HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA14-001181_MiscDiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
Joint-Use Pier Project
Biological Evaluation/Lake and Stream Study
Report
August 25, 2014
For:
Richard DiCerchio
4005 Williams Ave. N.
Renton, WA 98056
MARINE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS
521 Snagstead Way
Port Townsend WA 98368
(360) 385-4073
marine.surveys. i nc@gmail.com
•
List of Figures and Attachments
Figure Number Page
1. Vicinity map ....................................................................................... 14
2. Site plan .............................................................................................. 15
3. Plan view ............................................................................................. 16
4. Elevation view .................................................................................... 17
5. A-A pier section ................................................................................. 18
6. Existing native vegetation buffer ..................................................... 19
7, Plant legend ....................................................................................... 20
Attachment Number Page
1. Photograph of the site ................................................................ 21-23
2. Species list for King County ........................................................ 24-25
3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment .............................................. 26-27
4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook ........................................................... 28-29
5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout .......................................... 30-31
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 2
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
Joint-Use Pier Project
Biological Evaluation/Lake and Stream Study Report
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location:
V, Section NW32, Township 24N, Range 05E.
4005 and 4011 Williams Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Latitude: 47.52848' N Longitude: 122.20532°W
See Figure 1 for project location.
B. Site Description:
The proposed project is a joint-use pier to be located along the common property line between two abutting lots,
4005 and 4011 Williams Ave N, Renton, WA 98056 (jointly the "subject property"), presently owned by Richard
DiCerchio and Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC, respectively. (jointly the "applicant" for the requested shoreline
substantial development permit). The properties are located within the Barbee Mill Community, a major waterfront
subdivision. The subject property is located along the eastern shore of Lake Washington in the City of Renton
(Figure 2). The proposed joint-use pier would provide moorage and facilitate access to Lake Washington for
residents of the subject property and their guests.
Two bodies of water are adjacent to, or flow through, the Barbee Mill Community: Lake Washington and May
Creek. The subject property is located along Lake Washington, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance as provided
in RMC 4-3-090F1, and a Shoreline of the State under RMC 4-11-190. This Lake Study is prepared in accordance
with the requirements of RMC 4-8-1200 with respect to the Lake Washington shoreline of the subject property.
May Creek. a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2), flows through the Barbee Mill Community. The May
Creek open space (a riparian buffer) and a street are located between the two lots and May Creek.
The Barbee Mill Community is located on the approximately 22 acre site of the former Barbee Mill Company
lumber mill. The Barbee Mill Community has 114 multi-story paired homes, a pond, walking trails and lakefront
open space for the use of residents. Lots 23 through 48 are lakefront lots.
To restore the former industrial site to a parcel suitable for a residential waterfront subdivision, the mill buildings
were demolished; fill soils were removed from behind the bulkhead; asphalt paving, a pier, the wooden bulkhead
and piling associated with the mill operation were removed; and extensive shoreline restoration was completed.
The subject property is located south of, and was not included in, this extensive remediation. A concrete bulkhead
is located along most of the Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC parcel; a rock bulkhead is located along the DiCerchio
parcel. The substrate immediately waterward of the property consists oflarge and small cobble.
A number of factors were considered in determining the location of the proposed pier, most importantly the lower
environmental impact of a joint-use structure over individual single-property use piers. In establishing design
parameters for the proposed joint-use pier, it was required that it not interfere with the general public's use and
enjoyment of Lake Washington, that it not pose a navigation hazard to boaters, and that it not interfere with the use
of existing or future neighboring docks or piers.
C. Lake and Stream Classifications:
As mentioned above, as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance (RMC 4-3-090F I), Lake Washington is included in
the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-11-190). Lake Washington is a Class I lake as it is a perennial
salmonid-bearing body of water classified as a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-l l-l 90S I). May Creek is an
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 3
important salmonid stream that is classified by the City of Renton and the State of Washington as Class 1 waters
and included within the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2).
D. Shoreline Restoration:
Prior to restoration of the beach in conjunction with vacation of the land, the Lake Washington shoreline north of
the subject property was heavily bulkheaded, back-filled and covered with impervious asphalt paving; numerous
piling and substantial quantities of concrete rubble and other shoreline debris were on the site. Pursuant to the
general development site remediation, upland and in-water structures including the timber bulkhead and piling
were removed, shoreline rubble was removed, fill soil was excavated to subgrade elevations, toe rock and a
temporary quarry spall erosion control berm were installed, and sand, gravel and rock materials were used to
construct a beach to mimic natural conditions. Although the area of extensive remediation did not encompass the
subject property, a planting buffer of native vegetation (Figure 6 and 7) was installed along all the lakefront lots,
including the subject property, to environmentally and functionally enhance the entire development shoreline.
The Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark for Lake Washington is the line of mean high water (RMC 4-11-150
Definitions 0). The Lake Washington water depth is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers at the Hiram M.
Chittenden Locks and is at 21.8' of lake elevation. In the course of the Barbee Mill Beach Restoration site
remediation, permanent toe rock was installed along the OHW line. As of March 20, 2007, the date a SCUBA
survey was conducted for purposes of identifying flora, fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information
relative to the Biological Evaluation prepared for the previous community dock project, coir rolls were located
along the OHW line within the remediation area. The May Creek OHW mark is the mean high water line of the
stream (RMC 4-11-150 Definition 0).
E. Vegetative Cover of the Site:
The study area includes no wetland or flood hazard areas; it does include Lake Washington riparian areas. Prior to
the Barbee Mill Beach Restoration project, riparian vegetation was found to be generally absent within the study
area as the shoreline behind the bulkhead was paved. In unpaved areas, vegetation noted included Juncus effesus
(soft rush) and Iris pseudocaris (a non-native iris). The upland redevelopment required extensive regrading and
clearing; a mitigation planting plan was agreed upon that includes planting along the Lake Washington shoreline.
In accordance with this mitigation plan, plantings on the subject property have been installed (Figures 6 and 7). In
conjunction with construction of the proposed joint-use pier, 22 additional native shrubs will be planted. The
planting plan details will be shown on the full size drawings.
F. Ecological Functions of Lake Washington along the Study Area:
Previously to the Barbee Mill Community development, the industrial structures and use of the site limited the
ecological functions that would otherwise have been provided by Lake Washington and its adjacent riparian area.
As a result of the extensive general site restoration work completed north of the subject property, the ecological
functions of the portion of the lake within the study area should be greatly enhanced. Previously planted riparian
vegetation and additional plantings in conjunction with the proposed joint-use pie project will further assist in
restoring the ecological functions of Lake Washington. Much of this new vegetation will be overhanging,
providing shade and predator protection for fish and aquatic invertebrates. The newly planted riparian vegetation
will add significant organic matter to the lake substrate in the form of leaves and woody debris that fall and wash
into the lake. This will provide additional source of food, shelter and shade for aquatic invertebrates and fish. This
increased vegetation will also provide food and shelter for terrestrial insects, and in tum provide an additional food
source for birds and animals that feed upon them. The addition of riparian vegetation to this formerly near-barren
site should also help water quality by filtering pollutants, removing nutrients and reducing sediments in any runoff
from the adjacent upland development. The increased overhanging vegetation should facilitate the migration of
juvenile salmon.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 4
G. Fish and Wildlife Use or the Area:
Birds:
Birds observed on or near the site include hawks, herons, eagles, quail, osprey, cormorants and songbirds. Before
the mill structures were demolished, an osprey nest was successfully relocated from the top of the old mill sawdust
collector to a platform built on a 25' pole over the water not far from the original nest site. The osprey have
accepted the new nest and a video camera records their activities for viewing over the Internet. Protected wildlife
in Washington State shall not be hunted or fished (WAC 232-12-011). Protected wildlife noted from time to time
within the general Barbee Mill Community development area includes the marbled murrelet and the bald eagle.
The marbled murrelet is classified as a "threatened species," a species likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management
or removal of threats. The bald eagle is no longer on the list of threatened or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) but continues to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is protected as a "sensitive species" in Washington. Sensitive species are vulnerable
or declining and likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state
without cooperative management or removal of threats.
Mammals:
The only wild mammals reported as observed in the area are deer.
Fish:
Salmonids observed at the site include salmon and trout. Salmonids known to be present in southern Lake
Washington include Puget Sound chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and
cutthroat trout. Puget Sound chinook, Puget Sound steelhead and bull trout are all listed as threatened under the
ESA. Other fish observed at the site include bass, black crappie, bluegill, pumpkinseed sunfish, tench and yellow
perch. The shoreline remediation was designed to be consistent with Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8
Conservation Plan recommendations. As a result of the remediation, shoreline that was previously unsuitable
habitat for fish and other aquatic life due to extensive shoreline modifications and industrial use of the site has been
restored. The restored gravel substrate and gently sloping bottom should provide favorable habitat for winter
rearing of salmon fry. The new gravel and cobble substrate to the north and the existing cobble on the subject
property should be suitable habitat for benthic invertebrates which would likely attract juvenile salmonids.
H. Project Details:
.The pier will be supported by two 1 O" diameter, four 8" diameter and two 4" diameter galvanized steel piles. It
will have a 4' by 40' walkway from shore and a 6' by 40' walkway for a total length of 80' from the OHWM. Two
free standing boat lifts will be installed at the pier. A 30' by 10.5' translucent canopy will be installed over one boat
lift. Two 12" diameter steel mooring piles will be installed adjacent to the pier (Figures 3-5).
I. Construction Sequence:
1. Mobilize construction barge to the site with all construction materials and equipment on board. Moor the barge
as to prevent grounding on the lake bottom at any time during construction.
2. Install silt containment curtain around work area to contain any debris that may fall into lake waters. In the event
any materials enter lake waters they will be retrieved immediately and placed in debris containers on the barge.
3. Using the barge-based crane and vibratory insertion/extraction system, install (2) at 12" diameter, (2) at 1 O"
diameter, (4) at 8" diameter and (2) at 4" diameter galvanized steel piles to practical refusal.
4. Cut steel piling as necessary at the appropriate elevation.
5. Install pre-fabricated cap brackets to piling. Connect wood framing to cap brackets using hand tools. Install
grated decking on pier.
6. Set boat lifts in place using crane on the barge. The translucent boat canopy will be installed by hand.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 5
7. Demobilize and dispose of all debris at approved upland disposal site.
General Noles:
1. All treatments will be applied and fully cured prior to delivery to the site.
J. Action Area:
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the project location. This area includes potential
turbidity and noise impacts from the construction process.
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. Species Information:
In the project area, the Puget Sound chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed under the Endangered Species
Act as a threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Federal Register, Vol. 64,
No. 56). On May 11, 2007, NMFS also listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened
species under the ESA (Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No. 91 I Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations). Bull
trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in
October of 1999.
On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant
Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal
Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook
ESU (Federal Register/ Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 Rules and Regulations). USFWS has
designated critical habitat in Lake Washington for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No.
185 I September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations).
Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific
salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget Sound are "ocean-type" and migrate to the marine
environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence
as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm., or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during
May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries
feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they
grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and
euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most
dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival.
In the Lake Washington system, adult chinook salmon usually arrive at the Chittenden Locks in July, although
there are some arrivals before and after July (Synthesis of Salmon Research and Monitoring. 2008). According
to Fresh et al. (2000), the total time for salmon migration from the Locks to arrival at their tributary spawning
grounds "can take up to 55 days, but averages less than 30." During much of this time, salmon hold in the
upstream area from the Locks before moving through the Ship Canal and Lake Union. Fresh et al. (2000)
found the average holding time to be from 17 to 19 days. After reach their spawning streams between
September and November, spawning occurs from October to December.
MS&A
According to Tabor et al. (2006), "Fry emerge from their redds from January to March. Juvenile Chinook
salmon appear to have two rearing strategies: rear in the river and then emigrate in May or June as pre-smolts,
or emigrate as fry in January, February, or March and rear in the south end of Lake Washington or Lake
Sammamish for three to five months." In the project area vicinity, juvenile chinook salmon from the Cedar
River enter Lake Washington and rear in the south end of the lake primarily from January to May.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 6
Tabor et al. (2006) also reported that:
Similar to results of 2002,juvenile Chinook salmon were concentrated in the south end of Lake
Washington from February to May ..... Therefore, it appears that the lake shore area near the natal stream is
an important nursery area for juvenile Chinook salmon. In Lake Washington, the major part of this nursery
area appears to be roughly from Pritchard Beach on the west shoreline and the mouth of May Creek on the
east shore and the south part of Mercer Island. The distance from the mouth of the Cedar River to the edge
of the nursery area is around 6 km. north of this area; the number of Chinook salmon would be expected to
be relatively low until mid-May or June.
In the same study cited above, it was found that marked chinook did not move far from their release site at
Gene Coulon Park (approximately 1.5 miles south of the current project site). Marked juveniles were observed
I, 7, 15, and 21 days after release at Gene Coulon Park. All of the marked salmon that the investigators
observed had moved less than 150 m from their release site at the park.
After moving slowly away from the Green River and south Lake Washington.juveniles reach the Chittenden
Locks during the period between May and August, with peak migration through the Locks taking place in June.
According to Kerwin (200 I) chinook, coho, sockeye and winter steelhead use May Creek for spawning,
rearing and migration. However, volunteers from the Volunteer Salmon Watchers Program have been
observing salmon in May Creek since 2000. They have reported that only sockeye are seen consistently, while
chinook, coho, cutthroat trout and kokanee salmon are less commonly seen.
Hammer (2011) reported that the number of chinook varies from Oto 12 fish annually in May Creek. WDFW
reported three live chinook and one redd in 2010 spawner surveys.
Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California (at present they
are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern
Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically
from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place
in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15
degrees C are thought lo limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993 ). They live both in fresh and
marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before
returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the streams where
they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the
Coastal-Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only
anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States (Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999).
Two subpopulations of bull trout (also known as "native char") are considered within the Lake Washington
area: the Chester Morse Reservoir population and the Issaquah Creek-Sammamish River population (Federal
Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999). "Only two 'native char' have been observed during the past IO years in the
Issaquah Creek drainage and none have been observed in the Sammamish River system. It is questionable
whether a viable subpopulation remains." (Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999).
Puget Sound Steelhead: Wild winter steelhead enter the Lake Washington system in mid-December with peak
spawning taking place in May. There have been high rates of predation by California sea lions at the Ballard
Locks, which is one of the leading factors in the declining steelhead production in the Lake Washington system
(1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Appendix One -Puget Sound Stocks.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.).
MS&A
According to Kerwin (2001 ):
The Lake Washington system supports one native winter steelhead stock but not a summer steelhead stock
(SASSI 1994). The winter steelhead stock was listed in SASSI as "Depressed" but has recently shown
some evidence of rebounding. A limited hatchery program utilizing the native winter steelhead stock was
initiated in 1997 as a supplementation type program to assist in recovery of winter steelhead populations in
the north Lake Washington tributaries. The sharp decline in Lake Washington winter steelhead was noted
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 7
as a reason for concern by NMFS in their stock status review (Busby 1996).
However, in a more recent analysis, between 1986 and 2004 escapement for the Lake Washington winter-run
steelhead ranged from 1,816 (1986) to 44 (2004) (WDFW 2004). Based on the chronically low escapement and
short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock status has decreased from its 1992 "depressed" status to
"critical" in 2002.
WDFW has reported steelhead in the lower 3 miles of May Creek (Salmon Scape, 20 I 0).
Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their
time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old
growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WOW, 1993). Adult
birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific
herring, surf smelt and other small schooling fish, and feed on invertebrates.
The project site is located in an urban environment adjacent to a major highway. There is a high level of
ambient noise in the project vicinity. There is no nesting habitat near the site. Therefore, it is unlikely that
murrelets will be present in the project vicinity.
Ill. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project has been
described and the action area defined. When reviewing all the data, the potential direct and indirect effects of the
proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered.
