comprised of a mixture of leaf litter and silt with low densities of M. spicatum and P. crispus (Figure 7).
None
3 Proceeded north from eastern most log boom piling to point near osprey nest pole (Figure 5). 15’ maximum depth with dense stands of P. crispus and M.
spicatum. Very tall patches ~10’ tall and only 2 to 3’ feet below the surface (Figures 8 and 9).
None
4 Proceeded south from the midpoint of log to the dock with the boat lift (Figure 5). 7’ max depth. Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crispus, and E. canadensis at the mid-point of the transect (Figure 10).
None
5 Proceeded north from base of dock/boat lift to the end of the boathouse dock (Figure 5). 6’ max depth. Large expanses of sand with low to moderate densities of P. crispus, E. canadensis, and M. spicatum. 1 live freshwater mussel (Figure 11).
None
6 Proceeded from the end of transect 5 past the boat house to boat ramp (Figure 5). 5’ max depth. Low densities of M. spicatum and E. canadensis. None
7 Proceeded along shoreline from the boat ramp to the base of the dock at south end of proposed dredge prism (Figure 5). Substrate was comprised of mostly gravel, cobble, and leaf litter. Depths average 2-3’ and aquatic vegetation was sparse. Abundant small freshwater mussels (Figure 12).
None
As in past SCUBA/snorkel surveys, the substrate in the proposed project area was observed to
be a mixture of silt and sand, riprap cobble, leaf litter, and fish rock patches. Riprap cobble,
sand, and gravel were the dominant substrates observed along transect 7 (Figure 5). The riprap
cobble and gravel was typically located within 6 feet of the shoreline to a depth of
approximately 3 feet. Sand was the dominant substrate along Transect 1 and silt and organic
debris (e.g., leaf material) were the dominant substrates along the remaining transects.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 16
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Figure 6. Leaf litter substrate near the west end of Transect 1.
Figure 7. Silt substrate with low densities of M. spicatum and P. crispus along
Transect 2.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 17
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Figure 8. Dense stands of P. crispus observed along Transect 3.
Figure 9. Dense stands of M. spicatum observed along Transect 3 (note log boom at
the surface).
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 18
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Figure 10. Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crispus, and E. canadensis at the mid‐point of
Transect 4.
Figure 11. Gravel and cobble substrate (fish rock) observed along Transect 7.
As discussed in Section 2.2, six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented within
and near the proposed expanded dredging area during past SCUBA/snorkel surveys. In general,
high densities of E. canadensis, M. spicatum, and P. crispus have been observed in the
nearshore portion (depths less than 12 feet) during the summer months (Harza 2000, Meridian
Environmental, Inc. 2007; Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2012). The highest abundance is
typically seen in depths of 6 to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 19
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
deeper water transects (greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is
patchier and less abundant. Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15
feet.
In 2016, biologists observed low, moderate, and high densities of E. canadensis, M. spicatum,
and P. crispus in the project vicinity, depending on the transect. Densities were highest along
transects 3 and 4 at depths less than 12 feet (Figure 4) and lowest along transects 1, 2, 3, and 7.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
For decades, the Barbee Mill site (owned by the Cugini family) and May Creek delta have been
affected by ongoing development in the upper May Creek valley. Upstream development has
resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased impervious surface in the watershed. Peak
flows have increased approximately 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions
for the 2‐, 25‐, and 100‐year flood event return intervals (King County 2001). In addition, this
increased run‐off has resulted in severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper
basin, which is deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. Subsequently,
wave action in Lake Washington transports fine sediment from the delta to the boathouse area,
which is located to the south of the May Creek delta.
Dredging of the May Creek delta and Cugini property boathouse area has occurred for over 50
years on a 3‐ to 4‐year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. The amount
of sediment deposition has been described as increasing from 3,000 to 4,000 CY every 3 to 4
years throughout the 1990s to 4,000 to 6,000 CY per in the 2000s.
3.2 PROPOSED SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS
The proposed project would involve amending the current Corps programmatic permit to allow
dredging of up to an additional 4,000 cubic yards of sediment in an area located adjacent to the
existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). Dredging to achieve the desired navigational
depth profile would deepen the expanded dredge prism by approximately 10 feet (Appendix A).
This expansion of the dredge prism would align it with the existing property and inner harbor
lines, facilitate safe navigational access to the boathouse, and promote future recreational
uses. The current permit reference is NWS‐2007‐1019‐NO.
There would be no change in the frequency of dredging events. Dredging events would
continue to occur in both the existing and expanded dredge prisms every 3 to 5 years, based on
periodic evaluation of sediment depth.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 20
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
There would be no change in the duration or timing of dredging events. As in the past, work
would be accomplished within a 3‐ to 5‐day period, and would be scheduled to occur within the
in‐water work window specified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The NMFS in‐
water work period, which is designed to limit impacts to aquatic species, is July 16th to
September 15th.
