The URL can be used to link to this page

HE decision sm-05-94 with exhibits.pdfInc. 189"1 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR APPLICANT: Meadowdale Marina LLC, Vladan Milosavljevic as General Manager CASE NO.: SM -05-94 LOCATION: 16111 76h Pl. W. (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1-3). APPLICATION: Shoreline Permit application to repair/reconstruct the timber portions of the Meadowdale Marina pier (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). REVIEW PROCESS: Shoreline Permit; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and mares final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 23.10 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM) b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 & 90 (CRITICAL AREAS). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.55 (SHORELINE PERMITS). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Meadowdale Marina application was opened at 3:02 p.m., November 17, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed for oral comments and legal argument at 4:32 pm. The hearing was held open administratively until close of business on November 28, 2005 to allow additional information to be entered into the record. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following persons offered comments at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Senior Planner, From the Applicant: Jeff Layton, Engineer David Mann, Attorney Madan Milosavljevic, Applicant From the Community: Speaking in opposition, or expressing concerns about the proposal: Diane Clay Teresa White John Quast Don Henderson Sky Young Phil Ruggerio Roger Hertrig Sarah Bernstein Laurie Dressler Speaking in favor of the proposal: Marko Vuladinovic Lourdes Becker Margaret Tiere Reba Law Christine Kelly CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence/written remarks were received from the following members of the community: Philip Ruggiero, Exhibit A, Attachment 9 Armando & Sina Chilelli, Exhibit A, Attachment 10 Tung Bui, Exhibit 2 Gerald Bernstein, MD, and Sarah Bernstein, RN, Exhibit 3 Nick & Renee Blattner, Exhibit 4 John Quast & Laurie Dressler, Exhibit 6 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 3 Sky Young, Exhibit 7 John Quast, Exhibit 8 SUAMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS: From the City: Staff reviewed the staff advisory report (Exhibit 1) and entered it into the record. He noted: • There had been some recent demolition activity on the pier and that a stop work order had been issued. • Any code violation fines that may be assessed would be up to the City's Building Official. • An additional condition should be required in accordance with the email from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Exhibit 5). • Any uses on the pier that are not allowed outright by the code will need to go through a separate review process. • Once the pier is improved, all parking associated with the uses on the pier will have to be located on the pier. • If the wooden building is moved any distance for any reason it will lose it nonconforming status and must be removed (see Exhibit 9) From the Applicant: The Applicant wants to repair the existing pier facility, which is located mostly on fee owned property, with a small amount of tidelands leased from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. The Applicant and/or his representatives noted: • The marina is still operating and boats are still stored there. A tackle shop is also still operating. • Approximately 66,000 square feet of over water structure now exists and replacement is proposed for 44,000 square feet of it. • All of the existing portions of the wooden pier would be replaced with concrete, and some minor repairs may be needed on the existing concrete pier. • All of the activity would be done from waterborne vessels (tugboat, with barge and crane). Debris would be stored on another barge and then off loaded on the uplands. • A crew of 5 to 6 people would be on site at any one time. • Parking for the crew can be located off-site and workers could be brought to the site on a small bus. • The approach pier would have some light penetration to enhance fish habitat. • There will be a pedestrian walkway to the facility from the shore. • The existing wooden building on the pier was barged to the site in halves from Sequim and the intent is to move the building to a newly replaced portion of the pier and then move the building back to it's current location once that portion of the pier is replaced. • The wooden building is a legal nonconforming structure and should not have to be demolished because it is being moved. Repair of the building should be considered normal repair and the Examiner should condition the requested permit to require the building to be only temporarily moved and, at the conclusion of the repair project, the building restored to its pre-existing location (see Exhibit 10). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 4 From Citizens Expressing Concern: • With the capital required to complete such a project, it is rather obvious the scope of this project goes well beyond repairing the facility. There are obviously other developmental motives here, which need to be out in the open in a candid manner. • Future uses which may bring more people to the area should not be allowed due to the following potential impacts: increased traffic volumes, speeding vehicles, pedestrian safety (road and railroad), noise, vandalism, loitering, illegal consumption of alcohol, and trespassing. This area has no capacity to handle any sort of increased traffic, parking or additional public access. • Before any consideration is given to repairing or improving the marina, 75th Street West must be redesigned and improved to handle the certain increase in auto traffic and to provide safe sidewalks for pedestrians. • Adequate parking must be provided. • The Applicant has been removing decking and other materials without permits and has been dumping debris into the water. There needs to be enforcement before any approval is given. • Any demolition and reconstruction that occurs on the site needs to be very closely monitored. • Protection of the environment (beaches, waterways, flora and fauna) impact on the neighborhood quality of life (parking, noise periods of operation, etc.) and health and safety hazards now and during the project are primary concerns. • The pier would be a good structure for public park purposes and at the very least the restored facility should accommodate the public. • Moving and rebuilding the old wooden building should not be allowed as has been proposed by the Applicant. From Citizens Expressing Support: • The facility needs to be repaired and an improved facility would in turn improve real estate values in the area. • Activities, which limit traffic increases, improve the habitability of the neighborhood, and which address parking concerns should be allowed. • The pier needs to be repaired, but only permitted uses should be allowed. INTRODUCTION: The Meadowdale Marina LLC as the property owner of the Meadowdale Marina, also known as Haines Wharf, has applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to reconstruct the existing timber portion of the pier. Replacing the creosote treated timber piles and supports with concrete and steel is seen as a way to repair damaged portions of the facility and remove harmful materials from the marine environment. It is acknowledged that a stop work order has been issued relative to activities, which have occurred on the site without permits. That code enforcement action is viewed by the Examiner as separate issue from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application, which is the subject of this report. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 5 This report will only address the request for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and will not address any future uses the Applicant may have in mind for the subject pier. Any future uses, which may be proposed that are not allowed as permitted uses under the Code will need to go through a separate public review process. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts (1) Jurisdiction: The subject facility appears to extend to the west beyond the bounds of the property lines that encompass the subject property, Anything to the west of the subject property is in the jurisdiction of the State Department of Natural Resources and would require an approval and lease with DNR. (2) Existing and Proposed, Development: The site is currently developed with a pier structure, approximately 2/3rds of which is an old timber structure. The remaining pier is newer and constructed of concrete and steel. Both structures are structurally tied together. On the piers are two buildings. A relatively recent large metal warehouse used to store boats and an older smaller wooden structure, which was historically used to support a recreational fishing use. The proposed project is to remove all of the old timber pier structure and replace it with a concrete and steel structure. This will make the entire pier of similar construction and likely will prolong its life significantly. These changes will also reduce the impact of the existing structure on the environment by removing hazardous materials from the marine environment as well as by slightly reducing the piers footprint and introducing a water treatment facility to clean rain water before it gets back into the Sound. (3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Commercial Waterfront (CW) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Compliance of the project with this zone district will be discussed later in this report. (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The entire site is either tidelands or located in the near shore environment. Included in the application is a Biological Evaluation of the Environmental resources in the area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). b) Conclusion: (1) Jurisdiction: Any approval the City might give on this project should be subject to proof of any DNR approval and/or lease being submitted to the City. (2) Existing and Proposed Development: The proposed repair/reconstruction of the Meadowdale Marina must comply with the City's zoning and Shoreline Master Program. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 6 (3) Zoning: The Commercial Waterfront zone generally allows this type of improvement. However, the specifics of the proposal must be consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, ECDC 23.10. Also, the will need to comply with the City's Nonconforming provisions. This means that any nonconforming buildings may be maintained and repaired, but not expanded in any way. Furthermore, if a nonconforming building is removed any reconstruction must comply with our code, which will not allow new over -water buildings. (4) Terrain and Vegetation: Because the property is in the shoreline environment, the project must comply with the City's Critical Areas provisions regarding the protection of habitat and with any conditions placed on the project by the Arany Corp of Engineers, the Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources, and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service, 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) North: The property(ies) to the north are zone CW but undeveloped. (2) West: There are no private properties west of the subject property and the State Department of Natural Resources regulates all activities west of the property line. (3)(5outh: There is one small parcel immediately south of the subject parcel that is zoned CW. However, south of that, all the tideland parcels are zone Open Space and undeveloped. (4) East: Immediately east of the subject parcel is the Burlington Northern Right -of -Way developed with railroad tracks. East of the railroad right of way are Single Family zoned properties that in most cases are developed with single family homes. b) Conclusion: The proposed repair/reconstruction would reduce the impact of the site on the neighborhood in that the footprint of the pier would be slightly reduced and one of the buildings might be removed from the pier. .B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Zoning Standards for the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone a) Facts .(1) ECDC 16.55.000 states that the purposes of the CW zone is to preserve areas for water dependant uses, protect natural features of the waterfront, encourage public use of the waterfront and ensure both physical and visual access to views of the waterfront for the public. (2) The applicants indicated that they continue to use the pier and its buildings for boat storage in support of the recreational fishing industry here in Puget Sound. Marine oriented uses are a permitted primary use in the CW zone and the applicant's statement about the use of the site would be consistent with the use provisions of the CW zone. However, while the CW zone is fairly general in the Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 7 uses that are permitted and it appears that the applicants assertion about what the property is currently being use for is consistent with those regulations, it should be noted that any project, the proposed pier repair or establishing a new use on the pier, will also have to comply with the City's Shoreline Master Program adopted in July of 2000. The proposed project will be reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Master.Program later in this report. (3) The development standards for the CW zone imply that all buildings in the CW zone would be upland of the ordinary high water line or bulkhead. Because the piers have two buildings located on them that are actually over water, those buildings are nonconforming buildings in relation to the zoning code. They may be maintained but their nonconformity may not be expanded in any way. (4) The current use of the facility, although admittedly less than it has been in the past, is as a boat storage facility supporting the local recreational fishing industry in Puget Sound. (5) Piers are not specifically addressed in the zoning regulations for the CW zone. B) Conclusions: (1) Reconstruction of the pier is consistent with the CW zone of the City. (2) The current use of the site as described by the applicant is consistent with the CW zone in that it is a water dependant use or service. Any additional future uses of the site would also have to comply with the CW zone and the City's Shoreline Master Program, 2. City of Edmonds Development Code Non -Conforming Provisions a) Facts: (1) Both buildings on the pier are nonconforming in relation to the CW zone and to the City's Shoreline Master Program in that over water buildings are no longer allowed. (2) The buildings may be maintained and/or repaired but may not be expanded in any way including footprint and volume. Also, in the event that either one or both of the buildings is damaged or removed to the point that thresholds established in either the non -conforming chapter of the development code or the Shoreline Master Program are crossed, the buildings will need to be removed and will not be allowed to be re-established. (3) The timber building is currently damaged. At this point, no information has been provided relative to the current value of that structure, or the cost to repair it. The Applicant has proposed that the pier area adjacent to the building be replaced, the building be moved onto the replaced pier, and once the portion of the pier on which the building is now located is replaced then the building would be moved back to its current location and restored (see Exhibit 10). (4) ECDC 1.7.40.020.E reads: Relocation. Should a nonconforming structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter come into Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 8 conformance with the setback and lot coverage requirements for the zone in which it is located Movement alone of a nonconforming structure shall not require the owner thereof to bring the structure into compliance with any other bulk or site development standard of the city applicable solely to the building itself. (5) ECDC 23.10.220.0 reads: A nonconforming development which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance with the applicable master program: (6) The word "any" is not defined in the code and when a word or term is not defined in the code common definition of the word or term is used. In this case: Webster's New World Dictionary defines "any" as: some, no matter how much or how little, how many, or what land. Black's Law DictionM defines "any" as: some, one of many, an indefinite number, one indiscriminately of whatever kind or quantity. (7) The Appellant's attorney has argued in Exhibit 10 that ECDC 17.40.020.E provides guidance for both sections of the code cited above and argues that a building can be moved so long as it complies with appropriate setbacks and argues further that a moved nonconforming building does not have to comply with other site development standards — including a standard that prohibits a new similar building. (8) Staff has argued in Exhibit 9 that because of the sensitive nature of the shoreline environment the City's position is strict relative to a nonconforming development and that the City would lake to see nonconformities ultimately eliminated and in this case recommended that the building be demolished if moved any distance at all. b) Conclusions: (1) Because both of the buildings located on the pier are nonconforming, the buildings may be maintained and even repaired and remodeled, but the footprint or volume of the buildings may not be expanded in any way. Furthermore, if either of these buildings is damaged or destroyed to the point that it meets the thresholds identified in either ECDC 17.40.020 or ECDC 23.10.220, the building may not be reconstructed. (2) After reviewing the ECDC provisions cited above, the Examiner believes the ECDC 23.10.220.0 is more stringent than ECDC 17. 40.020.E. When two code sections are similar, but one is more stringent than the other, the more stringent section of the code should be followed. Therefore, if the timber structure is to be moved ggy distance at all to allow for the reconstruction of the pier on which it is located, the building may not be moved back to its current location and should be demolished. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 9 3. Compliance with the requirement for a Shoreline Permit a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 23.10.105 identifies the project area as an "Urban Mixed Use II" shoreline environment. This shoreline environment allows the most intense and diverse development of the City's shoreline areas. Because the Meadowdale Marina/Haines Wharf facility has been located at this site for a long time, the City acknowledged its presence by designating it "Urban Mixed Use II" in the City's most current update of the Shoreline Master Program adopted in July of 2000. It is the only property in this area designated this way. All other land in this area of the City waterward of the Burlington Northern Right -of -Way, both public and private, are designated as Conservancy L Saltwater Environment. (2) The dollar value of the proposed project and the fact that the proposed repair will entirely remove and replace the timber section of the pier led the City to conclude that the proposed project does not qualify for a shoreline exemption. In reviewing WAC 173.27.040, projects not exempt from a shoreline permit must gain approval of a shoreline substantial development pen -nit. That is the purpose of this application and this review. (3) ECDC Section 23.10.130-145 document general regulations for Shoreline Substantial Development permits. These regulations relate to Environmental Resources, Historic or Archeological resources, Parking requirements and Public Access. The proposed Substantial Development Permit must address these requirements. (4) Regarding ECDC 23.10.130 Environmental Resources, the applicant has submitted both a Biological Evaluation and the Army Corp of Engineers initial evaluation of it (see Exhibit A, Attachments 4 and 6). As long as the proposal is completed as indicated in the plans and construction takes place as described in the application and the Biological Evaluation, no significant adverse impact should be felt by environmentally sensitive and critical areas. (5) Because the proposed Substantial Development Permit is only requesting repair of the existing pier structure and no change of use is proposed, the city is not reviewing the project for compliance with the City's parking requirements. Itis considered to comply or at worst to be nonconforming. However, if a change of use is ever proposed on this site,- another Substantial Development Permit will be required. Any new use on the pier would have to demonstrate how it complies with the City's parking regulations both for number of stalls and parking lot arrangement. (6) The public access provisions of the City's Shoreline Master Program, ECDC Section 23.10.145, require that public access be designed into any substantial development proposal. The proposed pier reconstruction has a separate pedestrian walkway from the vehicular access. The stated use of the site, a boat storage and launch facility supporting the recreational fishing industry in Puget Sound, is a somewhat public use. With the reconstruction of the pier it is likely Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 10 that use of the facility will increase, raising both the demand and need for public access to the facility. ECDC section 23.10.145.B -D outline circumstances under which this requirement might be waived, however it is up to the applicant to request that waiver and justify why it is unwarranted. (7) ECDC section 23.10.185, which deals with Public access piers or boardwalks, is the only section of the City's Shoreline Master Program that addresses fixed piers. Using this section as a guide, fixed piers are only allowed to be 15 feet above the ordinary high water mark, OHWM, and may not contain any hazardous materials like creosote, lead and other toxic chemicals. The proposed pier reconstruction will be only 6.5 feet above the OHWM and a major reason for the whole construction is to remove creosote piles and other hazardous materials and replace them with concrete and steel. (8) The City's Shoreline Master Program deals with nonconforming matters in ECDC Section 23.1.0.220. It is clear from reviewing the Master Program that buildings over water are nonconforming. Nonconforming buildings may not be expanded in any way and may be required to be removed if the cost to repair the building is more than 75% of the cost to replace the building altogether. It is the City's position that. the pier itself complies with the Shoreline Master Program and is not nonconforming or illegal. Because no new uses are proposed with this application the City is not reviewing the project for compliance with any of the use provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. It should be noted that the City's Shoreline Master Program does not allow nonconforming uses to be expanded. Furthermore, if a nonconforming use ceases for a period of 12 months, it may not be re-established. At this point the applicant has not asked the city to verify what uses are conforming or not. b) Conclusions: (1) Environmental resources will be protected if the submitted plans and conditions of the Biological Evaluation are complied .with. (2) Public access should be permitted to the pier. It should lead to some kind of viewpoint, probably with benches, and be protected through an easement. (3) A condition, which requires documentation of the replacement value of the nonconforming buildings as compared to the cost to repair them, should be included to ensure compliance with the nonconforming provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. Also, any condition discussing nonconforming structures on the pier should make it clear that moving a structure any distance at all will result in a requirement to demolish the structure. (4) Due to the lack of parking in the immediate area, a condition that acknowledges the offer by the Applicant to bus workers to the site from an off site parking area during construction should be added. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 11 c) Future considerations: (1) Additional Permits: Any new use or construction at the Meadowdale Marina will almost certainly have to apply for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit prior to being able to establish that use or development. Obviously, any Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will have to comply with all the regulations of the City's Shoreline Master Program as documented in sections 23.10.115-220. These regulations will assist in minimizing impact to the surrounding community. (2) Traffic: Another consideration that will come up during any permit review for a new use or development will be safe access to the facility: Any proposed use will be reviewed by the city to determine that traffic is being handled in a safe manor. The City will likely require an agreement from Burlington Northern that the crossing leading to the pier is adequate to accommodate additional traffic. Additionally, because this project is located in a single family neighborhood of the City, traffic access and circulation on local streets will be a significant issue; allowing additional trips to be generated through residential neighborhoods to get to this facility would be likely to trigger significant concerns. C. TECHNICAL COMNUTTEE All city departments have chosen to defer comments on this request until they review the building permit application to construct the changes. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall provide proof of the Department of Natural Resources lease that allows the pier facility to project beyond its property lines. 2. The nonconforming buildings may be maintained and repaired. However, the building footprint or volume may not be expanded in any way. Also, if the overwater structures are damaged to a point where the damage exceeds the thresholds described in ECDC 17.40.020 or in the Shoreline Master Program, or if a building is moved g y distance at all, it must be demolished. 3. Prior to issuing any permits for the repair of the timber building, the applicant must submit an appraisal for the value of that structure. They must also submit an estimate for the cost to repair the building.. As noted above if the timber structure is moved to allow for the reconstruction of the pier, the building shall be demolished. 4. The project must implement the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the Biological Evaluation, Proposed Repairs, Meadowdale Pier, Edmonds, Washington, dated June 17, 2005 in their entirety. The project will also have to comply with any conditions placed on it by the Army Corp of Engineers, Washington State Departments of Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 12 Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources, and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service including times of year the proposed work may take place. S. The project will be subject to the City's performance regulations, specifically as they relate to construction and noise. Noise from construction sites is only permitted to exceed the limits established in the City's noise ordinance from 7 AM until 6 PM Monday through Friday, 10 AM until 6 PM on Saturdays and never on Sunday's or National Holidays. 6. The application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions in these ordinances. 7. During construction (until parking is available on the pier), all parking for persons working at the site shall be located off-site and the Applicant shall provide transportation to and from the site in a small bus or similar conveyance. 8. The City will not grant construction authorization until a minimum of 30 days after final City approval. Entered this 8th day of December 2005 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. �� Vl�ee 1-� Ron McConnell, FAMP Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for fiuther procedural information. REO UEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 13 APPEALS: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. T M E LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. 1. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 10 attachments 2. Letter from Tung Bui, dated 1119105 3. Letter from Gerald and Sarah Bernstein, dated 11/11/05 4. Letter from Nick and Renee Blattner, dated 11/12/05 5. Email from David Pater of DOE, dated 11/14/05 6. Letter from John Quast, dated 11/14/05 7. Letter from Sky Young, received 11/16/05 8. Hearing presentation by John Quast 9. Memo from Steve Bullock, dated 11/18/05 10. Letter from.David Mann, dated 11/21/05 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -0594 Page 14 PARTIES of RECORD: Meadowdale Marina LLC, Philip Ruggiero Vladan Milosavljevic GM PO Box 6159 23423 Brier Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Brier, WA 98036 David Mann, Attorney Tung Bui 1424 Fourth Ave, Suite 1015 18811 1St Place W Seattle, WA 98101 Bothell, WA 98012 Layton & Sell, Inc. Armando & Sina. Chilelii Attn. Jeff Layton 16414 75th P1. W. 12515 Willows Road NE, 9205 Edmonds, WA 98026 Kirkland, WA 98034 John Quast & Laurie Dressler Diana Clay 15714 75th PI W. 2002 19e St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Antrine Kasnar Sky Youn 13026 4th Ave. W, # 186 1613175 Place W Everett, WA 98024 Edmonds, WA 98026 Carlos Semanate Allen & Margaret Curtis 781122 nd St. SW 21811 Hwy 9 SE Edmonds, WA 98026 Woodinville, WA 98072 Alyce M. Groul Lourdes & Jon Becker PO Box 6159 1590875 th Place West 1601075 th Place West Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Sarah & Gerald Bernstein Diana Clad 15912 75th A SW 2002 196 St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Don Henderson Jon Cannen 15825 75th Pl. W 123 2nd Ave. S Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020 Reba Anes Lane Christine Kelly 1127 2 Ave. S 21228 84th W Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Roger Hertrich Richard Hankinson 1020 Puget Drive 15925 75th P1. W Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Thomas Hillman 15915 74h Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Teresa White %1641475 th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM -05-94 Page 15 Marro Vula"ovic 16006 75" Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds Planning Division CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron cConne ear' g Examiner From: St e Bullock Project Planner Date: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Fite: SM -2005-94 Meadowdale Marina pier repair/replacement Hearing Date, Time, And Place: November 17, 2005 At 3:00 PM, The Council Chambers Edmonds Public Safety Complex 250 5" Ave. N. TABLE OF CONTENTS 05094sr.doc / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report QQ� (15t - T- I Section Page I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2 A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2 B. Recommendations ..................... 3 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 3 . A. Site Description................................................................................................................................. 3 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance.... .................................................. 5 III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS............................................................................ 7 A. Request for Reconsideration............................................................................................................. 8 B. Appeals............................................................................................................................................. 