The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L09-041 - ASHLEY GREGORY / SHUMATE - FLOATING DOCK SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTSHUMATE FLOATING DOCK 11534 EAST MARGINAL WY S L09-04 1 • City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Gregory Ashley, Ashley Shoreline Design and Permitting David and Laurie Shumate, Property Owners King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Larry Fisher, State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Jack Pace, Director December 30, 2010 This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L09 -041 Applicant: Gregory Ashley — Ashley Shoreline Design and Permitting Type of Permit Applied for: Shoreline Management Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Project Description: Install a 240 square foot float and 96 square foot grated ramp on the Duwamish River. Work includes installing four steel piles, the removal of four existing wood piles, and installing a shoreline planting plan. Location: 11534 E Marginal Way S; APN 1023049045 Associated Files: L07 -090 Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential Designation/Zoning District: II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official issued a SEPA DNS on December 3, 2010. Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Community Development Director has determined that the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. SM H:\A Shumate Pier \Shoreline NOD.doc Page 1 of 2 12/30/2010 ■300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 • • The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS One administrative appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Stacy MacGregor, who may be contacted at 206 - 433 -7166 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. The notice board must be removed at the expiration of the appeal period unless an appeal is filed. / Department of Community De City of Tukwila SM Page 2 of 2 12/30/2010 IBA Shumate Pier \Shoreline NOD.doc Date: Project: File Number: Applicant: Request: • City of Tukwila • Department of Community Development Associated Applications/ Permits: Comprehensive Plan/ Zoning Designation: STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT December 30, 2010 Shumate Floating Pier 11534 E Marginal Way S APN 1023049045 L09 -041- Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Gregory Ashley — Ashley Shoreline Design and Permitting Jim flaggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director Install a 240 square foot float and 96 square foot grated ramp on the Duwamish River. Work includes installing four steel piles, the removal of four existing wood piles, and installing a shoreline planting plan. E09 -010 — SEPA Environmental Review Low Density Residential Staff: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner The following information was reviewed as part of the application. 1. Shoreline Site Development Plan by Greg Ashley, 3 pages 2. Landscape Plan by Barbara Lycett, 1 page 3. Riverbank Evaluation letter by Cornerstone Geotechnical 4. Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment by Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants 5. SEPA checklist and SEPA DNS 6. Letter of Permission from the US Army Corp of Engineers, dated September 7, 2010 Project Description The proposal is to build a floating dock and pier on the south shore of the lower Green - Duwamish River as an accessory structure to a single- family residence. The farthest edge of the dock will extend no more than thirty- five feet into the river and will be secured to four new galvanized steel piles. The application has gone through SEPA environment review and received a determination of non - significance on December 3, 2010. The USACOE has granted a "letter of permission" dated September 7, 2010 that outlines necessary conditions to comply with the Endangered Species Act and includes the opinions of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This project must comply with all State, local and Federal requirements that may apply. SM Page 1 of 4 12/30/2010 H:W Shumate Pier\shoreline SR.doc . 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 • • Policies of the Shoreline Management Act/Shoreline Master Program This area was annexed into the City of Tukwila in 1989. The City of Tukwila is required to administer annexed areas based on the Shoreline Management Plan which was in place at the time of annexation, until such time as a new Master Plan is adopted and approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. This area is subject to King County's Shoreline Master Program and is considered Urban Environment under the King County code. Existing Development The project is located in the Duwamish Neighborhood. This neighborhood has been improved with sewers enabling infill to occur. This lot, and the surrounding land use pattern, is single family development. This one - third of an acre parcel is improved with a single family home, circa 1920 and a detached garage built in 2008. The Green River Trail, a public non - motorized trail, bisects the property. The Duwamish River forms the north border of the site. The west side of the site is defined by East Marginal Way South. Seattle City Light owns the property to the east and two single family parcels form the south border. Shoreline Regulations King County Shoreline Management Program Applicable regulations of King County Shoreline Master Program in effect in 1989: King County Code Chapter 25.16.030 General Requirements A. Non -water related development and residential development shall not be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The floating dock and pier is considered water related development and is not residential development. This criterion is met. B. Except in those cases when the height requirements of the underlying zones are more restrictive, no structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level. This requirement may be modified if the view of a substantial number of residences will not be obstructed, if permitted by the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is agricultural, water related or water dependent. The underlying zoning is more restrictive; in LDR zones, the built height of any structure cannot exceed thirty feet. In the submitted plans, the pier is mounted to the ground with hand - railing extending above the base of the pier. This criterion is met. C. All development shall be required to provide adequate surface water retention and sedimentation facilities during the construction period. Prior to construction the applicant is required to obtain any necessary permits from the City's Public Work's Department. These permits may require the submittal of a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan for construction activities. The plans must be approved prior to construction activities. D. Development shall maintain the first fifty feet of property abutting a natural environment as required open space. This criterion is not applicable as the King County shoreline environment designation adjacent to this site is "Urban Environment "; no shoreline areas in Tukwila are designated as natural environment. SM H:\A Shumate Pier\shoreline SR.doc Page 2 of 4 12/30/2010 E. Parking facilities except parking facilities associated with detached single-family and agricultural development shall conform to the following minimum conditions: E (1) Parking areas must be located beneath or upland of the development... E (2) Any outdoor parking area perimeter... must be maintained as a planting area with a minimum of five feet. E (3) One live tree...shall be required for each thirty linear feet of planting area. E (4) One live shrub ...for each 60 inches of planting area shall be required. E (5) Additional perimeter and interior landscaping of parking areas may be required when large parking areas are proposed. This criterion is not applicable, as the proposed development is for a detached single - family residence. F. Collection facilities to control and separate contaminants shall be required where storm -water runofffrom impervious surfaces would degrade or add to the pollution of receipt waters or adjacent properties. Any water discharged into the Duwamish River is required to meet all State and Federal water quality standards. The proposed pier and float have a grated surface that is pervious. The extent of impervious surface is limited to the footing for the pier. The footing is a two foot by five foot concrete pad. The size of the footing will have a negligible effect in degrading or adding pollution to adjacent waters or properties. G. The regulations of this chapter have been categorized in a number of sections; regardless of the categorization of the various regulations, all developments must comply with all applicable regulations. The proposed project will comply with all applicable Shoreline regulations. H. Development proposed on shorelines of the State shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where; 1. There is a proposed trail in the King County Trail system; or 2. Part of the site is presently being used and has historically been used for public access. The site is a part of the King County trail system. The property is subject to an easement granted to King County for the Green River Trail. The easement provides the right to improve, construct, alter and maintain the Green River Trail now and in perpetuity. An existing, informal path from the Green River Trail to the top of the bank will lead to the proposed pier. The easement is maintained and the trail is not impacted by this proposal. King County Code Chapter 25.16.110 Residential development — Accessory structures. Accessory structures to the residence may be placed within the required shoreline setback, provided: A. No accessory structure, except swimming pools, shall cover more than one hundred ffty feet; The pier will mount to the riverbank on a concrete pad. The footprint of the pad is ten feet in size. This criterion is met. B. No accessory structure shall obstruct the view of the neighboring properties. The pier and dock will be primarily blocked from view by a berm located between the trail and the shoreline. Access to the dock is via a winding trail that prevents a direct line of site. Native plant landscaping will also provide screening of the dock. The structure will be minimally visible from neighboring properties and will not obstruct the view of neighboring properties. SM H:\A Shumate Pier\shoreline SR.doc Page 3 of 4 12/30/2010 • • Public Comments No comments were received in response to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Notice of Application. Comments were received from Larry Fisher of the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in response to the City issuing a SEPA DNS decision. Mr. Fisher listed a series of comments concluding that a dock should be considered a taking. The City responded by withdrawing the DNS to allow for further review. Meanwhile, the Corps of Engineers (USACE) provided a "Letter of Permission" with conditions authorizing the dock. The Corps' permit included review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS/NMFS is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the ESA and does not consider the dock a taking. Following the USACE decision, the City issued an amended Notice of Decision updating our response and reissuing a SEPA Determination of Non - Significance. The comment period on the SEPA DNS expired on December 17, 2010. No comments were received. It is expected that permits, which may contain additional comments and conditions, are required from the Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Use Authorization and from WDFW for Hydraulic Project Approval. VI. SEPA and other City approvals The City SEPA Responsible Official issued a SEPA DNS on December 3, 2010. The applicant will be required to obtain a Public Works permit. Approval of the Public Works permit will require compliance with the assumptions and conditions in the submitted geotechnical report, the Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, and the staff report included with the SEPA determination. The City is in the process of adopting a new Shoreline Master Program and Shoreline Code. Vesting on this project is to a building permit and not to Shoreline approval. The geotechnical report assumes that the concrete foundation will be at least five feet from the top of the bank. The application for construction permit (public works permit) shall reflect this. Per the SEPA DNS, all impacts of construction activity are to be mitigated as a part of the public works permit. The proposal includes planting new native plants along the river bank. The proposed planting plan includes removal of one Black Locust tree, with removal scheduled after native plants are established. However the Black Locust tree has a tendency to sucker when cut and the removal of the tree will require root grinding which could disturb new plantings and could disturb the soil. To minimize potential erosion and to minimize disturbance to new plantings, if the Black Locust tree has to be removed it shall be removed prior to new plantings. Finally, the applicant shall record the Sensitive Areas Hold Harmless Agreement after it is signed by the Mayor, following submittal of the Public Works permit and provide a recorded copy to the City. Further, the proposal is expected to obtain and comply with all required permits and permissions granted by other agencies. The applicant shall provide the City with copies of the required permits and permissions for our records, within thirty days of their issuance. Approval from the USACOE requires float stops on the pilings to ensure the float does not ground out during tidal events. The public works permit shall reflect this addition to the design. Recommendation Approval of the shoreline substantial development permit without conditions. SM H:\A Shumate Pier\shoreline SR.doc Page 4 of 4 12/30/2010 • C,itv Department Of Community AFFIDAVIT of OF J u;fuwuta 0 Development DISTRIBUTION I, Teri Svedahl HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Project Name: Gregory Ashley, Duwamish River Floating dock and pier Notice of Public Hearing X Determination of Non - Significance 1 4na aBli-k , Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this _7th day of _January in the year 2011 V �► v W: \USERS \TERI\TEMPLATES\AFFIDAVIT 0 DISTRI TION.DOC Project Name: Gregory Ashley, Duwamish River Floating dock and pier Project Number: E09 -011 i Lp 9 -O t_' Mailing requested by: Stacy MacGregor Mailer's signature: 1 4na aBli-k , V �► v W: \USERS \TERI\TEMPLATES\AFFIDAVIT 0 DISTRI TION.DOC N • AGENCY LABELS • (US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( ) US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) Dept of Natural Resources N'.'"To, \o r V•riec-4` ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development (•A WA Fisheries & Wildlife RNAR'. LA¢,ey Fis ag- Section 2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Dept of Social & Health Services ( ) Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Division ( ) Dept of Ecology, SEPA ( ) Office of Attorney General ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner e (175 121a flx ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office ,3kae. 2.01 ' ks SAQvA■ 95S01-7 Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services -SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div -SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources U;) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Tukwila Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( ) Foster Library ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) QWEST Communications ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Val -Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr - Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Allied Waste Services ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Police ( ) Planning ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) City Clerk ( ) Fire ( ) Finance ( ) Building ( ) Mayor Section 6 CITY AGENCIES ( ) Kent Planning Dept ( ) Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce ( Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * N Cultural Resources Fisheries Program Wildlife Program Duwamish Indian Tribe * Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA 64 Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ( ) Washington Environmental Council (people for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green /Duwamish River ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ( ) City of Tukwila Website P:Admin \Admin Forms \Agency Checklist QCS 3 ` `l�f`rNc3 r- r bl,3 ,�- . (� 7 lc`� N- City otTukwila • Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT File Number: L09 -041 Applied: 07/16/2009 Approved: 12/30/2010 Expiration: A permit is hereby granted to: GREGORY W ASHLEY to: Install a 240 square foot float and 96 square foot grated ramp on the Duwamish River. Work includes installing four steel piles, the removal of four existing wood piles, and installing a shoreline planting plan. Upon the following property: Address: 11534 EAST MARGINAL WY S TUKW Parcel Number: 102304 -9045 Section/Township /Range: 10- 23N -04E The following master program provisions are applicable to this development: King County Shoreline Master Pro Development under this permit shall comply with the following conditions. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other Federal, State or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) m the event the permittee fails to comply with the project as approved and arty conditions thereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT MAY NOT BEGIN AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY -ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (D.O.E.) AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173 -14 -090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN TWENTY -ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c). Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 the decision by the City of Tukwila to issue this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may only be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board. Appeals must be filed with the Shorelines Hearing Board within 21 -days from the filing of this permit with D.O.E. as defined in RCW 90.58.140. For mere detail information on appeals, refer to RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. Date: Jack P ce, Director of epartment of Community Development Construction must begin within 2 years from the effective date of the permit. The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). rinn• CI- I(1DCI IAICF 1 no_nn1 o,., rl• i'_zn_ ',n +n ,. w eitg 01 guntuda" 7. Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Teri Svedahl HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: Shumate Pier Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Mailing requested by: Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Mailer's signature: Official Notice �. Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 X Other: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Determination Was mailed to each of the addresses listed /attached on this 9 day of October in the year 2009 W: \USERS \TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC Project Name: Shumate Pier Project Number: L09 -041 - E09 -011 Mailing requested by: Stac Maur, or-' Mailer's signature: rX (7/ �. i W: \USERS \TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC AGENCY LABELS ( ) US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( ) US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) ( ) Dept of Natural Resources ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife ( ) Dept of Social & Health Services (Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Division ( ) Dept of Ecology, SEPA Office of Attorney General ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( ) KC Assessor's Office Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services -SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div -SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Tukwila Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( ) Foster Library ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) QWEST Communications ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev /Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Val -Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr - Lakeridge Sewer /Water Dist ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Allied Waste Services ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Police ( ) Planning ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) City Clerk ( ) Fire ( ) Finance ( ) Building ( ) Mayor Section 6 CITY AGENCIES ( ) Kent Planning Dept ( ) Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce ( ) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Fisheries Program ( ) Wildlife Program ( ) Duwamish Indian Tribe * Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit /SEPA ( ) Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ( ) Washington Environmental Council ( ) People for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green /Duwamish River ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ( ) City of Tukwila Website P:Admin \Admin Forms \Agency Checklist T L J•\ C ;L9- P 6r,, _,\ Public Notice Mailings For Permits SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division - SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Tribes - For any application on the Green /Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice Of Application Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings /Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed /posted. The Notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the Notice of Application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: ,.A3'ermit Data Sheet !Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) /Findings (staff report or memo) S1 oreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) .-Brawings /Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) •/ Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross - sections of site with structures & shoreline Grading Plan Vicinity map SPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) irsdings (staff report or memo) A Checklist (filled out by applicant) .Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline ,N tice of Application ■-(Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:Admin \Admin Forms \Agency Checklist City of Tukwila Notice of Application Shumate Pier Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Determination Location:11534 E Marginal WayS, tax parcel #1023049045 File #'s: L09-041, E09-011 Applicant Greg Ashley, Ashley Shoreline Design & Permitting • Property Owners: David and Laurie Shumate Project Planner: Stacy MacGregor, 206-4334166 Project Description: This application is to build a floating pier on the Duwamish Waterway. The pier will be an accessory structure to a private residence. The application includes land- scape improvement with non-native plant removal and re- vegetation with native species. A geotechnical report and plant- ing plan are included as part of the application. Comments and Appeals: The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100. - • . ' _ • Your, written comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Py., Ste 100. Comments must be received by 5:00pm on November 9, 2009. