Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HE staff report PLN2021-0028 through -0030 with attachments
CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Edmonds-Woodway High School Synthetic Turf Conversion PLN20140065-0067, PLN2015009 & PLN20150013 Page 1 of 10 PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Requested Permits: PLN2021-0028 (Variance – Carbon Filter) PLN2021-0029 (Variance – Loading Dock) PLN2021-0030 (Design Review) Date of Report: July 26, 2021 Staff Contact: ____________________________ Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Public Hearing: Monday – August 2, 2021 at 3:00 P.M. Due to COVID-19, a virtual public meeting will be held via Zoom. The Zoom meeting may be joined at: https://zoom.us/j/95443961977?pwd=RTg5d0pjc3N2K0dJSG1xREN1UDJv QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 954 4396 1977 Password: 150634 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND PROCESS The City of Edmonds is proposing a Carbon Recovery Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility. The WWTP is located at 200 2nd Avenue South and is zoned Public (P) which requires a 25-foot setback from property lines for structures. The existing building is approximately 7.5 feet from the property line with SR104 on the west side. The proposal includes installing a carbon filter on the west side of the building approximately 5 feet from the western property line and a loading dock for future maintenance activities approximately 1 foot from the western property line. Variances are required to place these structures within the 25-foot setback. As a public project, the Carbon Recovery Project is also subject to design review. Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 2 of 10 Variance reviews area considered Type III-B decisions under ECDC 20.01.003 while design review at Type III-A decisions. The two variance applications and design review have been consolidated for review pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B. In accordance with ECDC 20.01.002.B, when Type III-A and Type III-B permits are consolidated, the project shall proceed under the Type III-A process. When design review and variance applications are consolidated, the Architectural Design Board (ADB) first holds a public meeting and makes a recommendation on the design of the project to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner then holds a public hearing issues decisions on both the variances and design review. On July 21, 2021, the Architectural Design Board held a public meeting and reviewed the design of the proposal (Exhibit 1). Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, design standards in Chapter 20.11 ECDC, and landscaping was analyzed. The Board recommended approval of the project design. II. ATTACHMENTS 1. ADB staff report with nine attachments 1. Land use applications 2. Applicant’s narratives 3. Site Plan 4. Relevant Plan Set Pages 5. Planting Plan 6. Height Calculations and Elevation Views 7. Critical Area Report 8. SEPA Documentation 9. Engineering Memo of Compliance 2. Public Notice Documentation 3. Zoning and Vicinity Map 4. Building Division Review Comment III. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A “Notice of Application and Public Hearing” was published in the Herald Newspaper and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on July 16, 2021. The notice was posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Library and Community Development Department on July 15, 2021. (Exhibit 2). The comment period runs until the close of the open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. As of the drafting is this staff report, no public comments have been received. The City of Edmonds has complied with the notice requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC and ECC 1.03.020. Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 3 of 10 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is “Public” and it is located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center overlay. The WWTP plant is also identified in the Capital Facilities Plan which is an element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Carbon Recovery Project will greatly improve the efficiency of the WWTP implementing the Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Goal D: Sustainability Goal D. Develop utility policies, programs, and maintenance measures designed to support and promote sustainability, resilience, and energy efficiency. Maintain existing utility systems while seeking to expand the use of alternative energy and sustainable maintenance and building practices in city facilities. D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life-cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments, minimize waste, and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs. D.4 Include sustainability considerations, such as environmental impact, green infrastructure (emphasizing natural systems and processes), and GHG reduction in the design and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure. The WWTP Carbon Recovery Project and associated variances for the carbon filter and loading dock is consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. V. ZONE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS – Chapter 16.80 ECDC The subject property is zoned Public (Exhibit 3), the development standards in Chapter 16.80 ECDC apply. Due to the limited scope of the development additions, only a few of the standards in Chapter 16.80 ECDC apply to the Carbon Recovery Project. 1. ECDC 16.80.010 Uses. The WWTP is a public facility and a permitted primary use in the P zone. 2. ECDC 16.80.030 Site Development Standards a. ECDC 16.80.030.A Minimum setbacks. A minimum landscaped setback of 20 feet shall be maintained from a public street or other property lines, except that a setback of 25 feet shall be maintained for all structures, structured play areas and structured athletic fields from adjacent residentially zoned properties. These setbacks shall be fully landscaped. The existing WWTP building is located approximately 7.5 feet from the western property line along SR 104. The proposal would place a carbon filter on top of the existing catwalk on the west side of the building approximately 5 feet from the property line and construct a loading dock for future maintenance activities approximately 1 from the property line (Exhibit 1, Attachment 3). Since both Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 4 of 10 structures are closer than 25 feet, variances are required for their construction. ECDC 16.80.030.A also requires the setback to be fully landscaped. The proposal will provide landscaping within the setback that will extend into the SR104 right- of-way. b. ECDC 16.80.010.C.4 Height. The maximum height of a building in this zone shall be 25 feet, unless a conditional use permit has been obtained, except that the height of schools shall be governed by ECDC 17.100.050(I). A conditional use permit for additional height may permit structures up to a maximum height of 60 feet. Height calculations were provided for the carbon filter and the pipes that will connect the filter to the WWTP facility (Exhibit 1, Attachment 6). The pipes connecting the filter to the WWTP plant will be at approximately 17 feet above the average grade and thus compliant with the maximum allowable height. c. ECDC 16.80.030.E Landscaping. Site landscaping is reviewed against the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. As noted in the staff report to the ADB, landscaping meeting the requirements of Type III landscaping is proposed to buffer the facilities along the SR104 right-of- way (Exhibit 1, Attachment 5). d. ECDC 16.80.030.J Screening. Electrical substations, water/sewer pump stations, sewage treatment facilities, solid waste facilities, commuter parking lots, and maintenance and storage yards shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties with a solid wall or sight-obscuring fence not less than six feet in height. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. The WWTP is an existing facility that is landscaped and screened around the exterior of the plant. The adjacent residential property is located near the southeast corner of the WWTP plant (Exhibit 3). There will be no impact tot eh screening on the east side of the plant. While the west side of the plant is not adjacent to residentially zoned properties, the planting plan (Exhibit 1, Attachment 5) is consistent with the Type III landscaping requirements will provided adequate screening of the carbon filter. VI. DESIGN REVIEW – Chapter 20.10 ECDC PLN2021-0030 – Design review Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project The Architectural Design Board held a public meeting and reviewed the design of the proposed Carbon Recover Project on July 21, 2021, and unanimously recommended approval of the project with the following motion: Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 5 of 10 THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT IN FILE PLN2021-0030 AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RECOVERY PROJECT. VII. CRITICAL AREA REVIEW 1. Critical Areas Determination: A critical area determination was issued for the project site under critical area file number CRA2021-0080 which noted the presence of the wetland just south of the site. The wetland area is also included on the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species map. Portions of the property is located within the 100-year flood plain boundary with a base flood elevation of 12 feet. The site is also identified as a high liquefaction hazard area. 2. ECDC 23.50.040.I – Additions to Structures Existing within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers: The wetland just south of the WWTP was identified as a Category I wetland according to the critical area report provided in Exhibit 1, Attachment 7. Pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.F.e, Category 1 wetlands with a habitat score of 7 require a 110-foot buffer. Additionally, ECDC 23.40.080 requires an additional 15-foot building setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The carbon filter will be located outside of the wetland buffer and building setback, but the proposed loading dock would be located within the 110-foot buffer. ECDC 23.50.040.I allows for additions to structures existing within wetland and/or wetland buffers, providing: 1. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section; provided, that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this title; and provided, that all impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, wetland buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 6 of 10 a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer; b. Outside of a wetland buffer averaged (with enhancement) per subsection G)(3) of this section; c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(4) of this section; d. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 300 square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum three-to-one (3:1) ratio (enhancement-to-impact); The proposed loading dock is located outside of the inner 25% of the wetland buffer and will add 300 square feet to the WWTP within the buffer. The planting plan covers 1,255 square feet, providing mitigation at a ratio of 4.2:1. Additionally, the trees that will be removed will be placed within the buffer adjacent to the providing improved habitat conditions within the existing buffer. With the implementation of the enhancement plan, the proposal will be consistent with the city’s wetland regulations in Chapter 23.50 ECDC and specifically ECDC 23.50.040.I additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers. 3. Chapter 23.70 ECDC Frequently Flooded Areas and Chapter 19.07 ECDC Flood Damage Prevention Potions of the property are located with the 100-year flood plain which is a critical as defined by Chapter 23.70 ECDC. While a critical area, flood plain development is primarily regulated by Chapter 19.07 ECDC. The city’s Building Official (who is also the city’s flood plain administrator), noted that the permanent portion of the loading dock is stated to be located entirely on the subject property and outside of the flood plain, but that portions of the temporary dock will likely be located within the flood plain (Exhibit 4). In order to demonstrate whether the structure is within the flood plain, the building official requests the following information be submitted with the building permit submittal for the loading dock: a. Provide an enhanced Site Plan, prepared and sealed by a licensed surveyor, showing i. The distance between the building and the western property line, ii. The outline of the proposed loading dock, iii. Footing locations for the loading dock, iv. Flood zone boundary. b. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) may assist in the determination of the location of the structure in relation to the Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 7 of 10 flood zone. If you so choose, these documents may be obtained from FEMA through the agency’s web site. These have been added as a proposed condition of approval. VIII. VARIANCES The applicant applied for two variances related to the Carbon Recovery Project: PLN2021-0028 – Setback variance to place carbon filter approximately 5 feet from the western property line PLN2021-0029 – Setback variance to place loading dock approximately 1 foot from the western property line A variance to any requirement in Titles 16 and 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (except use and procedural requirements) may be approved when the following findings can be made: A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 8 of 10 F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The applicant provided narratives detailing how the proposal complies with the variance review criteria in Exhibit 1, Attachment 2. Staff Analysis: PLN2021-0028 – Setback variance to place carbon filter approximately 5 feet from the western property line 1. Special circumstances. The WWTP treatment plant was constructed prior to the current setback requirements. The carbon filter supports upgrades to the WWTP facility that will improve efficient of this regional facility. The WWTP provides wastewater treatment services to Edmonds Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway, Shoreline, and Olympic View Water and Sewer. Strict enforcement of the setbacks would not allow for construction of the carbon filter and the opportunity to improve the existing WWTP facility operations. 2. Special privilege. The approval of the variance for the carbon filter will not brant a special privilege to the City of Edmonds. The carbon filter will provide support in maintain and improving the efficiency of the existing WWTP facility. 3. Comprehensive plan. See Section IV of this staff report for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoning ordinance. Apart for the requested setback variance for the carbon filter and loading dock, the proposal is consistent with the requirement of the Public zone. 5. Not detrimental. Approval of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed carbon filter will support improvement and protection of the health of the public and environment by ensuring that the emissions from the WWTP will meet or exceed regulations improving air quality and improving efficiency over the current system. 6. Minimum variance. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to allow the city to upgrade its WWTP facility. The carbon filter has been designed to overlap existing developed area with minimal further encroachment into the required setbacks. PLN2021-0029 – Setback variance to place loading dock approximately 1 foot from the western property line 1. Special circumstances. The WWTP treatment plant was constructed prior to the current setback requirements. The loading dock supports upgrades to the WWTP facility that will improve efficient of this regional facility. The WWTP provides wastewater treatment services to Edmonds Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway, Shoreline, and Olympic View Water and Sewer. Strict enforcement of the Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 9 of 10 setbacks would not allow for construction of the of the loading dock which supports the Carbon Recovery project and future maintenance activities. 2. Special privilege. The approval of the variance for the loading dock will not grant a special privilege to the city. The loading dock supports the Carbon Recovery project and future maintenance activities. 3. Comprehensive plan. See Section IV of this staff report for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoning ordinance. Apart for the requested setback variance for the carbon filter and loading dock, the proposal is consistent with the requirement of the Public zone. 5. Not detrimental. Approval of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The loading dock supports the Carbon Recovery project and leaving a permanent loading dock in place will minimize future disruptions for maintenance activities. Additionally, the proposed wetland buffer enhancements will improve the functions of the buffer for the wetland just south of the WWTP facility. 6. Minimum variance. The loading dock has been designed to match the width of the proposed wall opening into the WWTP that will allow for installation of the equipment as part of construction and access for future maintenance activities. IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received. X. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis in and the attachments to this report, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the variance criteria of Chapter 20.85 ECDC. The design of the site and proposed structures are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, design criteria of ECDC 20.11.030, and zoning regulations. Therefore, staff is recommending the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the variances for the carbon filter (PLN2021-0028), load dock (PLN2021-0029) and design review (PLN2021-0030) associated with the Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery project with the following conditions: 1. The wetland enhancement plan in Exhibit 1, Attachment 7 and Planting Plan in Exhibit 1, Attachment 5 must be implemented. 2. In order to demonstrate whether the structure is within the flood plain, the building official requests the following information be submitted with the building permit submittal for the loading dock: a. Provide an enhanced Site Plan, prepared and sealed by a licensed surveyor, showing Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 through PLN2021-0030 Page 10 of 10 i. The distance between the building and the western property line, ii. The outline of the proposed loading dock, iii. Footing locations for the loading dock, iv. Flood zone boundary. b. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) may assist in the determination of the location of the structure in relation to the flood zone. If you so choose, these documents may be obtained from FEMA through the agency’s web site. XI. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project File Number: PLN2021-0028 (Variance Carbon Filter), PLN2021-0029 (Variance Loading Dock) and PLN2021-0030 (Design Review) Date of Report: July 15, 2021 Staff Contact: ___________ Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager ADB Meeting: Wednesday – July 21, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. Due to COVID-19, a virtual public meeting will be held via Zoom. The Zoom meeting may be joined at: https://zoom.us/j/93308631804?pwd=QXVDeGlUN3ozY2xUZ1RCdW5mU nd4QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 933 0863 1804 Password: 955982 I.PROJECT PROPOSAL The City of Edmonds is proposing a Carbon Recovery Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility. The WWTP is located at 200 2nd Avenue South and is zoned Public (P) which requires a 25-foot setback from property lines for structures. The existing building is approximately 7.5 feet from the property line with SR104 on the west side. The proposal includes installing a carbon filter on the west side of the building approximately 5 feet from the western property line and a loading dock for future maintenance activities approximately 1 foot from the western property line. Variances are required to place these structures within the 25-foot setback. As a public project, the Carbon Recovery Project is also subject to design review. Exhibit 1 Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 Page 2 of 7 II. FINDINGS, ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS A.GENERAL INFORMATION Since the WWTP site is zoned Public (P), the Architectural Design Board must review the design of the proposed improvements [“…each public use will undergo extensive review by the ADB in light of its relationship to its surrounding neighbors…” Section 16.80.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)]. There are few specific design standards for a project like this but the code does contain design guidance applicable to certain elements such as screening mechanical equipment and landscaping. The design review and variance applications are consolidated pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. The ADB first holds a public meeting (no public comment will be accepted) and makes a recommendation on the design of the project to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will issue the decisions on the variances and design following a public hearing. The following Attachments are included with this report: 1.Land use applications 2.Applicant’s narratives 3.Site Plan 4.Relevant Plan Set Pages 5.Planting Plan 6.Height Calculations and Elevation Views 7.Critical Area Report 8.SEPA documentation 9.Engineering Memo of Compliance B.SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION A SEPA review for the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project was initially conducted in 2019 and a Determination of Nonsignificance issued on March 15, 2019. The project was modified since the initial SEPA review, but the modification did not substantial alter the SEPA analysis and the City adopted the DNS in December 2020. SEPA documentation is provided in Attachment 8. C. NOTICE A “Notice of Application and Public” was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on July 16, 2021 respectively (Attachment 4). Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. No public comments have been received as of the date of this report. The public comment period will run through the close of the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on August 2, 2021. Exhibit 1 Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 Page 3 of 7 D. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by South County Fire as well as the Building and Engineering Divisions (Attachment 9). Each group, in addition to Planning, Public Works and others, will review the associated building permit for compliance with all applicable codes. E. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The parcel that the WWTP plant is located on is almost completely covered by the WWTP. There is some existing landscaping around the perimeter of the site. A wetland is located just south of the WWTP and the buffers from the wetland extend into the project site. 1. Critical Areas: A critical area determination was issued for the project site under critical area file number CRA2021-0080 which noted the presence of the wetland just south of the site. The wetland area is also included on the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species map. Portions of the property is located within the 100 year flood plain boundary with a base flood elevation of 12 feet. The site is also identified as a high liquefaction hazard area. The proposed loading dock would be located within the buffer of the wetland, which may be allowed in accordance with ECDC 23.50.040.I if mitigation is provided. A critical area report detailing the buffer impact and mitigation has been submitted with the project and provided in Attachment 7. Additional plantings will also be provided in the buffer areas as detailed in the planting plan provided in Attachment 5. 2. Shoreline: The subject property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The WWTP plant is bounded by SR104 to the west, Dayton Street to the north and 2nd Avenue South to the east. The Harbor Square commercial center is located across SR104 to the west and Salish Crossing commercial development kitty corner to the NW. A senior living facility is located north across Dayton Street and some multi-family residential development is located across 2nd Avenue South. The old Public Works building is also located directly east of the WWTP site. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is primarily “Public” within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center overlay. The WWTP plant is also identified in the Capital Facilities Plan which is an element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit 1 Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 Page 4 of 7 H. APPLICABLE CODES 1. Chapter 16.80 ECDC Public Use (P) zone The WWTP is a public facility and a permitted primary use in the P zone. There are a couple of site development standards applicable to the design review of this project. ECDC 16.80.030.B notes that the required setbacks shall be fully landscaped and ECDC 16.80.030.E notes that site landscaping requirements shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Landscaping is discussed by in Section H.3 of this report. 2. Chapter 20.11 ECDC General Design Review Pursuant Chapter 20.10 ECDC (Design Review), General Design Review is required for this project since it is not located in an area that has district-based design standards. ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design, Site Treatment, and Other Criteria that must be addressed. These criteria are general for all types of development and do not neatly fit the subject project which will only result in minimal change to the exterior of the WWTP. A. ECDC 20.11.030.A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets. The WWTP plant building is an existing building. The only addition to the building will be the carbon filter located on the west of the building. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area. No brilliant colors are proposed. 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level. The carbon filter located on the west side of the WWTP plant will be screened with landscaping. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. Exhibit 1 Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 Page 5 of 7 The proposed carbon filter and loading dock with not significantly alter the appearance of the existing WWTP building. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. No signage is proposed at this time. Any signage will require a separate building permit. B. ECDC 20.11.030.B. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. It is necessary to remove vegetation in a small area on the side of the WWTP in order to install the carbon filter and other elements of the Carbon Recovery Project. The new loading dock will only add approximately 300 square feet on new impervious surface. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. New landscaping is proposed to replace the vegetation that will be removed during the construction phase of the project. (Attachment 5). 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. The landscaping proposed for the project only addresses the landscaping impacted by the proposed project. The proposed landscaping will be an improvement over the existing landscaping. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. All of the proposed landscaping is set back from parking areas, streets and sidewalks. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. No service yards are located on the west side of the WWTP and this standard is not applicable to this project. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. The trees, shrubs and groundcover in the planting plan (Attachment 5) are primarily evergreen species and should provide effective screening year round. Exhibit 1 Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 Page 6 of 7 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. No such areas are proposed. 