The URL can be used to link to this page

RESUB 1-BLD2024-0064+Wildlife Conservation Report-9.12.2024_2.06.05_PM+4497107BLD2024-0064 LALANDAU A S S O C I A T E S RESUB Sep 13 2024 CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DRAFT Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement Edmonds, Washington September 3, 2024 Prepared for Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA SEATTLE 155 NE 100th St, Ste 302, Seattle, WA 98125 T 206.631.8680 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement DRAFT Draft Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the technical professionals noted below. Document prepared by: Document reviewed by: Primary Author / Project Scientist Quality Reviewer / Senior Associate Justin Kay Steven Quarterman Date: September 3, 2024 Project No.: 0173042.010 File path: \\edmdata0l\projects\173\042.010\R\Wetl-Waterway CritAreas\Marina Dry Storage Replacement FWHCA Report DRAFT 9.3.2024.docx Project Coordinator: KEE LALANDAU Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement This page intentionally left blank. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 ii landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Port of Edmonds (Port) is proposing to replace an existing dry storage building with an elevated premanufactured building at the southwest corner of the Port Marina (project area). The new building will include an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant ramp. Landau Associates, Inc. (Landau) conducted a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FHWCA) critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a wetland and waterway reconnaissance, fish and wildlife inventory, and priority habitat inventory; and an evaluation of mitigation sequencing of project -related impacts, which was limited to an evaluation of impact avoidance and minimization. Landau identified FWHCAs in the study area including the piped section of Shelleberger Creek and the shoreline of Possession Sound, and did not identify any wetlands within 225 feet (ft) of the project area (study area). The project avoids in -water work and is limited to existing developed area of the Port's Dry Storage Facility. The character of the project area will be maintained under the proposed conditions; the project will not result in direct or indirect impacts or loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 ii landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement This page intentionally left blank. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 ii landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Site Description......................................................................................................................1-1 2.0 Methodology..................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Background Information Review............................................................................................2-1 2.2 Wetland Reconnaissance.......................................................................................................2-2 2.3 Waterway Reconnaissance.....................................................................................................2-2 2.4 Impact Assessment.................................................................................................................2-2 2.5 Mitigation Sequencing............................................................................................................2-2 3.0 Investigation Results......................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Wetlands................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas........................................................................3-1 3.2.1 Shelleberger Creek..............................................................................................3-1 3.2.2 Possession Sound................................................................................................3-2 3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Species and Habitat..................................................................3-2 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 6.0 Conclusion and Assessment of No Net Loss..................................................................................6-1 7.0 Use of This Report..........................................................................................................................7-1 8.0 References.....................................................................................................................................8-1 Figure 1 2 Table 1 2 FIGURES Title Vicinity Map Environmental Features Map TABLES Title Methods for Wetland Determination (Attachment) Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species and Priority Habitat Review 3-3 173042.010 September 3, 2024 iii landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement APPENDICES Appendix Title A Background Review Figures B Priority Habitat and Species Report C Species Listings D Selected Site Photographs E Precipitation Data F Plan Sheets G Staff Qualifications DRAFT 173042.010 September 3, 2024 iv landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADA..................................................................................... Americans with Disabilities Act BMPs........................................................................................ Best Management Practices City..............................................................................................................City of Edmonds DIPS .......................................................................................... Distinct Population Segment ECDC................................................. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Ecology............................................................... Washington State Department of Ecology ESA................................................................................................. Endangered Species Act ESU......................................................................................... evolutionarily significant unit FAC...................................................................................................................... Facultative FACU........................................................................................................Facultative Upland FHWCA.............................................................. fish and wildlife habitat conservation area ft............................................................................................................................. feet/foot GIS......................................................................................Geographic Information System Landau.............................................................................................. Landau Associates, Inc. MHHW........................................................................................... mean higher high water NMFS............................................................................... National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA.................................................... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS......................................................................Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI.........................................................................................National Wetlands Inventory NWIFC................................................................... Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission OHWM.........................................................................................ordinary high water mark PHS........................................................................................... Priority Habitat and Species Port............................................................................................................ Port of Edmonds sf................................................................................................................. square feet/foot SMP.............................................................................................Shoreline Master Program SWIFD.........................................Statewide Washington Integration Fish Distribution Map USACE....................................................................................... US Army Corps of Engineers USDA..................................................................................... US Department of Agriculture USFWS.......................................................................................US Fish and Wildlife Service USGS.................................................................................................... US Geological Survey WA-DNR..................................................... Washington Department of Natural Resources WA-DOH...............................................................Washington State Department of Health WDFW.............................................................. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife WNHP...................................................................... Washington Natural Heritage Program WRIA.................................................................................. Water Resource Inventory Area DRAFT 173042.010 September 3, 2024 v landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement This page intentionally left blank. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 vi landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Port is proposing to replace an existing dry storage building with an elevated premanufactured building at the southwest corner of the project area. The new building will include an ADA-compliant ramp. Landau conducted a wetland and FHWCA critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a wetland and waterway reconnaissance, fish and wildlife inventory, and priority habitat inventory; and an evaluation of mitigation sequencing of project -related impacts, which was limited to an evaluation of impact avoidance and minimization. The proposed project is confined to existing developed area at the Port (Le, existing building and paved surfaces) and does not require any in -water work. The character of the project area located in uplands will not be changed; no wetlands occur in the project vicinity. As a result, no permanent or temporary impacts will occur to wetlands or FWHCA critical areas. 1.1 Site Description The project area is located in Section 26 of Township 27N, Range 3E, within the Puget Sound Drainage sub -basin of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 (Cedar-Sammamish) within an approximate 730-square-foot (sf) area in the southwest corner of Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032600200100. The project area is an existing Port Dry Storage Facility, which is flat and paved and elevated in part over the shoreline of Possession Sound to the west. The study area extends 225 ft beyond the project area in all directions (Figure 2). The study area includes portions of Edmonds Marina Beach Park, a public park with an off -leash dog area, and the Port Marina and associated facilities. 173042.010 September3, 2024 1-1 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement 2.0 METHODOLOGY Landau reviewed publicly available information, completed both site reconnaissance and impact assessment for the proposed project, and prepared a mitigation plan for project -related impacts to FWHCA critical areas in accordance with the methods described below. Landau conducted the wetland investigation in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010), and waterway investigation following the principles provided in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology's) Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Ecology 2016). The USACE and Ecology recommend preliminary data gathering and a synthesis of available background information followed by a field investigation. Landau's field investigation was limited to a visual examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology within the project area. Visual observation and publicly available domain resources were used to evaluate wetland/waterway presence in the study area from the project area. 2.1 Background Information Review Landau conducted a desktop review to evaluate existing conditions and the potential extent of wetlands and waterways adjacent to the project area. Public domain resources reviewed included but were not limited to the following: • US Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map (Appendix A, Figure A-1) • Aerial imagery (Figure 2) • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (Appendix A, Figure A-2) • US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey (Appendix A, Figure A-3) • City of Edmonds (City) GIS (Edmonds 2024) • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) on the Web (Appendix B) • Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA-DNR) Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (WA-DNR[a]; accessed August 2024) • WDFW and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) Statewide Washington Integration Fish Distribution Map (WDFW[a]; accessed August 2024) • USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (USFWS[a]; Appendix C) • Orca Network Recent Whale Sitings (Orca Network 2024) • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) salmon listing (Appendix C) 173042.010 September 3, 2024 2-1 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement DRAFT • National NMFS Endangered Species Act (ESA) Critical Habitat Mapper (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2024; accessed August 2024) • WA-DNR Nearshore and Shore Zone Inventory (WA-DNR[b]) • WA-DNR Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) Data Explorer (WA-DNR[c]; accessed August 2024) • Washington State Department of Health (WA -DOH) Inventory of Shellfish Harvest Areas (WA -DOH 2O24) • WA-DNR Natural Areas and Preserves map (WA-DNR[d]; accessed August 2024) • WA-DNR Natural Resource Conservation Areas (WA-DNR[e]; accessed August 2024). 2.2 Wetland Reconnaissance Landau investigated the study area for locations representative of typical wetlands and/or uplands. An area is determined to be a wetland if the following three criteria are met (Table 1): • The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic • Soils are hydric • Wetland hydrology is present. 2.3 Waterway Reconnaissance The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determination for waterways was completed using guidance developed by Ecology (Ecology 2016) and the definition provided in European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) 24.90.030, which identifies the OHWM, in part as, the mark found by examining the bed and banks of a stream, lake, or tidal water, and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and long maintained in ordinary years as to mark upon the soil a vegetative character distinct from that of the abutting upland. In any area where the OHWM cannot be found, the OHWM-adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high tide (also referred to as mean higher high water [MHHW]). 2.4 Impact Assessment Project impacts were determined in coordination with the project engineering team based on pre- and post -project conditions documented on the plans. Critical areas functions were assessed with a qualitative evaluation and best professional judgment. 2.5 Mitigation Sequencing Mitigation sequencing was evaluated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, which outlines general requirements for mitigation associated with alterations to critical areas. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, the applicant shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been taken to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts in the following order of preference: 173042.010 September 3, 2024 2-2 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement DRAFT 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. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 2-3 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement 3.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS DRAFT This section summarizes the results of Landau's background review and field reconnaissance conducted on July 26, 2024. Background information was derived from topographic, city, and NWI maps; soil survey information; and other sources documenting conditions in and adjacent to the project area. Select site photos are provided as Appendix D. 3.1 Wetlands The USGS topographic map (Appendix A, Figure A-1), NWI map (Appendix A, Figure A-2), and City of Edmonds Geographic Information System (GIS; Edmonds 2024) do not identify any wetlands within the study area. The USDA Soils Map identifies one soil series in the study area (Appendix A, Figure A-3), which is described as follows: Urban land refers to soils in areas of high population density in the largely built environment. These soils can be significantly changed by human -transported materials, human -altered materials, or minimally altered or intact "native" soils. Soils in urban areas exhibit a wide variety of conditions and properties and may have impervious surfaces, such as buildings and pavement. This soil series is not listed as hydric (USDA NRCS). The project area was observed to be within the existing paved Dry Storage Facility. Edmonds Marina Beach Park and the Edmonds Marina were surveyed for potential wetland conditions within the study area. The portion of Edmonds Marina Beach Park within the study area is comprised of impervious surfaces (trails and parking), mowed grass, trees, a play structure, and beach. No wetland conditions (e.g., hydrophytic vegetation, depressions, and standing water) were observed within Edmonds Marina Beach Park. Evaluation of soils was not completed to avoid impacts to the park and were not deemed necessary based on observed surface conditions. Precipitation data for the 3-month period prior to the field investigation indicate recorded precipitation levels were "normal conditions" as calculated by the USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool (Appendix Q. 3.