HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-161 Misc_Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary SewerMarch 2001
Revised January 2002
KENNYDALELAKEFRONT
SANITARY SEWER
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
For Coordination with
National Marine Fisheries Service and
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Prepared by:
Adolfson Associates, Inc.
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200
Seattle, Washington 98107
In Cooperation with:
City of Renton Utility Systems
1055 Grady Way South, 5th Floor
Renton, Washington 98055
And
Tetra Tech/KCM
1917 First Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
ADOLFSON
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
J.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. I
l. l PROJECT NEED ................................................................................................................................................ l
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................... l
1.3 PROJECT lNFORMA TION ................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 STUDY PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................ 2
3.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................... 3
4.1 ACTION AREA ................................................................................................................................................. 3
4.2 BASELINE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... , ....... :.,i,, .............................. 4
4.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... '.· ............................... 8
4.4 DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 8
4.5 MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................................................................................... 10
4.6 TIMING/CHRONOLOGY OF SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION ACTIONS ..................................................................... l 0
4. 7 CURRENT AND FUTURE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... I 0
5.0 STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................ 11
5.1 PUGET SOUND ESU CHINOOK SALMON ........................................................................................................ 11
5.2 BALD EAGLE ................................................................................................................................................. 12
5 .3 COASTAL BULL TROUT ................................................................................................................................. 13
5.4 PUGET SOUND/STRAIGHT OF GEORGIA ESU COHO SALMON ........................................................................ 15
6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ........................................................................................................................ 16
6.1 DIRECT EFFECTS ........................................................................................................................................... 16
6.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS ........................................................................................................................................ 21
6.3 CU MULA T!VE EFFECTS .................................................................................................................................. 22
6.4 BENEFICIAL EFFECTS .................................................................................................................................... 23
6.5 CONSERVATION MEASURES .......................................................................................................................... 23
7.0 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
7.1 CHINOOK SALMON ........................................................................................................................................ 24
7.2 BULL TROUT ................................................................................................................................................. 25
7 .3 BALD EAGLE ................................................................................................................................................. 25
7.4 COHO SALMON .............................................................................................................................................. 26
8.0 DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT .............................................................................................................. 26
8.1 THREATENED SPECIES ................................................................................................................................... 26
8.2 PUGET SOUND/COASTAL BULL TROUT .......................................................................................................... 27
8.3 CRITICAL HABITAT ....................................................................................................................................... 28
8.4 CANDIDATE SPECIES ...................................................... , .............................................................................. 28
9.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 29
9.1 POTENTIAi. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................. 30
9.2 EFH CONSERVATION MEASURES .................................................................................................................. 30
9.3 EFH CONCLUSION ................................................................. '. ...................................................................... 30
10.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 31
APPENDIX A: TABLES/ FIGURES
APPENDIX B: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX C: FISH AND WILDLIFE SURVEY RESULTS
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page i
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton Utility Systems currently operates, owns, and maintains the 4, 700-foot long
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer (Lakeline). The Kennydale Lakeline is an 8-inch diameter
cast iron sewer pipeline that serves 52 lakefront homes in the City's Kennydale neighborhood
along Lake Washington (Figure 1; Photos 1 and 2). The existing sewer pipeline was constructed
in 1972 below the ordinary high water mark of Lake Washington and generally extends between
Gene Coulon Park and North 40th Street (Figure 2). Much of the Lakeline was constructed
within 40 feet of the shoreline in less than 6 feet of water. The Lakeline passes beneath many of
the residential docks of the lakefront residences.
1.1 Project Need
Since its construction in 1972, the existing Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Lakeline has
been difficult to maintain due to sags in the pipeline and limited access for maintenance. The
Lakeline was constructed generally following the profile of the lake bottom along its entire
alignment. Initial plans called for the entire pipeline to be buried below the lake bottom, but as a
result of difficult construction, the Lakeline was installed in many places at, or above, the lake
bottom (Tetra Tech/KCM, 2000). A flushing station at Station 0+00 (Figure 2) near Gene
Coulon Park drives wastewater through the Lakeline to a lift station at Station 47+35 (Figure 2)
near 40111 Street. The Lift Station pumps flows to a King County Metro sewer where it is
eventually conveyed to Metro's Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Low flushing velocities in the system result in sediment accumulating in the pipeline sags.
Flushing velocities of about three feet per second (fps) are required to resuspend solids that have
settled in the pipe. However, because of the elevation of many of the waterfront homes served
by the Lakeline, the system must be operated at a flow velocity significantly below 2 fps to
prevent sewage backups into the homes. The City is only able to conduct partial cleaning of the
Lakeline using water jets at clean-outs located at some of the side sewers from the lakefront
properties (Figure 2). While this method does allow cleaning of about half of the pipeline, this
has not been successful at eliminating the collection of waste material at the sag locations. The
accumulation of waste material in the Lakeline has blocked the Lakeline and resulted in
overflows of sewage into Lake Washington in the past (Tetra Tech/KCM, 2000). The sags in the
pipeline occur at the following locations: Station 3+60; Station 21 +50, Station 28+ 30, and
Station 40+ 20 (Tetra Tech/KCM, 2000)(Figure 2). A condition assessment of the Lakeline was
performed in l 999 as part of the project development process. During the condition assessment,
an approximately 2-inch hole was found in the existing lakeline at approximately Station 44+00
(Tetra Tech/KCM, 2000).
1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The proposed action includes the installation of four precast concrete manholes at the sag
locations to allow access to the existing 8-inch Lakeline for maintenance cleaning and repair of
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
the hole found in the existing pipe. Precast manholes would be installed at the following
locations: Station 9+70; Station 21+70, Station 28+30; Station 40+00 (Figure 2). The methods
of construction and discussions of maintenance activities are discussed in detail in Section 4. 7 of
this report. In addition to this work, the City proposes to repair the approximately 2-inch hole
near station 44+00 concurrently with manhole installation.
1.3 Project Information
Project Name:
Location:
Project Proponent:
Contact:
Preparer:
Contact:
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Project
NW'!. Section 5, Township 23, North Range 5 East WM.
SW '!. Section 31, Township 24 North, Range 5 East WM.
122°, 12' 29.5" West 47°, 31' 24.3" North
City of Renton
Utility Systems
1055 Grady Way South, 5th Floor
Renton, Washington 98055
David Christensen
Phone: (425) 430-7212
Adolfson Associates, Inc.
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200
Seattle, Washington 98107
Dave Wortman
Phone: (206) 789-9658
2.0 STUDY PURPOSE
In cooperation with the City of Renton, the project proponent, and Tetra Tech/KCM, the project
engineers, Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Adolfson) has prepared this Biological Evaluation (BE) to
facilitate review of the proposed action as required by section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). This BE has been prepared to facilitate coordination between the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the federal action agency, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), jointly referred to as the Services. Information
provided by NMFS (2000) and USFWS (2000) (Appendix 8) indicates that the project will occur
within the general range of the following species:
20109
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page]
Kennyda/e lakefronl Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
Common Name Scientific Name Regulatory Agency/Status
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha NMFS/Threatened
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus USFWSffhreatened
(Proposed Delisted)
Bull trout Salvelinus conjluentus USFWS/Threatened
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch NMFS/Candidate
3.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
This study has the following objectives:
• To review information on species within the ac~ion area. In addition, Adolfson contacted
regional experts with· specific knowledge of habitat conditions and fish use within Lake
Washington. A listing of pertinent references and contacts is provided at the end of this
report.
• To conduct a review of the project area to observe species habitat site specific conditions.
• To discuss impacts of the proposed action and effects to the species and habitats.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• To discuss permit conditions and additional conservation measures. I
• To provide a recommendation with regard to effect determinations. The final determination I
of effect can only be made by the federal action agency. If the action agency determines that
a project "is likely to adversely affect" listed species or Critical Habitat, then formal
consultation is required·unless an exception applies. If the action agency determines that a I
project is "not likely to adversely affect" listed species or habitat, and the Services provide
written concurrence, formal consultation is not required.
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND THE PROPOSED
ACTION
4.1 Action Area
Work will occur within Lake Washington adjacent to the Kennydale neighborhood within the
City of Renton, Washington. Although work will only occur at four limited locations along the
existing pipeline (Figure 2), the action area for the proposed project may extend to other areas
that may be affected by the proposed action (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). For the purpose of this
assessment, the action area includes all of Lake Washington (Figure 3). Since the lists of species
for this project (NMFS, 200 I; USFWS, 200 I) include fish species which may occur within Lake
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
Washington and since construction projects may have the potential to impact the surrounding
aquatic system beyond the immediate construction area, the action area extends beyond the
immediate vicinity of construction. (Specific effects and their impact on the action area are
discussed in detail in Section 6 of this report).
The species list for this project also includes bald eagle. The action area for bald eagle includes
the topographic section where the project is located and all of the adjacent topographic sections.
This area is considered to be the disturbance zone for bald eagles for construction activities
causing noise but excluding blasting, pile driving, or smoke. Therefore, the action area for bald
eagles includes up to a one-mile radius around the four new manhole locations.
The action area for a federal project encompasses all areas that will be affected directly or
indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50
C.F.R. §402.02). Therefore, before the action area can be determined, the federal agency must
consider the effects of the federal action. Direct effects are the direct or immediate effects of the
project on the species or its habitat. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed
action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur (50 C.F.R. §402.02).
Commonly, sewer improvements, roads, and other infrastructure projects can result in indirect
impacts beyond the areas that may be directly modified or influenced by construction activities.
For projects that may result in secondary impacts, the action area must be extended to include all
areas affected by the project. The existing Lakeline serves 52 developed lots. No new properties
will be connected to sewers as a result of this project. No additional capacity will be added to
the existing Lakeline and no new development is anticipated to occur as a result of the project.
4.2 Baseline Conditions
Baseline conditions within the action area are discussed below in relation to the condition of
indicators critical for the success of healthy fish and wildlife populations. For aquatic systems,
these indicators include: water quality parameters such as temperature, sediment, nutrients, and
chemical contaminants; habitat access and characteristics; channel condition and dynamics; flow
and hydrology; and overall watershed conditions (NMFS, 1996; USFWS 1998). The services
have described thresholds for properly functioning conditions for these indicators based on
flowing systems in montane forested ecosystems. Although environmental conditions in Lake
Washington are, by nature, different from those found in flowing water systems, most elements
necessary to maintain functioning stream and river systems are also important in the lake
environment. Water quality, habitat access, habitat condition, and watershed condition are all
relevant to the discussion of baseline conditions in relation to the lake environment. These
indicators of properly function conditions are summarized in Table I and discussed in detail
below.
4.2.1 Water Quality
No site specific water quality sampling was undertaken for this analysis; however, water quality
data are abundant for Lake Washington in the vicinity of the project. King County maintains a
20109
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 4
Kennydale Lakefronl Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
water quality monitoring buoy approximately 0.25 mile northwest of the Kennydale Lakeline
alignment. In addition, water quality data related to temperature and bacterial counts are
regularly collected at Gene Coulon Park at the southern end of the sewer alignment. Water
quality data for the sampling buoy nearest to the project can be accessed electronically at
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/site0840.htm. Water quality information is
summarized below.
Three main factors contribute to Lake Washington's high water quality: 1) inflow from the Cedar
River, 2) low residence time, and 3) lake depth and turnover cycles. The mouth of the Cedar
River is located one mile to the south of the alignment of the Kenny dale Lakeline. The Cedar
River serves as the primary water supply for the City of Seattle and its upper watershed is
managed to maintain high water quality. This is evident by the fact that the Cedar River
contributes approximately 57 percent of Lake Washington's annual hydraulic flow but only 25
percent of the lake's annual phosphorus load (KCDNR, 2000). High flushing rates and the
lake's natural turnover cycle reduce the tendency of nutrients and other constituents affecting
water quality to accumulate within the basin. The average residence time for the lake is
approximately 2.3 years (KCDNR, 2000) and the depth of Lake Washington and the local
climate causes the lake to turnover annually. Turnover allows mixing that aerates the lake's
depths with oxygen. Dissolved oxygen on the lake bottom prevent phosphorus from releasing
from the lake floor (KCDNR, 2000).