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. No applicable to the WWTP project. C. ECDC 20.11.030.C. Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi-public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. The WWTP currently exists and the Carbon Recovery Project will not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. No street furniture is proposed along the SR104 side of the WWTP. 3. Chapter 20.13 ECDC Landscaping Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB may alter in accordance with the design review chapter. Type III landscaping would be appropriate to buffer the WWTP and carbon filter from the SR104 right-of-way. Type III landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center; and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Exhibit 1 Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 Page 7 of 7 b. Earth-mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. The landscaping in Attachment 5 appears to be consistent with the Type III landscaping requirements. III. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when recommending approval of proposed development applications, the ADB must find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments with this report, staff suggests that the ADB RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the design of the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project under file number PLN2021-0030 with the following motion: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT IN FILE PLN2021-0030 AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT RECOVERY PROJECT IV. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 – 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Exhibit 1 City of Edmonds Land Use Application Revised on 8/22/12 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of 1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HOME OCCUPATION FORMAL SUBDIVISION SHORT SUBDIVISION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION REZONE SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION OTHER: ●PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD ● PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL______________________________________________ FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # _________________________________________ SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY)______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ____________________________________________________ FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ____________________________________________________ FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner’s Authorization I, _____________________________________________, certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. FILE # ZONE DATE REC’D BY FEE RECEIPT # HEARING DATE HE STAFF PB ADB CC FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY May 10, 2021 May 10, 2021 Attachment 1Exhibit 1 City of Edmonds Land Use Application Revised on 8/22/12 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of 1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HOME OCCUPATION FORMAL SUBDIVISION SHORT SUBDIVISION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION REZONE SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION OTHER: ● PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD ● PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL______________________________________________ FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # _________________________________________ SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY)______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ____________________________________________________ FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ____________________________________________________ FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner’s Authorization I, _____________________________________________, certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. FILE # ZONE DATE REC’D BY FEE RECEIPT # HEARING DATE HE STAFF PB ADB CC FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY May 10, 2021 May 10, 2021 Attachment 1Exhibit 1 Technical Memorandum 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 TO: Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds CC: Michael Derrick, Wastewater Treatment Plant Program Administrator FROM: Steven Quarterman DATE: May 7, 2021 RE: Zoning Variance — Carbon Filter City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0074209.010.012 Introduction The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas-fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally occur within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. The project site1 is zoned as Public Use (P), which, in part, requires minimum landscaped setback of 20 feet (ft) from a public street or property line in accordance with the development standards in Edmond Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.80.030. A portion of the carbon filter to be constructed outside the existing WWTP will encroach into the setback adjacent to State Route (SR) 104, and requires variance from the development standards. The encroachment into the setback includes the construction of a cantilevered concrete slab to support the carbon filter equipment. The concrete slab will be approximately 9 ft wide by 25 ft long and 1 ft thick, constructed partially on an existing concrete structure associated with the WWTP (Attachment 1), and only the westerly 3 ft of the 9 ft width of the new slab will extend into the setback area. The cantilevered slab will be located within approximately 5 ft of the SR 104 right-of-way line. Type III landscaping in accordance with ECDC 20.13.030(C) will be provided in areas of temporary clearing required for construction. Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) is providing this technical memorandum to provide evaluation of the proposed carbon filter location with the criteria for variance provided in ECDC 20.85.010. 1 The project site is located on Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409100, which also includes the Edmonds Dayton Street Plaza located east of 2nd Avenue South. Attachment 2Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Zoning Variance – Carbon Filter City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 2 May 7, 2021 Variance Criteria The following regulations (in bold) were copied from ECDC Chapter 20.85.010, which identifies criteria required for approval of variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance. Project evaluation in regard to the proposed carbon filter is provided following each regulation. A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds, and wildlife habitats. 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. The WWTP was constructed prior to enactment of the current setback requirements in the ECDC, and the existing setback in the area of the proposed carbon filter is approximately 7 ft, which is below the current zoning standard of 20 ft (see Attachment 1). The carbon filter supports improved efficiency of this regional public facility. The WWTP is a regional provider of wastewater treatment services to the cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway, Shoreline, and Olympic View Water and Sewer. Strict enforcement of the ECDC would not allow for construction of the proposed project and opportunity to improve the existing WWTP facility operations. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. The carbon filter is located outside of the adjacent wetland buffer. B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The approval of the variance for the carbon filter will not grant a special privilege to the property. The carbon filter will provide support in maintaining and improving the efficiency of the existing WWTP. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. Attachment 2Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Zoning Variance – Carbon Filter City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 3 May 7, 2021 C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The approval of the variance is consistent with the “Community Sustainability Element” of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. The very nature of this project, “Carbon Recovery,” more closely aligns the treatment processes taking place at the WWTP with the City’s Climate Change Initiative. The variance will allow the treatment plant to align its operations more closely with the “Utilities Element” of the comprehensive plan. The plan states in part: “This approach [of providing guidance to the City, policy development, decision making, and information for agencies and the public] allows the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams located in Edmonds.” The nature of this project is to protect environmental quality. D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. The existing WWTP use is consistent with the Public Use (P) zoning designation, and the carbon filter supports improved efficiency of this regional public facility. E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. The approval of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed carbon filter will support improvement and protection of the health of the public and the environment by ensuring that the air quality produced by the treatment process meets or exceeds regulations after it is treated by the carbon filter. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. The carbon filter is located outside of the adjacent wetland buffer. F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The proposed variance, once approved, constitutes the minimum necessary to allow the City to upgrade its treatment processes to meet and/or exceed the City’s Climate Change Initiative via the “Carbon Recovery Project.” The carbon filter has been designed to overlap existing developed area of the WWTP to the extent feasible and provides new encroachment into the setback limited to a 3 ft width extending 25 ft along the WWTP facility. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland Attachment 2Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Zoning Variance – Carbon Filter City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 4 May 7, 2021 (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. Conclusion The City is proposing the WWTP Recovery Project, which will include a carbon filter that will encroach into the setback adjacent to SR 104 and requires variance from the development standards. This portion of the project satisfies variance approval criteria consistent with ECDC Chapter 20.85.010. Use of this Technical Memorandum This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for specific application to the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of LAI. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by LAI, shall be at the user’s sole risk. LAI warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. LAI makes no other warranty, either express or implied. This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven Quarterman Senior Associate SJQ/JAF/kjg [\\EDMDATA01\PROJECTS\074\209.010\R\VARIANCE\CARBON FILTER\WWTP ZONING VARIANCE - CARBONFILTER TM.DOCX] Attachments Attachment 1. Carbon Filter Plan Sheet Excerpts Attachment 2Exhibit 1 GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES: 1. LOCATION AND SIZES OF PIPING, UTILITIES, AND EQUIPMENT ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY PIPING AND EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS AND TOLERANCES. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS, LOCATIONS, INTERFACES, AND CONNECTIONS. 4. SEE DWG G-10 FOR EQUIPMENT LIST. 5. SEE DWG G-10 PIPING SCHEDULE AND PROCESS VALVE LIST. SUPPORT PIPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PIPE SCHEDULE ON G-10. 6. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS NOT SHOWN IN THEIR ENTIRETY FOR CLARIFICATION. CONTRACTORS AND MANUFACTURERS TO FIELD VERIFY AND COORDINATE WITH ALL MANUFACTURER COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED. 7. INSTALL GRATING AND RAILINGS PER STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, TYP. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT FINAL AIR BALANCING AND AIRFLOW MEASUREMENTS OF EXISTING ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM ONCE MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. 9. EQUIPMENT AND PIPING SUPPORTS/HANGERS/BRACING SHOWN ON MECHANICAL DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC IN NATURE. CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN THE EQUIPMENT AND PIPING SUPPORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. M-1 59 P20-10570_M-1 SITE MECHANICAL PLAN AND NOTES 3/32" = 1'-0" G. Mockos, P.E. S. Olsoe R. Dorn, P.E. No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_M-1 Plot date: Apr 06, 2021-07:46:37am CAD User: psimon. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_Ex Topo | X20-10570_Ex Site | X20-10570_Ex Flr Plan_Upper | X20-10570_Prop Bio Air Plan | X20-10570_Prop Screen Plan | X20-10570_Prop Flr Plan Shop | X20-10570_TB | Mockos | X20-10570_Prop Shop Flr | X20-10570_Prop Flr Plan Solids_Upper | X20-10570_Ex Flr Plan Solids_Upper | Gray | Dahl | Och48842STATE OF WASHIN GT ONR EGISTE R E DPRO FESSIONAL EN G IN EERGI SOKOCMYRO EGRTREOBR Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD SEE DWG M-2 SEE DWG M-7 PLC / GYM MCC LAUNDRY LAUNDRYSHOP STORAGESOLIDS HANDLING ROOM SOLIDS DISPOSAL ROOM HYPOCHLORITE STORAGE HEADWORKS BUILDING MAINTENANCE/ OFFICE STORAGE SCREEN ROOM SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING SEE DWG M-5 POLYMER FEED SEE DWG M-14 ID FAN ROOM MCC SEE DWG M-12 Attachment 2Exhibit 1 M-15 X P20-10570_M-15 SOLIDS PLAN AND SECTION 3/8" = 1'-0" G. Mockos, P.E. S. Olsoe R. Dorn, P.E.No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of March 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY X 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_M-15 Plot date: Mar 10, 2021-07:34:41am CAD User: solsoe. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_Ex Flr Plan_Upper | X20-10570_Ex Flr Plan_Lower | 20-10570_Prop Flr Plan Shop | X20-10570_Prop Screen Plan | X20-10570_Prelim | X20-10570_TB | Mockos | X20-10570_Prop Struc Platf | Dahl | Ochiltree R | Palmatier |48842STATEOF WASHIN GT ONR EGISTE R E DPRO FESSIONAL EN G IN EERGI SOKOCMYRO EGRTREOBR Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com NOTES: 1.REFER TO DWG M-1 FOR GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES. 2. ECOREMEDY EQUIPMENT SHOWN AS EX PER CLARITY. REFER TO ECOREMEDY DESIGN FOR LAYOUT OF EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT SIZING, ANCHORING, AND CONNECTION LOCATIONS. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: INSTALL ACF PER ACF MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. EQUIPMENT PAD PER STRUCTURAL. 1 2 DN ID FAN ROOM A - M-16 A 2 ACF 1 1 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" PLAN B FINISH GRADE EL 15.31 EL 18.81± EL 21.31± EL 24.81± A -SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" SECTION 2 ACF1 ACF INLET Attachment 2Exhibit 1 Technical Memorandum 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 TO: Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds CC: Michael Derrick, Wastewater Treatment Plant Program Administrator FROM: Steven Quarterman DATE: May 7, 2021 RE: Zoning Variance — Loading Dock City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0074209.010.012 Introduction The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas-fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally occur within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. The project site1 is zoned as Public Use (P), which, in part, requires minimum landscaped setback of 20 feet (ft) from a public street or property line in accordance with the development standards in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.80.030. The loading dock to be constructed outside the existing WWTP will encroach into the setback adjacent to State Route (SR) 104, and requires variance from the development standards. The loading dock will include temporary and permanent components; the temporary component will occur in SR 104 right-of-way and the permanent component will occur on City property and encroach into the setback within the SR 104 right-of-way. Type III landscaping in accordance with ECDC 20.13.030(C) will be provided in areas of temporary clearing required for construction. The permanent component of the loading dock will be 12 ft by 12 ft, consisting of a structural platform made of either fiberglass, wood, or steel with a wood or composite deck (Attachment 1). The loading dock will be located up to the SR 104 right-of-way line. The temporary component of the loading dock is 12 ft by 13 ft and may be reinstalled as needed in support of project maintenance activities following construction. The loading dock is needed to remove old equipment and install new equipment and will be needed for future maintenance, such as removing/replacing carbon used by the carbon filter. 1 The project site is located on Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409100, which also includes the Edmonds Dayton Street Plaza located east of 2nd Avenue South. Attachment 2Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Zoning Variance – Loading Dock City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 2 May 7, 2021 Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) is providing this technical memorandum to provide evaluation of the proposed loading dock location with the criteria for variance provided in ECDC 20.85.010. Variance Criteria The following regulations (in bold) were copied from ECDC Chapter 20.85.010, which identifies criteria required for approval of variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance. Project evaluation in regard to the proposed permanent component of the loading dock is provided following each regulation. A.Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1.Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds, and wildlife habitats. 2.Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. The WWTP was constructed prior to enactment of the current setback requirements in the ECDC, and the existing setback in the area of the proposed loading dock is approximately 13 ft, which is below the current zoning standard of 20 ft (see Attachment 1). The loading dock supports implementation of the overall Carbon Recovery Project, which provides improved efficiency to this regional public facility. The WWTP is a regional provider of wastewater treatment services to the cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway, Shoreline, and Olympic View Water and Sewer. Strict enforcement of the ECDC would not allow for construction of the proposed project and the opportunity to improve the existing WWTP facility operations. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. The loading dock is located within the adjacent wetland buffer, and impacts will be mitigated in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.50.040(I)(1). B.Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Attachment 2Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Zoning Variance – Loading Dock City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 3 May 7, 2021 The approval of the variance for the loading dock will not grant a special privilege to the property. The loading dock will provide support in implementing the Carbon Recovery Project, which will improve the efficiency of the existing WWTP. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. C.Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The approval of the variance is consistent with the “Community Sustainability Element” of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. The very nature of this project, “Carbon Recovery,” more closely aligns the treatment processes taking place at the WWTP with the City’s Climate Change Initiative. The variance will allow the treatment plant to align its operations more closely with the “Utilities Element” of the comprehensive plan. The plan states in part: “This approach [of providing guidance to the City, policy development, decision making, and information for agencies and the public] allows the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams located in Edmonds.” The nature of the Carbon Recovery Project is to protect environmental quality, and the proposed loading dock is an integral component for implementing the project. D.Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. The existing WWTP use is consistent with the Public Use (P) zoning designation, and the loading dock supports improved efficiency of this regional public facility. E.Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. The approval of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed loading dock will support the Carbon Recovery Project, which provides improvement and protection of the health of the public and the environment. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. The loading dock is located within the adjacent wetland buffer, and impacts will be mitigated in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.50.040(I)(1). F.Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Attachment 2Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Zoning Variance – Loading Dock City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 4 May 7, 2021 The proposed variance, once approved, constitutes the minimum necessary to allow the City to upgrade its treatment processes to meet and/or exceed the City’s Climate Change Initiative via the “Carbon Recovery Project.” The loading dock has been designed to match the width of a proposed wall opening into the WWTP that will allow for equipment ingress/egress as part of construction and maintenance activities and provides new encroachment into the setback limited to a 12 ft width extending 12 ft along the WWTP facility/SR 104 right-of-way. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. Conclusion The City is proposing the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project, which will include a loading dock that will encroach into the setback adjacent to SR 104 and requires variance from the development standards. This portion of the project satisfies variance approval criteria consistent with ECDC Chapter 20.85.010. Use of this Technical Memorandum This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for specific application to the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of LAI. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by LAI, shall be at the user’s sole risk. LAI warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. LAI makes no other warranty, either express or implied. This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven Quarterman Senior Associate SJQ/JAF/kjg [\\EDMDATA01\PROJECTS\074\209.010\R\VARIANCE\LOADING DOCK\WWTP ZONING VARIANCE - LOADING DOCK TM.DOCX] Attachments Attachment 1. Loading Dock Plan Sheet Excerpts Attachment 2Exhibit 1 GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES: 1.LOCATION AND SIZES OF PIPING, UTILITIES, AND EQUIPMENT ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY PIPING AND EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS AND TOLERANCES. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS, LOCATIONS, INTERFACES, AND CONNECTIONS. 4. SEE DWG G-10 FOR EQUIPMENT LIST. 5. SEE DWG G-10 PIPING SCHEDULE AND PROCESS VALVE LIST. SUPPORT PIPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PIPE SCHEDULE ON G-10. 6. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS NOT SHOWN IN THEIR ENTIRETY FOR CLARIFICATION. CONTRACTORS AND MANUFACTURERS TO FIELD VERIFY AND COORDINATE WITH ALL MANUFACTURER COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED. 7. INSTALL GRATING AND RAILINGS PER STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, TYP. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT FINAL AIR BALANCING AND AIRFLOW MEASUREMENTS OF EXISTING ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM ONCE MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. 9. EQUIPMENT AND PIPING SUPPORTS/HANGERS/BRACING SHOWN ON MECHANICAL DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC IN NATURE. CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN THE EQUIPMENT AND PIPING SUPPORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. M-1 59 P20-10570_M-1 SITE MECHANICAL PLAN AND NOTES 3/32" = 1'-0" G. Mockos, P.E. S. Olsoe R. Dorn, P.E.No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_M-1 Plot date: Apr 06, 2021-07:46:37am CAD User: psimon. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_Ex Topo | X20-10570_Ex Site | X20-10570_Ex Flr Plan_Upper | X20-10570_Prop Bio Air Plan | X20-10570_Prop Screen Plan | X20-10570_Prop Flr Plan Shop | X20-10570_TB | Mockos | X20-10570_Prop Shop Flr | X20-10570_Prop Flr Plan Solids_Upper | X20-10570_Ex Flr Plan Solids_Upper | Gray | Dahl | Och48842STATEOF WASHIN GT ONR EGISTE R E DPRO FESSIONAL EN G IN EERGI SOKOCMYRO EGRTREOBR Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.comISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD SEE DWG M-2 SEE DWG M-7 PLC / GYM MCC LAUNDRY LAUNDRYSHOP STORAGESOLIDS HANDLING ROOM SOLIDS DISPOSAL ROOM HYPOCHLORITE STORAGE HEADWORKS BUILDING MAINTENANCE/ OFFICE STORAGE SCREEN ROOM SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING SEE DWG M-5 POLYMER FEED SEE DWG M-14 ID FAN ROOM MCC SEE DWG M-12 Attachment 2Exhibit 1 Attachment 2Exhibit 1 0 Scale in Feet 8 16NORTH M-1-LAI 1 P20-10570_M-1-LAI DESIGN REVIEW SITE PLAN - SOUTHWEST VICINITY OF EXISTING WWTP 1"=8' E. Zick S. QuartermanNo.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of JULY 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 1 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: \\edmgis03\graphics\Projects\074\209\010\ Filename: P20-10570_M-1-LAI Plot date: Jul 13, 2021-03:27:11pm CAD User: ezick.Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com PLC / GYM MCC LAUNDRY LAUNDRYSHOP STORAGESOLIDS HANDLING ROOM SOLIDS DISPOSAL ROOM HYPOCHLORITE STORAGE MAINTENANCE/ OFFICE STORAGE SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING DN DN DN DNPOLYMER FEED ID FAN ROOM MCC 121115161114 191 8 171920 21LOADING DOCK (PROPOSED PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SECTIONS = 300 SF) PERMANENT SECTION TO BE WITHIN APPROX. 1 FT OF PROPERTY LINE WETLAND BUFFER (110 FT) (I.E. EDMONDS MARSH LOCATED SOUTH OF THE WWTP) CARBON FILTER (PROPOSED) FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 53061C129F DESIGNATES THE 100 YEAR BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IN THE PROJECT VICINITY AS 12 FT (NAVD88) PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WWTP IS 13.46 FT FROM PROPERTY LINE. CANTILEVERED SLAB (PROPOSED) TO BE LOCATED WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET OF SR 104 RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINE SR 104EXISTING CONCRETE EXTENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE WWTP LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 7 FT FROM SR 104 RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINE (PERMANENT)(TEMPORARY) Attachment 3Exhibit 1 APRIL 2021 EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY VICINITY MAP G-1 114of1 COPY RIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WWTP MANAGER PAMELA RANDALPH PREPARED BY LOCATION MAPS SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION Monroe Everett Smokey Point Edmonds Snohomish 530 522 9 299 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I-5 Lynnwood GENERAL CONTRACTOR AMERESCO 222 Williams Ave S #100 Renton, Washington 98057 P 206.522.4270 F 425-687-3173 EDMONDS WWTP: 200 2ND AVE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAYOR MIKE NELSON CITY COUNCIL DIANE BUCKSHNIS LUKE DISTELHORST ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS KRISTIANA JOHNSON LAURA JOHNSON VIVIAN OLSON SUSAN PAINE Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_G-1 Plot date: Apr 06, 2021-11:07:22am CAD User: solsoe. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_Prelim |FSi CONSULTING ENGINEERS - HVAC, PLUMBING AND FIRE PROTECTION KPG - ARCHITECTURE PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DIRECTOR PHIL WILLIAMS, P.E. BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com Attachment 4Exhibit 1 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 1 HEADWORKS BUILDING RAW SLUDGE PUMPING STATION (BELOW) PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 3 SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING OPERATIONS BUILDING 2ND AVE SOUTHENTRANCE FLOW SPLITTER BOX UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK B-7 B-14 B-9 B-15 B-2EDMONDS WAYFERRY TERMINAL LANESFINAL CLARIFIER NO. 3 FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 1 AERATION BASINS BLOWER BUILDING EX 10'-10" Ø CHEMICAL STORAGE TANK, SEE NOTE 9 11' x 11' CONCRETE PAD, TOS EL 17.33, SEE NOTE 9 G-9 9 P20-10570_G-9 EXISTING SITE PLAN 1" = 20'-0" G. Mockos, P.E. S. Olsoe R. Dorn, P.E. SURVEY NOTES 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. SOURCES OF BOUNDARY INFORMATION AS SHOWN INCLUDE FIELD-TIED MONUMENTATION, PLATS, COUNTY RECORDS OF SURVEY, AND AUDITOR INDEXING INFORMATION. 2. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY SYSTEMS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE TAKEN FROM UTILITY LOCATE PAINT MARKS OR AS-BUILT PLANS AND ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, AND AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. ALL LOCATOR SERVICES SHOULD BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION. CALL 1-800-424-5555. 3. FIELD SURVEY: KPG, APRIL, 2019. LICENSEE MICHAEL R. BOWEN, P.L.S. NO. 29294. 4. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT, ±0.5 FOOT PER NATIONAL MAPPING STANDARDS. CONTOURS DERIVED FROM DIRECT FIELD OBSERVATIONS. 5. STORM AND SEWER CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN DRAWN FROM CENTER OF LID TO CENTER OF LID. 6. THE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF UNDERGROUND VAULTS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED AND ARE APPROXIMATE. 7. DUCTS ARE NOTED AS INDICATED IN THE FIELD BY UTILITY LOCATORS. MULTIPLE LINES AND/OR UTILITIES MAY SHARE DUCT RUNS; THIS MAY NOT BE SHOWN IN THE DRAWING. 8. GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS DESIGNATED AS B-XX ARE NOT SURVEYED, BUT ARE LOCATED PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS BY LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC (1987-1988). LOCATION SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE. 9. EXISTING 10'-10" DIAMETER CHEMICAL STORAGE TANK LOCATED ON CAST IN PLACE 11' x 11' CONCRETE PAD, TOS EL 17.33 SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY AND NOT PART OF SURVEY. HORIZONTAL DATUM VERTICAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE, NAD 83/91. NAVD 88 No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_G-9 Plot date: Apr 06, 2021-11:46:19am CAD User: solsoe. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_TB | Mockos | X20-10570_Prelim | X20-10570_Ex Site | X20-10570_Ex Topo | Gray | Dahl | Ochiltree R | Palmatier |48842STATE OF WASHIN G T ONR E GI S T E R E DPRO F E SSIONAL E N G IN EERGI SOKOCMYRO EGRTREOBR Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD Attachment 4Exhibit 1 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 1 RAW SLUDGE PUMPING STATION (BELOW) EX 36" FA DOWN BIOAIR ECOFILTER EF 8283 G-12 12 P20-10570_G-12 ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM AREA CLASSIFICATION PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" Palmatier, P.E. S. Olsoe R. Dorn, P.E. NOTES: 1. CLASSIFIED AREA EXTENDS TO THE CEILING OF SPACE IF ENCLOSED, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. CLASSIFIED AREA EXTENDS TO THE GREATER OF 15-FEET ABOVE EQUIPMENT OR 15-FEET ABOVE WALL IF OPEN TO ENVIRONMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. CLASS I DIVISION 2 LEGEND: No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_G-12 Plot date: Apr 06, 2021-02:43:23pm CAD User: solsoe. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_Ex Flr Plan_Upper | X20-10570_Ex Topo | X20-10570_Ex Site | X20-10674_Prop Duct | X20-10570_Prop Bio Air Plan | X20-10570_TB | Mockos | Palmatier | X20-10570_Prelim | X20-10570_Prop Class Upper | X20-10570_Ex Flr Plan Solids_Upper | Gray | Dahl | Ochiltree R |48842STATE OF WASHIN G T ONR E GI S T E R E DPRO F E SSIONAL E N G IN EERGI SOKOCMYRO EGRTREOBR 44806STATE O F WASHIN G T ONR EGI S T E R E D IPROF ESSIONAL E N G IN EERTAPYUGLEANAHTAN ML A RE1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD MATCHLINE - SEE DWG G-11MATCHLINE - SEE DWG G-13 Attachment 4Exhibit 1 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 1 HEADWORKS BUILDING RAW SLUDGE PUMPING STATION (BELOW) PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 3 SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING OPERATIONS BUILDING 2ND AVE SOUTHEX ENTRANCE EX FLOW SPLITTER BOX EX UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKEDMONDS WAYFERRY TERMINAL LANESHIGH VISIBILITY FENCE, TYP, PER DETAIL 4/EC-2 TRENCH DRAIN SILT FILTER, PER DETAIL 3/EC-2 INLET PROTECTION, TYP PER DETAIL 2/EC-2 FILTER FABRIC FENCE, TYP, PER DETAIL 1/EC-2 ALDER STREETREPLACE REMOVED SHRUBS/TREES IN KIND PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. REPLACE REMOVED SHRUBS/TREES IN KIND 115-FOOT BUFFER FROM WETLAND DELINEATION WETLAND DELINEATION BY KPG MARCH 2021 EC-1 16 P20-10570_EC-1 TESC PLAN 1" = 20'-0" R. Ochiltree, P.E. P. Simon G. Mockos, P.E. No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_EC-1 Plot date: Apr 07, 2021-11:17:37am CAD User: psimon. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_Ex Topo | X20-10570_Ex Site | X20-10570_TB | X20-10570_Prelim | Ochiltree R | Gray | Dahl | Mockos | Palmatier |45243STATE O F WASHIN G TONR E GI S T E R E DP ROFESSIONAL EN G I N EER REBL DAY O C HI LTREEECCA OVE Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD Attachment 4Exhibit 1 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 1 HEADWORKS BUILDING RAW SLUDGE PUMPING STATION (BELOW) PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 3 SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING OPERATIONS BUILDING 2ND AVE SOUTHEX ENTRANCE FLOW SPLITTER BOX 4 3 3 5 2 1 PROPERTY LINE SEE DWG D-2 8 SEE DWG'S D-2, D-3 AND D-4 FOR SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING DEMOLITION PLANS 10 SEE DWG D-5 FOR HEADWORKS BUILDING DEMOLITION PLAN AND SECTIONS 12 13 11 15 14 1676 3 17 9 4 D-1 18 P20-10570_D-1 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN 1" = 20'-0" G. Mockos, P.E. S. Olsoe R. Dorn, P.E. NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING PLAN FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE DEMOLITION PLAN FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAGE, SEQUENCE, AND PERFORM DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES TO ALLOW FOR THE UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND ACCESS OF THE WWTP PROCESSES BY WWTP OPERATORS AND STAFF. 4. PIPE REMOVAL SHALL BE TO THE NEAREST FITTING. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT CUT PIPE WHEN REMOVING PIPING. BLIND FLANGE PIPING DEAD-ENDS. 5. LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF EXISTING PIPING, UTILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY PIPING AND EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO EXISTING FEATURES, PIPING, UTILITIES, AND EQUIPMENT NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH OWNER FOR THE STAGING OF REMOVED PIPING AND EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO OFFSITE DISPOSAL. 8. WHERE PIPING TO BE DEMOLISHED IS SUPPORTED ON WALLS OR HUNG FROM CEILING, REMOVE PIPING SUPPORTS AND CUT ANCHOR BOLTS FLUSH WITH WALL. 9. DEMOLISH PIPE/EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS PER DETAIL 1/D-6. 10. PROTECT FLOOR DRAINS DURING CONSTRUCTION. PREVENT DEBRIS FROM ENTERING DRAINS. SHOULD DEBRIS ENTER DRAINS, CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ANY OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE DRAINS AND FLUSH ALL DRAINS WITH NON-POTABLE WATER. 11. WHERE POWERED EQUIPMENT IS REMOVED, REMOVE EQUIPMENT CONTROL PANEL, REMOVE ELECTRICAL WIRING BACK TO SOURCE, AND REMOVE CONDUIT IN ITS ENTIRETY. REMOVE UTILITY, CONNECTIONS, IF ANY, TO NEAREST SHUT-OFF, FIELD LOCATE EXTENTS. 12. OWNER WILL TAG EQUIPMENT FOR SALVAGE BY THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE SALVAGE EQUIPMENT STORAGE LOCATION WITH OWNER. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE DETAILED PLAN FOR STAGING AND ACCESS INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND GRADING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDICATED AREA. STAGING AND ACCESS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 14. ALL UNUSED WALL AND FLOOR PENETRATIONS BETWEEN CLASS II DIVISION 2 AND NON-CLASSIFIED AREAS (AS DEFINED ON GENERAL DRAWINGS) SHALL BE FILLED WITH NON-SHRINK GROUT, OR APPROVED EQUAL. DEMOLISH PIPE/ WALL PENETRATIONS PER DETAIL 3/D-6. DEMOLISH PIPE/ FLOOR PENETRATIONS PER DETAIL 4/D-6. 15. DEMOLISH EXISTING CONCRETE PADS AND/ OR CURBS PER DETAIL 2/D-6. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK SLAB. PROTECT DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. OPERATION OF FUEL STORAGE TANK AND FUEL SUPPLY TO WWTP EMERGENCY BACKUP GENERATOR SHALL BE UNINTERRUPTED DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. WHILE INCINERATOR IS IN OPERATION, FUEL STORAGE TANK AND FUEL SUPPLY TO INCINERATOR SHALL BE UNINTERRUPTED DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE EXISTING SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMP AND ASSOCIATED PIPING AND ELECTRICAL AND CONTROLS. REMOVE EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE ENCLOSING THE SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMP AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL. RELOCATE CAUSTIC CHEMICAL PUMP AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND PIPING PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. SAWCUT EXISTING SIDEWALK. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK IN ITS ENTIRETY. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE WALL AND FOOTING IN ITS ENTIRETY. PROTECT EXISTING 24" INFLUENT PIPES (TYP OF 2) DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. INFLUENT PIPES SHALL REMAIN IN UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. WHEN EXCAVATING NEAR INFLUENT PIPES, DO NOT DISTURB PIPE BEDDING AND/OR PROVIDE TEMPORARY PIPE SUPPORTS TO PREVENT PIPE MOVEMENT AND/OR DEFLECTION TO LESS THAN 1 INCH OVER ENTIRE LENGTH OF PIPE. TEMPORARY PIPE SUPPORTS MAY NOT BE SACRIFICIAL AND MUST BE REMOVED UPON CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. PROTECT 24" FA DUCT. PROTECT EXISTING SCUM PIT LID AND ACCESS HATCH. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE DETAILED PLAN FOR STAGING AND ACCESS INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND GRADING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDICATED AREA. STAGING AND ACCESS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. PROTECT EXISTING BURIED FA DUCT, DUCT APPURTENANCES, DUCT FITTINGS, AND DUCT SUPPORTS. PROTECT EXISTING 4" SCREENINGS PIPE IN PLACE. ABANDON EXISTING 2" CS LINE IN PLACE WHERE IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. WHERE IT CONFLICTS WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, REMOVE 2" CS LINE. REMOVE EXISTING MANWAY ACCESS RISER TO BURIED TEE. INSTALL GASKETED BLIND FLANGE AT BURIED TEE ONCE RISER IS REMOVED. REMOVE SECTION OF EXISTING FA DUCT TO INSTALL NEW TEE PER MECHANICAL. EXISTING 10'-10" DIAMETER HEAT TRACED AND INSULATED CAUSTIC CHEMICAL STORAGE TANK ON CASTIN PLACE SLAB (11' x 11'), TOS ELEVATION 17.33. PROTECT TANK AND SLAB DURING DEMOLITION. COORDINATE RELOCATION OF PIPING AND ELECTRICAL PER CONSTRUCTION NOTE 2. SAWCUT AND REMOVE SECTION OF EXISTING CAST-IN-PLACE WALL PER DWGS M-2 AND M-3. 1 2 4 5 3 6 7 8 No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_D-1 Plot date: Apr 06, 2021-04:33:55pm CAD User: psimon. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_Ex Site | X20-10570_Ex Topo | X20-10570_Prelim | X20-10570_TB | Mockos | Gray | Dahl | Ochiltree R | Palmatier |48842STATE OF WASHIN G T ONR E GI S T E R E DPRO F E SSIONAL E N G IN EERGI SOKOCMYRO EGRTREOBR Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Attachment 4Exhibit 1 A M-12SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" SECTION EX EL 5.31 C/L EL 13.31 IE 15.67 4" DS DI 1'-3"MIN2'-6"MIN6" TEE EX 6" DS 4" x 3" CONCENTRIC REDUCER 4" x 2" COMPANION FLANGE WITH 2" 316 SST BALL VALVE WAT-610 6" x 4" ECCENTRIC REDUCER CONNECT TO EX 6" WAT-610 SUCTION EX 6" DS EX WAS TANK 2'-8" 7'-3"DMFM3" DS DI FM-60454 DM-60332 2 1 ADD ALTERNATE #13 WEST A M-14SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION EX EL 18.81± EX EL 24.81± TOP OF EX PARAPET EL 37.31 ACF9 EL 19.81± EL 30.17± 20" ACF DUCT SLOPEEL 34.18± EL 32.52± 8 6 7 20" ACF DUCT 7 10 ADD ALTERNATE #2 5'-1"13'-1"10'-4" EL 28.94±EL 28.94± 4'-6" SLOPE 8 No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_M-15 Plot date: Apr 07, 2021-05:45:35am CAD User: solsoe. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_TB | Mockos | X20-10570_Prop Screen Plan | Gray | Dahl | Ochiltree R | Palmatier |48842STATE OF WASHIN G T ONR E GI S T E R E DPRO F E SSIONAL E N G IN EERGI SOKOCMYRO EGRTREOBR Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD M-15 73 P20-10570_M-15 SOLIDS PROCESSING BUILDING DEWATERING ROOM SECTIONS 3/8" = 1'-0" G. Mockos, P.E. S. Olsoe R. Dorn, P.E. NOTES: 1. REFER TO DWG M-1 FOR GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES. 2. ECOREMEDY EQUIPMENT SHOWN AS EX PER CLARITY. REFER TO ECOREMEDY DESIGN FOR LAYOUT OF EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT SIZING, ANCHORING, AND CONNECTION LOCATIONS. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: SUPPORT PIPE PER DWG G-10. INSTALL HACH SOLITAC SC SENSOR TSS METER. INSTALL SENSOR PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS. INSTALL METER PER VERTICAL MOUNTING DETAIL BY MANUFACTURER. INSTALL SC200 CONTROLLER ON ADJACENT WALL AT ELEVATION 8.50. INSTALL BADGER MODMAG M2000 MAGNETIC FLOW METER PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS AND DETAIL 1/M-19. INSTALL CONTROLLER ON ADJACENT WALL AT ELEVATION 8.50. AFC EQUIPMENT PAD PER STRUCTURAL. INSTALL AND SUPPORT ACF DUCT PER DUCT MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. DUCT SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED TO BUILDING EXTERIOR. INSTALL CONDENSATE DRAIN PER DETAIL 1/M-16. INSTALL ACF PER ACF MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. MINIMUM SLOPE 2% TOWARD CONDENSATE DRAIN. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ADD ALTERNATE #13 ADD ALTERNATE #2 Attachment 4Exhibit 1 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 1 HEADWORKS BUILDING RAW SLUDGE PUMPING STATION (BELOW) PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 3 SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING OPERATIONS BUILDING 2ND AVE SOUTH1" PRMC, 12 #14 & 1" PRMC, 1 - CAT6 EDMONDS WAYFERRY TERMINAL LANESEX UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK 1 FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 3 FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 1 AERATION BASINS BLOWER BUILDING A SIDE EX SWBD 301 EX POWER PULL HOLE 3 60 GASSIFICATION CONTROL PANEL (GASIFIER ROOM) EX PLANT CONTROL PANEL PLC-601 SCREEN WASHER/COMPACTOR CONTROL PANEL 1 EX HEADWORKS CONTROL PANEL PLC-1011 ODOR CONTROL FAN 3"PRMC, 3-250KCMIL & 1#4G ODOR CONTROL PANEL EX MOTOR CONTROL CENTER MCC-601A EX MOTOR CONTROL CENTER MCC-601B B SIDE EX 3 - 4" RMC 3 SETS 3 - 600 KCMIL & 1 - 2/0 AWG G EX BUILDING FEEDER TAP BLOCK (SOLID HANDLING ROOM) SEE DWGS E-9, E-10, E-11, E-12 AND E-13 HYDRAULIC POWER UNIT HPU-623, GASIFIER ROOM SEE DWG E-5 SEE DWG E-14 EX MCC-101A EX MCC-101 EX MCC-102 SEE DWG E-6 ACTIVE CARBON FILTER, SEE MECH HH +8'-0" ABOVE TUNNEL HH +8'-0" ABOVE TUNNEL E-3 102 P20-10570_E-3 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 1" = 20'-0" N. Palmatier, P.E. S. Olsoe G. Mockos, P.E. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: PROVIDE 6ST-OM4 FIBER AND 2-CAT6 CABLES. TERMINATE FIBER IN FIBER PATCH PANEL. 1 No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_E-3 Plot date: Apr 07, 2021-07:59:18am CAD User: solsoe. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_Ex Topo | X20-10570_Ex Site | X20-10570_Prop SD | X20-10570_Prop Elec Site | X20-10570_Prop Duct | X20-10570_Prop Bio Air Plan | X20-10570_Prop Flr Plan Shop | X20-10570_Prop Screen Plan | X20-10570_TB | Palmatier | X20-10570_Prelim | Gray | Dahl | Mockos | Ochiltree R |44806STATE O F WASHIN G T ONR EGI S T E R E D IPROF ESSIONAL E N G IN EERTAPYUGLEANAHTAN ML A REScale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale Accordingly If Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD Attachment 4Exhibit 1 Total Plant Quantities 3 INCENSE CEDAR 4 SHORE PINE 5 COAST SILK TASSEL TREE 8 SITKAASH 4 OCEANSPRAY 4 CALIFORNIA LILAC 6 ESCALONIA 8 RED FLOWERING CURRENT 15 SNOWBERRY 30 CREEPING OREGON GRAPE 14 SAGELEAFROCKROSE 3" TOP DRESS OF QUALIry COMPOST 180 YARDS 3" WOOD CHIPS: 180 YARDS Landsca eSu lies Note QUANTITIES OF BOTH PLANT MATERIAI.AND LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES WOULD BE REDUCED IF THE PROPOSED PLANTING OVERLAY IS NOT APPROVED €F.P"#-g"N-o*p".'*m LawdsoaTe desigw bg.J e,sse cwyylw awd >ebra >LLL p. 001 Attachment 5Exhibit 1 ous Sitka Ash Sorbus sitchensis Native, white flowers, red berries We recommend either a fall or winter planting. This will ensure a good plant establishment period during the cool and rainy season. Since there is no irrigation, the ability to water during the first growing season will be crucial for landscape success. Something as simple as a timer connected to a series of soaker hoses will go along way to contribute to the success of this landscape. ln addition, we would prefer the plant material to be container grown and be no larger than 1.5" in caliper. Plantinq Notes: Gonstruction Process 1. Project approval/critical area permits 2. Remove all existing landscaping, dig out roots, and regrade 3. Top dress with 3 inches of compost 4. Purchase plant materialfor landscaping 5. Landscapeinstallation 6. Top dress with 3 inches of wood chips @ F"P.*!-o""NRF-.m:t p. 002 Attachment 5Exhibit 1 Edmonds WWTP Enhancement Plantin S LANDSCAPE OBJECTIVE: THE DESIGN APPROACH WAS TO CHOOSE PLANTS THAT ARE EITHER NATIVE OR HIGHLY ADAPTABLE AND NATURALLY FOUND IN DRY OPEN WOODS, ROCKY SLOPES AND DISTURBED SITES. WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THAT IN THE FUTURE, OUR SUMMERS WILL BE HOTTER AND OUR DRY SEASON WILL BE EXTENDED. Coniferous Trees Plant Descriotion lncense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens NW native, 25-40' Leaves: scales Light green berries, brown cones, sun, dry NW native, 20' highly adaptable, 2 needle, sunShore Pine Pinus contofta Everqreen Shrubs Plant Descriotion n California Lilac. Ceanothus dark star Silk tassel bush Garrya elliptica NW native, glossy dark green foliage, sun, prolific spring bloomeri attracts pollinators, 10' Native, showing cascading flowers late winter 6-15', sun @FP#,.o""Np*snm p. 003 Attachment 5Exhibit 1 t- Pink princess Escallonia. Escallonia x exoniennsis'Fradesii'. Nearly year round pink flowers, compact shrub, full sun, heat loving, sun Deciduous Shru Plant Description Red Flowering Gurrent Ribes sanquineum Common Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Ocean Spray Holodiscus discolor Early spring boomer, tolerates hot and dry native, 8' sun/shade Bellshaped flowers in spring, white berries, very tough, sun Cascading cream colored flowers in the summer 8'- 15'tall, native, sun/shade Groun Sage Leaf Rockrose Cistus salvifolius'Prostratus' Low Oregon Grape Mahonia nervosa cri Prolific blooming, spreading evergreen ground cover. 2' tall....super tough, sun Low growing spreading evergreen ground cover, like dry shade @EDMONDS.^.o, RECREANOI| I CULWRAL SEM'EES p. 004 Attachment 5Exhibit 1 .t1,,1,1t,7,,,,r2a/-t:-\ir:t-\l..s IltI1t\r'ttJt$Ist2r,I,/,lr, )\1\\l%,vIt-p. 005 Attachment 5Exhibit 1 - -tltLT\a\-\\r..\..\ t' I r' f rr | ' '"(r r.l77z,WWTP Buildingf__ Sidewalk ___-_r+,/ I t t2,//ql:Loading Dock'(Permanent andTemporary Sections|*-t/,<+ sR104 -=€,p. 006Attachment 5Exhibit 1 II€ .- Existing LandscaPe\.\,'tI+/,a=:Proposed Additional Project Area(See overlay for planting PlanIEdmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery ProjectWetland Buffer Planting PlanDebra Dilland Jesse Curran6lzLl2O2LColocedrus decurrens (incense cedar)Ga rryo elliptico (coast silktassel)Holodiscus discolor (ocean spray)Sorbus sitchensis (Sitka mountain ash)Cea noth us'€clesticl8hte' (California lilac)Ribes sanguineum (red flowering current)Sym phorico rpos o/bus (common snowberry)Mahonia nervoso (dull/low oregon grape)Notesln the proposed additional planting area:Keep the existing plants on the east Side of the projectbetween the proposed area and the paved pathway.This would include the existing ornamental cherries aswell as the sword fern along the upper gravel pathwayRemove all other existing plant material.Escallon ia rubro (Escallonia)Pinus contorto (shore Pine)Scafe: Ll9th"= L'LegendEdmonds, WashingtonC i rtas s sly-t tI -oJju;_' P ro st ratu s''(sageleaf rockrose)@Ip. 007Attachment 5Exhibit 1 [irnltsTemporaryTop of Platform toBottornTemporary WallClosed up withafter'Construction. OverallDuring Construction25'D. After."Construction Leave inPortion tot-u'-'will-lF$,aaaaaa12'W x 12'D Loading{Proposed} (Perman,//IIIBuffer1095 sf$or-tI€V,firfiil'jt,lt:IIIns':rqq'-lIt{NNGExEE(u6T'croFo3lr"{/LesendWetland Buffer (55 ft)' ' (50Yo of Standard Buffer)Wetland Buffer (27.5 ft)' - (25Yo of Standard Buffer)Note1. Black and white reproduction of this colororiginal may reduce its effectiveness andlead to incorrect interpretation. t03060Scale in FeetE Clearing Limits O Wetland PointI Permanent Buffer lmpact - \fy'sfl3nd LineTemporary Buffer lmpact - - Wetland Buffer (1-L0 ft)Sources: BHC Consulta2020KinLANDAUAssocmrusFigure4ilcctuo_fo,souDsHAilOLNGROOil'D FAilRqilrslidtlrffiNotot_-= ctmArNTEltAr,tcE/\OFFICEBUrLOttcfi.?SHOPPLCtfrfi, GY.IISection = 300 sf)rading Dock (Permanent andsouosPRCICESSWetland Buffer lmpact Map* Property Line*1jt:Edmonds WWTPCarbon Recovery ProjectEdmonds, Washington-IACoup. 008Attachment 5Exhibit 1 NE Corner Pt. A +20' SE Corner Pt. B +17.5' SW Corner Pt. C +15.5'NW Corner Pt. D +15' Pt. A = +20.00' Pt. B = +17.50' Pt. C = +15.50' Pt. D = +15.00' Total = +68'/4 = +17.00' Avg. Grade = +17.00' Height Restriction = 25' Maximum Height = 42.00' Actual Height = 34.18' Edmonds WWTP Phase 6 Carbon Recovery Project New Activated Carbon Filter Height Calculations ACF (Activated Carbon Filter) Proposed Location Attachment 6Exhibit 1 No.Revision Date By App'd Drawing: Sheet: File: Date: of April 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY 114 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Call 48 Hours Before You Dig Path: S:\Cad\Ameresco\Edmonds\20-10570_WWTP Carbon Recov\design\dwgs 2 Filename: P20-10570_M-15 Plot date: Apr 06, 2021-08:09:34am CAD User: psimon. Xref Filename: | X20-10570_TB | Mockos | X20-10570_Prop Screen Plan | Dahl | Ochiltree R | Palmatier | Gray |48842STATE OF WASHING T ONR EGISTE R E DPRO F ESSIONAL EN G IN EERGI SOKOCMYRO EGRTREOBR Scale: One Inch at Full ScaleDrawn: Checked: Designed: Scale AccordinglyIf Not One Inch BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAD M-15 73 P20-10570_M-15 SOLIDS PROCESSING BUILDING DEWATERING ROOM SECTIONS 3/8" = 1'-0" G. Mockos, P.E. S. Olsoe R. Dorn, P.E. NOTES: 1. REFER TO DWG M-1 FOR GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES. 2. ECOREMEDY EQUIPMENT SHOWN AS EX PER CLARITY. REFER TO ECOREMEDY DESIGN FOR LAYOUT OF EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT SIZING, ANCHORING, AND CONNECTION LOCATIONS. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: SUPPORT PIPE PER DWG G-10. INSTALL HACH SOLITAC SC SENSOR TSS METER. INSTALL SENSOR PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS. INSTALL METER PER VERTICAL MOUNTING DETAIL BY MANUFACTURER. INSTALL SC200 CONTROLLER ON ADJACENT WALL AT ELEVATION 8.50. INSTALL BADGER MODMAG M2000 MAGNETIC FLOW METER PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS AND DETAIL 1/M-19. INSTALL CONTROLLER ON ADJACENT WALL AT ELEVATION 8.50. AFC EQUIPMENT PAD PER STRUCTURAL. INSTALL AND SUPPORT ACF DUCT PER DUCT MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. DUCT SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED TO BUILDING EXTERIOR. INSTALL CONDENSATE DRAIN PER DETAIL 1/M-16. INSTALL ACF PER ACF MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. MINIMUM SLOPE 2% TOWARD CONDENSATE DRAIN. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ADD ALTERNATE #13 ADD ALTERNATE #2 A M-12SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" SECTION EX EL 5.31 C/L EL 13.31 IE 15.67 4" DS DI 1'-3"MIN2'-6"MIN6" TEE EX 6" DS 4" x 3" CONCENTRIC REDUCER 4" x 2" COMPANION FLANGE WITH 2" 316 SST BALL VALVE WAT-610 6" x 4" ECCENTRIC REDUCER CONNECT TO EX 6" WAT-610 SUCTION EX 6" DS EX WAS TANK 2'-8" 7'-3"DMFM3" DS DI FM-60454 DM-60332 2 1 ADD ALTERNATE #13 WEST A M-14SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION EX EL 18.81± EX EL 24.81± TOP OF EX PARAPET EL 37.31 ACF9 EL 19.48± EL 30.17± 20" ACF DUCT SLOPEEL 34.18± EL 32.52± 8 6 7 20" ACF DUCT 7 10 ADD ALTERNATE #2 5'-1"13'-1"10'-4" EL 28.94±EL 28.94± 4'-6" SLOPE 8 Average Grade EL 17+ Maxiumum Ht. +42' Average Grade + 17' Actual Ht. +34.18' Attachment 6Exhibit 1 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 778-0907 May 7, 2021 Prepared for City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the technical professionals noted below. Document prepared by: Steve Quarterman Senior Associate Document reviewed by: Jeffrey Fellows, PE Principal Date: May 7, 2021 Project No.: 0074209.010.011 File path: \\edmdata01\projects\074\209.010\R\CritAreas\EDM WWTP Critical Areas Report.docx Project Coordinator: KJG Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project iii May 7, 2021 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project iv May 7, 2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South. The proposed replacement technology is a gas-fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally be within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. Wetlands, surface waters, and/or their buffers fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Washington State Department of Ecology under the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act, and the City under the critical areas regulations (Chapter 23.40) in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Landau Associates, Inc. conducted a wetland and waterway critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a wetland delineation; an evaluation of mitigation sequencing; an assessment of unavoidable, project-related impacts; and a description of the proposed compensatory mitigation. The proposed upgrades will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffers. Temporarily impacted wetland buffers will be enhanced following construction. Permanently impacted buffer areas will be mitigated through enhancement of remaining buffer in excess of a three-to-one (3:1) enhancement-to-impact ratio. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project v May 7, 2021 MITIGATION FACT SHEET Abbreviations and Acronyms: N/A = not applicable PEM = Palustrine emergent WRIA = Water Resource Inventory Area Site Information Location Wetland Impact and Mitigation Sites (same) Site Name(s) City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant County Snohomish City Edmonds Section, Township, Range Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E Latitude, Longitude (GIS-verified) 47 48' 231"N, 122 22' 58"W Watershed Cedar-Sammamish WRIA 8 Is the mitigation site(s) off of the project development site? No Construction schedule (development site and compensation site[s]): Construction is anticipated to begin in 2021. Summary of project, including proposed type and location of work, discussion of avoidance and minimization measures, goals and objectives, wetland functions, impacted and mitigated (note assessment method used), and the general design concept (include where it has been done before). The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South. The proposed replacement technology is a gas-fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally be within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. Construction will occur in wetland buffer areas, which will be restored/enhanced; however, no net loss of functions will occur. Wetlands/Waterways Delineated in Project Vicinity Feature Name Approximate Feature Size within Project Area Cowardin Classification Stream Type HGM Class Ecology Rating Water Quality/ Hydrologic/Habitat Function Scores Landscape Position Buffer Width Wetland A 0 PEM N/A Depressional I 8,8,7 Terrace 110 feet Critical Area Impacts and Mitigation Wetland Type (Cowardin, HGM classification, Ecology Rating) Feature Name Area Impacted (sf)-+ Restoration (sf) PEM/Depressional, Category I Wetland A N/A N/A Describe other impacts and/or other mitigation activities. The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffer associated with facility modifications and access improvements. Exterior improvements to the WWTP in wetland buffer will occur on the west side of the building associated with a new loading dock and access improvements. The loading dock will include temporary and permanent components, where the temporary component will occur in SR 104 right-of-way and the permanent component will occur on City property. The permanent component of the loading dock will be 12 feet (ft) by 12 ft (144 square feet [sf]) consisting of structural platform consisting of either fiberglass, wood, or steel with a wood or composite deck. The temporary component of the loading dock is 12 ft by 13 ft (156 sf) and may be reinstalled as needed in support of project maintenance activities following construction. To compensate for impacts to wetland/waterway buffer functions that have occurred, a planting plan has been designed that will enhance the wetland buffer complex on site post construction. The planting plan covers 1,255 sf, which provides mitigation at a ratio of 4.2:1, which is in excess of the 3:1 ratio. Trees to be removed as part of construction will be placed in the wetland buffer to serve as downed large wood. Describe the buffers being provided for the mitigation site, including minimum and maximum width, total buffer area, and description of surrounding land uses. Existing buffer area outside of permanent impacts are maintained and will be restored/enhanced adjacent to the project. Describe the water regime at the mitigation site(s), including source of water, expected water depth, average outflow (winter, spring, summer), and ownership of water rights. N/A. Provide a list of performance standards and the estimated time to reach each. Refer to Section 5.4 for performance standards related to plant survival, species diversity, invasive species, and structural diversity. Monitoring will occur over a 5-year period following construction and plant installation. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project vi May 7, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iii Mitigation Fact Sheet……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Site Description .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Regulatory Background ...................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Wetland Investigation ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Background Information Review ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Wetland Delineation ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Wetland Classification and Buffer Width Determination ................................................... 2-2 2.3 Waterway Delineation ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................. 2-3 2.5 Mitigation Sequencing ........................................................................................................ 2-3 3.0 WETLAND AND WATERWAY INVESTIGATION RESULTS ................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Background Information Review ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Waterways ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Soils ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.4 Floodplain ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.5 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.6 Precipitation .................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Field Investigation .............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1 Wetland A ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1.2 Soil ............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1.4 Wetland Determination ............................................................................. 3-3 3.2.1.5 Upland Characterization ............................................................................ 3-3 4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................... 4-1 5.0 MITIGATION ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Mitigation Sequencing ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.2 Minimization ................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Mitigation Requirements ................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Planting Plan ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.1 Vegetation and Spacing ................................................................................... 5-2 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project vii May 7, 2021 5.1.2 Other Habitat Improvements ........................................................................... 5-3 5.1.3 Project Phasing and Specifications ................................................................... 5-3 5.1.4 Proposed Enhanced Functions ......................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ............................................... 5-4 6.0 MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND SITE PROTECTION ................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Monitoring Quality Control Oversight ................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Monitoring/Site Maintenance Program ............................................................................. 6-1 6.3 Site Protection .................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.4 Contingency Plan ................................................................................................................ 6-2 7.0 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS ....................................................................... 7-1 8.0 USE OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 8-1 9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 9-1 FIGURES Figure Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Study Area Map 3 Wetland Location Map 4 Wetland Buffer Impact Map 5 Enhancement Plan TABLES Table Title 1 Methods for Wetland Delineation APPENDICES Appendix Title A Background Information Review Figures B Soil Profile Reports C Precipitation Data D Wetland Determination Data Forms E Selected Site Photographs F Wetland Rating Forms and Figures G ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(f) - Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands H Mitigation Planting Specifications Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project viii May 7, 2021 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AgACIS ................................................. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System bgs ................................................................................................. below ground surface City ......................................................................................................... City of Edmonds ECDC ............................................................... Edmonds Community Development Code Ecology ........................................................... Washington State Department of Ecology FAC .................................................................................................................. facultative FACU ................................................................................................... facultative upland FACW ................................................................................................ facultative wetland FEMA ............................................................... Federal Emergency Management Agency ft ....................................................................................................................... foot/feet GIS .............................................................................. Geographic Information Software HGM .................................................................................................... hydrogeomorphic HPA ....................................................................................... Hydraulic Project Approval LAI ............................................................................................... Landau Associates, Inc. N/A ............................................................................................................ not applicable NAVD88 ............................................................. North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NRCS .................................................................. Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI .................................................................................... National Wetlands Inventory NWIFC ............................................................... Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission OBL ...................................................................................................................... obligate OHWM .................................................................................... ordinary high water mark PEM ................................................................................................. Palustrine emergent PSSC ............................................................ palustrine, scrub/shrub, seasonally flooded RCW ................................................................................... Revised Code of Washington ROW ............................................................................................................. right-of-way sf ................................................................................................ square foot/square feet SMP ........................................................................................ Shoreline Master Program SR .................................................................................................................. State Route SWIFD .............................................. Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution USACE................................................................................ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA .............................................................................. U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS ................................................................................ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAC ............................................................................ Washington Administrative Code WDFW .......................................................... Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife WRIA .............................................................................. Water Resource Inventory Area WWTP ................................................................................Wastewater Treatment Plant Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project ix May 7, 2021 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 1-1 May 7, 2021 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project (project), which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South (Figure 1). The proposed replacement technology is a gas-fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally be within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) conducted a wetland and waterway critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a wetland delineation; an evaluation of mitigation sequencing; an assessment of unavoidable, project-related impacts; and a description of the proposed compensatory mitigation. The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffers. Temporarily impacted wetland buffers will be enhanced following construction, and permanent impacts will be mitigated through enhancement of existing buffer area and will not result in a net loss of buffer functions. 1.1 Site Description The approximately 2,600 square-foot (sf) project area is located in Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E and in Water Resource Inventory Area 8 – Cedar/Sammamish, in Washington State. The project area is developed with the existing WWTP facility (Figure 2). Topography in the vicinity of the project area is relatively flat. The study area extends 200 feet (ft) beyond the project area (Figure 2). Visual observation and public domain resources were used to estimate the extent of wetland/waterway habitat in the study area. Review of the study area was limited to observation from public rights-of-way (ROW). 1.2 Regulatory Background Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act requires the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States.” Title 23.50 and 23.90 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) contain requirements for establishing wetland and stream buffer widths and building setbacks as well as requirements for alterations made within or adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, including filling of wetlands, streams, and their buffers. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requires compliance with the State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington [RCW]). Ecology oversees the administration of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which holds that a water quality certification Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 1-2 May 7, 2021 must be issued for any activities that may result in a discharge into USACE jurisdictional “waters of the United States.” Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state waters, including streams and rivers, must be authorized by a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit, issued by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). The WDFW HPA is administered under Chapter 77.55 RCW and Chapter 220-660 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Wetlands and certain waterways are regulated by federal, state, and local government agencies, and compliance with the permitting requirements of one agency does not necessarily fulfill the requirements of the other agencies. The delineated wetlands and/or waterways described in this report are subject to verification by the USACE. The USACE determines the jurisdiction of a wetland based on its connection, or adjacency, to other “waters of the United States.” Only the USACE can determine if a wetland is adjacent or isolated. Isolated wetlands do not fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE but may be subject to regulation by Ecology under the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48). If delineated wetlands are determined to be adjacent rather than isolated, filling or dredging of onsite wetlands would require compliance with Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 2-1 May 7, 2021 2.0 METHODS LAI reviewed publicly available information, completed a wetland and waterway delineation and impact assessment for the proposed project, and prepared a mitigation plan for project-related impacts to critical areas in accordance with the methods described below. 2.1 Wetland Investigation LAI conducted the wetland delineation in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (2010). Waterways were delineated using Ecology’s Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (2016). The USACE and Ecology recommend preliminary data-gathering and synthesis of available background information followed by a field investigation. 2.1.1 Background Information Review LAI reviewed the following public domain resources to identify existing conditions, potential wetlands and other “waters of the United States,” and other critical areas within the study area: • US Geological Survey topographic map (Appendix A, Figure A-1) • Aerial imagery (Google Earth, accessed April 12, 2021)1 • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-2) • Soil survey geographic database and soil survey report (US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS], accessed February 28, 2020; Appendix A, Figure A-3) • National Hydric Soils List (USDA NRCS 2021; accessed April 12, 2021) • City of Edmonds critical areas map (City of Edmonds; accessed April 12, 2021) • City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (SMP) • Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution dataset (WDFW Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission [NWIFC], accessed April 12, 2021) • Flood data (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2020; Appendix A, Figure A-4) • Precipitation data (Agricultural Applied Climate Information System [AgACIS], accessed April 12, 2021). 2.1.2 Wetland Delineation An LAI biologist completed the wetland delineation using the routine onsite method, where data are collected at locations representative of typical wetlands and/or uplands. An area is determined to be a wetland if the following three criteria are met using this method (attached Table 1): 1 Website: https://www.google.com/earth/. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 2-2 May 7, 2021 • The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic • Soils are hydric • Wetland hydrology is present. 2.2 Wetland Classification and Buffer Width Determination Wetlands identified within the project area were classified in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the USACE’s hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system (Brinson 1993). Wetlands were rated in accordance with the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014), a practice accepted by the City. This system is used to categorize wetlands based on their existing functions, including water quality, hydrology, and habitat, as well as their rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, or irreplaceability. Wetland categories range from 1 to 4 (highest to lowest categories) and are defined in Chapter 23.50.010 of the ECDC as follows: • Category I wetlands are: (a) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; (b) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR); (c) bogs; (d) mature and old-growth forested wetlands larger than one acre; (e) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (f) interdunal wetlands that score eight or nine habitat points and are larger than one acre; and (g) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (a) represent unique or rare wetland types; (b) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (c) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (d) provide a high level of functions. • Category II wetlands are: (a) estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; (b) interdunal wetlands larger than one acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (c) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points). • Category III wetlands are: (a) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (b) can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project; and (c) interdunal wetlands between one-tenth and one acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. • Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that should be capable of being replaced, or in some cases being improved. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions and should be protected to some degree. Wetland buffers were determined in accordance with Chapter 23.50.040 of the ECDC. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 2-3 May 7, 2021 2.3 Waterway Delineation The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determination for waterways was completed using guidance developed by Ecology (2016). The delineation of the OHWM is based on site observations. The methodology includes an examination of existing hydrologic data and field indicators for hydrology, sediment, scour marks, changes in vegetation, etc. 2.4 Impact Assessment Project improvement limits were overlaid on the waterway and buffer boundaries using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. Areas of impact (both temporary and permanent) were calculated using GIS. Existing buffer functions were assessed with a narrative evaluation and best professional judgment. 2.5 Mitigation Sequencing Mitigation sequencing for wetlands and associated buffers was evaluated in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.40.120. The evaluation included avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of adverse impacts. Mitigation methods must be prioritized as follows: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. LAI used best professional judgment to compare pre- and post-mitigation functions. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 3-1 May 7, 2021 3.0 WETLAND AND WATERWAY INVESTIGATION RESULTS This section summarizes the results of LAI’s background information review and field investigation. 3.1 Background Information Review Background information was derived from topographic, City, NWI, soil survey reports, and other sources documenting conditions in, and adjacent to, the project area. 3.1.1 Waterways The USGS topographic map (USGS, accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-1), NWI map (USFWS, accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-2), and City critical areas map do not identify any waterways in the study area. 3.1.2 Wetlands The USGS topographic map (USGS, accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-1) identifies an area south of the WWTP in the study area as marsh; City critical areas mapping identifies a similar extent as wetland, which is also identified as an associated wetland under the City’s SMP. The NWI map (USFWS, accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-2) identifies a portion of the mapped wetland as palustrine, scrub/shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC) wetland. 3.1.3 Soils The Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS, accessed April 12, 2021) identifies the following three soil series within the study area (Appendix A, Figure A-3; Appendix B): • The Alderwood (5) series consists of moderately well-drained, gravelly, sandy loam to very gravelly, sandy loam. Parent material is glacial drift and/or glacial outwash overlying dense glaciomarine deposits. This soil series map unit has a hydric rating where components of the McKenna, Norma, or Terric Medisprists series are present in depressions (USDA NRCS, accessed April 12, 2021). • The Mukilteo (34) series consists of very poorly drained muck. Parent material is organic deposits and depth to seasonal water table may range at the surface to a depth of 30 centimeters. This soil series has a hydric rating (USDA NRCS, accessed April 12, 2021). • Urban Land (5, 78) consists of nearly level to gently sloping areas covered by streets, buildings, parking lots, and other structures that obscure or alter the soils (USDA NRCS 1983). This soil series is not rated as hydric (USDA NRCS, accessed April 12, 2021). 3.1.4 Floodplain FEMA mapping (2020; Appendix A, Figure A-4) identifies a 100-year floodplain associated with the Puget Sound coast within the study area, with associated base flood elevation of 12 ft North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 3-2 May 7, 2021 3.1.5 Land Use A review of Google Earth aerial imagery (accessed March 6, 2020) indicates that the study area is developed with roadways and public utilities and includes undeveloped area to the south of the WWTP (Figure 2). 3.1.6 Precipitation During the 3 months preceding the field investigation, precipitation levels in the project area were wetter than normal (AgACIS, accessed March 6, 2020; Appendix C). 3.2 Field Investigation LAI Senior Associate Steven Quarterman conducted a field investigation of the study area on February 27, 2021. Temperatures ranged from 40 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit with clear weather conditions. Two sampling points (SP-1 and SP-2) were established in the study area to characterize hydrology, vegetation, and soil in wetland area and adjacent upland. The wetland determination data forms used to record field observations are included in Appendix D. Selected site photographs are provided in Appendix E, and wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix F. 3.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A (Figure 3) is located south of the WWTP and extends beyond the study area. Wetland A is identified on USGS topographic mapping and City critical areas and SMP maps. Sample point SP-1 was established to characterize Wetland A. 3.2.1.1 Vegetation Wetland A is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Red alder (Alnus rubra, facultative [FAC]), Himalyan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC), and water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa, obligate [OBL]) were the dominant plant species in sample point SP-1, and additional species observed in the wetland include broad leaf cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL). 3.2.1.2 Soil Soil at sample point SP-1 satisfied the hydric soils criteria as a loamy gleyed matrix (F2). The soil profile consisted of an organic layer from 0 to 1 inch below ground surface (bgs), underlain by a dark bluish grey (5 PB 4/1) loamy sand from at least 1 to 12 inches bgs. 3.2.1.3 Hydrology In Wetland A, Surface Water (A1), High Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3), and Water Marks (B1) were the primary indicators of wetland hydrology. Wetland A hydrology is predominantly supplied by precipitation and groundwater, and a segment of Shellabarger Creek flows through the wetland Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 3-3 May 7, 2021 outside of the study area. Wetland A drains toward the east and north. Discharges to the east are conveyed via a culvert under State Route (SR) 104 to Edmonds Marsh and to the north via a culvert adjacent to SR 104 that conveys drainage in the City’s stormwater system to the Puget Sound. 3.2.1.4 Wetland Determination Wetland A satisfies the three wetland criteria in Section 2.1.2, and LAI has classified the wetland as a Palustrine emergent (Cowardin et al. 1979)/depressional (HGM) wetland. LAI provided Wetland A with a Category I wetland rating, with a total score of 23. Wetland A water quality and hydrologic functions both received a score of 8, and habitat functions received a score of 7. In accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.50.040.F, Category I wetlands associated with a habitat score of 7 are prescribed a buffer of 110 ft.2 3.2.1.5 Upland Characterization Data gathered at sampling point SP-2 (Figure 3) were used to characterize the upland area near Wetland A. None of the three mandatory wetland parameters were satisfied and the area was classified as upland. The dominant vegetation at sampling point SP-2 included red alder (FAC) and indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, facultative upland [FACU]). Other vegetation in the vicinity of sampling point SP-2 included maintained landscaping in vicinity of the WWTP and SR 104. At sampling point SP-2, brown (10YR 4/3), loam was observed from 0 to 12 inches bgs, and gravel was encountered at 12 inches bgs that prevented further access to the soil profile. 2 Buffer width prescribed in accordance with ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(a), in which the option for a 100-ft vegetated corridor is not available due to adjacent developments to the wetland and measures provided in (F)(1)(f), are applied as summarized in Appendix G. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 4-1 May 7, 2021 4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Unavoidable impacts to wetlands, waterways, and buffers are described below. Impacted Critical Area Regulatory Agency Impacts (sf) Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Wetland A USACE/City 0 0 Wetland A Buffer City 300 sf 1,095 sf Total Wetland Buffer Impacts 300 sf 1,095 sf Abbreviations and Acronyms: City = City of Edmonds sf = square feet USACE = US Army Corps of Engineers The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffer associated with facility modifications and access improvements. Exterior improvements to the WWTP in wetland buffer will occur on the west side of the building associated with a new loading dock and access improvements (i.e., wall openings; see Appendix H). The loading dock will include temporary and permanent components, where the temporary component will occur in SR 104 ROW and the permanent component will occur on City property. The permanent component of the loading dock will be a 12-ft by 12-ft (144 sf) structural platform consisting of either fiberglass, wood, or steel with a wood or composite deck. The temporary component of the loading dock is 12 ft by 13 ft (156 sf) and may be reinstalled as needed in support of project maintenance activities following construction. The temporary segment of the loading dock is considered part of permanent impacts since it may be reinstalled during project maintenance. The area of permanent impact contains non-native and invasive species, consisting of: • St. Johns wort (Hypericum calycinum), • Portugal laurel (Prunus lusitanica), and • landscape variety of maple tree (Acer sp). Two of the maples in the buffer will be removed as a result of construction. The area of the proposed loading dock contains one maple and sparse ground cover (see Appendix E, Photograph 3). A second wall opening will occur on the southwest corner of the building, facing south. Modification of vegetation in the buffer, limited to trimming of shrub landscaping within approximately 5 ft of the existing building, is expected to provide access to the wall opening. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 5-1 May 7, 2021 5.0 MITIGATION This section outlines a mitigation sequence and mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, waterways, and associated buffers. 5.1 Mitigation Sequencing ECDC Chapter 23.40.120 includes requirements for mitigation of impacts to critical areas. The mitigation sequence methods for avoidance and minimization are described below. 5.1.1 Avoidance The proposed upgrades have been designed to avoid temporary and permanent impacts to Wetland A. 5.1.2 Minimization To minimize impacts, best management practices will be employed during construction to limit erosion and accidental spills (e.g., temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan). In addition, the permanent segment of the loading dock will be located in an area that does not currently have native vegetation and is largely lacking ground cover. In addition, the loading dock structure will be a platform that will retain the underlying soils allowing for surface runoff to flow beneath the structure for potential infiltration. The temporary portion of the loading dock will only be in place when needed during project maintenance, and surface runoff can continue to infiltrate in the area. 5.2 Unavoidable Impacts Given the extent and location of Wetland A buffer relative to the WWTP, impacts to functional buffers cannot be avoided. Unavoidable project impacts are limited to clearing of vegetation to provide access during construction and installation of 12-ft by 12-ft portion of the loading dock and maintenance of the area of the 12-ft by 13-ft section of the temporary segment of the loading dock. The temporary segment of the loading dock is considered part of permanent impacts since it may be reinstalled during project maintenance. 5.2.1 Mitigation Requirements Proposed mitigation of wetland buffer impacts will include enhancement, in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.40.120: “Compensating for the impact … by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments.” ECDC 23.50.040(I)(1) allows for additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers provided that an enhancement plan is prepared. Such additions are subject to the following sequence (project evaluation is provided following criteria): Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 5-2 May 7, 2021 a) Outside of the standard wetland buffer; The proposed addition cannot be located outside of the buffer due to location of equipment within the WWTP. b) Outside of a wetland buffer averaged (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(3) of this section; Wetland buffer averaging is not feasible due to the extent of existing developments in the project vicinity. c) Outside of a wetland buffer reduced (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(4) of this section; Not applicable. Subsection (G)(4) is not applicable to Category I wetlands. d) Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 300 square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum three-to-one (3:1) ratio (enhancement-to-impact); The proposed project occurs outside of the inner 50 percent standard buffer width of Wetland A (see Figure 4). The proposed mitigation plan provides buffer enhancement in excess of 3:1, refer to Planting Plan in the following section. e) Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 500 square feet of new footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum five-to-one (5:1) ratio (enhancement-to- impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques and other measures are included as part of the wetland/buffer enhancement plan. Not applicable; refer to criteria (d) above. 5.1 Planting Plan To compensate for impacts to wetland/waterway buffer functions that have occurred, a planting plan has been designed that will restore and enhance the wetland buffer complex on site post construction. The planting plan covers 1,255 sf, providing mitigation at a ratio of 4.2:1 (including area of temporary loading dock), which is in excess of the 3:1 ratio referenced in ECDC Chapter 23.50.040(I)(1)(d). The planting plan, as well as project phasing, is presented in this section. 5.1.1 Vegetation and Spacing The planting plan is designed to restore wetland buffer habitat and water quality functions and provide enough shade to control the spread of invasive species. The planting plan is based on an average density of one tree or shrub per 6 ft on center, plus groundcover. Vegetation planting is limited to the designated buffer enhancement area (Figure 5). One native tree species, four native shrub species, and native groundcover have been selected to supplement the existing native species near the project site. These species have been chosen not only for their ability to tolerate site-specific soil and moisture conditions, but also for their ability to provide wildlife forage, habitat, and erosion control functions. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 5-3 May 7, 2021 The layout of the plant communities was designed to maximize interspersion of species. The layout of plants will include informal and irregular groupings to resemble naturally occurring plant assemblages. Because of the complexity of site topography, existing soils, and work within wetland buffer areas, as well as the importance of retaining existing desirable vegetation, the actual layout of plants will be determined by a biologist (qualified City staff or hired consultant)representing the City. Species selected for the planting plan include: • Shore pine (Pinus contorta) • Flowing currant (Ribes sanguineum) • Vine maple (Acer circinatum) • Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum) • Salal (Gaulthoria shallon) • Native grass seed mix. 5.1.2 Other Habitat Improvements In addition to the planting plan, trees to be removed during construction will be placed in the wetland buffer to serve as habitat features (i.e., downed large wood). The placement of the downed trees will be coordinated with the City, with preference for placement in the buffer area south of the public trail adjacent to the WWTP. 5.1.3 Project Phasing and Specifications Detailed specifications suggested for implementing the buffer enhancement are included in Appendix H. A summary of the construction sequencing for the mitigation project is as follows: 1. Mark planting area in field 2. Mobilize construction equipment and materials to the project site, as needed 3. Clear all invasive species and other material and obstructions identified on plans/specifications 4. Place downed trees in buffer outside of project area 5. Complete facility construction activities 6. Complete planting area site preparation and layout for approval by biologist 7. Complete plant installation 8. Complete cleanup and as-built survey/markup. 5.1.4 Proposed Enhanced Functions Pre-impact function levels at the project site were estimated by comparing the site with surrounding buffer areas. This evaluation was informed by the document Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2005) and best professional judgment given specific indicators. Functions typically associated with wetland buffers include water quality (removing Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 5-4 May 7, 2021 sediment, nutrients, toxins and pathogens, and maintaining microclimate) and habitat (species richness, structural diversity/cover classes, visual screening from adjacent human development, and habitat connectivity). The mitigation plan includes enhancing the impacted functions of the wetland buffer, specifically the water quality and habitat functions, through removal of invasive species; planting of native ground covers, shrubs, and trees; and placement of large, downed wood in the buffer. The planting plan includes a diverse assemblage of native vegetation that will provide species and structural diversity. 5.2 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards Goals are broad statements that generally define the intent or purpose of the proposed mitigation. Objectives specify the direct actions necessary to achieve the stated goals. Performance standards are the measurable values of specific variables that ensure objectives have been met. They provide the basis for determining if mitigation is a regulatory success. One main goal has been outlined for this effort: • Goal #1: Compensate for impacts to wetland buffer functions incurred by temporary and permanent clearing in the Wetland A buffer. ‒ Objective A: Increase native species diversity in the impacted buffer area. Performance Standard 1A: Plant Survival - at the end of Year 1, there will be 100 percent survival of installed vegetation. There will be 80 percent survival of installed woody species in subsequent monitoring years. Appropriate volunteer species will be counted for each dead or missing plant. Performance Standard 2A: Species Diversity - at the end of each monitoring year, at least four desirable native or introduced species will represent 10 percent or more cover. Performance Standard 3A: Invasive Species – total cover of invasive species will be 10 percent or less in each year of monitoring. ‒ Objective B: Increase structural diversity of the buffer area. Performance Standard 1B: Vegetation Stratum in the enhancement area – in the final year of monitoring, species cover of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species will represent at least 80 percent cover, with each stratum providing a minimum of 10 percent cover. Performance Standard 2B: Downed large wood – as-built plan (i.e., Year 0) will document that at least two trees removed as a result of construction have been placed in the wetland buffer. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 6-1 May 7, 2021 6.0 MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND SITE PROTECTION Monitoring and maintenance are important elements for the success of the restoration project. The proposed restoration will be monitored during and after completion of the initial construction work, as described below. 6.1 Monitoring Quality Control Oversight During earthwork and plant installation, a qualified biologist/City representative will verify that grade and soil conditions are correct per specifications, plant materials are healthy and consist of the correct species and sizes as designated on the planting plan, and that they are placed in the correct growing environments. When plant installation is complete, the biologist/City representative will conduct an inspection and provide detailed notes on any changes to the final mitigation plan. This “as-built” plan will serve as the baseline for monitoring, and the monitoring period will commence when the City’s biologist approves the “as-built” plan. The final checklist will be used to document that specifications have been met. 6.2 Monitoring/Site Maintenance Program The City will monitor the success of the plantings, in years 1, 3, and 5 throughout a 5-year period, as required by ECDC Chapter 23.40.130(D). Landscape maintenance by the City will occur as needed for successful establishment of the plantings. While plant species chosen for this mitigation proposal are adapted to conditions in western Washington, supplemental irrigation is recommended during the first three growing seasons following installation to promote long-term survival of the planted communities.3 The primary maintenance activities that may be required within the mitigation area are irrigation and/or removal of nuisance species. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list (NWCB 2018) and occurring within the easement should be hand-weeded from the planted areas for the duration of the monitoring period. Plants installed for mitigation will be replaced, as needed. 6.3 Site Protection In accordance with the ECDC, as a condition of any permit or authorization, the Planning Director may require the applicant to install permanent or temporary signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. The placement of such signs may be limited because only a portion of Wetland A and associated buffer is located on City property, and the site is not an active use area (i.e., undeveloped property and not promoted for public recreational use). These limitations would reduce the effectiveness of permanent signs, and no permanent signs are proposed for this project. 3 The proposed planting area is contiguous with landscaping located outside of the critical area buffer. An irrigation plan is not included in this critical areas documentation, and it is assumed the City (or its Contractor) will include irrigation design with the overall project plan, and will include the proposed buffer enhancement area. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 6-2 May 7, 2021 6.4 Contingency Plan A contingency plan may be necessary if monitoring determines that the mitigation is not successfully meeting performance standards. In this case, the monitoring report will include a discussion of potential cause for failure to meet performance standards and will recommend appropriate actions to address the problem. The proposed contingency actions will depend on the problem being addressed. For example, if all plants of a single species die, a more appropriate replacement species will be determined for the site conditions. If invasive species out-compete the native vegetation, additional control efforts may be warranted. Under certain conditions, irrigation may be necessary. If implementation of a contingency plan is deemed necessary, all proposed actions will be planned and submitted to the City for approval before they are implemented. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 7-1 May 7, 2021 7.0 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS The City is proposing the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility, resulting in unavoidable wetland buffer impacts. The mitigation plan presented in this report meets City requirements, as outlined in the ECDC. The plans and performance standards presented in this report will mitigate for impacts to wetland buffer areas by the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project will restore and enhance buffer function so that the site will have incurred no net loss of wetland buffer functions. The mitigation plan includes monitoring and maintenance duties and schedules to promote its success. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 8-1 May 7, 2021 8.0 USE OF THIS REPORT The findings presented herein are based on Landau Associates’ understanding of the Edmonds Community Development Code and wetland/waterway delineation methodology developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology. Findings are also based on Landau Associates’ interpretation of the vegetative, soil, and hydrologic conditions observed during the February 15, 2021 site visit. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, findings accord with generally accepted sensitive area-investigation principles and practices in this locality, at the time the report was prepared. Landau Associates makes no other warranty, either express or implied. This report was prepared for the use of the City of Edmonds and applicable regulatory agencies. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user’s sole risk. Wetland/waterways delineations are considered preliminary until approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or local jurisdictional agencies. Because wetlands and waterways are dynamic communities, their boundaries may change over time. Regulatory agencies typically honor delineations for 5 years after an approved jurisdictional determination. In addition, changes in government code, regulations, and/or laws could affect wetland boundaries and/or the ways in which delineations or ratings are conducted. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 9-1 May 7, 2021 9.0 REFERENCES AgACIS. Precipitation Data. Agriculture Applied Climate Information System. Accessed March 6, 2020. Available online at: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. City of Edmonds. City of Edmonds, GIS. Available online at: https://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Edmonds_SSL.HTML. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Publication No. FWS/OBS-79-31. US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior. December. Ecology. 2005. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: A Synthesis of Science. Publication No. 05-06-006. Washington State Department of Ecology. Ecology. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology. October. FEMA. Flood Map Service Center. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed March 6, 2020. Available online at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Gretag-Macbeth Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New York, NY. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication No. 14-06-029). Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron. 41:1–42. April 2. NWCB. 2018. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. Available online at: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/default.asp. USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. January. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Publication No. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Version 2.0 Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May. Available online at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/west_mt_finalsupp2. pdf. USDA NRCS. 1983. Soil Survey Report of Snohomish County Area, Washington. US Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service. July. USDA NRCS. National Hydric Soils List. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed March 6, 2020. Available online at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html. USDA NRCS. Soil Survey Geographic Database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/soil-survey- geographics-database-ssurgo. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 9-2 May 7, 2021 USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. USFWS. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. (Maps for 1981 to 2020). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html. USGS. Topographic Map. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/. WDFW NWIFC. Statewide Integrated Fish Distribution Web Map. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Available online at: https://geo.nwifc.org/swifd/. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 ST99 ST524 ST104 EdmondsWay9th Ave SOlympicViewDr232nd St SW Pine St P u g e t Dr Main St Bowdoin W a y9thAveNCaspersSt 220th St SW WoodwayParkRd3rd Ave N100th Ave W3rd Ave SCityPark D eerCreek ShellCreek Puget Sound EsperanceEsperance WoodwayWoodway Data Source: Esri 2012 Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Vicinity Map Figure1 0 0.5 1 Miles G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\F01 VicMap.mxd 4/26/2021 Project Location ! !!! !! ! W a s h i n g t o nW a s h i n g t o n Olympia ProjectLocation Tacoma Spokane Everett Seattle Attachment 7Exhibit 1 SR-1042nd Avenue SouthDayton Avenue Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Study Area Map Figure2 0 100 200 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend Project Area Study Area G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\F02 StudyAreaMap.mxd 4/26/2021 | ezickAttachment 7Exhibit 1 !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !SR-1042nd Avenue SouthWetland AA-10 A-9 A-8 A-7 A-4A-6 A-5 A-3 SP-1 A-2 A-1 A-13 A-11A-12 SP-2 Data Source: King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Wetland Location Map Figure3 Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend Project Area Study Area !Sample Point Wetland Wetland Buffer (110 ft) G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\F03 WetlandLocationMap.mxd 5/7/2021 | JValluzzi 0 60 120 Scale in Feet Wetland continues to the south and east Attachment 7Exhibit 1 !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !SR-104Carbon Filter (Proposed) 12'W x 12'D Loading Dock(Proposed) (Permanently Installed) Wall Opening(Proposed)Wall Opening(Proposed) Temporary Construction Access PlatformTop of Platform to Match Bottom ofTemporary Wall Opening Which will beClosed up with Removable Panels after Construction. Overall Platform DimensionsDuring Construction 12'W x 25'D. After Construction Leave in Place a 12'W x 12'DPortion to be Permanently Installed. Property Line Shrub Trimming within 5ft of building,but no clearing on south side of building Clearing Limits(Temporary Impacts) Temporary BufferImpact = 1095 sf Loading Dock (Permanent and Temporary Section = 300 sf) Wetland A A-10 A-9 A-8 A-7 A-4A-6 A-5 A-3 SP-1 A-2 A-1 A-13 A-11A-12 SP-2 Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Wetland Buffer Impact Map Figure4 0 30 60 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation.G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\F04 WetlandBufferImpactMap.mxd 5/7/2021 | JValluzziWetland continues to the south and east Legend Clearing Limits Permanent Buffer Impact Temporary Buffer Impact !Wetland Point Wetland Line Wetland Buffer (110 ft) Wetland Buffer (55 ft) (50% of Standard Buffer) Wetland Buffer (27.5 ft)(25% of Standard Buffer) Attachment 7Exhibit 1 SR-104Carbon Filter (Proposed) Loading Dock(Temporary Section) Wall Opening(Proposed)Wall Opening(Proposed) Temporary Construction Access PlatformTop of Platform to Match Bottom ofTemporary Wall Opening Which will beClosed up with Removable Panels after Construction. Overall Platform DimensionsDuring Construction 12'W x 25'D. After Construction Leave in Place a 12'W x 12'DPortion to be Permanently Installed. Property Line Shrub Trimming within 5ft of building,but no clearing on south side of building Clearing Limits(Temporary Impacts) Loading Dock(Permanent Section) Wetland A Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery03060 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Wetland continues to the south and east Legend Clearing Limits Wetland Line Wetland Buffer (110 ft) Grass Seed Mix Enhancement Area (460 sf) Tree / Shrub / Ground Cover Enhancement Area (795 sf) Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Enhancement Plan Figure5G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\F05 EnhancementPlan.mxd 5/7/2021 | JValluzziDowned Tree Placement Notes 1. Retain segments of tree trunks from 4 to 6 feet in length or longer from trees to be removed. 2. Branches may be trimmed and placed on downed trees as habitat piles. 3. Habitat piles shall be layered with larger material at/near base. 4. Avoid damage to adjacent vegetation when placing downed trees. Downed trees from clearing limits to beplaced in this vicinity as downed large wood Common Name # of Plants Stock Size Spacing (O.C.) Shore pine 4 6 ft min height 14 ft Vine maple 4 8 ft min height 6 ftRhododendron macrophyllum Pacific rhododendron 4 1.5 ft min height 6 ftRibes sanguineum Flowering currant 5 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Salal 5 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Grass Seed Mix see Grass Seed Mix N/A 460 sq ftNotes: Grass seed mix is limited to area within 6 ft of the SR 104 sidewalk and area of temporary loading dock; Scientific Name Common Name Percent by weightFestuca rubra Red fescue 30Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye 30Bromus carinatus California brome 30Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 10 Enhancement Plantings TOTAL AREA = 1,255 sq ft) Trees Groundcovers no trees or shurbs shall be placed within 6 ft from the edge of pavement. Grass Seed Mix Application 120 lbs/acre Scientific Name Pinus contorta Acer circinatum Gaulthoria shallon Refer to Grass Seed Mix Table Shrubs Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 1 Table 1 Methods for Wetland Determination WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington 5/6/21 \\edmdata01\projects\074\209.010\R\CritAreas\Table 1_complete.docx Landau Associates Parameter Definition Field Indicators Field Assessment Wetland Vegetation Wetland vegetation is adapted to saturated soil conditions. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has assigned a wetland indicator to each plant species that denotes its frequency of occurrence within wetlands (Lichvar et al. 2014). These are: • Obligate (OBL) wetland plants almost always (more than 99 percent of the time) occur in wetlands under natural conditions. • Facultative wetland (FACW) plants usually (67 to 99 percent of the time) occur in wetlands but are occasionally found in non-wetlands. • Facultative (FAC) plants are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands (34 to 66 percent of the time). • Facultative upland (FACU) plants usually occur in non-wetlands but are occasionally found in wetlands (1 to 33 percent of the time). • Obligate upland (UPL) plants almost always (more than 99 percent of the time) occur in uplands. More than 50 percent of the dominant plants totaled from all vegetation strata are hydrophytic (i.e., species with indicators of OBL, FACW, or FAC [regardless of modifier]). or A plant community has a visually estimated cover percentage of OBL and a FACW species that exceeds the coverage of FACU and UPL species. If dominance is not met, the Prevalence Index is calculated, or consideration is given to morphological adaptations and/or non-vascular plants observed. 1. Dominance: The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status are evaluated quantitatively within data plots and visually throughout the study area. If the test for dominance fails, and indicators of wetland soils and hydrology are present, the Prevalence Index is calculated. 2. Prevalence Index: A weighted average of the percent cover of each indicator status is calculated. (See data sheets in Appendix D.) An index of 3 or less satisfies the hydrophytic vegetation criteria. If the Prevalence Index is not met, then consideration is given to morphological adaptations and/or non-vascular plants. 