8 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals.................................................................................. 8 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................8 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................9 VI. APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 9 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................9 05094sr.doc / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report QQ� (15t - T- I Meadowdale Marina File No. SM -2005-94 Page 2 of 9 I, INTRODUCTION The Meadowdale Marina LLC as the property owner of the Meadowdale Marina, also known as Haines Wharf, has applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to reconstruct the existing timber portion of the pier. Replacing the creosote treated timber piles and supports with concrete and steel is seen as a way to repair damaged portions of the facility and remove harmful materials from the marine environment. One of the most difficult elements of this proposal to deal with is the fact that the facility has declined fairly rapidly over the period of the last few years and the City has no documentation regarding the current use of the facility. While the proposed repair/reconstruction of the pier, in and of itself, may not cause or create any long term impacts to the neighborhood, any new use that might be proposed after the reconstruction of the pier, because it is now a viable facility and location, may cause or create long term impacts to the neighborhood. In an effort to be as up -front as possible with the applicant and the neighborhood, City staff will address the following in this report: 1. Staff will review the proposed repair/reconstruction of the pier for compliance with the City's Development Code and Shoreline Master Program; 2. Staff will attempt to clarify what might be allowed by the City's Shoreline Master Progarm on this site in the future. We will also attempt to describe what processes those future proposals would need to go through. One of the most significant items to come up in our review of the proposed project is the nonconforming status of the buildings located on the pier. Although the buildings are nonconforming, they may be maintianed, repaired and remodeled so long as their footprint or volume doesn't expand. However, because they are nonconforming, if they are ever damaged or removed to a point established by the Shoreline Master Plan they will not be allowed to be re-established. The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the submittal. A. Application 1. Applicant: Meadowdale Marina LLC, Vladan Milosavljevic as General Manager 2. Site Location: 16111 76`t' Pl. W. (see Attachments 1-3). 3. _ Re uest: Shoreline Permit application to repair/reconstruct the timber portions of the Meadowdale Marina pier (see Attachment 2). 4. Review Process: Shoreline Permit; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. Maior Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 23.10 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM) b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 & 90 (CRITICAL AREAS). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.55 (SHORELINE PERMITS). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). 05094sr.doc 1 November 10, 20051 Staff Report Meadowdale Marina File No. SM -2005-94 Page 3 of 9 B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend Approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit with the following conditions: I. Provide proof of the Department of Natural Resources lease that allows the pier facility to project beyond its property lines. 2. Nonconforming buildings may be maintained and repaired. However, the building footprint or volume may not be expanded in any way. Also, if the overwater structures are damaged to a point where the damage exceeds the thresholds described in ECDC 17.40.020 or in the Shoreline Master Program they will not be allowed to be reconstructed. 3. Prior to issuing any permits for the repair of the timber building, the applicant must submit an appraisal for the value of that structure. They must also submit an estimate for the cost to repair the building. If the timber structure must come down to allow for the reconstruction of the pier, the building may not be rebuilt. 4. The project must implement the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the Biological Evaluation, Proposed Repairs, Meadowdale Pier, Edmonds, Washington, dated June 17, 2005 in their entirety. The project will also have to comply with any conditions placed on it by the Army Corp of Engineers, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service including times of year the proposed work may take place. 5. The project will be subject to the City's performance regulations, specifically as they relate to construction and noise. Noise from construction sites is only permitted to exceed the limits established in the City's noise ordinance from 7 AM until 6 PM Monday through Friday, 10 AM until 6 PM on Saturdays and never on Sunday's or National Holidays. 6. The application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions in these ordinances. 7. Construction authorization shall not be given by the City until a minimum of 30 days after final City approval. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Jurisdiction: The subject facility appears to extend to the west beyond the bounds of the property lines that encompass the subject property. Anything to the west of the subject property is in the jurisdiction of the State Department of Natural Resources and would require an approval and lease with DNR. (2) Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a pier structure, approximately 213rds of which is an old timber structure. The remaining pier is newer and constructed of concrete and steel. Both structures are structurally tied together. On the piers are two buildings. A relatively recent large metal warehouse used to store boats and an older smaller wooden structure which was historically used to support a recreational fishing use. The proposed project is to remove all of the old timber pier structure and replace it with a concrete and steel structure. This will make the entire pier of similar 05094sr.doc / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report Meadowdale Marina File No. SM -2005-94 Page 4 of 9 construction and Iikely will prolong its life significantly. These changes will also reduce the impact of the existing structure on the environment by removing hazardous materials from the marine environment as well as by slightly reducing the piers footprint and introducing a water treatment facility to clean rain water before it gets back into the Sound. (3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Commercial Waterfront (CW) (see Attachment 1). Compliance of the project with this zone district will be discussed later in this report. (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The entire site is either tidelands or located in the near shore environment. Included in the application is a Biological Evaluation of the Environmental resources in the area (see Attachment). b) Conclusion: (1) Jurisdiction: Any approval the City might give on this project should be subject to proof of any DNR approval and/or lease being submitted to the City. (2) Existing and Proposed Development: The proposed repair/reconstruction of the Meadowdale Marina must comply with the City's zoning and Shoreline Master Program. (3) Zoning: The Commercial Waterfront zone generally allows this type of improvement. However, the specifics of the proposal must be consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, ECDC 23.10. Also, the will need to comply with the City's Nonconforming provisions. This means that any nonconforming buildings may be maintained and repaired, but not expanded in any way. Furthermore, if a nonconforming building is removed any reconstruction must comply with our code which will not allow new over -water buildings. (4) Terrain and Vegetation: Because the property is in the shoreline environment, the project must comply with the City's Critical Areas provisions regarding the protection of habitat and with any conditions placed on the project by the Army Corp of Engineers, the Washington State of Fish and Wildlife and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) North: The property(ies) to the north are zone CW but undeveloped. (2) West: There are no private properties west of the subject property and the State Department of Natural Resources regulates all activities west of the property line. (3) South: There is one small parcel immediately south of the subject parcel that is zoned CW. However, south of that, all the tideland parcels are zone Open Space and undeveloped. (4) East: Immediately east of the subject parcel is the Burlington Northern Right -of -Way developed with railroad tracks. East of the railroad right of way are Single Family zoned properties that in most cases are developed with single family homes. b) Conclusion: The proposed repair/reconstruction would reduce the impact of the site on the neighborhood in that the footprint of the pier would be slightly reduced and one of the buildings might be removed from the pier. 05094sr.doe / November 10, 20051 Staff Report Meadowdale Marina File No. SM -2005-94 Page 5 of 9 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Zoning Standards for the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone a) Facts: (1) ECDC 16.55.000 states that the purposes of the CW zone is to preserve areas for water dependant uses, protect natural features of the waterfront, encourage public use of the waterfront and ensure both physical and visual access to views of the waterfront for the public. (2) The applicant has told staff that they continue to use the pier and its buildings for boat storage in support of the recreational fishing industry here in Puget Sound. Marine oriented uses are a permitted primary use in the CW zone and the applicant's statement about the use of the site would be consistent with the use provisions of the CW zone. However, while the CW zone is fairly general in the uses that are permitted and it appears that the applicants assertion about what the property is currently being use for is consistent with those regulations, it should be noted that any project, the proposed pier repair or establishing a new use on the pier, will also have to comply with the City's Shoreline Master Program adopted in July of 2000. The proposed project will be reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Master Program later in this report. Staff will also attempt to clarify issues that might be associated with potential future projects later in this report as well. (3) The development standards for the CW zone imply that all buildings in the CW zone would be upland of the ordinary high water line or bulkhead. Because the piers have two buildings located on them that are actually over water, those buildings are nonconforming buildings in relation to the zoning code. They may be maintained but their nonconformity may not be expanded in any way. (4) The current use of the facility, although admittedly less than it has been in the past, is as a boat storage facility supporting the local recreational fishing industry in Puget Sound. (5) Piers are not specifically addressed in the zoning regulations for the CW zone. b) Conclusions: (1) Reconstruction of the pier is consistent with the CW zone of the City. (2) The current use of the site as described by the applicant to staff is consistent with the CW zone in that it is a water dependant use or service. Any future uses of the site would also have to comply with the CW zone and the City's Shoreline Master Program. 2. General Development Code Non -Conforming provisions a) /Facts: (1) Both buildings on the pier are nonconforming in relation to the CW zone and to the City's Shoreline Master Program in that over water buildings are no longer allowed. (2) The buildings may be maintained and/or repaired but may not be expanded in any way including footprint and volume. Also, in the event that either one or both of the buildings is damaged or removed to the point that thresholds established in either the non -conforming chapter of the development code or the Shoreline Master Program are crossed, the buildings will need to be removed and will not be allowed to be re- established. (3) The timber building is currently damaged. At this point, the City has no idea of the current value of that structure, or the cost to repair it. But, it would appear that the 05094sr.dw 1 November 10, 2005 / Staff Report Meadowdale Marina File No. 5M-2005-94 Page 6 of 9 building will need to be removed to totally reconstruct the pier as indicated by the application. b) Conclusion: (1) Because both of the buildings located on the pier are nonconforming do to the fact that they are buildings located over water, a condition should be placed on the permit which puts the property owner on notice that while the buildings may be maintained and even repaired and remodeled, the footprint or volume of the buildings may not be expanded is any way. Furthermore, if either of these buildings are damaged or destroyed to the point that they meet the thresholds identified in either the Shoreline Master Program or the city's nonconforming section for requiring compliance with the code, the buildings will not be allowed to be reconstructed. (2) If the applicant wants to retain the timber building, prior to issuing any permits for its repair, the applicant will have to submit an appraisal for the value of that structure. They will also need to submit an estimate for the cost to repair the building. If the timber structure must come down to allow for the reconstruction of the pier, the building may not be rebuilt. 3. Compliance with the requirement for a Shoreline Permit a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 23.10.105 identifies the project area as an "Urban Mixed Use II" shoreline environment. This shoreline environment allows the most intense and diverse development of the City's shoreline areas. Because the Meadowdale Marina/Haines Wharf facility has been located at this site for a long time, the City acknowledged its presence by designating it "Urban Mixed Use II" in the City's most current update of the Shoreline Master Program adopted in July of 2000. It is the only property in this area designated this way. All other land in this area of the City waterward of the Burlington Northern Right -of -Way, both public and private, are designated as Conservancy I, Saltwater Environment. (2) The dollar value of the proposed project and the fact that the proposed repair will entirely remove and replace the timber section of the pier led the City to conclude that the proposed project does not qualify for a shoreline exemption. In reviewing WAC 173.27.040, projects not exempt from a shoreline permit must gain approval of a shoreline substantial development permit. That is the purpose of this application and this review. (3) ECDC Section 23.10.130-145 document general regulations for Shoreline Substantial Development permits. These regulations relate to Environmental Resources, Historic or Archeological resources, Parking requirements and Public Access. The proposed Substantial Development Permit must address these requirements. (4) Regarding ECDC 23.10.130 Environmental Resources, the applicant has submitted both a Biological Evaluation and the Army Corp of Engineers initial evaluation of it (see Attachments 4 and 6). As long as the proposal is completed as indicated in the plans and construction takes place as described in the application and the Biological Evaluation, no significant adverse impact should be felt by environmentally sensitive and critical areas. (5) Because the proposed Substantial Development Permit is only requesting repair of the existing pier structure and no change of use is proposed, the city is not reviewing the project for compliance with the City's parking requirements. It is considered to comply or at worst to be nonconforming. However, if a change of use is ever proposed on this site, another Substantial Development Permit will be required. Any new use on the pier 05094sr.doe / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report Meadowdale Marina File No. SM -2005-94 Page 7 of 9 would have to demonstrate how it complies with the City's parking regulations both for number of stalls and parking lot arrangement. (6) The public access provisions of the City's Shoreline Master Program, ECDC Section 23.10.145, require that public access be designed into any substantial development proposal. The proposed pier reconstruction has a separate pedestrian walkway from the vehicular access. The stated use of the site, a boat storage and launch facility supporting the recreational fishing industry in Puget Sound, is a somewhat public use. With the reconstruction of the pier it is likely that use of the facility will increase, raising both the demand and need for public access to the facility. ECDC section 23.10.145.E -D outline circumstances under which this requirement might be waived, however it is up to the applicant to request that waiver and justify why it is unwarranted. (7) ECDC section 23.10.185, which deals with Public access piers or boardwalks, is the only section of the City's Shoreline Master Program that addresses fixed piers. Using this section as a guide, fixed piers are only allowed to be 15 feet above the ordinary high water mark, OHWM, and may not contain any hazardous materials like creosote, lead and other toxic chemicals. The proposed pier reconstruction will be only 6.5 feet above the OHWM and a major reason for the whole construction is to remove creosote piles and other hazardous materials and replace them with concrete and steel. (8) The City's Shoreline Master Program deals with nonconforming matters in ECDC Section 23.10.220. It is clear from reviewing the Master Program that buildings over water are nonconforming. Nonconforming buildings may not be expanded in any way and may be required to be removed if the cost to repair the building is more than 75% of the cost to replace the building altogether. It is the City's position that the pier itself complies with the Shoreline Master Program and is not nonconforming or illegal. Because no new uses are proposed with this application the City is not reviewing the project for compliance with any of the use provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. It should be noted that the City's Shoreline Master Program does not allow nonconforming uses to be expanded. Furthermore, if a nonconforming use ceases for a period of 12 months, it may not be re-established. At this point the applicant has not asked the city to verify what uses are conforming or not. b) Conclusions: (1) Environmental resources will be protected if the submitted plans and conditions of the Biological Evaluation are complied with. (2) Public access should be permitted to the pier. It should lead to some kind of viewpoint, probably with benches, and be protected through an easement. (3) A condition which requires documentation of the replacement value of the nonconforming buildings as compared to the cost to repair them should be included to ensure compliance with the nonconforming provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. c) Future considerations: (1) Additional Permits: Any new use or construction at the Meadowdale Marina will almost certainly have to apply for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit prior to being able to establish that use or development. Obviously, any Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will have to comply with all the regulations of the City's Shoreline Master Program as documented in sections 23.10.115-220. These regulations will assist in minimizing impact to the surrounding community. (2) Traffic: Another consideration that will come up during any permit review for a new use or development will be safe access to the facility. Any proposed use will be reviewed by the city to determine that traffic is being handled in a safe manor. We 05094sr.doe 1 November 10, 2005 1 Staff Report Meadowdale Marina File No. SM -2005-94 Page 8 of 9 will likely require Burlington Northern's agreement that the crossing leading to the pier is adequate to accommodate additional traffic. Additionally, because this project is located in a single family neighborhood of the City, traffic access and circulation on local streets will be a significant issue; allowing additional trips to be generated through residential neighborhoods to get to this facility would be likely to trigger significant concerns. C. Technical Committee All city departments have chosen to defer comments on this request until they review the building permit application to construct the changes.. D. Public Comments We have received letter from both Philip Ruggiero and Mr. and Mrs. Chilelli. III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. . Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' 05094sr.doe / November 10, 20051 Staff Report Meadowdale Marina File No. SM -2005-94 Page 9 of 9 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office VI. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 10: 1. Vicinity and Zoning Map 2. Applicant's Declarations labeled Attachment A 3. Drawing Packet 4. Biological Evaluation of the site and the project dated June 17, 2005 5. Applicant's JARPA submittal 6. Army Corp of Engineers letter dated August 12, 2005 7. SEPA Checklist 8. Environmental Determination dated October 31, 2005 9. Letter from Mr. Philip Ruggiero dated October 21, 2005 10. Letter from Mr, and Mrs. Chilelli dated October 24, 2005 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Meadowdale Marina LLC, Vladan Milosavljevic GM 23423 Brier Road Brier, WA 98036 Layton & Sell, Inc. Atten. Jeff Layton 12515 Willows Road NE, #205 Kirkland, WA98034 Diana Clay 2002 196a` St. SW Lynnwood, WA 98036 Philip Ruggiero PO Box 6159 Edmonds, WA 98026 Armando & Sina Chilelli 16414 75"' Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Engineering Division Fire Department Parks & Recreation Division Public Works Division Planning Division John Quast 15714 75h PI W. Edmonds, WA 98026 05094sr.doe / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report n\ � 1 ATTACHMENT A Land Use Permit Application Meadowdale Marina Pier Repair I V b Edmonds, Washington AIL 2 2vg5 a6VEL2pUEAfT S,141/fCES CTR. Description of Project or Proposed Use CITY of FaMoWtn Existing Conditions; The site is an existing marina. The marina consists of a 66,600 square foot fixed pier system that is used for the dry storage of small boats. The fixed pier system consists of three parts that are structurally linked together. (1) 20 -foot -wide by 200 -foot -long (±) timber approach trestle that connects the offshore pier to the adjacent shoreline, (2) a fixed timber pier covering approximately 41,150 square feet and (3) a concretelsteel pier covering approximately 21,500 square feet. Also located on the pier system are the following: boat elevator, two fixed hydraulic boat lifts, various removable floats for the staging of boats, fishing and holding tank platforms, vehicle parking, a 21,500 square foot metal dry stack moorage building and a 11,800 square foot timber dry stack moorage building that includes a retail marine supply store and cafe. Purpose of Proposed Project: The main purpose of the proposed work is to replace the damaged timber portions of the existing pier. Repairs will also be made to the concrete portions of the existing pier as may be needed. Project Description: The proposed work will consist of replacing all creosote -treated timber piles and creosote - treated pile caps and other pier timbers in the existing pier and approach trestle with concrete and steel construction. Approximately 277 timber piles will be extracted and/or cut-off below the mudline and disposed of on the uplands at an approved disposal site. Approximately 27,000 lineal feet of creosote -treated pile caps will be removed and disposed of on the uplands. Approximately 45,000 square feet of timber decking will be removed and disposed of on the uplands The timber bearing piles (267 ±) will be replaced with approximately 230 concrete and/or steel bearing and batter piles. The timber pile caps will be replaced with cast -in-place concrete caps. The timber stringers and deck planks will be replaced with precast concrete deck panels overlaid with a concrete topping slab. Approximately 10 creosote -treated fender piles will be replaced with the same number of ACZA timber fender piles. The existing 16 -foot -wide by 22 -foot -long holding tank platform on the approach trestle will not be replaced. The existing 5 -foot -wide by 80 -foot -long fishing platform extending north to south at the northwest corner of the pier will not be replaced. The former 5 -foot -wide by 80 -foot -long fishing platform extending west to east at the northwest corner of the pier will not be replaced. A new 4 -foot -wide grated walkway will be located on the south side of the approach trestle_ The purpose of the walkway is to provide safe pedestrian access to the pier. The net result of the above surface area changes will be a reduction in over -water coverage of approximately 352 square feet 1 of 2 Attachment 2 SM -2005-94 ATTACHMENT A Land Use Permit Application Meadowdale Marina Pier Repair Edmonds, Washington To provide additional sunlight under the approach trestle, steel grating will be located in the center of this structure. The grating will be 4 feet wide and will extend the full length of the trestle (200 feet ±). In addition, the new pedestrian walkway that will be attached to the replacement trestle will be constructed of 4 -foot -wide light permeable grating. The grating at both locations will have a minimum of 60% openings. A stormwater runoff collection and treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement pier system. This system will collect runoff from over -water parking areas on .the replacement pier and convey the runoff to an oil water treatment system. Treated runoff would then be discharged to Puget Sound. As part of the timber pier replacement process, existing pier utility systems (fire, water, sewage, electrical power, etc.) will also be replaced and/or upgraded_ The existing timber building located on the timber pier will also be repaired as part of the project. In addition to replacing the timber elements of the project site, various concrete/steel piles located under the existing concrete portion pier will be repaired in place. Repairs will consist of patching and coating damaged/rusting areas. Various concrete caps/decks with cracks will also be repaired in place. A barge -mounted pile driver will be used to install the replacement piles, pile caps and deck panels. A second barge will likely be used to store materials. A small work boat will be used to repair piles and concrete pile caps under the concrete pier. A tugboat will be used to transport the pile driver barge and supply barge to and from the project site. Proposed Project Mitigation Measures; There will be minor short-term noise from pile driving and other repair/replacement operations. The original creosote -treated bearing piles will be replaced with concrete and steel bearing and batter piles. All creosote -treated materials associated with existing pier will be removed from the marine environment and disposed of on the uplands at an approved site. The original creosote - treated timber fender piles will be replaced with ACZA-treated timber fender piles_ There will be a 352 square foot reduction in over -water surface coverage. Light permeable grating will be added to the approach trestle to increase sunlight under the trestle. A stormwater collection and treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement pier to treat runoff from parking areas. Refer to the attached biological evaluation prepared by BioAquatics International for additional discussion regarding project impacts. 2of2 It3 •4. ! �7 t� ! .395 1 _ 3/S- T 'S 92 r+ 9B 119 i7943 'r� '� •- 1 /gy 64 aG�cGMC' � 3 t rJ' foo 108 1 39 53 21 /�6 yYG 94 S��'9 ��✓ S 1s5 14 51 �,S I /lir 2i 4r 1 r Hoi t m sl st r r iQ S � 37 9 ! � A 88 1. 1z; 102 ;& 19 y 9 !Ajl Iza t cl t • 50 !! y e a b yer r `f14 t t01 )A I9 2.9 • ! Its 3B in Inc t r3 V i 29 96- !97 r IOi VS ioIn A. . Its , %poi6tT SOLAR 63 fl%rrr 9s 15 23 Ito 4 A 74 5S 83 pGrw '. t�fN - is 39 ZB Bo ! ! 42 t d7 ! 92 98 45 t' t� t _,Za 7q34 fA �se Io � ..-PR0 � � JEabT,8ITE 99 174 62 se. CA _ ZQ m1 101 t;G / 95 77 l O% 112/ 9i ' Ar:. G fe 1 42 66 i 98 95 l 75 « .! 'b �y 94 93 ar 5' - .23 53 18 Gni 91 _ 3 97 M — 9( in 90 y tru 401 �yi 92 79 �---- fi� D1 as faor69 1 'H014w 79A•1' ' 93 , ClI 90 C.64 Arw. _u Leda Pe S $1101 a2�i a5 53 1 Bd i yr G q �/1 �N 1a5iWilfui 1 1 99 15 i 102 *3 K Cove 43 i °9 S9sr 1 + 5o r ! f 1 52 'Cl t0a j I f 35 43 ' 1 f PAvaid"w 1 1 9 E ! VICINITY MAP h llt Bch ci .: rnonYf :` �j� 69 'H014w 79A•1' ' Leda Pe a _8 MA NAUTICAL MILES 1 0 1 2 3 4 YARDS 1000 0 5000 1 PROJECT LOCATION: LAT = 47`51' 10" LONG = 122'20106" PURPOSE: REPAIR EXISTING PIER DATUM: MLLW-0.00' SOURCE: NOM CHART NO. 18441 PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON Attachment 3 SM -2005-94 EJC FISHING j PLATFORM TO BE REMOVED 0 EX CREOSOTE ' TREATED TIMBER PILES, TYP EX TIMBER J FENDER PILES. TYP -` EXPOATLIFT TO BE RF [OVER--! X STEEL PIPE 'TLE. TYP DC BOATLIFT EX TIMBER PILES. PILE CAPS STRINGERS AND DECKING TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED Wfm ORMER FISHING CONCRETE/Sim PILES, CONCRETE PLATFORM -NOT PILE CAPS AND CONCRETE DECKING. TO BE REPLACED ' 3gO.28 ��4-,j:,-16,- 8 � ,— 1 80' i �� EX HOLDING TANK LLW--O.00' PLATFORM Z"I / (' E REMOVED) I s• t _ . ,. EX STEEL 1 CONCRETE 0 L4 (R AIR AS NEED X CONC. �, ' `_ _ , F • �\ ATTER Plus. \\ , TYP FACE OF CONC. *THE REMOVABLE STAGING FLOATS USED FOR BUILDING ABOVE - STM TEMPORARY BOAT MOORAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING BOATLIFTS ARE NOT SHOWN_ *OHWM-ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SEE ATTACHED UST FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: I APPROX.OHV I 200'± \EX TIMBER BUILDING �0 REPAIRED) W tiLu Q 11 a=3'35'37" � RADii1S=CD Si 1$ $B ILII ao LENGTH=321.05 LINE N0, BEARING DtSTANCE L1 N23'40.231N 30.41 L2 N33S156 W 30.41' L3 N34'43'07'W 27.47' L4 N275544'W 27.4 L5 N2015.05 -W 25.58' EXISTING SITE PLAN 40' 0' 80' U 0 0 a of w a EX TIMBER APPROACH TRESTLE (TO BE REPLACED) Z 0 RIPRAP LEGEND -EX TIMBER PIER TO BE REPLACED WITH CONCRETE STEEL CONSTRUCTION. EX BUILDING TO REPAIRED - EX CONCRETE AND STEEL PIER AND DRY STACK BUILDING TO REMAIN NOTE: LOCATION OF EXISTING CONC. AND STEEL PILES BASED UPON ORIGINAL DESIGN DRAWINGS - NOT FIELD VERIFIED PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APDL BY- MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET: 2 OF 8 DATE: 106/14/2005 APPRO)C *OHWM=uHHW=10.91 EX TIMBER PILES. PILE CAPS STRINGERS AND DECKING TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH CONCRETE/STEEL. PIKS, CONCRETE PILE CAPS I AND CONCRETE DECKING_ FORMER FlSHING PLATFORM -NOT NOT TO `A • r3 ] BE REPLACED it g0' t EX HOLDING TANK ML1W= 00' PLATFORM 22'f t (TO BE REMOVED) -V, [_"-2"-�I� 0 m FACE OF CONC. �- DECK AND STEEL 5gg 49 4s 0- BUILDING ABOVE EXISTING PILE PLAN • - EX CREOSOTE TREATED TIMBER PILE (APPROX. LOCATION) - EX PLUMB CONC. PILES - EX CONC. OCT. BATTER PILES 2H:12V DIRECTION OF BATTER, TYP - _ EX WNC. OCT. BATTER PILES 41i 12V • - EX STEEL PIPE PILE 0 60' 30' - Ex TIMBER PIER TO BE REPLACED WITH CONCRETE AND STEEL CONSTRUCTION_ - EX BUILDING TO REPAIRED - EX CONCRETE AND STEEL. PIER AND DRY STACK BUILDING TO REMAIN. pl, cp 327 7� a *OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SEE SHEETS 5 AND 6 FOR SECTION A -A & B -B PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON ADPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET: 3 Of 8 DATE: 06/14/200' (. PROACH TRESTLE) LL.I EX TIMBER BUILDING Q (TO REPAIRED) Ltd 1 � .1=3'35'37• Q RADIUS=5118.88 LENGTH=321.0 0 �w EX ROCK RIPRAP EMBANKMENT rj f i pl, cp 327 7� a *OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SEE SHEETS 5 AND 6 FOR SECTION A -A & B -B PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON ADPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET: 3 Of 8 DATE: 06/14/200' -EX PIER TO BE REPLACED WITH CONCRETE do STEEL CONSTRUCTION EX STEEL BLAG OVE CONC. DECK (R IR AS NtEDED)' 250'± FACE OF CONC_ DEC q AND STEEL BUILDING `s d II Ff:FNO- • - PLUMB CONC. OR STEEL PILES -- CONC. OR STEEL BATTER PILES 2H: IV DIRECTION OF BATTER, TYP �- CONC, OR STEEL BATTER PILES 4H. -12V - EX STEEL PIPE PILE • - REPLACEMENT FENDER PILE (ACZA TREATED TIMBER) 1 AE7( APPROACH TRESTLE TOB i REPLACED WITH CONCRETE do STEEL CONSTRUCTION ROPOSED VERTIC� APPROX_ 1 GUARDRAIL *OHWM=MIM=10.91') 6 GUARD–ROPOSED LIGHT TYP fpERM ABLE GRA({1NG PROPOSED PILE PLAN & REPAIRS 0' 60' 30' - EX TIMBER PIER TO 8E REPLACED WITH CONCRETE AND STEEL CONSTRUCTION. - EX BUIIDNNG TO REPAIRED C3 -EX CONCRETE AND STEEL PIER AND DRY STACK BUIL[HNG TO REMAIN. *OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SEE SHEETS 7 AND 8 FOR SECTION C–C do 0-0 PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT. MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON ADPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET. 4 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200` c 200't ALL EXISTING CREOSOTE -TREATED TIME W PILES UNDER PIER do APPROACH TRESTLE TO Q REMOVED•AND REPLACED TH STEEL & CONCRETE PILES. E j EX TIMBER RADIUS=511&.88 ❑ BUILDING (TO LENGTH=321.0 j REPAIRED) Ij ❑ + RELOCATE EXISTING Q BUILDING TO NORTH AS w NEED TO REPLACE PILES, DECK, ETC. UNDER BUILDING j i —ALL EXISTING CONCRETE AND STEEL PILES UNDER THIS j BUILDING TO REMAIN (REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO PILES AND CAPS INPL CE AS NEED ) 1 � 1 PROPOSED PILE PLAN & REPAIRS 0' 60' 30' - EX TIMBER PIER TO 8E REPLACED WITH CONCRETE AND STEEL CONSTRUCTION. - EX BUIIDNNG TO REPAIRED C3 -EX CONCRETE AND STEEL PIER AND DRY STACK BUIL[HNG TO REMAIN. *OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SEE SHEETS 7 AND 8 FOR SECTION C–C do 0-0 PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT. MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON ADPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET. 4 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200` EX TIMBER DECK PLANKS, IYPEX TIMBER APPROX. DECK `STRINGER. TYP TEL=17.5'± "-EX CREOSOTE -TREATED TIMBER PILE CAP OHWM=MHHW MHHW=10.91' MHW=10.06' EX CREOSOTE -TREATED TIMBER PILES, TYP (PILE SPACING VARIES 10' TO 16') SEX GRADE - NOTE: EXISTING GUARDRAILS NOT SHOWN SECTION A -A EXISTING PIER CONSTRUCTION TYPICAL 2.s' 0' 5' OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON ADPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET. 5 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200: EX TIMBER STRINGER, TYP 10' DRIVING LANE -EX TIMBER DECK PLANKS, TYP 10' DRIVING LANE ARDRAIL, TYP EX CREOSOTE -TREATED PILE CAP .... 