Aerobic dissolved oxygen levels in the lake are relatively high. KCDNR data collected at a
sampling buoy in proximity to the Kennydale Lakeline alignment show dissolved oxygen levels
generally fluctuate between a high of approximately 13 parts per million (ppm) in the winter and
spring to a low of about 8.9 ppm in the summer and fall. Dissolved oxygen levels are highly
dependent on water temperature and the two are inversely related. The lake's temperature is
lowest in the late winter and early spring and is highest in the late summer and early fall.
Surface temperatures in Lake Washington commonly range between a low of about 45 degrees in
March to a high of about 73 degrees in September.
Despite these conditions, there are several water quality issues that remain in Lake Washington.
Some sections of the lake are listed as Clean Water Act 303(d) Impaired and Threatened Surface
Waters (DOE, 2000). These include 1) lower trending pH; 2) annual algal blooms; and 3) high
levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Data analysis shows an upward long-term trend in alkalinity
(KCDNR, 2000). The causes and effects of this trend are not fully understood; however,
changes in alkalinity can change the toxicity of often commonly occurring chemical
contaminants such as aluminum and copper. Although toxic blue green algae blooms have
decreased in frequency since most of the Lake Washington Basin was sewered, spring algal
blooms can result in increases in turbidity and decreases in dissolved oxygen. Natural algae
blooms in 1995 and 1996 were the highest in more than a decade (KCDNR, 2000) and may be an
indicator of increasing nutrient levels within the basin. Fecal coliform bacteria counts have been
high in some localized areas. Fecal coliform counts are highest during the late fall and early
winter as a result of CSO discharges.
20109
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennyda/e lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
4.2.2 Habitat Access
The outlet of Lake Washington is controlled at the Hiram Chittenden Locks operated by the U.S.
Anny Corps of Engineers. The locks are a control structure to maintain the level of Lake
Washington and facilitate the passage of vessels between the freshwater environment of Lake
Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal and the estuarine environment of Salmon Bay
(Puget Sound). The locks were constructed in the early 201h century and in 1917 a fishway ( or
fish ladder) began operation. That original fishway was underutilized as a result of poor
attraction flows and a new fishway was constructed and put into service in 1976. The new
fishway significantly improved upstream fish passage by allowing returning adult salmon and
trout to pass the locks . ..
Although upstream fish passage was enhanced by the new fish ladder, downstream fish passage
has remained an important issue. The Corps has recently undertaken a program to improve
downstream fish passage through the locks. In 1999, the Corps started construction of four
flumes that bypass the locks and fishway and provide a less hazardous route for outmigrating
juvenile salmon and trout (Corps, 2000). In addition to the flumes, the Corps is testing other
methods to exclude fish from hazardous areas of the locks.
4.2.3 Habitat Elements
The south end of the existing Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Line enters Lake Washington at
approximately 2807 Mountain View Avenue North (Station 0+00). From this point north, the
eight-inch pipe lies close to the shore, passing under docks and along bulkheads (Figure 2; Photo
2). As discussed above, most of the Lakeline is covered by lake-bottom sediments.
Approximately 1,000 feet of the 4, 700-foot Lakeline are exposed according to a survey
conducted by the City of Renton in 1987 (Tetra Tech/KCM, 2000).
Adolfson surveyed habitat elements and fish use along the existing Lakeline during the spring of
2000. Adolfson biologists conducted snorkel surveys of the project alignment weekly for eight
weeks during daylight hours. In a separate study conducted concurrently with, but separately
from, the Adolfson study, USFWS biologists conducted night snorkel surveys in the same
general area. Results of the Adolfson habitat survey and fish use evaluation are included as
Appendix C. Results from the USFWS study have not been published, but were publicly
presented at a November 2000 conference. Results of these studies are summarized below.
4.2.3.1 General Habitat Conditions
Since the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal lowered the level of Lake Washington
to its current limits, development has significantly altered the natural configuration of the lake
shore. Much of the shoreline adjacent to the alignment of the Kennydale Lakeline has been
developed with houses, condominiums, bulkheads, docks, boat launches, and landscaped lawns
(Photos I and 2). Natural shoreline conditions are generally lacking.
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 6
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
The Lakeline lies between four to 12 feet of water below the lake surface in most areas. The lake
bottom along the project alignment is generally silty, with occasional cobble, rubble and gravel
(Adolfson, 2000). The southern end of the alignment was generally lacking rooted aquatic
vegetation whereas the bottom of the lake in the northern portion of the alignment is largely
covered by vegetation (mainly milfoil). Some areas of the lake bottom along the alignment were
littered with debris including sunken trees, truck tires, and lumber scraps. The lake shore
contours along the alignment range from gradual natural banks to vertical bulkheads.
4.2.3.2 Site Specific Habitat Descriptions
The proposed action is to install four access manholes at approximately Station 9+70, Station
21 + 70, Station 28+ 30, and Station 40+00 along the existing Lakeline.
Station 9+ 70. The southernmost location is approximately 30 feet from shore. During the spring
time survey, this location was approximately five f~et under water. The dominant substrate is
silt and sand. Bottom habitat structures in this area are dominated by lumber and man-made
debris.
Station 21+70. The proposed manhole location near station 21+70 is approximately 15 feet from
shore. This section of the pipeline is in approximately eight feet of water. The bottom is
relatively steep in this area, with sand substrates. Habitat cover in the area is mainly limited to
docks and pilings.
Station 28+30. This location is in approximately JO feet of water and is approximately 20 feet
offshore. The shoreline adjacent to this location generally consists of bulkheads. As a result,
slopes are vertical at the shoreline, and gradual from the shoreline to the pipeline. The bottom is
sand with some branches and man-made debris.
Station 40+00. This location is approximately 60 feet from shore and is in approximately ten
feet of water. Slopes are gradual and the bottom is dominated by silt and sand with some debris.
The surface is largely covered by docks and moored boats. The Lakeline alignment is located
along the outer perimeter of the docks in this area.
4.2.4 Watershed Conditions
The Lake Washington basin has undergone a number of significant changes in the past 60 years.
Currently, over 60 percent of the land around the lake is fully developed. Prior to I 963, sewage
from surrounding areas was discharged directly to Lake Washington. This resulted in
eutrophication and water quality degradation in the lake. Between 1963 and 1967, sewage
system upgrades diverted sewage discharges from lake, leaving Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSO) the only remaining source of untreated effluent discharge to the lake after I 968. Water
quality improvements rapidly followed.
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
4.3 Project Description
4.3.1 Primary Features of Proposed Action
The proposed action includes the installation of four approximately six-foot round by four-foot
high pre-cast concrete manholes to allow periodic cleaning and maintenance of the Lakeline.
The use of pre-cast manholes will prevent any uncured concrete from coming in contact with the
lake. A typical view of the proposed manhole is included as Figure 3. Manholes will be
installed at approximately Station 9+ 70, Station 21 + 70, Station 28+ 30, and Station 40+00
(Figure 2). The proposed action also includes the repair of the approximately 2-inch hole
discovered in the Lakeline near Station 44+00 during the 1999 condition assessment.
4.3.2 Secondary Features of the Proposed Action
Each manhole will be installed by divers operating·from a floating barge. Barge access will be
via existing facilities. No temporary access points or staging areas, or access roads are expected
to be necessary. No other improvements or modifications to the existing Kennydale Lakefront
Sanitary Sewer are associated with this project.
4.3.3 Construction Duration and Site Preparation
It is anticipated that each pre-cast manhole will require between 8 and 12 hours to install. Repair
of the hole near Station 44+00 is anticipated to take approximately 4 hours. During installation
of each manhole and during repair of the hole, the homes that are served by the sewer will be
prohibited from discharging waste to the Lakeline. Prior to the work, the existing flushing
station at the southern extent of the project alignment will be operated for several hours to flush
all wastewater out of the pipe to the downstream pump station.
4.4 Description of Construction Activities
The final construction sequence for this project will be developed by the contractor prior to the
initiation of work; however, based on previous experience with this type of project it is
anticipated that, from a construction standpoint, the implementation of the proposed action will
be simple and straight-forward.
First the contractor will locate a barge adjacent to each proposed manhole location. The barge
will act as the platform from which all work will occur. A sedimentation curtain will be placed
around the barge and the manhole installation area to contain sediments that may be stirred from
the lake bottom during the installation of the pre-cast manholes. A diver will remove an
approximately 10 foot length of the existing pipe using an underwater saw. The pipeline will be
removed by a crane or similar device mounted on the barge. Following removal of the pipe
segment, both ends of the pipe will be plugged to prevent discharge of material from the pipe.
The contractor will lower the pre-cast manhole into the area where the old pipe was removed.
The manhole will have short pipe stubs at the inlet and outlet to allow it to be connected to the
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page8
Kennydale Lalcefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
existing pipe. The connection will be made using pressure rated couplings. Depending on site
conditions at each manhole location, it may be necessary to remove up to 10 cubic yards of lake
bottom sediments or add up to 3 cubic yards of gravel bedding material per manhole to properly
align the stubs with the existing pipeline. If it is necessary to remove lake bottom material, the
material will be removed by a barge-mounted backhoe. Lake bottom materials will be disposed
of at an upland site to be determined by the construction contractor. If it is necessary to add
gravel bedding material, the bedding material will be similarly added using a backhoe or other
equipment mounted on the barge. The sediment curtain will remain in place while work is in
progress. This procedure will be repeated at each of the four manhole locations.
The hole in the Lakeline will be repaired by removing an approximately 5-foot length of the
existing pipe and replacing it with a new 5-foot section. The remaining pipe and new section
will be connected with pressure-rated couplings on each end. A sediment curtain will be place
around the pipe repair area and will remain in place while construction is in progress.
4.4.1 Clearing and Grading
No shoreline disturbance or other clearing or grading will be necessary to install any of the four
manholes.
4.4.2 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No work is anticipated to occur on land as a result of the proposed action. Erosion from upland
areas and sedimentation from upland sources is not anticipated as a result of this project. As
discussed above, the construction contractor will install a hanging silt curtain entirely around the
construction barge and the manhole location. The silt curtain will be installed to contain any
lake bottom sediments that may be disturbed and re-suspended during construction. The silt
curtain will remain in place when in-water work is in progress to install the pre-cast manholes or
repair the hole in the pipe.
4.4.3 Impervious Surface
No net change in the overall quantity of impervious surface area will occur as a result of this
project corridor.
4.4.4 Blasting
No blasting will be required.
4.4.5 Pile Driving
No pile driving will be required.
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale Lake.front Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
4.4.6 Wetland Impacts
No wetlands will be affected. Approximately 112 square feet (ft2) of lake bottom will be
covered by the pre-cast structures (four manholes with a foot print of approximately 28 ft 2 each).
4.5 Monitoring Plan
A representative of the City of Renton will be on-site during all in-lake construction. This
representative will be responsible for construction observation and project monitoring. The on-
site representative will be present to observe the placement of the silt curtain and all
construction. The installation of each manhole is likely to result in the temporary suspension of
lake sediments. Although plugs will be installed at both cut ends after each section of pipe is cut,
a small amount of flushing water may be discharged to the lake when the existing iron pipe is cut
and removed.
The City of Renton will monitor water quality before, during, and following construction on a
daily basis. Monitoring will include both visual observations of site conditions and sampling.
Sampling will be conducted from the work barge prior to the initiation of work, periodically
during installation of each manhole, and after installation is complete. Dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, and temperature will be recorded during each sampling event.
4.6 Timing/Chronology of Specific Construction Actions
It is anticipated that between 8 and 12 working hours will be required to install each one of the
four pre-cast manhole. Repair of the hole in the line is anticipated to take approximately 4
working hours. Initial setup time will be required at each manhole location and the pipe repair
location to position the barge, deploy the sediment curtain, etc. It is expected that the
construction work in the lake will be completed within a two week time frame between July and
October 2002.
4.7 Current and Future Maintenance Activities
The City of Renton currently performs maintenance on the Lakeline each summer to minimize
sediment accumulation in the pipeline. The pipeline is accessed through five onshore cleanouts
and jetted using a City vactor truck. The City is currently able to jet approximately 2,500 feet of
the 4,700-foot line. Sediment that has accumulated in the line can only be removed at one of the
five cleanout locations. The City plans to continue with this summer cleaning activity in the
future.