3. Morphological Adaptations/Non-Vascular Plants: Some plants develop recognizable morphological adaptations when they occur in wetland areas. These features must be observed on >50 percent of the individuals of an FACU species living in an area where indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present. Wetland non-vascular plants can include bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, and hormworts). The cover of wetland bryophytes must be >50 percent of the total bryophyte cover in a plot in coastal Washington, forested wetlands. Wetland Soils(a) Soils are classified as hydric, or they possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. A hydric soil is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding, and during the growing season, anaerobic conditions develop in the upper part of the soil. Hydric soils have an identifiable color pattern, which occurs if the soil is saturated, flooded, or ponded for a long period of time. Faint or washed-out colors typically form in the soil, and mottles of bright color, such as rust (known as redoxymorphic features), form. Accumulations of organic matter at the surface, a sulfurous odor, and organic matter stains also may be present. A shovel is used to dig holes at least 20 inches below ground surface (bgs) at multiple locations in the study area. Direct observation of the soil is made at multiple locations in wetlands and uplands, as applicable. Soil organic content is determined visually and texturally, and soil color is determined using the Munsell soil color chart (Gretag-Macbeth 1994). Depth to water saturation and/or inundation is also observed. The characteristics observed are compared to the hydric soil indicators for “all soils,” “sandy soils,” and “loamy clayey soils,” as described in the USACE Regional Supplement (USACE 2010). Wetland Hydrology(b) The area is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water depths less than or equal to 6.6 feet. or The soil is inundated or saturated to the surface for at least 14 consecutive days during the growing season.(c) Primary indicators of wetland hydrology include surface inundation (standing water), saturated soils, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. Secondary indicators include water-stained leaves, oxidized root channels, or local soil survey data for identified soils. In the absence of primary indicators, at least two secondary indicators are required to meet the wetland hydrology criteria. During investigation of soils, soil pits are allowed to stand for up to 20 minutes to allow groundwater to percolate into the pit to determine groundwater level in the soil profile. During the dry season, the pit may be extended to 24 inches bgs to investigate groundwater levels. In addition, the extent of soil saturation and the presence/absence of oxidation are determined in the soils removed. Other indicators of wetland hydrology are observed at ground surface. Notes: (a) USACE 1987, 2010. USDA NRCS 2012. (b) USACE 1987, 2010. (c) The growing season is the time during which two or more non-evergreen, vascular plant species growing in a wetland or surrounding area exhibit biological activity, such as new growth. The growing season also can be determined by soil temperature. The growing season identified on the WETS table for the project area is February 28 to November 22 (see Appendix C). Attachment 7Exhibit 1 APPENDIX A Background Information Review Figures Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; USGS; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington USGS Topographic Map FigureA-1 0 300 600 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend Project Area Study Area G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\FA1 USGSTopoMap.mxd 4/27/2021 | JValluzziAttachment 7Exhibit 1 SR-1042nd Avenue SouthDayton Avenue Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington NWI Map FigureA-2 0 300 600 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Riverine Project Area Study Area G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\FA2 NWIMap.mxd 4/27/2021 | JValluzziAttachment 7Exhibit 1 SR-1042nd Avenue SouthDayton Avenue 78 5 17 27 34 17 78 Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Soil Series Map FigureA-3 0 300 600 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend Soil Series Project Area Study Area G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\FA3 SoilSeriesMap.mxd 4/27/2021 | JValluzzi5 Alderwood-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 17 Everett Very Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 27 Kitsap Silt Loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 34 Mukilteo Muck 78 Urban Land Soil Series Attachment 7Exhibit 1 SR-1042nd Avenue SouthDayton Avenue 5 17 Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Map FigureA-4 0 300 600 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend FEMA 100-Year Flood (Zone AE) Project Area Study Area G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\FA4 FEMAFloodMap.mxd 4/27/2021 | JValluzziAttachment 7Exhibit 1 APPENDIX B Soil Profile Reports Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 APPENDIX C Precipitation Data Attachment 7Exhibit 1 WETS Table WETS Station: EVERETT, WA Requested years: 1971 - 2000 Month Avg Max Temp Avg Min Temp Avg Mean Temp Avg Precip 30% chance precip less than 30% chance precip more than Avg number days precip 0. 10 or more Avg Snowfall Jan 45.8 33.5 39.7 4.35 3.06 5.17 11 1.2 Feb 49.3 34.8 42.1 3.40 2.38 4.04 10 0.5 Mar 53.3 37.4 45.3 3.84 2.93 4.46 11 0.0 Apr 58.3 41.1 49.7 2.96 2.36 3.39 9 0.0 May 63.9 46.3 55.1 2.57 1.93 3.01 7 0.0 Jun 68.4 51.1 59.8 2.25 1.47 2.70 6 0.0 Jul 73.1 54.2 63.7 1.30 0.62 1.58 3 0.0 Aug 74.0 54.0 64.0 1.35 0.58 1.64 3 0.0 Sep 68.8 48.8 58.8 2.09 1.16 2.55 5 0.0 Oct 59.7 42.5 51.1 3.34 1.86 4.07 9 0.0 Nov 50.6 37.7 44.2 5.15 3.70 6.08 12 0.2 Dec 45.2 34.0 39.6 4.96 3.70 5.81 12 0.4 Annual:34.71 40.36 Average 59.2 42.9 51.1 ----- Total --- 37.56 99 2.3 GROWING SEASON DATES Years with missing data: 24 deg = 6 28 deg = 3 32 deg = 2 Years with no occurrence: 24 deg = 0 28 deg = 0 32 deg = 0 Data years used: 24 deg = 24 28 deg = 27 32 deg = 28 Probability 24 F or higher 28 F or higher 32 F or higher 50 percent *2/2 to 12/17: 318 days 2/28 to 11/22: 267 days 4/7 to 10/25: 201 days 70 percent *1/25 to 12/25: 334 days 2/21 to 11/30: 282 days 4/1 to 11/1: 214 days * Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning and Ending dates. STATS TABLE - total precipitation (inches) Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl 1894 3. 65 4. 02 5.45 4.05 17. 17 1895 4.48 4.48 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 2013 6.22 M2.40 3.67 3.94 M2.31 2.02 M0.04 M1.77 M3. 78 1. 43 M3. 46 M2. 31 33. 35 2014 M4.08 M5.04 7.29 3.77 3.06 1.81 M1.18 M1.59 M3. 52 6. 29 5.54 6.08 49. 25 2015 7.15 5.40 3.37 2.43 0.52 0.62 0.32 2.11 2. 49 3. 63 6.60 8.82 43. 46 2016 M6.89 M3.26 6.11 M2.23 M1.31 1.87 M0.55 M0.09 2. 80 7. 36 8.33 M3. 23 44. 03 2017 M2.29 5.76 7.01 4.02 4.19 M0.93 0.00 0.13 M1.11 M3.43 8.20 M3.89 40.96 2018 M6.45 5.12 M4.97 M5.56 0.61 M2.61 M0.02 0.41 3. 61 3. 37 4.94 4.54 42. 21 2019 2.24 3.05 M1.98 M4.03 2.00 M1.23 M0.90 M0.71 M3. 97 3. 29 M2. 59 M5. 18 31. 17 2020 5.82 7.12 M2.16 M1.89 4.16 4.53 0.72 1.09 2. 73 3. 55 5.42 5.64 44. 83 2021 M5.53 5.09 2.78 M1.09 14. 49 Notes: Data missing in any month have an "M" flag. A "T" indicates a trace of precipitation. Data missing for all days in a month or year is blank. Creation date: 2016-07-22 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination Chapter 19 19–26 (210-vi-EFH, August 1997) Figure 19–7 Rainfall documentation worksheet Long-term rainfall records Month Normal 3 yrs. in 10 less than 3 yrs. in 10 more than Condition dry, wet, normal Condition value Month weight value Sum Conclusions: Product of previous two columns Rain fall 3 2 1 1st prior month* 2nd prior month* 3rd prior month* Date: _____________ Weather station: ______________________ Landowner: _____________________________ Tract no.: ___________ County: ______________________State:___________________ Soil name: ___________________Growing season: _______________________ Photo date: ______________ Note: If sum is 6 - 9 then prior period has been drier than normal 10 - 14 then prior period has been normal 15 - 18 then prior period has been wetter than normal Condition value: Dry =1 Normal =2 Wet =3 Rainfall Documentation (use with photographs) * Compared to photo date Attachment 7Exhibit 1 APPENDIX D Wetland Determination Data Forms Attachment 7Exhibit 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Edmonds WWTP City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date: 2/27/21 Applicant/Owner: City of Edmonds State: WA Sampling Point: SP-1 Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A – Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Mukilteo Muck NWI classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Remarks: Conditions are wetter than normal. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 80 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. Rubus armeniacus 50 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. Oenanthe sarmentosa 1 Y OBL 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. 0 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: Attachment 7Exhibit 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 O layer 1-12+ 5PB 4/1 Loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) X Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Too wet to dig beyond 12”. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) X Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) X Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 3 Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Attachment 7Exhibit 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Edmonds WWTP City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date: 2/27/21 Applicant/Owner: City of Edmonds State: WA Sampling Point: SP-2 Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A – Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Y , Soil N , or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: Conditions are wetter than normal. Vegetation in the area is maintained adjacent to public pathway. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 80 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. 0 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. 0 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 80 x 3 = 240 FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 100 (A) 320 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: Attachment 7Exhibit 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/3 Loam 12+ Refusal Gravel 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Attachment 7Exhibit 1 APPENDIX E Selected Site Photographs Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Figure E-1 Selected Site Photographs 5/6/21 P:\074\209.010\R\CritAreas\Appendix E Photos\Figure E-1.docx Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington 1. Wetland A facing north from SR 104 2. Sample point SP-2 facing east Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Figure E-2 Selected Site Photographs 5/6/21 P:\074\209.010\R\CritAreas\Appendix E Photos\Figure E-2.docx Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington 3. West side of WWTP facing east; area of proposed loading dock Attachment 7Exhibit 1 APPENDIX F Wetland Rating Forms and Figures Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland A Wetland A 2/27/21 SJQ X 3/2008 Depressional X ESRI World Imagery X 8 8 7 23 X Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 A F-1 F-2 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-2 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. A Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. A Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page A 2 4 5 1 1 1 X 2 13 X 1 0 0 2 X 0 2 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 2 5 1 2 A 3 10 X 1 1 X 3 0 2 X Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points A X X X 2 X X 1 1 2 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page A X X 2 8 X X 2 X -2 0 0 -2 X 0120 10 12 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. A X X Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV Cat. I SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Cat. I A Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat I Cat. II Cat. III Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form A N/A Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Data Source: Bing Maps Carbon Recovery Project Wastewater Treatment Plant Edmonds, Washington Figure 0 150 300 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend Cowardin Plant Classes F-1 Forested Remainder of wetland is herbaceous Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Data Source: Bing Maps Carbon Recovery Project Wastewater Treatment Plant Edmonds, Washington Figure 0 150 300 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend Culvert (outlet) Hydroperiods F-2 Shellabarger Creek 150 ft setback Seasonally flooded/inundated (remainder of wetland is saturated) Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Figure F-3. Contributing Basin Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 CARY RO 7TH A V E BROOKMERE DR Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Data Source: Bing Maps Carbon Recovery Project Wastewater Treatment Plant Edmonds, Washington Figure 0 500 1,000 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Legend 1 Kilometer Radius F-4 1 km radius Low and moderate intensity land use Undisturbed habitat Remainder of 1 km radius is in high intensity land use Attachment 7Exhibit 1 WWTPSources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, andApril 13, 202100.10.20.05MilesKAssessed Water/SedimentWaterCategory 5 - 303dCategory 4CCategory 4BCategory 4ACategory 2Category 1SedimentCategory 5 - 303dCategory 4CCategory 4BCategory 4ACategory 2Category 1Figure F-5. 303d ListingsWetland VicinityAttachment 7Exhibit 1 Figure F-6. TMDL Listing None listed in project vicinity Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 APPENDIX G ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(f) - Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Appendix G Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project G-1 May 7, 2021 ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(f). Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Evaluation Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Not applicable, the project does not include any new exterior lighting. Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation planting adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10-foot heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer The proposed project does not include installation of noise generating equipment in the wetland buffer. Noise in the buffer will be temporary during construction. Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management No new pollution generating impervious surface is included as part of the proposed project. Storm water runoff • Retrofit storm water detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use low-intensity development techniques (for more information see storm water ordinance and manual) No new pollution generating impervious surface is included as part of the proposed project. Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Runoff from the proposed loading dock will follow existing topography. Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing or plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Not applicable, the proposed project will not provide new access for pets/human disturbances. Dust • Use best management practices (BMPs) to control dust Appropriate BMPs will be employed during construction. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 APPENDIX H Mitigation Planting Specifications Attachment 7Exhibit 1 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 778-0907 May 7, 2021 Prepared for City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the technical professionals noted below. Document prepared by: Steve Quarterman Senior Associate Document reviewed by: Jeffrey Fellows, PE Principal Date: May 7, 2021 Project No.: 0074209.010.011 File path: P\074\209.010\R\CritAreas\Appendix H Specifications\ Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt 05052021.docx Project Coordinator: KJG Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-iii May 7, 2021 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-iv May 7, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Scope of Work .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Qualifications of Installer ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Work Schedule .................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.5 Project Records and Review ............................................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Documentation ................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.7 Underground Utilities and Existing Conditions .................................................................. 1-2 1.8 Checklist and Project Closeout ........................................................................................... 1-2 2.0 MATERIALS ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Plant Materials ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Container Plants (Trees, Shrubs) ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Seed Mix .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Temporary Storage .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.4 Substitutions ................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Mulch .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 Fertilizer Tablets ................................................................................................................. 2-2 3.0 EXECUTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Site and Project Preparation .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Order Materials ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Mark Limits of Clearing .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Minimization of Impacts .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.4 Removal of Structures and Obstructions .......................................................... 3-1 3.1.5 Verification of Suitable Surface Conditions ...................................................... 3-1 3.1.6 Clearing and Grubbing ..................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Planting and Protection ...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Layout Plants ................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Approve Planting Locations and Spacing .......................................................... 3-2 3.2.3 Plant Installation .............................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.3.1 Container Trees and Shrubs ....................................................................... 3-2 3.2.3.2 Seeding ...................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.4 Mulch .............................................................................................................. 3-3 3.3 Rectification of Accidental Plant Injury .............................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Cleanup ............................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5 Checklist and Closeout ....................................................................................................... 3-4 4.0 MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-v May 7, 2021 FIGURES Figure Title 5 Enhancement Plan Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-vi May 7, 2021 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS City ......................................................................................................... City of Edmonds Specifications .............................................................. Mitigation Planting Specifications Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-vii May 7, 2021 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H1-1 May 7, 2021 1.0 GENERAL These Mitigation Planting Specifications (Specifications) shall be reviewed by the City of Edmonds (City) prior to mitigation planting work so that the staff involved understand the intent and the specific details related to the construction documents, specifications, and site constraints. The following plans sheets (Drawings/Plans) correspond with this document: •Figure 5 Enhancement Plan The plantings shall be installed using the materials as shown on the Drawings and/or as specified in these Specifications. The mitigation plantings shall be installed to grades and conform to areas and locations as shown on the Drawings. The term “OWNER” as used in this Specification section shall refer to the City. The term “BIOLOGIST” as used in this Specification section shall refer to the City’s biologist for the project (qualified City staff or hired consultant). 1.1 Scope of Work OWNER shall furnish all materials, equipment, labor, and related items necessary to complete the work shown on the Drawings and/or as described in these Specifications, to include addition of soil amendments and tilling of soil; installation of plants; fertilizing and mulching; protection; and other work, as necessary. The work included in these Specifications (whether mentioned or not) shall consist of all labor, tools, materials, permits, and other related items necessary for the installation of all plant-related materials and will be performed in accordance with these Specifications. 1.2 Quality Assurance Standard Specifications: 1.American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI Z60.1-2004. American Nursery and Landscape Association, 1250 Eye Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005. 2.Hortus Third. The Staff of the L. H. Bailey Hortorium. 1976. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, New York. 1.3 Qualifications of Installer Oversight of mitigation planting preparation and installation shall be provided by OWNER staff with a minimum of 3 years of experience with landscape implementation, and who have completed landscaping work similar in material, design, and extent to that indicated for this project and with a record of successful landscape establishment. OWNER staff or representative must be familiar and comply with American Standard for Nursery Stock published by the American Association of Nurserymen. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H1-2 May 7, 2021 1.4 Work Schedule In general, restoration plantings shall be installed no earlier than October 1 and no later than March 31. 1.5 Project Records and Review A copy of the approved plans, specifications, permits, and agency approvals must be on site whenever construction is in progress and shall remain on site until project completion. The OWNER shall be on site, as necessary, to monitor and/or approve any minor revisions to the plan. 1.6 Documentation The OWNER shall keep a complete set of plans at the job site during construction for the purpose of “red-lining” changes or modifications to the approved plans and shall update this information daily. Upon completion of the installation of the planting aspects of the mitigation project, the OWNER will create a set of clearly marked plans designating the actual locations and quantities of plantings within the mitigation area. These plans shall meet the requirement of an as-built survey. 1.7 Underground Utilities and Existing Conditions The OWNER shall be responsible for the protection of utilities. It is the sole responsibility of the OWNER to: (1) independently verify the accuracy of utility locations and (2) discover and avoid any utilities within the work area that may be affected by implementation of this plan. Such areas are to be clearly marked in the field. 1.8 Checklist and Project Closeout The BIOLOGIST shall verify that all items meet the Specifications listed in this document. Any items that do not meet Specifications will be marked on a checklist for rectification prior to the next phase of work and/or project closeout. If items are to be corrected, a contingency checklist of adaptive management strategies necessary to meet Specifications shall be prepared by the BIOLOGIST and submitted to the OWNER. After punch list items have been completed by the OWNER, the BIOLOGIST shall review and revise the checklist to reflect satisfactory completion. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H2-1 May 7, 2021 2.0 MATERIALS The BIOLOGIST shall examine plant and soils materials prior to unloading at the site. Any material not meeting the required Specifications shall be immediately removed from the site and replaced with like material that meets the required standards. 2.1 Plant Materials Plant material shall be provided by OWNER and shall meet the requirements of the current edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock, and state and federal laws with respect to plant disease and infestations. Plant materials shall be locally grown (western Washington, western Oregon, or western British Columbia), healthy, bushy, in vigorous growing condition, and be guaranteed true to size, name, and variety. Furthermore, plants shall be free from disease, injury, insects, insect eggs, root and other types of weevils, larva, weed roots, and defects such as knots, sun scald, injuries, abrasions, disfigurements, and irregular growth arising from frost damage. Unacceptable materials shall be replaced and shall be immediately removed from the project site. The BIOLOGIST shall inspect plant material at the job site for compliance with required standards for plant size and quality prior to planting. This includes, but is not limited to, size and condition of root systems, presence of insects, latent injuries, and defects as listed below: 2.1.1 Container Plants (Trees, Shrubs) • Trees shall have uniform branching; single, straight trunks (unless specified as multi- stemmed); and the central leader intact and undamaged. • Unless necessary for larger trees, do not stake plants for support. • Do not prune or top plants before delivery, except as approved by BIOLOGIST. • Protect bark, branches, and root systems from sun scald, drying, sweating, whipping, and other handling and tying damage. • Do not bend or bind-tie plants in such a manner as to destroy the natural shape. Provide protective covering during delivery. Do not drop plants during delivery. • Container stock shall be fully rooted but not root bound. • The original central leader on tree stock must be healthy and undamaged. • Plants shall be the size indicated on the Drawings/Plans. 2.1.2 Seed Mix Seed mix shall be commercially prepared and supplied in sealed containers. The labels shall show: (1) Common and botanical names of seed, (2) Lot number, (3) Net weight, (4) Pounds of Pure live seed (PLS) in the mix, and (5) Origin of seed. All seed vendors must have a business license issued by supplier’s state or provincial Department of Licensing with a “seed dealer” endorsement. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H2-2 May 7, 2021 2.1.3 Temporary Storage Plants/seed mix must be stored in the manner necessary to accommodate their horticultural requirements. Protect plant/seed material stored on site from weather damage, construction activity, and the public. Protect bare roots by covering with moist soil, mulch, or sawdust. Water as required to keep roots moist. Keep plants moist and shaded until the actual time of installation. Do not allow any plants or stakes to be exposed to freezing temperatures prior to planting. 2.1.4 Substitutions Substitutions of plant species or sizes may be permitted based on plant availability, but only with prior approval by the BIOLOGIST. 2.2 Mulch Mulch shall consist of bark pieces or wood chips with maximum axis of any single piece not exceeding approximately 2 inches. 2.3 Fertilizer Tablets Trees and shrubs shall be fertilized using one of the following products or similar: 1. Formula 4-2-2 “Transplanter” as manufactured by Pacific Agro Co., with Hercules nitroform and W.R. Grace’s “Magamp” and trace elements. Apply at a rate of: a. Trees: 8 ounces b. Shrubs: 2 ounces. 2. Agriform Tablets: Planting tablets, 21-gram size, as manufactured by Agriform International Chemicals, Inc., 20-10-5 analysis. Apply at a rate of: a. Trees: 4 tablets for every foot of rootball diameter b. Shrubs: 3 tablets. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H3-1 May 7, 2021 3.0 EXECUTION These Specifications apply to all aspects of the mitigation project installation and are generally listed in the order that they will be implemented. 