'ZrMHHW=l0.91' �u MHW=10.06'. *OHWM=MHHW GRADE MLLW=0.0' I I EX CREOSOTE -TREATED TIMBER PILES, TYP (PILE SPACING VARIES 7' TO 8'±) SECTION B -B EXISTING TYPICAL APPROACH TRESTLE CONSTRUCTION 2.5' 0 5' OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, .EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APDL BY. MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET: 6 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200! PROPOSED PRESTRESSED PRE -CAST CONC_ DECK PANELS. TYP PROPOSED CAST-fN- PEACE CONCRETE TOPPING SEAS APPROX_ DECK EL=17.5'± . d- A . -PROPOSED CAST -IN --PLACE CONC. PILE CAP PROPOSED STEEL OR PRECAST CONCRETE PILES (PILE SPACING VARIES 16' TO 20') - r-EUX GRADE li I i it NOTE: PROPOSED GUARDRAILS NOT SHOWN K7 MHHW=10.91' N7 MHW=10.06' OHWM=MHHW ... -L I ... y RLPl 0.0' :t1' li i ii V *OHWM=ORIDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SECTION C -C PROPOSED TYPICAL REPLACEMENT PROPOSED REPAIRS TO PIER CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PIER 2.5' IN: PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS 0 5 COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET: 7 OF 8 DATE: tib 14 M PROPOSED GUARDRAIL PROPOSED LIGHT PERMEA8LE GRATING PROPOSED PEDEDESTRIAls WALKWAY 4' PROPOSED STEEL SUPPORT BEAMS FOR WALKWAY— �i LIGHT IC DRIVING LANE 10' DRIVING LANE PROPOSED VERTICAL GUARDRAIL 8' 4' 8' /—EL 17-5':t PROPOSED LIGHT SEX GRADE 1 1111=� 1 x-11 E_ t t 2 II tt I I t t 12 II tt II 1t 11 tt II tt II tt �I tt OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SECTION D -D PROPOSED REPLACEMENT APPROACH TRESTLE 25 0 5' PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGS{ SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET: 8 OF 8 HATE: 06/14 200' PERMEABLE GRATING PROPOSED VEHICLE GUARDRAIL, TYP PROPOSED CAST—IN--PLACE CONC. PILE CAP 9' 9' 1'# *OHWuf=MHHW - - . MHHW=10.91' 7MHW=14.06' PROPOSED PROPOSED PRECAST PROPOSED STEEL OR CAST—IN—PLACE CONC. PRESTRESSED CONC. ST CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB. TYP DECK PANELS o//—PILE, SEX GRADE 1 1111=� 1 x-11 E_ t t 2 II tt I I t t 12 II tt II 1t 11 tt II tt II tt �I tt OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SECTION D -D PROPOSED REPLACEMENT APPROACH TRESTLE 25 0 5' PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGS{ SOUND AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC SHEET: 8 OF 8 HATE: 06/14 200' Meadowdale LLC, Seattle Corps Reference #: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Proposed Repairs, Meadowdale Pier, Edmonds, Washington Prepared for Meadowdale LLC, Edmonds, Washington Prepared by Daniel Cheney BioAquatics International LLC 2705 walnut Loop NW, Olympia, Washington 98502 'fele: (360) 754-1359, Fag: (360) 754-2246 Email: bai *bioaquatics.com Tune 17, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 202M5 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CM. 'CITY OF EDMONI)S Attachment 4 SM -2005-94 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS LProject description ............ ....... _-.... —''--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '— l 1'1- Project Location -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ _----------------- l l-1 Project Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- --- —.1 1,2-1. Overview --------------------------------------- ----------- --------------- ---------- ----------------------- ____ ---------------- ------- l 1,2-2. Description and sequence of proposed activities -------------------- ------ ___ ------------------------- ---------------- \ L]. The Action Area. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- -------- 2 2- Species and Hab6AInformation ------------ ... —-------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- _------.3 Figure S. Transect locations, Memdomvdate Pier ........ ___ ..... ......... ................................................. ..................... 2-L Species bstommiom...................................... ------------------------------------- ........................ ----.............. 3 2i1-1. Chinook salmon ........................ ......................................... _--_—'''—'__........ ........... --- 3 2.1.2. Bull trout -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ...... '..................................................... 4 �2.1-3' Forage fish ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ....... -------------------------------------------- 5 2-1/4- Bald eagle ...... ____ ...... ........ .—....... .......... -------------------------------------------------------------- ............ 6 2-1'5. Marbled nounr&et------ --------------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 2.1.6- Other species ................... .... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...... 6 2i2. Project Survey Meth(y&and Reports ...................................................................................................... 8 2L3. 2uyimdog@avirammmuoal Conditions -------- -------- -------- .... ___ --------- '--------------------------------------------------- 3 2.4. Water and Sediment Quality- ............... ----------------------- ------------- ........ —...... ...... —------------------------------- 9 -2.5' Summary ofConditions. .... ......... .......................... ................ -------------------------------------------------------------- 9 3' Effects wfthe Proposed Action ------------- —.--...—---- ---------- ......... ....... ---------------------------------------------------- ln 3.1. Effects Analysis ...................................................... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1O 3i1-1. Fish and bird life-' .... '............... -----.------------------------------------------------------------------------ l0 3\L2. Killer whales ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .................... ll 3.L3. Net Effects ofAction ----------- -_-----,--------_—.�._-----._-------..|2 3'2, Take Analysis _----`------'_--------.-------------------------------------- .......... —--- ---------- }2 3'3. Conservation Measures -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- -____ --------------- [2 3.4- Determination nfEffect ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------- .|3 DIST OF FIGURES Figure I. view &ookdngwest toward the project site from adjacent uplands .---._---.......... --.--------- l6 Figure 2- MeaJovmd«le pier, pier, boathouse and causeway --__----''-.—._—''_—'.—'_----.—._--17 Figure 3. Generalized site location and aerial '—........ .................... —.--'_--.l8 B%oume4- Site orientation and bottom elevations (from wriginat dmawin@).--....... ------- ..................................... ..19 F-tWe 5. Neamfx^m:kmtb}metryand wpmgrnphy ......................................................................... ........ —............... %0 Figure 6, Salmonid use wf the mmuzo6oreenvironment .................................................. ------------------- ........ -------- %l Figure 7.Surfsmelt and land lance spawning dis¢ihutioxa_....... ...................................................................... ..22 Figure S. Transect locations, Memdomvdate Pier ........ ___ ..... ......... ................................................. ..................... %3 Figure 9. Substrate and biological features, and bottom elevations ........ .------......................................... 24 Figure to- Between pile rows 3land 22�v�nmiogsouth mn�r the pier_ ........................................................... Figure 11' side of ' 8mm1storage .................. ---------------------- ____ .—_—.—'—_-25 Figure 12. Mead»nn&al:piec beach and _-----�--........ .......... ........... ------------ 26 Figmxell Boulder bulkhead revetment pmmfl:lixggthe shoreline_. -------.----'---__—_---.-2v Figure 14. Pile row 7,buunatbthe causeway . ............. .................. ........................................................................ 37 Figure 15. Captured video footage ofuwbYNallocations o¢the M:ab`nxbdep�r----._.----------.28 Figure 1� bed 100 ft (30 m)oou�,ofthe xow�m��uon�,ofthe ' structure ......................................... 29 Figure IT Upper beach and southwest- 29 Figure 18. 0&stribmjoowfselected shellfish and other invertebrates ................ --------------- .------- ------ ...... ............. 30 Figure 19. Fuzusomd Ulm m6mreline lengths ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Al Figure 20. Eelgrass and kelp areas iothe ee»endproject area .............. ---------------------------------- ----------------------------- 32 LIST OF SHEETS Sheets I to 8, Proposed Repairs to Exis&g Pier Introduction This Biological. Evaluation (BE) for the Proposed Repairs, Meadowdate Pier, Edmonds, Wafshwgton is prepared to conform with U.. S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District permitting guidelines. It is Mended to assist the Corps in meeting Iateragency Cooperation requirements in Section 7(c)(1) of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and: other federal statutes_ USACE, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 'U_S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) staff comments and recommeadations, WDFW white papers, the USACE Regional General Permit 6 (PGP -6), "Maintenance, Modification, and Construction of Residential Overwater Structures in Inland Marine Waters within the State of Washington" (Effective: February 14, 2005), and the USACE reference BE (USACE, 2004) were used in preparation of this document. Also included with this document are Attachment A: Meadowdale Pier transect observations, aad Attachment B: Fssentiat Fish Habitat Assessment_ The principal author of this report was Dr. Daniel Cheney, senior marine biologist and president of BioAgnatics International, LLC. Dr. Cheney was assisted by Ms_ Lois Cheney, BioAquatics International, Mr. Milo Savljevic, Meadowdale LLC, and Mr. Jeff Layton, Layton & Sell, Inc. 1. Project description L L Project Location The proposed project is located at the Meadowdale Pier, approximately 3.5 miles north of the Edmonds ferry terminal on eastern shore of Puget Sound at the SE quarter, Section 6, Township 27 N, Range 4 East. The street address is 162 Avenue West; Edmonds, Snohomish. County, 98026- LZ 5026_ I_Z_ Project Description 1.2.1:Overview The Meadowdale Pier is an existing marina and one of the few remaining historic boathouses on Puget Sound Once providing access to a large rental fleet of small fishing vessels, it has more recently been ..used -as -boat storage and.launching facility.,..with.other operations in support of the recreational fishery - The -structure- is a-66;600 square -foot fixed pier -system -(shown -in Figure 1) comprised of three parts that are structurally linked together: (1) 20 -foot -wide by 200 -foot -long (+/--) timber approach trestle that connects the offshore pier to the adjacent shoreline, (2) a fixed timber pier covering approximately 41,150 square feet and (3) a concrete /steel pier covering approximately 21,500 square feet_ Also located on the pier system are: a boat elevator, two fired hydraulic boat lift various removable floats for the staging of boats, fishing and holding tank platforms, vehicle parking, a 21,500 square foot metal dry stack moorage building and a 11,800 square foot timber dry stack moorage building that includes a retail marine supply store and cafe (Figure 2)_ 1.2.2.Descxiption and sequence of proposed activities The Blain purpose of the proposed work is to replace the damaged timber portions of the existing pier. Repairs will also be made to the concrete portions of theexisting pier. The existing pier condition and proposed repairs awe shown on the attached Streets 1 to S. The proposed. work will consist of replacing all creosote -treated timber piles and creosote -trued pile .sus and other pier timbers in the existing pier and approach trestle with concrete and steel construction. Approximately 277 timber pies will be extracted and/or cut-off below the mudline and disposed of on the uplands at an approved disposal &ke. Approximately 27,000 lineal feet of creosote -treated pile caps will be removed and disposed of on the uplands- Approximately 45,000 square feet of fiber decking will be, removed and disposed of on the uplands `IUe timber bearing piles (267 +/--) will be replaced with approximately 230 concrete and/or steel bearing and batter piles. The timber pile caps will be replaced with cast in-place concrete caps. The timber stringers and deck planks will be replaced with precast concrete deck panels overlaid with a concrete topping slab. Approximately 10 creosote -treated fender piles will be replaced with the same number of ACZA timber fender piles_ The existing 16 -foot -wide by 22 -foot -long holding tank platform on the approach trestle will not be replace& The existing 5 -foot -wide by 80 -foot -long fishing platform. extending north to south at the northwest corner of the pier will riot be replaced. The former 5 -foot -wide by 80 -foot -long fishing platform extending west to east at the northwest corner of the pier will not be replaced_ A new 4 -foot - wide grated walkway will be located on thesouth side of the approach trestle. The. purpose of the walkway is to provide safe pedestrian -access to the pier. The -net result of the above surface area changes will be a reduction is over -water coverage of approximately 352 square feet To provide additional sunlight under the approach trestle, steel grating will be located in the center of this structure. The grating will -be 4 feet wide and will extend the iiill'lengtk ofthe trestle (200 -feet +/-). hi addition, the new pedestrian walkway that will be attached.to the replacement trestle will be constructed: of 4 -foot -wide light permeable grating- The grating at both locations will have a minimum of 601yo openings. A stormwater runoff collection and -treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement pier system. This system will collect runoff -from over -water parking areas on the replacement pier and convey the runoff to. an.oii water treatment system. Treated runoff would then be discharged: to Puget Sound - As part of the timber pier replacement process, existing_ pier utility systcms. (fire, water, sewage,- electrical.. power, -etc.) would also be replaced and/or upgraded - In addition to replacing the timber elements of the project site, various concretelsteel piles located under the existing concrete -portion pier will be repaired in place. Repairs will consist of patching and coating damaged4rusting areas. Various concrete caps with cracks will also be repaired in place. A barge -mounted pile driver will :be used to install the replacement piles, pile caps and deck panels. A second barge will: likely be used to store. materials. A small work boat. grill be used to repair piles and concrete pile caps under the concrete pier- A tugboat will be used to transport the pile driver barge and supply barge to and from -die project site. Piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer, however, depending on the bottom conditions, one or more -ofthe piles. may -need to be proofed with an impact hammer. The expected duration of proofing per pile is not expected to exceed 5 minutes- If an impact hanurter is used. it will. have. ar_tnaximum.rated' energy of between 20,000 and 40,{300 foot-pounds with at stroke rate ranging from 50 to approximately 100 strokes per -minute. -Conservation measures described in Section 3.3 will be employed to reduce the underwater sound pressures associated with the impact_ hammer - LI Tirie Action Area The action area for the Meadowdale project is defined as the marine waters and uplands within a 1 mile radius of the pier site (Figure 3, top). This includes shoreline and upland segments of the cities of Edmonds. and Lynnwood,.. and Meadowdale_ County Park_ All bf the. uplands. immediately adjacent to die- Meadowdale Pier - Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 2 site are. in suburban lowto medic Density residential development. All of L shoreline is paralleled by the twin tracks of the Burlington Northern and'Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and a boulder bulkhead at -1-9 to + 10ft bft.LW (Figure 3, bothxm)_ There are no significant beach areas within the action.. area, however,. immediately -north of the area at Picnic Point the shoreline widens and forms a more expansive intertidal flat_ The action area contains a number ofsrnatler watersheds, draining to perennial or intermittent streams_ There is a targe stoma drain -at the site contributing large volumes of fines, gravel and small cobble to -the :beach- The Meadowdale pier and causeway have a totat footprint of about 1.6 ac (0.65 ha). About 2/3d ofthe pier extends over the intertidal to extreme low water at -4.5 R MLLW and the majority of the coverage is. between }2 and -8 ft MLLW_ Within lou to 200 ft of the outer (crest) margin of the pier, bottom elevations range form -2G to -50 ft( -6 to -15 m) MLLW (Figure 4)_ Bottom elevations and water depths at the site increase rapidly reaching 10U11(33 m) within a few Hundred yards from shore (Figure 5)•. 2. Species and Habitat Information .21. Species Information The marine waters in the action area and surrounding area provide migratory, rearing and resting habitat for a variety of adultand juvenile salruon, trout and char, marine fish and wildlife species_ migratory fish species occurring seasonally in the project area include Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha; chute salmon,. Oncorhynchus keta; coho salmon, Oncorhynchus iisutch; .sockeye or redsalmon, Oncorhynchus nerka; pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha; -Steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss; coastal cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarla clarki; and bull trout, Salvefinuscon lu-wm. Tileproject shoreline is. lagely.marine, open- watur with varying salinity depending on ti& stage and freshwater inputs_ Therefore, herring, surf -perch and other forage fish, and seaperch, flat fish, sculpins, gunnels and other resident marine fish should arson be found in the area: 2- L I _Chinook sahrion .Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmmand historically ranged fzom the Ventura River in Cafifomia-to Point Rope, Alaska, and: in northeastern Asia from Ifokkaido, Tapan to the Anadyr River in Russia (NMFS, 200).). The generalized. life history of Chinook salmon involves incubation, hatching and.. emergence in freshwater;- migration to the ocean until they reach sexual maturity; anda migration to freshwater to complete the maturation process and spawn. Chinook salmon were listed by National Marine Fisheries. Serviceas threatened under the Endangered -Species Act on August 2, 1999_ The listing encompasses all naturally spawned and a number of hatchery spawned stocks of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), proposed in December 2004 (Federal Register 2004a) to designate critical habitat for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUS) of Pacific saknow(chum, _ Oncorhynchus keta; coho, O...kisu", sockeye, 0. . ner. Jia} Chinook: 0- tshawyytscha). and a rnykiss (imclusive: of anadromous steelhead andresident rainbow trout) listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat as "the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those, physical or biological feats ms (1). essential to the conservation of the species and (11) which may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed that are deterred by the.Secretary to.be essential for the conservation of the species.'., Tho specific areas.proposed include approximately 27,553 mi (44,342 km) of lake; riverine; and estuarine habitat in Washington; Oregon, amd Idaho, as. well as approximately 2,12.1 tri (31413 Saar) of marine nearshore habitat in Puget Sound; Washington (Federal Register, 2004b). A total of 19 mearshore zones corresponding to Washington's Water Resource Inventory. Areas were identified as critical habitat m the Meadowdate Prier - R,ecorestiu�ction and Repair. BE Page 3 Nearshore Marine Areas (Unit 19). Me nearshore marine area extends -from exureme high water out to a depth of drib -ft and is adjacent to watersheds occupied by an evolutionarily significant. unit (ESU) of Chinook salmon_ WFS concluded -drat habitat areas.irtull -19-nearshere. zones of-Puget.Sound (including -areas adjacent to islands), Hood Canal, and the Strait-ofluan de Fuca (to the mouth ofthe Elwha River). warrant a high rating for conservation, valueto the. ESU (Federal Register. 20046). -Specific to the proposed project: _The.prajest_islocatedinPugetSoundCi ingok.salrnon nearshare zme 7 (NOAA, 2004).. `lhe.action area -within this zone provides critical juvenile rearing and foraging habitat, and migration habitat for both juveniles and adults, • Critical habitat primary constituent elements (PCEs) associated -with the project action area include: 1) freshwater spawning sites— not applicable; 2) freshwater rearing sites— not. applicable-, 3} freshwater migration corridors — not. applicable; 4) estuarine areas — not applicable; 5) nearshore, urine area - applicable; -6) offshore mariae areas —not applicable_ The project meets PCE 5 with regards to water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. (Federal Register, 2004x). While there are no salmon bearing streams m the project action area, Chinook salmon are found in most of the rivers in this --region, including the Snohomish. and Lake Washington. systems (both about 13 miles . from the project site). WDFW (1995) recognizes 27 distinct stocks of Chinook salmon. -8 spring -run, 4 summer, and 15 summerlfall and fall -run stocks. Spring and fall -run stocks (also identified by management agencies as summer/fall runs in Puget Sound) are both found in the Snohomish river system The tithing of occurrence of the various life stages of Chinook and other salmon species varies between river systems. The adults migrate up. the Snohomish in the June. to- November period. Fry utilize tributary and mainstem. areas from May through Aug/Sep (or a full year for spring Chinook); rearing in deeper water as they grow until late summer. Smolts migrate to the estuary in April to July and rear in outer estuary or -deeper nearshore Water until fall. The likely distribution of Chinook salmon juveniles within the project area is as follows: salmon fiy will appear in the vicinity of the project area shortly after the start of downstream migration, and will remain there until mid -summer to late summer or until they reach the size at which they normally move to deeper offshcwe waters; and larger Chinook possibly remain in the area at least through late summer (Figure 6) (King County, -2001; Dave Molenaar, WDFW personal. communications). A compilation of distribution data for Puget Sound fishes documented shapshots of observations of Chinook salmon within most nearshore areas of east central Puget Sound (WRIA 8) Many of these records were clustered around Edwards Point and Point Wells and in Shilshole Hay at the mouth of the ship -canal into Lake Washington (King County, 2001). Based on.observations from other similarly exposed shorelines, most salmon fry would remain shoreward of the -9 foot bottoms elevation, whereas older or larger fist} would be most likely to occur in the -deeper offshore waters. Chinook fry in Puget Sound estuaries feed on emergent insects and clubenthic:.crustaceans.(gammandump-hipod _mycids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into nentic habitats, they feed ort decapod larvae, herring larvae and adults, sand- lance, and eup"hausids (Sirnenstad, et A, 1982 and 'Healey, 1982 and I991). Adult salmon would tend to be distributed acaoss.the width of the intertidal and shallow subtidal. 2.1=2-Bu11 trout Bull trout, Salvelinus e©nfivenius; are a type of char similar to Dolly Varden, Salvelinus rnalma_ The Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout population was listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish -and 'Wildlife Service on November 1, 1999 (USFWS, 1999)_ Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non- Mcaciawdale Pier.-- ReconstniWon:amd:Repair BE Page 4 native fish threaten the Puget So; ;population of this fish. The action area i. ;cated in proposed critical Habitat for coastal'Puget Sound bull trout (Federal Register, 2004b)_ Bull trout live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers, lakes or saltwater before returning to -smatter streams to spawn_ Others. remain irr_ a stream for life_ Spawning occurs in the fall mouths in streams and migration to the open. sea, . for those populations that also live in saltwater, takes place in the spring- The Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadcomous farms of bull trout in the conterminous United States (Federal Register, Vol_ 64, No, 210, 2000). The .critical -life history stages are the. periods of invade and adult downstream migration (USFWS, 2000)_ Anadromous native char outmigrate from Puget Sound rivers, including the Skagit and Snohomish Rivers, into nearshore areas typically as subadults. Bull trout mature at 5 to 7 years of age, with spawning m Puget Sound streams peaking in SeptMnher and October (King County, 2001)_ Little isknown of the distribution and abundanceof buff trout in Paget Sound estuariesand nearshore. waters- .They -have -been. documented-in-the-upperCedar River WaWshed and lower. Green. River and Duwamish River. Native char Have also been observed in Shilshole Bay and Salmon Bay, and migrating upstream anddownstream at the Bayard -frocks. Anadromous.cliar. in.the. Snohomish systemhavebeen. showa:to: overwinterin the lower river and -in tidal -freshwater areas -with -light -to moderate currents and .gravel/sand bottoms_ The size range of these fish (257 to 424 mm; mean 344 mm) suggests that they are non -spawners (WDFW, 1.998a, King County, 200.1). The following primary constituent elements are applicable in -the action area for this species_ 1) water temperatures. in. appropriate. range — generally applicable; 2) -complex. stream channels -- not applicable; 3). appropriate substrates for early rearing not applicable, 4) a natural hydrograph — not applicable, area is a tidal environment; 5.) suitable springs, seeps, etc. — not applicable; 6) migratory corridors with minimal impediments — applicable; 7) abundant food'source - probably applicable; S) few predators or competitors not applicable; and 9) permanent water — applicable (Federal Register 2004b)- 2,1-3- Forage fish The.presence of forage fiA may also influence the distribution of salmon, trout and -char in the_project area.. Herring, surf smelt and sand lance are important prey fora:variety. of salmonids, and marine fish md-wildlife species_ Chinook salmon. feed heavily on. forage: fish* and sand lance and herring make up a large fraction of the diets of both juveniles and adults-(WOFW, -1998b). 'the-Pacific-herring(Clupea harengus pallasr) -is abundant throughout the-uottheast. Pacific:Ocean, and . spawn at 14 well-defined locations in Washington State_ The action area has no suitable habitat or documented: Pacific .herring spawning or holding areas.