Installation of the new manholes will allow those portions of the line not accessible from the
shore to be jetted, and provide a means to remove accumulated sediment from the line during
cleaning operations. Cleaning operations at the manhole locations will be accomplished with a
barge-mounted vactor truck, since shore-side access to the manhole locations will not be
possible. The manholes will be accessed from a portable shaft that is temporarily installed and
extends above the lake level (Figure 3 ). A diver will set the shaft. The lake line will then be
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page /0
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
jetted upstream and downstream of the manhole, and the vactor truck will remove sediment that
is drawn back towards the manhole. This procedure will be repeated at each of the four manhole
locations, and will be conducted by an outside cleaning company with marine expertise.
It is expected that future cleaning activities at the manhole locations will be completed within a
two-week time frame between July and October. The City anticipates cleaning the line from
these locations once every two to five years; however, the required cleaning frequency will
ultimately depend on the rate at which sediment accumulates in the line. Future cleaning
activities will adhere to the procedural and permit requirements that have been adopted at the
time of the cleaning.
5.0 STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
5.1 Puget Sound ESU Chinook Salmon ·
Chinook salmon have a historic range from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope,
Alaska in North America; and from Hokkaido, Japan to Anadyr River in Russia (Myers, et al.,
1998). Chinook salmon in Lake Washington are included in the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, a
population currently listed as threatened under the ESA.
5.1.1 Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat has been designated for Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon and includes all
waterways historically accessib,le to chinook. Lake Washington and all shoreline areas are
included within this designation.
5.1.2 Life History
The life history of Puget Sound chinook salmon is described in detail in NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35 Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California (Myers et al., 1998) and is included herein by reference. A summary
follows to assist in the discussion of effects related to the proposed action.
Chinook require varied habitats during different phases of their life. Spawning habitat typically
consists of riffles and the tailouts of pools with clean substrates dominated by cobbles. These
habitats are located in the mainstem of rivers and large tributaries. Juvenile chinook rear in the
lower mainstem of rivers and tributaries before entering the estuary and salt marshes (Myers et
al., 1998). Adult chinook salmon spawn in freshwater streams in the late summer and fall. Fry
emerge in the late winter and early spring. Juvenile chinook may rear in freshwater from three
months to two years (Myers et al., 1998). Most Lake Washington chinook migrate to salt water
the following spring and summer (Myers et al., 1998; Wydoski and Whitney, 1979); however, a
small portion of the population is expected to rear within the lake and tributary river and streams
from one to three years. The exact percentage of chinookjuveniles that remain in the Lake
20109
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale Lake.front Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
Washington basin beyond the first summer is not clear, although recent evidence indicates it may
be higher than previous estimates of one percent. After outmigrating through the Hiram
Chittenden Locks, most Lake Washington chinook spend from two to four years feeding in the
Puget Sound and North Pacific before returning to spawn. Chinook salmon die after spawning.
5.1.3 Environmental Baseline
Chinook spawning occurs in the larger tributaries of Lake Washington. The highest level of wild
chinook spawning in the basin occurs in the Cedar River and Bear Creek (Williams et al., 1975;
WDFW, 1994; Carrasco, et al., 1999). The mouth of the Cedar River is located approximately
one mile to the southwest of the project area. Bear Creek drains to the Sammamish River that
enters the north end of Lake Washington. In the Cedar River, chinook return in the late summer
and early fall to spawn from mid-September through October. Chinook salmon spawn as far
upstream as the Landburg Dam (RM 21.4) (Williams et al., 1975). Escapement data show a
range of returns to the Cedar River in the late summer and early fall ranging from approximately
400 to 1,800 adults. Stock origin in the Cedar River is native, and reproduction is wild (WDFW,
1994).
Night snorkel surveys of juvenile fish use in southern Lake Washington were conducted by
USFWS biologists in the spring of2000 (WDFW, unpublished) and observations of daytime fish
use were noted during Adolfson's weekly snorkel surveys also conducted in the spring of2000
(Adolfson, 2000). No other publications were identified that discussed chinook use specifically
in the vicinity of the Kennydale Lakeline. No juvenile chinook salmon were identified utilizing
habitats along the Lakeline alignment during the day. Chinook juveniles were observed in the
project vicinity at night congregating along shoreline areas with gradually sloping bottoms and
sandy substrates (Piaskowski, personal communication, 2000). Although the results of the
USFWS dive survey have not been published, preliminary analysis indicates that most juvenile
salmonids were most often associated with the shallow water zones immediately along the
lakeshore in areas lacking complex bottom substrates and with limited overhead cover. It is
unclear if juvenile chinook prefer these habitats or if they are merely avoiding deeper habitats
with more complex cover because these areas may also provide cover for potential predators.
Smallmouth bass, in particular, were commonly observed within the project area in association
with overhead cover or large substrates (riprap) (Adolfson, 2000; Piaskowski, personal
communication, 2000).
5.2 Bald Eagle
The bald eagle is federally listed as threatened in Washington State. Bald eagle populations in
Washington have recently been proposed for de listing by USFWS; however, the publication of a
final de listing rule, if determined by USFWS to be warranted, is not anticipated prior to project
implementation.
20109
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 12
Kennydale lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
5.2.1 Critical Habitat
No Critical Habitat has been designated or proposed for bald eagles.
5.2.2 Life History
The life history of bald eagles is described in detail in the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan
(USFWS, 1986) and is included herein by reference. A summary follows to assist in the
discussion of effects related to the proposed action.
Bald eagles are both residents in, and migrants through, King County. Eagle populations are
usually highest in the Puget Sound region in January, when birds that had moved north in late
summer to feed on coho salmon runs in British Columbia and Alaska return to winter in the
region (Matthews, 1988). In western Washington, bald eagles breed during mid-to late winter.
Bald eagles typically return to one of several nests located within an established nesting territory
(Matthews, 1988; Stalmaster, 1978). Eggs laid in March and April hatch within one and a half
months. Young eagles hatched in June will generally fledge in mid-summer (September). As
bald eagles are primarily fish eaters, they usually nest within one mile of open water. Their
home range generally extends up to eight miles from the nest (Muller, personal communication,
1994).
Bald eagles generally perch, roost, and build nests in mature trees near water bodies and
available prey. Bald eagles usually spot prey while perching or soaring (Ehrlich et al., 1988).
Stalmaster (1987) reports that typically over 50 percent of an eagle's diet comes from fish, 25
percent from other birds, and 15 percent from mammals, although they will also feed on carrion
(Stokes and Stokes, 1989; Matthews, 1988).
5.2.3 Environmental Baseline
The occurrence of bald eagles in central Puget Sound has been documented since pre-settlement
times. Eagle populations have decreased within the region as a result of hunting (legal until the
1940's) and the widespread use of DDT. Since DDT was banned in 1972, bald eagle numbers
have been increasing in the region. The rivers and numerous lakes in the Puget Sound lowlands
provide habitat for both nesting and wintering bald eagles.
5.3 Coastal Bull Trout
The historical distribution of bull trout extends from northern California to Alaska. In
Washington, bull trout are found throughout coastal and inland streams and lakes (WOW, 1991).
Bull trout in the Lake Washington basin are considered coastal bull trout. This population has
been listed by USFWS as threatened.
20109
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
5.3.1 Critical Habitat
No Critical Habitat has been established or identified for coastal bull trout.
5.3.2 Life History
The life history of coastal bull trout is described in detail in the Determination of Threatened
Status for Bull Troul in the Coterminous United Slates; Fina/Rule (Federal Register, 1999
(USFWS, 1986) and is included herein by reference. A summary follows to assist in the
discussion of effects related to the proposed action.
Bull trout have a complex life history that includes a resident form and a migratory foJII1. The
individuals of the migratory form may be stream dwelling (fluvial), lake-dwelling (adfluvial), or
ocean-or estuarine-dwelling (anadromous) (USFWS, 1998). Individuals of each form may be
represented in a single population; however, migratory populations may dominate where
migration corridors and sub-adult rearing habitats are in good condition (USFWS, 1998). Most
inland populations of bull trout are either fluvial or adfluvial, migrating from larger rivers and·
lakes to spawn in smaller tributary streams in September through October (Wydoski and
Whitney, 1979). Bull trout spawn in streams with clean gravel substrates and cold (less than 9
degrees Celsius/48 degrees Fahrenheit) water temperatures (USFWS, 1998). Spawn timing is
relatively short, spanning from late October through early November. Redds are dug by females
in water eight to 24 inches deep, in substrate gravels 0.2 to 2 inches in diameter (Wydoski and
Whitney, 1979). Emergence generally occurs in the spring. Bull trout are opportunistic feeders,
consuming fish in the water column and insects on the bottom (WDFW, 1991 ).
5.3.3 Environmental Baseline
Low stream temperatures and clean substrates are key features of bull trout habitat. This species
is most commonly associated with pristine or only slightly disturbed basins (USFWS, 1998).
Bull trout and Dolly Varden occurrence in the Lake Washington drainage basin is rare. The Bull
Trout and Dolly Varden Appendix to the 1998 Salmonid S1ock Inventory (WDFW, 1998) states
that reproducing populations of native char (potentially including both bull trout and Dolly
Varden) within the Lake Washington basin are limited to the upper Cedar River basin in Chester
Morse Lake (WDFW, 1998). The adfluvial population of native char in Chester Morse Lake is a
glacial relic separated from stocks in the Snohomish River system when the outlet of Chester
Morse Lake was diverted south during the last glacial period (WDFW, 1998). The waterfall that
resulted at the outlet of the lake, known as Cedar Falls, is a blockage to anadromous populations.
Even though reproducing bull trout populations have not been documented in the Lake
Washington Basin below Chester Morse Lake (WDFW, 1998), adult fluvial bull trout may enter
Lake Washington from other basins to forage. The extent of use by bull trout in Lake
Washington is unknown, but expected to be rare. The shoreline of Lake Washington is
considered an "intermittent use zone" for foraging bull trout (USFWS, 2000). Only IO bull
trout/Dolly Varden individuals have been observed and documented in Lake Washington
drainage in the last 20 years (WDFW, 1998). Three of these observations were made in the
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page /4
Kennyda/e Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
Cedar River delta (near the Lake Washington confluence) in the mid-l 980s and are thought to
represent anadromous bull trout straying from other basins (KCDNR, 2000). No bull trout were
observed during the snorkel surveys conducted in 2000. The presence of bull trout in the project
area is estimated to be low due to the rarity of the species in the watershed.
5.4 Puget Sound/Straight of Georgia ESU Coho Salmon
Coho salmon are currently a candidate fish stock. No protection for candidate stocks is afforded
under the ESA, and section 7 consultation or conference with NMFS is not required for
anticipated impacts to these species. Summary information for this candidate species is included
herein in the event these candidate species become listed or proposed prior to project completion.
5.4.1 Critical Habitat
No Critical Habitat has been identified or proposed for coho salmon.
5.4.2 Life History
The life history of Puget Sound coho salmon is described in detail in NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24 Status Review a/Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and
California (Weitkamp et al., 1995) and is included herein by reference. A summary follows to
assist in the discussion of effects related to the proposed action.
Coho salmon are anadromous, and occur in most major river basins around the Pacific Rim from
central California to Korea and northern Hokkaido, Japan (Weitkamp et al., 1995). Adult coho
salmon spawn in freshwater streams in the late fall and early winter. Coho typically spawn in
low gradient riffles with clean substrates ranging from pea-sized gravels to orange-sized cobbles
(Henry, 1995). Rearing juveniles prefer off-channel pools with complex cover including both
large and small woody debris (Henry, 1995). Juvenile coho rear in freshwater for a year to 18
months. Smolts migrate to the ocean in the spring of their second year. Most male coho, and all
female coho, spend from 16 to 20 months rearing in the ocean and return to spawn in fresh water
as three-year old adults.