As is currently permitted, accumulated sediments would be removed with a small dredge and
clamshell bucket. Portions of the work may also be conducted with a long‐reach excavator
from the land or an excavator mounted on a fenced flat barge. Use of any other type of dredge
would require prior approval from the Corps and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Sediments would be loaded on a barge, transported, and off‐loaded at an approved fill material
stockpile zone for beneficial upland uses.
4.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
An alternative location for the project is not feasible, as the project is intended to ensure
continued safe navigational access to the boathouse and promote future recreational uses.
However, pursuant to RMC 4‐9‐050‐L(I)(b), measures to avoid, minimize, and rectify impacts to
the on‐site shoreline critical area have been incorporated into the dredging plan.
Minimization techniques include lining the perimeter of the barge with hay bales wrapped with
filter fabric to prevent dredge material from entering Lake Washington, where it could cause
turbidity. Conducting dredging only during the NMFS approved July 16 – September 15 work
window would also minimize the risk of turbidity, by avoiding work during the rainy season.
To protect and enhance aquatic habitat in the project vicinity, the project proponent is also
proposing to:
Place 20 CY fish rock along the rockery as well as several yards of fish rock adjacent
to the boat ramp on Lot A;
Demolish the existing solid‐surface 38‐foot float and replace it with a grated float
that is 24 feet long. Replace three treated wood piles securing the old float with two
10‐inch galvanized pipe piles;
Replace two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each), at the south end of the
project site with a single 12‐inch galvanized pipe pile at each location;
Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline
north of the dredging zone to protect near‐shore habitat that may be used by
rearing Chinook salmon; and
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 21
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Enhance the north end of the project boundary through the placement of LWD
(approximately five to ten rootwads) to improve aquatic habitat, help stabilize the
shoreline, and facilitate sediment deposition to reduce the need for future
maintenance dredging.
5.0 IMPACT EVALUATION
The proposed mitigation measures described above were designed using best available science,
in accordance with RMC 4‐8‐120‐19, and RMC 4‐3‐050‐L‐1‐c, to avoid and minimize potential
project impacts on aquatic habitat and salmonids and provide adequate mitigation. A
discussion of project effects, including the effects of mitigation, is presented below.
5.1 HABITAT
The proposed project is unlikely to have an adverse effect on adult salmon and steelhead
spawning habitat, as no dredging would take place in May Creek. The proposed in‐water work
window (July 16th to September 15th) and relatively short dredging period (3 to 5 days of work)
would also limit the potential to delay migration or spawning in May Creek.
The proposed project may affect juvenile salmon and steelhead by causing physical changes to
their early rearing habitat in Lake Washington. However, according to Tabor et al. (2006),
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. Past studies
of juvenile Chinook salmon distribution and abundance in Lake Washington indicate that they
are concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington from February to May; however, their
density along the shorelines in the spring decreases logarithmically with increasing distance
from the mouth of the Cedar River (Tabor et al. 2006). These studies also 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).
While data describing juvenile steelhead and coho use of Lake Washington are limited, both
Tabor et al. (2004) and Meridian Environmental, Inc. (2007) have documented the presence of
juvenile steelhead and coho in the proposed project area. Like juvenile Chinook, both of these
species appeared to prefer the shallow water habitat located along the shoreline to the north
and northeast of the proposed expanded dredging area, and were typically associated with
overhanging brush and emergent vegetation. Juvenile coho were also abundant in the shallow
water areas (less than 3 feet deep) located along the northeastern corner of the boathouse
dock. No steelhead or coho were observed at depths greater than approximately 3 feet.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 22
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Based on the results of previous studies completed in the project area, water depths in the
proposed expanded dredging zone are generally deeper than those preferred by rearing
juvenile Chinook, coho and steelhead. In addition, the aquatic habitat located immediately to
the south of the May Creek delta and along the shoreline of the lake to the south is not heavily
used by juveniles of these species (Tabor et al. 2004). Limiting in‐water work to the NMFS
approved work window would minimize the potential to adversely affect juvenile Chinook, as
the vast majority of juveniles in Lake Washington are expected to migrate prior to July. This in‐
work window would also minimize potential impacts on juvenile coho and steelhead.
While the proposed project may cause a short‐term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended
sediment (see below) and a reduction in benthic invertebrates in the dredging zone, overall
long‐term water quality would be improved by removal of the toxic creosote pilings. Primary
productivity and the fish forage base would be improved as a result of increased light
penetration into the lake, and shoreline and instream habitat quality would be improved
through the addition of fish rock.
5.2 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
LWD (logs with attached rootwads) is an important component of a healthy stream ecosystem.