(WDF'W, 2005). The surf smelt (ffypomesus pretiosus) occurs from southern California to central- Alaska- They are widespread in Washington occurring in -the -outer coastal estuaries,:tlte shores ofthe_Olympic-peninsula, -and:the:PugetSound-basiwfroatOlympia:to the. U.S.:Canada-border_ Spawning occurs at -high. tides with the adhesive eggs adhering to mixed sand gravel substrates in time ripper intertidal zone. They can Have an extended spawning season centered: in_ the summer. months..or. the .fati=winter period Year-roundsurf smelt spawning activity has been documented in a number ofareas -(WDFW, 2000 and 2005, and King . County, 2001)_ Surf smelt are reported to spawn in the vicinity ofEdwards Point south of the project action area. The spawning distribution for this species is shown in Figure T Probably, the presence of the bulkhead overlying the upper intertidal on most of the higher intertidal beach areas greatly limits available spawning habitat_ The -Pacific sand lance. (Ammodytes hexapterns) is. distributed from sauthera.California: to the Sea of Japan and across Arctic Canada It is a common fish of nearshore marine waters throughout Washington State: Like surf smelt, sand lance are upper intertidal spawners, depositing eggs in sand gravel substrates Meadawdale. Pier ReconMuc tion and -Repair. BE Pages between the mean high tide line and about f5 feet in tidal -elevation. Several spawnings may occur at any given spawning site during the November-Februaruy. spawning season. Eggs incubate for about one month before hatching. as planktonic larvae-(WDFW 1-998b). Sand -lance spawning is also reported near Edwards Point (WDFW, 2005 and King County, 2001)_ The spawning distribution for this species is shown in Figure T 2.1.4;Bald eagle The bald eagle, Halweetus leucocephatus, may occur in the general project area. Presently listed as a threatened species, the bald eagle has been.proposed for de,-tisting, with a final decision expected in 2001. Currently, there are about 600 nesting bald eagle pairs in Washington_ Eagles are generally riparian, associated with coasts, rivers, and takes_ Each winter, several hundred additioaal eagles take up temporary residence on. rivers and strcaims is the state to feed on spawned out salmon carcasses. Factors important for nest selection include: proximity to water, a clear flight path to water, availability of the tallest tree in the area, and an open view of the surrounding area_ Birds are their primary food source, but they are opportunistic feedersandwill take a.variety of fi* small mammals, sea.urchins, clams,, crabs, -and:carrion. In Washington, the -breeding season typically is in -the spring_ Females lay an average of two eggs that are incubated for approximately 35 days. T he.young fledge between 60 and 100 days (Watson. and Pierce, 1998). Information -on known -nesting or. wintering -indiViduals-in the action area Information on known nesting or wintering individuals in thd action area.was. obtained from the 'SFW (Gretchen Blau,: "FW Wildlife Heritage -Database Manager, personal communication). There are uo:lmown resting territories, located within. one mile of tlieproject. At other locations in Washington State nesting activities were reported.to occur from January f throughAugust1S. Wintering activities may occur. from October 3 t through. March 31 -(Vv DFW, 2001 and Watson: and Pierce, 1998): 2.1.5_Marbled murrelet Marbled rnurrelet, Brachyramphus marmoraatus, are small marine birds in. the alcidae family. They were listed as threatened in October 1992_ They are a common migrant and winter resident in Puget Sound - Adult -birds are -found -within -or adjacent to -the marine environment where -they forage on -herring, sand lance, smelt and other fish and .invertebrates. Large concentrations are found in Puget Sound throughout the year, mith the highest numbers foundduring the fall and winter months (Angell and Balcolm, 1982). Annual, aerial surveys for marbled mxurelets (Nysewander, Marine Bird and Mammal Component of de. Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, WDFW)-indicate that foraging marbled murrelets may_ occur in open waters adjacent to the project site. The main eause-of populatioadecline and -the primary threat -to the marbled. murretet in the Pacific Northwest is dile loss .and Cation, ofnesting habitat. (WDW, 1993)_ Critical: nesting habitats. arra primarily coniferous forests-in:the:Olympic-and Cascade -ranges.. Nestnrg.occurs.over-a_broad peuod.o£ time from mid-AprrT to late September. Incubation and 1%dging each take about 30 days (Ralpb, et at., 1995). There is no designated critical`nesting habitat in die action area (USFWS,-1996, 199Tand Wl3FW 2005)_ 2.1.6.Odier species. -Ottier threatenedlendangered marine species are typically found -in open coastal marine waters. These species include the taller. whale (proposed listing), Steller.sea lion; humpbwk whale, and leatherback turtle_ M.eadowdale Pier — Resoutruction.aad Repair BE Page.6 Killer whare, Qrcinus arca --- l`- 'S proposed In December 2004 to list the uthern Resident [tiller whale as threatened.- This listing was proposed because these killer whales constitute a distinct population segment under the ESA.and are likely to become endangered in -the foreseeable fature dwoughout-all or a significant portion of their range. it was not proposed to designate critical habitat for killer whales (Federal Register, 2004c). Killer whales occur in -marine waters throughout Washington. From late spring to fall, most males can be found in the inland waters around the San Juan Islands, including Haro Strait, Boundary Passage, and the eastern .portion. of the: Strait of Juan de Fuca. Less time is generally spent elsewhere, including other parts of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and the outer coast. While in inland waters during warmer months, residents concentrate their activity in Haro Strait* the eastern end ofthe Strait ofJuan de Fuca, and. several localities in .the southern Georgia Strait_ Less time is generally spent elsewhere, including other sections of the Georgia Strait, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and San Juan Islands, Admiralty inlet west of Whidbey Island, and Puget Sound. During early autumn, southern resident pods, especially J pod, expand their -routine movements into Puget Sound to likely take advantage of churn and Chinook salmon runs. During the late fall, winter, and early spring J pod occur intermittently in the Georgia -Basin and Puget Sound throughout this time. Since 1999; K and L podsare commonly found in the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound from May or June to early or.mid-February (Krahn,et al., 2004, and Wiles,. 2004).. These. populations may venture into north centmi Paget Sound and are likely to occur in the.project action area: Killer whales frequent a variety of marine habitats with adequate prey resources and do not appear to be constrained by water depth, temperature; or salinity. Residents. generally spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter -water- less than.5 In deep: Fish -are the major dietary component of resident Eller whales, with 22 species of fish and one species of squid known to be eaten_ Salmon are clearly preferred as prey. Based on a relatively small sample of observations, salmon. were found to, represent 96/o of the prey during dr- spring, sUmmer, and fall. -Chinook salmon (Onco rhynch us lsha"tscha) were selected over other species, comprising 65% of the salmonids taken (Federal Register, 2004c, Krahn, et al., 2044, and Wiles; 2004): Steller sea- tion, Eumetopias jubatus — found around the North Pacific rim from the Channel Islands off Southern California to, northern Hokkaido, Japan. Breeding colonies may be found m British. Columbia atnd=0regon{Osborne, et al:, 1988). Steller -sea lions are seen. in northern Puget Sound int -the winter (October to May) where their visits are transitory (Jefferies, WDF'W, personal communication, 2000). They feed on Pacific salmon, sand lance and hetrittg, squid and many other marine fish and shellfish species:(NWS, 2000). The Stellar sea lion was listed as threatened under the ESQ. in 1990. in 1997 two stocks were differentiated: The western stock was relisted as endangered, anis the eastern stock remained as threatened (NMFS, 2000). Humpback whstle, Megapiera novaeangfiae — widely distributed in the Pacific, but is rarely seen in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb, 1982; NMFS, 2000. Humpback whales were listed as- endangered under the ESA in 1973. They are also protected by the Convention on international Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (Cl TES}, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and the Faternational Whaling Commission, Critical -habitat -has not been designated for the species (NMFS, 2000)_ Leatherback turtle, Der mochelys cvriacea — widely distributed throughout the oceans of the world- In the Pacific Ocean, they range as far north. as Alaska and the. Bering Sea and as -far south as Chile and New Zealand Their_principal diet intemperate waters includes a variety of jellyfish, salps, and other macroplanktonic.pr:ey (NMFS, 2000). Leatherback turtles are occasionally seen along the Washington coast-(Bowlby, et al_, 1994). These turtles have rarely been seen in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and it is highly .unlikely that they would be found in the .project area (Je$eries, WDFW, personal communications, Meadowdate Pier— Reconsftl='oa and-kgmr BE Page ? 2000)_ The leatherback was listen as endangered in 1970 and are included in Appendix -f ofCITES: Crifical.habitat has not been designated for leatherback turtles in the U.S. Pacific, largely because nesting is -not known tq occur in US_ territory and important foraging areas have not be= identified. (MMFS 2000). 2.2. Project Survey Miediadt and Reports A site survey to identify benthic habitat and shoreline features at the Meadowdale pier site was made on July 1, 2003. The following tasks were completed: 1) a survey of intertidal -elements -in die project area with field observations and still photographs; amnd 2) underwater video -mapping beneatli-the pier and of" the adjacent subtidal bottom areas. The survey was completed during a low to mid -high tide period (-2.1 to x-3.5 ft MLLW)_ Additional information from an earlier topographic survey and information obtained from -County (King -County, 200 t) was also used in the evaluation. Position data were obtained by simultaneous recording of tracks- and waypoints using a Garmin differential GPS receiver to obtain UTU coordinates, accurate to within 6 feet_ There were l l video transects (t - 11), 2 intertidal transects (A and B), and spot checks at selected intertidal locations. Transect positions overlain on a- plan view of site are shown.in Figure. 8_ Video observations and transect coordinates are. detailed in Attachment A- 23. -Existing Environmental Condn`ions The existinng pier and causeway encompasses an area of about L6 acre with bottom elevations to -14 ft 1V LLW {Figure g, Sheets 2 and "3). "tile site. was distinguished by narrow range of both substrates, and plant and animal assemblages_ Existing. piling hada variable growth of typical hard -structure organisms,. dominated by mussels, bamactes; limpets, .other small gastropods, tunicates, and Uva {Figures 10 anm t t) -Bottom habitat -features were somewhat indistinct because substrates and plant assemblages -typically changed gradually im both -the parallel. and perpendicular directions from slime_ Three general- Habitat types occurred -within the project area. From the !lase of the railway bulkhead (+9 to +l0 R MLLW) to a point about 60 ft seaward (+& ft MI.L:W) [pile. roars L to 4 on -causeway], substrates consisted largely of scattered riprap boulders over sand=(Figure'12A). Fucus covered up to 90% of Boulders and sand had a patchy distribution ofdiif Alva- Water from, a large storm. drain_ flowed broadly across .the beach: near the centerline. of the pier (F e9� Bulkheadboulders-to-F-12 ftFrere also covered:wi&bwmacles(Figure 13) nere was:a - broad bencli of boulders and cobbles north of the site (Figures 9 and 17) which had a thick cover of'Fucus and. Ma- -From, 60 ft seaward oftke bulkhiead to a about 120 ft seaward from the bulkhead (+4 ft MLLW) (pile row& 4. to, a Qn causeway.L..die.-substrate was. composed -of sacnd .or. gravel with, occasionallarge. boulders: (Figure 12$}amrd`File"suFports(ligure .h4). Fueus, the red algae #'nrphyrac, barnacles and=mussels-were found on boulders. Gravel -and cobble outwasl from the storm drain spread Broadly on-tfiehieachi. Frown Mft-seaward of the bulkhead (below +4 if MLLW), the substrate is primarily sand (Figure: 12 C- D), grading to sandy-sitt below - ft MLLW (Figure 15- A -B)_ There are several' large boulders in the intertidal`(Ftgnue, 9), and subti_daE (figure. l5 D): beneath. and adjacent to" pier_ Ma was.the. pmdaminatnt-macroalgae to -3 fit MLLW and. was found.as drift:algae at:a:density of l.to 5%, -Other mnaeroalgae found from -3 to -40 ft MLLW included GracdlaHa, Laminaria and Gt-gartina at densities of less: than .1% total bottorxn.covem:. Bents diatoms: were the predominant algae: with coverage. rang °&om-afew%beneath.°the pier and below -20 -ft Nff- W to 25% in the exposed :shallow-subtidal.portious of the site. An absence of hard -bottom substrate (rock, cobble, etc.) and'wave exposure of the site preventss-significamnt algae .colonizatio -Generalized aspects of shellfish and-naactoalgaEe distributions in the project arca are shown in Figures i -S and "i9_ Meadowdale Pier - R.ec-.onstturbomr arid' Repair BE Page 8- Eelgrass occurs in Moderately d patches in the lower intertidal to shallo% btidai regions within 100 to 200 ft of the project site (Figure 9). Several groupings of 5 to 10 turions were observed within about 25 ftof the pier (Figures 9 and 15C)_ An intensive side scan sonar survey completed in 2001 indicated dense coverage of eelgrass growing north of the pier (King County, 200 1) (Figure 20)- A "patchy" distribution of eelgrass was reported near Picnic Point during aerial surveys conducted by the state (WDNR, 2001). Those surveys identified the presence or absence of eelgrass within shoreline "sections, (Fits 21) - No wetland plants occur in the immediate project site. The existing bulkhead is unvegetated except for scattered blackberries growing over the higher margins of the rip -rap shoreline_ 2.4 !Yater and Sediment Quality Based on WDOE sampling water properties in the project action area are typical of well -mixed central Puget Sound waters with no significant variations in salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, transmission,or pH. Water quality data for 2001 are shown in Table L. Table 1. Salinity, temperature and dissolved oxygen at the surface and 10 m 00 R) in southern Admiralty Inlet during 2001 (latest date of full records for this station): WDOE data. . Date DePtli (m} '1'emP lCl S DO fmgM DO %Sat 2/5/2041 0 8.4 30-3 7.6 79 2/5/2001 to 9.4 30-3 7.5 78 3/6/2001 0 $ 2 29.6 9-8 lot 3/6!200 t to 8.0 30-1 8.3 86 4116120011 0 9.2.27-7 10-5 110 4/16/2001 to 8-8 29-5 9-5 99 517/200t 0 9-3 30.4 9-5 lot 5/7/2001 to 9.3 30.1 8.919511 61l1/2001 0 1l.0 29.9 8.1 89 6/1112001 10 10.8 30.1 7-51 83 7/9/2001 0 13.9 28,8 12.9 150 714/2001 to . 12.2 29.8 133 150 8127/2001 0 13.2 30.1 8.3 97 8/2712001 to 13.0 30-2 8.2 95 9/19/2001 0 12.9 30.6 8-8 101 9119/2001 14 12.7 30.6 8-7 loo 11/16/2001 0 10.7 30.6 6.8 75 11/16/2001 10 10.7 30-6 6.8 75 2.5. Summary of Conditions Overall, the baseline biological and water conditions in the proposed project area are good. Field observations indicated the dominant macro -algae species found was the greed algae Ova, primarily as drift algae- Drift Ulva did not appear to be substantially affected by shade Coverage of Ova under the Pier was similar to that found east and west of the pier footprint. Eelgrass does not occur within the project footprint, beyond -6 tt MLLW or in significant coverage within 100 to 150 feet of the project. The action area contains proposed "critical habitat" for Chinook sahnon- Critical habitat is defined m the ESA as - "(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species --- on which are found those physical or biological features (i) essential to the conservation of the species Meadowdale Pier - Rmons€mciion and. Repair BE Page 4 and (11) which may requii,. special management considerations or protection, and`( specific, areas outside the geographical area- occupied . by &e. spccic&__upon_ a .determination by;the Secretary [ofCommercey(Secretaryfl -dint, such -areas -arc essential f6r the conservation of -the species -'- NWS guidelines (Federal Register, February 16, 2000°(65}32) were -applied in Table 2, below, to �assess the role specific habitat elements have in the action area for listed species- TableI Role of habitat elements in the action area for listed species- Habitat Element Provides: Chinook- salmon Bud- trout Bald-. eagle Marbled- murrelet Humpback. whale Killer - Whate Space for,growth, normal behavior Yes Yes Limited Limited No Maybe I Food, water, other physiological needs Yes Yes, Yes Limited No- Yes Cover or shelter Yes Yes Limited United No Yes Breeding No NO NO No No. mmla"�bc Rearing Yes- Yes - Limited- Maybe No Maybe Protected from'disturbance Limited United Limited No NO Maybe ,Is represeatative of Tme of species Yes Yes- Yes- Yes Unlikely Ma e 3. Effects -of the Proposed Actioa 3.1_ -Effecis Analysis 3. 1. 1 Tish and bird life Theproposed pile reinforcements and replacement; and deck repairs at the Meadowdale:picr project -site should have no significant adverse impacts on listed species or existing water quality and, biological conditions. in. nearshore areas of Puget Sound- The proposed piling repairs do not significantly: change Structural features in' place at -the -facility. Existing- piles 'Will beeither-removed and -replaced with concrete and7br steel piles or repaired with like materials 7 Att'approximately 277,'cxistiikg creosote, treated timber pile& will he putted.or cut below the sediment surface and disposed at an approved upland. site. Precast concrete replacement piles, and concrete pile reinforcemeat; if -used, -will-meet guidelines of the W DF W'Ffydrauhc Protection Approvalfrom in to minimize or eliminate leaching fr -water structures. nixw.;t.jwpacU to. existing bentWr, animals.and -ptants-within-the. foot -print of the new piles will be offset by die reduction , ion in the total number of driven piles. to addition, barnacle, mussel and macro -algae colonization andproduction. on the replacement piling will provide food and habitat for a variety of suspension -and deposit feedersmany.of which constitute, prey -for juvenile salmonids and marine fish species. Removal.andreplacement of die existing. failing. creosote treated timber piles.wilft remove.a significant Source of chronic creosote contamination from the marine environment in the action area The.reL will be limited and localized disruption and suspension of fineintertidal and shallow sublidal -surficial of sub -surface sediments during pile -driving -and removal. -of the existing -timber piles and .possible turbidity avoidance by fiftfish within the itrunediate area of the pdin& Juvenile salmonids will most likely be higheriathe water column, and unaffected. 6y the seAment.disturbance. --Existing eelgrass. beds observed:at the site are tuore than WO ft north and south of alt -piling to be removed at the -site. New coacreteand/or steel piles -will be -installed during higher tide levels with abarge-mounted vibratory hammef, however, depending on the bottom conditions;. one or more of the piles' -need tobeproofed May with as impact hammer- The expected'duration. of proofing per pile is not expected to exceed 5 minutes. -Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction -and Repair BE Page 1-0 If an: impact Hammer :s used it x' :have a maximum rated energy of betwem. _J,000 and 40,000 f6ot pounds with a stroke. rate ranging froth. 50 to -approximately 100 strokes per minute_: Noise from the pile, - driving operation may also temporary adverse effects on resident fish in the area No pile driving will occur during outmigration of listed. juvenile salmonids- Operational and pile driving timing restrictions (see, Section 33, below) should minimize or avoid imp ts.to listed. Chinook juveniles, bull trout and bald eagles_ All activity- to -complete repairson existing concrete and.steel piles will be conducted during low water when most of the beach beneath the structure is exposed. No uncured concrete material will be -allowed to enter water. Migratory fish passage would not be restricted or impeded by the proposed action and critical, bottom habitat inthe project area will not be significantly altered for salmonids and marine fish - The relatively deep water conditions coupled with the long -terra presence of the over -water structure has, for the most part, precluded the growth, of mac,,roalgae and eelgrass beneath toe structure. These effects fin are coned to the footprint of the marina. The proposed repairs would result in a reduction from the baseline condition for over -water coverage of approximately 352 square feet. Installation ofigrating along the centerline of the rebuilt approach trestle will. further reduce shading to the intertidal bottom_ Past studies of'sftading effects on juvenile salmonids at commercial_piers and ferry terminals is Puget Souud found miniquinr daylight_levels beneath a.12 foot wide fishing. pier at the Kingston Ferry terati.nal. -well above 0.5 PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) or 1 foot-candle. Experimental evidence described in the report found no alterations in juvenile salmon migration and feeding behavior for light levels of 0.5, PAR or above. In four of the five Washington State ferry terminals investigated in the study, light was above this threshold leveleven under the darkest portion of the terminal: These terminals are large overwater structures 300 to 700 ft in length and 50 to 600 fl in widtic, and similar in size to the MeadoKrclale site (Simensstad, et at 1:99.7 and 1999). Due to the relatively narrow width, elevation. above MHHW, and use of grating, the rebuilt approach trestle should have a reduced impact on the behavior of the listed species The main dock structure is 200 fl seaward of the existing bulkhead and beyond the primary rmiW4 ion corridor of out�i ting juvenile salmon. The small surface area of the approach trestle anis offshore location of the train dock structurze minimizes the affects -reported by Nightingale. and-Simenstad (200.1}and others. Baseline conditions are representative of i rterddai and shallow subtidafhakiitats in north central Puget Sound,The. project area, baseline. condi tions widLin.the action area should he significantly enhanced by the proposed project, .due largely to the removal of creosote treated timber piles, and daylighting portions of the approach trestle. There are no interrelated or interdependent activities associated with this construction: Short-term and .long-teram. effects on -listed species and critical habitat are. highly unlilcely. Construction should have no adverse effect on listed species. With -the exception of the increased area of concrete -covered piles, shallow intertidal habitats will be largely physically unmodified.. Tire proposed changes should not affect forage fish spawning habitat. 3.1.2_ Killer whales Southern resident killer whales may occur relatively frequently in north central Puget Sound arid- in, or adjacent to the project action area (Krahu, 2004 and Wiles, 2004). There are several factors which should he considcred m -addressing potential impacts -if whales do enter the region. • Resident killer whalesprimarily forage in deeper open -water areas_ They are uncommon in shallow water and their foraging behavior should not be altered by the proposed facility repairs, which, with the exception of -the pile driving, will -not -be in -water activities. Meadowdale-Pier -- term stnxticm and It qN& -BE p4ge- t l - Salmon, especially Chinook Simon, are the primary prey of southern resiaent killer whales_ it was determined that the proposed project should not adversely affect salmon juvenile and adW migration and migration corridors, salmon rearing habitat, for salmon forage fish spawning habitat. Therefore, there should be no significant effects on killer whale prey resources. • Excessive'leveis of human -generated noise array potentially mask echolocation and other signals used by killer whales. Pile driving noise is the onlypotmtiat source of significant additional underwater noise that is directly associated with project construction or operation Based.on pile driving noise observations of juvenile salmonid (from large-scale Navy and industrial projects) reported in Feist, Anderson and Miyamoto {1996), noise -related effectsare largely confined to the immediate construction area, particularly when a vibratery pile driver is used Na information was found on potential impacts of pile driving noise on faller whales However, affects are unlikely, given the construction timing.provisions that will be built into the project HPA and USACE .permits- 3.1.3:Net Effects of Action There will be minor short- terar noise fiom. pile driving and other- repairlreplace}nent operations,_ The original creosote -treated bearing piles will be replaced with concrete and steel bearing and batter piles:. Ail creosote -treated materials associated with existing pier will be removed from the marine environment and disposedof m the uplands at an -approved -site- The originalcreosote-treated timber fender piles will be replaced with ACZA-treated timber fender piles. 'There will be a 352 square foot reduction in over - water surface coverage. tiight.permeable grating will be added to the approach trestle to increase light levels under the trestle. A stormwater collections and treatment system will. he- incorporated into- the replacement pier to heat runoff from parking areas. In summary, the project area baseline conditions within the action area should be enhanced by the. proposed facility repairs. There are no interrelated or mterdependeat activities associated with this construction. Short-term and long-term effects on listed species and.proposed critical Chinook salmon and bull trout habitats are highly unlikely. Construction should have no adverse clfeet-on listed species. With the exception of the area of driven piles, intertidal and subtidal habitats will be physically unmodified The proposed.project would not affect eetgrass or forage fish spawning habitat. 3.2. Take Analysis The risk for a take of Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagles and other- listed or proposed threatened/endangered species is low or absent for this project. There is minimal likelihood -for disruption, injury or harm to these listed species or their critical habitat. Timing and location of the construction operation avoids a take by ensuring the work is carried out when -listed salmonid .species are not present~ -There would,beno in -water activity to affect the behavior of fisted species_. Habitat alterations are also minimized or avoided when listed juvenile salmonids are present {see Conservation Measures, below)- 3.3. elow} 3.3 Conservation Measures The USA.CE Section 1;0/404 permit authoriza#iotr and WDFW Hydraulic Protection Approval will likely include..provisions to prohibit work in intertidal areas, subtidal areas, or waters of the.project area between MaEch B and- October 1.5 of any year without -the permission- of the Washangtou State: Department of Fish- and ishand Wildlife, for the protection of out -migrating and in -migrating salmonids. The timetable for -this .project is linked to the.permitprocess. Activities will .proceed pending approval. of federal, state and local permits. The tuning for certain in -water activities will be resweted under those permits. These measures are designed to reduce as well as avoid Habitat damage. Meadowdate Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 12 When an impact hammer is uses, steet piling greater than. 10 unties in d _, eer, a bubble curtain and a block of wood at least 6 incises thick placed betweea dw- pile driver and the pile will be employed as an in -water noise minimization, mcasure approved by the Services_ Steel grating 4 feet in width will be installed in the center and on a- pedestrian walkway for the Cull length of the approach trestle (2(34 feet+/-)_ The grating at both -locations will have a minimum of6WD openings. The existing timber trestle deck has no light transmitting grating - 3.4. Determination of Effect The determination of effect for the Meadowdale project is as follows: • Puget Sound Chinook: "may affect, not rtkely to adversely affect," • Proposed Puget Sound Crook critical habitat: "no destruction or adverse modification" • Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout. "may affect, not likely to adversely affect," • Proposed Puget Sound bull trout critical habitat: "no destruction or adverse modification" Bald eagle: "may affect; not likely to adversely affcM- • Marbled murrelet: "may affect; not likely to adversely affect," • Proposed killer whale listing: "no effect," • Steller sea lion: "no effect," • Humpback whale: "no effect," and Leatherback sea turtle: "no effect." 4. References Angell, T. and K C. Balcomb_ 1982. Marine birds and mammals of Puget Sound. Washington Sea Grant Publication- University of Washington .Press. Bowlby, D.E_, G A. Green, and M.L. Bonnefl. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist, 75.33-35. Federal Register. 2004- Rules and Regulations Designated Critical Habitat: Critical Habitat for ' 19 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Salmon.and Steethead in Washita on, Oregon, Who, and Caltforma_ 65(32)x77 4--77$7_ Fed ral Rzgister. 2004a- Endangered and threatened species;. designation of critical habitat for 13 evolutionarily signific ant units of Pacific salmon {Qnevrhynehus spp.) and steelhead (O. ykiss) in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: Proposed Rules. {69}239:7457274846. Federal. Register. 2004h Endangered and threatened wddh& and plants, proposed -designation ofcritical habitat for populations of bull trout-, proposed rule 69(12'2):35768-35857. Federal Register _ 2004c_ Endangered and: dwtatened wildlife and plants: proposed threatened Aatus f« r southern Feist, B. E., I.J. Anderson and R_ Miyamoto. t9%. Potential impacts ofpite driving on juvenile pink (Oneorhynchus gorbuscha) and churn. (0 Creta) salmon behavior and distribution_ Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. -UW-9603. 58 p - Feist, BE, .IT Anderson and RR Miyaaaoto_ 1996_ Potential impacts ofpile driving on juvenile pink (Oncoiynchus goHmscha) and -chum (0 Creta) salmon behavior and l� Fisheries Research Institute, Schoot ofFisheries, Seattle, WA_ FRf-UW=9603. 58 p. Meadowdalc 'Pier — Reoorot uctlen and Repair BE Page °13 fiealey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacuic salmon in estuaries: the life support system, p. 315--341. En- V:S_ Kennedy (ed_). Estuarine Compacisons- Academic Press, New York, NY_ Healey, M.C_ 1991. Life History ofChinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawyischa), In: C. Groot and L. Mairgolis(eds_) Pacific Salmon life 11istories_ UCB Press, Vancouver, British Columbia King County. 200 t. Reconnaissance assessment of the state of the nearshore ecosystem: eastern shore of cm ral Puget Sound, mcluding Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIM 8 and 9)_ King County Department of Na#rrral Resources, Seattle, Washington, Krahn, M.M.,. M.L Ford,. W.F_ Penin, P_R_ Wade, R -P. Angliss, &LB_ Hanson, B_L_ Taylor, G_M_ Ylitato, M_E_ Dom, J_E... Stein,, and -R& Wap[es_ 2 044 2004 Staters review of sauthern resident killer. whales (Urcinus orca) under the Endangered -Species Act -S. Dept. Commer., N(YAA Tech_ Memo_ NMFSNWFSC-62, 73 p. Nightingale; -B and -C. 'Simenstad. '2001- Overwater Struchares: Marine Issues. Washington Depattrneuts of Fish and Wildlife,. Ecology, and Transportation- Olympia, WA_ 177.p- NOAA_ 2004. initial assessment of NOAA-Fisheries critical habitat analytical review teams -for 13 evolutionarily significant units of Pacific salmon and 4_ mybss. NOAA Fiisheries, Protected Resources Division, Pwand; Owgem 22 p- +- Appendices- Appendix A, Initial CHART Assessment for Elie Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. NWS_ 2000_ Biological Opinion for Listed Species -In the BSAI Groundfish FMP and the GOA Groundf sh FMP, Endangered Species Act -Section 7 Consultation- National Marine Fisheries Service_ 327 p. Osborne, R; J_ Calambokidis, and R NI. Dorsey_ 1989- A guide to marine mammals on the greater Puget Sound.. Island Publishers, Anacortes, WA 191 p. Ralph, CJ_, G.L. print, M.G. Raphael and J.F . Piatt. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the marbled mrnrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTRIS2. Albany, CA_ Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U_S_ Departmeat.of Agriculture, 420 pp. Simenstad, C -A., S.J. Nightingale, R. M. Thom and D. K Shrefller. 1999. impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile salmon -migrating along. Puget -Sound sl�elmes pie L synthesis of stare of ��vledge. Washington State-Oept_ of TrAnsportation €research Rept: #'WA -RD 472.1- 11,6 p+ t.dices_ Simcns#ad, C.A_, K. -L. Fresh and.E.O. Salo. 1982- The role Paget Sond and Wigton coastal estuaries is the li€e-history of Pacific sahnon- an =appreciated frtnction, p_ 343-364_ hu V.S. Kennedy (ed:). Estuarine Comparisons- Academic Press, New York, NY. Simenstad,-C.A_,-R_M. Ttrom and A_i1t-Olson 199T Mitigating-potmdal impacts of ferry terminal siting and design on eelgrass habitat. Washington State Dept. of Transportation. Research Rept. T9903, Task 51. 103 p + appendic=_ USACE. 