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The following section summarizes waterways and fish and wildlife species and habitats in the study area based on the results of background review and site observations. 3.2.1 Shelleberger Creek The USGS topographic map (Appendix A, Figure A-1) identifies a section of Shelleberger Creek approximately 85 ft west of the project area flowing northwest towards the outfall in Possession Sound. City mapping identifies the creek entering the stormwater drainage network approximately 600 ft east of the project area. The NWI map identifies a section of Shelleberger Creek east of the study area beneath a parking lot associated with the Port Marina (Appendix A, Figure A-2). 173042.010 September 3, 2024 3-1 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement DRAFT Shelleberger Creek is identified as an anadromous fish -bearing stream in ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1). The PHS on the Web and SWIFD sources identify Shelleberger Creek as a Type F water (WDFW[a]; WA-DNR[a]) with documented presence of coho and resident coastal cutthroat (WDFW[a]; WA-DNR[a]). It is presumed that City of Edmonds GIS most accurately records the location of Shelleberger Creek within the municipal drainage system in the study area. In accordance with ECDC 23.40.005, a buffer is, in part, "a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem." Because the segment of Shelleberger Creek within the study area is piped, no buffer is applied as there is no connection to adjacent riparian habitats that would normally serve as an integral part of the riparian ecosystem. 3.2.2 Possession Sound The NWI map identifies portions of the Port Marina (Possession Sound) within the study area as estuarine, subtidal, unconsolidated (E1UBL) deepwater habitat. This section of Possession Sound is identified as Type S on WA-DNR water type mapping and is included in the City Shoreline Master Program (SMP) with environmental designations of Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II. Based on site observation, the shoreline is modified and armored with riprap and bulkhead adjacent to the project. An OHWM, as defined by ECDC 24.90.030(II), was observed as saltwater staining on riprap and a break in rooted vegetation within the riprap. Observed vegetation within the riprap included Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, Facultative [FAQ, butterfly bush (Buddleja davidii, Facultative Upland [FACU]), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor, FACU), and tansy ragwort (Jacobaea vulgaris, FACU). The armored shoreline extends below project area under a pile -supported section of the Dry Storage Facility. The substrate in the Edmonds Marina consists of silt and no aquatic vegetation was observed within the marina. Per the SMP, the project area falls within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation, defined in ECDC 24.30.070(C)(2) as "areas that are suitable and planned for high -intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation." The study area within the Edmonds Marina falls within the Aquatic II shoreline designation defined in ECDC 24.30.030(B)(3) as "areas that are more intensely developed areas with water -dependent uses. The marine nearshore has been significantly modified by commercial waterfront development, including the Port of Edmonds Marina." Per the table in ECDC 24.40.090, Shoreline bulk and dimensional standards, no shoreline buffer of setback is required for water -dependent commercial use within the Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II shoreline designations. 3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Species and Habitat Lists of threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitats in the study area were obtained from the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries websites, and are discussed below and presented in 173042.010 September 3, 2024 3-2 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement DRAFT Appendix C. Site -specific species and habitat information was obtained from the WDFW PHS database (WDFW 2024; Appendix B), which does not identify any PHS resources in the study area. A summary of mapping sources identifying potential presence of critical species and habitat is provided in Table 2. Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species and Priority Habitat Review Common Name Scientific Name Status Agency Data Source Location North American Gulo gulo Threatened USFWS iPaC None anticipated. wolverine luscus (Appendix C) Wolvernine occurs in remote mountainous areas of the Cascades and in northern Washington Marbled erochyramphus Threatened USFWS iPaC Possession Sound murrelet marmoratus (Appendix C) Yellow -billed Coccyzus Threatened USFWS iPaC None anticipated. Yellow - cuckoo americanus (Appendix C) billed cuckoos are considered extirpated in Washington. Northwestern Actinemys Proposed USFWS iPaC None anticipated. pond turtle marmorata threatened (Appendix C) Northwest pond turtle was effectively extirpated from the Puget Sound (Hays et al. 1999; Pramuk et al. 2012; Hallock et al. 2017), but through conservation efforts, small populations are found in southern Puget Sound, specifically in Pierce and Mason counties. Bull trout and Solvelinus Threatened USFWS iPaC Watershed designated confluentus (Appendix C) critical habitat Humpback whale Megaptera Threatened NMFS Orca Network Possession Sound novaeangliae Gray whale Eschrichtius Sensitive Washington Orca Network Possession Sound robustus (WDFW) State listed sensitive species 173042.010 September 3, 2024 3-3 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement DRAFT Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus Threatened NMFS NMFS Watershed (Puget Sound tshawytscha (Appendix C) evolutionarily significant unit [ESU]) Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus Threatened NMFS NMFS Watershed (Puget Sound mykiss (Appendix C) Distinct Population Segment [DPS]) Yelloweye Sebastes Threatened NMFS NMFS Critical Watershed (estuarine only) Rockfish and ruberrimus Habitat designated Mapper critical habitat Bocaccio (Puget Sebastes Endangered NMFS NMFS Critical Watershed (estuarine only) Sound -Georgia paucispinis Habitat Basin DPS) and Mapper designated critical habitat Southern Orcinus orca Endangered NMFS NMFS Critical Possession Sound resident killer Habitat whale and Mapper, Orca designated Network critical habitat Estuarine and Eelgrass and PHS WDFW WA-DNR(b) Possession Sound Marine macroalgae nearshore. WA-DNR Wetland/Possess shorezone inventory ion Sound available on the Washington Marine Vegetation Atlas nearshore identifies eelgrass bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana; and green algae (Ulva sp.; within the study area in the Edmonds Marina. This data is noted as generalized by polygon and does not indicate that eelgrass or kelp was present or absent throughout the whole polygon. No active commercial or recreational shellfish areas are identified within the study area (WA -DOH 2024). 173042.010 September 3, 2024 3-4 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement DRAFT The study area is not listed within a township, range, or section listed as containing Natural Heritage resources within the WNHP data and is not mapped as a Natural Area Preserve or Natural Resource Conservation Area. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 3-5 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement 4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT DRAFT The replacement of the dry storage building will not result in impacts to wetlands, FWHCAs, or associated buffers. The replacement dry storage building is sited on top of a previously existing paved surface. No wetlands are present and the existing paved surface functionally separates the project from potential FWHCAs associated with Puget Sound below. Plan sheets showing the above are provided in Appendix F. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 4-1 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement 5.0 MITIGATION This section outlines a mitigation sequence in relation to FWHCAs and associated buffers. 5.1 Mitigation Sequencing ECDC Chapter 20.80.053 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 project, improvements to a Port facility, does not require in -water work and is confined to existing developed uplands. No direct or indirect impacts will occur to upland habitat, riparian habitat, or aquatic habitat utilized by sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. 5.1.2 Minimization Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to reduce impacts to the environment during construction and include marking of limits of clearing to confine project work to the minimum needed and silt fencing and catch basin inserts to control runoff. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 5-1 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report DRAFT Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement 6.0 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS The Port is proposing to replace an existing dry storage building with an elevated premanufactured building at the southwest corner of the project area. The new building will include an ADA-compliant amp. The project avoids in -water work and is limited to existing developed area of the Port's Dry Storage Facility. The mitigation sequence presented in this report meets City requirements, as outlined in the ECDC. The character of the project area will be maintained under the proposed conditions. As a result, no compensatory mitigation is proposed because the project does not result in direct or indirect impacts or loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 6-1 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement 7.0 USE OF THIS REPORT DRAFT The findings presented herein are based on Landau Associates' understanding of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 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 makes no other warranty, either express or implied. Qualifications of staff authoring this report are provided in Appendix G. This report was prepared for the use of the Port of Edmonds and applicable regulatory agencies. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and/or recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and/or recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau, shall be at the user's sole risk. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 7-1 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement 8.0 REFERENCES DRAFT Ecology. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology. October. Edmonds. 2024. City of Edmonds, GIS. Available online at: https.Ilmops.edmondswo.govlHtm15Viewerl?viewer=Edmonds SSL.HTML. City of Edmonds, Washington. Accessed August 9, 2024. Hallock, L. A., A. McMillan, and G. J. Wiles. 2017. Periodic Status Review for the Western Pond Turtle in Washington (2017). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 30. Hays, D. W., K. R. McAllister, S. A. Richardson, and D. W. Stinson. 1999. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Western Pond Turtle. 76. NOAA. 2024. Web Page: Endangered Species Act (ESA) Critical Habitat Mapper (v1.0) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Available online at: https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=68d8df16b39c48fe9f60640692 d0e318. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed August 27, 2024. Orca Network. 2024. Web Page: Recent Whale Sitings. Available online at: https://www.orcanetwork.org/recent-sightings. Accessed August 9, 2024. Pramuk, J., F. Koontz, S. Zeigler, K. Schwartz, and P. Miller. 2012. The Western Pond Turtle in Washington: A Population and Habitat Viability Assessment. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269114183 The We. USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. January. https://el.erdc.dren.mil/elpubs/pdf/wiman87.pdf. Accessed August 2024. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. US Army Corps of Engineers. USDA NRCS. National List of Hydric Soils. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed August 9, 2024. WA-DNR(a). Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) (wa.gov). Accessed August 9, 2024. WA-DNR(b). Web Page : Marine Vegetation Analysis. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Available online at : https://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=dOccc569elcd4b5189b492cOba 0297c5. Accessed August 2024. WA-DNR(c). Web Page : Rare Plant and Ecosystem Locations. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Available online at : https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/174566lOOf2a47bebe56db3fOf78b5d9/page/Rare-Plant- and-Ecosystem-Locations/. Accessed August 2024. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 8-1 landauinc.com Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Report Port of Edmonds Marina Dry Storage Building Replacement DRAFT WA-DNR(d). Natural Area Preserves. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Area Preserves I WA - DNR. Accessed August 9, 2024. WA-DNR(e). Natural Resources Conservation Areas. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Resources Conservation Areas I WA - DNR. Accessed August 9, 2024. WA -DOH. 2024. Office of Environmental Health and Safety Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer. Washington State Department of Health. Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer (wa.gov). Accessed August 9, 2024. WDFW(a). Priority Habitats and Species on the Web. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs. Accessed August 9, 2024. 173042.010 September 3, 2024 8-2 landauinc.com - - - - - - - - - - - 1 —Fruget Sound 1 LALSANDAU i Project Location H a II a M 0.5 Miles Data Source: Esri. Dry Storage Service Building Port of Edmonds Marina Edmonds, Washington Pine St 231st St SW Q I Project u Location Spokane pia Figure Vicinity Map 1 r � v ' / a All P. y� Legend Notes 1. OHWM is estimated based on site observations. OHWM 0 60 120 2. Buffers not shown; project is in area of existing Shellabarger Creek (Piped) development and is functionally isolated from Q Project Area stream/shoreline in vicinity. Scale in Feet 3. Black and white reproduction of this color Q Study Area original may reduce its effectiveness and Data Sources: Reid Middleton; City of Edmonds GIS; Goo le Earth Pro. lead to incorrect interpretation. Dry Storage Service Building Figure Port of Edmonds Environmental Features Map LALSANDAU Edmonds, Washington 2 Page 1 of 1 Table 1 Methods for Wetland Determination Dry Storage Service Building Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington Parameter Definition Field Indicators Field Assessment 1. Dominance: The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status are evaluated Wetland vegetation is adapted to saturated soil conditions. The US Army Corps of More than 50 percent of the dominant plants totaled from all vegetation quantitatively within data plots and visually throughout the study area. If the test for Engineers USACE has assigned a wetland indicator to each plant species that denotes g (USACE) g p p strata are h dro h tic i.e., those species with indicators of OBL, FACW, or y p Y ( p dominance fails, and indicators of wetland soils and hydrology are present, the its frequency of occurrence within wetlands (Lichvar et al 2014). FAC [regardless of modifier]). Prevalence Index is calculated. These are: or 2. Prevalence Index: A weighted average of the percent cover of each indicator status is • Obligate (OBL) wetland plants almost always (more than 99 percent of the time) calculated. (See data sheets in Appendix D.) An index of 3 or less is considered meeting occur in wetlands under natural conditions. A plant community has a visually estimated cover percentage of OBL and the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. If the Prevalence Index is not met, then Wetland Vegetation • Facultative wetland (FACW) plants usually occur (67 to 99 percent of the time) in FACW species that exceeds the coverage of FACU and UPL species. If consideration is given to morphological adaptations and/or non -vascular plants. wetlands but are occasionally found in non -wetlands. dominance is not met, the Prevalence Index is calculated, or consideration is • Facultative (FAC) plants are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non -wetlands given to morphological adaptations and/or non -vascular plants observed. 3. Morphological Adaptations/Non-Vascular Plants: Some plants develop recognizable (34 to 66 percent of the time). morphological adaptations when occurring in wetland areas. These features must be • Facultative upland (FACU) plants usually occur in non -wetlands but are occasionally observed on >50 percent of the individuals of an FACU species living in an area where found in wetlands (1 to 33 percent of the time). indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present. Wetland non -vascular • Obligate upland (UPL) plants almost always occur in uplands (more than 99 percent plants can include bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts). The cover of wetland of the time). bryophytes must be >50 percent of the total bryophyte cover in a plot in coastal Washington forested wetlands. A shovel is used to dig holes at least 20 inches below ground surface (bgs) at multiple Soils are classified as hydric, or they possess characteristics that are associated with Hydric soils have an identifiable color pattern, which occurs if the soil is locations in the study area. Direct observation of the soil is made at multiple locations in Wetland Soils reducing soil conditions. A hydric soil is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, saturated, flooded, or ponded for a long period of time. Faint or washed-out both wetlands and uplands, as applicable. Soil organic content is determined visually and (USACE 1987, 2010; USDA NRCS2011) or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in colors typically form in the soil, and mottles of bright color, such as rust texturally, and soil color is determined using the Munsell soil color chart (Gretag-Macbeth the upper part of the soil. (known as redoximorphic features), form. Accumulations of organic matter at 1994). Depth to water saturation and/or inundation is also observed. The characteristics the surface, a sulfurous odor, and organic matter stains may also be present. 