A. Direct Effects:
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project will
immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the
construction process include increased noise and turbidity.
Pile driving noise: A vibratory pile driver will be used to drive the piles to practical refusal. Feist et al. (1992)
reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000' from the source.
Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport, these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the
distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon. However, the Everett Homeport results may not
be entirely applicable to the proposed project, because a diesel powered compression hammer was used in that
study. As stated in the Feist report, "It would be reasonable to say that juvenile salmonids might respond
differently to the sounds of a vibratory hammer, compared to that of a diesel compression hammer."
As noted above, it is unlikely that murrelets will be present in the action area. Therefore, the construction
process should have little or no impact on marbled murrelets.
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could, under certain circumstances, have adverse effects on
salmon and bull trout. The effects depend on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity and the life stage
of the salmon during the increased exposure. The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or
behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 a and Simenstad, editor, 1988). A silt containment curtain will be
installed in the project area to contain and minimize turbidity impacts.
MS&A
To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids and bull trout, inwater
construction work will take place during the approved work window from July 16 to December 31. Overwater
work can proceed outside of the in water work window.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 8
• B. Indirect Effects:
Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might include
alteration ofjuvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation and reduction in prey resources
and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure.
Migratory pathway alteration:
MS&A
Freshwater: There were no studies specifically investigating the effects of piers on salmonid migration in
lakes cited by Kahler et al. (2000) in their review of pier-related impacts in lakes. Concerning the lake
environment, Kahler et al. (2000) state, 'The question remains whether juvenile salmonids in lakes migrate
under, or otherwise utilize, piers, or if they avoid them and/or traverse their perimeter."
However, more recent reports have provided additional information concerning salmon responses to overwater
structures.
Tabor and Piaskowski (2002) noted that, "In February and March, chinook salmon were found using overhead
structures (piers, docks, and overhanging vegetation) during the day but in April and May, no chinook salmon
were ever observed using overhead structures. At night, chinook salmon rarely used overhead structures." The
authors hypothesized that the overhead structures were being used as a substitute for natural overhead cover
during the days in February and March.
In a later study, Tabor et al. (2006) noted slightly different results. They state that, "When migrating Chinook
salmon approach a pier they appeared to move to slightly deeper water and either pass directly under the
structure or swim around the pier. Most likely they move to deeper water as a way of reducing their predation
risk." The pier where these findings we made is approximately 7.8' wide, 138' long and had solid decking. The
dimensions of the piers in the earlier study are not known. The results from the later study were noted in May
and July, whereas the 2002 study results were for the earlier months of February and March.
In a later study, Tabor et al. (2011) reported that, ''Juvenile Chinook salmon were rarely observed under an
overwater structure during either daytime or nighttime." There were no details concerning the type of
overwater structure where these observations were made -sold decking or grated overwater structures.
The results ofCeledonia et al. (2008) were similar to those of Tabor et al. (2000). Celedonia et al. stated,
"Juvenile Chinook salmon generally avoided areas directly beneath overwater structures. However, areas along
the edges of structures (within about 2 m horizontal distance) were sometimes used for prolonged periods (up
to 2 hours in one case)." However, these authors offered the following qualifying statement:
These observations may be representative of holding fish near structures in general, but may not be an
accurate indication of how untagged Chinook salmon would generally behave upon volitionally entering
these specific areas. Actively migrating fish (i.e., most fish released off-site and observed at the Seattle
Tennis Club site) often appeared to change course as they approached a structure. Structure width and
water depth appeared to influence degree of avoidance. Fish appeared less hesitant to pass beneath narrow
structures. Fish also appeared to move into deeper water to travel beneath or around structures.
These authors also observed:
Behavior at structures differed (i.e., swim beneath or travel around perimeter), and may have been related
to such interrelated factors as: fish size, light levels beneath the structure, degree of contrast at the light-
dark edge, width of the structure, height of the structure above the water surface, and water column depth
beneath the structure. Further study is needed to conclusively determine how these and other factors
interact to influence Chinook salmon behavior.
Marine Waters: In the marine environment, it is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter
migration behavior of juvenile salmon (though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of
the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources and
rcfugia by shading aquatic plant life (Simenstad et al. 1999; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 b ). However, the
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 9
significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad et al. state, "We found no studies that described
empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats
was reflected in changes in survival." Nightingale and Simenstad (2001 b) state, "Presently, although we know
that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline movements when
encountering an overwater structure, the conditions under which this behavioral modification is significant to
the fishes' fitness and survival is relatively unknown."
A study by Williams et al. (2003) at the Mukilteo ferry terminal, found that, "Salmon fry were observed in all
nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). The fry were observed under a wide
range of PAR values (0.0 µmo! m-2 s-1 to 2370 µmo! m-2 s-1 ). Fry were observed both outside the terminal
and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by the I 0-m-wide terminal structure did not
appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location."
There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns -that is not in dispute. As seen in
the study by Williams and in many other studies (see the literature review by Weitkamp -2003), there are
studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures. Of course,
there are other studies indicating migration patterns are altered by overwater structures.
The issue is that no one has shown that these migration changes lead to increased mortality or decreased
fitness. None of the studies that report changes in salmon id migration patterns caused by overwater structures
in the marine environment have reported that these changes have a negative impact on salmon ids.
Increased predation: An additional concern about the impacts of overwater structures on migrating salmon is that
they will be forced to move out into deeper water, where they will be consumed by predatory fish species.
However, in a study conducted in the marine environment, Williams et al. (2003) noted:
MS&A
We found no evidence that avian, marine mammal, or fish predators consumed more juvenile salmon near
WSF terminals than along shorelines without overwater structures. Few species appeared to be targeting
abundant fry in nearshore habitats, and we observed only two occasions in which predators ( one tern sp.,
one staghorn sculpin) had consumed juvenile salmon.
The authors also state,
Our analysis of fish diets at the Mukilteo ferry terminal provides one piece of conclusive evidence that
juvenile salmon were not a major dietary component of predatory fish species during our study.
It should be noted that the Williams study was conducted in the marine, not lake, environment.
In Lake Washington, smallmouth bass migration into the littoral zone corresponds with the peak occurrence of
migrating salmonids in this zone (Fresh et al. 2001). Because of these similar migration patterns, salmonids are
most at risk of predation from smallmouth bass in Lake Washington. Bass prefer complex, natural cover for
their foraging environment. When there is a scarcity of natural cover for foraging, as is the situation in Lake
Washington, they tend to use the dominant structures in the environment, such as pilings and piers, for
foraging cover (Kahler et al. 2000). There is concern that increasing the number of overwater structures will
increase the predation success of smallmouth bass on migrating salmon ids.
Tabor et al. (2004) investigated predation of juvenile chinook salmon in three areas of the Lake Washington
Basin. One of the areas they looked at was the south end of Lake Washington, an important rearing area. The
investigators found that:
The only predators observed to consume Chinook salmon were cutthroat trout, prickly sculpin ( C. asper),
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and largemouth bass (M salmoides). Consumption of Chinook
salmon by cutthroat trout was observed in February, March and early April. Predation by prickly sculpin
was only observed in February. Smallmouth bass consumed Chinook salmon in May and June. Few
largemouth bass were collected; however, we did document a largemouth bass that had consumed a
Chinook salmon in June. We estimated a total of 1,400 Chinook salmon fry were consumed by littoral
predators from February to mid May ..... Based on consumption estimates and expected abundance of
juvenile Chinook salmon, predatory fishes probably consumed less than 10% of the fry that entered the
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 10
•
lake from the Cedar River.
The investigators in this study did not comment on the impacts of overwater structures on the predation rate found
in south Lake Washington.
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects:
Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur
without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species
regulated under ESA will occur because of this project.
D. Take Analysis:
"Take" is defined as, "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any
such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results
in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering." It is likely that no "take" will result from this project.
E. Conservation Measures:
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by this project, inwater work should take place
between July 16 and December 3 I. It is requested that overwater work be allowed to take place outside of this
work window. Additional impact reduction and mitigation measures will reduce adverse impacts of the project.
They include:
I. The first 40' of the fully grated pier will only be 4-feet wide.
2. Only two 4" diameter steel pilings will be used to support the first 41' of the pier to m1111m1ze migration
obstacles for young salmon ids that prefer the more shallow areas.
3. The construction barge will not be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom al anytime.
4. Piles will be driven using a vibratory pile driver to practical refusal.
5. Construction will take place during authorized in water work windows designed to protect listed species and/or
critical habitat.
6. Twent-two shrubs will he planted in addition to the existing native plants seen in Figures 6 and 7.
F. Determination of Effect:
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the effect determinations for the impacts of the project, as
designed, are:
1. Puget Sound chinook-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
2. Bull trout -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
3. Puget Sound steelhead -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
4. Marbled murrelet-''No effect"
This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be
beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting construction work to the approved work window will reduce
direct impacts on the listed species. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the
conservation measures discussed above.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 11
Literature
Celedonia, M. T., Roger A. Tabor, Scott Sanders, Daniel W. Lantz, and Ian Grettenberger. 2008.Movement and
habitat use of chinook salmon smolts and two predatory fishes in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington
Ship Canal. 2004-2005 acoustic tracking studies. Final report to Seattle Public Utilities.
Federal Register/ Vol. 61, No. 102 / May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 64. No. 56 / March 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 210 / November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 185 / September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.
Feist, Blake E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink
(Oncorhynchus gorhuscha) and chum (0. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. FRI-UW-9603, Fish. Res.
Inst., UW, Seattle, WA.
Fresh, K.L, E. Warner, R. Tabor, and D. Houck. 2000. Migratory behavior of adult Chinook salmon spawning in
the Lake Washington watershed in 1998 and 1999 as determined with ultrasonic telemetry. Extended abstract
and presentation prepared for the Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, November.
Fresh, K. L., D. Rothaus, K. W. Mueller and C. Mueller. 2001. Habitat utilization by predators, with emphasis on
smallmouth bass, in the littoral zone of Lake Washington (draft). WDFW.
Hammer, Misty, King County Road Services Division. 2011. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project.
Biological Evaluation Report for: Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout as protected under the Endangered
Species Act. May Creek, King County, Washington State. Prepared for: King County Water and Land
Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 20 I South Jackson Street Ste 600,Seattle, WA
98104-3856.
Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 -341. In: V.S. Kennedy
(ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Kahler, T., M. Grassley and David Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, pier and other
artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. City of Bellevue.
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (WRIA
8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA.
Myers, J.M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W. Waknitz,
K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pp.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 200 la. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of
Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp.
Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 12
MS&A
Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp.
Rienman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout.
Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 3 8 pp.
Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. 0. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in
the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S. Kennedy, (ed.), Estuarine
comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings,
Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.
Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile
salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase I: Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to
WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903, Task A2, 116 pp.+ appendices.
Synthesis of salmon research and monitoring. Investigations conducted in the Western Lake Washington Basin.
December 31, 2008. Seattle Public Utilities and the Army Corps of Engineers. Contributors: Mike Cooksey
Peter N. Johnson, Paul De Vries, Michele Koehler, Charles J. Ebel, Lynne Melder, Frederick A. Goetz, Jim
Muck. Julie Hall Eva Weaver
Tabor, R. A. and Richard M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems
of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor. R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low. B. Footen and L. Park. 2004. Predation of
juvenile chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington Basin. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
' Tabor, R. A. Howard A. Gearns, Charles M. McCoy lll , and Sergio Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use by
juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2003 and 2004.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510
Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor, Roger A., Kurt L. Fresh, Richard M. Piaskowski, Howard A. Gearns & Daniel B. Hayes (2011): Habitat
Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Nearshore Areas of Lake Washington: Effects of Depth, Lakeshore
Development, Substrate, and Vegetation, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 31 :4, 700-713
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSl). Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc.
Kirkland, WA.
Williams, G. D., R. M. Thom, D. K. Shreffler, J. A. Southard, L. K. O'Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V. I. Cullinan, R.
Moursund. and M. Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure -Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon: Field
Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the Washington State Department of
Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-
AC06-76RLO 1830.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 13
MS&A
Figure 1. Vicinity map
PROJECT INFORMATION
OWNER:
RICHARD DICERCHIO
DRAWINGS BY:
ECCO DESIGN INC.
203 N 36TH ST SUITE 201
SEATTLE, WA 98103
206-706-3937
SITE ADDRESS:
4005 & 4011 WILLIAMS AVE N
RENTON, WA 98056
PARCEL NUMBER:
(4005) 0518500480 & (4011) 0518500470
BODY OF WATER:
LAKE WASHINGTON
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(0518500480) BARBEE MILL TGW UNO INT IN TRS
A,B,C,D,E,F,G, H,1,K,L,M,N,O & P
(0518500470) BARBEE MILL TGW UNO INT IN TRS
A,B,C,D,E,F,G, H,l,K,L,M,N,O & P
VICINITY MAP
,,
. ~;,~;:::d
• Lil~f'
i'<'i,ple f'.-,rk
, •. ,1 .. :.n.:
'+'.' .I ,!
Ii.; IHf'f
.,,,1 ,-'/
PROJECT SITE:
LAT 47 52848~ N
LON: -122.20532° W
NW 1/4 S:32 T 24N R.SE
~.J1ur;,r
1--·,ind
islim:-/
c1,•.5! 11.1,~
-.,-1 .•. ,
•
l(•/1;,r,lt'f
(;/e•1 P;irk
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: !'···
l.',·.V' h",':
CONSTRUCT NEW PIER (400 SQUARE FEET),
INSTALL TWO MOORING PILES, INSTALL TWO
NEW BOAT LIFTS, AND INSTALL A TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY.
PURPOSE: Boat Moorage
DATUM: C.O.E. Loci<s Datum
Est 1919
ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS:
1. Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
2. The Lake Houses at Eagle Co
NAME: Richard DiCerchio
REFERENCE#:
SITE LOCATION ADDRESS:
4005 & 4011 Williams Ave. N
Renton, WA 98056
Renton
PROPOSED: Pier & Boal Lifts
IN: Lake Washington
AT: Renton
COUNTY: King STATE: WA
SHEET 1 of 7
DATE: August 25, 2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 14
MS&A
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SHORELINE
CONFIGURATION AND PROPERTY LINE
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY
PROPERTY LINES ARE BASED ON
SURVEY REC. NO. 20080208000182.
PROPOSED PIER
WI TWO BOAT LIFTS &
TWO MOORING PILES
INSTALL
TRANSLUCENT
BOAT CANOPY
(10.5' BY 30')
<i:, I I
I'
"o--
60,
LAKE WASHINGTON
SITE PLAN
SCALE 1" = 60'-0"
0
OHWM
21.85'
125 FT
Figure 2. Site plan
OHWM
21.85'
EXISTING
ADJACENT
PIER
OHWM
21.85'
EXISTING
ADJACENT PIER
\
MAY CREEK
THE LAKE HOUSES
AT EAGLE CO
4001 WELLS AVE N
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 2 of 7 Date: 812512014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 15
MS&A
{ ,
PROPOSED 12"0
MOORING PILES
PROPOSED
BOAT LIFTS
PROPOSED
TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY
THRUFLOW
GRATED
DECKING
4" 0 STEEL PILES
FOR FIRST SET
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1" = 10'-0"
0
Figure 3. Plan view
14' 6'-0"
/ /
I
D C
1 O'-<l"
/ '
--A /7! D C
" A r
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
."/ I
i I
I I
~ I
I I
I I
I A
I / "-I
~---~
20 FT
6'-0"
---
~
' ,. .
====
4'-0"
/ /
'
•
'
"' -
'-A
A
..