3.1 Site and Project Preparation 3.1.1 Order Materials Items to be ordered upfront include mulch and jute netting. These items, which may need substantial lead time to acquire and alterations from the plan (due to availability), must be verified by the BIOLOGIST prior to ordering. 3.1.2 Mark Limits of Clearing Prior to any construction, OWNER shall stake and/or flag limits of clearing on site, as shown on the Drawings. 3.1.3 Minimization of Impacts Clearing will be conducted using the lightest machinery that is still capable of performing the work. Compaction of planting areas shall be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. Revegetation will occur as soon as possible following clearing. 3.1.4 Removal of Structures and Obstructions Materials encountered within the planting area that creates conditions unsuitable for plant establishment as determined by the BIOLOGIST shall be removed by the OWNER from the site. Such materials may include trash and debris (e.g., tires, concrete rubble, scrap metal, etc.). 3.1.5 Verification of Suitable Surface Conditions Following clearing, the BIOLOGIST will verify that soil conditions are suitable within the work areas, including soil composition and degree of compaction. Any unsatisfactory conditions (such as compaction or lack of organic matter) shall be corrected by the OWNER prior to the start of work. De-compact soil to a depth of 18 inches where construction activities have taken place or where native soils are compacted. 3.1.6 Clearing and Grubbing In the planting area, the OWNER shall remove weedy or exotic invasive species identified by BIOLOGIST prior to plant installation; lists of weedy and/or exotic invasive species likely to be encountered are included below. A complete list of non-native species can be found at the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/). Species identified within the buffer mitigation area and their proposed management include, but are not limited to: Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H3-2 May 7, 2021 • English ivy should be controlled and removed by cutting climbing vines and prying vines from trees, and hand pulling plant from the ground. Plant parts should be placed immediately into a plastic garbage bag and removed from the site. • English laurel and Portugal laurel should be controlled by cutting and stump removal with removing as much root as possible. Stems can be chipped and used as mulch or taken to a landfill. Leaving stems on moist ground might result in some stem-rooting. Revegetation will occur as soon as possible following clearing. 3.2 Planting and Protection 3.2.1 Layout Plants Plants shall be placed in a random, natural pattern as shown on the plans. Planting locations shown on planting plans are approximate and based on anticipated site conditions. Actual planting locations may vary from those shown due to final site conditions and locations of existing vegetation. Any substantial variations from the planting plan will require prior approval by the BIOLOGIST. 3.2.2 Approve Planting Locations and Spacing BIOLOGIST shall approve proposed plant locations and layout prior to installation by the OWNER. 3.2.3 Plant Installation Detailed directions for planting are described below. Also refer to the Drawings. Revegetation will occur as soon as possible following clearing. 3.2.3.1 Container Trees and Shrubs Plant, tree, and shrub spacing is to be random (natural) and not in a regular grid pattern. The following directions, adapted from the International Society of Arboriculture, must be followed for container plantings (see Details on Drawings/Plans): 1. Dig a shallow, broad planting hole. Make the hole wide, as much as three times the diameter of the root ball but only as deep as the root ball. It is important to make the hole wide because the roots on the newly establishing tree must push through surrounding soil in order to establish. On most planting sites in new developments, the existing soils have been compacted and are unsuitable for healthy root growth. Breaking up the soil in a large area around the tree provides the newly emerging roots room to expand into loose soil to hasten establishment. 2. Identify the trunk flare on tree/shrub. The trunk flare is where the roots spread at the base of the tree. This point should be partially visible after the tree has been planted. If the trunk flare is not partially visible, some soil from the top of the root ball may need to be removed. Locating the trunk flare is important for determining how deep the hole needs to be for proper planting. 3. Place the tree/shrub at the proper height. Before placing in the hole, check to see that the hole has been dug to the proper depth and no deeper. The majority of the roots on the Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H3-3 May 7, 2021 newly planted tree/shrub will develop in the top 12 inches of soil. If the tree is planted too deeply, new roots will have difficulty developing because of a lack of oxygen. It is better to plant the tree a little high, 2 to 3 inches above the base of the trunk flare, than to plant it at or below the original growing level. To avoid damage when setting the tree in the hole, always lift the tree by the root ball and never by the trunk. 4. Straighten the tree in the hole. Before backfilling, view the tree from several directions to confirm that the tree is straight, as it is difficult to reposition the tree. 5. Fill the hole gently but firmly. Fill the hole about one-third full and gently but firmly pack the soil around the base of the root ball. 6. Apply fertilizer tablet into hole at 6 inches depth, or per manufacturer instructions as needed. 7. Fill the remainder of the hole, taking care to firmly pack soil to eliminate air pockets that may cause roots to dry out. To avoid this problem, add the soil a few inches at a time and settle with water. Continue this process until the hole is filled and the tree is firmly planted. 8. Do not stake trees, unless necessary. 9. Immediately (on the day of installation) water all plants thoroughly unless soils are already saturated. 10. Mulch the base of the planting. When placing mulch, be sure that the actual trunk of the tree/shrub is not covered. Doing so may cause decay of the living bark at the base of the tree/shrub. A mulch-free area, 1 to 2 inches wide at the base of the tree, is sufficient to avoid moist bark conditions and prevent decay. 3.2.3.2 Seeding When seeding by hand, the seed shall be incorporated into the top ¼ inch of soil by hand raking or other method that is allowed by the BIOLOGIST. 3.2.4 Mulch Mulch shall be applied around all plants throughout the planting to provide weed suppression, insulation, a source of organic matter, and prevent erosion. At least a 3-inch layer of wood chip mulch (coarse mulch or hog fuel) shall be placed around the base of all new plantings to a radius of at least 24 inches. 3.3 Rectification of Accidental Plant Injury Any living woody plant that is damaged during construction shall be treated within 24 hours of occurrence, including wound-shaping treatment, which includes, but is not limited to, evenly cutting broken branches, exposed roots, and damaged tree bark immediately after damage occurs. Injured plants shall be thoroughly watered, and additional measures shall be taken, as appropriate, to aid in plant survival. Any plants that are visibly harmed such that future growth is jeopardized (such as broken leaders, uprooting, etc.) shall be replaced. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H3-4 May 7, 2021 3.4 Cleanup The OWNER shall be responsible for removing construction materials and debris from the site following installation of plant materials. 3.5 Checklist and Closeout The BIOLOGIST shall verify that all items meet the Specifications listed in this document. Any items that do not meet Specifications will be marked on a checklist for rectification prior to the next phase of work and/or project closeout. If items are to be corrected, a contingency checklist of adaptive management strategies necessary to meet Specifications shall be prepared by the BIOLOGIST and submitted to the OWNER. After punch list items have been completed by the OWNER, the BIOLOGIST shall review and revise the checklist to reflect satisfactory completion. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H4-1 May 7, 2021 4.0 MAINTENANCE This section includes recommended maintenance for installed plantings, including, but not limited to: • Correction of Foraging and Browsing: The OWNER may implement measures to prevent damage of plant material by browsing animals (e.g., deer, beaver, rabbits, mice, voles). • Weeding and Maintenance of Trees and Shrubs: Routine maintenance of trees and shrubs shall be performed. Tall grasses shall be weeded at the base of the plantings. Weed control shall be performed by hand removal or installation of weed barrier cloth. No mechanical weed trimmers shall be used after initial site preparation activities. • Pruning of Woody Plants: Woody plants may be pruned to allow for safe use of park facilities. • Resetting plants to proper grade and upright position, controlling grass and invasive species, and correcting drainage problems, as required. • Irrigation to ensure plant survival. Replacements made by the OWNER shall be completed during the periods set out as planting periods and shall be subject to the same conditions and shall be made in the same manner as specified for the original planting area. OWNER shall be responsible for consistent and adequate water application throughout the growing season. Attachment 7Exhibit 1 SR-104Carbon Filter (Proposed) Loading Dock(Temporary Section) Wall Opening(Proposed)Wall Opening(Proposed) Temporary Construction Access PlatformTop of Platform to Match Bottom ofTemporary Wall Opening Which will beClosed up with Removable Panels after Construction. Overall Platform DimensionsDuring Construction 12'W x 25'D. After Construction Leave in Place a 12'W x 12'DPortion to be Permanently Installed. Property Line Shrub Trimming within 5ft of building,but no clearing on south side of building Clearing Limits(Temporary Impacts) Loading Dock(Permanent Section) Wetland A Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery03060 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Wetland continues to the south and east Legend Clearing Limits Wetland Line Wetland Buffer (110 ft) Grass Seed Mix Enhancement Area (460 sf) Tree / Shrub / Ground Cover Enhancement Area (795 sf) Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Enhancement Plan Figure5G:\Projects\074\209\010\011\F05 EnhancementPlan.mxd 5/7/2021 | JValluzziDowned Tree Placement Notes 1. Retain segments of tree trunks from 4 to 6 feet in length or longer from trees to be removed. 2. Branches may be trimmed and placed on downed trees as habitat piles. 3. Habitat piles shall be layered with larger material at/near base. 4. Avoid damage to adjacent vegetation when placing downed trees. Downed trees from clearing limits to beplaced in this vicinity as downed large wood Common Name # of Plants Stock Size Spacing (O.C.) Shore pine 4 6 ft min height 14 ft Vine maple 4 8 ft min height 6 ftRhododendron macrophyllum Pacific rhododendron 4 1.5 ft min height 6 ftRibes sanguineum Flowering currant 5 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Salal 5 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Grass Seed Mix see Grass Seed Mix N/A 460 sq ftNotes: Grass seed mix is limited to area within 6 ft of the SR 104 sidewalk and area of temporary loading dock; Scientific Name Common Name Percent by weightFestuca rubra Red fescue 30Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye 30Bromus carinatus California brome 30Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 10 Enhancement Plantings TOTAL AREA = 1,255 sq ft) Trees Groundcovers no trees or shurbs shall be placed within 6 ft from the edge of pavement. Grass Seed Mix Application 120 lbs/acre Scientific Name Pinus contorta Acer circinatum Gaulthoria shallon Refer to Grass Seed Mix Table Shrubs Attachment 7Exhibit 1 ~a "~•' 11st. t sq~ CITY OF EDMONDS 1215TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-965 Adoption Notice ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IZIDNS Adoption of ( check appropriate box) □ EIS D Other ------------ Description of current proposal: The WWTP Carbon Recovery Project will replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (SSI) and associated equipment. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas-fired rotary drum dryer and a gasifier; associated ancillary equipment including live bottom biosolids hoppers, conveyors, piston pump; gasifier odor control system, heat exchanger and pumps, heat recovery system, and WWTP odor control system. The new dryer and gasification equipment would be housed within the existing incinerator room in the WWTP Solids Processing Building. The new odor control system will be installed on slab on grade to the immediate west of the WWTP Headworks Building. All construction will be within the current WWTP footprint. Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: 200 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, WA 98020; Tax parcel number27032300409100 Title of document being adopted: WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Determination of Nonsignificance Agency that prepared document being adopted:--=C""it,.,_y--=o;.:..f-=E=d""m-'-'o=n.:..=d=s'------------------ Date adopted document was prepared:~M=a~rc=h~1 ~2=0~1~9~-------------------- Description of document (or portion) being adopted: A DNS issued for the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project. The project has been modified where no new building is required as was proposed earlier in the project. The previous SEPA review is still relevant for the modified project. If the documet being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe:~N~/A~------- The document is available to be read at (place/time): The adopted document may be viewed at 121 5th Avenue N, between 8 am and 4:30 pm by appointment or online at: https://webl ink. ed mondswa. gov /Web Lin k/0/fol/ 1444065/Row1 . aspx We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of agency adopting document: C~i__.ty~o=f~E=d=m~o~n~d~s _ Contact person, if other than responsible official: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Phone: 425.771.0220 WAC ( 4/1 5/98) L:ITEMP\Kernen\Permitting\2020\SEPAIWWTP Adoption\SEPA Adoption Notice form.doc 12/30/20 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 Responsible official:--'-'R:.:::o-=b....;C:ch:..:.;a==-v=-'e=------------------------------- Position/Title: Planning Manager Address: 121 5th Ave. N Phone: __ --'-'42=5=.-'-77-'-1-'-'.=02=2=0=---- Date: December 30. 2020 Edmonds WA 98020 Signature: ~__,·,,,.····-,.,,--·••'~:h---~---------------- WAC (4/IS/98) L:\TEMP\Kernen\Permitting\2020\SEPAIWWTP Adoption\SEPA Adoption Notice form.doc 12/30/20 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 CITY OF EDMONDS 12't 'TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (4251771-0220 WAC 197-'11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project will replace the sanitary sewage incinerator and associated equipment. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas-fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units; associated ancillary equipment including a live bottom dewatered sludge hopper, twin-screw feeder and piston pump, a water heater, heat exchanger and pumps, heat recovery system, various conveyors and order control system modifications. The pyrolysis equipment would be housed in a new building constructed with the current WWTP footprint. Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: 200 -znd Avenue S, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27032300409100 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determíned that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have þeen adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as províded by RCW 43.2'1C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 andlor mitígating rneasures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.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 lor 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager March'15,2019 Contact lnformation: City of Edmonds | 121 llh Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 | 425-771-0220 Date: March 1. 2019 Signature XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than March 22.2019 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on March 1,2019 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.qov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and proposed amendments are available at https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number STF20190003. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division - located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 1th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. SEPA DETERMINATION 2t27n9.SEPA. Page I of2Attachment 8Exhibit 1 Notice Mailed to the following: Washington State Dept. of Commerce 906 Columbia Street SW P.O. Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300 XX Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PO-Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 XX Town of Woodway Attn.: Clerk-Treasurer 23920 113th Place West Woodway, WA 98020 Olympic View Water & Sewer District 8128228th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Department of Archaeology & Historic Freservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Puget Sound Energy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david.matulich@pse.com XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Snohomish County Health District 3020 Rocker Ave Everett, WA 98201-3900 City of Mountlake Terrace SEPA Responsible Official 6100 21gth St. SW, Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 pc: XX City of Shoreline Attn.: Permit Services Manager 17500 Midvale Avenue North Shoreline, WA 981 33-4905 Washington State Department of Health Division of Drinking Water P.O.Box47822 Olympia, WA 98504-7822 Snohomish County Health District 3020 Rocker Ave Everett, WA 98201-3900 Attachments File No. SEPA Notebook SEPA DETERMINATION 2/2'1/t9.SEPA, Page 2 of 2Attachment 8Exhibit 1 S EPA ENVIRoNMIENTAL crIECKLIST Fwrpase of check{ist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. I nstructio ns fo r app I iaants : This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an âgency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You mav use "not applicable" or "does not applv" onlv when vou can explain whv it does not applv and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays wíth the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of vour 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. lnstructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this tempfate as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FoR NoNpRoJEcr AcroNS SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-ll-960)July 2016 Page 1 oî28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 (paft D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "propedy or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Fart B - Environmental Elements -that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. l{ame of proposed project, if applicable: \^MffP Carbon Recovery Project 2. l\ame of applicant: City of Edmonds 3. Address and phone number of applicant ancl contaet person: Pamela Randolph 200 Second Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 4. Date checklist prepared: December 18, 2018 5. Agency requesting checklist: Depaftment of Ecology 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 2019 - 2021 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? lf yes, explain. The proposed system being installed is being sized to accommodate the 20-year projected flows and loads. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An environmental impact assessment was performed during the treatment plant construction when the design engineers chose to use incineration for solids disposal, rather than land application of biosolids. A SEPA checklist was performed for the 1998 Biosolids application. SEPA Environmental checkl¡st (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 Page 2 o'f 28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals dírectly affecting the property covered by your proposal? lf yes, explain. None exist 10. t-ist any government approvals or permits that wili be needed for your proposal, if known. Department of Ecology review and approval of Engineering Report and Design Drawings and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) issuance of Notice of Construction (Noc). 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the pro¡ect and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspeets of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific i nformation on project descri ption. ) The \AA/úTP Carbon Recovery Project will replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (SSl) and associated equipment. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas-fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units; associated ancillary equipment including a live bottom dewatered sludge hopper, twin-screw feeder and piston pump; a water heater, heat exchanger and pumps, heat recovery system, various conveyors and odor control system modifications. The pyrolysis equipment would be housed in a new roughly 50' x 30' building constructed within the current \ A¡VTP footprint. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. lf a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legaldescription, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The location is 200 Second Ave S in Edmonds WA. The existing \AAffTP site is located in downtown Edmonds, nestled between Edmonds Way and 2nd Ave S south of Dayton Street. Due to site constrains, the only available area for the construction of new facilities is the parking lot area on the north side of the Operations Building. The construction area is contained within the 600 building onsite and in the parking lot of the facility SEPA Env¡ronmental checklist (WAC 1 97-1 1 -960)July 2016 Page 3 of 28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 Construction staging may take place on City owned property across the street. (see area and site maps below.) l Ël âtu SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 Page 4 of 28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 IIt;Ie-!.-,.--æ.fi+iË#I¡Ëfitlþ¡I¡IIIiiiiiI:IiIFMlfr,.--*ì . --I ¡t' ::r - -.-ñtf3rtr¡iiffiËËIIË;IÅËt¡rD,tl|ttouïlìl:iIIIIoU'fit'oÞms.ıo!roooãaãÞo(o\¡@ooLCNooÌ,o)(oo(¡ol\)@Attachment 8Exhibit 1 #@s /i rf Ë -* ar¡ì I ;:l i3. -\ I ùtt tI t å' Itt :l : ï I I ,! i ti Page 6 of 28July 2016SEPA Environmental checkl¡st (WAC 197-11-960) Attachment 8Exhibit 1 ts" Environmental Flemenús 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1-2% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? lf you know the classification of agricultural soils, specifu them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The building site is contained within an existing improved site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? lf so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. lndicate source of fill. No filling is required. Some excavation is required in the footprint of the new structure for access to existing buried pipe on-site and for footings for the new structure. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? lf so, generally describe. No. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious sudaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No increase of impervious surfaces planned for the project. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not applicable to this project. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 PageT ot28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 2, Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? lf any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions to the air are expected to occur in the exhausts from the P'Fíve pyrolysis, units, the water heater, and the sludge dryer and associated sludge management faciliries. P-Five pyrolysís units The P-Five uruts are sources of air associated wíth of sewage siudge and the combustion of the pyrolysis-derived syrrgas. NG-combusrion duríng start'up is also a source of emissions. CombustÍon of syngas (and NG) ín the combustion chamber outsÍde the py'rolysis reactor will produce combustion by-products, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOr), PM, sulfur dioxide (SO:), r'olatile organic compounds (VOC), and combusrion'relared hazardous and toxic air poiiuranrs (HÁfs) and (TÁPs). To reduce pollutant emissions, the exhaust air from the syngas combustion chamber will be ¡reated in a packed bed scrubber for removal of acid gases and other water-soluble compounds, followed by an activated carbon absorption unit for removal of organics other sorptive constituents (such as mercury). Flue gas recircuiation is also provided to reduce NOx formacion duríng syngas combustion. Water Heater The water heater is a 2.5 MMBruh NG-fired boiler. Emissions from the warer heater will be products of narural gas combustion, including carbon monoxide (CO), nirrogen oxides (NOx), PM, sulfur dioxide (SO:), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and combustion-related hazardous and toxic air pollutanrs (HAPs) and (TAPs). To reduce pollutant emissions, the water heater will be equipped with low-NOx burners. Sludge Dryer and Sludge Handling equipment. The sludge dryer will be indirect-heated; the drying aír will be heated using process hot water across a heat exchanger. The dryer will be a source of foul air and odors associated with the sludge feed. Based on experience involving applications of siudge dryers to products with similar moisture content, the dryer is also a likely source of particulate matterl (PM) emissions. Siudge handling equipment includes hoppers and conveyors. Ventilarion air from this equipment will be a source of foul air odors. Particulates could also be generated due to material abrasion; given the moisture content of the sludge, particulate formation is expected to be negligible. r In the document, unless otherwise specified ',particulatematter" or \\PM// refers particulate matter in all (both filterable and condensable) . SEPA Environmental checkl¡st (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 Page I of28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 To reduce pollutant emissions, rhe foul air from the sludge dryer ancl sluclge hand.ling facilities vvill routed through a packed bed chemical scrubber to remove odorclus compounds. The packed bed scrubber wÍll also reduce partículate concentrations. Expected project emissions are summarized beiorv: Project Gnüterta Air Foll¡¡tant Erniss[ons Surnmany F-Five Waten L{eaten Sludge Dryer Proiect Totatr Fofllutant fb/hr ton/W lb/hr ton/yr [b/hr ton/yr lb/Vtr ton/yr PM2.5 0.04 0.1_8 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.0r- 0.06 o.27 PMlO 0.04 o.t_8 o.o2 0.08 0.00 0.01-0.06 o.27 NOx o.20 o.88 0.03 o.1_1 0.23 0.99 so2 0.00 0.01-o.o0 0.01 0.00 o.o2 co o.o2 o.o7 o.L7 0.75 0.19 0.81_ voc o.o2 o.o7 0.01 o.o6 0.03 0.13 Pb 2.08E-06 9.12E-06 1_.23E-06 5.38E-06 3.31_E-06 1.45E-05 Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions Toxic Air Pollutant Sludge Pyrolysis Water Heater tb/hr lb/yr lb/hr lb/yr 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.94E-O6 2.58E-O2 3-Methylcholanthrene 4.478-09 3.86E-05 7, 12-Dimethyl benz[a]anthracene 3.92E-08 3.448-04 Arsenic & lnorganic Arsenic Compounds 1.938-05 1.69E-01 4.90E-07 4.29E-03 Benz[a]anthracene 4.4t849 3.86E-05 Benzene 5.15E-06 4.51.8-02 Benzo[a]pyrene 2.948-09 2.58E-05 BenzoIb]fluoranthene 4.418-09 3.86E-05 BenzoIk]fluoranthene 4.4LEA9 3.86E-05 Beryllium & Compounds (NOS)2.948-OA 2.58E-O4 Cadmium & Compounds 5.218-08 4.578-04 2.70E-06 2.36E-02 Chromium(Vl)6.93E-07 6.07E-O3 Chrysene 4.478-09 3.86E-05 SEPA Env¡ronmental checkl¡st (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 2.068-07 1.80E-O3 Page 9 of 28 Cobalt Attachment 8Exhibit 1 Toxüc Afir Fofllutant En'¡isslons Toxic Ain Pollutant Sludge Fyrolysis Water [-{eater Nb/hr lb/yv lb/kr lb/yr Copper & Compounds 2.OBE-06 1.83E-02 Dibenzla,h]anth racene 2.948-09 2.58E-05 Formaldehyde 1,.848-04 L.6l-E+00 I ndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 4.4LE-O9 3.868-05 1eg4e!q ernqogqdq\oQ 2.08E-06 L.828-42 Manganese & Compounds 1_.46E-06 L.28E-O2 9.31_E-O7 8.L6E-03 Mercury, Elemental 3.01_E-06 2.648-02 6.37E-07 5.58E-03 Naphthalene 1.50E-06 L.3LE-O2 n-Hexane 4.4LE-O3 3.86E+0t Niirogen ciioxicie 1-.01-E-01- 8.848+02 L.26E-O2 L.LLE+O2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls, NOS 3.01E-10 2.648-A6 Selenium & Selenium Compounds (other than Hydrogen Selenide)5.88E-08 5.158-04 Toluene 8.33E-O6 7.30E-O2 2,3,7,8-1 elr ach lorod i benzo-p- dioxin & Related Compounds, NOS <1.7E-Lt <1.5E-O7 Vanadium 4.228-07 3.70E-03 5,64E-O6 4.94E-O2 Hydrogen chloride 2.LLE-O4 1.85E+00 Hydrogen Fluoride 2.4LE-O4 2.LLE+OO Sulfur dioxide 2.4!E-O3 2.11E+O1, t.47F.