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). The area is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water depths less than primary indicators of wetland hydrology include surface inundation (standing During investigation of soils, soil pits are allowed to stand for up to 20 minutes to allow or equal to 6.6 feet. water), saturated soils, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and percolation of any groundwater into the pit to determine groundwater level in the soil Wetland Hydrology drainage patterns. Secondary indicators of hydrology include water -stained profile. Additional digging may occur to 24 inches bgs during the dry season to investigate (USACE 1987, 2010) or leaves, oxidized root channels, or local soil survey data for identified soils. In groundwater levels. In addition, the extent of soil saturation and presence/absence of The soil is inundated or saturated to the surface for at least 14 consecutive days during the absence of any primary indicators, at least two secondary indicators are oxidation are determined in the soils removed as part of the soils. Other indicators of the growing season. (a) required to meet the wetland hydrology criterion. wetland hydrology are observed at ground surface. Notes: (a) 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. Growing season also can be determined by soil temperature. The growing season is identified on the project area's WETS table as being from February 6 to December 6. References: Gretag-Macbeth Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New York, NY. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42. April 2. USDA, NRCS. 1980. Soil Survey of Kitsap County Area, Washington. September. USDA, NRCS. 2011. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. Version 7.0. Available at http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas, eds. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-10-3. US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, Mississippi. May. USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. March. 8/29/24 \\edmdata0l\projects\173\042.010\R\Wetl-WaterwayCritAreas\Tables\Tablel.docx Landau Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A Background Review Figures Legend Q Project Area Q Study Area Edwards Point Data Sources: USGS. } •I (1 i� Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 250 500 Scale in Feet Dry Storage Service Building I Figure Port of Edmonds USGS Topographic Map LALANDAUSEdmonds, Washington A-1 E1 •ems;. E2AB/USN � 7 , •� it . 'r' '�;c� ,�r f �-- : � � Legend Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color Q Project Area E1UBL Estuarine and Marine Deepwater original may reduce its effectiveness and Q Study Area E2AB/USN - Estuarine and Marine Wetland lead to incorrect interpretation. R4SBC - Riverine 0 100 200 Data Sources: USFW; Goo le Earth Pro. Scale in Feet Dry Storage Service Building US Fish and Wildlife Service Figure Port of Edmonds LALANDAU Edmonds, Washington National Wetlands Inventory Map A-2 A S S 0 C I A T E 5 �VV N w w x 17 a .� W '. a Legend Soil Series Key Note 4 - Alderwood-Everett Gravelly Sandy Loams, 25-70% Slopes 1. Black and white reproduction of this color Q Project Area 78 _ Urban Land original may reduce its effectiveness and Q Study Area lead to incorrect interpretation. Soil Series 0 100 200 Data Sources: USDA NRCS; Goo le Earth Pro. Scale in Feet Dry Storage Service Building Figure Port of Edmonds Soils Map LALANDAUSQEdmonds, Washington ^-3 APPENDIX B Priority Habitat and Species Report 0 FsH � Priority Habitats and Species on the Web H7LDLIF'E % 40 ea til Edmond e W00 way Report Date: 08/28/2024 The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department. DISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location offish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to variation caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. APPENDIX C Species Listings IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Snohomish County, Washington Local office Washington Fish And Wildlife Office t. (360) 753-9440 JEJ (360) 753-9405 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 O00,0 Foy Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and project -specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed speciesl and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Mammals NAME North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123 Birds NAME Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus There is final critical habitat for this species Your location does STATUS Threatened STATUS T t not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467 )\00 Yellow -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Reptiles I,< %MPOI NAME Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111 Fishes NAME Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212 STATUS Proposed Threatened STATUS Threatened I nsects NAME Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Critical habitats STATUS Candidate Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. This location overlaps the critical habitat for the following species: NAME Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212#crithab TYPE K Bald &Golden Eagle` Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act' and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats3, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". Additional information can be found using the following links: • Eagle Management https://www.fws.gQv//program/eagle-management • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf • Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 BREEDING SEASON Breeds Mar 1 to Aug 31 Probability of Presence Summary A( The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence( ) Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort (1) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data (—) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe 1k %-00 Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle 0011 mill 111111111111 mill 1111 loll os+* loll 1111 loll Non -BCC Vulnerable What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions. Migratory birds 1k Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. i Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats' should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: • Eagle Management https://www.fws.gQv//program/eagle-management • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf • Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- golden-eagles-may-occu r-project-action The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, seethe PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. .( Vhk*, 1% NAME BREEDING SEASON Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus Breeds Mar 10 to Sep 10 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Mar 1 to Aug 31 This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9591 Black Swift Cypseloides niger Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8878 Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala Breeds elsewhere This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Brandt's Cormorant Urile penicillatus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. California Gull Larus californicus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecptspecies/6967 Chestnut -backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens rufescens This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. eftN" %Moo, Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Olive -sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914 Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Breeds Apr 15 to Sep 15 Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 Breeds Mar 21 to Sep 21 Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31< tx. Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Breeds May 15 to Aug 10 Breeds elsewhere Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15 Short -billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Tufted Puffin Fratercula cirrhata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/430 Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743 Western Gull Carus occidentalis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Willet Tringa semipalmata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Probability of Presence Summary Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 10 Breeds May 5 to Oct 5 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 < \0\4 Breeds Apr 21 to Aug 25 Breeds elsewhere The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence ( ) Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort (1) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data (—) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. ■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data SPECIES JAANly I FEB I I MAR APR MAY JUN JUL I I I AUG I SEP yy I OCT NOV DEC yy Ancient T I TT TT+T + I I I I I I ]III loop TTTT ++1 1 11 T+ 0+00 ws +++T Murrelet BCC Rangewide (CON) Bald Eagle IIII III iiji dill 111i ii11 Iiii ii�i got* ml I I I I loll Non -BCC --- --- --- MV- J== Vulnerable Black ++++ ++++ ++++ +TTT 7777 7777 Jill ?ITT Jill Jill +#++ ++++ Oystercatcher BCC Rangewide (CON) Black Swift ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +III Jill Jill IF ++++ ++++ ++++ BCC Rangewide (CON) Black Turnstone I +++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +� I III I++ +011 ++++ BCC Rangewide (CON) Cormorant IIII 111111111 I I I I I +� ++�+ �"' �� I I IIII I �� 11111�11 Cormorant BCC Rangewide (CON) yy yy yyyy yy yy California Gull 111111114 T�T TT+T�T moll 11111111111111111 BCC Rangewide TT TT 'P (CON) 's Auklet BCC - BCR tttt tttt ++++ ++++ tttt ++++ ++++ I t �H A + ++ mt BCC Chestnut- IIII IIII IIII IIII I I I I I1II hil 11111111 IIII I backed Chickadee BCC -BCR Clark'sGrebe IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII �� IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII ��I BCC Rangewide (CON) Evening IIII III I I I 11 I-+ 14 11 IIII 1111 1 I 1 I 14 I I 1 I 1 1 1 Grosbeak BCC Rangewide (CON) Ae Lesser IIII ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +++� 1111111++1 +11111111+ 01111111++ ++++ ++++ ++++ Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY yy JUN JUL AUG SEPP OCT NOV DEC Olive -sided ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ Flycatcher +T++ ++++ ++++ ++++ BCC Rangewide (CON) Rufous ++++ ++++ I I I I I I �� +�++ ++++ ++++ ++++ Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) Short -billed ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ Jill Jill 11++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) Tufted Puffin BCC - BCR Ht tH tot +++l 114 44 44 TITT 777? 1W tttt tttt Western Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) Western Gull 0+0100++ 11*0 ++++ +++ ++++ +�011110+0+ ++++ BCC Rangewide (CON) Willet BCC Rangewide (CON) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? Of The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study_ and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities � -ON National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. There are no refuge lands at this location. Fish hatcheries There are no fish hatcheries at this location. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. This location overlaps the following wetlands: ESTUARINE AND MARINE DEEPWATER E1 UBL A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website nXA NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on -site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below._or Data limitations \NW \ The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. O00,0 Foy 07, xs�e 106 CJO NOAA ,7d ` FISHERIES San Canada — -- — — — j United States Bellingham -� Seattle Spokane Wenatchee WgSHINGTON is I,r Yakima Walla Walla Portland Sale OREGON Sacramento Santa Cruz Fresno Status of ESA Listings & Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon & Steelhead *Boise I D A H O Recovery Domain Puget Sound Interior Columbia is Willamette / Lower Columbia and Interior Columbia Overlap Willamette / Lower Columbia Oregon Coast Southern OR / Northern CA Coast So. OR / No. CA Coast and North-Central CA Coast Overlap North-Central California Coast 0"'A North-Central California Coast and Central Valley Overlap Central Valley South -Central / Southern CA Coast C A L I F O R N I A Santa Barbara Lod Angele �� aAri1 a O San Diego Evolutionarily Significant Unit / Distinct Population Segment ESA Status Date of ESA Listing Date of CH Designation Puget Sound Recovery Domain Hood Canal Summer -run Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon T 3 4/1 9 J/24/O16 Puget Sound Steelhead T 5/1 200 Interior Columbia Recovery Domain 3/25/1999 Middle Columbia River Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 Snake River Fall -run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 12/28/1993 Snake River Spring / Summer -run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 10/25/1999 Sockeye Salmon E 11/20/1991 12/28/1993 8/18/1997 Snake River Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 Upper Columbia River Spring -run Chinook Salmon E 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 8/18/1997 Upper Columbia River Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 Willamette /Lower Columbia Recovery Do Columbia River Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Lower Columbia RiverCohoSalmon T 6/28/2005 2/24/2016 Lower Columbia River Steelhead T 3/ 5/200 8 1/5/2006 9/2/2005 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Upper Willamette River Steelhead T 3/25/1999 1/5/2006 9/2/2005 Oregon Coast Recovery Domain Oregon Coast Coho Salmon I T 1 2/11/2008 1 2/11/2008 Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Recovery Domain Southern OR / Northern CA Coasts Coho T 1 5/6/1997 5/5/1999 Salmon North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain California Coastal Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 10/31/1996 (T) Central California Coast Coho Salmon E 6/28/2005 (E) 5/5/1999 4/2/2012 (RE) 8/18/1997 Central California Coast Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 6/7/2000 Northern California Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 Central Valley Recovery Domain 3/19/1998 California Central Valley Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 Central Valley Spring -run Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 Sacramento River Winter -run Chinook 11/5/1990 (T) Salmon E 1/4/1994 (E) 6/16/1993 South -Central / Southern California Coast Recovery Domain 8/18/1997 South -Central California Coast Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 8/18/1997 Southern California Steelhead E 5/1/2002 (RE) 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 0 Miles 200 Updated July 2016 ESA = Endangered Species Act, CH = Critical Habitat RE = Range Extension E = Endangered, T = Threatened, Critical Habitat Rules Cited • 2/24/2016 (81 FR 9252) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Puget Sound Steelhead and Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52630) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 12 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in WA, OR, and ID • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52488) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 7 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in CA • 10/25/1999 (64 FR 57399) Revised Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon • 5/5/1999 (64 FR 24049) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Central CA Coast and Southern OR/Northern CA Coast Coho Salmon • 12/28/1993 (58 FR 68543) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Chinook and Sockeye Salmon • 6/16/1993 (58 FR 33212) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Sacramento River Winter -run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing Rules Cited • 4/2/2012 (77 FR 19552) Final Range Extension for Endangered Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final ESA Listing for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 5/11/2007 (72 FR 26722) Final ESA Listing for Puget Sound Steelhead • 1/5/2006 (71 FR 5248) Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead • 6/28/2005 (70 FR 37160) Final ESA Listing for 16 ESU's of West Coast Salmon • 5/1/2002 (67 FR 21586) Range Extension for Endangered Steelhead in Southern California • 6/7/2000 (65 FR 36074) Final ESA Listing for Northern California Steelhead • 9/16/1999 (64 FR 50394) Final ESA Listing for Two Chinook Salmon ESUs in California • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14508) Final ESA Listing for Hood River Canal Summer -run and Columbia River Chum Salmon • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14517) Final ESA Listing for Middle Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14528) Final ESA Listing for Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon • 3/24/1999 (64 FR 14308) Final ESA Listing for 4 ESU's of Chinook Salmon • 3/19/1998 (63 FR 13347) Final ESA Listing for Lower Columbia River and Central Valley Steelhead • 8/18/1997 (62 FR 43937) Final ESA Listing for 5 ESU's of Steelhead • 5/6/1997 (62 FR 24588) Final ESA Listing for Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Coho Salmon • 10/31/1996 (61 FR 56138) Final ESA Listing for Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 1/4/1994 (59 FR 222) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter -run Chinook Salmon • 4/22/1992 (57 FR 14653) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Spring/summer-run and Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon • 11/20/1991 (56 FR 58619) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Sockeye Salmon • 11/5/1990 (55 FR 46515) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter -run Chinook Salmon APPENDIX D Selected Site Photographs 1. View of project area and adjacent shoreline 2. Pier -supported section of the Dry Storage Building in the