'
0
N
'
N
8" 0 STEEL
PILE SET
10" 0 STEEL
SET PILE
0:, -
8"0 S TEEL
ET PILES
Reference:
9
0
"'
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 3 of 7 Date: 812512014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 16
MS&A
PROPOSED
TRANSLUCENT CANOPY
PROPOSED PIER
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
OHW 21.85'
-4
-8
-12
/
Figure 4. Elevation view
80'-0"
~ " ..
ii
ELEVATION VIEW
SCALE 1" = 20'-0"
0 40 FT
/
II
30'-0"
/
/
~-;
APPROX. LOCATION
OFLAKEBED
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At Renton. WA
Sheet4 of7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 17
MS&A
Figure 5. A-A pier section view
6'-0"
/
. .•-""
~ J, r
·-· I ..
OHW 21.85'
A-A PIER SECTION
SCALE 1 /2" = 1'-0"
0 4 FT
/
.·
1 r .
-1 ··-·-
·---....
i..
THRUFLOW GRATED
DECKING
; 4x6 STRINGERS
5 1/8" x 12" G.l.B.
2x6 JOIST
4x6 JOIST@ 8' O.C.
-ELECTRICAL CONDUI
STEEL CAP @ PILES
T
10" 0 EPOXY COATE D
STEEL PILE
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 5 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Borbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 18
MS&A
Figure 6. Existing native vegetation buffer
.5)
" I
LAKE WASHINGTON
OHWM
21.85'
<l'o,
'Os
PROPOSED PIER
(400 SQ. FT)
PROPOSED
BOAT LIFTS
PROPOSED
"o-·o,,
TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY
-,-,JI • .-· --r-
EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION BUFFER
SCALE 1" = 30'-0"
0 60 FT
--
'· '% '· '· '· '· '· '· '· '· '· '· '
____ ...
. -·-.-___ . .---
-· -·
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 6 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 19
MS&A
Figure 7. Plant legend
PLANT LEGEND
G AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA / SERVICEBERRY o SAU, SffCHC,S,s, sm<A W,CCQW
0 CORNUS STOLON I FERA/ RED TWIG DOGWOOD
Efl MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM / TALL OREGON GRAPE
@ MAHON IA NERVOSA / LOW OREGON GRAPE
G RIBES SANGUINEUM / RED FLOWERING CURRANT
0 ROSA NUTKANA / NOOTKA ROSE
@ SYPHORICARPOS ALBUS/ BALD-HIP ROSE
® VACCINUM OVATUM / EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY
li' HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS / BLUE OAT GRASS
D ALLIUM CERNUUM / NODDING ONION
D ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI I KINNIKINNIK
D FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS / BEACH STRAWBERRY
D GAUL THERIA SHALLON I SALAL
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 7 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 20
Attachment 1. Photographs of the site
Steps on the common property line leading to proposed pier location
Looking northeast along the site
MS&A DiCerchio/Bo rbee Mill Wate rfro n t LLC Joint -Use Pie r Projec t • 21
Looking southwest at plantings on the DiCerchio parcel
Plantings adjacent to the DiCerchio residence
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LL C Joint-Use Pier Project• 22
Looking southwest -May Creek enters Lake Washington from the left side of the photograph
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pi er Project • 23
MS&A
Attachment 2. Species List for King County
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT;
CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
IN KING COUNTY
AS PREPARED BY
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
(Revised April 24, 2013)
LISTED
Bull trout (Sa lvelinus conjluentus)
Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)
G ray wolf (Canis l upus)
G rizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis)
Marbled murrelet (B rachyramphus marmoratus)
orthern s po tted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
Major concerns that s hould be addressed in your Biological Assessment of proje ct impacts to li sted a nimal
s pecies include:
I. Level of use of the proj ect area by listed s pe c ies.
2. Effect of the project on listed s pecies' prim ary food stock s , prey s pecies, and foraging areas in all
3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise leve ls , increased human
activity and/o r access, loss or degradation of h a bitat) that may result in di sturbance to li sted s pecies
and/o r their avoidance of the project area.
Cas tilleja levisecta (golden paintbrus h) [hi storic]
Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to
li sted plant spec ie s include:
I. Distribution of taxon in project v icinity.
2. Di sturbance (trampling, uprootin g, collecting, etc.) of indi v idual plants and loss of habitat.
3. C hanges in hy drology where taxo n is found.
DESIGNATED
C ritical h a bitat for bull trout
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet
C ritical habitat for th e northern s potted owl
PROPOSED
North American wolverine (Gula g ulo luteus) -contiguo us U .S. DPS
CANDIDATE
F is her (Martes pennanti) -West Coast DPS
Oregon s p otted frog (Rana pretiosa) [hi st oric]
Yellow-bi lied cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)
DiCerc hio/Barbee M ill Waterfron t LL C Joint-Use Pier Pr oject • 24
MS&A
SPECIES OF CONCERN
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephulus)
Belier's ground beetle (Agonum belleri)
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)
Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi)
Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larsel/i)
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis (Myotis volam)
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (~ C/emmys) marmorutu murmoratu)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Con/opus cooperi)
Pacific lamprey (lampetra tridentata)
Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Peregrine falcon (Falcon pere?,rines)
River lamprey (lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei)
Valley silver spot (Speyer serene brewery)
Western toad (Buja boreas)
Aster curt us (white-top aster)
Bolrychium peduncu/osum (stalked moon wort)
Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane)
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 25
Attachment 3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may
adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the relevant species. According to the MSA, EFH
means "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or grov.th to maturity." For
the Pacific West Coast, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) has designated EFH for federally
managed groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC 1998b) and Pacific salmon fisheries (PFMC 1999).
The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant
species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH.
B. Identification of EFH
The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high water
line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and
California, seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). The
designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for Pacific salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal
submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (3 70 .4
km) offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border PFMC,
1999).
Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other water bodies
currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California, except areas upstream
of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally-impassable barriers.
Chinook salmon and coho salmon are the species with designated EFH that are found in Lake Washington
C. Proposed Action
The details of the proposed project are presented in section of the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report.
D. Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects
Analysis section of the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report. The project is likely to have no permanent,
long-term effects EFH designated for chinook and coho salmon.
E. EFH Conservation Measures
The conservation measures mentioned in the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report will be implemented to
minimize possible adverse effects to EFH.
F. Conclusion
The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH the salmon species, but will not produce long-term
adverse effects on EFH for the above species.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 26
G. Additional References
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix
A: Description and ldentification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation
Measures for Salmon (August 1999).
PFMC, I 998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998).
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998).
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 27
Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook
Project description: Construction of a new community-use dock on Lake Washington in Renton,
This assessment covers the primary constituent elements (50 CFR Part 226, page 74581-2) determined essential to
the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ):
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning,
incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: There are no suitable freshwater spawning sites at the project location.
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat
conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;
and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, logjams and beaver dams, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted immediately landward of the bulkhead in conjunction
with the upland development. There is a concrete/rock bulkhead along the shoreline of both properties. No side
channels or undercut banks were noted.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and
undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile
and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including
aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater area.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,
supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater lake area.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 28
•
Effects Analysis: A complete discussion of the effects of this project is seen in the BE/Lake and Stream Study
Report. Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity, which will be contained by a silt curtain.
The project will have no long-term impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions or water temperature.
Construction during work windows will prevent impacts to the listed fish species.
Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be reduced by design components of the proposed project. The
entire dock will be fully grated. Only two 4" diameter steel pilings will be used to support the first 41' of the pier to
minimize migration obstacles for young salmon ids that prefer the shallowest areas. The construction barge will not
be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at an)time. Additional native vegetation will be planted.
Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 29
Attachment 5.
Assessment of Impacts to Crllical Habitat for Coastal · Puget Sound Bull Trout
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus)
are:
•
(1) Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures
from 32 to 72 °f (0 to 22 °C) but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 °f (2 to 15 °C).
These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation,
diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence.
Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from designation.
Existing Conditions: The project will take place in Lake Washington, a large body of fresh water.
Effects to PCE: The project is not expected to have any influence on the water temperature of Lake Washington.
(2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to
provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in stream structures.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington -not in a stream environment
Effects to PCE: No effect
(3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival,
fry emergence, and young-of-the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal amount of fine
substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter.
Existing Conditions: No spawning activity at the site
Effects to PCE: No effect
(4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, ifregulated,
currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout, or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability
to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from
the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation: This rule finds that reservoirs currently
operating under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides management for PCEs as currently operated.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington
Effects to PCE: The project does not involve any alteration in the lake level; therefore it will have no impact on
this PCE.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 30
.
•
MS&A
(5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity as a cold-
water source.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: This project will have no impact on springs, seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface water
(6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning,
rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water
temperatures or low flows.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted along the site shoreline.
Effects to PCE: The proposed dock will incorporate design components that will decrease negative impacts on
foraging habitat and migratory corridors. The proposed dock will be fully grated.
(7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macro invertebrates, and forage
fish.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted along the site shoreline.
Effects to PCE: See 6 above
(8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not
inhibited.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above.
Effects to PCE: Pile driving may produce temporary turbidity impacts. These are expected to be short term and
are not expected to have a significant impact on critical habitat. Any debris associated with the project construction
phase will be contained by a silt containment curtain.
Determination of Effect: "No destruction or adverse modification"
Conservation Measures: Conservation measures for this project are seen in the BE/Lake and Stream Study
Report.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 31
PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable
significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is
to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to
reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide
whether an EIS is required.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of
your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly,
with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In
most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project
plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question
does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers
to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental
agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help
describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this
checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably
related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered
"does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT
ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the
references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be
read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
-1 -06/09
R:\Temp09\12-environmental checklist.doc
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: DiCerchio Pier
2. Name of applicant: Richard DiCerchio
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
4005 Williams Ave. N
Renton, WA 98056
425-922-3745
Contact Person: Evan We~r -ecco design inc.
203 N 361 Street Suite 201
Seattle, WA 98103
206-706-3937
4. Date checklist prepared: August 19, 2014
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Winter 2014
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Biological Evaluation was prepared by
Marine Surveys and Assessments to assess impacts to listed species and/or critical
habitat for the project.
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.
None are known.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known. Letter of Permission from the Army Corps of Engineers. SOP, SEPA review,
and building permit from the City of Renton. HPA from the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. Construct new pier, install two mooring piles, install two
new boat lifts, and install a translucent canopy.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide
the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity
map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans
required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans
submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 4005 & 4011 Williams
Ave. N in Renton, WA 98056. Section: NWl/4 32 Town: 24N Range: SE
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
-2 -06/09
R:\Temp09\12-environmental checklist.doc
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one); flat. rolling. hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other ______ _
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The site is
relatively flat with the steepest slope along the shoreline being approximately
40%.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland. Sand, gravel, and silt.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe. No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill. No filling or grading is proposed.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe. No.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? There will be no
change to the amount of impervious surfaces.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth,
if any: None proposed.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities
if known. Low levels of emissions from boat traffic.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe. No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any: None.
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 work will occur in Lake Washington.
-3 -06109
R:\T emp09\ 12-environmental checklist.doc
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 pier,
boat lifts, and canopies will be constructed on Lake Washington.
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. None.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the
site plan. Yes.
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 ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve. None.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. N/A
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Construction debris could enter surface waters.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any: A containment boom will be placed around the construction
area to contain debris.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
b.
_X_ shrubs
_x_ grass
__ pasture
__ crop or grain
__ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
__ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
__ other types of vegetation
What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None.
-4-
R:\Temp09\12-environmental checklist.doc
06/09
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None
know.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Twenty-two native shrubs will be
planted as mitigation.
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
b.
C.
d.
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other---------
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other _________ _
Fish: bass, salmon, trout. herring, shellfish, other ______ _
List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Chinook salmon, bull trout, and steelhead.
Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Juvenile salmonids migrate
along the lake shoreline.
Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Work will take place
during the appropriate work window of July 161h through December 31 '1
•
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. Solar and electric.
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.
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. No.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
None.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None known.
-5 -06/09
R:\Temp09\12-environmental checklist.doc
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. Short-
term: Elevated levels of noise from pile driving and construction.
Long term: Low levels of noise from boating.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Work will take
place only during appropriate work hours.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site and
adjacent properties are residential.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No.
c. Describe any structures on the site. An existing house.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-10
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? COR
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site? Urban
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?
If so, specify. Yes, Lake Washington.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project? None.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any: None.
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. The canopy will be
eleven feet above the ordinary high water mark.
-6 -06/09
R:\T emp09\ 12-environmental checklist.doc
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur? None.
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? Boating and fishing.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe. No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe. No.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None
known.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is
accessed by Lake Washington Blvd. N just west of 1-405.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop? 8/lOths of a mile.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate? No change.
·7-06/09
R:\Temp09\12-environmental checklist.doc
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private? No.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe. Boat traffic on Lake Washington.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:
fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe. No.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
None.
16. UTILITIES
a.
b.
Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas. water.
refuse service. telephone. sanitary sewer. septic system, other.
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. None.
C. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct,
and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of
non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any
willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent Signature:
Name Printed:
Date:
-8 -06/09
R:\Temp09\12--environmental checklist.doc
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and
ro rams. You do not need to fill out these sheets for ro·ect actions.
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in
general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life
are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as
parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
-9-06/09
R:\Temp09\12-environmental checklist.doc
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment.
SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct,
and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of
non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any
willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent Signature:----------------
Name Printed:
Date:
-10 -06109
R:\Temp09\12-environmental checklist.doc
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
Joint-Use Pier Project
Biological Evaluation/Lake and Stream Study
Report
August 25, 2014
For:
Richard DiCerchio
4005 Williams Ave. N.
Renton, WA 98056
MARINE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS
521 Snagstead Way
Port Townsend WA 98368
(360) 385-4073
marine .surveys. inc@gmai[.com
List of Figures and Attachments
Figure Number Page
l. Vicinity map ....................................................................................... 14
2. Site plan .............................................................................................. 15
3. Plan view ............................................................................................. 16
4. Elevation view .................................................................................... 1 7
5. A-A pier section ................................................................................. 18
6. Existing native vegetation buffer ..................................................... 19
7, Plant legend ....................................................................................... 20
Attachment Number Page
l. Photograph of the site ................................................................ 21-23
2. Species list for King County ........................................................ 24-25
3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment .............................................. 26-27
4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook ........................................................... 28-29
5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout .......................................... 30-31
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 2
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
Joint-Use Pier Project
Biological Evaluation/Lake and Stream Study Report
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location:
Y, Section NW32, Township 24N, Range OSE.
4005 and 4011 Williams Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
Latitude: 47.52848° N Longitude: 122.20532°W
See Figure I for project location.
B. Sile Description:
The proposed project is a joint-use pier to be located along the common property line between two abutting lots,
4005 and 4011 Williams Ave N, Renton, WA 98056 Uointly the "subject property"), presently owned by Richard
DiCerchio and Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC, respectively, Uointly the "applicant" for the requested shoreline
substantial development permit). The properties are located within the Barbee Mill Community, a major waterfront
subdivision. The subject property is located along the eastern shore of Lake Washington in the City of Renton
(Figure 2). The proposed joint-use pier would provide moorage and facilitate access to Lake Washington for
residents of the subject property and their guests.
Two bodies of water are adjacent to, or flow through, the Barhee Mill Community: Lake Washington and May
Creek. The subject property is located along Lake Washington, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance as provided
in RMC 4-3-090Fl, and a Shoreline of the State under RMC 4-11-190. This Lake Study is prepared in accordance
with the requirements of RMC 4-8-1200 with respect to the Lake Washington shoreline of the subject property.
May Creek, a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2), flows through the Barbee Mill Community. The May
Creek open space (a riparian buffer) and a street are located between the two lots and May Creek.
The Barbee Mill Community is located on the approximately 22 acre site of the former Barbee Mill Company
lumber mill. The Barbee Mill Community has 114 multi-story paired homes, a pond, walking trails and lakefront
open space for the use of residents. Lots 23 through 48 are lakefront lots.