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling 206-433-7166. You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. • February 18, 2014 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Mr. David Shumate 11534 E Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98188 DAVID @PROPELDESIGNS.COM RE: Shumate Pier L09 -041 Annual Planting Inspection Dear Mr. Shumate: Jim Naggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director On January 30, 2014, staff from the Department of Community Development performed an annual inspection of your shoreline mitigation plantings on your property at 11534 E Marginal Way S, Tukwila. The time of year limited our ability to completely assess some dormant or perennial plants but I am pleased to share with you that generally the plantings are doing well. There are a couple of items that do need your attention. I am attaching photographs for your reference. 1. Near the Black Locust, a hemlock is dying. 2. A Black Locust seeding is doing well on the bank and needs to be removed before it gets larger. --eye SM Page 1 of 2 H: \Complete projects\L09 -041 Shumate Pier\20140206 Planting Inspection.docx 02/18/2014 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 3. One of the Shore Pine is dying. It was staked but it is now bent to the ground. 4. The Red Oster Dogwood is being overgrown by Gallium and blackberries. It needs some weeding maintenance. 5. There are some non - native volunteer grasses that need to be removed adjacent to the path (on both sides of the path). This area is supposed to have salal which needs to be replanted. Thank you for your attention to these issues and your stewardship of the river environment. If you have any questions regarding the site inspection and the contents of this letter, please feel free to contact me at 206 -433- 7166 or Stacy.MacGregor @TukwilaWA.gov. I will schedule the next inspection for early fall of 2014 to inspect the planting when they are not dormant. Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Plal(ner Department of Community Development SM Page 2 of 2 H: \Complete projects\L09 -041 Shumate Pier\20140206 Planting Inspection.docx 02/18/2014 1889 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (425) 649 -7000 January 11, 2011 David Shumate 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98168 C�'nnr� 'JAN 1.2011 bEIOP EN., Re: City of Tukwila Permit E09 -011 - Approved David Shumate - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 439 Dear Mr. Shumate: On January 07, 2011 the Department of Ecology received notice that the City of Tukwila approved your application for an SDP. Your permit is for the installation of a 240 square foot float and a 96 square foot grated ramp on the Duwamish River. Work includes installation of four steel piles that will stabilize the floating pier. The work also includes the removal of four existing wood piles and installation of a shoreline planting plan. The project will occur within shoreline jurisdiction of the Duwamish River. By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's_Substantial Development Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173 -27 -150 WAC) • The Tukwila Local Shoreline Master Program Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved SDP has been received by Ecology. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from the "date of receipt" — the date you receive this letter. Date of receipt is defined in RCW 43.21B.001 as: (1) "Business days" means Monday through Friday exclusive of any state or federal holiday. (2) "Date of receipt" means: (a) Five business days after the date of mailing; or David Shumate January 11, 2011 2 of 2 (b) The date of actual receipt, when the actual receipt date can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The recipient's sworn affidavit or declaration indicating the date of receipt, which is unchallenged by the agency, shall constitute sufficient evidence of actual receipt. The date of actual receipt, however, may not exceed forty-five days from the date of mailing. This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit, to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has . been received. They can be reached at (360) 664 -9160 or http://www.eho.wa.gov/ If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461 -08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State. Legislature at: http: / /apps.leg.wa.gov /wac. Other federal, state and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact David Radabaugh at (425) 649 -4260. Sincerely, David Radabaugh, Shoreline Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program By certified mail: 7010 0290 0000 8205 3052 cc: Greg Ashley, Ashley Shoreline Design and Permitting Stacy MacGregor, City of Tukwila REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch • • Mr. David Shumate 11534 East Marginal Way Tukwila, Washington 98168 Dear Mr. Shumate: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 SEP - 7 2010 RECE1VIED SEP 0 9 2010 PUBLIC WORKS A''j NOP pit .0_ Id"' won' rid*/ Reference: NWS- 2009 -1538 Shumate, David We have reviewed your application to install a new 240 square foot float and 96 square foot grated ramp in the Duwamish Waterway at 11534 East Marginal Way, Tukwila, King County, Washington. The work also includes the installation of four 10 -inch diameter steel piles, the removal of four existing piles, and the installation of a shoreline planting plan. Based on the information you provided to us, this "Letter of Permission" (LOP) permit authorizes your proposal as depicted on the enclosed drawings dated January 4, 2010, which are made part of this permit. In order for this LOP authorization to be valid, you must ensure that the work is performed in accordance with the enclosed Letter of Permission General Conditions and the following special conditions: a. You must implement and abide by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements and/or agreements set forth in the `Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment — Shumate Dock Project, Tukwila, Washington ", dated April 15, 2009, and the addendum dated, in their entirety. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based on this document on May 11, 2010 (NMFS Reference Number 2010/00839). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based on this document on April 6, 2010 (USFWS Reference Number 13410- 2010 -I- 0217). Both agencies will be informed of this permit issuance. Failure to comply with the commitments made in this document constitutes non - compliance with the ESA and your Corps permit. The USFWS/NMFS is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with ESA. b. Iriorder to meet the requirements of the ESA and for the protection of Puget Sound Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout, the permittee may conduct the authorized activities from August 1 through August 31 in any year this permit is valid. The permittee shall not conduct work authorized by this permit from September 1 through July 31 in any year this permit is valid. -2- c. To insure that light transmission is not impacted, grating must not be covered with or blocked at any time by any objects, such as, but not limited to, buildings, planters, storage sheds ar boxes, nets, carpets, boards, tables, lawn furniture, or utility conduits or boxes. d. All construction debris shall be properly disposed of on uplands in such a manner that it cannot enter into the waterway or cause water quality degradation. e. You must implement and abide by the riparian-planting plan dated January 4, 2010, sheet 4of the drawing set. Plantings shall be installed following project construction. A report, as -built drawing and photographs demonstrating the plants have been installed or a report on the status of project construction must be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch, within 12 months from the date of permit issuance. You can meet this reporting requirement by completing and submitting the enclosed Report for Mitigation Work Completion form. f. You must maintain and monitor the survival of installed riparian plantings for five years after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers accepts the as-built report. Installed plants shall achieve 100% survival during monitoring Years 1 and 2. Installed plants shall achieve at least 80% survival during monitoring Years 3, 4 and 5. Percent survival is based on the total number of plants installed in accordance with the approved riparian planting plan. Individual plants that die roust be replaced with native riparian species in order to meet the survival performance standards. g. You must submit annual monitoring reports for five years (Monitoring Years 1 -5). Each annual monitoring report shall include written and photographic documentation on plant mortality and replanting efforts and must document whether the performance standards are being met. Photos must be taken from established points and used repeatedly for each monitoring year. Annual riparian planting monitoring reports must be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch, by December 31 of each monitoring year. You can meet this reporting requirement by completing and submitting the enclosed Mitigation Planting Monitoring Report form. h. You must protect and preserve the riparian plantings and allow the vegetation to grow in a natural state for as long as the permitted project remains in place. We have reviewed your project pursuant to the requirements of the ESA and the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in regards to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Corps has determined that this project will comply with the requirements of the above laws provided you comply with the special conditions listed above. Please be reminded that Special Condition "a" of your permit requires that you implement and abide by the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the Biological Evaluation for this project. In particular, note that the BE requires that you implement a shoreline planting plan, -3- monitor and submit monitoring reports on the planted area to the Corps and Services annually for a period of 5 years, and record the location and description of the planting area on your deed. Failure to comply with the commitments made in the BE constitutes non - compliance with the ESA and your Corps permit. Any change in the plans for this work will require that you submit revised drawings to this office and receive our written approval of those changes prior to conducting the work. Also, we. have completed an approved jurisdictional determination for your project area which can be found on our website at http: / /www.nws.usace.army.mil/ click on Regulatory, Regulatory/Permits, Recent Jurisdictional Determinations. If you object to any terms or conditions of this LOP or the jurisdictional determination, you may request an administrative appeal under our regulations 33 CFR 331 as described in the enclosed Appeal Process Fact Sheet and the Notification of Administrative Appeal Options and Process and Request for Appeal form. Your authorization to conduct the proposed work under this permit expires 3 years from the date of this letter. Within 30 days of completing the authorized work, you must fill out and return the enclosed Certificate of Compliance with Department of the Army Permit form to the address indicated on the form. Your signature on this form is our assurance you have conducted the work and any required mitigation in accordance with the terms and conditions of this LOP, including all special conditions. Please remember that failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this LOP, including any special conditions, will invalidate your authorization and could result in a violation of Federal law. Thank you for your cooperation during the permit process. We are interested in your experience with our Regulatory Program and encourage you to complete a customer service survey form. This form and information about our program is available on our website at: www.nws.usace.army.mil (select "Regulatory" and then "Regulatory/Permits "). While this project will not require further authorization from us, please note that it must comply with all State, local, and other Federal requirements that may apply. A copy of this letter without enclosures is being furnished to Mr. Gregory Ashley, Ashley Shoreline Design & Permitting at 16412 Northeast 10th Place, Bellevue, Washington 98008 -3707. If you have any questions about this letter or our regulatory program, please contact Jacalen Printz at telephone (206) 764 -6901 or via email Jacalen.M.Printz@usace.army.mil. BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: fete Anion O right Colonel, " orps of Engineers District Engineer State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 1775 12`l' Ave. NW Suite 201, Issaquah, WA 98027 December 16, 2009 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development ATTENTION: Jack Pace 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: SUBJECT: Determination of Non - significance (DNS), File No. E09 -011, Shumate Floating Pier, Duwamish /Green River, Tributary to Elliot Bay, King County, WRIA 09.0001 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above - referenced DNS and has the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered if the project progresses. It has come as quite a surprise that a dock would be proposed for a single family residence on the Duwamish/Green River. It is doubtful that WDFW would issue a Hydraulic Project Approval for the proposed dock for the following reasons: 1. There would be permanent impacts to the riparian habitat on the riverbank and in the critical areas buffer. This could result in erosion of the riverbank and further impacts to riverine habitat by attempts to stabilize the bank and protect the dock access. 2. The structure would alter the migration patterns of juvenile salmonid fish and potentially render them more vulnerable to predation. 3. The structure would protrude into the river and interfere with the natural transport of large woody material (a crucial component of a healthy river ecosystem). 4. There would be increased pollution from watercraft associated with the dock. 5. The issuance of permits for one dock could result in a proliferation of docks on the river, where no such docks exist now. There is a reason why there are no single family residence docks on the river. A dock extending into the river would very likely be destroyed during a flood event by trees coming down the river. The bottom line is it would be inappropriate to allow a dock such as is proposed; and if such a dock was permitted by the city or the state, it should be considered a taking of habitat for Chinook salmon, bull trout, and steelhead trout, which are federally listed threatened species. City of Tukwila December 16, 2009 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If there are any questions concerning this, please contact me at 425 -313 -5683 or fisheldf @dfw.wa.gov. WDFW appreciates the opportunity to collaborate with the City of Tukwila in our efforts to preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state of Washington. Sincerely, Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist LF:If: COTukwilaSEPA.doc cc: WDFW: Eturaspe, Brock, Reinbold MIT Fisheries, Walter NOAA Fisheries, Longenbaugh II • RECEIVED File Numbers City of Tukwila SEP 2 5 2009 E09- 011 -SEPA TUKWILA L09 -041 Shoreline PUBLIC WORKS Department of Community Development LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: Building Public Works Fire Dept. Storm Water EngineerJJ Envrionmemtalist Project: Shumate Floating Pier Address: 11534 E Marginal Way S Parcel: 1023049045 Date transmitted: -9- 44)/ Response requested by: 8/11/2009 Staff coordinator: Stacy MacGregor Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials asneede A0911 c SIB, - ob 62- 4- N Q 1A/Ya )&SrOA iCe& (A 111- Cis s i ) i M it -le ►10 Ia ec,L (36a) Sod _ 7060 sh - /�0c-e$s SOO OA) A0-11/1"-16.55 t 1 " �P lJ Y4129-' 0144 1'�f I > Cam- +-L e- C; ° - j; ,Ftoff' - ;s l '1) 17051-1,9,- ti 4 pp/ dam,/ Plan check date: Comments prepared by: Update dati2!4( TO: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Numbers E09- 011 -SEPA L09-041 -Shoreline LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Building DI Public Works Fire Dept. Storm Water Engineer Imo' Envrionmemtalist Project: Shumate Floating Pier Address: 11534 E Marginal Way S Parcel: 1023049045 Date transmitted: 07/28/09 Response requested by: 8/11/2009 Staff coordinator: Stacy MacGregor Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials asneede -60-td id, .`/€4af-064, 4.at r >a9o� Plan check adate: oot Comments prepared by: Update date: TO: • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Numbers E09- 011 -SEPA L09-041 -Shoreline LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Building Public Works pi Fire Dept. i❑ Storm Water Engineer 0 Envrionmemtalist Project: Shumate Floating Pier Address: 11534 E Marginal Way S Parcel: 1023049045 Date transmitted: 07/28/09 Response requested by: 8/11/2009 Staff coordinator: Stacy MacGregor Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials asneede /(/O CO 1,..% . Plan check date: /0^ (;0 Comments prepared by: Update date: • City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Sent via email to: greg @shoreline - permitting.com (no hard copy to follow) NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION July 29, 2006 Gregory Ashley Ashley Shoreline Design and Permitting 16412 NE 10t Place Bellevue, WA 98008 -3707 RE: Shumate Floating Pier L09-041 — Shoreline Permit E09 -011— SEPA Determination Dear Mr. Ashley, Your application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for the property located at 11534 E Marginal Way South has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center: 1. Civil Plans a. See item 17 of your Shoreline application checklist for the requirements. b. Additionally, i. Show both sides of the existing trail. ii. Show the entire length of the walkway. iii. Include spot elevations along the trail. iv. Show a detail of the piles. v. Show a detail of how the ramp will be secured to the shore. c. Describe how the dock and shoreline will be secured or protected to ensure private use. Any fencing needs to be reviewed in the geotechnical report to ensure that the posts will not impact slope stability. d. Provide a landscape and irrigation plan. Your letter mentions a planting plan but only one plan was included in the one copy of the SFH assessment. Provide 4 full - size plan sets and one small size plan set. i. Include an irrigation plan. ii. Include existing trees to remain and describe invasive species removal practices. SM H: \L09 -041 Shumate Pier\20090728 NOIC.doc Page 1 of 2 09/25/2009 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 e. Provide one additional 8.5x11" plan set. f. Provide 4 more copies if the biological evaluation and essential fish habitat assessment. i. Correct the 5th bullet point on page 18 adding the word "not" in the last sentence to read: "...toxic compounds not approved for marine use will not be used." g. Provide documentation describing the trail easement and the existing trail to view the shoreline. Describe how the proposal will affect or impact the access (visual or physical) to the shoreline. h. If you can provide the plans, geotechnical report and/or the EFH Assessment via email in pdf form I would appreciate it. It is not required but the tribes are currently requesting pdfs and having them available saves paper. i. At your preapplication, the City's Police Department asked for permission to use the dock, discuss if this will be allowed and in what capacity. This application will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of that letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E). Upon receipt of these items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. If you have any questions with this matter, I am the planner assigned to your project; you may call me at 206 - 433 -7166 or via email at smacgregor @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, (signature on file) Stacy MacGregor Assistant Planner SM Page 2 of 2 09/25/2009 H: \L09 -041 Shumate Pier\20090728 NOIC.doc July 14, 2009 Ash . n Shoreline Design c ' riitting laerrl >r t I, v w w.shoreti1ee= permitting. com City of Tukwila Department of Community IDevelopment 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: ShnmatP Applicatieomfor Shoreline Substantiall Development Dear Sir: Mr. Shumate would hie to tbuiild a floating pier on the IDuwamish Waterway. The property address for thee proposed project is: 11534E Marginal Way S Tukwila, WA 98188, King; County The Property tax account number is: 102304 -9045 Quarter: NW '/ Section: 103 Township: 23N Range: 041E JUL162Qg Di SOP dr This pier is an accessory struuclure to a single - family priivate residence. The pier will be secured by four (4), ten (10) inch diameter galvartnized steel piles. The Retail square footage of the pier will be three hundred twenty -eight (328) feet. Three pier will extend twenty -eiight feet six inches (28' -6 ") into the waterway from the MHWM. The pier will Ibbe: set back from the east property line a distance of eighteen feet six inches (18' -6 "). A Geotechnical ldteport will be prepared by (Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc., as well as a planting plan by Evergreen Aquatic FResources Consultants, Id,(C to enhance the nearshore littoral zone. Sincerely, Gregory W. Ashley As6fey Shoreline Design 67Z 'Permitting www.shoreline- penmitting.cconu Enclosures GWA/gwa 16412 WE 10th Place * Beffetnze, 14Vistiington 98008-3707 * e lion: (425) 957 -9381 * e -mail greg@shorefine-permitting.com ) Cornerstor% Geotechnical, Inc. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists • January 7, 2009 Mr. David Shumate 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington 98168 Riverbank Evaluation Letter 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington CG File No. 2750 Dear Mr. Shumate: rJUL l 6 2009 DEVDELOPjyc dT INTRODUCTION We have prepared this letter to provide our opinions concerning erosion potential of onsite soils at your site bordering the Duwamish River. The site is located at 11534 East Marginal Way South in Tukwila. Washington. You have informed us that you plan to construct a floating dock in the Duwamish Waterway, which borders the site to the north. The dock will be connected to an onshore pier. The pier will be the only portion of the dock that will be constructed onshore. We understand that the pier may be supported with shallow concrete foundations and/or on piles. If a shallow concrete foundation will be used, it would be located at least five feet from the top of the riverbank. Lateral support for the floating portion of the dock will be provided by piles. We also understand that the pier and dock will not be subject to high loads. You have provided us with project information, including photographs of the project area, 3D images of the planned dock, and a cross - section that shows extreme low water, mean low water, mean high water, and extreme high water elevations. The cross - section also shows the alignment of existing wood piles in the waterway and the potential location of pin piles that may be used to support the planned pier. 17625 - 130th Avenue NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072 • Phone: 425 - 844 -1977 • Fax: 425 - 844 -1987 Riverbank Evaluation Letter • 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington January 7, 2009 CG File No. 2750 Page 2 • We understand that you have occupied the site for about a year and a half and that you have not observed, nor are aware of, any instability of the riverbank. You have informed us that the City of Tukwila has required that a geotechnical engineer evaluate the stability of the riverbank and also evaluate impacts of the planned pier on the riverbank stability. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The ground surface within the site slopes gently down to the north to the adjacent Duwamish River. The area of the planned dock is vegetated with blackberry bushes, grass, brush, and a large deciduous tree. A concrete walkway with a north/south alignment extends toward the area of the planned dock from the south. This walkway was mostly covered with leaves and soil at the time of our site reconnaissance. A retaining wall with two tiers each about three feet high is located along the west side of the concrete walkway. The wall was composed of pieces of concrete and exhibited no indications of instability. We could not determine from surficial observations if this wall faces fill or cut in native soils. At the time of our reconnaissance the tide was in and less than 8 feet of the unvegetated riverbank were exposed above the water level. The exposed soils were silt and silty sand. We understand that more unvegetated riverbank is exposed when the tide is out. We observed deteriorated wood piles nearly parallel to the riverbank approximately five feet out into the river. At the time of our reconnaissance the concrete walkway was about four feet above the elevation of the river surface. The area west of the tiered retaining wall was about 10 feet above the river surface. The inclination of the riverbank was approximately 1 Horizontal to 1 Vertical. We did not observe indications of sloughing or slope failures on the riverbank. Geology The geologic units for this area are mapped on The Geologic Map of Seattle — a Progress Report, by Kathy Goetz Troost, et al. (US Geological Survey, 2005). The site vicinity is mapped as being underlain by alluvial soils, composed of sand and silt deposited by flowing water. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Riverbank Evaluation Letter. 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington January 7, 2009 CG File No. 2750 Page 3 • Explorations We explored subsurface conditions near the planned dock on December 17, 2008, by auguring two holes with hand equipment. The augers were made to depths of 5.0 and 7.5 feet below the ground surface. Samples were obtained when different soil conditions were encountered. The explorations were located in the field by a representative from this firm who also examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the explorations. Hand Auger 1 was located in the area of the planned pier and encountered a surficial layer of topsoil approximately 0.2 feet in thickness. The topsoil consisted of soft organic silt with sand and roots. Underlying the topsoil we encountered 3.9 feet of fill soils consisting of loose to medium dense silty sand with glass and plastic fragments. Below the fill we observed interbedded dense silty sand and sand to a depth of 7.3 feet. Moderate to heavy seepage was observed within the sand layer. The exploration was completed in stiff silt 7.5 feet below the ground surface. We interpret the soils below the fill as alluvial deposits. Hand Auger 2 was lower on the riverbank, about two feet above the river level. This exploration encountered 0.2 feet of surficial soft silt. The surficial soils were underlain by 0.2 feet of loose sand with silt and 2.8 feet of soft silt with clay. The exploration was completed in a deposit of dense sand with silt at a depth of 5.0 feet. We interpret these soils as alluvial deposits. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The site riverbank appears to be performing adequately. We have not observed indications of recent sloughing or slope failures of the riverbank, however due to its steep inclination such events are possible. We anticipate that the planned pile foundations that will be installed to support the pier and dock will not transfer significant loads to soil within approximately 10 feet of the ground surface. For that reason it is our opinion that the planned pile foundations will not reduce the riverbank stability. In our opinion shallow foundations should not reduce stability of the riverbank because they will have relatively light loads and will be located at least five feet beyond the steep portion of the riverbank. In our opinion construction activities would have a potential to impact the riverbank. The dock contractor should minimize any excavation near the riverbank and should control erosion on any disturbed areas. Erosion control measures could include placing jute mats and/or establishing vegetation. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Riverbank Evaluation Letter • 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington January 7, 2009 CG File No. 2750 Page 4 USE OF THIS LETTER We have prepared this letter for Mr. David Shumate and his agents for use in planning and design of this project. Our services were only performed to evaluate the site riverbank stability and impacts of the planned improvements on the riverbank. Our scope of services does not include recommendations for foundations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we have strived to take care that our services have been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this letter was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this letter or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Thor Christensen, PE Associate Rick B Powell, PE President JRW:TRC:RBP : am Three Copies Submitted Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT SH U MATE DOCK PROJECT Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Mr. David Shumate 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington 98168 Prepared by: Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC PO Box 1721 Issaquah, Washington 98027 (425) 677 -7166 Project No. 08 -1 -031 April 15, 2009 • • Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( "ESA "; Public Law 93 -205) provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range as well as the conservation of the ecosystems upon which endangered or threatened species depend. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service ( "NOAA Fisheries ") and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( "USFWS ") share responsibility for ESA implementation. Generally, NOAA Fisheries manages marine and anadromous species, while the USFWS manages land and freshwater species. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS on all actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by federal agencies that may adversely affect listed species. Currently, there are approximately 1,930 species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Essential fish habitat ( "EFH ") is broadly defined by the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( "MSA "; Public Law 94 -265), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104 -297), to include "....those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity ". "Waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include historic areas if appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle (63 Fed Reg. 66551). The MSA requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by a federal agency, that may adversely affect designated EFH. In Washington, EFH has been designated for three species of pacific salmon, 83 species of groundfish, and five coastal pelagic species. This study describes potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction of a new floating dock located on the southern bank of the lower Green - Duwamish River at 11534 East Marginal Way South in Tukwila, Washington. The new floating dock will be constructed for private, noncommercial watercraft moorage and water oriented recreational uses. The proposed project was determined to May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect ESA - listed threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat. In addition, the proposed action Will Impact, but will have No Adverse Affect on EFH for MSA managed species. April 15, 2009 Page i Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project LIMITATIONS The results and conclusions presented in this report represent an analysis of information provided by Mr. David Shumate and his consultants, together with information independently gathered by Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC during the course of our study and analysis. The results and conclusions presented in this report represent a best professional opinion based on our professional experience with similar projects in the local area as well as our understanding of the regulatory requirements and /or the technical guidance known to be in effect at the time the work was completed. We warrant that our work conforms to the standards generally accepted in our industry for species and habitat impact assessment and that this report was prepared substantially in accordance with the technical guidelines and criteria, if any, in place at the time of report preparation. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The findings and conclusions presented in this report are subject to regulatory agency review. Because the outcome of such regulatory agency review cannot be guaranteed, it is recommended that this report be reviewed and accepted by appropriate regulatory agencies prior to taking any action on the information or plans contained herein. We trust that this study meets your present needs. Please contact us should you have any questions regarding the information presented in this study and /or if you require additional assistance with this project. This study was prepared by and /or under the direction of the undersigned. Peter Super WS April 15, 2009 Page ii • S Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Project Description 1 2.1 Purpose 1 2.2 Project Area 4 2.3 Action Area 4 2.4 Proposed Action 4 2.5 Construction Techniques 5 2.6 Interdependent - Interrelated Actions 5 3.0 ESA - Listed Species Overview 5 3.1 Chinook Salmon 6 3.2 Steelhead Trout 6 3.3 Bull Trout and Dolly Varden 7 4.0 Existing Environmental Conditions 7 4.1 Overview 7 4.2 Surrounding Land and Water Use 8 4.3 Shoreline Vegetation 8 4.4 Proximity of Proposed Action to Listed Species 9 5.0 Effects Analysis 10 5.1 Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Trout Habitat - Primary Constituent Elements 10 5.2 Bull Trout Critical Habitat - Primary Constituent Elements 14 5.3 Effects of Interrelated- Interdependent Actions 17 6.0 Conservation Measures 17 7.0 Determination of Effect on ESA - Listed Species 19 8.0 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 20 8.1 Chinook Salmon 20 8.2 Coho Salmon 20 8.3 Pink Salmon 21 8.4 Effects of the Proposed Action on Pacific Salmon EFH 21 8.5 Proposed Conservation Measures 21 8.6 EFH Conclusions 21 9.0 References 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -Site Plan 2 Figure 2 - Dock Construction Details 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1- General Project Information 1 Table 2 - ESA - Listed Species, Status, and Critical Habitat Designation 5 Table 3 - Plant Species Present within the Project Area 9 Table 4 - Effects Determination for Species and Habitats Assessed 19 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Shoreline Impact Reduction Plan April 15, 2009 Page iii Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACZA ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate BMP best management practice Corps US Army Corps of Engineers DPS distinct population segment Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EFH essential fish habitat ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 ESU evolutionarily significant unit ft2 square feet HDPE high density polyethylene LWD large woody debris MHHW mean higher high water NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service MSA Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service PCE primary constituent element RM river mile WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA water resource inventory area USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service April 15, 2009 Page iv Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC is pleased to present this biological evaluation and essential fish habitat assessment for a proposed dock construction project located at 11534 East Marginal Way South in Tukwila, Washington. This study identifies potential project impacts to species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ( "ESA "; Public Law 93 -205). Additionally, this study identifies potential impacts to essential fish habitat ( "EFH ") designated for protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( "MSA "; Public Law 94 -265), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104 -297). We understand that this report will be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers ( "Corps ") with a formal application to construct the proposed dock. Table 1— General Project Information Proposed Action Construction of a new overwater structure to provide noncommercial watercraft moorage and water dependent recreational uses. Construction Drawings See Figure 1 and Figure 2 (next pages) Owner /Applicant Mr. David Shumate 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington 98168 (206) 992 -8738 david@propeldesigns.com Location of Action 11534 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington 98168 King County, Washington Northwest quarter section of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. Latitude: 47.5001; Longitude: - 122.28754 Affected Waterbod Y Lower Green - Duwamish River (WRIA 09:001) at approximately River Mile ( "RM ") 6.9 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Purpose The purpose of the proposed action is to provide noncommercial watercraft moorage and water dependent recreational use. April 15, 2009 Page 1 EAS AEGINAL WAIT N_ 89.07'102.4, 9.07 102.4 20 5 rn g' N I-1: • 11111 Z izeszni 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET II II II Ev + O Cn V Cn SEATTLE CITY LIGHT RIGHT SITE) OF WAY (GREEN RIVER TRAIL Lake Forest Knwore Park VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SITE ADDRESS: 11534 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98168 PARCEL NO. 1023049045 LATITUDE: 47.5001 LONGITUDE: - 122.28754 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (ABBREVIATED) THAT POR OF GL 6 LY BET DUWAMISH RIVERTON CO RD & SEATTLE- TACOMA INT RY R/W & N OF A LN BEG AT INTSN OF E LN OF SD RD &LN 1151.71 FT OF LN OF SEC THN 75 -41 -DOE 166.43 FT TO W LN OF INTERURBAN LESS STATE HWAY N 5 -M. • FIGURE NOTES: THIS FIGURE INCORPORATES SITE SURVEY AND DESIGN INFORMATION PROVIDED ASHLEY SHORELINE DESIGN AND PERMITTING. WHILE THIS INFORMATION I5 BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, EVERGREEN AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC CANNOT ENSURE ITS ACCURACY AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THIS FIGURE AS A RESULT OF ITS USE. CAUTION: UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, IF ANY, MAYBE APPROXIMATE AND /OR INCOMPLETE. Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC Wetland Delineation Mitigation Design Post - Construction Monitoring PO Box 1721 Issaquah, Washington 98027 (425) 677 -7166 www.evergreenarc.com FIGURE 1 - SITE PLAN SHUMATE DOCK PROJECT BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT ANY AND ALL DRAWINGS, DETAILS, DESIGN INTENT AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF EVERGREEN AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC AND SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. DATE: 04/15/2009 PROJECT NO: 08 -1 -031 IMPAC1'P4ITIGAT/ON PLANTINGS (1,171'50 • • f 1 1L i - .. • __._' uuuluuuu K• lllllllllllllll PROPOSED FLOATING DOCK O�'��' • lllllllllllllll P 0 IIIIIIIIIllI111 it /1'.1' 1 1.,k)4.:,::4,.. }( lllllllllllllll 1 1 LT ; 111111111111111 Y 11111111111111 ",' ! ,L ,; ,' : x 11111111111111 '' / J 1 1 1� I111UIIIII11II1 ` , LL : �( 111111111111111 ( IIIIUIIIIIIIII 1 / rn11un111m1n1, m.nI1n11111u1u11n11n111n1in111u111111n11E1111 nn1111igi:Alin IIIIIIIIIIIIII I 111111111111111 11 • PROPOSED ALUMINUM GANGWAY • • EX. PILE TO BE REMOVED • (TYP) • • • • IMPACT MITIGATION PLANTINGS (577 SF) ru Np DEATIL 1 - SITE PLAN fIr cittN r • • PROPOSED STEEL PILE (TYP) EX. WOOD PILE (TYP) 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET CONSTRUCTION NOTES. 1. PILES SHALL BE 10° DIA GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE DRIVEN TO REFUSAL 2. STRINGERS SHALL BE A MAXIMUM 2' 0 C. STRINGER MATERIAL SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR -- ACZA TREATED TO 40 OR REFUSAL, 3. HIGH DENSI Ty POLYETHYLENE HOMOPOLYMER TUBS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO STRINGERS USING 1/2" GAL V. LAG BOLTS TUB AND FOAM SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPLETELY CLOSED TO THE ENVIRONMENT. 4. FOUR FEET OF GRATING DOWN CENTER OF FLOAT. GRATING SHALL BE THRU -FLOW OR EQUAL. 5. FLOAT SHALL BE SECURED WITH GALVANIZED STEEL ANCHORS AND CHAIN. 2° X 6° DECKING PROPOSED HDPE TUB CONTAINING FOAM (TYP) SIDE VIEW 2 °X 6° DECKING PROPOSED CONC. SHORE MOUNT EX. PILE TO BE REMOVED eel (TYP) PROPOSED ALUMINUM GANGWAY 35' DETAIL 2 - ELEVATION PROPOSED STEEL PILE HOPE TUB CONTAINING FOAM (TYP) (TYP) NO SCALE 30 11 11 1111 DETAIL 2 - FLOAT DETAIL NO SCALE 1 GRATING HOPE TUB END VIEW CONTAINING FOAM (TYP) DETAIL 3 - FLOAT SIDE AND END VIEWS NO SCALE • FIGURE NOTES: THIS FIGURE INCORPORATES SITE SURVEY AND DESIGN INFORMATION PROVIDED ASHLEY SHORELINE DESIGN AND PERMITTING. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, EVERGREEN AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC CANNOT ENSURE ITS ACCURACY AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THIS FIGURE AS A RESULT OF ITS USE. CAUTION: UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWIN, IF ANY, MAY BE APPROXIMATE AND /OR INCOMPLETE. Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC PO Box 1721 Wetland Delineation Issaquah, Washington 98027 Mitigation Design (425) 677 -7166 Post - Construction Monitoring www.evergreenarc.com FIGURE 2 - DOCK CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHUMATE DOCK PROJECT BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT ANY AND ALL DRAWINGS, DETAILS, DESIGN INTENT AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF EVERGREEN AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC AND SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. DATE: 04/15/2009 PROJECT NO: 08 -1 -031 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish HabitatAssessment Shumate Dock Project 2.2 Project Area The project area includes the portion of the lower Green - Duwamish River (WRIA 09:001) located immediately adjacent to 11534 East Marginal Way South in Tukwila, Washington (approximately RM 6.9). Work will be conducted on and adjacent to the southern bank of the Green - Duwamish River (see Figure 1). 2.3 Action Area The action area includes in -water and riparian habitats extending for a distance of one (1) mile from the project area. This broader area is distinguished from the project area to address potential effects of the proposed action on ESA listed species and their habitats as well as effects of the proposed action on EFH for MSA managed species. Because of the scope of the proposed action, project impacts area expected to be localized in nature and unlikely to extend greater than one (1) mile from the project area. 2.4 Proposed Action This project includes the construction of a new floating dock, gangway (ramp), and shoreline platform along the southern shoreline of the Green - Duwamish River. The floating dock will be orientated generally parallel with the existing shoreline and the entire overwater structure (dock and ramp) will extend a maximum of 35 feet into the river from the mean higher high water ( "MHHW ") line. Total overwater coverage provided by the float and ramp will be 318 square feet. The proposed floating dock will measure eight (8) feet wide by 30 feet long. The total overwater coverage provided by the floating dock is 240 square feet. Four (4) 10 -inch diameter galvanized steel pile will anchor the floating dock in place. Deck stringers will comprise ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate ( "ACZA ") treated dimensional Douglas -fir lumber and the deck surface includes a combination of dimensional wood decking and ThruFlowT" grating. The total effective grating area of the float is 50 percent (120 square feet) of the float surface. High- density polyethylene ( "HDPE ") homopolymer tubs will fully enclose flotation to prevent breakup or loss as well as to protect the flotation material from the effects of ultraviolet radiation and /or abrasion. If necessary, stoppers capable of supporting the entire float will be used to prevent the float from resting on tidally exposed riverbed substrate during low tide. The ramp providing access to the floating dock will measure a maximum of three (3) feet in width and will extend a maximum of 26 feet from a concrete shore mount. The total overwater coverage provided by the ramp is 78 square feet. The ramp will be prefabricated off -site and will be constructed of marine grade aluminum, with the walkway surface fully grated. Grating will provide a minimum of 60 percent open area. The shoreline mount will comprise a two (2) foot by five (5) foot concrete pad constructed above the MHHW line at the terminus of an existing shoreline access point. An existing trail will be used to access the proposed floating dock. Shoreline vegetation clearing will be limited to incidental vegetation removal adjacent to the new shoreline platform as well as that April 15, 2009 Page 4 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project necessary to maintain access using the existing trail. Following construction, 1,743 square feet (ft2) of shoreline buffer will be enhanced using native trees and shrubs. 2.5 Construction Techniques Construction of the proposed overwater structure will be accomplished using a floating barge or equivalent floating platform temporarily located within the project area during construction. The barge will not be allowed to rest on the river bottom while on -site. Material and equipment necessary for construction of the floating dock will stage primarily from the floating barge, though materials and equipment necessary for construction of the shore mount may utilize the existing shoreline access point. Significant shoreline vegetation removal, clearing, and /or grading will not occur. The four (4) proposed galvanized steel piling will be installed using a vibratory pile driver to minimize noise generated during installation. The proposed floating dock will be fabricated on -site using standard hand and power tools. The aluminum ramp will be fabricated off -site by a commercial fabricator. Construction duration is anticipated to range from a few days to a few weeks depending on weather and river conditions. 