-O3 L.29E+OL In addition to these project emissions, there will be reductions in emissions resulting from retfuement of the existing incinerator. ReductÍons in potential criteria pollutant emissíons are summarized belovu': Griteria Air Pollutant Emissions Reductions from Retiring Existing Sludge lncinerator Air Pollutant Lb/hr Ton/yr Carbon Monoxide -0.373 -1.63 Nitrogen Oxides -0.603 -2.64 Particulate Matter (PM, PM1-0, PM2.5) -0.076 -0.33 Sulfur Dioxide -0.133 -0.58 Volatile Organic Compounds -0.15 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 -0.66 Page 10 of28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 The existing incinerator emits many of the same aír toxics as the proposed pyrolysis units Emission reductions fr¡r arsenic and chromium, trn'o toxic air pollutants of particular signÍfícance for this project, are summarized belor,r,: Ansemûa an¡d Ohrormiun¡ Em¡issfioms Reduatioms fro¡m Retining Exfistimg Slu.rdge tmainerator Air Follutant [-blhr l-b/yr Arsenic -o.oooo245 -0.21.46 Chromium -0.0000146 -0.L279 Hexavalent Chromium -o.ooooo15 -0.0128 b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? lf so, generally descrlbe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The existing odor control system will be retrofit to accommodate the additional required odor control capacity. Any temporary handling of sludge onsite will be performed with connections to the existing odor control system. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) ls there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? lf yes, describe type an provide names. lf appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. To the south of the plant is an existing wetland. The project will not affect the wetland. 2) Wllthe project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? lf yes, please describe and attach available plans. The project will require work within the existing treatment plant site and within existing treatment plant building footprint. Both the site and the existing buildings are within 100 ft of the wetland to the south. See figure below. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 Page 11 of28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 lffir*müüorrt*f dtrrffilmr 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 lndicate the source of fill material. Not applicable to this project. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1O0-year floodplain? lf so, note location on the site plan. SEPA Environmental checkl¡st (WAC 197-1f -960)July 2016 Page'12 of 28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 See below figure for the 1OO-year floodplain extents (purple) and the relative location of the site (existing \A ¡úTP). 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? lf so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Wll groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? lf so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Willwater be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. SEPA Envi¡onmental checklist (WAC f 97-f l-960)July 2016 Page 13 of28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground fronn septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the systern, 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. Not applicable to this project. c. Water runoff (including stormwater) and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? lf so, describe. All stormwater flow onsite during and after construction will be contained onsite and i:.-^-a^-t a- 1t- - :d¡rected to the in-piant pump station ancj treated wiih the ireatment plant ilows. 2) Could waste rnaterials enter ground or surface waters? lf so, generally describe. No. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? lf so, describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Surface, ground, and runoff water will be captured within the existing \ AruTP site and treated onsite. The project will not affect drainage patterns. 4. Plants a. Check the 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 Page 14 of28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 _ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoí|, other _X_other types of vegetation - general landscape vegetation b. What kind and amor.¡nt of vegetation will be removed or altered? None. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown. d. Froposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None. e. !-ist all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None expected as this is an existing improved site. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammal: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish. ass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Crows and other various types of birds, squirrels, hummingbirds, rabbits, rats and anything native to a wetland. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown. c. ls the site part of a migration route? lf so, explain. Unknown. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-1 l -960)July 2016 Page 15 of28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 None. e. List any invasive animal specíes known to be on or near the site. Unknown. 6" EnerEy and frgatural Res@¿,rd'ces a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. This is a significant energy reduction project however the finished project will use electrical energy and natural gas to power and heat the proposed system. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? lf so. rreneraik describe.'' --' J'' No. b. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? l-ist other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Reduction of electrical usage, reduction of diesel fuel, reduction of truck traffic and reduction of material disposed of in the landfill. 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? lf so, describe. As there would be site construction with heavy machinery and equipment, there would be some level of risk associated with damaged machinery causing spills of oil, coolant or other fluids. That would also involve some small risk of fire or explosion due to the use of combustible fuels. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 Page 16 of28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 There is an existing underground diesel fuel storage tank in the parking lot. There is a buried natural gas service line to the site. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produeed during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None known. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known. 5) Froposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None expected. b- Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Automobile traffic and ferry terminal traffic. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? lndicate what hours noise would come from the site. Typical constructíon noise from heavy equipment including potentially excavators, bulldozers, backhoe-loaders, or cranes. Dump trucks will haul material, including rock riprap and excess soil materials, to and from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. All construction will occur in accordance with the City of Edmonds code. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. Wtrat is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? \Mll the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? lf so, describe. The current use of the site is a waste water treatment plant and this will not change. No, the proposalwill not affect nearby properties. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? lf so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? lf resource lands have not SEPA Environmental checkl¡st (WAC 197-t1-960)July 2016 Page 17 of 28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or non-forest use? No. 1) \f/ill the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest iand normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? lf so, how: No. c. Describe any structures on the site. A new structure will be built and placed between two current buildings and a primary clarifier (see figures provided.). d. Will any structures be demolished? 0f so, what? A concrete wall will be removed and minimal modifications to existing structures will be made for the relocation of doors and access. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The \AA/i/TP is zoned as Public Use. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? \ A¡úTP (wastewater treatment planQ. - g. lf applicable, what is the current shoreline m unknown â \* -\ \ "\ -(\\--. aster p¡ogram designation of the site? ..-\...,,^- åL*\'*L r -,.ò.u\,; h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? lf so, specify. Unknown.3 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 16. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. U-).\L \ c\*D SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-1 1 -960)July 20 16 Page 18 of28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 t. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Not applicable. m. Froposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term comnnercial significance, if any: Not applicable. 9. t'lousing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? lndicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? lndicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthefr'cs a. \Â/hat is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height is 26.67 feet, which is 6.67 feet taller than the existing tallest height. / Building design is not yet finalized but it ís assumed the building would be steel structure with steel siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views will not be altered. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: New building will match current architecture. 11. Light and Glare L SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 Page 19 of28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Fiot applicabie. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c. what existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Shopping, diving, tours, boating and parks. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? lf so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the prqect or applicant, if any: Not applicable. 13. Historic and cultural preseruation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? lf so, specifically describe. No. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of lndian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artífacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. No. SEPA Environmental checkl¡st (WAC 197-1 i -960)July 2016 Page 20 of 28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 c. Ðescribe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeologieal surveys, historic maps, GIS clata, etc. Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Flease include plans for the above ancl any permits that nnay be requireel. Not applicable. "il¿1. Transpartation a. ldentifu public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Vicinity and site maps of the proposed project are provided. Access to the site would be primarily from SR-104 traveling north and west from either SR-99 or lnterstate 5, then from SR-104 onto Dayton eastbound and 2nd avenue S. going southbound. f T|l {t ,{i I:\ J *3;*r ll I i-(1T I H! riìffil¡/ûlililn SEPA Env¡ronmental checklist {WAC 197-1 1-960)July 2016 Page 21 ot 28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 8Z p Z¿e6ed9t0¿ Átnr(OSe-!f-¿Sl CVM) ls¡tcaqc tplusu/uoJ!^uf VdSS'squssop r{¡¡eleueo 'os Jl ¿uotleuodsueJlJle Jo 'lleJ 'Je¡eÄA (¡o r{¡tutctn ê}etpauur aL{i u! Jncco Jo) asn lesodoid Jo }cefoJd oW lll^^ 'a'oN'(e¡enud Jo ctlqnd JeqlaLl^ etectput) squcsep r{¡¡ereue6'os Jl ¿s/[e^ o^up outpnlcut lou 'sottl|þeJ uot¡euodsueJ] elels Jo ep^ctq ,ueu]sepad'slee4s 'speoJ 6u4slxe ol slueue^o.rdtutro ^/\eu Áue e¡lnba¡ lesodoJd e$ lll¡¡ p'cr¡qnd oql ol uedo ¡ou e.¡e seceds 6ur¡.red oseL{I'Ápedotd dI AM uo seceds 6ur¡red cr¡qnd-uou g êleututla o¡ sesodord ¡catold eq1¿eleululle ¡esodo.td.to ¡cefo.rd sL¡l plno^ Áueul ^ oH ¿o^er.{ ¡esodoidlcefold-uou.ro ¡cefo.td pe¡e¡duoc eLll plnom seceds 6ur¡.red leuot]tppe Áueu¡ ^ oH 'c'Áe¡ne ìcolq ¡, st snq lsoJeeu aLll - so^¿dols ltsueJl lseJeeu oqt of ecuelsrp e¡eurxo.rdde elll sr letl^ 'lou Jl 'equcsêp r(¡¡e.reue6'os Jl ¿ltsue4 cr¡qnd Áq perues Á¡¡uelnc eele crqdel6oe6 pe¡cege Jo a¡s eqt sl .qtS ¡+¿ti¿CE,iaôBEdoÊÞ'!,.;&\ç¡¡rg.ôl.çÐiF:ì.s.¡i¡:irde'.'- .:.@epuoupS$u/.1ÅB¿:,lsâlEi]¡oi:E4r***"u, ^ar,!i)oo8 rÍc.i. iì¡guot-g9u¡ïs.Ì¡âlt¿18qroNÞa¡:,ã&aqåtÍaUSo,"^.r'*'ämiÒå "i'sÈ)':Attachment 8Exhibit 1 No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? lf known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). V\lhat data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Regarding temporary biosolids disposal during project construction which will affect truck traffic in the vicinity. Foi- approximately 6-months the plant will not have the ability to process biosolids. A study and analysis were performed by BHC Consultants entitled "TEMPORARY BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM'dated 1011212018. Following are excerpts from that study used to quantify those traffic impacts: The purpose of the technical memorandum is to evaluate temporary biosolids disposal options to be implemented at the \ A¡/TP during construction of the Carbon Recovery Project. The evaluation herein is intended to outline which temporary biosolids disposal options are available to the City and then assess theír feasibility and preliminary costs. During construction, a temporary biosolids disposal strategy will be required to maintain !A ¡/TP operation and compliance with its permits. The \.¡AAIúTP is capable of storing biosolids within the system for short periods (typically a matter of hours). However, it is anticipated that temporary biosolids processing will be required for several months, possibly up to a year, due to the expected construction schedule for the ! A|/TP Carbon Recovery Project. The estimated \tMTP biosolids production as determined in the Basis of Design Technical Memorandum (BOD Tech Memo), June 2018 is presented in Table 1. The study determined the most practical option is landfilling dewatered sludge. Landfilling is limited to the disposal of dewatered sludge from the \AA/r/TP's screw presses in a landfill. The initial step in considering landfilling dewatered sludge includes attaining approval from the landfill site's local Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of Ecology (Ecology). Two landfills were identified as potential disposal sites: Cedar Hills Regional Landfill in King County (operated by King County) and Roosevelt Landfill in Klickitat County (operated by Republic Services, lnc.[RSl]). Disposal at Cedar Hills Regional Landfillwas deemed infeasible as it is generally only practiced as an emergency procedure by King County, and approval is only given after all other options are exhausted by the entity requesting disposal. Additionally, King County gives preference to entities seeking dþposal that are within King County. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-ll-960)July 2016 Page 23 of 28 Attachment 8Exhibit 1 Furthermore, disposal at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfillwill require that the site be specially prepared for acceptance of the biosolids, which will require a financial commitment fl'om the City that cannot be estimated at this time. For these reasons landfilling costs at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill were not developed, as the option was deemed infeasible. Landfilling biosolids is more commonly practiced at the Roosevelt Landfill. \Men contracted to accept biosolids landfilling, RSI coordinates approval from Klickitat County Department of Health with typical approval within the same week. ln order to dispose of biosolids at the Roosevelt Landfill, the City will need to provide an Ëcology approval letter from the Solid Waste Management Program. The City will also need to provide biosolids testing results for full volatiles, full semi volatiles, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) I Metals and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) testing prior to disposal. This process usually can be completed within a couple of days. RSI can provide 27-ton capacity containers for disposal. An estimate of landfilling costs at the Roosevelt Landfill is summarized in Table 3. Landfilling dewatered sludge will result in approximately one truck per day leaving the \ A¡/TP (containers can accommodate 27 tons and \ÄA/r/TP is expected to produce up to 21.4 tons of wet sludge per day). g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? lf so, generally describe. See narrative in item F above. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None expected. 15. PublicServices a. Would the pro1ect result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? lf so, generally describe. Not applicable. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16. Utilities SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)July 2016 Page 24 ol 28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 a Circle utilities currently available at the site: septic system, other d. 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 immedíate vicinity which might be needed. The existing natural gas service meter by Puget Sound Energy would likely be modified to provide a higher volume of natural gas as the primary fuel is being converted from fuel oilto natural gas. G. Slgmaúune ïhe above answers complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead make its decision Signature: frlame of signee Position and Agency/Organization ( t )tt )7P y'y'|¿-a+e-/- { Date Submitted: Zål -\9 D. Supplemental sheeú for nonproject act¡ons fnepl (lT lS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in generalterms. 6 47Ia T cy is SEPA Ênvironmental checklist (WAC 197-ll-960)July 2016 Page 25 oî 28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 1. l-'{ow would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It would reduce the discharge of materialto the landfill because the resultant end product will be biochar instead of the current ash produced by incineration. Biochar can Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. l-low would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fìsh, or marine life? None expected. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? It would reduce the use of energy for the \ ÂIVTP and reduce the need for landfill space Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: SEPA Environmental check¡¡st (WAC 197-1 l-960)July 2016 Page 26 of 28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligíble or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? None expected. Froposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? None expected. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? None expected Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC I 97-l 1 -960)July 2016 Page27 ot28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 7. ldentify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This proposal does not knowingly conflict wíth any laws or requirement for the protection of the environment. lt is solely intended to improve environment by reducing energy requirements and creating a useful byproduct. SEPA Environmental checkl¡st (WAC 197-ll-960)July 2016 Page 28 of 28Attachment 8Exhibit 1 City of Edmonds Date: July 9, 2021 To: Kernen Lien, Planning From: Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Subject: PLN2021-0028, 0029, 0030 – Setback Variance & Design Review WWTP – 200 2nd Ave S Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with any future building permit application, if any, for development on the site. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Thank you. MEMORANDUM Attachment 9Exhibit 1 FILE NO.: PLN2021-0028; PLN2021-0029; PLN2021-0030 Applicant: City of Edmonds Public Works @200 2nd Ave. S Edmonds DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 16th day of July, 2021, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City of Edmonds to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above- referenced application. The adjacent property owners list was provided by the applicant. I, Michelle Martin, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 16th day of July, 2021, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: ~~~· ~~~=~·~----- {BFP747887.DOC; I \00006.900000\} Exhibit 2 FILE NO.: PLN2021-0028 through -0030 Applicant: City of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 15th day of July, 2021, the attached Notice of Application and Public Hearing was posted at the subject property in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.03.002, City Hall, Library and the Public Safety Complex in accordance with ECC 1.03.020. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 5th day of July, 2021, at Edmonds, Washington. {BFP747893.DOC;l\00006.900000\} Exhibit 2 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Edmonds is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility. The WWTP property is zoned Public which requires a 25-foot setback from property lines for structures. The existing building is approximately 7.5 feet from the property line with SR104 on the west side. The proposal would install a carbon filter on the west side of the building approximately 5 feet from the western property line and a loading dock for future maintenance activities approximately 1 foot from the western property line. Variances are required to place these structures within the 25-foot setback. Public projects are subject to design review. The design review and variance applications are consolidated pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. The ADB first holds a public meeting (no public comment will be accepted) and makes a recommendation on the design of the project to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will issue the decisions on the variances and design following a public hearing. The project is subject to the requirements of the Public zone in Chapter 16.80 ECDC, variance review criteria in Chapter 20.85 ECDC and general design standards in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. PROJECT LOCATION: 200 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27032300409100 NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Public Works Department FILE NUMBERS: PLN2021-0028 (Carbon Filter Variance), PLN2021-0029 (Loading Dock Variance), and PLN2021-0030 (Design Review) DATE OF APPLICATION: June 10, 2021 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: July 8, 2021 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: July 16, 2021 REQUESTED PERMIT: Variance (Type III-B Permit Process) and Design Review (Type III-A). In accordance with ECDC 20.01.002.B, when Type III-A and Type III-B permits are consolidated, the project shall proceed under the Type III-A process. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Building Permits EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Area Report, SEPA Checklist and SEPA DNS COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: August 2, 2021 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an appeal. Exhibit 2 Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public_involvement/public_notices/development_notices under the development notice for application number PLN2021-0028 through -0030, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. ADB PUBLIC MEETING INFO: Due to COVID-19, a virtual public meeting will be held by the Architectural Design Board on July 21, 2021 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://zoom.us/j/93308631804?pwd=QXVDeGlUN3ozY2xUZ1RCdW5mUnd4QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 933 0863 1804 Password: 955982 HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner on August 2, 2021 at 3 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://zoom.us/j/95443961977?pwd=RTg5d0pjc3N2K0dJSG1xREN1UDJvQT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 954 4396 1977 Password: 150634 CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Exhibit 2 424 219 335 316 304200 140 510614 610400 146 109 515507308 518229225 216220221 512504414 422155145 409403 260 250 402 180 190 170 120 110 160 130 150110 222210 230 272320 330410400209123128 126 200144 220202267271223200200209 400239 408 424 420 404126 415417100229 109105 110 420402320314 306 249 410102214110514 550 417 12751 411401 110 114 133 134 136 127 123 117 121 115 131 125 130 122 120131120218112 126 221 316318326306323 324318 314150224 217 220 404 325343337 325 111111 115 110317 242 232229 263 221 247 210420104115 215 275405303223 203 122123 222 348 328 180190144250260264 156154 233 303242 514258 10211191210220203 307 301311309402412420423101418152125 112110108 120122124130313319323 209 256 211150170428434430432 310 228 234 201 130 201 117202 318314 517 116 114 3RD AVE S5TH AVE SDAYTON STSUNSETAVES ALDER ST 3RD AVE NRAILROAD STRAILROAD AVE3RD AVE SWALNUT ST 4TH AVE N MAIN S T MAIN S T BEA C H P L HOWELL WAY4TH AVE SJAMES S T JAMES S T EDMONDS WAYW DAYTON ST DAYTON ST W M A I N S T 2NDAVESSR 104H Project Location BD2BD4 P OS RM-1.5 Zoning and Vicinity MapWWTP Carbon Recovery ProjectPLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, PLN2021-0030 RM-2.4 CG BC 1 inch = 300 feetScale BD1 BD3 Exhibit 3 Page 1 of 2 DATE: 7/07/2021 TO: Planning Division: KERNEN LIEN Owner: EDMONDS CITY OF FROM: LEIF BJORBACK RE: Plan Check: PLN2021-0028, -0029, -0030 Project Address: 200 2ND AVE S Project: WWTP - CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT VARIANCE REQUESTS AND DESIGN REVIEW During a review of the plans by the Building Division for compliance with the applicable building codes, it was found that the following information, clarifications, or changes are needed. 1. The Activated Carbon Filter (ACF) equipment and supports are already included in the main permit (BLD2021-0520) which is currently under City review. The Building Division has no comments concerning the AFC regarding the design review or variance requests. 2. The proposed loading dock on the west end of the Solids Processing Building is not included in the main building permit and will require a separate building permit. 3. The permanent portion of the loading dock is stated to be located entirely within the project property. However, the temporary portion of the loading dock extends beyond the property line and likely beyond the boundary of the flood zone. In order to demonstrate whether the structure is within the flood zone, a. Please provide an enhanced Site Plan, prepared and sealed by a licensed surveyor, showing i. The distance between the building and the western property line, ii. The outline of the proposed loading dock, iii. Footing locations for the loading dock, iv. Flood zone boundary. b. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) may assist in the determination of the location of the structure in relation to the flood zone. If you so choose, these documents may be obtained from FEMA through the agency’s web site. 4. The temporary portion of the loading dock may be submitted as a separate, temporary building permit, with a permit life of 6 months, and an additional 6 months if approved by the building official. Thank you, City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 Exhibit 4 Page 2 of 2 LEIF BJORBACK Building Official City of Edmonds (425) 771-0220 Exhibit 4