To restore the former industrial site to a parcel suitable for a residential waterfront subdivision, the mill buildings
were demolished; fill soils were removed from behind the bulkhead: asphalt paving, a pier, the wooden bulkhead
and piling associated with the mill operation were removed; and extensive shoreline restoration was completed.
The subject property is located south of, and was not included in, this extensive remediation. A concrete bulkhead
is located along most of the Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC parcel; a rock bulkhead is located along the DiCerchio
parcel. The substrate immediately waterward of the property consists of large and small cobble.
A number of factors were considered in determining the location of the proposed pier, most importantly the lower
environmental impact of a joint-use structure over individual single-property use piers. ln establishing design
parameters for the proposed joint-use pier, it was required that it not interfere with the general public's use and
enjoyment of Lake Washington, that it not pose a navigation hazard to boaters, and that it not interfere with the use
of existing or future neighboring docks or piers.
C. Lake and Stream Classifications:
As mentioned above, as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance (RMC 4-3-090FI ), Lake Washington is included in
the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-11-190). Lake Washington is a Class I lake as it is a perennial
salmonid-bearing body of water classified as a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-11-190Sl). May Creek is an
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 3
important salmonid stream that is classified by the City of Renton and the State of Washington as Class I waters
and included within the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2).
D. Shoreline Restoration:
Prior to restoration of the beach in conjunction with vacation of the land, the Lake Washington shoreline north of
the subject property was heavily bulkheaded, back-filled and covered with impervious asphalt paving; numerous
piling and substantial quantities of concrete rubble and other shoreline debris were on the site. Pursuant to the
general development site remediation, upland and in-water structures including the timber bulkhead and piling
were removed, shoreline rubble was removed, fill soil was excavated to subgrade elevations, toe rock and a
temporary quarry spall erosion control berm were installed, and sand, gravel and rock materials were used to
construct a beach to mimic natural conditions. Although the area of extensive remediation did not encompass the
subject property, a planting buffer of native vegetation (Figure 6 and 7) was installed along all the lakefront lots,
including the subject property, to environmentally and functionally enhance the entire development shoreline.
The Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark for Lake Washington is the line of mean high water (RMC 4-11-150
Definitions 0). The Lake Washington water depth is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers at the Hiram M.
Chittenden Locks and is at 21.8' of lake elevation. In the course of the Barbee Mill Beach Restoration site
remediation, permanent toe rock was installed along the OHW line. As of March 20, 2007, the date a SCUBA
survey was conducted for purposes of identifying flora, fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information
relative to the Biological Evaluation prepared for the previous community dock project, coir rolls were located
along the OHW line within the remediation area. The May Creek OHW mark is the mean high water line of the
stream (RMC 4-11-150 Definition 0).
E. Vegetative Cover of the Site:
The study area includes no wetland or flood hazard areas; it does include Lake Washington riparian areas. Prior to
the Barbee Mill Beach Restoration project, riparian vegetation was found to be generally absent within the study
area as the shoreline behind the bulkhead was paved. In unpaved areas, vegetation noted included Juncus effusus
(soft rush) and Iris pseudocaris (a non-native iris). The upland redevelopment required extensive regrading and
clearing; a mitigation planting plan was agreed upon that includes planting along the Lake Washington shoreline.
In accordance with this mitigation plan, plantings on the subject property have been installed (Figures 6 and 7). In
conjunction with construction of the proposed joint-use pier, 22 additional native shrubs will be planted. The
planting plan details will be shown on the full size drawings.
F. Ecological Functions of Lake Washington along the Study Area:
Previously to the Barbee Mill Community development, the industrial structures and use of the site limited the
ecological functions that would otherwise have been provided by Lake Washington and its adjacent riparian area.
As a result of the extensive general site restoration work completed north of the subject property, the ecological
functions of the portion of the lake within the study area should be greatly enhanced. Previously planted riparian
vegetation and additional plantings in conjunction with the proposed joint-use pie project will further assist in
restoring the ecological functions of Lake Washington. Much of this new vegetation will be overhanging,
providing shade and predator protection for fish and aquatic invertebrates. The newly planted riparian vegetation
will add significant organic matter to the lake substrate in the form of leaves and woody debris that fall and wash
into the lake. This will provide additional source of food, shelter and shade for aquatic invertebrates and fish. This
increased vegetation will also provide food and shelter for terrestrial insects, and in tum provide an additional food
source for birds and animals that feed upon them. The addition of riparian vegetation to this formerly near-barren
site should also help water quality by filtering pollutants, removing nutrients and reducing sediments in any runoff
from the adjacent upland development. The increased overhanging vegetation should facilitate the migration of
juvenile salmon.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 4
G. Fish and Wildlife Use or the Area:
Birds:
Birds observed on or near the site include hawks, herons, eagles, quail, osprey, cormorants and songbirds. Before
the mill structures were demolished, an osprey nest was successfully relocated from the top of the old mill sawdust
collector to a platform buih on a 25' pole over the water not far from the original nest site. The osprey have
accepted the new nest and a video camera records their activities for viewing over the Internet. Protected wildlife
in Washington State shall not be hunted or fished (WAC 232-12-011 ). Protected wildlife noted from time to time
within the general Barbee Mill Community development area includes the marbled murrelet and the bald eagle.
The marbled murrelet is classified as a "threatened species," a species likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management
or removal of threats. The bald eagle is no longer on the list of threatened or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) but continues to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is protected as a "sensitive species" in Washington. Sensitive species are vulnerable
or declining and likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state
without cooperative management or removal of threats.
Mammals:
The only wild mammals reported as observed in the area are deer.
Fish:
Salmonids observed at the site include salmon and trout. Salmonids known to be present in southern Lake
Washington include Puget Sound chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and
cutthroat trout. Puget Sound chinook, Puget Sound steelhead and bull trout are all listed as threatened under the
ESA. Other fish observed at the site include bass, black crappie, bluegill, pumpkinseed sunfish, tench and yellow
perch. The shoreline remediation was designed to be consistent with Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8
Conservation Plan recommendations. As a result of the remediation, shoreline that was previously unsuitable
habitat for fish and other aquatic life due to extensive shoreline modifications and industrial use of the site has been
restored. The restored gravel substrate and gently sloping bottom should provide favorable habitat for winter
rearing of salmon fry. The new gravel and cobble substrate to the north and the existing cobble on the subject
property should be suitable habitat for benthic invertebrates which would likely attract juvenile salmonids.
H. Project Details:
The pier will be supported by two IO" diameter, four 8" diameter and two 4" diameter galvanized steel piles. It
will have a 4' by 40' walkway from shore and a 6' by 40' walkway for a total length of 80' from the OHWM. Two
free standing boat lifts will be installed at the pier. A 30' by I 0.5' translucent canopy will be installed over one boat
lift. Two 12" diameter steel mooring piles will be installed adjacent to the pier (Figures 3-5).
I. Construction Sequence:
1. Mobilize construction barge to the site with all construction materials and equipment on board. Moor the barge
as to prevent grounding on the lake bottom at any time during construction.
2. Install silt containment curtain around work area to contain any debris that may fall into lake waters. In the event
any materials enter lake waters they will be retrieved immediately and placed in debris containers on the barge.
3. Using the barge-based crane and vibratory insertion/extraction system, install (2) at 12" diameter, (2) at IO"
diameter, ( 4) at 8" diameter and (2) at 4" diameter galvanized steel piles to practical refusal.
4. Cut steel piling as necessary at the appropriate elevation.
5. Install pre-fabricated cap brackets to piling. Connect wood framing to cap brackets using hand tools. Install
grated decking on pier.
6. Set boat lifts in place using crane on the barge. The translucent boat canopy will be installed by hand.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 5
7. Demobilize and dispose of all debris at approved upland disposal site.
General Notes:
I. All treatments will be applied and fully cured prior to delivery to the site.
J. Action Area:
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the project location. This area includes potential
turbidity and noise impacts from the construction process.
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. Species Information:
In the project area, the Puget Sound chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed under the Endangered Species
Act as a threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Federal Register, Vol. 64,
No. 56). On May 11, 2007, NMFS also listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened
species under the ESA (Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations). Bull
trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in
October of 1999.
On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant
Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal
Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook
ESU (Federal Register/ Vol 70, No.170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 Rules and Regulations). USFWS has
designated critical habitat in Lake Washington for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No.
185 / September 26, 2005 I Rules and Regulations).
Puget Souud Chiuook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific
salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget Sound are "ocean-type" and migrate to the marine
environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence
as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm., or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during
May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries
feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they
grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and
euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most
dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival.
MS&A
In the Lake Washington system, adult chinook salmon usually arrive at the Chittenden Locks in July, although
there are some arrivals before and after July (Synthesis of Salmon Research and Monitoring. 2008). According
to Fresh et al. (2000), the total time for salmon migration from the Locks to arrival at their tributary spawning
grounds "can take up to 55 days, but averages less than 30." During much of this time, salmon hold in the
upstream area from the Locks before moving through the Ship Canal and Lake Union. Fresh et al. (2000)
found the average holding time to be from 17 to 19 days. After reach their spawning streams between
September and November, spawning occurs from October to December.
According to Tabor et al. (2006), "Fry emerge from their redds from January to March. Juvenile Chinook
salmon appear to have two rearing strategies: rear in the river and then emigrate in May or June as pre-smolts,
or emigrate as fry in January, February, or March and rear in the south end of Lake Washington or Lake
Sammamish for three to five months." In the project area vicinity, juvenile chi nook salmon from the Cedar
River enter Lake Washington and rear in the south end of the lake primarily from January to May.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 6
Tabor et al. (2006) also reported that:
Similar to results of 2002, juvenile Chinook salmon were concentrated in the south end of Lake
Washington from February to May ..... Therefore, it appears that the lake shore area near the natal stream is
an important nursery area for juvenile Chinook salmon. In Lake Washington, the major part of this nursery
area appears to be roughly from Pritchard Beach on the west shoreline and the mouth of May Creek on the
east shore and the south part of Mercer Island. The distance from the mouth of the Cedar River to the edge
of the nursery area is around 6 km. north of this area; the number of Chinook salmon would be expected to
be relatively low until mid-May or June.
In the same study cited above, it was found that marked chinook did not move far from their release site at
Gene Coulon Park (approximately 1.5 miles south of the current project site). Marked juveniles were observed
l, 7, 15, and 21 days after release at Gene Coulon Park. All of the marked salmon that the investigators
observed had moved less than 150 m from their release site at the park.
After moving slowly away from the Green River and south Lake Washington, juveniles reach the Chittenden
Locks during the period between May and August, with peak migration through the Locks taking place in June.
According to Kerwin (200 I) chinook, coho, sockeye and winter steelhead use May Creek for spawning,
rearing and migration. However, volunteers from the Volunteer Salmon Watchers Program have been
observing salmon in May Creek since 2000. They have reported that only sockeye are seen consistently, while
chinook, coho, cutthroat trout and kokanee salmon are less commonly seen.
Hammer (2011) reported that the number of chinook varies from Oto 12 fish annually in May Creek. WDFW
reported three live chinook and one redd in 20 IO spawner surveys.
Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California (at present they
are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern
Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically
from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place
in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15
degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993 ). They live both in fresh and
marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before
returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the streams where
they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the
Coastal-Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only
anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States (Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999).
Two subpopulations of bull trout (also known as "native char") are considered within the Lake Washington
area: the Chester Morse Reservoir population and the Issaquah Creek-Sammamish River population (Federal
Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999). "Only two 'native char' have been observed during the past IO years in the
Issaquah Creek drainage and none have been observed in the Sammamish River system. It is questionable
whether a viable subpopulation remains." (Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999).
Puget Sound Steelhead: Wild winter steelhead enter the Lake Washington system in mid-December with peak
spawning taking place in May. There have been high rates of predation by California sea lions at the Ballard
Locks, which is one of the leading factors in the declining steelhead production in the Lake Washington system
(1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Appendix One -Puget Sound Stocks.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.).
MS&A
According to Kerwin (2001):
The Lake Washington system supports one native winter steelhead stock but not a summer steelhead stock
(SASS! 1994 ). The winter steelhead stock was listed in SASS! as "Depressed" but has recently shown
some evidence of rebounding. A limited hatchery program utilizing the native winter steelhead stock was
initiated in 1997 as a supplementation type program to assist in recovery of winter steelhead populations in
the north Lake Washington tributaries. The sharp decline in Lake Washington winter steelhead was noted
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 7
as a reason for concern by NMFS in their stock status review (Busby 1996).
However, in a more recent analysis, between 1986 and 2004 escapement for the Lake Washington winter-run
steelhead ranged from 1,816 (1986) to 44 (2004) (WDFW 2004). Based on the chronically low escapement and
short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock status has decreased from its 1992 "depressed" status to
"critical" in 2002.
WDFW has reported steelhead in the lower 3 miles of May Creek (Salmon Scape, 2010).
Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their
time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old
growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WOW, 1993). Adult
birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific
herring, surf smelt and other small schooling fish, and feed on invertebrates.
The project site is located in an urban environment adjacent to a major highway. There is a high level of
ambient noise in the project vicinity. There is no nesting habitat near the site. Therefore, it is unlikely that
murrelets will be present in the project vicinity.
Ill. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project has been
described and the action area defined. When reviewing all the data, the potential direct and indirect effects of the
proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered.
A. Direct Effects:
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project will
immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the
construction process include increased noise and turbidity.
Pile driving noise: A vibratory pile driver will be used to drive the piles to practical refusal. Feist et al. (1992)
reported that saimonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000' from the source.
Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport, these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the
distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon. However, the Everett Homeport results may not
be entirely applicable to the proposed project, because a diesel powered compression hammer was used in that
study. As stated in the Feist report, "It would be reasonable to say that juvenile salmonids might respond
differently to the sounds of a vibratory hammer, compared to that of a diesel compression hammer."
As noted above, it is unlikely that murrelets will be present in the action area. Therefore, the construction
process should have little or no impact on marbled murrelets.
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could, under certain circumstances, have adverse effects on
salmon and bull trout. The effects depend on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity and the life stage
of the salmon during the increased exposure. The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or
behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 a and Simenstad, editor, 1988). A silt containment curtain will be
installed in the project area to contain and minimize turbidity impacts.
MS&A
To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids and bull trout, inwater
construction work will take place during the approved work window from July 16 to December 31. Overwater
work can proceed outside of the inwater work window.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 8
B. Indirect Effects:
Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might include
alteration of juvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation and reduction in prey resources
and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure.
Migratory pathway alteration:
MS&A
Freshwater: There were no studies specifically investigating the effects of piers on salmonid migration in
lakes cited by Kahler et al. (2000) in their review of pier-related impacts in lakes. Concerning the lake
environment, Kahler et al. (2000) state, 'The question remains whether juvenile salmonids in lakes migrate
under, or otherwise utilize, piers, or if they avoid them and/or traverse their perimeter."
However, more recent reports have provided additional information concerning salmon responses to overwater
structures.
Tabor and Piaskowski (2002) noted that, "In February and March, chinook salmon were found using overhead
structures (piers, docks, and overhanging vegetation) during the day but in April and May, no chinook salmon
were ever observed using overhead structures. At night, chinook salmon rarely used overhead structures." The
authors hypothesized that the overhead structures were being used as a substitute for natural overhead cover
during the days in February and March.
In a later study, Tabor et al. (2006) noted slightly different results. They state that, "When migrating Chinook
salmon approach a pier they appeared to move to slightly deeper water and either pass directly under the
structure or swim around the pier. Most likely they move to deeper water as a way of reducing their predation
risk." The pier where these findings we made is approximately 7.8' wide, 138' long and had solid decking. The
dimensions of the piers in the earlier study are not known. The results from the later study were noted in May
and July, whereas the 2002 study results were for the earlier months of February and March.