5.4.3 Environmental Baseline
Coho are known to occur in the Lake Washington Basin including two tributary basins in
proximity to the Kennydale area, the Cedar River and May Creek systems. Juvenile coho are
known to rear in the nearshore environments of Lake Washington during the late spring, and may
be present, at least in smaller numbers, throughout the year. Schools of coho fry (estimated at
between one and two inches long) were observed along the project alignment during several of
the spring 2000 snorkel surveys (Adolfson, 2000). These fry were commonly found among
schools of three-spine stickleback and were generally situated in shallow, protected areas along
the shore. Occasionally schools of coho and stickleback were observed positioned in the water
column. The four manhole locations are all in deeper water than coho were commonly observed.
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page /5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
Potential impacts related to the proposed action are discussed below. Close coordination with
the project design engineers has occurred to determine anticipated construction techniques and
potential impacts. Discussed below are the potential effects that could occur unless adequately
avoided or mitigated. Conservation measures that have been implemented during project design
or that will be implemented during project construction are discussed in Section 6.5 of this
document. The expected potential of the project to affect listed species considering the
conservation and mitigation measures is summarized in Section 7 .0 of this report. Statements of
determination of effects are included for each species in Section 8.0 of this report.
6.1 Direct Effects
6.1.1 Fish Species
The proposed project has three primary actions that could result in direct effects to fish species or
critical habitat unless adequately avoided, minimized, or otherwise mitigated. The first effect is
related to temporary impacts that may occur during the installation of the four pre-cast manholes.
The second effect is related to the effects on the habitat of listed or candidate species related to
the four pre-cast manholes. The third effect is related to the potential for increased predation of
juvenile salmonid fish as a result of changes to habitat conditions at the location of the four pre-
cast manholes.
As described in Section 4. 7 above, future cleaning activities at the manhole locations are
expected to be completed within a two-week time frame between July and October. This work
will be accomplished by an outside cleaning company with marine expertise.
6.1.1.1 Construction-Related Effects
Construction-related effects to chinook salmon, coho salmon, and bull trout are anticipated to be
related to three actions: 1) increased turbidity within the work areas during construction; 2)
temporary habitat exclusion during construction; and 3) the potential for the release of hazardous
material into the _lake environment during construction.
Turbidity. As discussed in Section 4.4 of this study, the project is anticipated to cause increased
turbidity in the proximity of each manhole and the hole repair during construction as a result of
the temporary disturbance of lake-bottom sediments. It is anticipated that turbidity will be
limited to the area around the work area by a silt curtain that will remain in place during the
installation of each pre-cast manhole and the hole repair; however, elevated turbidity levels are
anticipated within the work area delineated by the silt curtain.
Work to install the manholes will require a diver to remove a section of the existing pipeline and,
with the assistance of a barge-mounted crane or similar device, position the new pre-cast
manholes on the lake bottom such that the stubs on the manhole are aligned with the cut ends of
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page /6
Kennydale Lake.front Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
the pipeline. The habitat surveys conducted by Adolfson during the spring of 2000 identified
that the bottom substrates along the existing pipeline included silty sediments. It is likely that
the necessary activity to install the pre-cast manholes will disturb the bottom sediments and
result in a temporary increase in turbidity within the work area.
The level of suspended sediments that can affect salmonids depends on many factors including
the level of background turbidity, the amount of increase in turbidity, and duration of increased
turbidity (NMFS, 2000). A study by Servizi and Martens (1992 in NMFS, 2000) indicated that
turbidity alone is not likely to result in direct mortality unless extremely high levels occur;
however, other studies have shown that juvenile salmon avoid turbid water when turbidity
exceeded a threshold level. Bisson and Bilby (1982 in NMFS, 2000) found that the avoidance
threshold for coho was 70 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Berg and Northcote (1985 in
NMFS, 2000) demonstrated habitat displacement, disruption of feeding and social behavior, and
gill flaring of juvenile coho because of increased turbidity as a result of upland sediment.
The silt curtain installed around the work area at each manhole is anticipated to preclude fish
from moving into the work area during installation of the pre-cast manholes (see discussion
below). This will generally limit the potential exposure of fish to increased levels of turbidity
within the silt curtain. The potential exposure of chinook salmon, coho salmon, and bull trout to
increased turbidity is also limited by the timing of the project in the late summer and early fall,
after the period that juvenile salmonids are commonly found in nearshore habitats. in Lake
Washington.
Habitat Exclusion. The silt curtain installed to limit the potential effects of increased turbidity
will temporarily exclude chinook salmon, coho salmon, and bull trout from the work area.
Generally, this is a positive effect, as this will lower the potential exposure of these species to
conditions within the silt curtain; however, fish that would normally use these areas will be
displaced to other habitats. Overall, potential harm as a result of this displacement is anticipated
to be discountable. The silt curtain is expected to remain in place at each manhole for only one
work-day and will be removed following construction as discussed above. Similarly, the work is
scheduled in the late summer and early fall, following the period that juvenile salmonids are
commonly found in nearshore habitats in Lake Washington.
Discharge of Hazardous Materials. There are two potential pathways for hazardous materials to
enter Lake Washington during construction: I) as a result of spills of potentially toxic materials
(e.g., hydraulic fluid, gasoline, and oil) used during construction, or 2) from the existing sewer
line after the line has been cut to allow installation of each manhole. All life stages of chinook,
coho, or bull trout present in the affected area of Lake Washington could be harmed by the
discharge of hazardous materials.
Several conditions will exist that are anticipated to limit the potential for harm to chinook, coho,
or bull trout as a result of the potential discharge of hazardous materials. A spill prevention and
contingency plan will be required to be developed and implemented by the construction
contractor. This requirement will be included in the construction specifications for this project.
The silt curtain will be suspended from a floating boom that will be installed around the work
area and will help contain any floating materials from exiting the work area. The discharge of
hazardous materials from the cut sewer pipeline is not anticipated during construction. The
20109
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale lake.front Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
pipeline will be flushed for several hours prior to work. Cut ends of the pipe will be plugged to
avoid discharge of material while construction is underway. Also, the pipeline serves only
residential homes. No industrial properties that may handle hazardous materials are served by
the Kennydale Lakeline.
6.1.1.2 Habitat Modifications
The degree that habitat modifications could affect chinook salmon, coho salmon, and bull trout is
largely dependent on the extent of habitat alterations and the level of use of those habitats by
these species. A relatively small quantity oflake bottom will be impacted by the proposed
project. The proposed action includes installing four pre-cast manholes. Each of the pre-cast
manholes measure approximately 6 feet in diameter by four feet high. Each manhole will cover
approximately 28 ft 2 of lake bottom. A total of 112 ft' of lake bottom (28 ft 2 x 4 manholes) will
be covered by the four newly installed manholes. Up to 3 feet of the manhole may extend above
the lake bottom depending on the depth required to bury the bottom of the manhole to align the
manhole with the existing Lakeline. Manholes will be installed at approximately Station 9+ 70,
Station 21 + 70, Station 28+ 30, and Station 40+00 along the existing Lakeline (Figure 2). Habitat
conditions at each location are summarized in Section 4.2.3.2 of this report.
The installation of the four manholes will not occur within habitats used as migratory corridors
or for spawning by adult chinook salmon, coho salmon, or bull trout. None of the four proposed
manhole locations are situated at the mouths of streams or rivers that may be used by adult
salmonids for spawning. Lake Washington is known to contain a non-native population of lake-
spawning sockeye salmon originally planted from Baker Lake stocks (Skagit River drainage);
however, lake-spawning populations of chinook or coho are not known to occur in Lake
Washington. Reproducing populations of migratory bull trout are not known to occur in Lake
Washington; therefore, it is unlikely that bull trout spawning or juvenile bull trout rearing would
be present in the vicinity of the project alignment.
Juvenile chinook and coho are known to use Lake Washington as rearing habitat and utilize
habitats in the vicinity of the Kennydale Lakeline during some periods of their early life history.
Extensive use of habitats at the four proposed manhole locations is not anticipated, however,
because of existing habitat conditions at each of the four proposed manhole locations. Surveys
of the project corridor during the spring of 2000 found that most habitat use by juvenile
salmonids along the project corridor occurs in shallow nearshore areas (less than 3 feet in depth)
(Adolfson, 2000; WDFW, unpublished). Although coho salmon were occasionally observed in
the water column in the vicinity of the sewer line alignment during day surveys, juvenile coho
were never observed in close association with the lake bottom at depths of greater than 3 feet.
WDFW biologists conducting surveys in 2000 for chinook salmon abundance found that juvenile
salmonids, particularly juvenile chinook salmon, were most frequently found in less than 3 feet
of water over gently sloping bottoms free from debris, with substrates of sand or small gravel.
The bottom of the lake at each of the four proposed manhole locations is irregular and littered
with debris. The avoidance of this type of the lake bottom may be a r~sponse to reduce potential
predation. Deeper water with irregular bottoms may provide increased opportunities for
predators on juvenile salmon ids. Predation is discussed in more detail in the following section.
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page /8
Kennydale Lalcefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
6.1.1.3 Predation
Predator-prey relationships are complex and impacts associated with predation are difficult to
quantify with certainty. The following discussion is provided to identify potential contributing
and mitigating factors related to predation on listed and candidate species.
Although juvenile chinook and coho are not expected to extensively utilize habitats along the
lake bottom at the four manhole locations, they may occasionally occur in the water column
above each manhole and juvenile coho and chinook are known to utilize the shoreline parallel to
the project alignment (WDFW, unpublished). If the project were to provide increased habitat
opportunities for predators of juvenile chinook or coho, it may be expected that predation on
these juvenile fish could increase. The potential for predators to impact salmonid populations is
a primary concern to fisheries managers. Predation effects are usually associated with impacts
from other fish stocks on rearing and outmigrating juveniles, although predation by birds on
juveniles and predation by marine mammals on returning adults may be significant concerns in
other areas (Myers et al., 1998).
There are many predators to juvenile salmonids in Lake Washington. Smallmouth bass,
largemouth bass, northern pikeminnow, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and sculpin are found in
the lake and all are known predators on juvenile salmonids. Predator-prey relationships related
to chinook salmon and coho salmon in Lake Washington have only recently begun to be
investigated in detail; however, there is a growing body of infonnation on predation of juvenile
salmonids in other drainages and there are studies that address effects of predation on other
juvenile salmonids in Lake Washington. Specifically, three studies were identified in the course
of this assessment that specifically address predation of juvenile salmonids by these species.
Fayram (1996) observed predation rates oflargemouth bass and smallmouth bass in Lake
Washington. Swartzman and Beauchamp (1990) and Beauchamp et al. (1992) studied predation
rates on juvenile salmon by rainbow trout cutthroat and found that the most predation by rainbow
trout and cutthroat trout on juvenile salmonids occurred in pelagic ( deep water) areas of the lake.
These studies also identified that juvenile sockeye salmon, which are relatively abundant in Lake
Washington, were the most common salmonid prey ofpiscivorous rainbow and cutthroat trout
(longfin smelt and juvenile sockeye salmon accounted for the majority of these trout's diet as
observed during the study period).
In addition to these published works, the USFWS initiated an investigation of predation by
northern pikeminnow and bass in Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 2000
(USFWS, unpublished). Initial results indicate that predation rates of bass and northern pike
minnow on juvenile salmonids were high in Lake Union and the ship canal during periods of
juvenile salmon outmigration. Fayram (1996) also found the highest predation rates observed in
their study at one of the study sample sites at the mouth of the Lake Washington Ship Canal;
however, this study found little salmonid predation by bass in less confined areas. These results
are consistent with infonnation from other drainages that show that juvenile salmonids are not
commonly a large component of the diets of predators such as pikeminnow and bass under
natural conditions. The potential for increased rates of predation is highest at dams and in areas
that attract both rearing juvenile salmonids and predators (Tabor et al., 1993 ).
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale lakefronl Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
Predation is of greatest concern in areas where habitats that attract rearing salmonids, such as
backwaters, and habitats that attract predators, such as developed shorelines, are closely
associated (Tabor et al., 1993; Farr and Ward, 1993). In other areas piscivorous predators appear
to key in on the most abundant prey, and may exclude less abundant prey items from their diet
when their preferred prey are available (Swartzman and Beauchamp, 1990). Where predatory
fish and juvenile salmonids occur together under more natural shoreline conditions ( compared to
conditions at dams or confined channels), predators tend to key in on other prey unless juvenile
salmonids are particularly abundant and/or other prey species were in short supply (Swartzman
and Beauchamp, 1990; Tabor et al., 1993; Beauchamp et al., 1992; Beauchamp, 1995; Fayram,
1996).