2004. Biological evaluati©n regional general permit for modification and construction of residential overwater structures. in inlandmarine waters of Washington, state_ U.S. Array Cons of Engineers, Seattle. 8913 + appendices USFWS_ 1996: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: final designation -of critical -habitat for the Marbled Murrelel: Department of the interior, U. S_ Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Regisw_ 61(102):26256 26320- Meadowdale Pier - Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 14 USFWS. 1997_ Recovery plan the threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brack. nphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR 202 p + aped_ USFWS_ 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and: plants: determination of threatened status for bull trout in the cotenninous United Sys, final rule notice of intent to prepare a proposed special nde pursuant to Section 4(d) of -the Endangered Species Act for the bull trout. Department of the Interior, U_ S. Fish and Wildlife Service_ Federal Register. 64(210):58910.58933. USFWS..2000. Contaminant impacts on anadromous buil trout. U_ S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA 2 p_ Watson, J -W. and D. J. Pierce. 199,9. Ecology of bald eagles in western Washington with an emphasis on the effects of human. activity_ Finest Report_ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. WDFW_ 1994. 1992.Washington State Salmon and Stcelhead Stock Inventory, Appendix 1, Puget SOuRd Stocks. South Paget Sound Volume.. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. WDFW- 1995- 1994 Washington State Baitfish Stock Status RepCirt_ Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. WDFW_ 1998: Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory. Appendix, Bull Trout and Dolly Vardcat Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. WDFW. 1998b_ Forage fish management plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Olympia; WA fib p. WDFW_ 2000. Critical spawning habitat for herring, surf smelt; sand lance, and rock sole in Puget Sound, Washington.. Washington Mpart went of Fish and Wildlife. 7 p with 151. maps. WDFW. 2001. Washington. Department of Fish & Wildlife's Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations Volume 1V: Birds Bald Eagle Halraeetus leucacephalus. Olympia, WA. 20 p. WDFW. 2005- Priority habitats and species digital data. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. January 2005. Olympia, WA_ *DNR. 200.1. Washington State Shorezone Inventory_ Washington Department of Natural Resources, . Olympia, WA. CD -Rom copy_ WDW_ 1993_ Status of the marbled m►uaclet Brachyramphus marmaratus in Washington.. Unpublished Report. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Wiles, G J. 2004_ Washington State status. report. for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and Widdhfe, Olympia- 106 pp. Mea dowdale Pier — Reww4rsc twn and Repair BE Page 15 Meadowdaie Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 16 v Action A Figure 3. Top, generalized site location at the center of the circle_ The proposed action area is contained within the one mile radius of the circle_ Bottom, aerial photograph (source= WDOE): Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 18 100 ft to t F 1 i q, S89'*9Ci7•& - a8-8� •-- - a s �' � S31'a�i Oti ++ 19E�,1ii' � - %OC K 90 4J k t Meadowdate Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 19 Attachment A_ Meadowdale Pie., "iransect observations (71MO03) N '1'tiae 1Yme Ta�u«t Ik 11de liiev� Caosmebt 5 5306062 " 2:39 14:34:1 f 53 17.2 5-1 gess 1-2 tt dka pstoh, S aidq 4111 K. -ff ie fi W 549597 5300063 _ 239 PM 14-39:56 '1 6. _ 0.2 5.8 Saad with 25%<Emam covrr, 2ed pRe mil is - 549583 530006 ' 240 PM t4:40:12 -.. 1 7 - 12;;6.8 3m mat ofshell dabris, soca cd Ma 549586 536006$ 2.40 _ 14:40;2$ 1 9.0 _ 0.2 7,3 Near outer oomct,5%&atomoovw 549577 53DWMY ' 2;40 PM t4:41T.46 t 9.0 0.2 9.9 SW co.., iocrc f theft debris 549574 5300072' 241 PM 14:41:0 13.0 0.2 12.8 Moving N on W edge 549572. 5300075 2:4t PM - 14:41;20 2 lamixi l0%, large pipes (rasl13g7) vvih ancoonra, snd bamad" 549570 _ 5360079 _ 2-41 14:4139 2 I5-6 0.2 14.8 Shelf debris. Uhre, some Lamin ou large dcbria 54957ff 530009ff 241 PM t4:4I:59 _ 2 Q x 549571 530008S 2:42 PM 14-42'12 2a.2 549573: 5X00090 7:42 PM-.. 14:4Z:27 2 MO 02 13.8 Sund with andl dehI6. wattered Mve, 1- 5% 549575 530009E _ 242 PM 14.42:42 _ 2 12.0 0.2 11.8 549577 5300M 7-43 PM 14:43:01 2 t0.0 0.2 9. -giaaingofwaad=p tofdo* 549579 530071 2:43 PM 14:43:21 2 0-2 Mcxt to cievatm� aeaae lags debris with Lamina_ t- (3raoit. 549580 5300(19 " 2:43 FM 14:43`40 - 2 8. 0.2 7.8 with goad mdefivft dabr6, somcsm. gmvci, 1-5%Ulna 549581 5300125 2:43 PM 14:43:55. 2 0.2 Sm fldfish (English sola?) - 549582 53'00(32 - 244 PM 14:44:12 2 7.5 0.2 73 App= 20-25 8 fetus edge afdook, t0-/. oover 549583 53001311.2:44 PM 14:44:28. 2 0.2 . 549584 - 53001 2:44PM 14.44.46 - 2 -- 8.0 02 7-8 -Vjxfuwd Ulvaoovcr - 549584 5300149. 245 R4 14:45.3. 3 _ 0- NW comcrofpicr,movingGast 54 53MIS4 2:45 FM 14-45:21. 3 9.0 0-3 8. 7 San&nk 10-25%&swm awe, <1%Ulva 549592. 5300155 - 2:45 PM- 14:45:41 3 - 6.0 . *3i 5.i Soa0e,� oysterahells, sand 549597 5300154 2:46 PM 14:46:00 3 - 8.0. ' 0.3.- 7.7. Sand occas. Ulve 549602 5300153 2:46 PM 14:46:19 3 73 03. 7.0Sm4,souncrcdUlva,10-20%diewmcover 549609 5300151 2:46 PM 14:4639 3. - 6.8 03 6.5 Fish a shrimp dkuubcd by camera 549614 5300150. 246 PM . 14.46:53 3 0.3 549621 5300150. 2:47 PM 14.47:14 3 0.3. DAR Ulva and avavwweshedsaad $49624. 5300154. 247 14:473! - 3. 4.0 03 3.7 About l rZ a(aoath aide of pier, 20-25 8 fxom Gdgc 549621 5300158 2:41 PM 14:47:47 3 03 " 54960 . 5300159. 248 EM 14_48.94 _ 3 . 0.4. 549611 ..5300158 --Z-49-PM 14_4821. 4 3"0 0.4 - 26 Much drift Mva, 40 ftfmm edgy a(pier 549006 5MO158. 2-48PM 14:4838 4 0.4 . .449602 .53QQ158 ._ 2-48-P1v5 14:48:53 .. 4 - .0.4 NW oamcrofpick moving-of$abaas 5.49598 5300159 2-49 _ 14_49:06 4 0.4 Sandfdietana; smattp*ch (<2d din) ofcclgtass .14959'.1 ! .5300158 2;49 PM 44:49:,22 .4 � .0.4 549564 5300171 2:50 14:5035 5 19.0 0.5 18.5 Pat.11cling vwcet edge about 100-150 aoffahmn 549560 .5300171 ..2:50 PM .14:50:52 $... 0.5 .Saud with sasdeedshelf debrie,.no dialoma;acattcsod.Ulva 5.49558 5300169 2-51 PM 14:51:09 5 - - 27.0 0.5 - 26.5 549557 5300165 2;51 PM 14:5150 5 0.5 549557 5300162 2.51 PM 14:5IA4 5 - 0.5 549556 5300160 2251 PM 14:51:58 $ 0.5 549555 5300157 2:52 PM 14,52112 _ 5 9.5 - S49S55 53Wt52 15-2 PM 14:52:27 5 015 Sand and welteredaheil.debtis,Lamin dt.0moifouddaaa 569$ 5300147. 232 PM 14:52.43 _ 5 0-5 - -149553 5300142 ! 253 PM 14:53:00 5 .0-5 _ 549552 _ 53x6137 2-53 PM 14:53.14 .. 5 0.6 _ . _ Largo doixis with rookfah, sad ora anemones .-. 549550 -5300132 2,53 PM . J 14:53:28 5 ..3010 0.6 .29A 549548 5300128 253 P 14:53:43 5 0.6 549546 5300124 7„53 _PM t4453-57 _"5 3Z:x .0,6 31A S49543 5300118 _ 2:54 M4 _ 14:54:1 _ 5 - _ 0.6 - 549541 1300114 2.:54 PM 14:5433 5 Ob saadlsift with cocas large dd)C&, <10%diatams, maama[gac <1% 549541 _ 5300108 2-14,PM 14.54:53 - 5 _ 0-6 _ 349340 53xO1a2 -2-55 PM 14:SS_ll 5 - 3810 0.7 373 549541 - .. 5300097 2:55 PM 14:5528 . 5 al 10ppodtW doer eadh- " ssad sad silt' - - a �r Figure S. Salmonid use of the nearshore environment. From State of the Nearshore Report, King Cotcnty, Wash- ington. The pier site is circled. Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 2 i X � r Figure S. Salmonid use of the nearshore environment. From State of the Nearshore Report, King Cotcnty, Wash- ington. The pier site is circled. Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 2 i Adult Sal mvriid P'r"en t - Ocean - * Ad'44ChVV—% rCiEitft�:.Ct ltf}.€!.f[iL7lQ�C. ifY.if� C fi }h?� stCmIk,33d and easites a4 be picntnt €lavedtowt $nottiriedoOcifslides IQe tdAtxy_ luvimiie+ hmny- ilisthM ar�d x� endea 4kyatte bC P�t4xi1. Juvenile 5akno nid Present -Ocean q 5fE5entbas � - h oR kc file gfin€spedet fiFt histucf: ihebarns C-A,,9nd, to - Ilse:7AM€�ni�ir IfW jpit c�€1�VA— Y?"it�!i�- Figure S. Salmonid use of the nearshore environment. From State of the Nearshore Report, King Cotcnty, Wash- ington. The pier site is circled. Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 2 i Figure 7_ Surf smelt and laud lance spawning distributi©u is areas surrounding the Meadowdate pier. The project location is indicated with the black circle (WDEW, 2005). Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 22 D.3cu ented =and Lane -a Spawning Beadles (4;'2f-101',,! Documented Sort melt %.00r-lw in Spawn gBeaches(4/2C31) Figure 7_ Surf smelt and laud lance spawning distributi©u is areas surrounding the Meadowdate pier. The project location is indicated with the black circle (WDEW, 2005). Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 22 Y 6 BNSF Edmonds (Lynnwood Uplands Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 23 f Y 6 BNSF Edmonds (Lynnwood Uplands Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 23 A ' 100 ft Scattered Drift Ulva Eel grass r . Scattered Gravel & r Cobble Silty -Sand b Sand?. -4.5 4 o H Scattered Sand Bolder = a UIva[Laminarial Gracilaria Sand Boulder0._ Red -Rock FPier a>id Crab; Causeway Footprint Silty -Sand Sand Said Stoi%Urain outvra It $NS P Scattered Drift` Ulva _10 S 6 -.i -4 d Eel Eelgrass += r4 !b f Puget Soundsand ass ;; I Eelgrass\' Boulder Rip -Rap Edmonds /Lynnwood Uplands Meadowdale Pier Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 24 - ?� s� k ti y e �a i Z� r - ?� s� k ti y e �a r "- aR Aeol `'. Meado »da» Pier- Reconstruction and Repair BE Pg 28 Figure 16. Eelgrass bed 100 ft (30 ru) south of the southeast corner of the pies structure. Several small patches of E to 10 turions each were also found adjacent to the south edge of the pier. Figure 17. Upper beach and causeway/pierprofile viewed toward the south- west Most of the boulders and cobble at this elevation had a heavy cover of the greed algae Ulva. Meadowdaie Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 29 e 18_ Distribution of selected ish and other invertebrates_ From of the Nearshore Report, King Cy, Washington. The pier site is Meadowdaie Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 3 Ulva Pa td -10 tCbntinuo us Fccu!s (PatclYy' Fwus (Continuous) Mead©wdale Pier --- Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 3 [ QNo. Data ,z VI 3k"a, MOW Figure 24. Eelgrass and kelp areas in the general project area (top), and adjacent to the project area (right) chapped using side -scan sonar_ From State of the Mearshore. Report, King County, Washington_ The pier site is circled.. M N W-- E S Meadowdale Pier -- Reconstruction. and Repair BE Page 32 EJ21i52 �2�fa55 p �C•_i� arld EeJgrass bA,,ra to LAgfass SF -Ji sc E4)rass .�".. .... Kc p - Ukj SonarDl tj QNo. Data ,z VI 3k"a, MOW Figure 24. Eelgrass and kelp areas in the general project area (top), and adjacent to the project area (right) chapped using side -scan sonar_ From State of the Mearshore. Report, King County, Washington_ The pier site is circled.. M N W-- E S Meadowdale Pier -- Reconstruction. and Repair BE Page 32 Figure 21. Eelgrass and kelp shore- line lengths. The pier site is circled. Washington Department of Natural } Resources, 2001. Washington Shore- Zone Mapping System. f_n E _ : R . _-15 Meadowdale Pier — Reconstruction and Repair BE Page 3.3 = a `4 7 J 4a t 1 a t nice i! alit d t , lw t. L - u ! f`._ ._ 1 rtoNi !Iw M t �17Wro�rertaa+ VICINITY MAP NAUTICAE MILES 1 0 1 2 3 4 YARDS 1000 0 5000 f PROJECT LOCATUON: LAT = 4751"10* LONG = 122'20'060 PURPOSE: REPAIR EXISTW PIER DATUM: MLLWw0.00' SoMm KOM oiw fa N"I PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGEr SOUND AT: MEADOWDM4 UNONDS COUNlY SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APPL BY: MEADOWIDALE MMKk LIC SHEET. 1 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200 ! rs 02 let 1 MA4is T s.' 7f 14 • * 40 * I 1 31 $ �` BYO f M \ice-7ft N w s 1�- ' "'r 14 � i � ff • � rs �i+r.i7�J rig i • 7Y s 44 f ri si 4 b r r r40a 1Qi i� fit K 4 7a 1 dq ,y23 Vt sm 43 24 -4"s �1 is M is s 70 eo r r r ae ae 4t +6 1 f H isr�RZ)Jm ftE s 1 a 06 Y A(,. Gr y U 53 1s3 +r ni +, 'y �• www, K i ac 1j a '° ``� t ~ In r It lot 1 + rnv,epr t nice i! alit d t , lw t. L - u ! f`._ ._ 1 rtoNi !Iw M t �17Wro�rertaa+ VICINITY MAP NAUTICAE MILES 1 0 1 2 3 4 YARDS 1000 0 5000 f PROJECT LOCATUON: LAT = 4751"10* LONG = 122'20'060 PURPOSE: REPAIR EXISTW PIER DATUM: MLLWw0.00' SoMm KOM oiw fa N"I PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER IN: PUGEr SOUND AT: MEADOWDM4 UNONDS COUNlY SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APPL BY: MEADOWIDALE MMKk LIC SHEET. 1 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200 ! U T11M6ER DECK PLANKS. TYP EK TIMBER APPROX. DECK SWMGCR. nV a=I7.5'f f N --E7( CREOSOTE-iREATEO TIMBER PILE CAP r ---Ex GRADE I I I I I• I NOTE. EXISTING WARORAILS NOT SHOWN SECTION A -A 60STTNG PER CONS'FiuCTM z.s O. 5. F=Mf#fW 7 1u1HHW=1Q91' gmH EX CREOSOTE -TREATED TIMBER PILES. TYP (PILE SPACING VARIES .IO' TO IS-) QHWM=ORDWARY HIGH WATER MARK PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING PIER. A PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWDALF, EDMONDS COUNW SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON- APPL. B1 MEADOYMM E MARINA. LLG SHEET: 5 OF 8 DATE: 48 9 4 2405 EX Timem STRINGER. TYP 16 ORPVWG LINE tO' BRINING UtNE EX Tit DECK PLANKS, 7YP TYP --EX Ct2EDSQTE-TREATED PRE CAP -X73IHiN1Q8�' s law . *OHWFA=mKHW rte( GRADE ' I EX CREOSOTE "TREATED TIMBER PILES, TYP {PRE I SPAaNG VARIES r TO 8'tj *OHWM=OfW4ARY HK;li WATER NARK SECTION B -B EXISTING TYPICAL APPROACH TRESTLE CONSMUCiION PROPOSED R-EPAIRS TO EMSTING PIER IN: PUG -7 SOUND At MEA�t.€, EDMONDS COUNTY- SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APDL I Y SALE MARINA, LLC SHEET' 6 OF 8 QAlE:.06/14/2001, PROPOSED PRESS PRE -CAST CONQ IEA( PANELS, TYP PROPOSED CAST --IN- PLACE CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB APPROK DEC( PROPOSED CAST -461 -PLACE CONC_ PILE CAP _� MHHW=7Q 91' *OHWMmMHHW PROPOSED SQL OR PRECAST CONCRETE PILES (PILE SPACING VARIES 16' TO 20') - v Mc.Lww.v` GRADE II I� II II !I II K PROPOSED GUARDRAILS NOT SHOWN *OHWM=(.HDINARY IIIGH WATER MART( SECTION C -C PROPOSM TIIPICAL REPLAOIA"T PROPOSED REPAIRS TO PIER CONSTRUCT" EXISTING PIER 2.5' IN: PUGET SOUND _ AT: MEADOWDALF, EDMONDS O COUNTY SNOHOMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APPLL. 13Y- MALE K4RINA, LLC SHEET: 7 OF 8 DATE: 06 14 2005 PROPOSED GC1AROf1A L PROPOSED POSE A WALKWAY 4' PROPOSED PERMEABLE GRATING — PROPOSED STEEL SUPPORT [TEAMS FOR WAIXWAY- S'f l;+i�.�7i Lira j 1(} DRIVING LANE 10' 0MVING LANE �--PROPOSED VERTICAL Gua�DRaL 17.5'T_ .PROPOSED LIGHT PROPOSED VEHICIE PIERMEABLE GRATING GUARDRAIL, 17P Iq . _ PROPOSED • _ - r CAST -114-PLACE CONC. PIIS CAP 9• 1'l *OHWM=MMW 9• - MtrtWAI---tact' 1q}111lr�to. PR(WOSED PROPOSED PRECAST PROPOSED STEEL OR CAST' -1N -PLACE C3IV PRESTRESStiD CONC. PRECAST CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB, TYP DECK PANELS PILE, TYP i -EX GRADE SECTION D -D PROPOSED REPLACEMENT APPROACH 7RESTEE 2.5. 2 -Tt2= }. } 12 }} }} }} *ot,WM--MINARY HW WATER {NARK PROPOSED REPAIRS TO EXISTING .PIER IN: PUGET SOUND AT: MEADOWOALE, EDMONDS COUNTY: SN( Ilii• OMISH STATE: WASHINGTON APT BY- MEADUNDALE. MARINA. LLC SHEET. 8 OF 8 DA11E 06114 2005 39. 01 3U asd ift, luodGanl,an�egd�ots 0-7 0-7 07 4-7-.0.-a;7safpic;aiit�Asmsd ef..S Dam¢ -@� �. :' Imgn.xemleamlotLsxU�ae ma a=s to s-AAad.d mn dcbis. 4 _ a 22-Lands6altdcbcis i"YaLllva�da+bzmnam.lgne mdeslums ao�tld&vh xs_a a_ z11 3ZJQ - 0,*] . 31,1 17-0 _ a9 -_ 3 - 41 @,4 QQl 444. .99 - 4-341 54Wswd,-ard algae �cr - -460 -019 4IJ . 50.0 - . _ 0.9- .49i t2dGi�.{icmieti48aggocbwlrs, 0.o msrroaEgso- - Mo.}agtgiaa4a�tatacg�daer 3&,0 37A ..(wi.stc�s�7lg.saadwiilt:194a56diatn®a '.26. -.1 -.25.0 -I - 19_ ahcil deiris,.aitl�wattmndGraw'!r_UEw.�.tamie; �t"+6anuu _ 16.E -LI 14.9 t2! 41 '_ 1119 c�gall"ako<e Cs+eat-cdpF a1'mrtal aedatmod'i>oil0iag Ito 9 , t3. L1 U-9 -i :L1 - 13:9 - audstefch.a ddKis. _ 22A 1:1 209 2$3 it - '241 29 L-2 Z7.8 -_ 329 I2 30.8 mam,.t. tl.6algec - UA C .34A - _ 39. .1-2328 tisad �a5eh 4LO. - 44.0 4.3 -4z-7. f4,gcodW3. CK5 ,. •L4 us[txloeegdeyastaeaddmnithaudofpirx 414 14-: 3915 ..amd�m�tlt�uaNaeada6e1i8ebiits.acaa�Ela3=md.aml�an: IA 36.6 SsisllatarFmh 34-0 t -_- - 37,{ - . 30#.4 28:6 &uaE!"uh. about 57LL�iq I}l.n asd Graice�. 26 - 1. - 24 s�id,tcdQ.acdsrhmdaEgac 68.9 to lbb,S�d�vi9�akdldCtirir;+c�Eeocdrifvs <1% MQ t.4:- 14,6 -1.6 wvigseatheadccpicr{auCrl?Soaor) Stlibayfi.xmR.04 -1. Sadw 0.Z 25�4d�afeos aevcv.l 344E amui; UUM,*=c pikpctrb. 1.7fAW raarw"-Wd cmcUctiagalg+C batwoley; 6 ft da. 'k0 . 1.7 - 1-7 saapsad*halt.'alga¢aoaciosc+�drtlt(19/�,•wmcWr(tflrifaj 6s 1_ .- 4.1aleaatedesaafim;aame sxeadlee66t¢witltiTf+r*ecasaftatf�h 1. (wmi')PuS dere &N&,4&ommracp&ba,X-ffmemed' aavc SOWh«lgenfdaair,movieg•eg"atrO.R _ mala dt�taa�t zsy� 9il 2 -1.46 sww m ftmg*at 1 . d UaeseoEI - 2:9 fS&= *l%kwa mt I - Attachment B Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for Meadowdaie Pier Action Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Project Name-- Proposed Repairs, Meadowdale Pier, Edmonds, Washington Corps Ref. 9 Prepared by: Dan Cheney, BioAquatics international LLC; Olympia, WA 98502; tel: (360) 754-1359; fax: (360) 754-2246; email.: bai@bioaquatics_corn Essential Fish Habitat Background The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)_ The objective of this EFH assessment is to describe potential adverseeffects to designated EFH for federally -managed fisherim species within the proposed action area. It also describes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed action. A Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared for this project and submitted to the Action Agency in June 17, 2005 in accordance with consultation guidelines under the Endangered Species.Act (FSA)_ Information contained in the BE which overlaps with this EFH assessment is referenced in the appropriate sections. Description of the Project/Proposed Activity The main purpose of the proposed work is to replace the damaged timber portions of an existing marina pier. Repairs will also be made to the concrete portions of.the existing structure_ The proposed work will consist of replacing all creosote -treated timber piles and creosote -treated pile caps and other pier timbers in the existing pier and approach trestle with concrete and steel construction.. Approximately 277 timber piles will'be extracted and/or cut-off below the mudline and disposed of on the uplands at an approved disposal. site. Approximately 27,000 lineal feet of creosote -treated pile caps will be removed and disposed of on the uplands. Approx mately 45,000 square feet of timber decking will be removed and disposed of on the uplands_ T his decking will be replaced with concrete decking material. The project site. is located at SE quarter; Section 6, Township 27 N, Range 4 East. The address is 162 Avenue rest, Edmonds, Snohomish County, 9M6_ AGeneral Discussion of EFH at the Proposed Site The existing pier and approach trestle encompasses an area of about 1.6 acre with bottom elevations to — iA R MLLVY_ The site was distinguished by narrowv range of both substrates, and plant and animal assemblages. Existing piling had a variable growth of typical hard -structure organisms, dominated by mussels, barnacles, limpets, oche. ,mall gastropods, tunicates, and Wva Bottom habitat features were somewhat endistinct because substrates and plant assemblages typically changed gradually in both the parallel and perpendicular directions from shore. Sand and silty-sand'was the dominant substrate type - Field observations indicated the dominant macro -algae species found was the green algae Wva, primarily as dot algae_ Eelgrass does not occur with the project footprint, beyond -C ft M LLW, or insignificant coverage within lO to 150- feet of the project_ salmoe EFU While there are no salmon bearing, streams in the project action area, Chinook salmon and other salmonid species are found in most of the rivers -in this region, including the Sno tontish and Lake Washington systems (both about 13 miles from the project site). Nearshore and open waters in the action area are extensively utilized by these salmonids. Juvenile salmonids will be characteristic of shallow near -bank siltisand bottom habitats at -the -project site and adjacent areas. Section 2 of the project UE describes the status and distribution of ESA listed species in the action area, including Chinook salmon; and describes the existing.eavironmental conditions at the proposed project site. Ground Fish EFH EFH for gr4M id fish in -the project area is dominated by fine grain substrates with little vertical relief; numerous piping, and bulkheaded-highbeach. Intertidal and shallow subtidal•areas in the project area support little macroalgae and patchy eelgras& Elsewhere in the region, kelp (Nereocystis and other taxa) and small -beds �of eelgrass occur_ Habitat features-at•the-project site are -deco ibed in -more detailin Section 2 ofthe BE. The groundarea is utilized by several of -the flatfish species listed in Table 1. For example, Starry fYouoder (Pfatichthysstelfatus) an&Engtish sole (Neuronectes vetulus); are abundant flatfish in Puget Sound,. and probably access the estuary EFH of the action area as juveniles- Juveniles wit#'be fmttad itr gravel, .sand- croalgae, and. -mud-macvcWgae habitats. The EFFI will be important in providing prey resources for the juveniles: Rodcf'ish taxa -we, probably -rare or•unco on in -the -project area They tray occur in show water Habitats for part of their juvenAe life stage and then move'to adjacent deeper adult habitats- Their -use of nearshore habitat within the action area is transient in nature and primarily confined to areas vegetated by macnaalgae and eeigr°ass..(Nigittengale-and Simenstacl, 2001)_ Coastal` Pelagi4c& EFH Coas-taf Pelagic speetes'are hkely common in the project area, and may occur in nearshore intertidal and subtidal habitats for one or more of their early life -history stages, While none of the coastal pelagic species,. with designated EFH have beeu reported in-thc- project area, other pelagic species that..may utilize the EFH and surrounding waters for both spawning and rearing include Pacific sand lance, surf smelt, and herring (discussed in Section 2 of the BE) - Potential Adverse -Effects of the Proposed Project Adverse E€feeft to Salmon EFU These effects are described in Section. 3 of the.project BE Adverse E[t'+ects to 'G�round'Fish -EF3 AftWowddeEFU Asscssuent P -W 2 Effects related to the proposed repairs described for salmon in Section 3 of the project BE will apply to ground fish EFH. There will be a minor temporary adverse affect on ground fish intertidal and subtidal EFH related to localized disturbance of bottom sedimentstbentliic fauna during pile removal and driving. However, disturbed sediments are expected to be quickly recolonized by infauna and epifauna. Diversity and abundances of benthic organisms in the project area are expected to be similar to or identical to those of the benthic community now present. Adverse Effects to Coastal Pelagic Species FFR No adverse effects to coastal pelagic species are likely for this project.. EFH Conservation Measures The.following measures will be implemented to minimize the potential adverse effects to designated EFH described above: i. lire WDFW Hydraulic Protection Approval (HPA), will have timing limitations to prohibit work in waters of the action area for the protection of outmigrating salmonids. Project work will take place during a period of diminished benthic and pelagic productivity_ and standing stock and reduced juvenile finfish .activity_ 2. When an impact hammer is used for steel piling greater than 10 inches in diameter, a bubble curtain and a.block of wood at least 6 inches thick placed between the pile driver and the pile will be employed as an in -water noise minimization measure approved by the Services_ 3. Steel grating 4 feet in width will be installed in the center and on a pedestrian walkway for the full length of the approach trestle (200 feet +/-). The grating at both locations will have a minimum of 60% openings. The existing timber trestle deck has no light transmitting grating. Conclusion There will be minor short-term noise from pile driving and other repair/replacement operations. The original creosote -treated bearing piles will be replaced with concrete and steel bearing and batter piles. All creosote-treatediraterials associated with existing pier will be removed from the marine environment and disposed of on the .uplands at an approved site. The original creosote -treated timber fender piles will be replaced with ACZA treated timber fender piles_ There will be a 352 square foot reduction in over - water surface coverage. Light permeable grating will be added to the approach trestle to increase tight levels under the trestle. A stormwater collection and treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement pier to treat runoff from parking areas.. Adverse effects will be limited primarily to a temporary disturbance of non -motile invertebrate fauna. Timing windows will be in place to minimize adverse affects on juvenile salmon and to protect ground fish habitats (WDFW, 2001). References Nightingale, N_ and C. Stmenstad, 2001. White Paper, Dredging Activities: Marine Issues_ Submitted to Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology and Transportation. University of -- WasirVctn,.:Sr-hool. ol~ Aquatic.andlishery_-S6mtces,,S.e [e, Washington. 119 p t 3 appendices. WDFW. 2001. Hydraulic Code Rules, WAC 220-110-250 Saltwater Habitats of Special Concern. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Priority habitats at h :I/www.wa.gir/wdfw/ b/b/ hshabs.htm. Mcadowdate EFH Assessment PaV 3 Table 1. Species of fishes and life -history stages m the Puget Sound non rocky EFH composite Species Big Skate CMoria Skate Adal:t x' ? Spavwningf X Juvenile -Larvae x Eggs/ arktrition x f o Skate x x Ratfisli - PAcifaie-C'od x x x x x x Sablefish x Slack rockfish x x- Datkblatched=Ro",sh Greenstripe&Rockfish 7 x Pacific Ocean Perch. x Redbanded Rockfish Rosethorn Rockfish R e Rockfish. 9 Sh hin-Rockfish x S Iortr x "x §Oitnosc Rockfish Slxi Rockfish Vermilion Rockfish 7 x ' Yell"owtad Rockfish Arzowtooth Flounder x `� . x x x -'Hutbw Sole x x x Cbr m Sole x Da►ver Sole x x x Enosh Sole x x x Flady ad.Sole x x x Pacific Sa adda6' x Pdxale Sole Rex Sole x x x X. x Rock Sole Sana Sole I x x x x x x 5lcder x x x Pae fic-Salmon Species Chju(Foksalmm-_ Coho salmon x x x x Pqgq Sound pmk salmon x x CDSspecies I�orihern arxcho . x x x x k Parific. sardine Pacific mackerel .Madcasquid x x x- x_ x. �. x . A,ENf`iSNL?t' A Rfere4fce'° Hate Receives: Cil IaYed dl J%caEr IL31 = JM govt rtt a s JOINT AQUATIC RESOURCES PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (DARPA) JUL 2 (for use In Washington State) M PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK DEVELOPMENT SERVICE CITY OF FDMOtVD ❑ Application for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Project per requirements of RCW 77.55.290. You must submit a copy of this completed DARPA application form and the (Fish Habitat Enhancement JARPA Addition) to your local Government Planning Department and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist on the same da . NOTE: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS —You must submit any comments on. these projects to WDFW within 15 working day; Based on the instructions provided, I am sending copies of this application to the following: (check all that apply) 13 Local Government for shoreline: 17 Substantial Development [I Conditional Use ❑ Variance 19 Exemption ❑ Revision ❑ Fioodptain Management ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance IF) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for NPA (Submit 3 copies to WDFW Region) El Washington Department of Ecology for 401 Water Quality Certification (to Regional Office -Federal Permit Unit) ❑ Washington Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Resources Use Authorization Notification El Corps of Engineers for: 0 Section 404 1] Section 10 permit ❑ Coast Guard for General Bridge Act Permit ❑ For Department of Transportation projects only: This project will be designed to meet conditions of the most current Ecology/Department of Transportation Water Quality Implementing Agreement SECTION A - Use for all permits covered by this application. Be sure to ALSO complete Section C (Signature Block) for all permit applications. 1. APPLICANT Meadowdale Marina, LLC, attention_ Vladan Miiosavljevic, General Manager MAILING ADDRESS 23423 Brier Road, Brier WA 98036 WORK PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS HOME PHONE FAX # 206-353-6456 if an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process, complete #2. Be sure agent signs Section C (Signature Block) for all permit applications AUTHORIZED AGENT Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S., Consulting Engineers Attention: Jeffrey A. Layton, P.E. MAILING ADDRESS 12515 Willows Road NE, Suite 205, Kirkland, WA 98034 WORK PHONE E -MAX ADDRESS HOME PHONE FAX # 425-825-1735 jlayton@layton-sell.com 425-825-1363 RELATIONSHiP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY_ ® OWNER d PURCHASER p LESSEE [] OTHER NAME, ADDRESS. AND PHONE NUMBER OF PROPERTYOWNER(S), IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT- .LOCATION PPLICANT:.LOCATION (STREET ADDRESS. INCLUDING CITY, COUNTYAND ZIP CODE, WHERE PROPOSED ACUVffy EMSTS OR WILLOCCUR) 16111 7e Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026 OCALGOVERNMENTwn11JURISDICTION (CITY ORCOUNTY) City of Edmonds 'ATERBODY YOU ARE WORKING IN Puget Sound ; THIS WATER60DYON THE 303(d) LIST? YES ® No El "YES. WHAT PARAMErMS)? Foca C01if. =/lStiwty.eCy_titer.Dov/nroZ,rams/ac]r inlcslirrn7aired wtrs.huyd WP.BStTE FOR 303d IST SECTION SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE I GOVERNMENT LOT W114orSW 5 27N 4E ITITUDE & LONGUI)DE: [17-5110' 1122' 20' OG" TRIBUTARY OF SHORELINE DESIGNATION Urban ZONING DESIGNATION Commercial Waterfi ]NR STREAM TYPE, IF Fal 8 Attachment 5 ............. SM -2005-94 DESCRIBE THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY. AND STRi 7E5 EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. HAVE YOU COMPLETED At'. . ORTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY ON THIS LOPFRTY? ❑ YES ONO FOR ANY PORTION OF THE PROPObG0 ACTIVITY ALREADY COMPLETED ON THIS PROPERTY, INDICATE MONTH AND YEAR OF COMPLETION. The site is an existing marina. The marina consists of a 66,600 square foot fixed pier system that is used for the dry storage of small boats. The fixed pier system consists of three parts that are structurally linked together. (1) 20 -foot -wide by 200 -foot -long (+/-) timber approach trestle that connects the offshore pier to the adjacent shoreline, (2) a fixed timber pier covering approximately 41,150 square feet and (3) a concrete/steel pier covering approximately 21,500 square feet. Also located on the pier system are the following: boat elevator, two fixed hydraulic boat lifts, various removable floats for the staging of boats, fishing and holding tank platforms, vehicle parking, a 21,500 square foot metal dry stack moorage building and a 11,800 square foot timber dry stack moorage building that includes a retail marine supply store and cafe. 1S THE PROPERTYAGRICULTURAL LAND? ❑ YES 0 NO ARE YOU A USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANT? ❑ YES ® NO 7a. DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED WORT( THAT NEEOS AQUATIC PERMITS_ COMPLETE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD 13E PROVIDED FOR ALL WORK WATERWARD OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OR LINF, INCLUDING TYPES OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED. IF APPLYING FOR A SHORELINE PERMIT, DESCRIBE ALL WORK WNH1N AND BEYOND 200 FEET OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK IF YOU HAVE PROVIDED ATTACHED MATERIALS TO DESCRI133E YOUR PROJECT. YOU STILL MUST SUMMARIZE THE POPOSED WORK HERE. ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED. The proposed work will consist of replacing all creosote -treated timber piles and creosote -treated pile caps and other pier timbers in the existing pier and approach trestle with concrete and steel construction. Approximately 277 timber piles will be extracted and/or cut-off below the mudline and disposed of on the uplands at an approved disposal site. Approximately 27,000 " lineal feet of creosote -treated pile caps will be removed and disposed of on the uplands- Approximately 45,000 square feet of timber decking will be removed and disposed of on the uplands The timber bearing piles (267 +/) will be replaced with approximately 230 concrete and/or steel bearing and batter piles. The timber pile caps will be replaced with cast -in-place concrete caps. The timber stringers and deck planks will be replaced with precast concrete deck panels overlaid with a concrete topping slab. Approximately 10 creosote -treated fender piles will be replaced with the same number of ACZA timber fender piles. The existing 16 -foot -wide by 22 -foot -long holding tank platform on the approach trestle will not be replaced_ The existing 5 - foot -wide by 80 -foot -long fishing platform extending north to south at the northwest corner of the pier will not be replaced. The former 5 -foot wide by 80 -foot -long fishing platform extending west to east at the northwest comer of the pier will not be replaced. A new 4 -foot -wide grated walkway will be located on the south side of the approach trestle. The purpose of the walkway is to provide safe pedestrian access to the pier. The net result of the above surface area changes will be a reduction in over -water coverage of approximately 352 square feet. To provide additional sunlight under the approach trestle, steel grating will be located in the center of this structure. The grating wilt be 4 feet wide and will extend the full length of the trestle (200 feet +/-)_ In addition, the new pedestrian walkway that will be attached to the replacement trestle will be constructed of 4 -foot -wide light permeable grating.. The grating at both locations will have a minimum of 60% openings. A stormwater runoff collection and treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement pier system. This system will collect runoff from over -water parking areas on the replacement pier and convey the runoff to an oil -water treatment system. Treated runoff would then be discharged to Puget Sound. As part of the timber pier replacement process, existing pier utility systems (fire, water, sewage, electrical power, etc.) would also be replaced and/or upgraded. In addition to replacing the timber elements of the project site, various concretelsteel piles located under the existing concrete portion pier will be repaired in place. Repairs will consist of patching and coating damaged/rusting areas. Various concrete caps with cracks will also be repaired in place. A barge -mounted pile driver will be used to install the replacement piles, pile caps and deck panels. A second barge will likely be used to store materials_ A small work boat will be used to repair piles and Concrete pile caps under the concrete pier. A tugboat will be used to transport the pile driver barge and supply barge to and from the project site. PREPARATION OF DRAWINGS: SEE SAMPLE DRAWINGS AND GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING THE DRAWINGS. ONE SET OF ORIGINAL OR GOOD QUAL(rY REPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS MUsrBEATTACHED. NOTE: APPLICANTS ARE ENCOURAGED To SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE. BUT THESE DO NOT SUBSTITUTIE FOR DRAWINGS. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND COASTGUARD REQUIREDRAw1NGs ON 8-112 X ,INCH SHEETS. LARGER DRAWINGS dfAYBEREQUfRED BY OTHER AGENCIES. 3_ DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED WORK AND WHY YOU WANT OR NEED TO PERFORM IT AT THE SHE_ PLEASE EXPLAIN ANY SPECIFIC NEEDS THAT HAVE INFLUENCED HE DESIGN. ?re main purpose of the proposed work is to replace the damaged timber portions of the existing pier. Repairs will also be made to Te concrete portions of the existing pier- :, utxatitSE I HE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CHARACTERISTIC USES OF THE WATER BODY_ THESE USES MAY INCLUDE FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE. WATER QUALITY. WATER JPPLY, RECREATION, and AESTHETICS_ IDENTIFY PROPOSED ACTIONS TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS. AND PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION OF SH AND AOUATIC LIFE. iDEKnFY WHICH GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE USED_ ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED. There will be minor short-term noise from pile driving and other repaidreplaeement operations. The original creosote -treated bearing piles Will be replaced with concrete and steel bearing and bafter piles. All creosote -treated materials associated with existing pier will be removed from the marine environment and disposed of on the uplands at an approved site. The original creosote -treated timber fender piles will be replaced with ACZA-treated timber fender piles- Thore will be a 352 square foot reduction in over -water surface coverage. Light permeable grating will be added to the approach trestle to increase sunlight under the trestle. A stormwater collection and treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement pier to treat runoff from parking areas. Refer to the attached biological evaluation prepared by BioAquatics Intemational for additional discussion regarding project impacts- . FOR IN WATER CONSTRUCTION WORK, WILL YOUR PROJECT BE IN COMPLJANCE WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TURBIDITY 'AC 173.201A-110? 0 YES ❑ NO (SEE Y3EF J& PFRNIPONAND N Tit T1 PROPOSED STARTING DATE: Summer 2005 - - ESTIMATED DURATION OF ACTIVITY_ Winter 2007 CHECK IFANY TEMPORARYOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES WILL BE PLACED: LIT WATERWARD OF THE ORDINARY 14M WATER MARK OR LINE FOR FRESH OR TIDAL WATERS, AND/OR Ef WATERWARD OF MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATERLINE IN TIDAL WATERS Q_ WILL FILL MATERIAL (ROCK FILL, BULKHEAD, OR OTHER MATERIAL) BE PLACED: Not Applicable ❑ WATERWARDOF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MART( OR LINE FOR FRESHWATERS? IF YES, VOLUME (CUBIC YARDS) AREA El WATERWARD OF THE MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER FOR TIDAL WATERS? (ACRES) IF YES, VOLUME (CUBIC YARDS] AREA I t_ WILL MATERIAL BE PLACED IN WETLANDS? IF YES: [( YES Ow A. IMPACTED AREA IN ACRES: & HAS A DELINEATION BEEN COMPLETED? IF YES, PLEASE SUBMIT WITH APPLICATION. C. HAS A WETLAND REPORT SEEN PREPARED? IF YES, PLEASE SUBMIT WITH APPLICATION. ❑ YES 13 NC 0. TYPE AND COMPOSITION OF FILL MATERIAE. (E.G.. SAND, ETC.)_ Ll YES Q NI E. MATERIAL SOURCE F. LIST ALL SOIL SERIES (TYPE OF SOIL) LOCATED AT THE PROJECT SITE, & INDICATE IF THEY ARE ON THE COUNTY'S UST OF HYDRIC SOILS_ SOILS INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS): G. WILL PROPOSED ACTIVITY CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS? IF YES. IMPACTED AREA IS _ ACRES OFCWWNED WETLANDS. Ci YES 0 NC .NOTE if Your Pn*d will impact greater than � of an acre of Weiland. submit a nitiga4w plan to the Carps and Ecology forapWOVal along with the JARPA famr .NOTE: a 401 water qual,TYcerrfieafipn wal�6e required from Ecptvgy in addition fo art approved mefigatfort plan if ypur project lmpacfs wetlands that are: a} greaf�fhart 34 acre in size, or b) tidal wetlands or xetlandsadyosnt to tidal wafer. Pleasa submit the JARPA form and md4Jatkw plan la Ecobw Ibr an iadividual401 oprtilreawn Ira) ar b) appNeS_ 12 STORMWATER COMPLIANCE FOR NATIONMOE PERMITS ONLY: THIS PROJECT IS EOR WILL. BE) DESIGNED TO MEET ECOLOGY S MOST CURRENT $TORMWATFR MANUAL OR AN FCpI OGygppROVED LOC4 STORMWATFR MANUAL ® YES Q NO IF YES — WItfCN MANURE MU YOUR fARQIECT BE DESIGNED TO MET. February 2005 ffNO —FOR CtEAN INATERACT SECTION 40f AND 4L14 PERMITS OAN-Y—PLEASE SUBMITTOECOLOGY FOR APPROVAL, ALONGMrHTFi15 JARPAAPPl1CAFION DOCUMFNTATfONTNAT DEMONSTRATES THE STORMWATERRUNOFFFROM YOUR PROJECTORACTMTYWILL COMPLYWlTH THE WATER OLALITySTANDARDS, WAC 17J.201(A] 13_ WILL EXCAVATION OR DREDGING BE REOUERED IN WATER OR WETLANDS? IF YES: p YES to NO A. VOLUME: (CUBIC YARDS)/AREA (ACRES) & COMPOSITION OF MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED: C. DISPOSAL SITE FOR EXCAVATED MATERIAL_ D. METHOD OF DREDGING, .4. HAS THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) BEEN COMPLETED? $FPA LEAD AGENCY: CRYOf Edmonds SEPAOECISEON: ONS, MENS, EIS, ADOPTION, EXEMPTION El YES NJ NO SUBMITA COPY OF YOUR SEPA DECISION LETTER TO WDFW AS REQUIRED FORA COMPLETE APPLICATION DECISION DATE (END OF COMMENT PERIOD]: 5_ USTOTHERAPPLICATIONS, APPROVALS, OR CERTIFICATIONS FROM OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES FOR ANY STRUCTURES, CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGES, OR )THER ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THEAPPLICATION (I.E.. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, HEALTH DISTRICT APPROVAL, BUILDING PERMIT, $EPA REVIEW, FEDERAL ENERGY IRAWINTORY COMMISSION LICENSE (FERC} FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION, ETC_) ALSO INDICATE WHETHER WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND INDICATE ALL EXISTING WORK ON DRAWINGS. ` FOR USE WITH CORPS NATIONWIDE PERMITS IDENTIFY IDENTIFY WHETHER Y XORMWA7ER OUR PROJECT HAS OR WILL NEED AN NPDES PERMIT FOR DISCHARGING WASTEWATER AND/OR iTOR TYPE OF APPROVAL ISSUING AGENCY IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION DATE APPROVED COMPLETED NO. ? t3UiIdillg irt'IfiEli City of Edmonds To he applied (brafterland use i. HAS ANY AGENCY LEREIN7 YES DENIED APPROVAL FOR THE ACTIVITY YOU'RE APPLYING FOR OR FOR ANY ACTIVITY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACTIVITY DESCRIBED ® NO IF YES. EXPLAIN: SECTION 8 - Use for Shoreline and Corps of Engineers permits on 17a. TOTAL COST OF PROJECT. THIS MEANS THE FAIR WRKE AwroAmatety $3.5 to 4.0 million UE OF THE PROTECT, INCLUDING NIATERUILS,1A80R, MACH,,iTALS, ETC. 17b. IF A PROTECT OR ANY PORTION OF A.PROJECT RECEIVES FUNDING FROM A FEDERAL AGENCY, THAT AGENCY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESA CONSULTATION. PLEASE= INDICATE W ILL RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS AND WHAT FEDERAL AGENCY IS PRO VIMNG THOSE FUNDS. SEE INSTRUCTIONS FOR INFORMATION ON I;SA" EDERAL FUNDINIG EjYES (a NO IF YES, PRASE LIST THE FEE)ERAL AGENCY 18. LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH JURISDICTION= City of Edmonds 19_ FOR CORPS. COAST GUARD) AND DNR PERMITS. PROVIDE NAMES. ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF AE)JOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES. ETC._ PL ASENOJE SkIORF�tNEMgNAGEMENYCOMPUAN(,EMAYR,,,XffREADDITIONALWnCE—CO SULTY<)UiZ A JORUNGAL J7?N PER T. NAME ADDRESS PHONENUMBER 9. See attached list 2- 3. SECTION C - This section MUST he completed for any pennit covered by this appficauan . APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR A PERMIT OR PERMITS TO AUTHORIZE THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBE[ INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ACCURATE- 1 FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I POSSESS THE AUTHORITY TO UNDERTAKE THE PROPOSED ACTIV IS APPLICATION IS MADE, THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LOCATION TO INSPECT THE PR AGREE TO START WORK ONLY AFTER ALL NECESSARY PERMITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT 1 HEREBY DESIGNATE Jeffrey A. Layton, P.E. TO ACT AS MYAGENi'IN MATTERS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION FOR PERMIT(S). i UNDERSTAND THAT IF A FE I MUST SIGN THE PERMIT, SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF LANDOWNER (EXCEPT PUBLIC ENTITY LANDOWNERS, E.G. DNR) HEREIN. I CERTIFY THAT 1 AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SUCH INFORMATION IS TRUE, COMPLETE, AND TIES_ I HEREBY GRANT TO THE AGENCIES TO WHICH )POSED, IN -PROGRESS OR COMPLETED WORK. I TED. ATE TE DATE DERAL PERMIT IS ISSUED, THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE AGENT, IF AN AUTHORIZED AGENT IS DESIGNA 3 US.0 §1001 provides that Wfioeve , In any manner with n Me urisdcfion oD any departmem w agency of the United States knowingly falsifies. Conceals. flr covers up by any Irick, scheme, or device a atedal fad or makes any false. rx8fiaus, a fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or dowment UmW n Illy. shall W fined not num than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. g Same to contain any false fictitious, or fraudulent statement or RPM SATs 11wA $ 10 s i U>eurfa aL ©h Dred ��rlldfrags qtt� rDwrff�ce9e�€h ��hiljf fie #eek abo,e#J� av>;race grade i,-�etlta�i'�I� arc��Iaaaie 1gC�'tion of�a�d �Ltf�h�r of t,��st��l�"�-l�»L�s. e.�1�f��`pp��ai��1 �C�at Yy111-�1��rie �It�Qb��#ed �re�li: ifa . Mp#IealrOn�U�Il+te� �.CO[:[�i�lE�f7�t:Y1CP f1Y ar�n�iaeSn:. r 4, k :ir ,vim Y :ir-ii These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employers. For sPeciat accommodation needs, Please contact the aPProPriate agency in the instructions. Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 National Marine Fisheries Service Mr. Steve Landino, Chief Habitat Branch 510 Desmond Drive Southeast, Suite 103 Lacey, Washington 98503-1263 U:S. _Fish and 'Wlcl�ife'Service ,. Ms. Parn Repp, Division Manager Ecological Services 510 Desmond Drive Southeast, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503-1263 Ladies and Gentlemen: SEP - 8 2005 Reference: Informal Consultations And Request for Final Concurrence We have enclosed the following biological evaluations (BE) for your review: t—op- 200500779, Meadowdale Marina, Snohomish County -- Pier repair (Glenn, x6904) 200500508, Denison, Stephen & Shannon Baker, Pierce County - Construct pier, ramp, and float (Liera, x6901) 200500805, Reiswig, Greg and Teresa, King County - Pier repair, place gravel (Powell, x5527) 200500795, Lesley, Larry and Margery, Mason County - Construct pier, ramp, and float (Romano, x6960) 200500210, Claudon, Brian, Mason County- Construct pier, ramp, and float (Liera, x6901) 200500156, Hudson, Tom and Donna, King County - Construct pier (Powell, x5527) 200401222, Holmes Harbor Community Partners, LLC, Island County - remove and replace overwater structure (Powell, x5527) 200500733, Dunavant, Donald, Kitsap County - Install ramp and float (Green, x6906) 200500464, Middleton, Ellen and Rick, Thurston County - Install ramp and float, drive piles (Green, x6906) 200500432, Mason County Dept of Utilities and Waste Management, Mason County - Extend outfall (Cronin, x6878) Attachment 6 SM -2005-94 -2 - We have also enclosed the following Reference Biological Evaluation Specific Project Information Forms (RBE SPIT) for your review. These proposed projects meet most of the Conservation Measures for the Regional General Permit 1, 3, 4, 5, or 6, or the Phase I Programmatic Consultation. 200500821, Carletti, Chris, King County — Repair and enlarge pier (Powell, x5527) 200500948, Broadstone Lake Washington JV, LLC., King County — Pier repair (Powell, x5527) 200500629, Bellevue, City of, King County — Place gravel (Powell, x5527) 200$90879, Deal, Garrison, King County —,Install canopy,repair deck, stringers, caps (Powell, x5527) 200401491, Mansfield, Claudia and CA, King County — Construct Pier, install boatlift (Powell, x5527) 200500901, McDonald, Kirby, King County — Replace seaplane lift (Powell, x5527) The following 9 projects all share the same RBE and addendums: 200500272, Murphy, Joe, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove piles and float (Powell, x5527) 200500273, Murphy Joe, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove pips and float (Powell, x5527) 200500274, Metheny, Dave, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove piles and float (Powell, x5527) 200500275, Schmitz, Sharri, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove piles and float (Powell, x5527) 200500280, Schramm, Frank, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove piles and float (Powell, x5527) 200500281, Kelly, Jerry, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove piles and float (Powell, x5527) 200500282, Boyd, Robert, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove piles and float (Powell, x5527) 200500283, Parks, John, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove piles and float (Powell, x5527) 200500284, Wagner, Joe, Island County — Dredge, drive piles, remove piles and float (Powell, x5527) In accordance with informal consultation procedures under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), we request your concurrence with our determinations of "not likely to adversely affect" listed species and designated critical habitat under your jurisdiction. To each BE we have attached a Memorandum for the Services (MFS) that documents our determinations of effect. -3 - If you find a.project is "likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat, this letter will serve as our request to initiate formal consultation. If formal consultation is required, we request that you submit a draft biological opinion (BO) to us at your earliest convenience so that we. can review the BO's mandatory terms and conditions with the applicant. In turn, we will provide comments to you concerning the feasibility and enforceability of the terms and conditions. For the National Marine Fisheries Service, we request your concurrence on our determinations of"not likelyto advprselyaffect",proposed species and;prgposed critical habitat under your jurisdiction. If you find that the project is "likely to adversely affect" these species or critical habitat, this letter will serve as our request to initiate formal conference. This letter initiates Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation pursuant to the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act with the National Marine Fisheries Service for projects with a determination of"will adversely affect" EFH. The MFS also documents the EFH and associated species group present in the project area and our EFH determination. A copy of this letter, the MFS, and an information paper entitled Endangered Species Act Consultation Process will be furnished to the above -listed applicants. If you have any questions or comments concerning a BE/RBE SPIF or MFS please contact the assigned project manager directly. Sincerely, �V Michelle Walker Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosures MEMORANDUM FOR THE SERVICES (MFS) CENWS-OD-RG Re: Endangered Species Biological Evaluation Review Reference Number: 200540779 Applicant's Name: Meadowdale Marina Project Manager: Susan Glenn Date: August 11, 2005 1. Project Purpose, Description, and Location. The proposed project is located in Puget Sound at 162 Avenue West near Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington in Section 6, Township 27N, Range 4E. The project includes the following elements: A. Replacement of the damaged timber and concrete portions of the pier. Replacement of 277 creosote -treated timber piles and caps and other pier timbers with approximately 230 concrete and/or steel bearing and batter piles and 10 ACZA timber fender piles. Piles will be installed with a vibratory pile driver, if possible. if an impact hammer is needed, sound attenuation measures will be employed. B. The existing 16 -foot wide by 22 -foot long holding tank platform on the approach trestle and the existing 5 -foot wide by 80 -foot long fishing platform at the northwest corner will not be replaced. C. A 4 -foot wide strip of grating will be installed in the center of the approach trestle. Additionally, the 4 -foot wide pedestrian walkway will be fully grated. D. A stormwater runoff and collection and treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement pier system. The purpose of the project is to repair the timber and concrete portions of the pier. Construction isdescribed on page 2 in the BE. II. Coordination History. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has not previously requested any additional information, or made any recommendations regarding the proposed project. 111. Allowable Work Window. Species Start Work End Work Window Window PS chinook July 2 March 2 Bull trout —July 16 February 15 All Species: duly 16 February 15 Reference Number: 200500779 Tidal Reference Area: 6 Surf smelt: No surf smelt spawning habitat is found in this tidal reference area. Sand lance. Substrate doesn't appear suitable for sand lance spawning. Pacific herring. No herring spawning habitat is found in this tidal reference area. IV. Determination of Effect. The Corps has determined that the proposed project will have the following effects on listed species: A. Puget Sound Chinook: may affect, not likely to adversely affect PS chinook proposed critical habitat: no destruction or adverse modification Puget Sound/Georgia Strait coho. no jeopardy Coastal -Puget Sound bull Trout: may affect,;aat likely to adversely affect Bull trout proposed critical habitat: There is no critical habitat in project area The project will result in increased noise and sediment during construction activities, but the disturbance will be temporary. Permanent impacts include loss of habitat due to shading. This will be partially offset by the grating in the pier, improved water quality from the removal of the creosote -treated piles, and the slight reduction in pier size. Work will be done during approved work windows to minimize impacts to salmonids. If critical habitat is designated, the determination of effect will be "may affect, not likely to adversely affect." B. Bald eagle: may affect, not likely to adversely affect The project will result in increased noise during construction activities, but the disturbance will be temporary. The nearest nest is over a mile away. Foraging may occur in the action area. Foraging disturbances, if any eagles are present, due to construction activity are expected to be minimal and short-term. No work window restrictions will apply. C. Steller sea lion: may affect, not likely to adversely affect Designated critical habitat: There is no critical habitat in Washington State. The project will result in increased noise during construction activities, but the disturbance will be temporary. Foraging disturbances, if any sea lions are present, due to construction activity are expected to be minimal and short-term. D. Marbled murrelet: may affect, not likely to adversely affect Designated critical habitat: There is no critical habitat in the project vicinity. The project will result in increased noise during construction activities, but the disturbance will be temporary. Foraging disturbances due to construction activity are expected to be minimal and short-term. E. Humpback whale: no effect. Leatherback sea turtle: no effect Killer whale: no effect The project will result in increased noise during construction activities, but the presence of any whales or sea turtles in the project vicinity is extremely unlikely. Reference Number: 200500779 2 V. Biological Evaluation. The biological evaluation prepared by BioAquatics International, dated June 17, 2005, adequately assesses the impacts of the proposed project on the species referenced above. VI. Special Conditions. To ensure the effects of the project will be as determined, the following conditions will be conditions of the Corps permit: A. You must implement the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the Biological Evaluation, Proposed Repairs, Meadowdale Pier, Edmonds, Washington, dated June 17, 2005, in their entirety. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" base on this document on [DATE] (USFWS Reference #). The National Marine Fisheries. Service concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based on this document on (DATE] (NMFS Reference 4). B. In order to protect chinook salmon, bull trout, pacific herring, the permittee may conduct the authorized activities from July 16 through February 15 in any year this permit is valid. The permittee shall not conduct work authorized by this permit from February 16 through July 15 in any year this permit is valid. VII. Essential Fish Habitat. In accordance with the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) requirements of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Corps has determined that the proposal would EFH utilized by Pacific salmon, groundfish, and coastal pelagic species. We have determined that the proposed action will adversely affect EFH for federally -managed fisheries in Washington waters. An assessment of potential impacts to EFH is included with the BE. J Date Mar4 Reed, E Reviewer Reference Number: 200500779 Information Paper US Army Corps Of Engineers Seattle District Date: May 14, 2402 Endangered Species Act Consultation Process' In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch (Corps) shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)2 on any proposed application for a Department of the Army permit - including Nationwide Permit - that may affect a federally listed species or it's designated critical habitat. Specifics of this consultation process are set forth in 50 CFR Part 402 "Interagency Cooperation — Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended". There are two consultation processes under the ESA .mfijr m4lia-bilAifthfidwatttd ftrmal�constlltation. you i y.Check the status ofthe- ESA consultation at NMFS via their website — w�vw.nwr.noaa.goti. When entering your Corps reference number, be sure to enter the number in the following format - 20034-00976. Informal Consultation - When the Corps has determined that a proposed activity will not result in an adverse affect to a listed species or critical habitat (which leads to a determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect") ESA provides a shortened coordination process called "informal consultation". The process is as follows -- Step 1. The Corp initiates consultation with the Services by written request enclosing sufficient biological information, such as a biological evaluation (BE).' Step 2. With a goal of responding within "30 days", the Services review the BE for completeness and then issue a letter of concurrence to the Corps, request additional information/recommend project alterations, or issue a letter of nonconcurrence. The Corps will initiate "formal consultation" if the Services do not respond to the informal consultation. The Corps is working with the Services to develop reasonable timeframes for informal consultations_ Letter of Concurrence. If the Services provide a "letter of concurrence", the Corps will finalize the permit decision. Request for Additional Information/Recommend Project Alterations. The Services may request additional information from the Corps to clarify the proposed project and it's potential impacts or may recommend project alterations to minimize impacts. These requests may occur via a telephone conversation between the Services and the Corps, written requests; or direct coordination with the applicant. Any additional information or project alterations provided by the applicant are sent to the Corps and then forwarded to the Services. 'The Corps has solicited comments from the USFWS and NMFS. on this information paper. Certain processes outlined in this paper are proposed by the Corps, as the lead federal agency, and are not necessarily advocated by USFWS and NMFS. 2 USFWS and NMFS are jointly referred to as "the Services". 3"Adverse affect' is defined as when a listed species or designated critical habitat is negatively impacted as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions. The negative impacts are not insignificant or discountable. [ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, by NMFS and USFWS, dated March 1998] 4 The required biological information for Section 7 Consultation is outlined in 50 CFR 402.12. Letter of Nonconcurrence. If the Services disagree with the Corps' determination, the Services will work informally with the Corps and the applicant to come to a resolution on the non- concurrence. If informal resolution is not possible, the Services will issue a letter of nonconcurrence. The letter may include recommended project alterations to minimize impacts. If the project is not revised by the applicant or via Corps permit conditions, the Corps will inform the Services that the determination has been changed to a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" and reference the original request letter to initiate the "formal consultation" with the -Services. Formal Consultation - When the Corps determines that a proposed activity may result in "adverse affects" to listed species or designated critical habitat (a determination of "may affect, likely to adversely affect"), formal consultation is initiated with the Services. The process is as follows -- Step I. The Corps requests formal consultation with the Services in writing, enclosing a complete initiation packages, including biological information such as a BE and a cumulative effects analysis. Step 2. Within 30 days, the Services respond to the Corps, acknowledging receipt of the consultation request and requesting any missing information needed to complete the "consultation initiation package". Step 3. Within 40 days from when the "consultation initiation package" is considered complete, the Services can provide a draft biological opinion (BO) upon request by the Corps, with either a "jeopardy" or "no jeopardy" decision. A "jeopardy" decision may include "reasonable and prudent alternatives" (RDAs) to revise the project so that impacts will result in "no jeopardy" of the listed species. A "no jeopardy" decision may include an incidental take statement along with reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and terms and conditions necessary to reach an acceptable level ofreduced impact on the species. Step 4. Within 30 days of receipt of the draft BO,. the .Corps and the applicant review the draft BO and provide comments to the Services. During this review, the Corps and the applicant have the opportunity to discuss terms and conditions and/or revise the project. Often terms and conditions may be negotiated to meet the goal of the Services and the constraints or needs of the applicant. Step 5. Within 135 days from when the "consultation initiation package" is considered complete, the Services issue a final BO, incorporating any revisions negotiated with the Corps and the applicant during the review of the draft BO. Step 6. Once the BO is issued, the Corps will finalize its permit decision, which will include the BO by reference. If a "jeopardy" BO is issued, the Corps is likely to deny the permit. NOTE: The above timelines for the Services are established in 50 "CFR X142. However, the'Corps has no authority to enforce these timeframes. Generally, the Corps holds permit decisions until the ESA consultation has been completed. 5 The "complete initiation package" is defined in 50 CFR §402.14(d). 2 rn. CP Purpose of Checklist CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RECEWED JUL z 0 2005 DEVEL"'EN7 S 1YICPS CTR.CITY aP IrliManloS cr The State Environmental Policy Act (S EPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe sonic basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects_ The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. NOTE: Projects generating new traffic will be required to submit a Traffic Study prepared by a licensed Professional Civil Engineer. Specific requirements for the Traffic Study may vary depending upon the project, and will be provided by the City Engineer upon request. Please contact the Engineering Division at 425-771-3202 for specific study requirements. City review of the Traffic Study may require assessment of the "Development Project Peer Review" fee of $45 plus the cost of the review. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply_" IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPRO.IECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," '"applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Meadowdale Marina Pier Repair 2. Name of applicant: Meadowdale Marina LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person.: 23423 Brier Road Attn: Vladart ("Milo") Milosavl'evic Brier, WA 98036 General Manager 206-353-6456 Paget o€24 sep'ch-klio-pvb1ie_&c:2E0S904 - Attachment 7 SM -2005-94 4. Date checklist prepared: June 20, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start in the summer or fall of 2005 and complete by the winter of 2007 subject to.permit issuance). (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Federal biological evaluation See Attachment 0) (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 2 of 24 sepa checklist- public.doc:2 402004 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. HPA from WDEfni, Water Quality Certification/CZM Certification from DOE, 11. 12. Corps of Engineers Section 10 Permit (NWP 3) DNR .approval for modifications of leasehold improvements, Shoreline Permit/Exemption & Building Permit from (STAFF COMMENTS) City of Edmonds. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and 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. Repair/replace damaged portions of the existing facility. See Attachment A for a detailed project description, see Attachment B for a copy of the .1ARPA form and drawingsffar the proposed work. (STAFF COMMENTS) Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 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. Street addressL 1.511 76th Place West, Edmonds, Washington See Attachment B for vicinty map and project drawings. See Attachment D.for Legal dea!-ription _- (STAFF COMMENTS} Page 3 of 24 sepaeheddisf - publie.doc:L 10,2004 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B_ ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a_ Central description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Marine shoreline (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Beach slope = 3% to 4% (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Sand, gravel, silt (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS} Page 4 of 24 s" che&lia- pubiic_&c2_10-2004. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not Applicable (NA) (STAFF COMMENTS) f Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will he covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? dotal overwater coverage will be reduced by approximately 350 sgaure feet. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short—term exhaust from construction equipment. No change from operational emissions. (STAFF Page 5 of 24 sepa checklist-pu6Fe.doe210 2004 b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or is the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, Puget Sound (STAFF COMMENTS) (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 see Attachment A for detailed project description and Attachment B _for project drawings. (STAFF COMMENTS) (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. NA (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 6 of 24 . cepa checklist - publk doc:2.10.2004 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known_ (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year fioodpiain? If so, note location on the site plan. Unknown (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 7 of 24 cepa checklist - public.dac:2.70.2M . (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ..; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NA (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. None (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Runoff from existing pier surfaces enters Puget Sound. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Provide oi11water separation of runoff from pier parking areas prior to discttarRe to surface waters. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 8 of 24 cepa checklist - puhfie.dac:Z 19.2464 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: x other types of vegetation: macroalgae under pier — See Attachment C (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to he on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 9 of 24 sopa checklist -public-daCXIO 2(104 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: SIA (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: X birds: bawl<j�exon�agle ongbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass(EEYII trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Chinook salmon, Bull trout, Bald Eagle (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. Yes, juvenile salmonids migrate along shoreline (STAFF COMMENTS) Page iQ of24 cepa c[t=Ust - public-doc2.10.2004 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Conduct in—water construction during WDFW and Corps of Engineers work windows. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 willbe used for beating, manufacturing, etc. No chane from existing uses. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? if so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) 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: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) Page i 1 of 24 sepa checklist - puhlic.doc:2.10-2004 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. Accidental fuel spill.from boats using marina. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Oil spill cleanup absorbent pads, fire suppression system (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of poise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Existing railroad (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 of24 3 -pa checklist- public.&v2.10.20N - (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or along -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Long—term: no ehna e from existing uses. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) S. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Existing marina with store_ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? if so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page D of24 Scpa checklist - public doc:2.10.2004 C. describe any structures on the site. Existing pier totalling approximately 66,600 sgaure feet. Tpu buildings (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All existing timber pier materials will be demolished and replaced with concrete and steel materials. Existing timber building will be repaired. All timber materials will be disposed of at approved upland disposal sites. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial waterfront (STAFF COMMENTS) L What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Unknown (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? Urban (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 14 of 24 sepa checklist-pubHc.dwa10.M4 - liHas any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No (STAFF COMMENTS} i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? existing approved uses. (STAFF COMMENTS} j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) Page E5 of 24 s pack-&Iis[-puhlic.dx_210.2oo4 9. Housing U. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None (STAFF COMMENTS} c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? No change from existing conditions (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of 24 sepachwklis[-public.doc:23o_Zow b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No change from existing conditions (STAFF COMMENTS) C- Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No change from existing approved uses. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 17 of 24 Sep- cbeddisl - public.dml 1132004 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The existing marina is a recreational marina (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 18 of 24 sepzdh klisl-pu6lieda:2.10.2004 -. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NA (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is across an existing railroad right of way from 75th Place West. (STAFF COMMENTS} Page 19 of 24 sepa checklist - p�b[icducZlO.2004 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? No change.`Ffrom existing approved uses (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). A railroad crossing guard barrier/gate system may be required in the future for vehicle and pedestrian access to and fuam the -..pier via 75.th Place West/75th Avenue West. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Project site is an existing marina (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 20 of 24 sepatIL dUiist-p6ic,&c:210.2004 - E How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No ohnngp from approved uses (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any.- NA ny:NA (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: NA (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 21 of 24 sopa checklist-pubhe.dac.2.10.2004 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site- electriei natural gas, ater, refus�sery c� elephoae, sanitary sewer septic system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No change from existing services other than new materials will be used to replace various existing utility systems_ (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE The above 211 wets are c and complete to the best of my knowledge. [ understand that the lead agency is relying on them to snake its d�Cision. GenerAl Manager, Meadowdale Marina LLC Signature of Proponent Page 22 of 24 sepa chmVist-pubRe_doc21a.2m Date Submitted LSF EbA CITY 4F EDMONDS gsi Lg90 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal. The proposed project is for replacement of the entire timber pier of the Meadowdale Marina with a concrete and steel pier. No changes of use are proposed_ (City of Edmonds File No. SM -2005-94) Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16111 76n, PI_ W_ Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency_ This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. - XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by November 14, 2005 Responsible Official: Rob Chave Position[Title: Planning Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmon s, WA 9$02 A D Date: Signature' ✓� XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than November 14, 2005, by fling a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX XX 05094ED.D0c [0131105-SEPA Posted on _October 31, 2005, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page 1 oft Attachment 8 SM -2005-94 Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL_: 1- Follow all recommended measures described in the BioAquatics International report dated June 17, 2005 and required by any State and Federal agencies to ensure that there will not be an incidental take of habitat from any protected species_ Attachments Environmental Checklist Site Pian BioAquatics International report, Dated June 17, 2005 pc: File No. SM -2005-94 SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 05094Eo.Doc 10131/053Era XX DNR SEPA Center XX Environmental Review Section ( P_O_ Box 47015 Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504-7015 P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Seattle District, lf_S_ Army Corps of Engineers XX Department of Fish & Wildlife p P_O. Box C-3755 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Seattle, WA 98124 Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Port of Edmonds XX Puget Sound Regional Council Pu 9 9 336 Admiral Way Attn.: S_R.C. Edmonds, WA 98020 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 XX National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Regional Office XX Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 7600 Sand Point Way NE P.O. Box 40900 Seattle, WA 98115-0070 Olympia, WA 98504-0900 XX Meadowdafe Marina LLC,XX Snohomish County Planning Department Vladan Milosavljevic GM Attn.: Planning Director 23423 Brier Road 1 st Floor, Courthouse Brier, WA 98036 Everett, WA 98201 XX Layton Sell, Inc. XX Snohomish CountyPublic Works Atten_ Jeff Layton a Attn.: Environmental Coordinator 12515 Willows Road NE, #205 2930 Wetmore, #101 Kirkland, WA 98034 Everett, WA 98201 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL_: 1- Follow all recommended measures described in the BioAquatics International report dated June 17, 2005 and required by any State and Federal agencies to ensure that there will not be an incidental take of habitat from any protected species_ Attachments Environmental Checklist Site Pian BioAquatics International report, Dated June 17, 2005 pc: File No. SM -2005-94 SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 05094Eo.Doc 10131/053Era PHILIP J. RUGGIERO P.O. BOX 6159 EDMONDS, WA 98026 206.650.3821 October 21, 2005 Stephen Bullock City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Reference: File # SM -05-94 — Application to replace or repair Meadowdale Marina Dear Mr. Bullock: 0k Cj .94 am writing to you in connection with the recent application which was filed to replace or repair Meadowdale Marina. This is a critical issue to me as I am a home owner in the immediate area residing at 16010 75th Place West, Edmonds. I wish to be on record as a citizen opposed to the remodeling or replacement of this structure in the event that said alterationstremodeling would result in a use contrary to those specifically permitted by the Edmonds Community Development Code and Shoreline Act. (Title 23 Chapter 23-10 Shoreline Mater Program) I have read with interest the applicant's application for the land use permit. To be candid, I am perplexed at the substantial investment that must be allocated to this project. The replacement of approximately 267 timber bearing piles with 230 concrete and/or steel bearing and batter piles leads me to believe that the owner of this marina will invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete the repairs/remodel. Whereas it is not my role to question the wisdom of this investment, it appears that the ultimate objective for the use of this property may not be apparent or clearly defined at this time to the City or the Hearing Examiner. I urge the City and the Hearing Examiner to probe into the ultimate use and long term intentions of the permit applicant. Additionally, we must not lose sight of repercussions dealing with neighborhood safety, traffic, parking and the general quality of life in the surrounding residentail area. Of critical importance is the environmental consequences resulting from this type of construction as it pertains to the Chinook Salmon Conversation Project as it further threatens the small fry salmon environment. The uses for overwater structures are clearly defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.10.155 (Use Regulations). Specifically, the.principal uses allowed are mixed-use commercial activities and developments, excluding medical, dental, and veterinary clinics and drive-in businesses. in the Urban mixed-use I shoreline environment, only the following overwater structures are permitted: Moorage structures & facilities as regulated in ECDC 23.10.160 Public Access as regulated in ECDC 23.10.145 Attachment 9 SM -2005-94 3. Gas & Oil sales, provided that the building shall not exceed 15 feet in height and 150 square feet in area 4. Live bait and storage; provided that the building shall not exceed 15 feet in height above the top of the deck and 600 square feet in area. 5. Boat gear storage lockers not to exceed 18 square feet in area and three feet in height. Only one storage locker is permitted per boat slip. This provision does not apply under covered moorage. In the Urban mixed-use Il shoreline environment, the following overwater structures are permitted: 1. Moorage structures and facilities as regulated in ECDC 23.10.160 6. Public Access as regulated in ECDC 23.10.145 2. Boat gear storage lockers not to exceed 18 square feet in area and three feet in height. Only one storage locker is permitted per boat slip. This provision does not apply under covered moorage. It is evident that there are very narrow uses permitted by these ordinances. Given the sizable investment required to complete this project, does it seem reasonable to you or a Hearing Examiner that the applicant intends to rebuild/repair this marina only to be used for storing boats and selling fish bait? Common sense dictates the wisdom of questioning the represented motives for this extensive repair and remodeling project. Clearly there is another agenda down the road and I urge the hearing examiner to get to the bottom of the real intent of this application. Let me point out some of the problems associated with this attractive nuisance during the eight years that I have resided in this area. The Marina attracts people outside the immediate residential area which increases traffic and parking problems. In addition, people congregate at all hours of the day and night for purposes that are obscure and inconsistent with family residential areas. Consumption of alcohol is flagrant and I fear that this behavior extends to drugs and other illegal activities. It is irrefutable that any sort of further use development of this marina would encourage activities that would increase traffic volumes, create parking issues, foster increased vandalism, loitering, trespassing and otherwise encourage non-residents to congregate at the wharf area_ This area has no capacity to handle any sort of increased traffic, parking or additional public access. One serious consequence of this daily migration of non residents to the wharf area is the constant violation of no trespassing laws pertaining to the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. There have been two train related deaths in the last 7 years due to people walking on the railroad tracks which is prohibited by law. To sum it up Mr. Bullock, I am critically concerned about the nature of this permit application. I fear that there exists a more comprehensive and defined business plan for the future use of this wharf which is not being shared with your office or the City of Edmonds. I appeal to your wisdom and request that no variance to the shoreline use ordinances be granted today or ever in the future. If you have any questions, please contact me directly. Best. R ards, P Ruggiero October 24, 2005 Stephen Bullock City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Meadowdale Marina Reference: Letter dated June 20, 2005 from Layton & Sell to The City of Edmonds Requesting a Shoreline Exemption for the repair of subject property. Dear Mr. Bullock, We live at 16414 75th Place in Edmonds and are very concerned about the proposed "repair" of this facility. As an immediate neighbor to the Meadowdale Marina, we have many concerns and questions in regard to the request submitted by the applicant for a shoreline exemption per the referenced letter. We have read through this letter and no where is there any mention of the ultimate use and/or long term intentions of the permit application. Certainly with the capital required to complete such a project, it is rather obvious the scope of this project goes well beyond REPAIRING the facility. There are obviously other developmental motives here which need to be brought out in an open and candid manner. There are many obvious areas of concern with any future use that would draw more people into the area. There are lots of issues and associated problems with increased traffic volumes and additional public access including pedestrian safety, noise, speeding vehicles, and the potential for more automobile accidents, vandalism, loitering, and trespassing. Of particular concern is the pedestrian safety issue which already exists on the local streets because of the lack of sidewalks in the area. More traffic would only make this problem worse. The potential for more pedestrian accidents on the railroad tracks would also increase with more people congregating at the marina and surrounding area. There have already been two deaths in the last several years due to people walking on the tracks. Most importantly, any fixture changes must recognize that the residential area has undergone significant change and growth over the years while the marina has been stagnant without any sort of meaningful commercial use. Please make us parties of record. Thank you. Armando & Sina Chilelli 16414 75th Place Edmonds, WA 98026 Attachment 10 SM -2005-94 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 1215"' Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Tung Bui 18811 1" Place West Bothell, WA 98012 November 9, 2005 � Ig RE: Comments to Project File # SM -05-94 Meadowdale Marina Pier 0 I am a homeowner across the street from the Marina at 16105 75th Place West. I understand that the proposed marina project is to replace the timber pier with concrete and steel pier. However, it is not clear what the master plan of the marina really is. I request that the City and owner provide a long-term master plan to help in the planning of the eventual use of the marina. In the master plan, I would prefer to see the following topics addressed to facilitate long-term planning for a significant change in a now purely residential Meadowdale neighborhood_ Long-term intended use of the marina (restaurants, condo, retail stores, etc.. _) should be disclosed to the neighborhood as they would have significant impact on the surrounding properties. ❑ What is the Master Plan for the marina? Currently the permit application requests to "repair or replace portions of the Meadowdale Marina." Is the intent to make sufficient repair/replace to make the property habitable, and conduct further repair/replace work in the future, or this is "it" for the foreseeable future? u I would support all activities which limit traffic increases, improve the habitability of the neighborhood by preserving the tone of the Meadowdale neighborhood, and addresses the parking concerns so that overflows do not end up in public streets. ❑ I am concerned about the amount of traffic that the Marina would generate, and the inadequacy of parking space for the inevitable increase in traffic (compared to zero traffic today). I would like to understand the details of traffic control plans. ❑ The road condition on 75th does not appear to be able to support a sustained flow of commercial traffic to the Marina_ What is the plan to assure that road erosion is not aggravated by the additional traffic? ❑ Would increased traffic across the track cause the train to activate the whistle more often for safety precautions? If so, how could this impact be limited? ❑ The Marina roof can be a severe source of light reflection back to neighboring homes. How does the applicant intend to mitigate this adverse affect on to the neighbors? © How much power does the Marina intend to draw from Snohomish Public Utility? Current power poles, sized for residential use, are already heavily loaded with power lines, and additional lines and/or larger power poles would create greater visual burdens to neighboring properties. I submit this letter to the formal review process and would like to clarify my position if needed Sincerely, Tun Bui November 11, 2005 To: Robert Chave, Planning Manager 121 5 h Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 From: Gerald Bernstein, M.D. 1591275 th Place West Edmonds, Washington -98026 Re. Variance to refurbish Haines marina in Meadowdale_ There are several serious problems relating to the railroad crossing to Haines Marina in Meadowdale. If the requested variance to reconstruct the marina is granted, these problems will escalate and pose serious risks to the health and safety of the community. Refurbishing Haines Marina will significantly increase auto traffic on 75h Street West. Residents of Meadowdale frequently walk along 75th Street West. I see men and women, children and families, often with infants, strolling and [exercise] walking at all hours of the day and night. There are no sidewalks and thus people of all ages are walking on the street. In addition, the lighting is inadequate... the walkers are very often hard to see. Refurbishing the marina will inevitably result in increased auto traffic on 75"West. This will significantly increase the risks to Meadowdale and Edmonds residents who walk along the road also at all hours of the day and night. Before any consideration is given to repairing or improving Haines Marina, 75h Street West must be redesigned and improved to handle the certain increase in auto traffic and to provide safe sidewalks for pedestrians. Refurbishing Haines Marina poses very real safety risks to pedestrians who trespass the railroad tracks. Improved access to the Marina will also increase trespassing across and along the railroad tracks. There is already rampant trespassing on the railroad tracks. People go to the beach and walk along the tracks_ During the summer, this goes on all night. They often drink alcohol and may well use drugs; they are at great risk for being hit and killed by a train. Although Burlington Northern and the Edmonds City administration are well aware of this situation, they rely on No Trespassing signs and the train's warning whistles and flashing lights to prevent invariably fatal train pedestrian accidents. The fact that these measures are not adequate is demonstrated by the deaths of two people who were struck and killed by trains over the past seven years. Before Haines Marina is improved, sa. fe pedestrian and auto access to the beach and the pier must be insured by building an overpass or underpass. This should be an unconditional prerequisite for any building permit. Increased utilization Haines Marina will require increased parking: There is inadequate parking to accommodate the increased usage that renovation of Haines Marina would generate. Years ago it might have been ok to park on the side of 75th Place West. That is no longer appropriate nor is it safe. Adequate parking must be provided that will not intrude onto the properties or lives of those families living near the marina. We know that many things have changed in the decades since Haines Marina was first built; Meadowdale was a small community with relatively few residents. There were few roads and little traffic_ Now Meadowdale is much more heavily populated; there are many homes and there is significant traffic. But the roads are still small and can safely handle only limited traffic. In addition the number of daily trains has increased with the addition of Amtrak and The Sounder. The increase in auto and pedestrian traffic that will result from refurbishing Haines Marina will predictably further increase the risks to visitors and residents in the Meadowdale area. Fifty years ago, Haines Marina made sense in this area. Now Haines Marina poses very real threats to the welfare of the community and the safety of its residents. The variance must be refused. Furthermore, alternative uses for the property must be considered that are beneficial to both the community and the environment in this beautiful and environmentally fragile part of Edmonds. Sincerely, erald Bernstein, (;; 6 � /Cl� Sarah J. Bernstein, RN November 12, 2005 Nick and Renee Blattner 16420 7e Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 425-775-0026 Stephen Bullock City of Edmonds Development Services Department 1215' Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 NO V 4 2905 PLIC D'cPT RE: File # SM -05-94 Application to replace or repair Meadowdale Marina Dear Mr. Bullock: We have resided in our home for 19 years and live approximately one quarter mile south of the Meadowdale Marina. When we first moved in, the marina was a source of enjoyment as we could watch the boats coming and going on warm summer nights. There were half the number of houses between us and the marina at that time, and although traffic backed up onto the street occasionally on weekends, it was a quiet enough neighborhood at the time, that the few "hot" fishing days or low tides were of little consequence. Today, it is difficult to walk on this street at any time because of the lack of shoulder space on the narrow road and traffic has increased dramatically on 75th and 76h avenues. Although the area around the marina still draws quite a'crowd on summer weekends because there is beach access with limited parking on 162°d , adding the marina operation would potentially greatly increase the traffic. On Attachment A of the letter written by Layton & Sell, they stated there is an existing marina, which I believe is a vast overstatement. The marina has not been operational for at least 10 years. The pier has substantially deteriorated and the floating pier and several hundred feet of decking have been detached. There is still a fair amount of debris littering the beach, although some of it has been cleaned up by homeowners in the area. It also seems an overstatement to say a cafe existed. The last time I was in the store you could buy a cup of coffee and some ice. We are writing to express great concern about this proposed project. It appears suspect that an owner would invest the very large sum of money to repair the marina to only return it to a seasonal use operation which stores boats and sells a few marine supplies. It seems more likely the owner is planning a much larger operation which would operate on a daily year round basis. If the Marina operations were only restored to the minimal operating hours of several years ago, there would still be adverse impact on the neighborhood. Our greater concern is that Mr. Milosavljevic is interested in expansion of the Marina to warrant the expense of replacement. Please consider not granting the variance to the shoreline use guidelines without much greater disclosure from Mr. Milosavljevic concerning the intent of this proposal. We want to be on record as citizens opposing the remodeling of this structure. Respectfully, Nick and Renee Blattner Message Bullock, Steve Page 1 of 1 From: Chave, Rob Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 12:36 PM To: Bullock, Steve Subject: FW: Meadowdale Marina construction Rob, Enclosed is some DNR guidance on creosote timber pile removal that I recommend you provide to the Meadowdale Marina pier contractor. On another subject: I assume by now that the planning grant agreement has been signed and you'll soon begin the consultant selection process. Give me a call if you have any questions. David David Pater Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Department of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 6494253 Region NW Lead agency Edmonds City of Contact Rob Chave Phone (425) 771-0220 Ext. LA File # SM -2005-94 Ecology File # 200508431 Type DNS -M Description Meadowdale Marina; replace a timber pier with a concrete and steel pier on Puget Sound Location 16111 76th Place W Applicant City of Edmonds Date issued 10/31/2005 Date mailed Date entered 11/01/2005 Comments due Coordinator NW rVA 11/17/2005 STANDARD PRACTICE Department of Natural Resources MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2002 Page 1 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 SPM02-07 STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE USE AND REMOVAL OF TREATED WOOD AND PILINGS ON AND FROM STATE-OWNED AQUATIC LANDS DISCUSSION This Standard Practice Memorandum (SPM) supersedes previous policy statements, guidance, and department direction related to the use and removal of treated wood and pilings on and from state-owned aquatic lands. A hardcopy of this SPM should be placed in Section 24.2 of the user's Aquatic Resource Reference Manual. An electronic version of the SPM is located on the department's intranet site. This SPM is in effect for a period of four years from the day of signature, or until further guidance or policy specifically supersedes it (which ever is sooner). Authority Ownership and legislative authority are derived from Articles XVII and XV of the Washington State Constitution. Legislative findings, guidelines, and leasing authority are derived from the Revised Code of Washington, 79.90.450, 79.90.455, and 7990.460. Washington Administrative Codes 332-30-100 and 332-30-118 give further guidance. Introduction The objective of this Standard Practice is to ensure statewide consistency in the Washington State Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's) approach to the use and removal of treated wood products on state-owned aquatic land. This Standard Practice shall be used as a starting point for effective coordination with the Department of Ecology, Department of Fish & Wildlife, and local governments, which have regulatory authority over the use and removal of treated wood products in Washington State waters. For the purposes of this Standard Practice, "Treated Wood and Pilings" include any wood products used in Washington State around freshwater and marine habitats treated with: • Creosote; • ACZA (Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate); and • CCA Type C (Chromated Copper Arsenate). Creosote and ACZA are common on the west coast and CCA Type C is used on over -water structures throughout Washington. Background The concern with the use of treated wood products in the aquatic environment is the release of the chemicals uscd to treat the wood. In the environment, these chemicals may cause and/or contribute to adverse biological effects and human health impacts, degradation of the surrounding land and habitat, and devaluation of the affected property. STANDARD PRACTICE Department of Natural Resources MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2002 Page 2 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 STANDARD PRACTICE 1. Intent In accordance with federal and state law, the intent of this Standard Practice is to: • Ensure that future uses of state-owned aquatic lands are not limited by the use of treated wood for structures on, in, or over state-owned aquatic lands; • Improve the aquatic environment by removing treated wood, which can be a source of contamination, from state-owned aquatic lands; • Ensure that the removal of treated wood from state-owned aquatic lands does not create or increase liability and/or contaminated sediment -related problems; and • Ensure that navigation and commerce are not obstructed by current or future structures on state-owned aquatic lands. 