In a later study, Tabor et al. (2011) reported that, "Juvenile Chinook salmon were rarely observed under an
overwater structure during either daytime or nighttime." There were no details concerning the type of
overwater structure where these observations were made -sold decking or grated overwater structures.
The results of Celedonia et al. (2008) were similar to those of Tabor et al. (2000). Celedonia et al. stated,
"Juvenile Chinook salmon generally avoided areas directly beneath overwater structures. However, areas along
the edges of structures (within about 2 m horizontal distance) were sometimes used for prolonged periods (up
to 2 hours in one case)." However, these authors offered the following qualifying statement:
These observations may be representative of holding fish near structures in general, but may not be an
accurate indication of how untagged Chinook salmon would generally behave upon volitionally entering
these specific areas. Actively migrating fish (i.e., most fish released off-site and observed at the Seattle
Tennis Club site) often appeared to change course as they approached a structure. Structure width and
water depth appeared to influence degree of avoidance. Fish appeared less hesitant to pass beneath narrow
structures. Fish also appeared to move into deeper water to travel beneath or around structures.
These authors also observed:
Behavior at structures differed (i.e., swim beneath or travel around perimeter), and may have been related
to such interrelated factors as: fish size, light levels beneath the structure, degree of contrast at the light-
dark edge, width of the structure, height of the structure above the water surface, and water column depth
beneath the structure. Further study is needed to conclusively determine how these and other factors
interact to influence Chinook salmon behavior.
Marine Waters: In the marine environment, it is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter
migration behavior of juvenile salmon (though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of
the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources and
refugia by shading aquatic plant life (Simenstad et al. 1999; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 b ). However, the
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 9
significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad et al. state, "We found no studies that described
empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats
was reflected in changes in survival." Nightingale and Simenstad (2001b) state, "Presently, although we know
that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline movements when
encountering an overwater structure, the conditions under which this behavioral modification is significant to
the fishes' fitness and survival is relatively unknown."
A study by Williams et al. (2003) at the Mukilteo ferry terminal, found that, "Salmon fry were observed in all
nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). The fry were observed under a wide
range of PAR values (0.0 µmol m-2 s-1 to 23 70 µmol m-2 s-1 ). Fry were observed both outside the terminal
and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by the I 0-m-wide terminal structure did not
appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location."
There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns -that is not in dispute. As seen in
the study by Williams and in many other studies (see the literature review by Weitkamp -2003), there are
studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures. Of course,
there are other studies indicating migration patterns are altered by overwater structures.
The issue is that no one has shown that these migration changes lead to increased mortality or decreased
fitness. None of the studies that report changes in salmonid migration patterns caused by overwater structures
in the marine environment have reported that these changes have a negative impact on salmonids.
Increased predation: An additional concern about the impacts of overwater structures on migrating salmon is that
they will be forced to move out into deeper water, where they will be consumed by predatory fish species.
However, in a study conducted in the marine environment, Williams et al. (2003) noted:
MS&A
We found no evidence that avian, marine mammal, or fish predators consumed more juvenile salmon near
WSF terminals than along shorelines without overwater structures. Few species appeared to be targeting
abundant fry in nearshore habitats, and we observed only two occasions in which predators ( one tern sp.,
one staghorn sculpin) had consumed juvenile salmon.
The authors also state,
Our analysis of fish diets at the Mukilteo ferry terminal provides one piece of conclusive evidence that
juvenile salmon were not a major dietary component of predatory fish species during our study.
It should be noted that the Williams study was conducted in the marine, not lake, environment.
In Lake Washington, smallmouth bass migration into the littoral zone corresponds with the peak occurrence of
migrating salmonids in this zone (Fresh et al. 2001 ). Because of these similar migration patterns, salmonids are
most at risk of predation from smallmouth bass in Lake Washington. Bass prefer complex, natural cover for
their foraging environment. When there is a scarcity of natural cover for foraging, as is the situation in Lake
Washington, they tend to use the dominant structures in the environment, such as pilings and piers, for
foraging cover (Kahler et al. 2000). There is concern that increasing the number of overwater structures will
increase the predation success of smallmouth bass on migrating salmonids.
Tabor et al. (2004) investigated predation of juvenile chinook salmon in three areas of the Lake Washington
Basin. One of the areas they looked at was the south end of Lake Washington, an important rearing area. The
investigators found that:
The only predators observed to consume Chinook salmon were cutthroat trout, prickly sculpin ( C. asper),
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and largemouth bass (M salmoides). Consumption of Chinook
salmon by cutthroat trout was observed in February, March and early April. Predation by prickly sculpin
was only observed in February. Smallmouth bass consumed Chinook salmon in May and June. Few
largemouth bass were collected; however, we did document a largemouth bass that had consumed a
Chinook salmon in June. We estimated a total of 1,400 Chinook salmon fry were consumed by littoral
predators from February to mid May ..... Based on consumption estimates and expected abundance of
juvenile Chinook salmon, predatory fishes probably consumed less than 10% of the fry that entered the
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• l O
lake from the Cedar River.
The investigators in this study did not comment on the impacts of overwater structures on the predation rate found
in south Lake Washington.
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects:
Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur
without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species
regulated under ESA wi II occur because of this project.
D. Take Analysis:
"Take" is defined as, "to harass, hann, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any
such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results
in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering." It is likely that no "take" will result from this project.
E. Conservation Measures:
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by this project, in water work should take place
between July 16 and December 31. It is requested that overwater work be allowed to take place outside of this
work window. Additional impact reduction and mitigation measures will reduce adverse impacts of the project.
They include:
1. The first 40' of the fully grated pier will only be 4-feet wide.
2. Only two 4" diameter steel pilings will be used to support the first 41' of the pier to mm1m1ze migration
obstacles for young salmon ids that prefer the more shallow areas.
3. The construction barge will not be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime.
4. Piles will be driven using a vibratory pile driver to practical refusal.
5. Construction will take place during authorized in water work windows designed to protect listed species and/or
critical habitat.
6. Twent-two shrubs will be planted in addition to the existing native plants seen in Figures 6 and 7.
F. Determination of Effect:
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the effect determinations for the impacts of the project, as
designed, are:
1. Puget Sound chinook -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
2. Bull trout-"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
3. Puget Sound s/eelhead -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
4. Marbled murrelet-''No effect"
This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be
beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting construction work to the approved work window will reduce
direct impacts on the listed species. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the
conservation measures discussed above.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Woterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 11
Literature
Celedonia, M. T., Roger A. Tabor, Scott Sanders, Daniel W. Lantz, and Ian Grettenberger. 2008.Movement and
habitat use of chinook salmon smolts and two predatory fishes in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington
Ship Canal. 2004-2005 acoustic tracking studies. Final report to Seattle Public Utilities.
Federal Register/ Vol. 61, No. I 02 / May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 56 / March 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 2 l O / November l, l 999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 185 / September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May l I, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.
Feist, Blake E., JJ. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (0. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. FRl-UW-9603, Fish. Res.
Inst., UW, Seattle, WA.
Fresh, K.L, E. Warner, R. Tabor, and D. Houck. 2000. Migratory behavior of adult Chinook salmon spawning in
the Lake Washington watershed in l 998 and l 999 as determined with ultrasonic telemetry. Extended abstract
and presentation prepared for the Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, November.
Fresh, K. L., D. Rothaus, K. W. Mueller and C. Mueller. 200 l. Habitat utilization by predators, with emphasis on
smallmouth bass, in the littoral zone of Lake Washington (draft). WDFW.
Hammer, Misty, King County Road Services Division. 2011. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project.
Biological Evaluation Report for: Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout as protected under the Endangered
Species Act. May Creek, King County, Washington State. Prepared for: King County Water and Land
Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 201 South Jackson Street Ste 600,Seattle, WA
98104-3856.
Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 -34 l. In: V.S. Kennedy
(ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Kahler, T ., M. Grassley and David Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, pier and other
artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. City of Bellevue.
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (WRIA
8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA.
Myers, J.M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W. Waknitz,
K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of
Transportation, Olympia, WA, l 44 pp.
Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 200 I b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 12
Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp.
Rienman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout.
Gen. Tech. Rpt. U.S. Forest Service, lntermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 pp.
Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. 0. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in
the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S. Kennedy, (ed.), Estuarine
comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings,
Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.
Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry tenninals on juvenile
salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase I: Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to
WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903, Task A2, 116 pp.+ appendices.
Synthesis of salmon research and monitoring. Investigations conducted in the Western Lake Washington Basin.
December 31, 2008. Seattle Public Utilities and the Army Corps of Engineers. Contributors: Mike Cooksey
Peter N. Johnson, Paul De Vries, Michele Koehler, Charles J. Ebel, Lynne Melder, Frederick A. Goetz, Jim
Muck, Julie Hall Eva Weaver
Tabor, R. A. and Richard M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems
of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low, B. Footen and L. Park. 2004. Predation of
juvenile chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
' Tabor, R. A. Howard A. Gearns, Charles M. McCoy III, and Sergio Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use by
juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2003 and 2004.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510
Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor, Roger A., Kurt L. Fresh, Richard M. Piaskowski, Howard A. Gearns & Daniel B. Hayes (2011): Habitat
Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Nearshore Areas of Lake Washington: Effects of Depth, Lakeshore
Development, Substrate, and Vegetation, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 31 :4, 700-713
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc.
Kirkland, WA.
Williams, G.D., R. M. Thom, D. K. Shreffler, J. A. Southard, L. K. O'Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V. I. Cullinan, R.
MS&A
Moursund, and M. Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure -Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon: Field
Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the Washington State Department of
Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-
AC06-76RLO 1830.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 13
MS&A
Figure 1. Vicinity map
PROJECT INFORMATION
OWNER:
RICHARD DICERCHIO
DRAWINGS BY:
ECCO DESIGN INC.
203 N 36TH ST SUITE 201
SEATTLE, WA 96103
206-706-3937
SITE ADDRESS:
4005 & 4011 WILLIAMS AVE N
RENTON, WA 98056
PARCEL NUMBER:
(4005) 0518500480 & (4011) 0518500470
BODY OF WATER:
LAKE WASHINGTON
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(0518500480) BARBEE MILL TGW UNO INT IN TRS
A,B,C,D,E,F,G, H,l,K,L,M,N.O & P
(0518500470) BARBEE MILL TGW UND INT IN TRS
A,B,C,D,E,F,G, H,l,K,L,M,N,O & P
VICINITY MAP
h.11,·P
• :1~:~::rl
• ! ,t~t'
r~ople l\uk
..
' r ·, ,-~
1,~,11 f'f
..,,,,, f'i
PROJECT SITE·
Ul,.T 47 52848° N
LON: -122.20532° W
NW 1/4 S:32 T:24N R:5E
Mr 0 rrr
1-:,md
is'tow1
(,, •. ,,/','!!It.
,'I,'
,•It,,
~,11.'lmey
C>lf>rJf>arJ.:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: \' ,,
!.1.•N' .. ,,/W,•,
CONSTRUCT NEW PIER (400 SQUARE FEET),
INSTALL TWO MOORING PILES, INSTALL TWO
NEW BOAT LIFTS, AND INSTALL A TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY.
PURPOSE: Boat Moorage
DATUM: C.O.E. Locks Datum
Est. 1919
ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS:
1. Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
2. The Lake Houses at Eagle Co
NAME: Richard DiCerchio
REFERENCE#:
SITE LOCATION ADDRESS:
4005 & 4011 Williams Ave. N
Renton. WA 98056
', rJ .. !,' ,:,
Renton
PROPOSED: Pier & Boat Lifts
IN: Lake Washington
AT: Renton
COUNTY: King STATE: WA
SHEET 1 of 7
DATE:August25,2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 14
MS&A
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SHORELINE
CONFIGURATION AND PROPERTY LINE
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY
PROPERTY LINES ARE BASED ON
SURVEY REC NO. 20080208000182.
PROPOSED PIER
W/ TWO BOAT LIFTS &
TWO MOORING PILES
INSTALL
TRANSLUCENT
BOAT CANOPY
(10.5' BY 30')
<o I I
I
o>o,
LAKE WASHINGTON
SITE PLAN
SCALE 1" = 60'-0"
0
OHWM
21.85'
125 FT
Figure 2. Site plan
EXISTING
ADJACENT
PIER
OHWM
21.85'
OHWM
21.85'
EXISTING
ADJACENT PIER
\
THE LAKE HOUSES
AT EAGLE CO
4001 WELLS AVE N
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 2 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 15
MS&A
/
PROPOSED 12"0
MOORING PILES
PROPOSED
BOAT LIFTS
PROPOSED
TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY
b
"'
"
THRUFLOW
GRATED
DECKING
4" 0 STEEL PILES
FOR FIRST SET
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1" = 10'-0"
0
/
Figure 3. Plan view
14' 6'-0"
/
10'-6"
'
20 FT
/
0 C
..
"' .
. -----
4'-0"
/ /
"
"
8" 0 STEEL
PILE SET
10" 0 STEEL
PILE SET
"
8" 0 STEEL
PILE SET
Reference:
9
b a,
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At Renton. WA
Sheet 3 of 7 Date: 812512014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 16
MS&A
PROPOSED
TRANSLUCENT CANOPY
PROPOSED PIER
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
OHW 21.85'
-4
-8
-12
/
'
Figure 4. Elevation view
80'-0"
/ >-'
11
~
II
/
30'-0"
/
--. -,
..
APPROX. LOCATION
OF LAKEBED
ELEVATION VIEW
SCALE 1" = 20'-0"
0 40 FT
Reference
Applicant Richard OiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 4 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 17
MS&A
Figure 5. A-A pier section view
6'-0 11
/
/ ...
<},,! . 1 · r
.•. I ...
OHW21.85'
A-A PIER SECTION
SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0"
0 4 FT
/
'
I T ~ J·
1 ...
T•
•
THRUFLOW GRATED
DECKING
-4x6 STRINGERS
5 1 /8" x 12" G.L.B.
2x6 JOIST
4 6 JOIST 8' 0 C X @
-ELECTRICAL CONDUI T
STEEL CAP @ PILES
1 O" 0 EPOXY COATE D
STEEL PILE
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 5 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 18
MS&A
LAKE WASHINGTON
Figure 6. Existing native vegetation buffer
PROPOSED PIER
(400 SQ. FT)
PROPOSED
BOAT LIFTS
---PROPOSED
TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY
' OHWM
21 85'
"'%
'·
-"11· -·
__ ,..._
EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION BUFFER
SCALE 1" = 30'-0"
0 60 FT
-· -· ---
'· ' ·,.
'· '· '· '· '· ' ·,
-·
__ ... --------·
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 6 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 19
MS&A
Figure 7. Plant legend
PLANT LEGEND
8 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA I SERVICEBERRY o SAUX srrcHENS,s, '""' w,ccow
C) CORNUS STOLONIFERA / RED TWIG DOGWOOD
E£J MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM / TALL OREGON GRAPE
@ MAHON IA NERVOSA / LOW OREGON GRAPE
~ RIBES SANGUINEUM / RED FLOWERING CURRANT
0 ROSA NUTKANA / NOOTKA ROSE
@ SYPHORICARPOS ALBUS I BALD-HIP ROSE
® VACCINUM OVATUM / EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY
iii-HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS / BLUE OAT GRASS
CJ ALLIUM CERNUUM / NODDING ONION
CJ ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI / KINNIKINNIK
CJ FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS / BEACH STRAWBERRY
CJ GAUL THE RIA SHALLON / SALAL
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 7 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 20
Attachment 1. Photographs of the site
Steps on the common property line leading to proposed pier location
Looking northeast along the site
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee M ill Wa terfront LLC Joint -Use Pie r Pro ject • 2 1
Looking southwest at plantings on the DiCerchio parcel
Plantings adjacent to the DiCerchio residence
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee M ill Waterfron t LLC Joint-Use Pier Project • 22
Looking southwest -May Creek ente rs Lake Washington from the left side of the photograph
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee M ill Waterfront LLC Join t-Us e Pier Project• 23
MS&A
Attachment 2 . Species List for King County
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT;
CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
INKING COUNTY
AS PREPARED BY
THE U.S . FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHING TON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
(Revised April 24, 2013)
LISTED
Bull trout (Salve linus conjluentus)
Canada ly n x (Lynx canadensis)
Gray wo lf (Canis lupu5)
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis)
M a rbled murrel et (Brac hyramphus marmoratU5)
Northern s potted owl (Strix occ identalis c aurina)
Major concerns that s hould be addressed in your Biological A ssessment of project impacts to li sted a nimal
s pecies include:
l. Level of use of the project area b y li sted s pecies .