The proposed action could result in increased rates of predation if it were to result in increased
habitat for predators and provided increased opportunities for these predators to prey on juvenile
chinook or coho. Adolfson biologists conducted snorkel surveys of the project alignment weekly
for eight weeks from mid April through mid June. Adolfson (2000) observed relatively few
predators during their spring 2000 habitat surveys .. Although the concentrations of predators
were relatively sparse, individual smallmouth bass were regularly observed along the project
alignment. In every instance where smallmouth bass were observed, they were closely
associated with overhanging structures such as sunken logs and, in least one instance, under the
sewer pipeline where the pipeline was raised from the lake bottom. In all instances where bass
were observed during the habitat surveys, they were found stationed along the bottom of the lake
under overhanging cover suspended approximately one foot above the lake bottom.
In summary, because the project will result in modifications to habitat, and these general types of
modifications have been associated with increased abundance of predatory fish, particularly
smallmouth bass (Tabor et al., 1993; Farr and Ward, 1993), the possibility of increased predation
cannot be completely discounted. But although not completely discountable, the installation of
the four pre-cast manholes is not anticipated to result in significant increased predation rates
along the project alignment. The four manhole locations are not associated with backwater
areas, confined channels, stream•mouths, or other areas that may concentrate juvenile salmonids
(prey) and trigger predators associated with habitats near the Lakeline to display an increased
preference for juvenile salmonids. Because the manholes will be partially buried, no
overhanging cover will be created and there will be no opportunity for bass or other predatory
fish to hide under the manhole and ambush juvenile chinook or coho. These factors are expected
to result in minimal increases to the risk of predation as a result of the proposed action.
6.1.2 Critical Habitat for Chinook Salmon
Modifications to habitat within the project corridor are discussed in detail in section 6.1.1.2.
Roughly 5 acres of similar lake bottom habitat occurs along the alignment of the 4, 700-foot
Lakeline. The project will result in the loss of approximately 112 square feet of lake bottom
habitats within the Kennydale area of Lake Washington. This represents a loss of approximately
0.05 percent of the available lake bottom habitat along the project alignment. While this impact
is not discountable, it has a relatively low level of significance when compared to the potential
long term water quality impacts that could continue to occur as a result of continued overflows
20109
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 20
Kennyda/e lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
from the pipeline. This relatively small impact to critical habitat is not expected to be limiting
within the system nor result in significant long-term adverse impacts to habitat.
6.1.3 Potential Direct Effects on Bald Eagle
Eagles have been found to be sensitive to both noise and human activity within specific distances
of their nests (Stalmaster, 1987; Watson, 1994). Recommended buffer zones around nest sites
range from 600 to 800 feet (Watson and Cunningham, 1994). Less is known about eagle
tolerance of human activity near feeding or perching sites. The WDFW recommends a buffer of
1,500 feet between feeding areas and both human activity and permanent structures. In perching
areas, where little screening is present, buffers of 800 to 1,000 feet are recommended
(Stalmaster, 1987). The closest known bald eagle territories are more than l mile north of the
project area on Mercer Island. No known nesting, roosting, or perching habitat will be impacted
by the project.
Bald eagles may forage along Lake Washington in the vicinity of the project. The highest level
of foraging activity is expected during the spring and early summer when nest sites along Lake
Washington may be occupied (May through mid-August). The proposed construction window is
anticipated to occur within this period; therefore, some foraging activity may occur within the
project area during the construction window for this project since eagles are not precluded from
the project area and the bald eagle has an extensive prey base. The project area currently
experiences noise and activity associated with Interstate 405, industrial activity and a seaplane
facility along the southern shore of Lake Washington. In addition, high levels of recreational
boating and other human activity associated with nearby Gene Coulon Park and Kennydale
Beach Park occur in the area.· Eagles that may forage in the project area are likely to be
acclimated to activities associated with urban development. Impacts to foraging eagles are not
anticipated to be significant.
6.2 Indirect Effects
6.2.1 Potential Indirect Effects On Fish Species
The most common indirect effects resulting from construction projects are usually related to
habitat modifications that result in impacts to listed species or habitat that may occur later in time
beyond the period of construction. For this project, the modification of habitats and increased
potential for predation are two impacts that could continue beyond the period of initial
construction. These potential direct effects are discussed in detail in Section 6.1 of this·
assessment. In addition to actions that specifically alter habitat elements, projects related to
infrastructure often have indirect impacts related to secondary actions that are either interrelated
and/or dependent on the infrastructure modifications.
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennyda/e Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evoluolion
6.2.1.1 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
The purpose of the proposed action is to construct four access locations so that the City of
Renton can perform routine and scheduled maintenance on the existing sewer pipeline. The
project has been initiated because the existing Lakeline has sags that tend to collect material and
have resulted in occasional overflows of raw sewage into Lake Washington.
As discussed in Section 1, the Kennydale Lakeline is an 8-inch diameter cast iron sewer pipeline
that serves 52 lakefront homes in the City's Kfennydale neighborhood along Lake Washington.
Currently all of the lots served by the Lakeline have been developed. No additional sewer
hookups will be facilitated by the proposed construction and the proposed action will not add
capacity for the purpose of expanding development within the City of Renton.
6.2.2 Critical Habitat for Chinook Salmon
The primary indirect effect on Critical Habitat for chinook salmon would be as a result of habitat
modifications associated with the installation of each of the four pre-cast manholes. The
implications of these alterations are discussed in Sections 6.1.1.2 and 6.1.2.
6.2.3 Potential Indirect Effects on Bald Eagles
Indirect effects to bald eagles could occur if the proposed action were to reduce or eliminate
habitat for eagles or their prey. No perching, nesting, or roosting habitat will be altered by the
proposed action. No trees will be removed.
Waterfowl prey are abundant in Lake Washington. Seasonal concentrations of these prey species
may provide good foraging opportunities for eagles. Other birds in the project vicinity are likely
to be affected to differing degrees by the noise and human activity associated with the sewer line
project. Most of the species that currently utilize this habitat are acclimated to a wide range of
human activities. Individual birds may be temporarily displaced by the project activities. Most
of the displaced birds are anticipated to be waterfowl; however, these impacts are anticipated to
be relatively short term and are anticipated to be limited to the period when work is actively
occurring to install each manhole. Impacts to the eagle's avian prey base are not expected to be
consequential.
6.3 Cumulative Effects
The NMFS and USFWS ( 1998) identify cumulative effects as actions that are reasonably certain
to occur, and not involving a federal action. Projects involving a federal action would be
evaluated through a separate section 7 review. Most actions directly affecting the lake would
require at least one federal permit nexus and therefore would be reviewed separately.
This project is not expected to significantly increase the cumulative effect of development;
however. cumulative effects are expected to continue regardless of the proposed action. This
study did not include a comprehensive study of land use in the Lake Washington basin; however,
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 22
Kennydale lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
some level of potential cumulative effects are evident. The shoreline of Lake Washington both
in the Kennydale area and elsewhere is largely developed (Photos I and 2). Shoreline uses range
from high intensity industry to single family homes, to parks and open space. Development in
the entire Lake Washington Basin including shoreline areas has resulted in an overall
degradation of aquatic habitats in the action area as discussed in Section 4 of this assessment. A
patchwork of existing zoning codes, sensitive areas regulations, and comprehensive plans
regulate land use in the Lake Washington Basin. Some portion of the lake shore is located
within 12 local jurisdictions (Renton, Newcastle, Bellevue, Mercer Island, Beaux Arts Village,
Medina, Hunts Point, Kirkland, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Seattle, and King County) all with
differing land-use regulations. However, Lake Washington has been designated a Shoreline of
the State and any development within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the lake is
subject to review under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act.
6.4 Beneficial Effects
The USFWS and NMFS (1998) identify beneficiai"effects as actions which "are
contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects." While the conservation measures
presented below are expected to result in some benefits, these are not considered "beneficial
effects" since they are intended to avoid or minimize anticipated adverse effects. The primary
beneficial effect of the project will result from increased reliability in the area's sanitary sewer
system that will reduce the risk of untreated sewage being discharged into Lake Washington as a
result of overflows from the Kennydale Lakeline.
6.5 Conservation Measures
A number of conservation measures will be undertaken to minimize potential impacts to listed
and candidate species during construction:
I. To avoid potential direct and indirect effects, all permitting agencies, the contractor, and the
City of Renton will designate a primary and secondary contact representative. Project goals,
methods, schedule, and target milestones will be discussed during a pre-construction meeting
attended by all representatives. All coordination will occur through these individuals. The
designated representatives will be responsible for distributing pertinent project information to
other parties within their organizations.
2. To help avoid unanticipated direct impacts and to minimize identified direct impacts during
construction, a qualified fisheries/wildlife biologist will be available on an on-call basis
throughout the construction period to advise the City of Renton regarding site specific
conservation measures and to provide general spot checks of the implementation of turbidity
control measures. The on-call biologist will report directly to the City of Renton
representative or agent on-site.
3. To minimize the potential for unanticipated impacts and to insure compliance with permit
conditions, the City of Renton will designate a responsible party_ who is to remain on-site
during construction to install each manhole. City representatives are expected to include the
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennyda/e lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
on-site construction inspectors and/or engineers who will be present whenever work is
occurring on the project.
4. To minimize the potential for unanticipated impacts and to insure compliance with permit
conditions, lake water will be periodically tested for compliance with State of Washington
water quality standards. Testing will occur each day prior to the start of construction and
will occur throughout the work day. The silt curtain installed along the work area will not be
removed until work is completed for each manhole and the pipe repair.
5. To avoid potential direct impacts to rearing juvenile salmonids, in-water construction will
only occur from July 15 to October 15 or as otherwise specified by the WDFW HPA permit
( currently pending).
6. To minimize the potential for accidents resulting in direct effects to listed and candidate fish,
construction equipment will be fitted with emergency spill kits and construction crews will
be trained in their proper use.
7. To minimize the potential for accidents which may result in direct effects to listed fish and
wildlife, the City of Renton or their agent will be responsible for informing and educating all
crew members and all onsite personnel, including the personnel of subcontractors,
independent operators, and vendors. Personnel will be informed of environmental
precautions and permit conditions.
7.0 SUMMARY
7.1 Chinook Salmon
Chinook salmon are present in the Lake Washington basin and are known to utilize the lake as a
migratory corridor and as rearing habitat. Over their entire range, juvenile chinook may rear in
fresh water systems for up to three years. Most juvenile chinook salmon in the Lake Washington
drainage rear in fresh water for between one and six months before migrating to Puget Sound via
the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Some component of this population is thought to hold over
within the lake for longer periods.
Juvenile chinook salmon in Lake Washington are closely associated with nearshore lake
environments and appear to prefer shallow-water habitats with gradually sloping bottoms having
uniform, small-grained substrates. Juvenile chinook use is common in Lake Washington through
mid July when it is thought that the majority of chinook outmigrate.
Juvenile chinook salmon have been observed during night snorkel surveys along the lakeshore in
the vicinity of the Kennydale Lakeline alignment; however, no juvenile chinook were observed
along the alignment of the sewer pipeline during daylight surveys in the spring of 2000. Juvenile
chinook are not expected to occur in close association with the habitats located in the vicinity of
the proposed locations of the four new manholes.
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 24
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
Installation of the manholes will result in temporary and permanent alterations of Lake
Washington. Installation of the pre-cast manholes may result in temporary increases in turbidity
within the immediate work area and juvenile chinook will be temporarily excluded from habitats
in the immediate work area during construction. Water quality in the lake could also be affected
by spills of hazardous materials should they occur during construction. The level of adverse
effect of each of these potential impacts is anticipated to be low. Construction will employ best
management practices including the installation of a silt curtain to limit turbidity. Water quality
will be monitored during construction. Habitat exclusion is not anticipated to result in a limiting
condition for chinook. Work will occur during a relatively short period of time after most
juvenile chinook salmon are expected to have outmigrated from the lake, and each manhole
location is not consistent with habitats commonly preferred by rearing chinook (deeper habitats
with irregular bottoms).