2.6 Interdependent - Interrelated Actions The proposed action is a standalone project. There are no other known actions scheduled or occurring within the project or action area that are dependent upon, related to, and /or associated with the proposed action. 3.0 ESA - LISTED SPECIES OVERVIEW Table 2 — ESA - Listed Species, Status, and Critical Habitat Designation Species Common (Scientific) ESU /DPS ESA Status Critical Habitat Designated Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Puget Sound Threatened Yes Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) Puget Sound Threatened No Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Dolly Varden (S. malma) Puget Sound Threatened Yes Table 2 summarizes the ESA - listed species, status, and critical habitat addressed in this report. Although other endangered and /or threatened species exist within the Puget Sound region, these species and /or their habitats are not addressed in this report because such species and /or their habitats are not known April 15, 2009 Page 5 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project to occur within the action area based on database information received from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife ( "WDFW "; 2009) as well as professional knowledge of the local area. 3.1 Chinook Salmon Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) within the Green - Duwamish River system are part of the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit ( "ESU "; WDFW 1998a). The Green - Duwamish River Chinook salmon stock is of mixed origin, as natural production is supplemented by hatchery releases from the Soos Creek Hatchery operated by the WDFW. Most Chinook salmon in the Green - Duwamish River system are summer /fall run fish (Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004, WDFW and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes [ "WWTIT "] 1994). Adult Chinook return to the Green - Duwamish River from late June through September and spawn in natal streams from early September into mid - November (United States Fish and Wildlife [ "USFWS "] and National Marine Fisheries Service [ "NMFS "] 2000). Spawning within the Green - Duwamish River most often occurs in the mainstem river and larger tributary streams where adequate substrate is available from Kent (approximately RM 24.0) to the City of Tacoma Headworks diversion dam (approximately RM 61.0). Depending on water temperature, incubation takes between 90 and 150 days, with fry emergence occurring in March and April. Usually, fall Chinook juveniles will feed for a short time and then migrate to the ocean, whereas spring Chinook salmon juveniles may rear in freshwater for one (1) year or more. When present, spring Chinook salmon prefer to remain in the mainstem rivers and streams, generally seeking cover in pools, large substrate, large wood debris ( "LWD "), and undercut banks; off- channel ponds are not typically used by Chinook salmon for overwintering (Everest and Chapman 1972). The Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU was listed as "threatened" under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308) and reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). The segment of the Green - Duwamish River located adjacent to the project site has been listed as critical habitat for Chinook salmon rearing and migration (70 FR 52630). The Green - Duwamish River population is considered healthy based on relatively high escapement levels (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). The Green - Duwamish River stock origin is mixed with both natural spawning and hatchery releases contributing to the stock. 3.2 Steelhead Trout Steelhead trout (0. mykiss) within the Green - Duwamish River are part of the Puget Sound distinct population segment ( "DPS "). Two major steelhead trout run types, winter and summer, are found within the Green - Duwamish River system. Winter steelhead trout adults begin river entry in December and generally spawn from February through May beginning approximately 19 miles upstream of the project area (USFWS and NMFS 2000). The winter steelhead trout run is native to the Green - Duwamish River system (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). The Green - Duwamish river system also supports a non - native origin summer steelhead trout run. Summer -run steelhead trout generally enter the river from May through October and spawn from February through April principally in the mainstem and tributaries from the City of Tacoma April 15, 2009 Page 6 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project Headworks diversion dam (approximately RM 61.0) downstream to the upper Green River Gorge, approximately 40 miles upstream of the project area. The resultant fry typically outmigrate between April and June after spending at least one complete year and up to three years in freshwater. The Puget Sound steelhead trout DPS was listed as "threatened" under the ESA on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26722). Both the summer and winter Green - Duwamish River steelhead stocks were listed as healthy by the WDFW based on meeting escapement goals for several years (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). Critical habitat for the Puget Sound steelhead trout DPS has not been designated. 3.3 Bull Trout and DoIIy Varden Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and DoIIy Varden (S. malma) are native char, typically found in high glacially fed watersheds or near cold perennial springs, although individual fish can also occur downstream throughout larger river systems (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and Gregory 1997). Bull trout found in the Green - Duwamish River system are part of the Puget Sound bull trout DPS. Water temperature above 15 °C is believed to limit bull trout distribution, which may partially explain the generally patchy distribution within a watershed such as the Green - Duwamish River (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1995). Strict coldwater temperature requirements make bull trout particularly vulnerable to activities that warm spawning and rearing waters (Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Goetz 1989). Bull trout spawning areas are often associated with coldwater springs, ground water infiltration, and the coldest streams in a given watershed (Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Preferred spawning habitat consists of low- gradient streams with loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989) and water temperatures of 5 °C to 9 °C in late summer to early fall (Goetz 1989). Although a small component of the Puget Sound bull trout DPS is anadromous, bull trout generally live in freshwater their entire lives. Dolly Varden are generally anadromous. All bull trout in the coterminous United States are listed as "threatened" under the ESA (64 FR 58910). Critical habitat for bull trout was designated on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56212). DoIIy Varden are proposed for listing as threatened due to their similarity of appearance to bull trout (66 FR 1628). The stock status for Dolly Varden is unknown due to insufficient data WDFW (1998b). 4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 4.1 Overview The project area includes and is adjacent to a developed residentially zoned parcel located on the south bank of the Green - Duwamish River, immediately east of the East Marginal Way South crossing of the river. An existing single - family residence is located within the southern portion of the parcel and a paved regional recreational trail crosses the northern portion of the parcel in relatively close proximity to the top of bank. The segment of the Green - Duwamish River adjoining the parcel measures approximately 180 feet wide and is tidally influenced. Shoreline areas transition steeply April 15, 2009 Page 7 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project down into the river at an inclination of approximately one (1) foot horizontal to one (1) foot vertical, with the exception of a small silty terrace near the MHHW line. Although the riverbank is steeply sloped, evidence of sloughing and /or slope failures are not present (Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. 2009). Unvegetated portions of the shoreline below the MHHW line, which are exposed during low tide, comprise primarily silt and silty sands. The shoreline within the vicinity of the project site has been impacted by current and historic land use activities including the presence of the East Marginal Way South and Sound Transit's Link Light Rail bridges to the west, an interurban railroad bridge crossing to the east (now abandoned, with only the concrete abutments present), the presence of a paved regional recreational trail less than 50 feet from the river, and a line of deteriorated wood pile set in the riverbed stretching the length of the project area. The original purpose of these pile is not known. The pile appear to be of various diameters and are significantly decayed. 4.2 Surrounding Land and Water Use Surrounding land uses include variable density residential development south and east of the project area. Light industrial and /or commercial development is located west of the project area. Light industrial development is also present in areas located north of the river, though an improved right -of -way (South 115 Street) exists generally along the northern bank of the river. Vehicular traffic on East Marginal Way South would be considered heavy, of which a large proportion is heavy truck traffic. Current use of the paved regional recreational trail is also considered relatively heavy, consisting of frequent walkers, runners, and bicyclists. Water use within the vicinity of the subject site is limited primarily to recreational and /or limited pleasure craft only. Other than the East Marginal Way South and Link Light Rail crossings, there are no other known overwater structures of significance within the immediate vicinity of the project area. 4.3 Shoreline Vegetation Riparian vegetation within the project area comprises a mix of deciduous forest and shrub plant communities consisting of native and non - native plant assemblages. Plant species present within the project site are described in Table 3 (next page). Shoreline vegetation ends at a distinct MHHW line, with little to no aquatic vegetation present below the MHHW line. Aquatic substrate is dominated by fine silt with sub - dominant sand. A few pieces of small diameter woody debris are scattered along the shoreline, but LWD is generally absent. April 15, 2009 Page 8 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project Table 3 — Plant Species Present within the Project Area Species (scientific name) Species (common name) Dominant ( "D ") Subdominant ( "S ") Native ( "N ") Nonnative ("NON" )' Acer macrophyllum bigleaf maple S N Populus balsamifera black cottonwood S N Robinia pseudoacacia black locust D NON A. circinatum vine maple S N Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut D N Hedera helix English ivy D NON Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum D N Prunus emarginata bitter cherry S N Polystichum munitum western swordfern S N Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry D NON Symphoricarpos alba common snowberry D N Clamatis sp. clamatis D NON Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass S NON Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern D N 4.4 Proximity of Proposed Action to Listed Species Chinook Salmon The segment of the Green - Duwamish River located within the action area is classified as rearing and migration habitat for Chinook salmon (Kerwin and Nelson 2000, NMFS 2004). No Chinook salmon spawning habitat occurs within the action area. Green - Duwamish River Chinook salmon spawn primarily in the main river channel from Kent (approximately RM 24.0) to the Tacoma Headworks diversion dam (approximately RM 61.0). The Newaukum Chinook salmon stock, a sub - population of the Green - Duwamish stock, spawn in the Newaukum Creek (WRIA 09:0114), approximately 33.8 miles upstream of the action area. April 15, 2009 Page 9 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project Steelhead Trout Steelhead trout are present within the action area during adult and juvenile migration periods. Juveniles may rear within the action area year- round, though overall habitat quality is considered poor (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). No steelhead trout spawning habitat occurs within the action area. Steelhead trout principally spawn in the mainstem and tributaries from the City of Tacoma Headworks dam (approximately RM 61.0) downstream to the upper Green River Gorge, approximately 40 miles upstream of the project area. Bull Trout The lower Green - Duwamish River, including the action area, is listed as critical habitat that supports foraging, migration, and overwintering for amphidromous bull trout outside of currently designated core areas (69 FR 35795). Bull trout using the Green - Duwamish River system are likely from several core areas within the Puget Sound, which are located in close proximity to this system (e.g., Puyallup, Snohomish - Skykomish) and perhaps even from core areas further away. No bull trout spawning occurs within the Green - Duwamish River system (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Isolated fish have been observed downstream of the action area in the Duwamish Turning Basin and upstream of the action area in Newaukum Creek. It is believed that these are individual fish foraging for prey species (Berge and Mavros 2001). 5.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS This section describes potential direct, indirect, and interrelated- interdependent effects of the proposed action on Primary Constituent Elements ( "PCE's ") for Pacific salmon and bull trout habitat found within the action area. While critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead trout has not been finalized, habitat requirements for this species are similar to that for Chinook salmon. Therefore, the effects of the proposed action on steelhead trout are considered together with Chinook salmon. See Section 6.0 for a detailed description of the conservation measures incorporated into the project to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed action to listed species and /or their habitat. 5.1 Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Trout Habitat — Primary Constituent Elements The PCE's determined essential to the conservation of Pacific salmon and likewise important for Puget Sound steelhead are: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Substrates within the action area consist predominately of silt and fine sands and are not suitable for salmonid spawning or incubation. The closest spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout is located approximately 17 miles upstream of the action area. April 15, 2009 Page 10 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project Effects to PCE: The proposed action would have no effect on Chinook salmon or steelhead trout spawning habitat. (2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Fall and summer runs of Chinook salmon occur within the Green - Duwamish River. Juvenile Chinook salmon rear throughout the river system where they spend from two to three months before outmigrating annually to the Puget Sound. Outmigration typically occurs between March and May. Because the action area is located near the upper extent of tidal influence, some juvenile Chinook salmon may be present year- round. Steelhead trout fry typically outmigrate annually between April and June after spending at least one complete year and up to three years within freshwater. Because the action area is located near the upper extent of tidal influence, some juvenile steelhead trout may be present year- round. A lack of deep pools, infrequent LWD, poor water quality, and high water temperatures in the summer limits rearing habitat for both Chinook salmon and steelhead trout within the action area (Ecology 2008). Effects to PCE: Construction activities associated with the proposed action will occur between October 1 and February 15 when steelhead trout or Chinook salmon juveniles are not expected to be outmigrating. Both Chinook salmon and steelhead trout fry could utilize the action area for rearing during construction. Direct physical disturbance would occur as the work barge is delivered and secured in place. The tug (or barge if self - propelled) would create some temporary noise and turbulence near the shoreline as equipment is maneuvered into place and anchored. A small area (totaling a few square feet) would be disturbed if anchors are used to secure the barge in place. A small and localized area of turbidity associated with existing pile removal and new pile installation would also occur. While present, the barge will also artificially shade the river. Although physical impacts are likely, these impacts would be minimal and temporary in nature. Noise generated by the tugboat and pile driving operations may elicit a startle response from some fish. As a result, Chinook salmon and /or steelhead trout rearing in the area may avoid the area during the day, for a week, or wait until April 15, 2009 Page 11 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project non -work hours to pass the project area. Any disruption of fish behavior is expected to be minor and temporary. The proposed action will permanently introduce approximately 240 square feet of new floating structure (e.g., float) and 78 square feet of suspended overhead cover (e.g., ramp) into the lower Green - Duwamish River. The float will be located approximately 26 feet from the MHHW line. The entire ramp and 50 percent of the float will consist of functional grating. There will be no net change in the vertical structure presence within the river as the four steel pilling will be added and four existing pile will be removed. Because of the proximity of the dock to the shoreline and a lack of more no natural cover or unique habitat features within the project area, juvenile salmonids may use the floating dock for cover. This could increase predation slightly due to the lack of associated refuge habitat; however, the effective grating and minimal structure size of the dock will help mitigate any adverse effect. (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Existing Conditions: No absolute migration barriers occur in the lower Green - Duwamish River, though water quality concerns and significant boat traffic may on occasion temporarily hinder fish movement. The segment of the river located within the action area contains almost no instream woody debris, no off - channel refuge, no aquatic vegetation, and little else in terms of natural cover beneficial to migrating salmonids. Effects to PCE: The proposed action will not introduce physical obstructions or barriers to fish migration. While the proposed overwater structure will present a new anthropogenic structure, it extends less than 25 percent of the way across the river and can be readily avoided by migrating fish. Chinook salmon and steelhead trout present within the Green - Duwamish River tend to be habituated to anthropogenic structures. The presence of one additional floating dock would not appreciably change the overall character of the river and /or present a structure to which these fish would not be accustomed to. The proposed action will not change the ability of Chinook salmon or steelhead trout to migrate past the affected reach. (4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. April 15, 2009 Page 12 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project Existing Conditions: The project is located near the upper end of saltwater and tidal influence in the Green - Duwamish River. The action area is 303(d) listed for a variety of chemicals as well as temperature (Ecology 2008). Movement of water through the area has been greatly influenced by a long history of development adjacent to the river that has isolated off - channel rearing areas and altered the natural floodplain with a nearly continuous series of levees. The river within the project area contains almost no instream woody debris, no aquatic vegetation, and little else in terms of natural cover. Downstream of the action area, the Green - Duwamish River is highly industrialized with nearly continuous structure along the bank as well as heavy boat traffic. Effects to PCE: No adverse water quality impacts are expected to result from the proposed action and /or the long -term presence and use of the proposed overwater structure. Only incidental grading and approximately 10 square feet of new impervious surface will result from the project. No change in surface water runoff quantities and /or rates is expected. A net gain in native riparian vegetation will occur and significant removal of woody debris is not proposed. Treated wood used to construct the proposed dock will be treated by the manufacturer per the post treatment procedures outlined in "BMP Amendment #1 — Amendment to the Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments; USA Version — Revision July 1996" by the Western Wood Preservatives Institute, as amended or the most current BMP. Creosote, pentachlorophenol, and /or comparably toxic compounds not approved for marine use will be used. Four old wooden pile will be removed to mitigate for the four new steel pile. The project will have only a negligible effect on estuarine habitat. (5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. Existing Conditions: The project is not located within nearshore marine waters. Effects to PCE: No adverse water quality impacts are expected as a result of construction or the long term presence of the proposed overwater structure. No change in surface water runoff quantities and /or rates is expected. The project would have no effect on nearshore marine habitat located downstream. (6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions: The project is not located within offshore marine waters. April 15, 2009 Page 13 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project Effects to PCE: No adverse water quality impacts are expected as a result of construction or the long term presence of the dock. The project would have no effect on offshore marine habitat located downstream. 5.2 Bull Trout Critical Habitat - Primary Constituent Elements The PCE's determined essential to the conservation of bull trout are: (1) Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in streams with temperatures from 32 °F to 72 °F (0 °C to 22 °C), but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 °F to 59 °F (2 °C to 15 °C). These temperature ranges may vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence. Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from designation. Existing Conditions: Effects to PCE: The lower Green - Duwamish River is 303(d) listed in part for high water temperatures. The 7 -day mean of daily maximum values ( "7- DADmax ") has often exceeded 21 °C. In addition, temperatures in excess of 23 °C have been reported (Ecology 2008). The proposed action occurs within an estuarine portion of the river subject to tidal influence and will not alter runoff rates to the river, will not disturb any known groundwater sources, and will result in a net improvement to riparian buffer vegetation in the project area. The proposed action should have no effect on water temperature in the reach of the Green - Duwamish River located within the action area. (2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream structures. Existing Conditions: Movement of water through the action area has been greatly influenced by a long history of development within and adjacent to the river that has isolated off- channel rearing areas and altered the natural floodplain with a nearly continuous series of levees. The river within the project area is a relatively simple channel and contains almost no instream woody debris, no aquatic vegetation, and little else in terms of natural cover. Downstream, the Green - Duwamish River is highly industrialized with nearly continuous structure along the bank and heavy boat traffic. Effects to PCE: By utilizing an existing path and landing located adjacent to the river, the proposed action will avoid significant alteration to the existing riverbank. Only incidental grading and 10 ft2 of new impervious surface will be created by the project. A net gain in native riparian vegetation will occur and no removal of woody debris is proposed. Four old wooden pile will be removed to mitigate for the four new steel pile. The floating dock will be located on April 15, 2009 Page 14 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project (3) the inside of a slight bend in the river and is not expected to significantly influence hydraulic characteristics of the river in this relatively deep section. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young -of -the year and juvenile survival. This should include a minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter. Existing Conditions: River substrate within the action area consists predominately of silt and fine sands and is not suitable for bull trout spawning or incubation. The Lower Green - Duwamish River has been identified by the USFWS as foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat for bull trout. There is no core population of bull trout in the Green - Duwamish River and no known spawning. Effects to PCE: The project will have no effect on bull trout spawning, incubation, or juvenile rearing habitat quality. (4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout, or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day -to -day fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation: This rule finds that reservoirs currently operating under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides management for PCEs as currently operated. Existing Conditions: The Green - Duwamish River is primarily controlled by release from Howard Hansen Dam, as mandated by terms of the City of Tacoma's Habitat Conservation Plan (Tacoma Public Utilities 1999). The segment of the Green - Duwamish River within the action area is tidally influenced. Effects to PCE: By utilizing an existing path and landing adjacent to the river, the proposed action will avoid significant alteration to the existing riverbank. Only incidental grading and 10 square feet of new impervious surface will result from the project. No change in surface water runoff quantities or rates are expected. No effect on flows within the Green - Duwamish River will occur. (5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water quality and quantity as a cold water source. Existing Conditions: No springs, seeps, or groundwater sources are known to occur within the project area. Effects to PCE: No grading that could disturb and /or otherwise alter groundwater flows is proposed. By utilizing an existing path and landing adjacent to the river, the proposed action will avoid significant alteration to the existing riverbank. April 15, 2009 Page 15 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project Only incidental grading and no new impervious surface will be created by the project. The project would not change any source or flow path for surface or ground water. (6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows. Existing Conditions: The Green - Duwamish River is a migratory corridor for bull trout foraging. No absolute migration barriers occur within the lower Green - Duwamish River though water quality concerns and significant boat traffic may on occasion temporarily hinder bull trout movement. The river in the project area contains almost no instream woody debris, no off - channel refuge, no aquatic vegetation, and little else in terms of natural cover that could be utilized by migrating bull trout. Effects to PCE: The proposed action will not introduce physical obstructions and /or barriers to fish migration. While the structure will present a new anthropogenic structure, it extends less than 25 percent of the way across the river and can be readily avoided by fish migrating upstream and downstream. Bull trout in the Green - Duwamish River are habituated to anthropogenic structures and the presence of one additional overwater structure would not change the overall character of the river. No change in the ability of bull trout to migrate past the reach in which the dock is proposed or will likely occur. (7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. Existing Conditions: The project area is located approximately 6.9 miles upstream from Puget Sound in an area near the upper end of saltwater influence (Williams et. al 2001). The action area contains no habitat suitable for use by forage fish spawning and none has been documented in this area (Kerwin and Nelson 2000, Williams et al 2001; WDFW 2009). Riparian vegetation on the site is relatively dense and contains a mix of native and exotic species. Effects to PCE: By utilizing an existing path and landing adjacent to the river, the proposed action will avoid significantly altering the existing streambank and native vegetation. There will be no net change in vertical structure within the river as four pile will be added and four pile will be removed. No natural cover or unique habitat features will be disturbed. With removal of non - native plant species, and replanting with native shrubs and trees, a net gain in native riparian vegetation will occur. No removal of woody debris is proposed. With little direct effect on the watercourse, no long term adverse effects on riparian vegetation, and no forage fish spawning or rearing in this area, the April 15, 2009 Page 16 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project food base used by bull trout and their prey items is not expected to be altered to any significant degree. (8) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. Existing Conditions: The Green - Duwamish River within the action area is a major river influenced by dam operations and the tide. The area draining to the river at this point is over 500 square miles in total area and consists of numerous suburban and rural cities including Renton, Kent, Auburn, and Tukwila. The river in this area is 303(d) listed for water quality problems associated with a variety of chemicals as well as high temperatures (Ecology 2008). Effects to PCE: Flows within the Green - Duwamish River within the action will not be changed, diverted, or modified by the proposed action. No groundwater would be intercepted, used, or diverted. Only 10 square feet of new imperious surfacing is proposed. One additional pleasure boat would be added to the existing watercraft mix on the river and 240 square feet of new floating structure. The existing hydrology, water quality, and habitat availability is expected to remain virtually unchanged when compared to existing conditions. 5.3 Effects of Interrelated- Interdependent Actions This is a stand -alone project. There are no other known actions scheduled or occurring within the project or action area that are dependent upon, related to, and /or associated with the proposed action. 6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES This section describes conservation measures incorporated into the proposed action to minimize and mitigate any adverse effects of the proposed action to ESA listed species and /or their habitat as well as EFH for MSA managed species. Conservation measures include: • An existing shoreline access point will be used to minimize shoreline vegetation clearing. • No woody debris or other inwater habitat features will be disturbed. If unknown logs are found on the river bottom during construction, they will be moved the minimum distance necessary to avoid construction impacts or future use of the dock. • To avoid disturbance to the existing riparian buffer, construction of the new overwater structure will be accomplished primarily using a floating barge or equivalent floating platform. April 15, 2009 Page 17 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project • Use of the proposed dock will be limited to non - commercial watercraft and recreational water dependent use. • Ramp: Width limited to 3 feet and will be completely surfaced with grating having a minimum of 60 percent open area. • Float: Width limited to 8 feet with functional grating covering at least 50 percent of the float. Floatation will be fully enclosed and contained within a shell to prevent breakup or loss and protect flotation material from the effects of ultraviolet radiation and /or abrasion caused by rubbing against piling. • Four steel piling will be used to permanently anchor the float in place. Stoppers capable of supporting the entire float will be utilized, if necessary, to prevent the float from resting on tidal substrate. • Treated wood will be treated by the manufacturer per the post treatment procedures outlined in "BMP Amendment #1 — Amendment to the Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments; USA Version — Revision July 1996" by the Western Wood Preservatives Institute, as amended or the most current BMP. Creosote, pentachlorophenol, and /or comparably toxic compounds not approved for marine use will not be used. • Four (4) existing wood pile will be removed. Removal will occur via vibratory or direct pull methods. Removed piles will disposed of at an appropriate waste disposal facility according to all applicable regulations. • In -water work will be limited to between October 1 and February 15 or as otherwise directed by the Corps and /or WDFW. • Following construction, a shoreline impact reduction planting plan will be implemented, which includes the installation of native shrubs and trees within 1,743 square feet of shoreline areas located adjacent to the proposed dock (Appendix A). The Green /Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9: Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005) encourages private property owners to participate in habitat restoration on their lands and identifies the segment of the Green - Duwamish River located within the project area for potential bank restoration. The shoreline impact reduction planting plan included with the proposed action integrates on a site specific basis the broad watershed planning, bank restoration, and private property participation concepts identified within the Green /Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9: Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2005). April 15, 2009 Page 18 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project 7.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT ON ESA - LISTED SPECIES This section presents a determination of effect for the proposed action on ESA - listed species and /or their habitats. Effect determinations for ESA - listed species and habitats are summarized in Table 4 (next page). Table 4 — Effects Determination for Species and Habitats Assessed Species Common (Scientific) Effects Determination Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) May Affect, but is Not Likely To Adversely Affect Steelhead (0. mykiss) May Affect, but is Not Likely To Adversely Affect Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Dolly Varden (S. malma) May Affect, but is Not Likely To Adversely Affect Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed action including the noted conservation measures May Affect, but is Not Likely To Adversely Affect individuals or populations of Chinook salmon as well as steelhead and bull trout, or measurably affect their habitat. A May Affect determination is based on the following rationale: • The proposed action occurs within and over designated critical or known habitat of listed species. • The long -term use of the constructed dock will occur when listed species may be present. A Not Likely To Adversely Affect determination is based on the following rationale: • Shoreline clearing is minimized during construction by staging most construction material and equipment directly from a barge or similar floating platform. • A minimum number of piling will be installed to support and permanently anchor the floating dock. A corresponding number of existing wood pile will be removed. • The width of the proposed floating dock is limited to 8 feet and the floating dock will be 50% grated to allow light penetration. April 15, 2009 Page 19 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project • Floatation necessary to support the dock will be fully enclosed and contained within a shell to prevent breakup and Toss. • If necessary, stoppers will be used to prevent the proposed floating dock from resting on the river bottom during low tide. • The width of the proposed ramp will not exceed three feet and the ramp will be fully grated to allow light penetration below the ramp. • In water work will be completed during the approved Corps and WDFW work windows for the affected segment of the Green - Duwamish River. • 1,743 square feet of riparian shoreline enhancement will occur to provide long -term nutrient and habitat source support aquatic environment affected by the proposed action. Enhancement work will include non - native species removal and the installation of native trees and shrubs. 8.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT This section describes the effects of the proposed action on the EFH for species managed under the MSA as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Species of concern include Chinook salmon, coho salmon (0. kisutch), and pink salmon (0. gorbuscha). As the proposed action will not occur within known groundfish and pelagic species, the proposed action on these species will have no effect and therefore was not assessed. 8.1 Chinook Salmon See Section 4.4. 8.2 Coho Salmon Coho salmon adults within the Green - Duwamish River system are generally three - year -olds, having spent approximately 18 months in freshwater and 18 months in salt water. Coho salmon begin entering the Green - Duwamish River system in August and spawn from late September to mid - January. Spawning occurs in all available tributaries as well as in the mainstem Green - Duwamish River and often occurs in many of the smaller streams and tributaries. Mainstem spawning is heaviest in areas between Burns Creek (WRIA 09:0105), approximately RM 38.0, and the Tacoma Headworks dam, approximately RM 61.0 (USFWS and NMFS 2000). Coho fry begin hatching in late winter and typically rear one year in freshwater prior to migrating to Puget Sound the following spring. Juvenile coho salmon rear in the mainstem sections of the Green - Duwamish River below Howard Hanson Dam and in all tributaries that are accessible to adult spawners. Peak outmigration of juvenile coho generally occurs in May. These fish migrate relatively quickly out to the open ocean, where they overwinter before returning the following summer. April 15, 2009 Page 20 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project 8.3 Pink Salmon Not much is known about the distribution of pink salmon in the Green - Duwamish River (USFWS and NMFS 2000). Pink salmon return to the Duwamish and lower Green - Duwamish River every other year (odd years) in the fall and probably spawn between August and October. Pink fry begin hatching between February and May and almost immediately begin their migration to Puget Sound. 8.4 Effects of the Proposed Action on Pacific Salmon EFH Effects of the proposed action on Pacific salmon EFH are similar to that described in Section 5.1. 8.5 Proposed Conservation Measures Conservation measures incorporated into the proposed action to minimize and mitigate any adverse effects of the proposed action to EFH for MSA managed species is described in Section 6.0. 8.6 EFH Conclusions Adverse effect as defined under the MSA include: "...any impact which reduces quality and /or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters pr substrate and loss of, or injury to, bethic organisms, prey species, and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and /or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH and may include site - specific or habitat wide impacts, including individual, cumulative or synergistic consequences of actions... ". Impacts of the proposed action on salmonid habitat are discussed in Section 5.1. Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed action Will Impact, but will have No Adverse Affect on EFH for MSA managed species. The Will Impact determination is based on the following rational: • The proposed action will create a small area of new disturbance within salmonid migration, foraging, and rearing habitat that could affect the overall existing function of salmonid EFH. The No Adverse Affect determination is based on the following rational: • Shoreline clearing is minimized during construction by staging most construction material and equipment directly from a barge or similar floating platform. • A minimum number of piling will be installed to support and permanently anchor the floating dock. A corresponding number of existing wood pile will be removed. • The width of the proposed floating dock is limited to 8 feet and the floating dock will be 50% grated to allow Tight penetration. April 15, 2009 Page 21 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project • Floatation necessary to support the dock will be fully enclosed and contained within a shell to prevent breakup and loss. • If necessary, stoppers will be used to prevent the proposed floating dock from resting on the river bottom during low tide. • The width of the proposed ramp will not exceed three feet and the ramp will be fully grated to allow light penetration below the ramp. • In water work will be completed during the approved Corps and WDFW work windows for the affected segment of the Green - Duwamish River. • 1,743 square feet of riparian shoreline enhancement will occur to provide long -term nutrient and habitat source support aquatic environment affected by the proposed action. Enhancement work will include non - native species removal and the installation of native trees and shrubs. With the proposed conservation measures, adverse affects to salmonid EFH are not expected. April 15, 2009 Page 22 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project 9.0 REFERENCES Berge, H. B. and B. V. Mavros. 2001. King County bull trout program, 2000 bull trout surveys. King County Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. Buchanan, D.M. and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature standards to protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon. Pages 1 -8 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Everest, F.H. and D.W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 29(1):91 -100 Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science, Vol. 63(4):133 -143. Green /Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) Steering Committee. August 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan — Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, literature review, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon. Kerwin, J. and T.S. Nelson. (Eds.). 2000. Habitat limiting factors and reconnaissance assessment report, Green /Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Initial assessment of NOAA Fisheries' critical habitat analytical review teams for 13 evolutionarily significant units of Pacific salmon and 0. mykiss. November 2004. NOAA, Portland Oregon. Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5 -9 in Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat patches of varied size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 124 (3):285 -296. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT -302. Ruggerone, G.T. and D.E. Weitkamp. 2004. Final WRIA 9 Chinook salmon research framework. Consultants report prepared for the WRIA 9 steering committee. July 2004. 118pp. April 15, 2009 Page 23 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate Dock Project U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Final environmental impact statement for the proposed issuance of a multiple species permit for incidental take and implementation of the Tacoma Water Green River water supply operations and watershed protection habitat conservation plan. Lacey, Washington. 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. Olympia, Washington. 418 p. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Priority habitats and species database search results, April 1, 2009. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998a. Map of fall Chinook distribution and blockages, December 1998 Draft. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998b. Salmonid stock inventory, bull trout /Dolly Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Sections that contain natural heritage features. http: / /www.dnr.wa.gov /Publications /amp nh trs.pdf. Last updated October 31, 2007. Accessed September 26, 2008. Williams, G.D., R.M. Thom, J.E. Starkes, J.S. Brennan, J. P. Houghton, D. Woodruff, P.L. Striplin, M. Miller, M. Pedersen, A. Skillman, R. Kropp, A. Borde, C. Freeland, K. McArthur, V. Fagerness, S. Blanton, and L. Blackmore. 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem: Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). J.S. Brennan, Editor. Report prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. April 15, 2009 Page 24 • APPENDIX A Shoreline Impact Reduction Planting Plan L•0 I CONTROL NON- NATIVE PLANT . I SPECIES ANP INSTALL MITIGATION, t • PLANTINGS .