2. Effect of the project o n li sted s p ecies' primary food stocks, prey species , and foraging areas in al 1
3. Impacts from project act ivi t ies a nd implementation (e.g., increased noise levels , in creased human
activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to li sted s pecies
and/or their avoidance of the project area.
C astilleja levisecta (golden paintbrus h) [historic]
Major concern s that s hould be addressed in your Biological A ssessment of project impacts to
li sted plant specie s include:
I. Distribution of taxon in project v icinity.
2. Disturbance (tramplin g, uprooting, collecting, e t c.) of indi vidual plants and loss of h abitat.
3 . C hanges in hydro logy where taxon is found.
DESIGNATED
C ritica l habitat for bull trout
C ritica l hab itat for the marb led murre let
Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl
PROPOSED
North American wolverine (Gula gulo lute U5 ) -contiguous U .S . DPS
CANDIDATE
Fisher (M art es p ennanti) -West Coast DPS
Oregon s potted frog (Rana pretiosa) [hi storic]
Yellow-bi I led c uckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)
DiCerch io/Borbee Mill Wa terfront LLC Jo in t-Us e Pier Proje ct • 24
MS&A
SPECIES OF CONCERN
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belleri)
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)
Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi)
Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli)
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans)
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (~ Clemmys) marmorata marmorata)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Con/opus cooperi)
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)
Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrines)
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei)
Valley silver spot (Speyer serene brewery)
Western toad (Buja boreas)
Aster curt us (white-top aster)
Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort)
Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane)
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 25
Attachment 3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law I 04-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may
adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the relevant species. According to the MSA, EFH
means "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For
the Pacific West Coast, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) has designated EFH for federally
managed groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC 1998b) and Pacific salmon fisheries (PFMC 1999).
The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant
species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH.
B. Identification of EFH
The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high water
I ine, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and
California, seaward to the boundary of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). The
designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for Pacific salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal
submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370 .4
km) offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border PFMC,
1999).
Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other water bodies
currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California, except areas upstream
of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally-impassable barriers.
Chinook salmon and coho salmon are the species with designated EFH that are found in Lake Washington
C. Proposed Action
The details of the proposed project are presented in section of the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report.
D. Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects
Analysis section of the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report. The project is likely to have no permanent,
long-term effects EFH designated for chinook and coho salmon.
E. EFH Conservation Measures
The conservation measures mentioned in the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report will be implemented to
minimize possible adverse effects to EFH.
F. Conclusion
The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH the salmon species, but will not produce long-term
adverse effects on EFH for the above species.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 26
MS&A
G. Additional References
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix
A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation
Measures for Salmon (August 1999).
PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998).
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998).
DiCerchio/Borbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 27
Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critic al Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook
Project description: Construction of a new community-use dock on Lake Washington in Renton,
This assessment covers the primary constituent elements (50 CFR Part 226, page 74581-2) determined essential to
the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha):
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning,
incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: There are no suitable freshwater spawning sites at the project location.
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat
conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;
and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted immediately landward of the bulkhead in conjunction
with the upland development. There is a concrete/rock bulkhead along the shoreline of both properties. No side
channels or undercut banks were noted.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and
undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile
and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including
aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater area.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,
supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater lake area.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 28
•
•
(5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity as a cold-
water source.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: This project will have no impact on springs, seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface water
(6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning,
rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water
temperatures or low flows.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted along the site shoreline.
Effects to PCE: The proposed dock will incorporate design components that will decrease negative impacts on
foraging habitat and migratory corridors. The proposed dock will be fully grated.
(7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage
fish.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted along the site shoreline.
Effects to PCE: See 6 above
(8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not
inhibited.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above.
Effects to PCE: Pile driving may produce temporary turbidity impacts. These are expected to be short term and
are not expected to have a significant impact on critical habitat. Any debris associated with the project construction
phase will be contained by a silt containment curtain.
Determination of Effect: "No destruction or adverse modification"
Conservation Measures: Conservation measures for this project are seen in the BE/Lake and Stream Study
Report.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 31
Attachment 5.
Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout (Salve/inus conjluentus)
are:
(1) Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures
from 32 to 72 °F (0 to 22 °C) but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 °F (2 to 15 °C).
These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation,
diurnal and seasonal variation, shade. such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence.
Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from designation.
Existing Conditions: The project will take place in Lake Washington, a large body of fresh water.
Effects to PCE: The project is not expected to have any influence on the water temperature of Lake Washington.
(2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to
provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in stream structures.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington -not in a stream environment
Effects to PCE: No effect
(3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival,
fry emergence, and young-of-the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal amount of fine
substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter.
Existing Conditions: No spawning activity at the site
Effects to PCE: No effect
(4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, ifregulated,
currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout, or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability
to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from
the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation: This rule finds that reservoirs currently
operating under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides management for PC Es as currently operated.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington
Effects to PCE: The project does not involve any alteration in the lake level; therefore it will have no impact on
this PCE.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 30
Effects Analysis: A complete discussion of the effects of this project is seen in the BE/Lake and Stream Study
Report. Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity, which will be contained by a silt curtain.
The project will have no long-term impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions or water temperature.
Construction during work windows will prevent impacts to the listed fish species.
Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be reduced by design components of the proposed project. The
entire dock will be fully grated. Only two 4" diameter steel pilings will be used to support the first 41' of the pier to
minimize migration obstacles for young salmonids that prefer the shallowest areas. The construction barge will not
be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime. Additional native vegetation will be planted.
Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 29
•
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
Joint~ Use Pier Project
Biological Evaluation/Lake and Stream Study
Report
August 25, 2014
For:
Richard DiCerchio
4005 Williams Ave. N.
Renton, WA 98056
MARINE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS
521 Snagstead Way
Port Townsend WA 98368
(360) 385-4073
EXHIBIT 12
•
List of Figures and Attachments
Figure Number Page
l . Vicinity map ....................................................................................... 14
2. Site plan .............................................................................................. l 5
3. Plan view ............................................................................................. 16
4. Elevation view .................................................................................... 1 7
5. A-A pier section ................................................................................. 18
6. Existing native vegetation buffer ..................................................... 19
7, Plant legend ....................................................................................... 20
Attachment Number Page
1. Photograph of the site ................................................................ 21-23
2. Species list for King County ........................................................ 24-25
3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment .............................................. 26-27
4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook ........................................................... 28-29
5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout .......................................... 30-31
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 2
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
Joint-Use Pier Project
Biological Evaluation/Lake and Stream Study Report
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location:
V. Section NW32, Township 24N, Range 05E.
4005 and 40 11 Williams A venue N
Renton, WA 98056
Latitude: 47.52848' N Longitude: 122.20532'W
See Figure I for project location.
B. Site Description:
The proposed project is a joint-use pier to be located along the common property line between two abutting lots,
4005 and 4011 Williams Ave N, Renton, WA 98056 Uointly the "subject property"), presently owned by Richard
DiCerchio and Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC, respectively, Uointly the "applicant" for the requested shoreline
substantial development permit). The properties are located within the Barbee Mill Community, a major waterfront
subdivision. The subject property is located along the eastern shore of Lake Washington in the City of Renton
(Figure 2). The proposed joint-use pier would provide moorage and facilitate access to Lake Washington for
residents of the subject property and their guests.
Two bodies of water are adjacent to, or flow through, the Barbee Mill Community: Lake Washington and May
Creek. The subject property is located along Lake Washington, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance as provided
in RMC 4-3-090Fl, and a Shoreline of the State under RMC 4-11-190. This Lake Study is prepared in accordance
with the requirements of RMC 4-8-1200 with respect to the Lake Washington shoreline of the subject property.
May Creek, a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2), flows through the Barbee Mill Community. The May
Creek open space (a riparian buffer) and a street are located between the two lots and May Creek.
The Barbee Mill Community is located on the approximately 22 acre site of the former Barbee Mill Company
lumber mill. The Barbee Mill Community has 114 multi-story paired homes, a pond, walking trails and lakefront
open space for the use of residents. Lots 23 through 48 are lakefront lots.
To restore the former industrial site to a parcel suitable for a residential waterfront subdivision, the mill buildings
were demolished; fill soils were removed from behind the bulkhead; asphalt paving, a pier, the wooden bulkhead
and piling associated with the mill operation were removed; and extensive shoreline restoration was completed.
The subject property is located south of, and was not included in, this extensive remediation. A concrete bulkhead
is located along most of the Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC parcel; a rock bulkhead is located along the DiCerchio
parcel. The substrate immediately waterward of the property consists of large and small cobble.
A number of factors were considered in determining the location of the proposed pier, most importantly the lower
environmental impact of a joint-use structure over individual single-property use piers. In establishing design
parameters for the proposed joint-use pier, it was required that it not interfere with the general public's use and
enjoyment of Lake Washington, that it not pose a navigation hazard to boaters, and that it not interfere with the use
of existing or future neighboring docks or piers.
C. Lake and Stream Classifications:
As mentioned above, as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance (RMC 4-3-090Fl ), Lake Washington is included in
the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-11-190). Lake Washington is a Class I lake as it is a perennial
salmon id-bearing body of water classified as a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-l l-190S I). May Creek is an
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 3
important salmonid stream that is classified by the City of Renton and the State of Washington as Class I waters
and included within the definition of a Shoreline of the State (RMC 4-3-090F2).
D. Shoreline Restoration:
Prior to restoration of the beach in conjunction with vacation of the land, the Lake Washington shoreline north of
the subject property was heavily bulkheaded, back-filled and covered with impervious asphalt paving; numerous
piling and substantial quantities of concrete rubble and other shoreline debris were on the site. Pursuant to the
general development site remediation, upland and in-water structures including the timber bulkhead and piling
were removed, shoreline rubble was removed, fill soil was excavated to subgrade elevations, toe rock and a
temporary quarry spall erosion control berm were installed, and sand, gravel and rock materials were used to
construct a beach to mimic natural conditions. Although the area of extensive remediation did not encompass the
subject property, a planting buffer of native vegetation (Figure 6 and 7) was installed along all the lakefront lots,
including the subject property, to environmentally and functionally enhance the entire development shoreline.
The Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark for Lake Washington is the line of mean high water (RMC 4-11-150
Definitions 0). The Lake Washington water depth is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers at the Hiram M.
Chittenden Locks and is at 21.8' of lake elevation. In the course of the Barbee Mill Beach Restoration site
remediation, permanent toe rock was installed along the OHW line. As of March 20, 2007, the date a SCUBA
survey was conducted for purposes of identifying flora, fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information
relative to the Biological Evaluation prepared for the previous community dock project, coir rolls were located
along the OHW line within the remediation area. The May Creek OHW mark is the mean high water line of the
stream (RMC 4-11-150 Definition 0).
E. Vegetative Cover of the Site:
The study area includes no wetland or flood hazard areas; it does include Lake Washington riparian areas. Prior to
the Barbee Mill Beach Restoration project, riparian vegetation was found to be generally absent within the study
area as the shoreline behind the bulkhead was paved. In unpaved areas, vegetation noted included Juncus effesus
(soft rush) and Iris pseudocaris (a non-native iris). The upland redevelopment required extensive regrading and
clearing; a mitigation planting plan was agreed upon that includes planting along the Lake Washington shoreline.
In accordance with this mitigation plan, plantings on the subject property have been installed (Figures 6 and 7). In
conjunction with construction of the proposed joint-use pier, 22 additional native shrubs will be planted. The
planting plan details will be shown on the full size drawings.
F. Ecological Functions of Lake Washington along the Study Area:
Previously to the Barbee Mill Community development, the industrial structures and use of the site limited the
ecological functions that would otherwise have been provided by Lake Washington and its adjacent riparian area.
As a result of the extensive general site restoration work completed north of the subject property, the ecological
functions of the portion of the lake within the study area should be greatly enhanced. Previously planted riparian
vegetation and additional plantings in conjunction with the proposed joint-use pie project will further assist in
restoring the ecological functions of Lake Washington. Much of this new vegetation will be overhanging,
providing shade and predator protection for fish and aquatic invertebrates. The newly planted riparian vegetation
will add significant organic matter to the lake substrate in the form of leaves and woody debris that fall and wash
into the lake. This will provide additional source of food, shelter and shade for aquatic invertebrates and fish. This
increased vegetation will also provide food and shelter for terrestrial insects, and in tum provide an additional food
source for birds and animals that feed upon them. The addition of riparian vegetation to this formerly near-barren
site should also help water quality by filtering pollutants, removing nutrients and reducing sediments in any runoff
from the adjacent upland development. The increased overhanging vegetation should facilitate the migration of
juvenile salmon.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 4
G. Fish and Wildlife Use or the Area:
Birds:
Birds observed on or near the site include hawks, herons, eagles, quail, osprey, cormorants and songbirds. Before
the mill structures were demolished, an osprey nest was successfully relocated from the top of the old mill sawdust
collector to a platform built on a 25' pole over the water not far from the original nest site. The osprey have
accepted the new nest and a video camera records their activities for viewing over the Internet. Protected wildlife
in Washington State shall not be hunted or fished (WAC 232-12-011). Protected wildlife noted from time to time
within the general Barbee Mill Community development area includes the marbled murrelet and the bald eagle.
The marbled murrelet is classified as a "threatened species," a species likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management
or removal of threats. The bald eagle is no longer on the list of threatened or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) but continues to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is protected as a "sensitive species" in Washington. Sensitive species are vulnerable
or declining and I ikely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state
without cooperative management or removal of threats.
Mammals:
The only wild mammals reported as observed in the area are deer.
Fish:
Salmonids observed at the site include salmon and trout. Salmonids known to be present in southern Lake
Washington include Puget Sound chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and
cutthroat trout. Puget Sound chinook, Puget Sound steelhead and bull trout are all listed as threatened under the
ESA. Other fish observed at the site include bass, black crappie, bluegill, pumpkinseed sunfish, tench and yellow
perch. The shoreline remediation was designed to be consistent with Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8
Conservation Plan recommendations. As a result of the remediation, shoreline that was previously unsuitable
habitat for fish and other aquatic life due to extensive shoreline modifications and industrial use of the site has been
restored. The restored gravel substrate and gently sloping bottom should provide favorable habitat for winter
rearing of salmon fry. The new gravel and cobble substrate to the north and the existing cobble on the subject
property should be suitable habitat for benthic invertebrates which would likely attract juvenile salmonids.
H. Project Details:
The pier will be supported by two IO" diameter, four 8" diameter and two 4" diameter galvanized steel piles. It
will have a 4' by 40' walkway from shore and a 6' by 40' walkway for a total length of 80' from the OHWM. Two
free standing boat lifts will be installed at the pier. A 30' by I 0.5' translucent canopy will be installed over one boat
lift. Two 12" diameter steel mooring piles will be installed adjacent to the pier (Figures 3-5).
1. Construction Sequence:
1. Mobilize construction barge to the site with all construction materials and equipment on board. Moor the barge
as to prevent grounding on the lake bottom at any time during construction.