Each manhole will occupy approximately 28 ft 2 and will extend up to three feet above the lake
bottom. While this modification is not anticipated to result in limitations to chinook salmon by
significantly reducing habitat opportunities (the foµr manholes will cover only about 0.05
percent of the lake bottom within the project corridor), the manholes may provide increased
habitat opportunities for predator species. The potential for increased predation cannot be
discounted; however, the design of the manholes and their location in open portions of the lake
will likely reduce the potential for increased predation to negligible levels. In the long term, the
proposed action is not anticipated to result in adverse indirect, interrelated, or interdependent
actions that would result in harm to chinook salmon.
7.2 Bull Trout
Bull trout use within Lake Washington in the project corridor is not expected but is not
specifically excluded. Bull trout are known to occasionally occur within the Lake Washington
basin and there are no blockages between the project corridor and the rest of the Lake
Washington. The most likely scenario for bull trout use within the basin is that adult bull trout
may enter Lake Washington to forage. The potential for adult bull trout occurrence within the
work areas at each manhole location is expected to be unlikely, but cannot be discounted.
Impacts to bull trout, if any are present, are expected to be similar to those discussed above for
chinook. The primary exception being that no rearing or spawning activity is expected in the
Lake Washington system and, thus, the potential for predation on juvenile bull trout is expected
to be discountable.
7.3 Bald Eagle
The most likely scenario of potential effects on bald eagle is that construction activity and
increased human presence in the Kennydale area could result in the temporary limitations on
bald eagle foraging. This effect is expected to be minimal since eagles within the action area are
likely conditioned to human presence and the project is not anticipated to result in excessive
disruptions as a result of construction methods (i.e., no blasting, pile driving, or smoke).
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
7.4 Coho Salmon
The mechanisms to impact coho salmon are similar to those that may impact chinook except that
coho salmon are more likely to be present within the project vicinity during construction. Coho
use is more abundant in the Lake Washington system and coho are known to regularly rear in
fresh water streams for up to three years. The level of affect for coho as a result of these
elements is not expected to result in long-term reductions to coho populations within the Lake
Washington drainage.
8.0 DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT
Provided that the construction techniques and conservation measures summarized herein and
discussed in the Predesign report prepared for the project (Tetra Tech/KCM, 2000) are properly
implemented, this project is anticipated to have the. following effects on ESA regulated species
and candidate species:
8.1 Threatened Species
8.1.1 Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon
The Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect,
Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon.
A "may affect" determination is warranted based on the following rationale:
l. Multiple sources document historic chinook usage in Lake Washington and juvenile chinook
use of habitats in the vicinity of the Kennydale Lakeline is known to occur.
2. The proposed action will include the temporary modification of water quality in Lake
Washington to complete installation of each manhole. The project will involve excavation of
the lake bottom at each of the proposed manhole locations, which is expected to increase
turbidity within the work areas.
3. The project will require the use of machinery requiring fuel and other fluids. The project will
require the contractor to cut a section from the existing Lakeline. While not anticipated,
accidents may occur which could discharge toxic materials into the lake and the proposed
flushing may not be sufficient to remove all materials from the pipeline that could affect
water quality.
A "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination is warranted for this proposed action for
chinook because:
l. No in-water work will occur during peak rearing or outmigration periods; however, chinook
juveniles, if present, may be harassed by habitat displacement or temporary increases in
turbidity during construction.
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 26
Kennyda/e Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
2. The project will result in habitat modifications that could increase the opportunity for
increased predation rates on juvenile chinook salmon. Although predation rates are not
anticipated to increase substantially as a result of construction of the four manholes,
predation rates are difficult to quantify, particularly over the long-term.
8.2 Puget Sound/Coastal bull trout
The Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer project may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect,
Puget Sound/Coastal bull trout.
A "may affect" determination is warranted based on the following rationale:
1. Reproducing populations of bull trout in the Lake Washington Basin are limited to drainages
in the upper Cedar River watershed, but adult bull trout straying from other basins are not
specifically precluded from Lake Washington.
2. The proposed action will include the temporary modification of water quality and may result
in temporary exclusion of habitat by adult bull trout, if present.
3. The project will require the use of machinery requiring fuel and other fluids. While not
anticipated, accidents may occur which could discharge toxic materials into Lake
Washington.
A "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" detennination is warranted for this proposed action
for bull trout because:
1. The rationale for effects resulting from sedimentation, habitat degradation, and potential
toxic spills for bull trout are the same as discussed for chinook. However, the potentially
adverse effects related to displacement from rearing habitat and potentially increased
predation rates on juveniles, discussed above for chinook, are not anticipated for bull trout
because bull trout use in the action area is likely to be by foraging adults.
8.2.1 Bald Eagle
This project "may affect," but is "not likely to adversely affect" bald eagles. A "may affect"
determination is warranted based on the following rationale:
1. Bald eagles have been identified in the general project vicinity of the proposed action.
2. Bald eagles may forage along Lake Washington in the general vicinity of the Kennydale
Lakeline.
A "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" detennination is warranted for this proposed action
for bald eagles because:
1. No impacts to bald eagle nesting activity are anticipated as a result of this project. The
closest known bald eagle territory is located on the southern portion of Mercer Island.
2. No potential nesting, roosting, or perching habitat trees will be impacted by the project.
20109
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
3. The highest level of foraging activity is expected during the spring and early summer when
nest sites along the lake may be occupied. The project will generally occur after the peak
nesting season for bald eagles. However, some foraging activity may occur within the
project area during the construction window for this project.
4. Eagles that currently utilize this area are likely to be acclimated to disturbance and activity
associated with Interstate 405, surrounding urban developments, and recreational boat use
from Gene Coulon Park.
5. Impacts to the eagles' prey base are expected to be negligible.
8.3 Critical Habitat
8.3.1 Critical Habitat for Puget Sound ESU Chinook Salmon
The Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer will not result in significant modification of Critical
Habitat. The alterations to the lake bottom as a result of the installation of the four pre-cast
manholes will affect approximately 0.05 percent of the lake bottom habitat in the vicinity of the
sewer pipeline alignment. This is not expected to result in "adverse modification" to designated
chinook Critical Habitat.
8.4 Candidate Species
8.4.1 Coho salmon
Coho salmon are currently a candidate fish stock. No protection for candidate stocks is afforded
under the ESA, and section 7 consultation or conference with NMFS is not required for
anticipated impacts to these species. Summary information for this candidate species is included
herein in the event these candidate species become listed or proposed prior to project completion
and to assist with NMFS coordination under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
This assessment has identified that the project has the potential to impact coho salmon; however
the project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to coho salmon or coho salmon
habitat over the long term. Should coho salmon become proposed for listing or listed under the
ESA prior to completion of the project, the action agency will confer with NMFS to determine if
additional coordination or consultation is warranted. In the event that coho become listed prior
to project completion, it is expected that further consultation would result in a "may affect, and is
likely to adversely affect" determination for coho salmon as defined by section 7 of the ESA.
A "may affect" determination would be warranted based on the following rationale:
l. Multiple sources document coho usage in Lake Washington.
2. The project area is known to contain habitat suitable to support rearing by coho salmon.
20109
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 28
Kennydale lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
3. The proposed action will include the modification of in-water habitats as discussed above for
chinook and bull trout.
A "may affect, and is likely to adversely affect" determination would be warranted for this
proposed action following the same rationale discussed above for chinook salmon.
9.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
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 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
The objective of this EFH assessment is to determine whether or not the proposed action "may
adversely affect" designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally-managed fisheries species
within the proposed action area. It also describes conservation measures proposed to avoid,
minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the
proposed action. For the purpose of this assessment, the proposed action for the EFH assessment
and BA incorporate the same project elements. A detailed description of the proposed action is
included in Section 4.3 of the BE.
As discussed above, the proposed action occurs within Lake Washington, which provides habitat
for species of Pacific salmon, specifically chinook salmon, coho salmon, and chum salmon.
EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery includes those waters and substrate necessary for salmon
production·needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to
a healthy ecosystem. EFH includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently
viable water bodies and most of the habitat historically accessible to salmon in Lake
Washington.
In addition to Pacific salmon, EFH has been designated for groundfish and coastal pelagic
species. EFH for Pacific coast groundfish is generally defined as the aquatic habitat from the
mean higher high water line, and the upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths
seaward. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan describes the habitat
requirements of five pelagic species: Northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, Pacific (chub) mackerel,
jack mackerel and market squid. These four finfish and market squid are treated as a single
species complex because of similarities in their life histories and habitat requirements. EFH for
coastal pelagic species is generally defined all marine and estuarine waters from the shoreline
offshore above the thermocline.
20109
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Keneydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
9.1 Potential Adverse Effects of Proposed Action
9.1.1 Adverse Effects to Salmon EFH
Potential effects to Pacific salmon EFH including chinook salmon and coho salmon are
discussed in Section 6.0 of this Biological Evaluation.
9.1.2 Adverse Effects to Ground Fish EFH
No areas of EFH for Pacific coast groundfish occur within the action area.
9.1.3 Adverse Effects to Coastal Pelagics EFH
No areas of EFH for coastal pelagic species occur ',Vithin the action area.
9.2 EFH Conservation Measures
The measures implemented for the proposed action in relation to the conservation of ESA-
regulated species described in Section 6.5 of the BE will also avoid or minimize the potential
adverse effects to designated EFH described above.
9.3 EFH Conclusion.
The proposed action is anticipated to effect Pacific salmon EFH and Critical Habitat for chinook
salmon similarly. The proposed action will require in-water work in water bodies that provide
EFH for Pacific salmon species as discussed in Section 6.1.1 of the BE. The proposed action has
been identified as having the potential to effect Pacific salmon and their habitat in Lake
Washington as a result of construction activities.
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 30
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
10.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adolfson Associates, Inc. 2000. Memorandum describing results of early 2000 habitat surveys
in Lake Washington for the Kennydale Lakeline.
Beauchamp, D. A., S. A. Vecht and G. L. Thomas. 1992. Temporal, Spatial, and Size-
Related Foraging of Wild Cutthroat Trout in Lake Washington. Northwest Sci., Vol. 66
No. 3 p. 149-159.
Carrasco, K., S. Foley, and M. Leslie. 1999. Draft Summary of the 1998 Lake Washington
Chinook Spawner Survey.
Ehrlich, Paul R., and David S. Dobkin, and Darryl Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook.
Simon and Schuster Inc. New York. 785 pages.
Farr, R. A. and D. L. Ward. 1993. Fishes of the Lower Willamette River, Near Portland,
Oregon. Northwest Sci. Vol. 67 No. 1 p. 16-22.
Fayram, Andrew H. 1996. Impacts of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) and
Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieui) Predation on Populations of Juvenile
Salmon ids in Lake Washington. Masters Thesis, University of Washington. Seattle,
Washington.
Federal Register Volume 64, Number 210, November I, 1999, Determination of Threatened
Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule.
Fuerstenberg, R. R. 1998. Needs of Salmon in the City: Habitat in the Urban Landscape. King
County Department of Natural Resources. Seattle, WA.
Henry, R. 1995. Backgrounder: Coho Salmon and the State Endangered Species Act Special
Publication. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon.
King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR), 2000. Lake Washington water quality
website http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/site0840.htm.
Matthews, Daniel. 1988. Cascades, Olympic Natural History. Raven Editions,
Portland Oregon.
Muller, Martin. Seattle Audubon Society. Telephone Conversation of April 7, 1994. Seattle,
Washington.
Myers, J. M, R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S.
Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. 1998. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
NWFSC-35 Status Review of Chinook Salmon From Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and
California. NOAA. Seattle, WA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2000. Biological Opinion: Kennedy Memorial
Bridge Replacement Project (Draft), NMFS. Lacey, Washington.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale.
NMFS Environmental and Technical Services Division.
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
Piaskowski, 2000. Personal Communication. Telephone Conversation with Webster Peirce.
Stalmaster, M. V. and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavior Response of Wintering Bald Eagles to
Human Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42: 506-513.
Stokes, Donald and Lillian Stokes. 1989. A Guide to Bird Behavior, Volume III. Little, Brown,
and Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 397 pages.