` (471 SF) 111 I • t n‘l . al ;v 1 • • • CONTROL NON -NATIVE PLANT SPECIES AND INSTALL MITIGATION PLANTINGS! (572 5F) DETAIL 1 - MITIGATION AREA SITE PLAN I•. <innuuuuu 111111111111111 1111111111111 II 111111111111III 11111111111IIII X c4 ►11 ►1111111111 111111111111111 X 1111111111111 tiIgg,Il'g,IggggItgngggtigIIIOSN III II k , 1 . IIIIIIIIIIIIU� 1 1 X 1111111111111( i / 1 I t l • • • 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET AREA CALCULATIONS 174 LF- SHORELINE LENGTH 1,743 SF - TOTAL PLANTED AREA PLANT SPACING CALCULATIONS TREES: 1,743 SF X 0.012 TREES /SF (9' O.C. TYP SPACING) = 21 TREES SHRUBS: 1,743 SF X 0.028 SHRUBS /SF (6' 0 C TYP SPACING) = 49 TALL SHRUBS GROUNDCOVER: 1,743 SF X 0.028 LOW SHRUBS /SF (6' O.C. TYP SPACING) = 49 LOW SHRUBS 20' 40' • 46,F* eh vt i /K Ito ** 0 .,_ tirlk �II 0 SEE PLANT INSTALLATION NOTES ON SHEET MP -2. NO WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED WATERWARD OF TOP OF BANK. DETAIL 2 - MITIGATION PLANTING SCHEMATIC (TYP) SCALE IN FEET 0 COMMON NAME — DOUGLAS -FIR WESTERN REDCEDAR — WESTERN SERVICEBERRY WESTERN HAZELNUT wii— SALAL INDIAN PLUM tr— SWORD FERN COMMON SNOWBERRY 0 qat 10 SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE /FORM PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII THUTA PLICATA AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA CORYLUS CORNUTA GAULTHERJA SHALLON OEMLERIA CERASIFORMIS POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SYMPHORICARPUS ALBUS DETAIL 3 - MITIGATION PLANT SCHEDULE 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED 2 GALLON CONTAINERIZED QUANTITY 10 11 7 7 20 15 29 20 NO SCALE FIGURE NOTES: THIS FIGURE INCORPORATES SITE SURVEY AND SITE INFORMATION PROVIDED ASHLEY SHORELINE DESIGN AND PERMITTING. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, EVERGREEN AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC CANNOT ENSURE ITS ACCURACY AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THIS DRAWING AS A RESULT OF ITS USE. CAUTION: UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS FIGURE, IF ANY, MAY BE APPROXIMATE AND /OR INCOMPLETE. Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC Wetland Delineation Mitigation Design Post - Construction Monitoring PO Box 1721 Issaquah, Washington 98027 (425) 677 -7166 www.evergreenarc.com IMPACT REDUCTION PLANTING PLAN - SITE PLAN - SHUMATE DOCK PROJECT ANY AND ALL DRAWINGS, DETAILS, DESIGN INTENT AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF EVERGREEN AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC AND SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. DATE: 04/15/2009 PROJECT NO: 08 -1 -031 SHEET NO: MP1 PLANT INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION, CONTROL NON - NATIVE NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES LOCATED WITHIN PLANTING AREA. PROTECT ALL NATIVE VEGETATION DURING CONTROL WORK. SPECIES TARGETED FOR CONTROL INCLUDE ALL CLASS A ", "B "AND "C" NOXIOUS WEEDS AS DEFINED BY KING COUNTY AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL SPECIES: ENGLISH IVY ( HEDERA HELIX), ENGLISH HOLLY (ILEX AQUIFOLI UM), CLEMATIS (CLEMATIS SPP.), HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY (RUBUS ARMENIACUS), AND CUTLEAF BLACKBERRY (RUBUS LACINIATUS). ACCEPTABLE CONTROL METHODS INCLUDE HAND CONTROL ONLY. 2. MITIGATION PLANT STOCK SHALL BE NURSERY- GROWN. SALVAGED PLANTS ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED THAT PLANT MATERIALS ARE CONSISTENT IN SIZE AND QUALITY THAT SPECIFIED. 3. UNLESS IRRIGATION 15 PROVIDED, INSTALLATION OF PLANT STOCK SHALL OCCUR BETWEEN NOVEMBER 15 AND JANUARY 15. 4. ADJUST PLANT LOCATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE SITE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION. 5. PLACE MULCH AT THE BASE OF INSTALLED PLANT STOCK TO OBTAIN A MINIMUM APPLIED DEPTH OF 6 INCHES AND A MINIMUM APPLIED AREA OF A 2 FOOT DIAMETER CIRCLE CENTERED AT THE BASE OF EACH INSTALLED PLANT. M ULCH SHALL BE ARBORIST WOOD CHIPS OR APPROVED EQUAL DERIVED FROM THE CHIPPING OF TREE BRANCHES, STEMS, LEAVES, AND NEEDLES. IT SHALL BE CHIPPED SO THAT A MINIMUM OF 95 PERCENT OF THE MATERIAL MEASURES LESS THAN 2.5 INCHES AND A MAXIMUM OF 20 PERCENT MEASURES LESS THAN 1 INCH. MULCH SHALL NOT CONTAIN RESIN, TANNIN, OR OTHER COMPOUNDS IN QUANTITIES THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO PLANT LIFE. MULCH SHALL NOT BE DERIVED FROM STUMP GRINDINGS AND SHALL NOT CONTAIN SOIL. 6. CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS, HERBICIDES, AND PESTICIDES SHALL NOT BE APPLIED WITHIN MITIGATION PLANTING AREAS. IMPACT REDUCTION PLANTING PLAN MONITORING PROGRAM 1. IMPACT REDUCTION MITIGATION PLANTING INSTALLATION WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS FROM THE DATE THAT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ISSUE THE RELATED PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RELATED OVERWATER STRUCTURE. 2. IMPACT REDUCTION MONITORING REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS PER THE FOLLOWING: A. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE IMPACT REDUCTION PLANTING WORK, AN AS -BUILT REPORT SHALL BE PREPARED THAT SUMMARIZES THE COMPLETED IMPACT REDUCTION PLANT INSTALLATION WORK AS WELL AS ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE IMPACT REDUCTION PLANTING PLAN. THE AS -BUILT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE THAT THE IMPACT REDUCTION PLANTING WORK IS COMPLETE. B. FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE AS -BUILT BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ANNUAL MONITORING SHALL BE COMPLETED IN THE LATE SUMMER FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS. AT THE TIME OF EACH MONITORING, IMPACT REDUCTION PLANTINGS SURVIVAL SHALL BE DETERMINED AND PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION OF THE PLANTING AREA SHALL BE COMPLETED. MONITORING REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED ANNUALLY NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 15 OF THE AFFECTED MONITORING YEAR. IMPACT REDUCTION PLANTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: 100 PERCENT SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED TREES AND SHRUBS IS REQUIRED DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND YEARS AFTER PLANTING. DURING THE THIRD THROUGH FIFTH YEARS AFTER PLANTING, 100 PERCENT OF THE INSTALLED TREES MUST SURVIVE AND 80 PERCENT SURVIVAL OF THE REMAINING SHRUBS IS REQUIRED. MULCH lb NATIVE BACKFILL _ .,;.`�0 0 MIN M 6' k .i COMPACT SOIL EN UNDER ROOTBALL ROOT BALL FINISHED GRADE REMOVE CONTAINER. IF ROOTBOUND, CUT ROOTS IN THREE (3) PLACES MIN. TREE - CONIFER NO SCALE NATIVE BACKFILL 6' MIN COMPACT SOIL UNDER ROOTBALL SHRUB NO SCALE `FINISHED GRADE REMOVE CONTAINER. IF ROOTBOUND, CUT ROOTS IN THREE (3) PLACES MIN. Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC PO Box 1721 Wetland Delineation Issaquah, Washington 98027 Mitigation Design (425) 677 -7166 Post - Construction Monitoring www.evergreenarc.com IMPACT REDUCTION PLANTING PLAN - PLANT DETAILS /PLANT SCHEDULE - SHUMATE DOCK PROJECT ANY AND ALL DRAWINGS, DETAILS, DESIGN INTENT AND OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF EVERGREEN AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC AND SHALL NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. DATE: 04/15/2009 PROJECT NO: 08 -I -031 SHEET NO: VIP2 Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC PO Box 1721 Issaquah, Washington 98027 (425) 677-7166 Wetland Delineation • Wetland Mitigation Design • Mitigation Compliance Monitoring www.evergreenarc.com April 26, 2010 Project No. 08 -1 -031 Transmitted via email Mr. David Shumate 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington 98168 Regarding: Addendum 1— Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Shumate NWS- 2009 -1583 Shumate Dock Project — Tukwila, Washington Mr. Shumate: INTRODUCTION Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC is pleased to present this addendum to our Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, dated April 15, 2009. At your request, this addendum has been prepared to address general comments and specific questions raised by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS General Comment: "...There is additional information that would allow me to more accurately estimate the effect of this project to ESA - listed salmonids and their habitat. In addition to the questions below, any additional analysis that can be provided for the "effects analysis" for ESA - listed salmonids or their critical habitat will be appreciated. In particular, the BE does not adequately address the ways in which a new overwater structure may or may not permanently alter fish behavior, predation, or habitat use in the area directly affected by the installation. The BE does not make a logical argument to support the "not likely to adversely affect" determination. The BE does provide analysis of the ways in which the project could affect physical habitat. The extent to which the installation could affect the species in question is not immediately apparent, so please provide any available additional information to support your determination... ". The proposed action will permanently introduce 240 square feet (sf) of new floating structure (e.g., float) and 78 sf of suspended overwater cover (e.g., ramp) within the project area. The proposed float will be oriented generally parallel to the existing shoreline and the entire overwater structure (ramp plus float) will extend into the river a maximum of 35 feet from the mean higher high water (MHHW). 100 percent of the ramp and 54 percent of the float will comprise functional grating. Four new steel pilling will be installed to support the float; however, there will be no net change in the • Addendum 1— Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Project Number: 08 -1 -031 April 26, 2010 Page 2 vertical structure present within the river because four existing wood piling within the project area will be removed. The proposed action will not introduce physical obstructions or barriers to fish migration. While the proposed overwater structure will present a new anthropogenic floating structure, it extends significantly Tess than 25 percent of the way across the river and can be readily avoided by migrating fish. The proposed action will not result in the removal of any natural cover such as submerged or overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks or boulders. The segment of the river within the project area is a relatively simple channel, with almost no instream woody debris, no aquatic vegetation, and little else in terms of natural cover. The proposed action will not impact natural habitat of the type preferentially used by salmonids. The proposed action is not located near any known side channels, deep pools, stream outlets, spring sources, or spawning substrates for salmonids or forage fish species. The proposed action will avoid significant alteration to the existing riverbank and /or native vegetation by utilizing a barge as a temporary work platform during construction and using an existing path and landing to access the completed project. In addition, with the proposed riparian buffer enhancements, which include the removal of non - native plant species and the installation of native trees and shrubs, a net gain in native riparian vegetation will result within the project area. Juvenile Salmonid Behavior, Predation, and Habitat Use (Temporary Alteration) Both Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (0. mykiss) fry could utilize the project area for rearing during construction. Construction will be completed quickly (approximately five days) during approved work windows so any effects would be minimal. Direct physical alteration to juvenile salmonid behavior and habitat will likely occur as the temporary work barge is delivered and secured in place and during any pile driving or removal activities. In addition, construction activities may influence predation rates by causing juvenile salmonids to temporarily congregate where they could be subject to increased predation. The tugboat used to transport and place the temporary work barge within the project area (or the barge itself if self - propelled) would create temporary noise and turbulence near the shoreline as the equipment is maneuvered into place and secured. A small area of the river bottom (totaling a few square feet) would be disturbed where any spuds are used to secure the barge in place. When present, noise generated by the tugboat, barge, and pile driving activities may elicit a startle response from some fish. As a result, juvenile salmonids rearing within the project area may avoid work areas during the day, for the week, or wait until non -work hours to pass the project area. Because the use of the barge and pile driving activities is not expected to exceed five days, any alteration to fish behavior or habitat related to construction is expected to be minor and very temporary. While present within the project area, the temporary work barge will artificially shade the river. Because of the scarcity of natural cover or unique habitat features within the project area, juvenile salmonids and salmon predators, if present at the time of construction, may Addendum 1 — Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Project Number: 08 -1 -031 April 26, 2010 Page 3 preferentially use the deep shade provided by the barge for cover. Any shared used of the deep shade by migrating salmonids and salmonid predators could result in increased predation of juvenile salmonids; however, any increase would depend in part on how many predators are present within the river and how many juvenile fish migrate away from the shore and use the barge for cover. Because the use of the temporary work barge is not expected to exceed five days and would occur during approved work windows, alteration to juvenile salmonid predation is expected to be extremely limited. Juvenile Salmonid Behavior, Predation, and Habitat Use (Permanent Alteration) Once construction has ended, juvenile salmonids will be present within the project area at various times during the year. Juvenile Chinook salmon will typically choose to migrate along the shoreline between the proposed float and the shore. Steelhead trout juveniles outmigrate at a relatively large size and stick to deeper portions of the river where they are less likely to be influenced by the proposed float or ramp. Juvenile Chinook salmon are relatively smaller and are more likely than steelhead to utilize the float for cover. Direct physical alteration to juvenile salmonid behavior and habitat may occur as a result of recreational watercraft approach and departure from the proposed float. Similar to the temporary work barge, the completed project, though at a much smaller scale, may also influence juvenile salmonid predation rates. Powered recreational watercraft would create temporary noise and turbulence near the shoreline as watercraft leave from and return to the float. This physical disturbance is temporary in nature and relatively limited in scope based on the use of the dock for non- commercial, recreational purposes. Use of powered watercraft currently occurs within and downstream of the project area and any noise or turbulence generated because of the proposed action would not appreciably change the overall character of the river and /or present noise to which juvenile fish would not be already accustomed. In all cases, the proposed float as well as any moored watercraft would not rest on the river substrate at any time. Similar to the temporary work barge, juvenile salmonids within the project area may preferentially use the proposed float for cover. Any alteration in predation rates related to use of the float for cover would depend in part on how many predators are present within the river and how many juvenile fish migrate away from the shore to use the float as cover. To minimize the potential for juvenile salmonid predation, the proposed float and ramp design incorporate the following mitigating measures to reduce areas of deep shade: • The use of open grating to allow for light penetration; • Minimizing the length and width of overwater structures; • Locating the dock as far offshore as reasonably feasible; and • Not increasing the amount of vertical structure within the river. Given the large amount of open, lighted space under the small float, it is likely that the presence of a predator would be quickly noted and juveniles would rapidly scatter. Because the float is small and provides only a limited amount of refuge habitat for juvenile fish, predation rates under the dock are not likely to be significantly greater than without the dock. Addendum 1— Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Project Number: 08 -1 -031 April 26, 2010 Page 4 Adult Salmonid Behavior Predation, and Habitat Use (Temporary and Permanent Alteration) Adult Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout migrating upstream past the site may be present at various times during the year once construction has ended. When migrating upstream, all adult fish will have recently passed through the Duwamish Waterway, which is a highly commercial area with anthropogenic structures (docks, marina, moored vessels, and ramps) lining most of both banks. In addition, a large number of active vessels ranging from large ocean -going ships and barges to smaller workboats ply the water nearly 24 hours a day. Any fish moving upstream past the proposed dock during and after construction would be habituated to anthropogenic structures and vessels by that time. The presence of one additional small floating dock or the occasional presence of a new watercraft in the water would not appreciably change the overall character of the river and /or present a structure to which these fish would not be already accustomed. The proposed action will not change the ability of adult Chinook salmon or steelhead trout to migrate upstream past the affected reach. Determination of Effect — Chinook Salmon The proposed action May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Chinook salmon. Construction will be completed quickly during approved work windows. The floating structure will increase potential predation risk on juvenile Chinook salmon, but open grating and other mitigation measures with respect to float size and location are expected to minimize any Toss. Proposed riparian buffer enhancements will help offset impacts by increasing food supply for juveniles. The small dock would have no effect on Chinook or forage fish spawning and very little effect on migration for any Chinook lifestage. Determination of Effect — Steelhead The proposed action May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect steelhead. The floating structure could increase potential predation risk on juvenile steelhead, though the larger 1 to 3 year -old juvenile steelhead are less likely to use the dock for cover. Open grating and other mitigation measures with respect to float size and location are expected to minimize any loss. Proposed riparian buffer enhancements will help offset impacts by increasing food supply for juveniles. The small dock would have no effect on steelhead or forage fish spawning and very little effect on migration for any steelhead lifestage. Determination of Effect — Bull Trout The proposed action May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect bull trout. Any bull trout found in the project area would be migrants opportunistically foraging wherever food could be located. Bull trout are Tess likely to be in the area during the August work window when water temperatures are relatively warm. The completed dock could present a minor foraging location, but would not prevent bull trout from moving through the system. The dock would have no effect of spawning for bull trout or forage fish. Comment 1: "Has a Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA) been applied for or issued. Please provide." A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for the project has not been applied for at this time. Once approved, a copy of the HPA will be provided. Addendum 1— Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Project Number: 08 -1 -031 April 26, 2010 Page 5 Comment 3: "What will be the color of the floatation tubs ?" The homopolymer tubs used to enclose flotation will be black in color. Comment 4: "What tool will be used to remove and install piles? If unknown, please estimate the total number of pile strikes and expected sound pressure levels and sound exposure levels for pile removal and installation with an impact hammer. If installed with a vibratory hammer, will proofing be needed ?" The four new galvanized steel pile needed to secure the proposed float will be installed using a barge mounted crane with a vibratory pile driver. Proofing will not be required. Removal of the four existing pile will occur via vibratory or direct pull methods. Comment 5: "How is the barge to be secured in place ?" The barge will be secured in place by temporarily lowering spuds into the river bed. Comment 6: "How many trips to the project area will the barge make? Does this represent an effective change to the baseline traffic volume in the action area ?" Baseline boat traffic volume within the action area is limited to occasional private recreational watercraft generally measuring 20 feet in length or less. Boat traffic noticeably increases during fishing season to approximately two to three boats passing the project area on a daily basis. The closest public motorized boat launch site is located approximately 3.75 miles downstream of the project area (2.75 miles downstream of the action area); however, a few public hand -carry boat launches are located upstream and downstream of the project area. The closest marina is located approximately 1.75 miles downstream of the project area (0.75 miles downstream of the action area). The barge will make a single trip to the project area and is anticipated to remain on -site for five days. Because of existing boat traffic volumes and anticipated short duration while on- site, the use of a temporary work barge does not represent an effective change to the baseline traffic volume within the action area. In addition, the use of a barge as a temporary work platform eliminates the need for significant shoreline clearing that would otherwise be necessary for construction access. Comment 7: "How long will the project take to complete ?" The project will take approximately five days to complete. Comment 8: "On page 13, under Effects to PCE:, the BE indicates that `Creosote, penthachlorphenol, and /or comparably toxic compounds not approved for marine use will be used.' Please elaborate." This was a typographical error: The line should read: "Creosote, penthachlorphenol, and /or comparably toxic compounds not approved for marine use will not be used ". • • Addendum 1 — Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Project Number: 08 -1 -031 April 26, 2010 Page 6 Comment 9: "What is the functional grating open area of the entire float ?" The functional grating open area of the entire float area is 54 %. Approximately 110 sf (46 %) of the proposed 240 sf float will be blocked by float tubs. The remaining 130 sf (54 %) will surfaced with Thru - flow'"' decking, which is a fiberglass reinforced polypropylene decking material with 43% open space (http: / /www.thruflow.com). Comment 10: "What is the work window to be used? SPIF says August 1- 31; BE says Oct 1— Feb 15. Please clarify." Per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements known at this time, the proposed action will conform to a work window of August 1 through August 31. Comment 11: "Please describe any containment booms or other methods to