2. Install silt containment curtain around work area to contain any debris that may fall into lake waters. In the event
any materials enter lake waters they will be retrieved immediately and placed in debris containers on the barge.
3. Using the barge-based crane and vibratory insertion/extraction system, install (2) at 12" diameter, (2) at IO"
diameter, ( 4) at 8" diameter and (2) at 4" diameter galvanized steel piles to practical refusal.
4. Cut steel piling as necessary at the appropriate elevation.
5. Install pre-fabricated cap brackets to piling. Connect wood framing to cap brackets using hand tools. Install
grated decking on pier.
6. Set boat lifts in place using crane on the barge. The translucent boat canopy will be installed by hand.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 5
7. Demobilize and dispose of all debris at approved upland disposal site.
General Notes:
1. All treatments will be applied and fully cured prior to delivery to the site.
J. Action Areo:
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the project location. This area includes potential
turbidity and noise impacts from the construction process.
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. Species Information:
In the project area, the Puget Sound chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed under the Endangered Species
Act as a threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Federal Register, Vol. 64,
No. 56). On May 11, 2007, NMFS also listed the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened
species under the ESA (Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations). Bull
trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in
October of 1999.
On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant
Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal
Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook
ESU (Federal Register/ Vol 70, No.170 I Friday, September 2, 2005 Rules and Regulations). USFWS has
designated critical habitat in Lake Washington for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No.
185 / September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations).
Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the king salmon, are distinguished from all other Pacific
salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget Sound are "ocean-type" and migrate to the marine
environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence
as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm., or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during
May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries
feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they
grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and
euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most
dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival.
MS&A
In the Lake Washington system, adult chinook salmon usually arrive at the Chittenden Locks in July, although
there are some arrivals before and after July (Synthesis of Salmon Research and Monitoring. 2008). According
to Fresh et al. (2000), the total time for salmon migration from the Locks to arrival at their tributary spawning
grounds "can take up to 55 days, but averages less than 30." During much of this time, salmon hold in the
upstream area from the Locks before moving through the Ship Canal and Lake Union. Fresh et al. (2000)
found the average holding time to be from 17 to 19 days. After reach their spawning streams between
September and November, spawning occurs from October to December.
According to Tabor et al. (2006 ), "Fry emerge from their redds from January to March. Juvenile Chinook
salmon appear to have two rearing strategies: rear in the river and then emigrate in May or June as pre-smolts,
or emigrate as fry in January, February, or March and rear in the south end of Lake Washington or Lake
Sammamish for three to five months." In the project area vicinity, juvenile chi nook salmon from the Cedar
River enter Lake Washington and rear in the south end of the lake primarily from January to May.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 6
Tabor et al. (2006) also reported that:
Similar to results of 2002. juvenile Chinook salmon were concentrated in the south end of Lake
Washington from February to May ..... Therefore, it appears that the lake shore area near the natal stream is
an important nursery area for juvenile Chinook salmon. In Lake Washington, the major part of this nursery
area appears to be roughly from Pritchard Beach on the west shoreline and the mouth of May Creek on the
east shore and the south part of Mercer Island. The distance from the mouth of the Cedar River to the edge
of the nursery area is around 6 km. north of this area; the number of Chinook salmon would be expected to
be relatively low until mid-May or June.
In the same study cited above, it was found that marked chinook did not move far from their release site at
Gene Coulon Park (approximately 1.5 miles south of the current project site). Marked juveniles were observed
1, 7, 15, and 21 days after release at Gene Coulon Park. All of the marked salmon that the investigators
observed had moved less than 150 m from their release site at the park.
After moving slowly away from the Green River and south Lake Washington,juveniles reach the Chittenden
Locks during the period between May and August, with peak migration through the Locks taking place in June.
According to Kerwin (200 I) chinook, coho, sockeye and winter steelhead use May Creek for spawning,
rearing and migration. However, volunteers from the Volunteer Salmon Watchers Program have been
observing salmon in May Creek since 2000. They have reported that only sockeye are seen consistently, while
chinook, coho, cutthroat trout and kokanee salmon are less commonly seen.
Hammer (2011) reported that the number ofchinook varies from Oto 12 fish annually in May Creek. WDFW
reported three live chinook and one redd in 2010 spawner surveys.
Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California (at present they
are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern
Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically
from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place
in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival. Temperatures in excess of about 15
degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993 ). They live both in fresh and
marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater (anadromous) before
returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the streams where
they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the
Coastal-Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only
anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States (Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999).
Two subpopulations of bull trout (also known as "native char") are considered within the Lake Washington
area: the Chester Morse Reservoir population and the Issaquah Creek-Sammamish River population (Federal
Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999). "Only two 'native char' have been observed during the past IO years in the
Issaquah Creek drainage and none have been observed in the Sammamish River system. It is questionable
whether a viable subpopulation remains." (Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 210, 1999).
Puget Sound Steelbead: Wild winter steelhead enter the Lake Washington system in mid-December with peak
spawning taking place in May. There have been high rates of predation by California sea lions at the Ballard
Locks, which is one of the leading factors in the declining steelhead production in the Lake Washington system
(1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Appendix One -Puget Sound Stocks.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.).
MS&A
According to Kerwin (200 I):
The Lake Washington system supports one native winter steelhead stock but not a summer steelhead stock
(SASS! 1994 ). The winter steelhead stock was listed in SASS! as "Depressed" but has recently shown
some evidence of rebounding. A limited hatchery program utilizing the native winter steelhead stock was
initiated in 1997 as a supplementation type program to assist in recovery of winter steelhead populations in
the north Lake Washington tributaries. The sharp decline in Lake Washington winter steelhead was noted
DiCerchio/Borbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 7
as a reason for concern by NMFS in their stock status review (Busby l 996).
However, in a more recent analysis, between l 986 and 2004 escapement for the Lake Washington winter-run
steelhead ranged from 1,816 (1986) to 44 (2004) (WDFW 2004). Based on the chronically low escapement and
short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock status has decreased from its 1992 "depressed" status to
"critical" in 2002.
WDFW has reported steelhead in the lower 3 miles of May Creek (Salmon Scape, 2010).
Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of their
time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old
growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDW, 1993). Adult
birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific
herring, surf smelt and other small schooling fish, and feed on invertebrates.
The project site is located in an urban environment adjacent to a major highway. There is a high level of
ambient noise in the project vicinity. There is no nesting habitat near the site. Therefore, it is unlikely that
murrelets will be present in the project vicinity.
Ill. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project has been
described and the action area defined. When reviewing all the data, the potential direct and indirect effects of the
proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered.
A. Direct Effects:
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project will
immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the
construction process include increased noise and turbidity.
Pile driving noise: A vibratory pile driver will be used to drive the piles to practical refusal. Feist et al. ( 1992)
reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000' from the source.
Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport, these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the
distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon. However, the Everett Homeport results may not
be entirely applicable to the proposed project, because a diesel powered compression hammer was used in that
study. As stated in the Feist report, "It would be reasonable to say that juvenile salmonids might respond
differently to the sounds of a vibratory hammer, compared to that of a diesel compression hammer."
As noted above, it is unlikely that murrelets will he present in the action area. Therefore, the construction
process should have little or no impact on marbled murrelets.
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could, under certain circumstances, have adverse effects on
salmon and bull trout. The effects depend on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity and the life stage
of the salmon during the increased exposure. The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or
behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 200 I a and Simenstad, editor, 1988). A silt containment curtain will be
installed in the project area to contain and minimize turbidity impacts.
MS&A
To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmon ids and bull trout, inwater
construction work will take place during the approved work window from July 16 to December 3 l. Overwater
work can proceed outside of the inwater work window.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 8
B. Indirect Effects:
Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might include
alteration of juvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmon id predation and reduction in prey resources
and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure.
Migratory pathway alteration:
MS&A
Freshwater: There were no studies specifically investigating the effects of piers on salmonid migration in
lakes cited by Kahler et al. (2000) in their review of pier-related impacts in lakes. Concerning the lake
environment, Kahler et al. (2000) state, "The question remains whether juvenile salmonids in lakes migrate
under, or otherwise utilize, piers, or if they avoid them and/or traverse their perimeter."
However, more recent reports have provided additional information concerning salmon responses to overwater
structures.
Tabor and Piaskowski (2002) noted that, "In February and March, chinook salmon were found using overhead
structures (piers, docks, and overhanging vegetation) during the day but in April and May, no chinook salmon
were ever observed using overhead structures. At night, chinook salmon rarely used overhead structures." The
authors hypothesized that the overhead structures were being used as a substitute for natural overhead cover
during the days in February and March.
In a later study, Tabor et al. (2006) noted slightly different results. They state that, "When migrating Chinook
salmon approach a pier they appeared to move to slightly deeper water and either pass directly under the
structure or swim around the pier. Most likely they move to deeper water as a way of reducing their predation
risk." The pier where these findings we made is approximately 7.8' wide, 138' long and had solid decking. The
dimensions of the piers in the earlier study are not known. The results from the later study were noted in May
and July, whereas the 2002 study results were for the earlier months of February and March.
In a later study, Tabor et al.(2011) reported that, "Juvenile Chinook salmon were rarely observed under an
overwater structure during either daytime or nighttime." There were no details concerning the type of
overwater structure where these observations were made -sold decking or grated overwater structures.
The results ofCeledonia et al. (2008) were similar to those of Tabor et al. (2000). Celedonia et al. stated,
"Juvenile Chinook salmon generally avoided areas directly beneath overwater structures. However, areas along
the edges of structures (within about 2 m horizontal distance) were sometimes used for prolonged periods (up
to 2 hours in one case)." However, these authors offered the following qualifying statement:
These observations may be representative of holding fish near structures in general, but may not be an
accurate indication of how untagged Chinook salmon would generally behave upon volitionally entering
these specific areas. Actively migrating fish (i.e., most fish released off-site and observed at the Seattle
Tennis Club site) often appeared to change course as they approached a structure. Structure width and
water depth appeared to influence degree of avoidance. Fish appeared less hesitant to pass beneath narrow
structures. Fish also appeared to move into deeper water to travel beneath or around structures.
These authors also observed:
Behavior at structures differed (i.e., swim beneath or travel around perimeter), and may have been related
to such interrelated factors as: fish size, light levels beneath the structure, degree of contrast at the light-
dark edge, width of the structure, height of the structure above the water surface, and water column depth
beneath the structure. Further study is needed to conclusively determine how these and other factors
interact to influence Chinook salmon behavior.
Marine Waters: In the marine environment, it is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter
migration behavior of juvenile salmon (though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of
the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources and
refugia by shading aquatic plant life (Simenstad et al. 1999; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 b ). However, the
DiCerchio/Borbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 9
MS&A
significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad et al. state, "We found no studies that described
empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification ofjuvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats
was reflected in changes in survival." Nightingale and Simenstad (200 I b) state, "Presently, although we know
that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline movements when
encountering an overwater structure, the conditions under which this behavioral modification is significant to
the fishes' fitness and survival is relatively unknown."
A study by Williams et al. (2003) at the Mukilteo ferry terminal, found that, "Salmon fry were observed in all
nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). The fry were observed under a wide
range of PAR values (0.0 µmo! m-2 s-1 to 23 70 µmo! m-2 s-1 ). Fry were observed both outside the terminal
and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by the 10-m-wide terminal structure did not
appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location."
There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns -that is not in dispute. As seen in
the study by Williams and in many other studies (see the literature review by Weitkamp -2003), there are
studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures. Of course,
there are other studies indicating migration patterns are altered by overwater structures.
The issue is that no one has shown that these migration changes lead to increased mortality or decreased
fitness. None of the studies that report changes in salmonid migration patterns caused by overwater structures
in the marine environment have reported that these changes have a negative impact on salmon ids.
Increased predation: An additional concern about the impacts of overwater structures on migrating salmon is that
they will be forced to move out into deeper water, where they will be consumed by predatory fish species.
However, in a study conducted in the marine environment, Williams et al. (2003) noted:
We found no evidence that avian, marine mammal, or fish predators consumed more juvenile salmon near
WSF terminals than along shorelines without overwater structures. Few species appeared to be targeting
abundant fry in nearshore habitats, and we observed only two occasions in which predators ( one tern sp.,
one staghorn sculpin) had consumed juvenile salmon.
The authors also state,
Our analysis of fish diets at the Mukilteo ferry terminal provides one piece of conclusive evidence that
juvenile salmon were not a major dietary component of predatory fish species during our study.
It should be noted that the Williams study was conducted in the marine, not lake, environment.
In Lake Washington, smallmouth bass migration into the littoral zone corresponds with the peak occurrence of
migrating salmonids in this zone (Fresh et al. 200 I). Because of these similar migration patterns, salmon ids are
most at risk of predation from smallmouth bass in Lake Washington. Bass prefer complex, natural cover for
their foraging environment. When there is a scarcity of natural cover for foraging, as is the situation in Lake
Washington, they tend to use the dominant structures in the environment, such as pilings and piers, for
foraging cover (Kahler et al. 2000). There is concern that increasing the number of overwater structures will
increase the predation success of smallmouth bass on migrating salmonids.
Tabor et al. (2004) investigated predation of juvenile chinook salmon in three areas of the Lake Washington
Basin. One of the areas they looked at was the south end of Lake Washington, an important rearing area. The
investigators found that:
The only predators observed to consume Chinook salmon were cutthroat trout, prickly sculpin ( C. asper),
smallmouth bass (Micropterus do/omieui), and largemouth bass (M salmoides). Consumption of Chinook
salmon by cutthroat trout was observed in February, March and early April. Predation by prickly sculpin
was only observed in February. Smallmouth bass consumed Chinook salmon in May and June. Few
largemouth bass were collected; however, we did document a largemouth bass that had consumed a
Chinook salmon in June. We estimated a total of 1,400 Chinook salmon fry were consumed by littoral
predators from February to mid May ..... Based on consumption estimates and expected abundance of
juvenile Chinook salmon, predatory fishes probably consumed less than I 0% of the fry that entered the
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• I 0
lake from the Cedar River.
The investigators in this study did not comment on the impacts of overwater structures on the predation rate found
in south Lake Washington.
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects:
Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur
without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species
regulated under ESA will occur because of this project.
D. Take Analysis:
"Take" is defined as, "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any
such conduct." The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results
in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering." It is likely that no "take" will result from this project.
E. Conservation Measures:
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by this project, in water work should take place
between July 16 and December 31. It is requested that overwater work be allowed to take place outside of this
work window. Additional impact reduction and mitigation measures will reduce adverse impacts of the project.
They include:
1. The first 40' of the fully grated pier will only be 4-feet wide.
2. Only two 4" diameter steel pilings will be used to support the first 41' of the pier to minimize migration
obstacles for young salmonids that prefer the more shallow areas.
3. The construction barge will not be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime.
4. Piles will be driven using a vibratory pile driver to practical refusal.
5. Construction will take place during authorized in water work windows designed to protect listed species and/or
critical habitat.
6. Twent-two shrubs will be planted in addition to the existing native plants seen in Figures 6 and 7.
F. Determination of Effect:
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the effect determinations for the impacts of the project, as
designed, are:
1. Puget Sound chinook -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
2. Bull trout -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
3. Pugel Sound steelhead -"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
4. Marbled murre/et-"No effect"
This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be
beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting construction work to the approved work window will reduce
direct impacts on the listed species. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the
conservation measures discussed above.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 11
Literature
Celedonia, M. T., Roger A. Tabor, Scott Sanders, Daniel W. Lantz, and Ian Grettenberger. 2008.Movement and
habitat use of chinook salmon smolts and two predatory fishes in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington
Ship Canal. 2004-2005 acoustic tracking studies. Final report to Seattle Public Utilities.