Swartzman, G. L. and D. A. Beauchamp. 1990. Simulation of the Effect of Rainbow Trout
Introduction in Lake Washington. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. Vol. 119 No. 1 p. 122-134.
Tabor, R. A., R. S. Shively and T. P. Poe. 1993. Predation on Juvenile Salmonids by
Smallmouth Bass and Northern Squawfish in the Columbia River near Richland,
Washington. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. Vol. 13 No. 4 p. 831-838.
Tetra Tech/KCM. 2000. Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Predesign Report prepared for the City of
Renton Utility Systems, Renton, Washington.
United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Recovery
Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland Oregon.
United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. A
Framework to Assist in the Making of Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect
for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulations Watershed Scale
(Draft). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation
Handbook.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Written Response to
Request for Information on Sensitive Species.
Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). 2000. Water Quality Website.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/wghome.html. December 19, 2000.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Western Washington Treaty Indian
Tribes (WWTIT). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory
Appendix One Puget Sound Stocks North Puget Sound Volume.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Habitats and Species Database. Olympia,
Washington.
Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's
Priority Habitats and Species. Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat
Management Divisions. Olympia, Washington.
Watson, James W. and Brenda Cunningham. 1994. Relationships of Human Activity and
Habitat Characteristics to Bald Eagle Productivity and Nesting Behavior in Western
Washington. Progress Report I. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia,
Washington. I I pages.
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002 Page 32
Kenrrydale Lalcefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope,
and R. S. Waples. 1995. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24; Status
Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine
Studies Division. Seattle Washington.
Williams, R. W., R.M. Laramie, and J. J. James. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and
Salmon Utilization: Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of
Fisheries. Olympia, Washington.
Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002 Page 33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Kennyda/e Lakefronl Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A: TABLES/ FIGURES
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 20/09
March 200/
I Revised January 2002
Kennydale lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Eva/ualian
Table 1.
Summary of Baseline Conditions within Lake Washington, Washington.
Pathways:
Indicators
Water Quality
Temperature
Sediment
Chemical (contaminants
and nutrients)
Habitat Access
Physical barriers
Habitat Elements
Substrate
LWD
Pool frequency
Pool quality
Refugia
Off-channel habitat
Channel Condition and
Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
Streambank condition
Floodplain Connectivity
Flow/Hydrology
Peak/Base Flows
Drainage Network
Increase
Watershed Conditions
Road density and location
Disturbance History
Riparian reserves
20/09
March 2001
Revised January 2002
Environmental Baseline Effects of the Action(s)
Properly At risk Not Properly Restore Maintain Degrade
functioning Functioning
X X
X X
X X
(Improvement
expected)
X X
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
X X
X X
X X
X X
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
------------... ___ ,_
.
E
0
~
f e
~
~
0
M .
J ~-/ ! 1;1 --~-----~---·
----.. -l. .
r l ;r
I
:n l
l
, I "i \ ~I ; I <' i (' \ (t)
~~\ ~
% \\. ' ~ \\
"z._ '·-, \ /
IS' \ '
\ =
\
\
' ·, ·,
-
', \
~ -r''··,,, . ' &\· \ ' ', . '"
\ "~ \·._-.\~. \ ,1'· ·" .. ',
•, •,,'( ... , T' \ ''.
. 1'-.. •. ' "'
' ..... ~ 0 '~. ' "'.
\
'
·\.0 \ \.,·. !> -<'. \ \ "&
\ \ ~
' \ \ .. \,, \ \
·1.\ \t \~
' \~ \\ \"'
',.V..~'%
'•.
/ \ ?l
I '· ~
h ~ \
I
\
......
\
\\
\
\~
\ \lo· ~ ~-
' \I) ' -
\ ,,,,-----, . ·,
.... ~
\~
·-C. \ ·-.~ ,,
\ \
\_
'
\.
\.
'· '
\
\
\ 5:
l~ ! s·
'r •c ,_ ![
' ;,;
r " ;\O
1 '-l , ,~
'"' i '<
-~·;I\_"'~
'\··· -.\ \
\
' ~------
NL _______ _
----·-------------------
~
--·---Te-tra-Te-cl-,I
KCM, Inc.
191 7 First A venue
Washington 98101 ---~-----
'\
\
' j
I
! ;
j
1. ··• = ·n
" '
(-\
',"'-1
'--'
(
'· \ Lake ''"'""''=
., •,
...
', .. --..._ '~, '~-
... , ......
"'· ..... ,_
\
)
!
_)
Mercer
Island
/
I
/
/
!PROJECT!
I SITE I
1
·~
-(
)
/
N
~
:111:
Figure 1 ----]
Vicinity Map
-------------------------------------
Four new manholes are installed in the
existing lakeline to provide access for
maintenance. Three of the manholes are
I
installed at existing sag locations and the
fourth is south of Coleman Point.
Maintenance of the line would be
I performed from the water by an outside I contractor with barge-mounted equipment.
I ~ Tet ra Tech /
KCM, In c.
1
1917FirstAvenue
Sea ttle , Washington 98101
:Z
!J
City of Renton
{ ~
ADVANTAGES: f:
Maintenance access can be ma de
from the lake rather than across
residential properties.
Installing manholes at sag locations
would facilitate removal of
accumulated sediment from the line.
KENNYDALE LAKEFRONT SEWER REPLACEMEN T PROJECT
-----Existing 8" Sewer Line
Existing Side Sewer
• Existing Cleanouts
--· -· · --Approximate Inner Harbor Line
BumottAY•-
Cleaning the line with barge-mounted equipment requires the work to be
performed by an outside contractor.
Divers are requ ired to install temporary access shafts at manholes each
time the line is cleaned .
Pipe line sag at Station 3+60 is not accessible for sediment removal.
Sed iment removal will be difficult if existing lakelin e and side sewers leak
significantly.
Cleaning services will be expensive.
Regulatory approv als may be difficult to attain .
NOTE:
1. Homes and docks on map based
on 1984 survey by Horton De nnis
Associ ates .
Figure 2
Kennydale Lakel in e Existing A lignment and Proposed Manhol e Locations
--.. ---------.. ---Ill .. ..
..
E
C:
~ ..
"' ..
2
C: .. :::;
0
N
0
M
~
----------------
::<
\/ Lake Washi ngton
Rell1Qvab+e
A<;cessShafl
T
I
~o+~~-~t
..... ...; -
El!istlng 8" ·~
cai.t lroo Sewer I --
....
~ Tetra Tec h! City of Renton [-------r ··--------
l_!B 1917 F;,:,c:v~~~ KE NNYDALE LAKEFRONT SEWER
Sea!~e. Washington 98101 _ _ __ REPLA~EME~T _:_R~~~CT
-J
I N ew 48" D 1am1::1er
• P recast Manhole
•
..,Lake
Bollom
---______ _____J
------------------------
Figure 3
Maintenance Manhole Section
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennyda/e lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
APPENDIX B: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Western Washington Office
510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102
Lacey, Washington 98503
Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 534-9331
Dear Species List Requester:
DEC 2 2 2000
You have requested a list of listed and proposed threatened and endangered species, candidate
species and species of concern (Attachment A) that may be present within the area of your proposed
project. This response fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under
section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We have also enclosed a
copy of the requirements for Federal agency compliance under the Act (Attachment B).
Should the Federal agency determine that a listed species is likely to be affected (adversely or
beneficially) by the project, you should request section 7 consultation through this office. If the
Federal agency determines that the proposed action is "not likely to adversely affect" a listed species,
you should request Service concurrence with that determination through the informal consultation
process. Even if there is a "no effect" situation, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our
information.
Species of concern are those species whose conservation standing is of concern to the Service, but
for which further status information is still needed. Conservation measures for species of concern
are voluntary, but recommended. Protection provided to these species now may preclude possible
listing in the future.
There may be other federally listed species that may occur in the vicinity of your project which are
under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Please contact NMFS at
(360) 753-9530 to request a species list.
In addition, please be advised that federal and state regulations may require permits in areas where
wetlands are identified. You should contact the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for Federal permit requirements and the Washington State Department of Ecology for State permit
requirements.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Your interest in endangered species is appreciated. If you have additional questions regarding your
responsibilities under the Act, please contact Yvonne Dettlaff (360) 753-9582 or Bobbi Barrera
(360) 753-6048.
Sr¥~
Gerry A. Jackson, Manager
Western Washington Office
Enclosure(s)
cc: WDFW R4
ATTACHMENT A December 18, 2000
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES,
CANDIDATE SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
WIIlCH MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED
LAKE WASHINGTON SEWER LINE ADJUSTMENT PROJECT
IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
(T24N ROSE S31-32; T23N ROSE SS-6)
FWS REF: 1-3-01-SP-0275
LISTED
Bald eagle (Ha/iaeetus leucocephalus) -There is one bald eagle nesting territory located in the
vicinity of the project at T24NR05ES30. Nesting activities occur from January l through August 15.
Wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project. Wintering activities occur from
October 31 through March 31. ·
Bull trout (Salve/inus conjluentus) -occur in the vicinity of the project.
Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological assessment of the project impacts to
listed species are:
l.
2.
3.
PROPOSED
None.
Level of use of the project area by listed species.
Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and
foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project.
Impacts from project construction (i.e., habitat loss, increased noise levels, increased
human activity) which may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their
avoidance of the project area.
CANDIDATE
None.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Biological Evaluation
APPENDIX C: FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
20/09
March 200/
Revised January 2002
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
July 25, 2000
City of Renton
Webster Peirce, Project Fisheries Scientist
ADOLPaON
CC:
RE:
Jeff Lykken, KCM; Molly Adolfson and Benn Burke, Adolfson Scientist
Results of the Spring, 2000 Snorkel Survey, Kennydale Sewer Manhole lnetallation
Project: Renton, Washington
Introduction and Purpose
The city of Renton is examining the potential environmental impacts that may result from the
installation of four subsurface manhole junctions along an existing underwater sewerline in Lake
Washington. The existing 8-inch pipeline serves the Kennydale lakefront community, and
measures approximately 5,000 in length. The four proposed in-line manhole junctions would be
concrete cylinders approximately two feet high and four feet in diameter.
Existing conditions along the Kennydale shoreline were assessed by Adolfson fisheries biologist
Webster Peirce in the Spring of 2000. The focus of the survey was to observe the use of different
cover types along the shoreline by salmonid juveniles and predators of salmonid juveniles,
including any use of the existing sewerline.
Methods
Eight free-dives were conducted during daylight hours over a seven-week period. The time of
day, number of days between dives, and direction of approach were varied over the seven-week
period, and dives were scheduled during a variety of weather conditions. Total dive time spent in
observation was 7 .25 hours.
In addition to the above parameters, the following qualities of the project area were observed:
1) condition of existing cover for salmonids juveniles and salmonid predators,
2) use of existing cover features by predators and/or juvenile salmonids, and
3) number and species of observed fish.
Results
The following is a discussion of baseline conditions in the proposed project area. Data sheets for
the six dives are included in Appendix A.
Route of Existing Pipeline
The south end of the existing Kennydale Lakefront Sewerline begins on land at station 0+00 at a
flush station. The pipeline then enters Lake Washington at approximately station 2+00, which is
located near 2807 Mountain View Avenue North. From this point, the eight-inch pipe runs north
along the shoreline, passing under docks and along bulkheads, connecting to approximately 35
smaller residential sewer lines along the way. The north end of the pipeline enters a lift station on
shore at station 47+35 where it connects to the Eastside Interceptor sewerline.
ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107
Tel 206 789 9658 Fax 206 789 9684
.I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SPECIES OF CONCERN
The following species of concern may occur in the vicinity of the project:
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi)
Western toad (Bufo boreas)
Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead I
Undated: Fabruarv 22,200
s:...~c·,a~ESU•: ·s·tatu·s -> ,:·:/: _ . ·· =·=',··:(e. End~ng~'.=:r •·lliea1~ned/"rrio}yr.) ·:::-: '"':·.=:···· ····,: ··Naxt:St& ;.::·· .. ... ,.,.. :.:.:)',, ,·:·-::::,."··;· ·• =:: .·,: .=
ii I Uatod: ..