be employed during pile removal and installation to contain turbidity disturbed chemicals." Aquatic substrate within the project site comprises fine silt with subdominant sand. No chemicals are known to contaminate the on -site aquatic substrate. Tidal fluctuations within the project area exceed 10 feet (see Photo 1). To the extent practicable, existing piles will be removed during low tide conditions, thereby minimizing release of sediment directly into any water column. If sediment disturbance occurs during pile removal work, the resulting conditions will not differ appreciably from other naturally occurring conditions within the local area. Any release of sediment will be negligible when compared to the background levels naturally present within the river. As turbid conditions are not anticipated, no specialized containment booms or other methods will be employed during pile removal. -i3 Photo 1— Shoreline Conditions within Project Area (viewed from northern bank, looking generally south) Addendum 1— Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Project Number: 08 -1 -031 April 26, 2010 Page 7 CONCLUSION We trust that this letter meets your current needs. Please call me at (425) 677 -7166 or email me at psuper@evergreenarc.com should you receive additional questions regarding the project and /or otherwise require additional analysis. Sincerely, EVERGREEN AQUATIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC Issaquah, Washington Peter P. per Professional Wetland Scientist • Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists • January 7, 2009 Mr. David Shumate 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington 98168 Riverbank Evaluation Letter 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington CG File No. 2750 Dear Mr. Shumate: INTRODUCTION We have prepared this letter to provide our opinioims concerning erosion poitential of onsite soils at your site bordering the Duwamish River. The site is located at 11534 East Manginal Way South in Tukwila. Washington. You have informed us that you plan to construct: a floating dock in the lDuwamish Waterway, which borders the site to the north. The dock will be coffinected to an onshore picer. The pier will be the only portion of the dock that will be constructed onshore. We understand that thee pier may be supported with shallow concrete foundations and/or on piles. If a shallow concrete foundatliion will be used, it would be located at least five feet from the top of the riverbaiuik. Lateral support for due floating portion of the dock will be provided by piles. We also understand that the pier and dock will nott be subject to high loads. You have provided us with project information, including photographs of tine project area, 3D images of the planned dock, and a cross - section that shows extreme low water, mean llow water, mean high water, and extreme high water elevations. The cross-section also shows the alignment of existing wood piles in the waterway and the potential location of pin piles that may be used to suppart the planned pier. 17625 - 130th Avenue NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 916072 • Phone: 425-844-19777 - Fax: 425 - 844 -1987 Riverbank Evaluation Letter 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington January 7, 2009 CG File No. 2750 Page 2 We understand that you have occupied the site for about a year and a half ands that you have not observed, nor are aware of, any instability of the riverbank. You have informed us tihat the City of Tukwila has required that a geotechnical engineer evaluate the sttability of the riverbank amd also evaluate impacts of the planned pier on the riverbank stability. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The ground surface within the site slopes gently down to the north to the adjacent Duwamish River. The area of the planned dock is vegetated with blackberry bushes, grass, brush, amd a large deciduous tree. A concrete walkway with a north/south alignment exttends toward the area off the planned dock from the south. This walkway was mostly covered with leaves and soil at the time of mar site reconnaissance. A retaining wall with two tiers each about three feet high is located along the west side of the concrete walkway. The wall was composed of pieces of contcrete and exhibited no imdications of instability. We could not determine from surficial observations if this wall faces fill or cut int native soils. At the time of our reconnaissance the tide was in aid less than 8 feet of the unvegetated riverbank were exposed above the water level. The exposed soils; were silt and silty sandl. We understand that more unvegetated riverbank is exposed when the tide is out We observed deteriorated wood piles nearly parallel to the riverbank approxiimately five feet out into the river. At the time of our reconnaissance the concrete walkway was about four feett above the elevation of the river surface. The area west of the tiered retaining wall was about 10 feet albove the river surface. The inclination of the riverbank was approximately 1 Horizontal to 1 Vertical. Wte did not observe indications of sloughing or slope failures on the riverbank. Geology The geologic units for this area are mapped on The Geologic Map of Seatttle — a Progress Report, by Kathy Goetz Troost, et al. (US Geological Survey, 3005). The site vicinity iss mapped as being underlain by alluvial soils, composed of sand and silt deposited by flowing water. k._ Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Riverbank Evaluation Letter 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington January 7, 2009 CG File No. 2750 Page 3 Explorations We explored subsurface conditions near the plannred dock on December 177, 2008, by auguring two holes with hand equipment. The augers were made to depths of 5.0 and 7.5 ffeet below the ground surface. Samples were obtained when different soil conditions were encountered. The explorations were located in the field by a representative from this firm who also examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the exploratiouns. Hand Auger 1 was located in the area of the planned pier and encountereed a surficial layer of topsoil approximately 0.2 feet in thickness. The topsoil consisted of soft organic silt with sand and roots. Underlying the topsoil we encountered 3.9 feet of fill soils consisting of loosse to medium dense silty sand with glass and plastic fragments. Below the fill we observed interbedded dlense silty sand and sand to a depth of 7.3 feet. Moderate to heavy seepage was observed within the sanid layer. The exploration was completed in stiff silt 7.5 feet below the ground surface. We interpret the soils below the fill as alluvial deposits. Hand Auger 2 was lower on the riverbank, abut two feet above the riiver level. This exploration encountered 0.2 feet of surficial soft silt. The surficial soils were underlain tby 0.2 feet of loose sand with silt and 2.8 feet of soft silt with clay. The exploratiion was completed in a dteposit of dense sand with silt at a depth of 5.0 feet. We interpret these soils as alluuvial deposits. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The site riverbank appears to be performing adequately. We have not olbserved indications of recent sloughing or slope failures of the riverbank, however due to its steep inclinanion such events are possible. We anticipate that the planned pile foundations that will be installed to support the pier and dock will not transfer significant loads to soil within approximately 10 feet of the ground t: surface. For that reason it is our opinion that the planned pile foundations will not reduce the riverbank stability. In our opinion shallow foundations should not reduce stability of the riverbank because threy will have relatively light loads and will be located at least five feet beyond the steep portion of the riverbank. In our opinion construction activities would have a potential to impact the triwerbank. The dock contractor should minimize any excavation near the riverbank and should control ercnsion on any disturbed areas. Erosion control measures could include placing jute mats and/or establishirgrvegetation. Corrmerstone Geotechnical, Inc. • • ' Riverbank Evaluation Letter 11534 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, Washington January 7, 2009 CG File No. 2750 Page 4 USE OF THIS LETTER We have prepared this letter for Mr. David Shumate and his agents for use iin planning and design of this project. Our services were only performed to evaluate the site riverbank: stability and impacts of the planned improvements on the riverbank. Our scope of services does not iinclude recommendations for foundations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we ivawe strived to take care that our services have been completed in accordance with generally accepted practicees followed in this area at the time this letter was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, slhmuld be understood. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to y ®u. If there are any questions concerning this letter or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Thor Christensen, PE Associate Rick B Powell, PE President JRW:TRC:RBP:am Three Copies Submitted Cormerstone Geotechnical, Inc. • !JUL 162J COMMUN:rr VELOPhJ E!T SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT This covenant and hoed harmless agreement is entered into between DAV 1O SYc/ %f eeffeevs 5Y-1107413,—(Individual(s) (Corporation) , ( "Grantor), and the City of Tukwila, a Washington municipal corporation ( "Grantee "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Grantor owns and has applied for necessary permits to develop certain real property (the "Property ") legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by reference. WHEREAS, a portion of the Property contains sensitive areas of potential geologic instability (potential siide areas) as depicted in Exhibit S, which is attached and incorporated by reference. WHEREAS, as a condition of the issuance of subdivision plat approval, land use permits, and /or construction permits for the Property, the Grantee required the Grantor to execute and record this "Sensitive Area Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement" to hold the City of Tukwila harmless from all loss incurred as a result of any landslide or seismic activity, or soil disturbance. WHEREAS, Grantor assumed this obligation in order to obtain said subdivision plat approval, land use permits, and /or construction permits for the Property. WHEREAS, the parties agree that this agreement constitutes an arms length, bargained -for agreement, which includes a waiver of liability that runs with the land for risks created by the proposed use of property because of the shape, composition, location or other characteristic unique to the Property sought to be developed. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. In consideration of Grantee issuing subdivision plat approval and /or other development permits, which constitutes good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which and the sufficiency of which the Grantor hereby acknowledges, the Grantor shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Grantee, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and assigns harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, or suits, whether brought by grantor or third parties, including all legal costs and reasonable attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with any injuries or damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any landslide or seismic activity or soil disturbance on the Property, legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by reference. COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT — Sensitive Area Page ' 3 of 2. Grantor on its own behalf and on behalf of its heirs, successors and assigns hereby waives any right to assert any claim against the Grantee, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and assigns for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from any landslide or seismic activity or soil disturbance on said Property by reason of or arising out of the issuance of the permit(s) by the City for development on said Property except only for such losses that may directly result from the sole negligence of the City. 3. Grantor will inform its successors and assigns of said Property that the Property is in an area of potential geologic instability (potential slide area), of the risks associated with development thereon, of any conditions or prohibitions on development imposed by the City of Tukwila, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soils changes. 4. Grantor will maintain continuous insurance coverage as required by the permit authorizing the development. 5. Grantee's inspection or acceptance of any of the Grantor's construction or_other__ work either during construction or when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. 6. This covenant and hold harmless agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and the rights and obligations contained herein shall run with and burden the Property, including each parcel comprising the Property and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Grantor and Grantee, their successors and assigns. COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT — Sensitive Area Page Z of 3 DATED this day of , 2009_ GRANTOR(s): individual(s) STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING On this 17 day of -sJk A& , 200/, before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared tw�r' of J 9r r'trna -I.i , L4LUi21 P/ g I u V► , and , to me known to be the individu s) hat executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of said individua or the uses . nd pur• - -. es mentioned in this instrument, and on oath state • at he /she /.1 as authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m the day and year first above writt 1/ Na NOTARY PU = IC, in d forte ate of Washington, residing at 1263/ 5491'•1 ave, Am.. e21Zs My commission expires: ' -2O ID Page 1 of 5 CITO)F TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan(a3ci. tkwila wa us SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -SHORE Planner: File Number: L31— 040 Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: 312, ,LD J Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: LO "a -O 1 t NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Shumate floating pier prya�� Wa M • ' Y.'.' Y F JUL 1 2009 COMMUNTI DEVELON.ENT LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 11534 E Marginal Way S LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 1023049045 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Gregory W. Ashley - Ashley Shoreline Design & Permitting Address: 16412 NE 10th Pl.; Bellevue , WA 9800 -3707 Phone: (425) 957 -9381 FAX: (425) 746 -8252 E -mail: greg @shoreline- permitting.com Signature: Date: 7/13/2009 P:1PIomiag FormsWpplintionSLwc606.doe December 4. 2006 • pEcrznfrEr) 'JUL' 16 2d COMrvMUN+;TY DEVE.GP..cNT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. • Name of proposed project, if applicable: Shumate floating pier 2. Name of Applicant: David J. Shumate 3. Date checklist prepared: July 13, 2009 4. Agency requesting checklist City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): As soon as work window opens 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Geotechnical report has been prepared by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. A Biological Evaluation and Planting Plan has been prepared by Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No Agency Comments P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \ SEPAApp-07-07.doc July 20, 2007 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit - City of Tukwila Ruilding Permit - City of Tukwila Hydraulic Project Approval - WDFW ✓ ‘)Q,_ Section 10 Authorization - USACOE 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Construct a 328 SF floating pier in the Duwamish Waterway. The pier will be secured in place with four (4) ten (10) inch diameter galvanized steel piles. The floating pier will be thirty-five (35) feet in length from the MI HW mark. The proposed use of the floating pier is single - family private residential. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposal is located at 11534 E Marginal Way S Lax: 47 °30' 00" North Long: 122° 17' 15" West INN 1/4 Section 10 Township 23 North Range 04 East 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes [steep slopes,) Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): CFlatlrolling, hilly, mountainous, other: The river bank has a steep slope Agency Comments b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 100% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Alluvial soils comprised of Sand and Silt and clay d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. _No c. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None, does not apply Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None, does not apply k Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Deploy silt curtains during construction 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. None, does not apply b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No, does not apply Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None, does not apply 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, Duwamish Waterway 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, build a floating pier 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None, does not apply Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. does not apply 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None. does not apply b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No does not apply Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: None, does not apply c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. None, does not apply 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, does not apply d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None, does not apply Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants a. Check or circle types, of vegetation found on the site: RECEIVED S P 2 DEVELOPMENT b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Non- native invasive species will be removed as- well as one (1) 16" dia. non - native black locust tree once the planted native vegetation matures c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A shoreline planting plan has been prepared by Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC and Barbara Lycett Landscape Design 8 Deciduous tree: alder, pl aspen, other Evergreen tree:( ir ar, pine, other Shrubs Grass N....- Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail; buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ..other types of vegetation RECEIVED S P 2 DEVELOPMENT b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Non- native invasive species will be removed as- well as one (1) 16" dia. non - native black locust tree once the planted native vegetation matures c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A shoreline planting plan has been prepared by Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC and Barbara Lycett Landscape Design 8 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Continents 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A shoreline planting plan has been prepared by Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC 8 Deciduous tree: alder, pl aspen, other Evergreen tree: (ir, edar, pine, other Shrubs 1,,,,— Grass ✓ Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A shoreline planting plan has been prepared by Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, LLC 8 • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Mammals Fish Other Hawk, heron, eagle, lsongbirds) other: Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Bass, t trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, possible out migration rout d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Adhere to all regulations and guidelines 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None, does not apply Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, does not apply c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None, does not apply 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No, does not apply 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None, does not apply 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None, does not apply !o Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None, does not apply 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. _Construction, between the hours of 8 to 5, M -F 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Limit hours of construction to M -F, 8 to 5 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Private single- family residential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No )' Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. Single - family private residence d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? LDR f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? LDR g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, the Duwamish Waterway Z Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None, does not apply Agency Comments j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, does not apply k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None, does not apply 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adhere to all Land Use Regulations and guidelines 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? None, does not apply 13 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None, does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None, does not apply 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Three (3) feet above 11/111HW, wood b. What views in the inunediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None, does not apply Agency Comments 1 `/ Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce ?. What time of day would it mainly occur? None, does not apply b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No, does not apply c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None, does not apply d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None, does not apply 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Water sports 1 b Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None, does not apply 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None, does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None, does not apply Q Agency Comments 1t Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. None, does not apply b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Does not apply c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None, does not apply d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No, does not apply e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No, does not apply Agency Comments li Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None, does not apply g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None, does not apply 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No, does not apply b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None, does not apply 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Does not apply electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system other: 19 PIease respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None, does not apply C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 7/16/2009 (NON- PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). Agency Comments 19 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT PROPOSALS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposals be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? No increase Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None, does not apply 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Not likely to adversly affect Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Adhere to all regulations and guidelines Agency Comments r Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No depletion, does not apply Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None, does not apply 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitats, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Not likely to adversly affect Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Adhere to all regulations and guidelines 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal is compatable with all land and shoreline regulations Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Adhere to all regulations and guidelines 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? No increase, does not apply Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None, does not apply 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Does not conflict with Local, State, or Federal requirements Agency Comments • • lab irk nib abet D W. rawing By: Gregory Ashley Athrey Sfiore(ine Design GZ. Permitting faellertm W006201917 960053707 Mum (425)9573381 q..0011;ownwpd im/Shd*** AFI7 ■4110 161090.9.1,1 Pavrietui Inforandloo. annoise conheir a.Motbs mad / crprivarged inform:0ft which is irAe.hate web, If tat '42S)14642 or dkulitinidkat *Mfg essounonicMix lapra969.4 greg@ahorelbevernatting.tom AoNtigratOopr.ib2oto. Majr,srtorawasip at<Arneirtvg P/L 5CALZ 0 125 45 Z.19 29 1111111111111 PROPERTY OWNER: David J. Shumate ADDRFRS. 