Large trees that fall into streams perform an important role in forming pools, regulating storage
and routing of sediment, and trapping spawning gravel. LWD also provides complex fish habitat
that increases carrying capacity, high‐flow refugia for fish, and substrate for
macroinvertebrates. The delivery and routing of LWD in May Creek has been altered by past
timber harvest and urban and rural development and its role in forming habitats (especially
pool habitat) is very limited.
The placement of approximately five to ten anchored rootwads along the north end of the
project boundary, as a component of the proposed project, would likely improve aquatic
habitat salmonids, help stabilize the shoreline, and may facilitate sediment deposition to
reduce the need for future maintenance dredging south of the delta. These large pieces of
LWD are also expected to provide relatively stable habitat elements and trap pieces of naturally
recruiting wood to form increasingly complex log jams that would be retained during periods of
high flow. As a result we expect the LWD structures to slightly increase resident and
anadromous fish productivity in lower May Creek.
5.3 OVERWATER COVER
Juvenile Chinook salmon tend to avoid overwater structure. Tabor et al. (2006) found that
upon approaching a pier, juvenile Chinook will move into deeper water and either pass under
or swim around the pier. 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
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 23
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
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 project proponent would remove a solid‐decked float in the project area and replace it with
a new fully grated float to maximize natural light transmission. The new grated float would
likely improve primary productivity and the fish forage base by allowing greater natural light
penetration to the lakebed. Grating specifications would comply with previously approved
permit conditions for light transmission. The project proponent would also remove two
dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each) at the south end of the project site and replace
those with a single, much smaller 12‐inch galvanized pipe pile at each location to reduce the
amount of structure that would attract predatory fish. Overall, these measures are expected to
improve juvenile salmon habitat conditions and reduce predation in the project area.
5.4 LIGHTING
Artificial nighttime lighting has been shown to affect the behavior of various aquatic organisms,
including many salmonids. Light‐mediated behaviors may include changes in foraging, predator
avoidance, reproduction, and migration. Often fish are attracted to artificial nighttime lighting
(positive phototaxis) and their behavior may more resemble daytime behavior than nighttime
behavior, which can potentially make them more vulnerable to predation (Tabor et al. 2015).
No artificial lighting is proposed as part of the expanded dredging project.
5.5 WATER QUALITY (SUBSTRATE DISTURBANCE AND DISCHARGE OF
WASTE PRODUCTS)
Dredging has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e., reduce water clarity) and increase total
suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action area. Turbidity and TSS levels have
been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect salmonid
survival. The potential for adverse effects depends upon several factors, including the duration
of TSS increases, the area of the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambient water
(dilution factor), and the size of suspended sediments. In the case of the proposed project,
increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and
increases would last for only short periods of time; based on previous dredging activities, these
periods are expected to be less than several hours.
Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as such
conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms, landslides, or
other natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic exposure to increased
turbidity that has been found to be the most potentially damaging to salmonids. Studies have
found that when habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid localized areas of
increased turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological impacts (Bisson
and Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003).
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 24
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and
Martens 1991), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU),
presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a, 1987b). Studies have found
that fish that inhabit waters with elevated TSS may experience a reduction in predation from
piscivorous fish and birds (Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases, salmonids may actually
increase foraging activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from predators (Gregory
1993). However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in excess of 70 NTU,
well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon
returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mg/L
suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/L of suspended volcanic
ash were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982).
The highest turbidity values recorded during dredging activity at the site in 2002 were less than
7 NTU, and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less than 1.4 NTU greater
than turbidity outside the dredging zone. Overall turbidity values of less than 7 NTU are very
low, and the effect of slightly increasing turbidity by 1 or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be
considered discountable.
Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short‐term (3
to 5 days every 3 to 5 years) and localized elevation of turbidity (less than 5 NTU elevation
above background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed project would rise to the levels
that would be expected to cause harm to salmonids that may be present in the dredging zone.
While some return water from dredged materials placed on a barge is anticipated to enter Lake
Washington, it is extremely import to understand that the dredged material is highly porous
and drains very quickly during dredging as the bucket is raised out of the water. This return
water is the subject of the Water Quality Certification approved by Ecology. Notably, there is
very little silt or clay content in dredged materials as indicated in recent sediment testing.
Essentially, the sediments are virtually dry as loaded onto the barge. The perimeter of the
barge will be lined with hay bales wrapped with filter fabric to further reduce the potential for
introduction of sediments into Lake Washington.
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 project proponent would employ the most effective strategy for
minimizing or eliminating potential construction related impacts, which is to restrict
construction to periods when the presence of Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, and bull
trout is improbable.
In‐water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the spill
of toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging or pile placement equipment.
This potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by
maintaining a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a SPCCP
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 25
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
would specify areas for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention and emergency
response strategies, requirements for keeping emergency response spill containment kits
onsite, and for having trained personnel be onsite during in‐water work. For this project,
preparation of a SPCCP would limit the potential for toxic material spills during dredging and
pile replacement.