Pink Salmon Not Wammtod: 1) Even-year ESU (10/95)
2\ Odd-uear ESU '10/95\
Listed: 1) Control CA ESU (T • 10/96) '
I I I 2) Southern OR/Northam CA Coasts ESU (T -5197)
Coho Salmon ~ OR Coast ESU rr. 81981 > Complete listing assessments for candidate ESUs.
Candldatoa: 1) Pugel Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU (7/95)
2} Lower Columbla River/Southwest WA ESU (7f95\
I Not Warranted: 1\ O"--lc Peninsula ESU 17/95}
I
I
I Ustod: 1) Sacramento River Winter-run ESU (E -1/94)
2) Snake River Fall-run ESU (T • 4192)
3) Snake River Spring/Summer-run ESU (T • 4/92)
I 4) Puget Sound ESU (T • 3199)
Chinook 5) Lower Columbia River ESU (T -3199)
Salmon 6) Upper Willamette Rivet ESU (T • 3199)
7) Upper Columbia River Spring-run ESU (E • 3/99)
I 8) Centn>l Valley Spring-run ESU (!' • 9199) > Develop 4(d) rules for Central Valley Spring-run &
_§) CA Coastal ESU (!'. • 9/99) CA Coastal ESUs.
Candldatoa: _!} Central Valley Fall and Late Falkun ESU (9199)
I
Not Warranted: 1) Upper Klamath-Trinity Riv8f8 ESU (3/98)
2) OR Coast ESU (3/98)
3) WA Coast ESU (3198)
4) Mid-COiumbia River Spring-run ESU (3198)
I
5) Upper Columbla River Summe'r/Fall-run ESU (3/98)
6) Southern OR and Northern CA Coastal ESU (9/99)
7) Deschutes River Summer/Fall-run ESU (9/991
11 I Listed: 1) Hood CE!nal Summer-run ESU (T -3199)
Chum Salmon 2) Columbia River ESU (T • 3199)
Not Warranted: 1) Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU (3198)
I
I
I
I
I
2) Pacific Coast ESU {3198)
![::] Listed: 1) Snake River ESU (E • 11/91)
_1LQ!~~JLIT~91
Not Warranted: 1) Baker River ESU (3199)
2) Okanogan River ESU (3/98)
I 3) Lake Wenatchee ESU (3/98)
I
I
4) Quinaull Lake ESU (3198)
51 Lake Pleasant ESU 131931
Listed: 1) Southern CA ESU {E • 8197)
2) South-Central CA Coast ESU (T -8197) I
3) Central CA Coast ESU (T -8/97)
4) Upper Columbia River ESU (E • 8/97)
I Slee/head I 5) Snake River Basin ESU (T -8/97)
> Develop 4(d) rule for Northern CA ESU. 6) Lower Columbia River ESU er· 3198)
7) CA Central Valley ESU er · 3/98) > Complete listing assessments for proposed &
8) Upper Willamette ESU (T -3/99) candidate ESUs.
9) Middle Columbia River ESU (T -3/99)
,_ 10)J:rorthem CA ESU ff· 6JOOL ____________
I
I
Propoaad Listings: . 1) Klamath Mountains Province esu GJ01.) --------
Candidates: 2) OR Coast esu J.3/9~---------·---·-
Not Warranted: 1) Southwest WA ESU (8/96)
2) Olympic Peninsula ESU (8/96) I
3\ Pur1et Sound ESU 18/961
Proposed Listings: __ 1L~.9.Y.t~!tJ!~m.W~~.QJy_in_Qj9.8J~!1L!;.filLJI.:.W.~J~---·---
Coastal Candidates: ·-1) Ore9~n.Coast ESU (4/99L _______________
Cutthroat Not Warranted: 1) Puget Sound ESU (4199) NOTE: This species Is now under tho Jurisdiction of
Trout
2) Olympic Peninsula ESU (4199) the U.S. Fish and Wlldlifa Service.
3) Upper Willamette River ESU (4/99)
41 Southern OR/CA Coasts ESU 141991
I
I
• An Evolutionarily Significant Unit or ~esu~ is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon or steelhead. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For the most part, lake-bottom sediments cover the pipe. Some sections, however, have
remained uncovered or have been uncovered since the placement of the pipe. Exposure is likely
caused by natural movement of the lake bottom or human disturbance of the lake bottom (e.g.
prop scour near docks). Approximately 1,000 feet of the 5,000-foot pipeline was observed
exposed during surveys conducted by the City of Renton in 1987. Although some of the locations
of the exposure have changed since 1987, the overall percentage of exposure during the 2000
surveys appeared to be close to the 1987 percentage.
The lake bottom is generally silt and sand, with occasional cobble, rubble and gravel. Little
macrophytic vegetation is evident towards the south end of the pipeline, whereas the bottom from
station 20+00 to 45+00 is dominated by water milfoil (Myriophyllum spp.). Some areas have
large amounts of debris on the lake bottom, including fallen trees, truck tires, lumber, and in one
location on the west side of Coleman Point, plywood scraps. Lake-bottom slopes range from
nearly flat in some sections to relatively steep in others, dropping several inches in depth per foot.
As a result, the pipeline crosses shoreline habitats of varying depth and lies between four and 20
feet below the surface of the lake.
Shoreline Conditions
Much of the shoreline has been densely developed with houses, condominiums, docks, boat
launches, and lawns. Shoreside vegetative cover, however, exists in some areas along the
survey stretch. Overhanging vegetation along the shoreline that could provide cover for either
salmonid juveniles or for predators generally consists of deciduous and coniferous trees.
Although some of the Kennydale shoreline had been armored with bulkheads and rockery,
shallow areas remain that provide suitable rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids.
Salmonid Observations
Approximately 1,000 Coho fry (Oncorhynchus kisutch) measuring approximately 1.4 to 2 inches
were observed from April 27 through May 18, with rare sightings on the May 24 dive. These fry
were generally found in shallow protected areas along the shore (less than six feet deep), and
generally positioned in mid-water (see attached dive notes for specific locations). The only
observed cover preference appeared to be schools of three-spine stickleback ( Gasterosteus
aculeatus). These large schools, numbering in the hundreds, were ubiquitous along the shoreline
from April 27 through May 18, and coho were only observed amongst these schools. Coho fry
appeared to be fewer in number than the stickleback (approximately 50 to 100 coho fry per.
school of 100 to 400 stickleback), and stickleback appeared to be slightly larger than the coho fry,
ranging from two inches to four inches in length.
Shade characteristics did not appear to influence the location of stickleback/coho congregation
areas, as some schools were found in shaded areas between docks and some in sunny
uncovered locations. Similarly, no bottom features appeared to attract more salmonid fry or
stickleback that others. Schools were found above water milfoil, cobble, rubble, fallen trees, and
silt.
Salmonid Predator Observations
Small mouth and largemouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui and M. salmonides) are common
predators of salmonid juveniles in the nearshore habitats of Lake Washington, and these species
are known to utilize shade as cover during fry predation.
Six smallmouth bass, varying in length from approximately eight inches to 14 inches, were
observed during the seven-week survey-some individuals repeatedly observed in the same
location over consecutive dives. All bass were initially seen under overhanging cover, although
all observed bass left their shaded cover to examine and-with the larger individuals-approach the
diver. Two bass, measuring approximately 1 Oto 12 inches in length, were observed under a
ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107
Tel 206 789 9658 Fax 206 789 9684
prop-scoured section of the sewer pipeline near a dock at station 26+50 on the April 13 and 19 ·
dives. One 8 to 10-inch bass was also observed under this dock on the April 1 O and April 19
dives. Two 14-inch and one four-inch smallmouth bass were also observed under a dock located
at station 19+ 1 o on May 18. Cylinders of similar dimensions to those proposed for installation
were found along the survey route (truck tires), and no fish of any kind were observed utilizing
these features as cover or habitat. Details of the observations are listed in the attached field
notes for each dive.
Water Quality
Temperatures during the main period of salmonid presence (April 27 to May 18) started at
approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F), dropped to approximately 55 degrees F, and then ·-
reheated to 59 degrees F. High surface turbidity was observed in the upper two feet of the water
column during the May-9 dive, dense in some locations and absent in others (see attached dive
notes for May 9). Overall, visibility ranged from five to 15 feet with no consistent implovernerit or
degradation observed over the seven-week period except that suspended algae reduced visibility
during the first two dives in April.
Conclusion
Suitable cover for coho fry appeared to be schools of similar-sized individuals, while suitable
cover for smallmouth bass appeared to be overhanging shade. Conversely, vertical cylinders on
the bottom unassociated with an overhang or a school of stickleback (e.g. truck tires, lone pilings)
did not appear to attract bass or salmonids.
Overall, cover availability appears to be adequate for both salmonid juveniles and for salmonid
juvenile predators. In fact, many suitable cover features were not in use during the field
observations: not all schools of stickleback were observed with coho fry, and an estimated 90
percent of the docks observed were unoccupied by bass or other species.
ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW. Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107
Tel 206 789 9658 Fax 206 789 9684
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' \
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
January 27, 2009
Paul Baker
Neil Watts ).}eu/
3307 Mountain View Av N SROS-1841
At Donna's request, I have reviewed the above listed service request, and have
determined that the appropriate action is to close out this case as completed for code
enforcement purposes. Any violations that may have occurred at this address would be
impossible to document for legal action at this time. If there were setback violations we
would not be able to prove in a court oflaw that these actions have occurred under recent
land use regulations. Similarly with any building construction that may have occurred
without building permits.
The house and. site do not appear to be currently under any type of construction action,
and any reported actions occurred many years ago with limited documentation. As the
case was closed by the code enforcement inspector in 2004, and no illegal actions have
been observed or reported since that date, our most reasonable action on this case is to
return it to closed status.
cc: Jennifer Henning
Donna Locher
From:
To:
bate:
Subject:
Laureen Nicolay
Henning, Jennifer
Thursday, April 13, 20061:11:08 PM
Lisa Lord/Mountain View Construction without permits or variances
You will be getting a call from the Lord family wondering why their permit is taking so long and expressing
concern about the new shoreline setbacks. A little history:
2002 complaint about construction without necessary permits or variances on Lake Washington. See
C02-0648.
2003-Mid 2004--No action taken by applicant or City to rectify violation
Mid 2004-Applicant finally turns in terribly inadequate land use application while Laureen out office.
2004/2005-Multiple requests by planner to have complete application submitted. Land use application
still not accepted as complete. No code enforc_ement sanctions were ever given.
Mid 2005-Bob retires and changes status of violation to "closed" for some reason.
Mid 2006--Lord family calls and wonders why permit not ready.
Mid 2006-Laureen corrects status of violation to "open".
To date, this applicant has been given an exceptional 4-year hiatus from code enforcement. I don't know
what happened with this one.
Laureen Nicolay
City of Renton Development Services
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
Phone: (425) 430-7294
Fax: (425) 430-7231
lnicolay@ci.renton.wa.us
CC: Baker, Paul; Kamcheff, Marilyn
\
f72w\ erz_cl,?lt-.lA't... a>oe COfA.fU#..'kZ ~
DATE OF INVESTIGATION OCTOBER 9, 2002. C.02-txi;t./6
BUILDING DECK AND OTHER APPERTANENCE STRUCTURES TO PRIMARY RESIDENCE WITHOUT ANY
BUILDING OR ELECTRICAL PERMITS. WORK BEING DONE IS WITHIN THE SHORELINE SETBACK OF LAKE
WASHINGTON: EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE SHORELINE
SETBACK INCLUDING DEPOSITING GRAVEL ONTO THE SHORELING INCLUDING EXTENDING THE GRAVEL
INTO THE WATERS OF LAKE WASHINGTON. NOTICE AND ORDER ISSUED OCTOBER 11, 2002 TO LISA
LORD. ALL ACTIVITY IS TO CEASE AND DESIST UNTIL ALL PERMITS INCLUDING SHORELINE EXEMPTION
APPLICATION IS APPROVED AND ISSUED. THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SHORELINE VIOLATION IS
REFERENCED IN ORDINANCE 4716 SECTON 2.02.01. )·
PREVIOUS ACTIVITY C-99-0118, INVOLVED SIMILAR VIOLATIONS. FISH AND WILDLIFE HAVE BEEN
NOTIFIED FOR THEIR ACTION AND ENFORCEMENT IF NECESSARY.