11534 E Marginal Way S ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: OWNER 1: E Marginal Way S OWNER 2: Seattle CityLight DATUM: COE 1919 PURPOSE: Provide water access and boat moorage. PROPOSED: Install a floataing pier LOCATION: 1/4 SECTION: NW 10 TWNSEIP: 23 North RANGE: 04 East LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122° 17' 15" West LENGTII FROMOPHYM: 35' SQ. FT. : 328 NUMBER OF PILES : 4 WATER-BODY: Duwamish River CITY: in Tukwila STATE: Washington ZIP CODE: 98168 COUNTY: King County JURISDICTION: Tukwila SHEET: 1 of DATE: 12)1/09 REV:1/4/10 NWS-200-163t Shoreline Design e Permitting 264(2:141E-11111t Ake Hatlerne4 %Alta:too 91300158707 Mess (420 9574381 Fax: (425) 746125 booth gregEhrhoreiblecermitling.caux Drawing By Gregory W. Ashley Aropritlarylidamatioa. drat/loot erobirelakobli and orprivb.gra kternatts IrYkk ItiolovisdiSOmote Oral* isesased koathideareastr. /organ*, 4bol000m or dlotoodoldio. of Odavolootookation kproliAloi DooiposiCoorprrtr2010- .4siky.55orresar 117guVa 1351Arzapm PA 'fruwam'i,sh Rive-r Proposed floating pier 10" galvanized steel piles - 126' Proposed floating pie w/Thru Flow grating Piles—Th Proposed Gangway MHWM 11.21' 5CALf 1"-29' o 729 KO 2L72 29 — — —1 PROPERTY OWNER: David J. Shumate ADDRESS: 11.534E Marginal Way S ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: OWNER 1: E Marginal Wa S OWNER 2: Seattle City Lght DATUM: COE 1919. PURPOSE:Provide water access and boat moorage. PROPOSED: Install a floandng pier LOCATION: 1/4 SECTION: NW 10 TWNSHP: 23 North RANGE: 04 East LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122- 17' 15" Wegt LENGTH FROM OEWM: 35' girt : 3211. NUMBER OF PILES: 4 WATER BODY: Duwamish River CITY : tnTtikWila STATE: Washingtini ZIP CODE: 98168 COUNTY: King County JURISDICTION: Tukwila SHEET: 2 of si DATE: 12/1/09 REV:1/4/10 1\J (,09- 7,009 - f531 • • • t6aiiiXta'nriom Permitting lw »381 , Ph= (425)74641252 As ,Shoreline Design cz e.mnh grR@ahorNEnMwnt4lfig.cam Drawing Bpi Gregory W. Ashley Froprietary IrGrtWiaa. Ai doming °oaii. 1pf sad 1ap4d*p.dira,.di. width iMt d,afo b, rp ell>Amami insdivislods aw4. Am.espyi.eh.aq " dimnuiathn dliit°mam.imtimi'apat., AAD..®s Cap,wri62M. Xfirryarorvios IWO V4Ityluittiv 4:_1, Si • SI 1 .atr, . 7 Ara Pi 'To l i•. iIC I • n') • Oa • • u514_.'.f?lm Vicinity Map Lolly City VICINITY MAPS David J. Shumate Tukwila, WA 98168 -LAT:: 471 30' 00" North LONG.: 122. 17' 150 West NW Y4 SECTION: 10 TWNSHP:23 NORTH RNG:04 EAST ELEVATION 35' DETAIL. 10" galvanized steel piles 30' ►• it1 ►- at!1! �r�ll_r 4llI!�►.'.!I L" U � - laps/ MHWM 11.21 EXISTING PILES GANGWAY TUBS CONC. SHORE MOUNT PROPOSED PILES (10" galvanized steel) 4 X 8 Stringers boat Tubs 35' 4 `r EXISTING PILES, I1 GANGWAY TUBS CONC. SHORE MOUNT PROPOSED PILES (10" galvanized steel) LWM 3.73' PROPERTY OWNER: David J. Shumate ADDRESS: 11534 E Marginal Way S ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: • OWNER 1r E Marginal' Way S OWNER 2: Seattle City Light DATUM: COE 1919 PURPOSE:Provide water access and boat moorage. PROPOSED: Install a Matting pier. LOCATION: 1/4 SECTION: NW 1OTWNSHP: 23 NorthRANGE: 04 East LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122° 17' 15" West LENGTH FROM OHWM: 35' SQ. FT.: 328 NUMBER OF PIT FS • 4 WATER BODY: Duwamish River CITY : in Tukwila STATE : Washington ZIP CODE: 98168 COUNTY: King County JURISDICTION: Tukwila SHEET: 30r/4 DATE: 12/1/09 REV:1 /4/10 NOS-PM-ISM) PLANT SCHEDULE :� =��•� __:`:. a ears, {reposed dock akr Doterrish deer Trot LANDSCAPING NOTES Plot 5deeticw as viol wood ' dD pen • TREES Bolaicd Borne Common Name Qaadity Sae Ater crc elan Vne ticpte 6 6 Pksa nkro Red Aker. 2 7 rmta'a catora Share Pne 3 4 Paadotsuge neatest Dottjas Fr 2 3 Sob ksro+d a Rae Salo° 6 4-6' Thrjo pkoto Western Western Red Ceder I 4 ISTags heler4Mb Western Plerrdodc 3 4 51&11.85 ' Botcricd None Common None (amity Sae OCamas stab iera Red Osier Dogwod 7 4' O Goltherio deem Say 6 1- 2 ON OLortuo nebcroto Tauber y 3 5' Irkhorio cot i(ofem Q-ryor Grope 9 25' 0 r'lahprn nervosa 5rrd Oregm Grope 2 l piton �OaNaio cernsdorrris ham Plea 2 . 5 Rb.s Sacinetrn Red Fhuerig Current 2 5 poem 0 Ran 0 4kma fbotko Rose 7 3' V Rcba epectoNis - SaFrwber*y 4 3 Q" Vac:tm wdan Evergreen Keldebe rlq 1 gdlm OVaciirn pavdok n T rsideberry 5 4i' FERES81455 AND GROU'DCOVERS Bolaicd Pi:rne Coruna. Phase Ouodily 5a. • s Arctostophrybs uvo-.r,. Kinkiryick 6 4 Notes, d-o4ft -blott piers hats been seeded for the pie to rmmte vaster nee The plots wetted ere owed to mlu, 40 ° �dnR''Pant Deer Fern q t . 2 �„ Urea yawn line. Smd Ines ad Onto rase o5ed close a Ina ask Ina b er.re the the Vol oroa ell be dew of brad. add coverage Ynbe teleran of hre tee, wee wetted for the rear book aFm. rase, o.d a 8radoea ralpesa lirvest Lay 5 I gam how.. b.at locations are on the abet Trees we rid 0 - 0 feet en wee. 51nbe we sited 2 - 5 feat en arta. The des ere seater because they • CerrKa0., gwrosh ' Camrm Cana 5 I glom (Iraq, Km Gamy alto. part ,woke sole Rs Atpadb, Keen, ( .4441, pot Reined ed &teen Control • Damtro Formosa Bleedng Wart 6 4 iris • LysirHlm pine iraen Stork Cdbage 5 1 pion * Pclysleh , rnrittn Western Sword Fan 20 2 - 3 glen l The o4Nig mixt tutted specks, 6010'• holy, ey, ad dement ad bbrkbeey dos o4 be V,nbed out or w b good level by h.d or by wins spolhiFioim 8roodeof Slone 2 . herd lea e4.pn.. 5a� rc'w 4 2 The aisle.; Prins entp,0o vhf be resent The e.'etip Ririe paadookeb tt be removed os wit, os Ihe nee pars we eMobWed ad prodd4 • Toirb rrner,»esi Fawn Flau.er 6 I idle. some a. Ned re Sep try ra be raided m abide meta, 5rnt OM d mod but en all bpi read for obit. hid Tet l to edddy fow:4 re17a'4 wit plat eta se be coved van wad tar.., of evw-lppi a do.pod mtoa4 1h o.d..d sit be .1,.d van a,doope'LP leis diva, pcpadolw to Ina sops o ,wdead ayes. 5 The arrived d be o e ed vets 700 ran Grata Ere ar.atel Coe (.smut fber) w eq eolot retell (low (No4ea.W5le) =eon astral weds:t The lbw wll bpi seared oath 5.d ccoe leaks &eat perperdolt b the slope d 21 go: G The Wetted wee ,m be reined .4, 4 to • ides of erberet .h4e e11er psi- (5.• 5ImU4 i.tnctent) Apia littered iel.klin, t Cat droop de Cate floe end ,alas d On de slopes, ciao shelf del I at tort Urea tom de see or the plat root bat 5.. dwQe., van blimp: pas 2. d/ o hie Ud is jet ehke.er don de fee a tee net boll .d jet eider than Ulf she of U. root tool The hie Yald be d4 w loo error room the shed edge w po..bl . 3 Flom the dee Or Yet it the role rx may ay bekp don de top ad situ d the root bib netm U. tarty .der U. real bolt Tne plot eoti be caopbts• venni The tip of the root nom tease the reed Ord ad U. trek 6.je, 'bald be Nat to 60. Nee blase s r.oed4 sot . l Ride lab welt the dip' el sok 00th- to ravens .. pockets W.lw the tree se Onto wadi idler de W opent a c.ry4te. S spread 4 e hu of oboist dip mkh woo the else 05.567 woo The mitt s1Wd rot nit pat the pat trek w the dee root fns r'aem et least o Nee nth ad. mold, -free ri -.Ord the bate of de pat treks Pat rbttr.e. Oro erigoen nThe hsrm.ers horn etnen re e4asvee ,00h rotes pat marten:. wd Wooten n Other, very aye pert.. a dei property we plonle4 hissed matched .d mdtdd may the sore rro-cer w the proposed eorefre ptr44 pan 2 The ha.eauass to water le end re rove evosire dots, hddrg en Dead or dry pacts al be mixed van .ol4s data ody. 5 Pestkde■ red rprvap a Ferl(m we not permitted Sob mar be crowded t 3, meow, dyed, owe f 14..- prd.(.w NAN 4 Pbs- ea be sd,d/ed'nwUe f1 n re-:Smite irigla, rateement. Reesere r.g oled sacker hose ir4oin el be :eldd helmet y across the slop ad other dated seat ad toted bet. bags catered WO, notch 5 Al Plats sal be reglo1y sacred be Mid • by ..:y weeareeegbted woke low m drip the fist Use. goo.:. sewer. 'Trec.otor• or eerie sire. reuse .whey bop may be red f: tr....0 bro. Y 6. -PC. sae Hero. eras. David and Lurie Shumate 1534 E. M,-ginol Noy 5 Seattle, WA 08168 206 - 092 -8738 SHUMATE LANDSCAPE PLAN eat,.o twat( taboos Deer . XR-7M -253 blycell•hterse vcon Scale I inch N shed- i40.CLi Dc 4e : 1 11412,01( NWS 2005 -153% sfi(ey Sfiorei?iw design Datum NAVD 1988: MHWM =7.82' Datum NGVD 1929: MHWM =4.24' To Convert from NAV088 to NGVD29, subtract 3.58' from the yaks iven f the 'NAVD Datum. 0 r V N krJ O C■1 Permitting MARGINAL SAYE R)(N) EAST MARG 51, 9 z� { A 16412 NE 10th Place Bellevue, Washington 98008 -3707 Phone: (425) 957 -9381 greg @shoreline- permitting.com (8Asis °F RINGS) DRAWING BY: Gregory W. Ashley Proprietary Itd<on:n+tion. lids drawing contains confidential and / or privileged inforniatiion which is intended few use by specific licensed iondlviduies only. Any copying, disclosure, or dissemination of thin communication is prohibited! All Designs Copywrite 2009 yiiht y Sboxlais oatggn e� tPamitting * thio pemiietigg cam I m A 4 0 10 20 90 10 SHORELINE PROJECT FOR : PAGE: 1 of 3 LOCATION: Duwarnish River LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122° 17' 15" West LENGTH FROM OHWM: 284-6" DATUM: NAVD 1985 SQ. FT.: 328 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct new floating pier. DATE: 7112/09 REV: 9/201 flty Shoreline Desi Datum NAVD 1988: MHWM =7.82' Datum NGVD 1929; MHWM =4.24' To Convert from NAVD88. to NGV029, subtract 3.58' from the value given for the NAVD Datum. n Permitting EAST MARL ,(Rj�iAL SAYE R)cN) 511927., 672•57) �(M .1 ) 16412 NE 10th Place Bellevue, Washington 98008 -3707 Phone: (425) 957-9381 greg @shoreline -pert nitting.coni DRAWING BY: Gregory W. Ashley Proprietary Informattoo. This drawingrwntalns confidential and lorp4vflegedinfbrmation which Is intended for use try spedfc licensed londivldules only. Aoy copying, dhsdosw or dissemination 01'tbis communication is prohibited. All Designs Copywrlte 2009 „iary Simians aeti4n dCd'enaitting "tvww tirlg.cont OF BEARINGS) .21'35 "E(D) SCALD -- I" 40' 10 20 SO 40 SHORELINE PROJECT FOR : ' David J. Shumate 11534 E Matginal Way 5 PAGE: 2 of 3 Tukwila, WA 98168 LOCATION: Duwamtsh River LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122° 17it 15" West LENGTH FROM ORWM: 28' -6" DATUM: NAVD 1981 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct new floating pier. • SQ. FT. 328 DATE: 7/12/09 REV:: 9/20/ J4sfi(ey Sfiorel7ne Design Termit tiiz; 16412 NE 10th Place Bellevue, Washington 98008 -3707 Phone: (425) 957 -9381 greg @shoreline= permittiug.com DRAWING BY: Gregory W. Ashley Proprietary Information. This drawing contains aonfldeitlat and /or privileged htthrmation which is intended for use by sped&c licensed toodividules ont'y. Any copying, clisd:lute, or dissemination of this commsu i attw is prohibited. All Designs Copywrite 2009 f sbfey Sftmens. 4Detign d Q'ermttting "uavw.sSasfiaaltermitccq coon L V v ,r� _ter EXISTING PILES GANGWAY TUBS CONC. SHORE MOUNT PROPOSED PILES (TYP. ELEVATION) MHWM 7.82' EXISTING PILES TUBS GANGWAY CONC. SHORE MOUNT PROPOSED PILES 1. STRINGERS ARE MAXIMUM 2' 0.C. 2. TUBS ARE ATTACHED TO STRINGERS WITH 1/2" GALV. LAG BOLTS 3. DECKING ATTACHED TO STRINGERS WITH S.S. SCREWS 4. FLOAT SECURED TO PILES WITH GALVANIZED STEEL PILE HOOPS 5. PILES TO BE 10" DIA. GLVANIZED STEEL PIPE 6. PILES DRIVEN. TO REFUSAL NOTES: STRINGER MATERIAL IS DOUGLAS FIR -- ACZA TREATED TO .40 OR REFUSAL. TUBS ARE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHELENE HOMOPOLYMER TUB AND FOAM SYSTEM IS COMPLETLY CLOSED TO THE ENVIORNMENT DECKING IS THRU -FLOW GRATING' FLOAT STOPS ATTACHED TO PILES TO KEEP FLOATS OFF RIVER BTTOM Thru —Flow Grating END VIEW 4 x 8 Stringer (TYP. DETAIL) IN INI MI MI • - 4111► <4111 +1 ∎=4 41I1►i41tll►_4 4 X 8 Stringers loat Tubs Cover plate Shore mount bolts 4 x 8 Stringer (TYP. SIDE VIEW) High density tub Vicinity Map Luke Komar* forest Park Deck Conc. shore mount Gangway (TYP. SHORE MOUNT) SHORELINE PROJECT FOR : PAGE:. 3 of 3 David J. Shumate 11534 E Marginal Way S Tukwila, WA 98168 LOCATION: Duwamish River LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122° 17' 15" West LENGTH FROM:OHWM: 28'.6" SQ. FT. : 328 DATUM: NAVD 1' `PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct new floating pier. DATE: 742/09 REV: 9/20/ LANDSCAPING NOTES Plant selections Nadine; drought- takrmt plaits hw+e t en-selected for the•site to nirinrte water use. The•ptatts selected a-e.e pected to obtain 00 coverage witiin treee years time Small trees and stinks were sited close to the public tract to mere that the trod area tall be clear of branches and fauna Trees and shr bs totermt of ktyydation were selected for the river balk Flat locations are noted on the pine frees are sited 17 - t2 feet on center. SFr.bs are sited 2 - 5 feet on center. The trees are smaller because they have been obtaked t}rc*4 -t Kng Canty native plait sdvoge sales. Site Preporatim I vaslve, Nan -Nate PlaittRe novel "rid Erosion Control - 1 The taistirg nodous awed species, nckdng holly, ivy, aid demih aid blackberry plats wall be cribbed sot or art to gaud level by hand or by usig tn,d nod eaUprnent 2 The existing Prints errwcjrwta avid be retained The existing Rabno psadaocacia tail be removed as soon as the new plants ore estdiisiied'ad prod ding some shade. 3 Dead cr ding treetswdl be retained as uaddffe•srtags.- Small p1es•of•wood brush wil be•retc* d for ua] fe•hbitat 4. h medutety foliating removd, the plant sttbs wall be covered uith several layers of wewkpping darpened ca hoard The cardioa-d wit be senred'with loriscape n l hooks driven perp nt aiar to the slope at cadaoard sigm- a The c rcboard udl be covered uith 700 GSM Gra tte-Enttra,mettd Can• (cocaut fber) or equivalent natird fiber (bedegadebte) erosim control product. The fber Jibe seared with lardsccpe s.P hooks ckiven perperdwkr to the slope of 2,4. ggae. €� The affected areas will be rrukhed with 4 to 6.hdaes of arborist clips after plating (See planting instructions) Plant Mbterld Installation Acer drdnatum Alnus rtbra contorts contorts Psetdotsugo mendesfl Sala ksiandra Thaja pficota Westem *Tsuga heterophylla SNRU85 Botarrcaf Name Corrus stolorfera Gaultheria shnllon ® L.oricera involucrata Mahoria aquifolium a Mabonia nervosa Oemlcrio cerasiforrris Rbes swam 0 Rosa rutkana 0 Rubus spectobals Vacanum ovatum Vacanurn paryifolium PLANT SCHEDULE Corrnnon Norne Vine Maple Red Alder Shore Pine Douglas Fir Pacific NIllaw Western Red Cedar Quantity Site 6 6' 2 3 2 6 2 Western 1- lerrdock 3 Common Nizne Red Osier Dogwood Said Tuh berry Oregon Grape Small Oregon Grape Indian Pltm 4' 4 4' Quantity Size 7 16 3 12 2 Red Flowering Currant 2 Nootka Rose Salmonberry 7 4 Evercyeen 1- bckleberryci Thrrbleberry 5 PEREI'NALS AND GROU DCOVERS Botanical Name Common Name Arctostcphylos wo -trsi it Blechrun spicant • Brodaea congesta w Ca b ctuc nc h * Dicentra Formosa • Lysichiton cmericanm Polysticham m nrtum Sedum spathuliFolium Talnia menziesi t Cut through the Ccir fber and cattaoard On the slopes, dg a shelf that is at least treee tines the size of the plant root belt See dagrorn with Iadscepe piss. 2 Dig a h le•that is jstshcdcwer then the site of the -root boll and jst wider than the size of the root -bat The'hde shad be dg as fa- ouay from the shelf -edge .cs possble.- 3. Place the tree or sFnb in the Fula Cut away any bbrkq from the top and sides of the root bo1F retain the burlap under the rant ball The plait should be completely vertical The tap of the root• Floe, where the roots erel and the true begin, shald'be about one inch above the su'rovnang sal: 4: Fil the hole with the orignol sot, watering to remove eir pockets. Water the-tree or slrtb agcit after the transplant is mrrplete. Spread 4 riches of otorist dip rnkh over the entire pla•ttig area The midi should rot touch plait the plant trtrk or the tree root Fiore tldntdn at least a three inch wide midi -free ring a-cacd the tie of the plait troika Rent licit enatce and krigotion I. The hornewaiers hwe•extereive-experience with rutive pkntrrre temee and rrigdicn Other, very t - ge•pa-Gors of ther-p- cperty cre'pl rated, inigatnt-rrukhed ad mantiined in exactly the sane rra^ner as the proposed sho-eine planting plat 2 The homeowners wrll rrcr>rtor for end remove inuceive plants, ircteing ivy. Dead or sing plats wall be replaced with native plants miy. a Pesticides anal ran- mgaiic•Fertizers ore notperrritted Sob' maybe attended with compost, tapsot; orgaric'Ferbirer products or-mulch 4 Plentirg wall be sdiecbled in the Fit to mhitize irrigation requirements. Pressure resg.lated'soxker hose irrigation wall be installed' horizontally across the slope a•d' other planted areas ad tested before be covered with mAdt -5. All plaits uall be regdory watered by Mal or by usrq presstre regAated soaker hoses on dean the frst three grourilg seasons. 'Treegatcr or srn'la• stow release wateran tugs may be teed For trees ad large shrtba Kinnkinnick Peer Fern Nar vest Ldy 5 Common Camas Bleedrng Neat 5 Skunk Cabbage 5 Western Sword Fern 20 Broadleaf Stonecrop 12 Focrn Fltwer - Quality 5 5 igisTA Skye wN Flarxrg 5r dvea 4 - 2 gallon 5' 2.5' I gallon 3' 5 gallon 3' 3' I gallon 4-b' • Size 4' 1- 2gallon I gallon I gallon 4crh I gallon 2 - 3 gallon 4' 5 I gallon David and Laurie Shumate 11534 E. Marginal Way 5 Seattle, WA 98168 206 -992 -8738 SI -UMATE LANDSCAPE PLAN Baba'a Lyuett Lmdsccpe Design 206484 -2521 blycetttrnterserv.com Scde loch =B'd' Ashley oreline Design (< Permitting 16412 NE 10th Place Bellevue, Washington 98008 -37 Phone: (425) 957 -9381 greg @shoreline - permitting.com DRAWING BY: Gregory W. Ashley Proprietary Information. This drawing contains oinfdentlat and Wvlleged infbrmathm which is intended lbr use by specific licensed londividules only. Any copying, disclosure, or dissemination or this communication is prohibited. All Designs Copywrlte 2009 1lsU€ySbors&ne Design etd'armitting 4varasbore6ne ermittcgowa Datum NAVD 1988: MHWM =7.82' Datum NGVD 1929: MHWM =4.24' To Convert from NAVD88 to NGVD29, subtract 3.58' from the value given for the NAVD Datum. MARGINAL wAyE(R)(�+) $11'19 27 E AST 57) #(M) 672•,(R BEARINGS) "E(D) 371.42r(0)(H) (BASIS OF S8•21'35 0 0 JUL 162 SCALE .- I " -40' 0 !0 20 50 AO SHORELINE PROJECT FOR : PAGE: 1 of 3 David J. Shumate 11534 E Marginal Way S Tukwila, WA 98168 LOCATION: Duwamish River LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122° 17' 15" West LENGTH FROM OHWM: 28' -6" DATUM: NAVD 198$ SQ. FT.: 328 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct new floating pier. DATE: 7/12/09 - Ashley 3iore1Tine Desin Permitting 16412 NE 10th Place Bellevue, Washington 98008-37 Phone: (425) 957 -9381 greg @shoreline- permitting.com DRAWING BY: Gregory W. Ashley Proprietary Information. This drawing contains confidential and vileged Intbemation which is Intended for use by spedflc licensed londividules only. Any copying, disdosure, or dissemination adds comtmmica tionisprohibited. All Designs Copywrite2009 ylshley Shorans 4)esign etTennitting'a " ""tutva:shorearw ermitting.mm Datum NAVD 1988: MHWM =7.82' Datum NGVD 1929: MHWM =4.24' To Convert from NAVD88 to NGVD29, subtract 3.58' from the value given for the NAVD Datum. SHORELINE PROJECT FOR : PAGE: 2 of 3 David J. Shumate 11534 E Marginal Way S Tukwila, WA 98168 LOCATION: Duwamish River LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122° 17' 15" West LENGTH FROM OHWM: 28'-6" DATUM: NAVD 198$ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct new floating pier. SQ. FT. : 328 DATE: 7/12/09 t_cI°.Qc t l Ashley oreline Design CS. Permittin( 16412 NE 10th Place Bellevue, Washington 98008 -37i Phone: (425) 957 -9381 greg @shoreline- permitting.com DRAWING BY: Gregory W. Ashley • Proprietary Information. This drawing contains confidential and / or paivlleged inibrmation which is intended for use by apedfc licensed iondividules only. Any copying, dim e, or dissemination of this communication is prohibited. All Designs Copywrite2009 fisfilry S6orefine Design et rertaittirrg 'turves chore pataittvg.com (TYP. ELEVATION) MHWM 7.82' 11111111q 11116. EXISTING PILES GANGWAY TUBS —� CONC. SHORE MOUNT PROPOSED• PILES 35' LWM 0.34' EXISTING PILES GANGWAY CONC. SHORE MOUNT PROPOSED PILES (TYP. DETAIL) 4iuIi►_4iiI1.=:.._4IIIP_41ii1.. ,a■ 1.1 1S1 ICI ►?41I14 - 4111 P 1•1 1• IaI 1.1 401 1011 4111.'41111.4 4 X 8 Stringers loot Tubs 1. STRINGERS ARE MAXIMUM 2' O.C. 2. TUBS ARE ATTACHED TO STRINGERS WITH 1/2" GALV. LAG BOLTS 3. DECKING ATTACHED TO STRINGERS WITH S.S. SCREWS 4. FLOAT SECURED TO PILES WITH GALVANIZED STEEL PILE HOOPS 5. PILES TO BE 10" DIA. GLVANIZED STEEL PIPE 6. PILES DRIVEN TO REFUSAL NOTES: STRINGER MATERIAL IS DOUGLAS FIR -- ACZA TREATED TO .40 OR REFUSAL TUBS ARE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHELENE HOMOPOLYMER TUB AND FOAM SYSTEM IS COMPLETLY CLOSED TO THE ENVIORNMENT DECKING IS THRU —FLOW GRATING FLOAT STOPS ATTACHED TO PILES TO KEEP FLOATS OFF RIVER BTTOM Thru —Flow Grating END VIEW 4 x 8 Stringer 4 x 8 Stringer (TYP. SIDE VIEW) High density tub TYP. END VIEW) SHORELINE PROJECT FOR : PAGE: 3 of 3 David J. Shumate 11534 E Marginal Way S Tukwila, WA 98168 LOCATION: Duwamish River LAT: 47° 30' 00" North LONG: 122° 17' 15" West LENGTH FROM OHWM: 28'-6" DATUM: NAVD 198 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct new floating pier. SQ. FT. : 328 DATE: 7/12/09 5z 1 . COMAi M:TY