2. Application This guidance applies to DNR -authorized actions taking place on state-owned aquatic lands that are part of the aquatic environment (as opposed to filled tidelands, filled shorclands, and/or filled bedlands). 3. Installation & Repair of Structures When approving new structures or repair of existing structures on state-owned aquatic lands, the DNR will strongly encourage the use of alternative products to treated wood, particularly for wood treated with creosote, AZCA (Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate), and CCA Type C (Chromated Copper Arsenate). 3.1. The use of wood treated with creosote or pentachlorophenol is strictly prohibited in freshwater lakes (as per WAC 220-110-060, Construction of freshwater docks, piers, and floats and the driving or removal of piling). 3.2. Acceptable alternative products and methods for freshwater, estuarine waters, and marine waters include: • Steel; • Concrete; • Recycled plastic; • Embedment anchors and/or elastic rodes; and • Alternative dock mooring systems. 3.3. A less desirable, but occasionally appropriate, alternative would be the reuse of treated wood removed from in -water or over -water structures (for example, as a use in temporary structures to remain in place less than five years). Extreme caution, however, must be used when approving the reuse of treated wood as older wood was typically treated with higher levels of less desirable product (as compared to new treatment products that have been produced in accordance with BMPs described in Section 5.1). STANDARD PRACTICE Department of Natural Resources MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2002 Page 3 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 3,4. Although the alternative products and methods described in Section 3.2 are preferred, the DNR may allow the use of treated wood in over -water and in -water structures on state-owned aquatic lands if all Department of Fish & Wildlife and Department of Ecology regulatory requirements and accepted best management practices are met, and these requirements serve the best interest of the -state. 3.5. All new and existing structural installations (including treated wood and pilings) should be documented for locations and depths using as -built drawings. 4. Removal of Structures 4.1. The removal of treated wood pilings or structures from state-owned aquatic lands can occur under different scenarios, such as: • Development of a leasehold; • Termination of a lease where DNR requires improvements to be removed; • Removal of a trespass; and/or • Restoration of a site. Under any scenario, if the removal activities are not authorized by an existing DNR use authorization, then a Conservation License, which indemnifies the DNR, must be issued. 4.2. When a project involves the removal of treated wood pilings or structures from state- owned aquatic land, DNR's preference is for complete removal of all treated materials. 4.3. Removing structures, which are embedded in state-owned aquatic lands, may disturb sediments. The proponent must sample the sediments, which may be disturbed in the process of removing the structures, at -depth, to determine the presence and/or absence of contamination. This information shall be a consideration when determining the appropriate means of extraction and sediment disposal. (Sediment sampling protocols shall be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the Contaminated Sediments Unit.) 4.4. For structures on, in, or over state-owned aquatic lands, the preferred methods for removal of treated wood structures are those that would accomplish the most complete removal of treated wood while resulting in the least disruption to the surrounding environment. This preference does not account for cost considerations. 4.4.1. DNR's preferred methods of removal (grouped in approximate order from first preference to last), depending on site=specific conditions, include: 1) Puller buncher, choker cables, and/or lift -bag extraction (complete removal); 2) Vibratory extraction (complete removal); 3) Excavating and/or hydraulic jetting (complete removal); and lastly 4) Breaking, cutting, and sawing (partial removal). STANDARD PRACTICE Department of Natural Resources MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2002 Page 4 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 Methods of piling removal listed in #4 are nearly equally low in preference to one another and substantially lower than the next higher option. Breaking a piling off at the mud line is most often carried out by mechanically pulling the piling over until it snaps with the effect of crushing or deforming the treated wood tissue, releasing considerable quantities of product being released in the process. Cutting with a pincer type device is also problematic due to the deformation and loss of product at the time the cut is made. Sawing a piling off results in contaminated sawdust and chips thrown off by the saw as well. Each of these may be addressed by taking proper measures to capture product or sawdust chips, but if extraction and complete removal is still an option it is greatly preferred. 5) Specific methods not listed here shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 4.4.2. DNR region staff must insure that specific piling removal and processing practices are established for each project in an `operational plan' that will be protective of state-owned aquatic lands. The plan should be developed by the project proponent and include the following actions: 1) Removing contaminated sediment (which may be re -suspended from the piling removal action) from areas around piles before the piles are removed, and disposing sediments offsitc. 2) If the surrounding sediment is contaminated, removing pilings during periods of low tide, when the area is dry. 3) If the surrounding sediment is contaminated and piling remova I must be performed during periods of high tide (in wet conditions), then it is critical to prevent the re -suspension of contaminated sediments. (Re -suspension can be limited by isolating the work area from the surrounding aquatic environment, thereby minimizing the potential for increased turbidity and the release of related contaminants. For example, by using silt curtains or sheet pile enclosures when removing piles under wet conditions.) 4) Preventing wood waste debris from being lost during transport. 5) Preventing the processing of removed piles from impacting state-owned aquatic lands. (For example, if a piling is cut, collecting the sawdust on plastic and removing. Preferably, such operations should be performed off of state-owned aquatic lands.) 6) Isolating contaminated sediment that adheres to piles after removal. 7) Filling the depressions left after piling removal with clean material suitable to local benthos. 4.5. If the Department of Fish & Wildlife and Department of Ecology determine that, for a specific site, incomplete removal of pilings or structures (by leaving in place, breaking or cutting, driving deeper into sediments, or other means) is the preferred action for an area (due to contaminated sediments, protection of priority habitats, or other regulatory concerns), DNR shall defer to the preference of the regulatory agencies only when there is no other practical alternative to accommodate the regulatory concern. In these cases, STANDARD PRACTICE Department of Natural Resources MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2002 Page 5 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 DNR shall require the project proponent, lessee, or regulatorto provide information on the type, quantity, and specific location of all structures remaining on state-owned land. A use authorization for the site will be required (either with the prior tenant or with the regulatory agency) or DNR will have to make a conscious decision (at the Assistant Manager level or above) to assume ownership of and responsibility for the remaining structures. 4.6. In instances when the Department of Fish & Wildlife desires that pilings be left in place for priority species or habitats, DNR will work with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine if species or habitat goals can be met by some other means (for example, installation of nest boxes or platforms on other structures, in other locations, or on new nontreated wood or alternative product structures). If no other methods meet the species or habitat goals, DNR will allow such pilings or structures to remain on state-owned aquatic lands. A use authorization for the site will be required (either with the prior tenant or with WDFW) or DNR will have to make a conscious decision (at the Assistant Manager level or above) to assume ownership of and responsibility for the remaining structures. 4.7. DNR does not consider the removal of treated wood pilings and/or structures from the aquatic environment an action that requires compensatory mitigation. DNR considers the removal of such sources of chemical contamination an inherent improvement to the aquatic environment, which could itself be used as a mitigating action for impacts from another, potentially unrelated action. 5. Regulatory Agency Coordination DNR region staff should work closely with their counterparts in the Department of Ecology (site managers) and Department of Fish & Wildlife (area habitat biologists) on projects involving treated wood and piling installation and removal during the regulatory process. Should issues arise and no agreement can be reached at the field level, DNR region staff should seek the assistance of their Assistant Region or Division Manager to work with their management counterparts at the Department of Fish & Wildlife and the Department of Ecology. The following approaches and information should be considered when coordinating with regulatory agencies. 5.1. The Western Wood Preserver's Institute treated wood BMPs (best management practices) recommend a risk assessment where a large treated wood project is proposed in a poorly flushed body of water. DNR region staff should insure that the project applicant perform these assessments as needed. 5.2. Cumulative effects are also a concern that might not be addressed by regulatory agencies. Mid-size to large projects in low flushing areas that have multiple sources of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (a large number of pilings) might result in accumulation of PAHs in sediment. Treated wood structures consisting of densely spaced pilings located in poorly flushed environments may result in the degradation of STANDARD PRACTICE Department of Natural Resources MEMORANDUM Date: October 5, 2002 Page 6 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 adjacent sediments. This is especially true if there are additional inputs (storm water or other industrial outfalls) in close proximity. In these cases, region staff should refer reviews of projects to the Contaminated Sediments Unit for consultation of threshold criteria and appropriate analysis. 5.3. Best available scientific knowledge (as of April 2001) can be found in the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Transportation's publication: Treated Wood Issues Associated with Overwater Structures in Marine and Freshwater Environments. On-line at: http://www,wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/finaltw.pd 5.4. DNR staff can review the most recent inter -governmental agreement on treated wood, which is the 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between the state of Washington Department of Ecology and Department of Fish and Wildlife, An Agreement Concerning the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Areas. This document is available upon request from the Program Development Section's Policy Unit, within DNR's Aquatic Resources Program. 5.5. DNR staff can review the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife's Hydraulic Project Approval administrative codes that address the use of treated wood in aquatic environments: • WAC 220-110-060 Construction of freshwater docks, piers, and floats and the driving or removal of piling; WAC 220-110-224 Freshwater boat hoists, ramps, and launches; and WAC 220-110-270 Common saltwater technical provisions. IMPLEMENTATION Division and Region Managers will ensure that Standard Practice Memorandums are brought to the attention of all employees and maintained on file in locally maintained policy or reference manuals. Aquatic Assistant Region Managers, District Managers, Program Coordinators, and Land Managers will be responsible for implementation of the practices. Approval Date: Approved By: FRANCEA MCNAIR Aquatic Steward SEE ALSO WAC 220-110-060 WAC 220-110-224 WAC 220-110-270 WDFW/WADOE 1995 Memorandum of Agreement Quast I Dressler 15714 - 75t" Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 November 14, 2005 Mr. Stephen Bullock City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 — 5°i Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 HJ LF D NOVI fi DEVELOPMENT SEPVICE; RE: FILE #SM -05-44 - APPLICATION TO REPLACE OR REPAIR MEADOWDALE MARINA Dear Mr. Bullock: We are deeply concerned about the current and proposed activities surrounding repair/replacement of the Meadowdale Marina. During the period of November 11 through November 13, 2005, the applicant was observed removing decking and other material from the marina and throwing debris into Puget Sound. Evidence of this disposal can be observed littering the beaches north of the site in the Meadowdale Beach County Park at the mouth of Lund's Gulch, including freshly cut planks and other debris containing hazardous cabling and other hardware. There seems to be a complete lack of concern on the part of the applicant for the local environment. The beaches are being fouled by debris which is contaminated by toxic chemicals such as creosote. The cabling, bolts, and other hardware present a health and safety hazard to the many adults, children, and pets that use that beach daily. The debris, as it floats in the water, is hazardous to water craft and birds, to say nothing of the salmon which are, at the present time, attempting to return to spawn in Lund's Creek. It is our understanding that no permit has been issued for this demolition work. In any case, we doubt that disposing of the removed debris by throwing it in Puget Sound has been authorized. In fact, the applicant has stated (in his above referenced application) that he will remove all debris and dispose of it inland. In all cases and at least, a containment boom should be required prior to any demolition and/or construction to assure that debris does not escape the immediate area. This is not a small project. It is anticipated to extend over 2 years and includes the use of a tugboat, a work boat, two barges, and a pile driver. The applicant states "There will be minor short-term noise from pile driving and other repair/replacement operations." This seems disingenuous at best, considering the length and scope of the project. According to the LE'. X01151'r -Mr. Stephen Bullock November 14, 2005 Page 2 application, the project includes replacement of 277 creosote -treated timber piles and caps. This "repair/replacement" will entail considerable noise and time, we suspect. It is important to note that we do not object to the repair, replacement, or demolition of the Meadowdale Marina. Our concerns center on protection of the environment (beaches, waterways, flora and fauna), impact on the neighborhood quality of life (parking, noise, periods of operation, etc.), and health and safety hazards now and during the project. Please place special consideration on the fact that the streets in the area are very narrow, with hazardous curves and hills, bear heavy pedestrian traffic, and have no sidewalks. There is no obviously available area for storage of construction materials or employee parking. Please assure that a storm water containment and treatment system be required during all phases of the project, that all activities be restricted to reasonable daylight hours, and that the project be closely monitored for conformance to codes and permit conditions. This close monitoring is especially critical in view of the current flagrant violation of common environmental considerations. Sincerely, ,5� John T_ Quast eeazdld-- Laurie J. Dressler Stephen Bullock City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Reference: File SM -05-94, Application to replace or repair Meadowdale Marina Dear Mr. Bullock: I am writing to you regarding this application as it is of critical importance to me as a neighborhood homeowner. Per our previous discussion, I want to go on the official record as a tax -payer that is totally opposed to the approval of this application. 1 believe this remodel will ultimately result in use contrary to those specifically allowed by the Edmonds Community Development Code & Shoreline Act (Title 23, Chapter 23-10, Shoreline Master Program). It seems incomprehensible that the applicant is willing to spend the large amount of money that will be required to simply provide a more secure place to fish from, watch the sunsets or sit and meditate. We have all (neighbors, yourself) heard Mr. Milosavljevic discuss his grandiose plans for development of this pier. I would certainly not presume to tell the applicant how to spend his money but do seriously question his ultimate objective. It seems very obvious that the end goal has not been made apparent or clearly defined to the City. I urge you and the City to discover the applicant's long term plan! The allowed over -water structures are clearly defined in the Urban Mixed-use I Shoreline Environment and are: 1. Moorage structures & facilities as regulated in ECDC 23.10.160 2. Public Access as regulated in ECDC 23.10.145 3. Gas & Oil sales — provided that the building shall not exceed 1.5 feet in height & 150 square feet in area 4. Live bait and storage --- provided that the building shall not exceed 15 feet in height above the top of the deck and 600 square feet in area. 5. Boat gear storage lockers not to exceed I8 square feet in area and three feet in height. With only one storage locker permitted per boat slip. In the Urban Mixed-use Il Shoreline Environment the following over water structures are permitted: 1. Moorage structures and facilities as regulated in ECDE 23.10.160 2. Public Access as regulated in ECDE 23.10.145 3. Boat gear storage lockers not to exceed 18 square feet in area and three feet in height. Only one storage locker is permitted per boat slip. I know that you are well aware of these ordinances and do not presume to tell you about your job. The fact that these ordinances allow very limited use permits makes me question the ultimate goal of the applicant_ It seems incomprehensible that Mr. Milosavljevic would be investing the large amount required to rehab the pier to use it merely for storing boats and selling bait. There seems to clearly be an undisclosed plan and I urge the hearing examiner to uncover that and act accordingly. There are also some inherent neighborhood issues associated with this project as well. Over the 9 years that I have lived here it is my experience that the marina and beach access attract many people outside of our immediate residential area. In addition to the traffic and parking problems, people (generally teens) congregate at literally all hours of the day and night. Alcohol consumption is flagrant and I am sure that there is also drug "trafficking" and use as well. Inarguably any development of this marina will increase traffic volume, parking issues, increased loitering, vandalism and trespassing. The no trespassing laws pertaining to the Burlington Northern tracks are constantly violated and there have been 2 train related deaths in the last 6 years due to people walking on the tracks. To reiterate, I am extremely concerned about the true "end game" related to this permit application. I am positive that there is a much more extensive plan for the future use of this marina and that it is not being revealed to your office or the City. I implore you to not grant any variance to the shoreline use ordinances now or ever in the future. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns and I look forward to meeting you on the 17u' - Sky Youn , 1 31 7P Place West, 425-787-8822 -f,,(\ - -7 5v 0 It)' T City of Edmonds Meeting of the Hearing. Examiner Thursday, November A7, 2005 Reference: File #SM -05-94 — Application to Replace or Repair Meadowdale Marina Please assure that the letter, dated November 14, 2005, submitted by me and my wife (Laurie Dressler) is a part of this record. Please make sure that each of us is listed as a party of record. In addition to this letter, we want to add: I . Although the applicant classifies the existing structure as commercial boat storage and a retail outlet, the facility has not been used in this fashion for roughly 10 years. In fact, because of its continuing deterioration over this period, it has become an attractive nuisance and a liability. 2. Conspicuously missing from the application is any reference to the salmon -bearing stream located only 800 meters from the project in Lund's Gulch (Meadowdale Beach County Park), and the impact of this project on that stream. Currently, creosote -soaked debris from the project is littering the mouth of that salmon -bearing stream — and salmon are attempting to return to spawn as we speak. 3. Meadowdale Beach County Park is a very popular recreation area and is widely used by hikers; fishermen; beachcombers; birdwatchers; many, many children; and pets. It is also visited regularly by migrating wildlife 4. The application at no point references the close proximity of this project to the Meadowdale Critical Area, which is prone to slides. Directly east of this project, a significant slide occurred earlier this year. The use of pile drivers in this area may induce further slides on an already fragile environment. 5. The applicant's most obvious disregard for codes and environmental concerns were readily apparent only this morning when, despite the project being. red -tagged with "stop -work" orders, the applicant's employees were observed continuing to work on the project. This lack of respect builds distrust in the applicant's willingness to observe any permit and code restrictions and indicates the need for intense scrutiny and monitoring by City, State, and Shoreline authorities, at the applicant's expense_ In addition, --ie applicant must be required to cease all work until booms are in place and maintained to containn all debris. - - 6. The applicant should be required to post a bond insuring adjacent homeowners for damage incurred as a result of this applicant's actions — or lack of action -- to prevent such damage. The applicant should also be required to reimburse Snohomish County for past cleanup they have had to perform to remove hazardous debris (at least twice) and for any future required cleanup. 7. We want to reinforce our statement that we are not against demolition or renovation of this facility. We only want to ensure that any work is done in compliance with ALL local, state, and federal codes and in a manner to protect the environment and quality of community life, including the health and satety of residents, visitors, and wildlife. John T. Quast Laurie J.. ressler Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM November 1 S, 2005 Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds Steve Bullock Senior Planner MOVING A NONCONFORMING BUILDING TEMPORARILY TO ACCOMMODATE PIER RECONSTRUCTION The applicant has asked the Hearing Examiner to allow for the nonconforming timber frame building located on the Meadowdale Marina pier to be relocated on the pier while the portion of the pier at the building Iocation is under reconstruction. Once that portion of the pier has been reconstructed the building would be moved back to its original location. The applicable codes related to this matter are ECDC 23.10.220 Shoreline Master Program — Special Regulations — Nonconformance, and to a lesser extent ECDC 17.40 Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots. In section 23.10.220.0 the Shoreline Master Program states "A nonconforming development which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance with the applicable master program." Because of the sensitive nature of the shoreline environment the City's position is a strict one. We would like to see nonconformities ultimately eliminated. In this case, the building may not be moved without loosing its nonconforming status. Once the building has lost its nonconforming status, it may not be re-established under the City's current Shoreline Master Program. Similarly staff reviewed ECDC 17.40.020.E. Nonconforming Buildings — Relocation, This section requires that if a nonconforming building is moved for any reason and for any distance that it would then have to comply with the code. Again, staff feels this supports our position that if the building is moved for any reason or any distance, it may not be re-established on the pier. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. City of Edmonds cza Planning Division 05094 NONCONFORMING MEMOMOC ,,,,,,��►►�� ,,.... v1i/2ao6. � 1 IT" ice'® i GENDLER & MANN, LLP ATTORNEYs-AT-LAW Michael W. Gendler• David S. Mann 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 (206) 621-6868 Lauren P, Rasmussen SEATTLE WA 98101 Fax (206) 623-95[2 *Also admitted in Gresom November 21, 2005 Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner, City of Edmonds Re: Meadowdale Marina Pier Repair SM -2005-94 Dear Examiner McConnell: mann(a,,gendlermann.com www.gendlermann.com I write on behalf of the applicant, Meadowdale Marina LLP, and in response to the November 18, 2005 Memorandum from Steve Bullock. As I stated at the November 17, 2005 hearing in this matter, while we are generally supportive of the City's Advisory Report, we strongly disagree with the position taken by Mr. Bullock in his Memorandum. As discussed below, we believe that because the applicant proposes only a temporary relocation of the existing wooden building, the applicant's proposal for repair of the existing wooden building is consistent with City Code and the Shoreline Master Program. So that we are all on the same page — the applicant's proposal is to leave the existing wooden building in place while the pilings and deck of the surrounding marina are replaced. Then, once the surrounding deck has been replaced, the building will be temporarily moved, either intact or in two pieces, to the repaired deck and the area under the building will be repaired. Once the entire deck has been repaired the building will be moved back into its identical original location. At the completion of the proposed repairs the building will be in its identical location. EMC 23.10.220 provides that a "nonconforming development which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance with the applicable master program." We believe this provision is in place only to ensure that applicable building setbacks are met when a building is relocated. Thus, if a nonconforming building can be and is relocated, then it might as well be moved to comply with applicable setbacks. This provision should not, however, be read to require complete elimination of a nonconforming building if the building is only temporarily moved so that decking below the building can be repaired. We believe this reading is consistent with EMC 17.40.020— the City Code provision for general nonconforming buildings. While EMC 17.40.020 also requires conformance with setback requirements where a building is moved any distance, the code is quite clear that simply moving r7VP151-1-- 10 Ron McConnell November 21, 2005 Page 2 a building does not, however, mean that the building must also comply with other bulk or site development standards. In other words, if a building can and is moved, it must only comply with appropriate setbacks. A moved nonconforming building does not have to comply with other site development standards — including a standard that prohibits a new similar building. The Examiner should keep in mind that arguably the Marina and building repair did not need a shoreline permit prior to repair. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-040: Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to .a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource 'or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment; As this provision makes clear — the normal repair (which include replacement) of structures is exempt from permitting where the repair restores a development to its original condition — including specifically its location. While Meadowdale Marina has followed the City's permitting process, it should not now be penalized by application of an unduly harsh interpretation of the City's nonconforming use code. A ruling that the building must be destroyed if it is even temporarily moved is an unduly harsh penalty and is not protective of the environment. Indeed, rather than eliminating all of the harmful creosote coated pilings and decking from the marina, the building may be left in place and only the decking and pilings surrounding the building replaced — leaving the existing creosote pilings under the building in place. While certainly a solution under the City's interpretation, I believe we can all agree that removal and replacement of all of the old pilings is the most appropriate step for the environment. In summary, if there is concern with the applicability of ECDC 23.10.220, the Examiner should simply condition the requested permit to require the building be only temporarily moved and, at the conclusion of the repair project, the building restored to its pre-existing location. Ron McConnell November 21, 2005 Page 3 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP /s David S. Mann (sent electronically) David S. Mann cc: Steve Bullock Jeff Layton Vladan Milosavljevic