project vicinity Port of Edmonds Marina Figure Dry Storage Building Selected Site Photographs LALANDAU Replacement D-1 A S S O C I A T E S APPENDIX E Precipitation Data WETS Table WETS Station: SEATTLE SAND POINT WFO, WA Requested years: 1991 - 2020 Month Avg Max Avg Min Avg Avg 30% 30% Avg number Avg Temp Temp Mean Precip chance chance days precip Snowfall Temp precip less precip 0.10 or more than more than Jan 47.4 37.2 42.3 5.14 3.85 5.87 12 0.9 Feb 49.8 37.0 43.4 3.54 2.38 4.05 9 1.0 Mar 53.9 39.2 46.6 3.86 2.83 4.56 11 0.0 Apr 58.8 42.8 50.8 2.98 2.13 3.59 9 0.0 May 65.3 48.3 56.8 2.16 1.39 2.56 6 0.0 Jun 70.2 52.7 61.5 1.57 0.99 1.88 5 0.0 Jul 76.5 56.5 66.5 0.78 0.27 0.88 2 0.0 Aug 77.0 57.1 67.1 1.00 0.41 1.20 3 0.0 Sep 71.3 53.2 62.3 1.74 0.78 2.18 5 0.0 Oct 60.5 46.7 53.6 3.65 2.37 4.34 9 0.0 Nov 51.9 40.9 46.4 5.85 4.22 6.70 12 0.2 Dec 46.5 37.0 41.8 5.55 3.93 6.55 12 1.7 Annual: 33.12 39.49 Average 60.8 45.7 53.2 - - - - - Total - - - 37.82 94 3.8 a GROWING SEASON DATES Years with missing data: 24 deg = 3 28 deg = 32 deg = 4 4 Years with no occurrence: 24 deg = 18 28 deg = 32 deg = 0 0 Data years used: 24 deg = 27 28 deg = 32 deg = 26 26 Probability 24 F or 28 For 32 F or higher higher higher 50 percent * No 2/6 to 3/6 to occurrence 12/6:303 11/19: days 258 days 70 percent * No 1 /29 to 2/28 to occurrence 12/15: 11/26: 320 days 271 days * Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning and Ending dates. a STATS TABLE - total precipitation (inches) Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl 1986 a a a a a a a a a 4. 6. 4.40 15. 41 45 26 1987 6.07 2.09 5.50 2.97 1.87 0.04 0.37 0.37 0. 0. 2. 6.67 29. 64 28 72 59 1988 3.87 0.69 3.95 2.64 3.13 2.00 0.29 0.44 2. 1. 6. 3.85 32. 93 73 71 23 1989 3.18 a a 1.24 2.77 1.56 0.61 1.01 0. 3. 3. 4.11 22. 60 99 82 89 1990 7.57 3.34 3.04 2.40 1.47 2.81 a 0.57 0. 5. 5. 4.61 37. 02 30 95 08 1991 3.42 4.54 4.60 4.81 1.55 1.26 0.35 2.31 0. 1. 5. 2.65 32. 02 51 33 35 1992 M4.71 3.27 1.62 3.50 0.64 1.19 1.59 0.62 2. 2. 5. M3. 30. 05 02 50 31 02 1993 2.20 0.63 3.92 6.27 2.88 2.16 2.11 0.27 0. 1. 2. 6.23 31. 03 61 76 07 1994 2.42 4.26 2.45 2.82 1.12 1.48 1.36 0.20 1. 3. 5. 7.70 33. 32 22 09 44 1995 4.75 3.09 5.15 2.75 0.81 1.44 1.07 2.54 1. 3. 7. 6.96 41. 84 94 16 50 1996 5.21 7.00 2.02 5.23 3.44 0.51 0.76 1.23 1. 5. a 10. 43. 90 60 85 75 1997 6.36 1.87 7.80 5.63 2.98 2.82 1.38 1.76 2. a 4. 2.54 40. 98 79 91 1998 8.18 3.51 3.39 1.20 2.30 1.51 a a a a a 6.84 26. 93 1999 a a a a a a a 0.86 MO. 2. 9. 3.90 17. 60 87 74 97 2000 3.65 4.57 2.86 1.52 3.52 0.89 0.22 0.38 1. 3. 3. 2.43 28. 59 60 53 76 2001 3.05 2.47 2.82 2.55 1.34 2.69 0.74 1.98 0. 4. 9. 5.10 36. 43 25 40 82 2002 5.68 4.43 2.68 2.79 1.34 1.36 0.70 0.18 0. 0. 2. 5.24 28. 65 51 86 42 2003 6.74 1.68 5.11 2.72 1.32 0.95 T 0.30 1. 6. 5. M4. 37. 62 98 65 00 07 2004 7.14 2.45 1.80 0.64 2.23 0.62 0.40 3.05 1. 2. 3. 5.01 31. 94 67 26 21 2005 3.28 1.37 3.63 3.19 2.87 2.41 0.99 0.33 1. 2. 4. 7.39 34. 67 66 74 53 2006 10.12 3.07 1.63 2.10 2.65 1.81 0.08 0.19 1. 2. 11. 8.00 45. 81 03 56 05 2007 3.29 2.14 3.28 1.54 1.41 1.03 1.52 1.20 2. 2. 2. 9.10 31. 00 52 80 83 2008 4.17 1.59 3.59 2.33 0.87 2.07 0.58 2.64 0. 2. 4. 4.58 30. 79 34 91 46 2009 3.42 1.74 3.87 2.94 3.79 0.27 0.16 0.79 2. 5. 8. 2.29 35. 35 60 53 75 2010 6.28 2.79 3.16 2.75 3.66 2.34 0.13 0.93 3. 3. 4. 7.94 42. 90 82 87 57 2011 4.85 3.33 6.00 3.36 2.95 1.53 0.61 0.11 0. 2. 6. 1.49 34. 91 97 14 25 2012 5.26 3.21 5.96 2.31 2.87 3.39 1.70 0.00 0. 5. 9. 7.03 46. 24 77 17 91 2013 5.27 1.76 2.99 4.60 1.27 1.91 0.03 1.07 5. 1. 3. 1.67 29. 01 11 07 76 2014 4.02 5.13 8.42 3.45 2.30 1.25 1.25 1.38 3. 6. 4. 5.38 46. 01 77 41 77 2015 2.66 4.40 4.46 1.52 0.91 0.15 1.04 2.70 1. 3. 7. 9.41 39. 11 83 16 35 2016 7.19 4.07 5.22 1.57 1.63 1.52 0.53 0.05 1. 10. 7. 3.71 45. 53 30 71 03 2017 3.70 8.16 6.49 4.05 3.15 1.07 0.03 0.21 1. 3. 8. 4.83 44. 10 72 32 83 2018 8.42 3.44 2.49 5.75 0.30 1.76 0.02 0.28 1. 3. 4. 5.63 37. 41 43 33 26 2019 2.87 3.98 1.60 2.21 1.45 0.78 1.50 1.33 3. 2. 1. 7.31 31. 86 61 77 27 2020 7.96 5.01 3.38 1.73 4.21 3.06 0.16 0.58 4. 2. 5. 5.96 44. 16 98 38 57 2021 7.61 4.41 3.22 0.96 1.37 2.09 0.06 0.28 2. 4. 7. 4.71 40. 97 60 72 00 2022 6.50 3.59 3.15 2.94 3.80 2.71 0.19 0.07 0. 2. 5. 7.06 38. 13 80 15 09 2023 4.11 2.46 2.93 3.15 0.88 M0.00 0.17 0.48 3. 2. 4. 8.82 34. 69 77 78 24 2024 6.33 3.47 2.98 2.42 2.95 1.50 0.25 M0.00 a a a a 19. 90 Notes: Data missing in any month have an W" flag. A "T' indicates a trace of precipitation. Data missing for all days in a month or year is blank. Creation date: 2024-08-09 Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network LV 7 1re, Q) 5 U 4 .� 3 2 1 C Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 Coordinates 47.805377,-122.392567 Observation Date 2024-07-31 Elevation (ft) 13.551 Drought Index (PDSI) Mild drought Figure and tables made by the Antecedent Precipitation Tool Version 1.0 Written by Jason Deters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30 Days Ending 301h %ile (in) 701h %ile (in) Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2024-07-31 0.183465 1.045669 0.251969 Normal 2 3 6 2024-07-01 1.188189 1.93937 1.492126 Normal 2 2 4 2024-06-01 1.358661 3.022047 2.964567 Normal 2 1 2 Result Normal Conditions - 12 Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft) Distance (mi) Elevation A Weighted A Days Normal Days Antecedent SEATTLE SAND PT WFO 47.6872,-122.2553 60.039 10.361 46.488 5.144 10894 90 MATTHEWS BEACH 0.4 NW 47.7002,-122.2805 37.073 1.477 22.966 0.699 15 0 SEATTLE 5.0 NE 47.6748,-122.2776 291.995 1.345 231.956 0.917 7 0 SEATTLE URBAN SITE 47.65, -122.3 19.029 3.306 41.01 1.623 62 0 SEATTLE BOEING FLD 47.5456,-122.3147 24.934 10.167 35.105 4.932 221 0 RENTON MUNI AP 47.495,-122.2144 18.045 13.416 41.994 6.601 54 0 MONROE 47.845,-121.9956 125.0 16.259 64.961 8.373 98 0 KENT 47.4172,-122.2433 28.871 18.664 31.168 8.981 1 0 APPENDIX F Plan Sheets PORT OF EDMONDS DRY STORAGE SERVICE BUILDING 600 ADMIRAL WAY EDMONDS, WA 96020 OWNER CONSULTANTS PORTOFEDMONDS STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CONTRACTOR SURVEYOR 336 ADMIRAL WAY CG ENGINEERING FOR OF EDMONDS REID MIDDLETON EDMONDS, WA 98020 2504TH AVE S, SUITE 200 336ADMIRALWAY 728134TH STREET SW, SUITE 200 425.775.4588 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EVERETT, WA 98204 CONTACT: ANGELA HARRIS 425.778.8500 FAX 778.5536 425.775.4588 425.741.3800 CONTACT: DENNIS TITUS, PE, SE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEC 26 TW P 27 RGE 03RT-13-) BEG 688.03FT W OF Nl/4 COR GOVT LOT 1 TPB TH 541' 210OW 54.17FT TH S48' 48 00E 150FT TH S41' 12 OOW 765.65FT ALG W LN GN R/W TH N48' 48 DOW 418.11FT M/L TAP OF INT WITH INNER HARBOR LN TH N17' 30 DOE AUG SD UN TO INT N UN SEC 26 EXT TH N89' 42 DOE 603.93FT M/L TO TPB PARCEL NUMBER 27032600200100 PROPERTY INFORMATION TOTAL LOT AREA = 343,725 SQFT EX BUILDING FOOTPRINT =300 SOFT PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT NO TO CHANGE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE =NOTTO CHANGE SCOPE OF WORK INSTALLATION OF A 10' X 30' PROPOSED STORAGE TRAILER WITH AN ADA RAMP TO BE USED AS A SERVICE BUILDING FOR THE DRY STORAGE FACILITY. NOTE: SITE PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS & COUNTY RECORDS & IS NOT A SURVEY, PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS & UTILITY LOCATIONS. v VICINITY MAP NIS =PROJECT SITE i �V SD+ SD C 4m ENGINEERING 250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE (425) 778-8500 FAX (425) 778-5536 DESIGN: CCC DRAWN: ATD CHECK: DMT JOB NO: 23369.10 DATE: 01/12/24 0 Z 0 J_ m Ld U Ld (n Ld C7 a O Vl r O � ION O Q 00 0 Z 3 J Ld l� 0 0 CL O Q Z O Ld .. 000 d (D W V) SHEET sol STRUCTURAL NOTES (THESE NOTES ARE TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OR DETAILED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS) CODE ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC), 2018 EDITION. SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS WHERE REFERENCED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE THE LATEST EDITION. DESIGN LOADS DEAD LOADS: ROOF 15 PSF FLOOR 15 ESE LIVE LOADS: ROOF (SNOW LOAD) 25 PSF OFFICE SPACE 40 PSF C � ENGINEERING 250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE (425) 778-8500 FAX (425) 778-5536 EARTHQUAKE LOADS: EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE PER ASCE 7-16 SECTION 12.8. SITE CLASS D (DEFAULT) SHORT PERIOD SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCEL (55) 1.285 q�4Z+4c� ONE SECOND SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCEL($) 0.452 p SHORT PERIOD DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCEL (SDO 0.856 ONE SECOND DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCEL(SD,) 0.557 RISK CATEGORY II un1 SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTOR (1 1.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY D IDNAL BASIC SEISMICFORCE-RESISTING-SYSTEM PLY WOOD SHEAR WALLS RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR, (R) 6.5 wwxx REDUNDANCY FACTOR (p) 1.0 SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT (Cy) 0.132 W = TOTAL SEISMIC DEAD LOAD AS DEFINED PER ASCE 7-16 SECTION 12.7.2. BASE SHEAR IV), V=CSW= S.