If oil or other unknown substances appear on the water surface or in dredged material while
equipment is being operated, the contractor will cease operations immediately to identify the
source of the contaminant and remedy the problem. If necessary, an oil absorbent boom
secured to a debris boom will be utilized to encircle the work zone to capture sheen or
potential floating debris.
Finally, replacing the three creosote treated wood piles and two dolphins in the project area
with galvanized pipe piles is expected to provide an overall increase in water quality, as slow
solution of some creosote components and physical breakdown of the treated wood leads to
toxicity in the surrounding water and sediment.. These piles would be pulled concurrent with
the May Creek enhancement work. All creosote treated pilings would be cut into 4‐foot lengths
and disposed of in an approved upland landfill.
6.0 CONCLUSION
Periodic maintenance dredging every 3‐5 years in the proposed expanded dredge prism
coupled with the protection and enhancement measures outlined in Section 4.0 are expected
to preserve navigational access to the project proponent’s docks and boathouse; maintain and
possibly improve water quality conditions in the project area; enhance aquatic habitat and
hydraulic functions in lower May Creek; slightly increase primary productivity and near‐shore
habitat quality in Lake Washington; and reduce predation in the project area. Overall, no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions will result from the proposed project.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 26
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
7.0 REFERENCES
Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371-374.
Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems –
measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings of the
Watershed ’93 Conference. U.S. GPO, Washington D.C.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in
Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in
Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report.
Prepared for King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Bothell,
Washington.
Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous
salmonids in the Lake Washington watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525-544 in
E.E. Knudsen, C.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser (editors).
Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton.
Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile
Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241-246.
Gregory, R.S., and C.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile
Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(2):275-285.
Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization Assessment for
the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993. Prepared for Lloyd and
Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA.
Hodgson S., Quinn T.P., Hilborn R, Francis R.C., Rogers D.E. (2006). Marine and freshwater
climatic factors affecting interannual variation in the timing of return migration to fresh
water of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Fish Oceanogr 15(1):1–24.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management.
Ecological Applications, 1:66-84.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 27
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Keister, J.P., Jr., R.G. Anthony, and E.J. O'Neill. 1987. Use of communal roosts and foraging
areas by bald eagles wintering in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(2):
4154.20.
Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar-Sammamish
basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 2001. Washington Conservation
Commission. Olympia, WA. 587 pp.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of
Renton. April 2001.
May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization
on small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4): 483-
494.
Meridian Environmental Inc. 2007. Barbee Boat House Renovation and Maintenance Dredging
Project Biological Assessment. Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared
by: Prepared by: Meridian Environmental, Inc. July 11, 2007.
Meridian Environmental Inc. 2012. Cugini Property Boathouse Expansion of the Existing Lake
Washington Dredge Prism Biological Assessment. Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Prepared by: Meridian Environmental, Inc. August 27, 2012.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 2001. Cugini property May
2001, aquatic habitat and fish population survey and joint-use dock biological assessment.
June 25, 2001.
Newell, J. C., and T. P. Quinn. 2005. Behavioral thermoregulation by maturing adult sockeye
salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in a stratified lake prior to spawning. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 83:1232–1239.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound
Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from
Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW. Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003.
Redding, J.M., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and
steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
116:737-744.
Servizi, J.A., and Martens, D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute
lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 48: 493–497.
Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for King
County Department of Natural Resources.
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 28
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Appendix A
Site Plan – Dredge Area Expansion
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 29
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 30
F:\Consolidation\Barbee\Submittals 2005\Submittals\2016‐211 Grade and Fill Permit submittal\2016 Lake Study‐1.docx
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 15 of 17
Plan Reductions (1 Copy each)
Applicability:
Item 24 – Grade and Fill Permit
Item 33 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Note: Plans provided in Grading Plan submittal and Neighborhood Detail Map submittal sections.
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 16 of 17
Shoreline Tracking Worksheet (2 Copies)
Applicability:
Item 32 – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Note: Worksheet submitted with Shoreline Exemption for Environmental Enhancements /
Mitigation
Sediment Deposition Mitigation – Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Page 17 of 17
Submittals to be Provided to the City of Renton
Digital Copy (provided with this transmittal)
(Item 34 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Colored Maps for Display (to be provided as separate transmittal)
(Item 25 - Grade and Fill Permit / Item 35 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Public Information Sign(s) (to be developed and placed as separate submittal)
(Item 10 - Shorelines Substantial Development)
Traffic Study (to be prepared and submitted separately, as necessary)
(See Item 7 – Construction Mitigation Description / Grade and Fill Permit, and Item 30
- Shorelines Substantial Development)
SPCC Plan (to be provided by Selected Contractor (prior to dredging)
Dredging Report to be provided to City of Renton, post - dredging