Federal Register/ Vol. 61, No. 102 / May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 56 / March 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 64, No. 210 / November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol 70, No.170 I Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 185 / September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.
Feist. Blake E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink
(Oncarhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (0. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. FRJ-UW-9603, Fish. Res.
Inst., UW, Seattle, WA.
Fresh, K.L, E. Warner, R. Tabor, and D. Houck. 2000. Migratory behavior of adult Chinook salmon spawning in
the Lake Washington watershed in 1998 and 1999 as determined with ultrasonic telemetry. Extended abstract
and presentation prepared for the Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, November.
Fresh, K. L., D. Rothaus, K. W. Mueller and C. Mueller. 2001. Habitat utilization by predators, with emphasis on
smallmouth bass, in the littoral zone of Lake Washington (draft). WDFW.
Hammer, Misty, King County Road Services Division. 2011. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project.
Biological Evaluation Report for: Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout as protected under the Endangered
Species Act. May Creek, King County, Washington State. Prepared for: King County Water and Land
Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 201 South Jackson Street Ste 600,Seattle, WA
98104-3 856.
Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 -341. /n: V .S. Kennedy
(ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Kahler, T., M. Grassley and David Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, pier and other
artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmon ids in lakes. City of Bellevue.
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (WRIA
8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA.
Myers, J.M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W. Waknitz,
K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of
Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp.
Nightingale, B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 12
Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp.
Rienman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout.
Gen. Tech. Rpl. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 pp.
Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. 0. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in
the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S. Kennedy, (ed.), Estuarine
comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings,
Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.
Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. lmpacts of ferry terminals on juvenile
salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase I: Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to
WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903, Task A2, 116 pp.+ appendices.
Synthesis of salmon research and monitoring. Investigations conducted in the Western Lake Washington Basin.
December 31, 2008. Seattle Public Utilities and the Army Corps of Engineers. Contributors: Mike Cooksey
Peter N. Johnson, Paul De Vries, Michele Koehler, Charles J. Ebel, Lynne Melder, Frederick A. Goetz, Jim
Muck, Julie Hall Eva Weaver
Tabor, R. A. and Richard M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems
of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low, B. Footen and L. Park. 2004. Predation of
juvenile chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
' Tabor, R. A. Howard A. Geams, Charles M. McCoy III , and Sergio Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use by
juvenile chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Annual Report, 2003 and 2004.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. 510
Desmond Drive SE, Suite I 02, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Tabor, Roger A., Kurt L. Fresh, Richard M. Piaskowski, Howard A. Geams & Daniel B. Hayes (2011 ): Habitat
Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Nearshore Areas of Lake Washington: Effects of Depth, Lakeshore
Development, Substrate, and Vegetation, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 31 :4, 700-713
Washington Department offish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft. Parametrix, Inc.
Kirkland, WA.
Williams, G.D., R. M. Thom, D. K. Shreffler, J. A. Southard, L. K. O'Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V. I. Cullinan, R.
MS&A
Moursund, and M. Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure -Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon: Field
Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the Washington State Department of
Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-
AC06-76RLO 1830.
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 13
MS&A
Figure 1. Vicinity map
PROJECT INFORMATION
OWNER:
RICHARD OICERCHIO
DRAWINGS BY:
ECCO DESIGN INC.
203 N 36TH ST SUITE 201
SEATTLE, WA 98103
206-706-3937
SITE ADDRESS:
4005 & 4011 WILLIAMS AVE N
RENTON, WA 98056
PARCEL NUMBER:
(4005) 0518500480 & (4011) 0518500470
BODY OF WATER:
LAKE WASHINGTON
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(0518500480) BARBEE MILL TGW UNO INT IN TRS
A,B,C,D,E,F,G, H,l,K,L,M,N,O & P
(0518500470) BARBEE MILL TGW UNO INT IN TRS
A,B,C,D,E,F,G, H,l,K,L,M,N.O & P
VICINITY MAP
• 1\1! fl<'l~t'/
8rJ•1/e1·c11d
,a L~~e
i'l:"cp/,e 1'<1,/c
'l•.l'l",l ,,
,,~11·-,n
-:.1',,\'
PROJECT SITE:
LAT. 47.52848° N
,-. ,·~
LON: -122.20532° W
NW 1/4 S 32 T24N R SE
Ch~m
llrilcn f'.irk ~ ,-'I,.,.
l(,/1<1rnfy
:]/e•: l',i,.~
\!Nif'r
1·;1,mr-J
!s!amf
l~n'.51 f'ark
j
t,,.,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CONSTRUCT NEW PIER (400 SQUARE FEET),
INSTALL TWO MOORING PILES, INSTALL TWO
NEW BOAT LIFTS, AND INSTALL A TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY.
['.,,,
,.,.,.v, ··1<yw.,1
PURPOSE: Boat Moorage
DATUM: C.O.E. Locks Datum
Est. 1919
ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS:
1. Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC
2. The Lake Houses at Eagle Co
NAME: Richard DiCerchio
REFERENCE#:
SITE LOCATION ADDRESS:
4005 & 4011 Williams Ave. N
Renton, WA 98056
t{·. ',,.'
Renton
PROPOSED: Pier & Boat Lifts
IN: Lake Washington
AT Renton
COUNTY: King STATE: WA
SHEET 1 of 7
DATE: August 25, 2014
OiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 14
MS&A
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SHORELINE
CONFIGURATION AND PROPERTY LINE
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY.
PROPERTY LINES ARE BASED ON
SURVEY REC NO. 20080208000182.
PROPOSED PIER
WI TWO BOAT LIFTS &
TWO MOORING PILES
INSTALL
TRANSLUCENT
BOAT CANOPY
(10.5' BY 30')
i> \ I \
LAKE WASHINGTON
SITE PLAN
SCALE 1" = 60'-0"
0
OHWM
21.85'
125 FT
Figure 2. Site plan
EXISTING
ADJACENT
PIER
OHWM
21 85'
OHWM----
21.85'
EXISTING
ADJACENT PIER
\
THE LAKE HOUSES
AT EAGLE CO
4001 WELLS AVE N
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 2 of 7 Date: 8/2512014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 15
MS&A
/
'
PROPOSED 12"0-
MOORING PILES
PROPOSED
BOAT LIFTS
PROPOSED
TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY
9
b e, '
THRUFLOW
GRATED
DECKING
4" 0 STEEL PILES
FOR FIRST SET
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1" = 10'-0"
o
Figure 3. Plan view
14' 6'-0"
{ ;,
lo C
10'-6"
/ ,
r"" -! /71 lo
(
I -,/ I
I i I
I
I
I
I
j .,
-
I I
I
I I
I I
I ~
I / "' I l,:'. ___ ",,j
20 FT
6'-0"
--.-.-•
> --
..
,~ 0
.
=
4'-0"
{ /
'
a,
~
:!.
•
'
b
N
'
;...
N
'
8" 0 STEEL
PILE SET
10" 0
PILE
STEEL
SET
'
"' ~
8" 0
PILE
'
STEEL
SET
9
b
"
b _,
0
"
'
'
Reference:
9
b co
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 3 of 7 Date: 812512014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 16
MS&A
PROPOSED
TRANSLUCENT CANOPY
PROPOSED PIER
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
OHW 21.85'
-4
-8
-12
<l
Figure 4. Elevation view
80'-0"
/
'Y '
Iii II
/
30'-0"
,(
j
APPROX. LOCATION
OFLAKEBED
ELEVATION VIEW
SCALE 1" ~ 20'-0"
0 40 FT
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 4 of? Date: 8125/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 17
MS&A
Figure 5. A-A pier section view
6'-0 11
/
.:
c},,J . . I ' r . ----I ---·----------
OHW 21.85'
A-A PIER SECTION
SCALE 1 / 2" = 1' ·O"
0 4 FT
/
/
'
I f .
I ·-·-
·-·-
~
~
THRUFLOW GRATED
DECKING
; 4x6 STRINGERS
5 1/8" x 12" G.L.B.
2x6 JOIST
4x6 JOIST @ s· oc
ELECTRICAL CONDUI
STEEL CAP @ PILES
T
1 O" 0 EPOXY COATE D
STEEL PILE
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton. WA
Sheet 5 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 18
MS&A
Figure 6. Existing native vegetation buffer
LAKE WASHINGTON
OHWM
21.85'
"o, 'O,
o>o, ·o,,
PROPOSED PIER
(400 SQ. FT.)
PROPOSED
BOAT LIFTS
-PROPOSED
TRANSLUCENT
CANOPY
"o, 'O,
1-· p,I,\= --·-·
EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION BUFFER
SCALE 1" = 30'-0"
0 60FT
-· -· ---·-· -·
Reference:
-· -· _,-_,
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boal Lifls
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 6 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 19
MS&A
Figure 7. Plant legend
PLANT LEGEND
G AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA / SERVICEBERRY o SAu, SffCHCNS,S, sm<A w,ccow
0 CORN US STOLONIFERA / RED TWIG DOGWOOD
EB MAHON IA AQUIFOLIUM / TALL OREGON GRAPE
@ MAHON IA NERVOSA / LOW OREGON GRAPE
Q RIBES SANGUINEUM / RED FLOWERING CURRANT
0 ROSA NUT KANA/ NOOTKA ROSE
0 SYPHORICARPOS ALBUS/ BALD-HIP ROSE
® VACCINUM OVA TUM/ EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY
* HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS / BLUE OAT GRASS
D ALLIUM CERNUUM / NODDING ONION
D ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI / KINNIKINNIK
D FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS / BEACH STRAWBERRY
D GAUL THE RIA SHALLON / SALAL
Reference:
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
Proposed: Pier & Boat Lifts
At: Renton, WA
Sheet 7 of 7 Date: 8/25/2014
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 20
Attachment 1. Photographs of the site
Steps on the common property line leading to proposed p ier location
Looking northeast along the site
MS&A DiCerchio /Barbee Mill Waterfro nt LLC Jo in t-U se Pier Project • 2 1
Looking southwest at plantings on the DiCerchio parcel
Plantings adjacent to the DiCerchio residence
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Join t-Use Pier Project • 22
Looking southwest -May Creek enters Lake Washington from the left side of the photograph
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joi n t-Use Pier Proje ct • 23
MS&A
Attachment 2. Species List for King County
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT;
CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
IN KING COUNTY
AS PREPARED BY
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHING TON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
(Revised April 24, 2013)
LISTED
Bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus)
Canada lynx (lynx canadensis)
Gray wolf (Canis lupus)
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos ~ U a. horribilis)
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Northern spotted owl (Strix occidental is caurina)
Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal
species include:
1. Level of use of the project area by listed species.
2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks. prey species, and foraging areas in all
3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human
activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species
and/or their avoidance of the project area.
Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) [historic]
Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to
listed plant species include:
I . Distribution of !axon in project vicinity.
2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat.
3. Changes in hydrology where taxon is found.
DESIGNATED
Critical habitat for bull trout
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet
Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl
PROPOSED
North American wolverine (Gula gu/o luteus) -contiguous U.S. DPS
CANDIDATE
Fisher (Martes pennanti) -West Coast DPS
Oregon spotted frog ( Rana pretiosa) [historic]
Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 24
MS&A
SPECIES OF CONCERN
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Belier's ground beetle (Agonum belleri)
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)
Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi)
Larch Mountain salamander (P/ethodon larselli)
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans)
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata marmorata)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi;
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)
Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrines)
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei)
Valley silver spot (Speyer serene brewery)
Western toad (Buja boreas)
Aster curt us (white-top aster)
Botrychium peduncu/osum (stalked moonwort)
Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane)
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 25
Attachment 3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may
adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the relevant species. According to the MSA, EFH
means "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For
the Pacific West Coast, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) has designated EFH for federally
managed groundfish (PFMC 1998a), coastal pelagic (PFMC 1998b) and Pacific salmon fisheries (PFMC 1999).
The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant
species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH.
B. Identification of EFH
The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high water
line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and
California, seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). The
designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for Pacific salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal
submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370 .4
km) offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border PFMC,
1999).
Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other water bodies
currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California, except areas upstream
of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding, naturally-impassable barriers.
Chinook salmon and coho salmon are the species with designated EFH that are found in Lake Washington
C. Proposed Action
The details of the proposed project are presented in section of the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report.
D. Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects
Analysis section of the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report. The project is likely to have no permanent,
long-term effects EFH designated for chinook and coho salmon.
E. EFH Conservation Measures
The conservation measures mentioned in the attached BE/Lake and Stream Study Report will be implemented to
minimize possible adverse effects to EFH.
F. Conclusion
The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH the salmon species, but will not produce long-term
adverse effects on EFH for the above species.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 26
G. Additional References
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix
A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation
Measures for Salmon (August 1999).
MS&A
PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October, 1998).
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998).
DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 27
Attachment 4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook
Project description: Construction of a new community-use dock on Lake Washington in Renton,
This assessment covers the primary constituent elements (50 CFR Part 226, page 74581-2) determined essential to
the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha):
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning,
incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: There are no suitable freshwater spawning sites at the project location.
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat
conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;
and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted immediately landward of the bulkhead in conjunction
with the upland development. There is a concrete/rock bulkhead along the shoreline of both properties. No side
channels or undercut banks were noted.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover
such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and
undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile
and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: See (2) above.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including
aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater area.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,
supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: The site is in a freshwater lake area.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 28
Effects Analysis: A complete discussion of the effects of this project is seen in the BE/Lake and Stream Study
Report. Construction will produce brief and localized increased turbidity, which will be contained by a silt curtain.
The project will have no long-term impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions or water temperature.
Construction during work windows will prevent impacts to the listed fish species.
Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be reduced by design components of the proposed project. The
entire dock will be fully grated. Only two 4" diameter steel pilings will be used to support the first 41' of the pier to
minimize migration obstacles for young salmon ids that prefer the shallowest areas. The construction barge will not
be allowed to ground out on the lake bottom at anytime. Additional native vegetation will be planted.
Determination of Effect: "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 29
Attachment 5.
Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout
Applicant: Richard DiCerchio
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout (Salve/inus corifluentus)
are:
•
(1) Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures
from 32 to 72 °F (0 to 22 °C) but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 °F (2 to 15 °C).
These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation,
diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence.
Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from designation.
Existing Conditions: The project will take place in Lake Washington, a large body of fresh water.
Effects to PCE: The project is not expected to have any influence on the water temperature of Lake Washington.
(2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to
provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in stream structures.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington -not in a stream environment
Effects to PCE: No effect
(3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival,
fry emergence, and young-of-the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal amount of line
substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter.
Existing Conditions: No spawning activity at the site
Effects to PCE: No effect
(4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or. if regulated,
currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout, or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability
to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from
the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation: This rule finds that reservoirs currently
operating under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides management for PCEs as currently operated.
Existing Conditions: Project will take place in Lake Washington
Effects to PCE: The project does not involve any alteration in the lake level; therefore it will have no impact on
this PCE.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 30
•
(5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity as a cold-
water source.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: This project will have no impact on springs, seeps, groundwater sources or subsurface water
(6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning,
rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water
temperatures or low flows.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted along the site shoreline.
Effects to PCE: The proposed dock will incorporate design components that will decrease negative impacts on
foraging habitat and migratory corridors. The proposed dock will be fully grated.
(7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage
fish.
Existing Conditions: Native vegetation has been planted along the site shoreline.
Effects to PCE: See 6 above
(8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not
inhibited.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above.
Effects to PCE: Pile driving may produce temporary turbidity impacts. These are expected to be short term and
are not expected to have a significant impact on critical habitat. Any debris associated with the project construction
phase will be contained by a silt containment curtain.
Determination of Effect: "No destruction or adverse modification"
Conservation Measures: Conservation measures for this project are seen in the BE/Lake and Stream Study
Report.
MS&A DiCerchio/Barbee Mill Waterfront LLC Joint-Use Pier Project• 31