�W 7 WIND LOADS: BASIC WIND SPEED (3 SECOND GUST) 97 MPH EXPOSURE D Kn 1.0 STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED AS INDICATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND OWNER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1704.4 OF THE IBC. STEEL CONSTRUCTION - SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED IN CONFORMANCE WITH IBC SECTION 1705.2. SPECIAL INSPECTION SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED. STRUCTURAL STEEL STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AISC "SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS", LATEST EDITION. WIDE FLANGE SHAPES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A992, Fy = 50 K51. PLATES, ANGLES, CHANNELS, AND RODS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A36, Fy = 36 KSI. STRUCTURAL TUBING SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A500 GRADE C, RECTANGULAR/SQUARE Fy = 50 K51, ROUND Fy = 46 KSI. STEEL PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A53 GRADE B, Fy= 35 KSI. BOLTS CONNECTING STEEL MEMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A325-N. BOLTS SHALL BE 3/4"0 MINIMUM, UNO ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A307. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CONNECTION ADJUSTMENT TOLERANCES TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION. UNLESS SPECIFIED AS STAINLESS STEEL, ALL STEEL MEMBERS, SHAPES, BOLTS, AND ACCESSORIES EXPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED. WELDING WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AWS "STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE", LATEST EDITION. ALL WELDING SHALL BE DONE WITH 70 KSI LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES. WHERE NOT CALLED OUT, MINIMUM FILLET WELD SIZE SHALL BE PER TABLE 5.8IN AWS D1.1, LATEST EDITION. WELDING OF REINFORCING BARS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT ON DRAWINGS OR APPROVED BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. WELDING OF GRADE 60 REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE PERFORMED USING LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES. WELDING OF GRADE 40 REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE PERFORMED USING E70XX ELECTRODES. SEE REINFORCING NOTES FOR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF WELDED BARS. WELDING WITHIN 4" OF COLD BENDS IN REINFORCING BARS IS NOT PERMITTED. ALL WELDING SHALL BE DONE BY WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF BUILDING OFFICIALS (WABO) CERTIFIED WELDERS. EXISTING BUILDING CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, MEMBER SIZES AND CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING DEPICTED IN THE DRAWINGS, AND NOTIFY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FOR POSSIBLE REDESIGN. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETELY SEALING ALL AREAS WHERE EXISTING ROOF MATERIAL IS PENETRATED OR REMOVED. PROVIDE WATER PROOFING AS REQUIRED BY THE ARCH, GENERAL STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE USED FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY BEFORE PROCEEDING. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ERECTION STABILITY AND TEMPORARY SHORING AS NECESSARY UNTIL PERMANENT SUPPORT AND STIFFENING ARE INSTALLED. CONTRACTOR -INITIATED CHANGES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION. CHANGES SHOWN ON SHOP DRAWINGS ONLY WILL NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT. DRAWINGS INDICATE GENERAL AND TYPICAL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION. WHERE CONDITIONS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY INDICATED BUT ARE OF A SIMILAR CHARACTER TO DETAILS SHOWN, SIMILAR DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE USED, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. I V xXx W \ \ F N X Q N X \ X O e O PRE -MANUFACTURED b X BUILDING ANCHORAGE SUPPORTS ALIGN Y 0_ W/ BUILDING FRAME, TYP e ryp 2 O o 0 I I I PRE -MANUFACTURED I STEPS I ELEV: 2.0%MAX ALLDI I I I SLOPE ALL DIRECTIONS) I I I 4 5x10 LANDING ADA RAMP `.5% 5x10 LANDING ELEV: 14.60 (2.0%MAX SLOPE ALL DIRECTIONS) TO ADARAMP EXIST ELEVATION AT BASE OF RAMP: 13.20± Al FLOOR PLAN © ANCHORAGE DETAIL 2 SCALE: 11/2"=1'-0" 1NG FRAME 3" 0 HEX HEAD BOLTS x 2 1/2 x 1/4 2"0 x 2" LONG HILTI BOLTS ix4x 0'-8" TOP &BOT DESIGN: CCC DRAWN: ATE) CHECK: DMT JOB NO: 23369.10 DATE: 01/12/24 0 Z 0 J_ m Ld U_ N N 0Ld JQ z a p- Q w 0 N N � 0 N OZ o Z Q oao, � J Z oQ3 J CL Ld � N H O Q ZO 5 o O .. 000 d (D Ld �HJ V / LA_ g SHEET sil C 4m 2' v 2' WOOD/STEEL ENGINEERING FILTER FABRIC SEARED 250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200 W1 2' " 14 G EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 I WIRE FABRIC EQUAL PHONE (425) 778-8500 FAX (425) 778-5536 CB RIM=16A2 I'IE(NE)=13.92-4"PVC x I MAN GATE ° • . \��I\y. SO 4. / BW=13.41 BOAji ELECTRIC CABINETyf TRANSFORMER N ^ No BW=1405 / °•1 \ `YaQ ELE15,01 C BOXES .4 ; : '4. •. .. STOCKPILE LOCATION W/ PLASTIC CQVERING PEB DOE BMP C123 \ TRANSFORMER \ \ ELECTRIC CABINET \ \ NATIVE BACKFlLL MATERIAL RAMP 4 ..a..: ° 'LAN CiAFE d S.BD` '•'MAN ELECTRIC CABIIN@T (IR IGATION 0 0 EXIST CLR T O I R AN 0{I" USE EXISTING DRIVE / AISLE FOR / CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 7 I NO / ASPI CB RIM=13.43 IE( E) 9.53-4"PVC I IE(N 963-12"PVC P DMH RIM=13.58 PO I._ OIL FILTER I � I � I I 0 ELECTRIC L CABINETS AND JUN TION BOXES ASPHALT I a CB SR LL-KIT ST 1I N X GATE X'��= X.- CONCRETE ; .•.4 •• a.. 'X ,L. .J.. RIM=12.52 IE(NW)=UNABLE TO MEASURE;PIPE OBSCURED BY CYLINDRICAL HIGH VISIBILITY PLASTIC C " OR MEL M LIMITS 4 .OR METAL FENCE GRADING ,y OF CLEARING AND GRADING STRUCTURES IE(SE)=9.82-6"RCP 9 RFE TW 16 T2 e INSTALL SILT Ng4 : Jam" 13{3 h .jW Q d X 1AL1 1AL1 CB RIM 1247 '4 4 •e ° IE(SE) 9.27 12 PVC G, IE(SW) 9.37 12 PVC = d ° AD SD P / ryI` II. I CB RIM=12.56 IE(NW)=UNABLE TO MEASURE;PIPE OBSCURED BY 401a Y �'. CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURES . ' DRAIN ... VNE IE(SE)=9.86-8"RCP ° ` o INSTALL CB INSERTS ON ALL CB'S CDNGRF°TE S00' DOWNSTREAM FROM THE e SITE CLEARING LIMITS Il 3 / ASPHALT I e CB RIM=13.17 DRAIN RIM- 12.72C / IE 1232VERTICAL 3"PV HAGGEO ASPHALT OILI W1. SEPARATOR. ° CB2.29 I GRAVEL LCGCBR.=13.11 fi RC12.9 (NW)-1 P i N `' �. I IE(NW)=12.21 -8"RCP _ SDMH RIM=12.91 UNOPENABL p P P -- CB RIM 11. ED IE(N)=9.6C 12"PVC GRAVEL . IE(SE)=9.70 :PVC EJ . 1. ASPHALI'n0 . , CB RIM 2.68 = E(NW)-9.88^'1 PVC IE(NE)=9.98� 2"PVC N E„.. C, ... O. fi B RIM=J-PVC/ :(SE) 106"PVC .'�:. o � ^ SO CB RIM=12.98 B RIM9 2.98'PVC A GATE IE(NE)=9.28-6"RCP 'AI IE(NW)=9.38-10"PVC SDMH RIM=13.86J__�g MANHOLE I FILLED WITH TIDAL ` WATER; UNABLE TO )Y 1 MEASURE "DRY STORAGE' 2" SIGN / r�-X X Al SMALL DRAIN RIM=12.62 UNOPENABLE AND FILLED TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' I -CB RIM=13.36 BAGGED JI `SDMH RIM=13.16 NCOVERED 1 1 BY CO BY CONCRETE WHEEL STOP. ...�.... .. � E� 1 f f 111 -CB RIM=12.94 IE(SW)=10.14- 12"PVC \ TE `. O - ID, Y �SO 'C�NCRETE . W ASPHALT / ADMrPAL RAY - - - - - - `CB RIM=12.30 IE(NW)=9.40-12"PVC IE(E)=9.5O-6X8'OVAL PVC 1. BEFORE BEGINNING LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING CLEARING AND GRADING, CLEARLY MARKALL CLEARING LIMITS. 2. ALL D ISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF -SITE SHALL BE COMPOST -AMENDED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF BMP T5.13 IN THE STORMWATER MANUAL VOLUME V, CHAPTER 11. 3. SOILS MUST BE STABILIZED ATTHE END OF THE SHIFT BEFORE A HOLIDAY OR WEEKEND IF NEEDED ON THE WEATHERFORECAST. 4. ADDITIONAL BMPS MAY BE REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION. FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN OONRNOUS ROLLS STAPLES USE OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH USEFABRIC TO WIRE 2' • 2" WODD/STFFL PGS% BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL a' TO 12' 1. OR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND ENSURE PROPER EROSION CONRIOL THROUGHOUT PROJECT. CRY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON 2. SILT FENCE TO BE PACED DOWNSLOPE OF CON-CUON ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS ACTMTY, BEFORE OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN \REVISION FILTER FABRIC FENCE DATE JANUMY 2DI8 CITY OF EDMONDS FILTRATION SYSTEMS PUBLIC WORKS``�s1. DEPARTMENT *'�' ER-900 APPROVED BY: R, ENGLISH CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAIL 2 SCALE: N. GRATE WITH SO OVER ROW HOLE OVER LI( CATCH BASIN 1. CNOoN�m..vcmR/OEVELOPER SHNl MNNTNN THIS APPUGTON AT All TMES DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 2. ANY SEDIMENT IN CATCH BASIN INSERT SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN INSERT 15 ONE-THIRD FULL 3. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON AU - EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE MEN WORK CAN BEGIN. REVISION DATE CITY OF EDMONDS TEMPORARY JANUARY 2018 SEDIMENT TRAP PUBLIC WORKS FOR CATCH BASINS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL 4",si APPROVED BY: R. ENGLISH ER-902 © Q CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAIL v SCALE: NTS O��Sls M. T p4 w4ya�c72� �IONAL wwNN DESIGN: CCC DRAWN: ATD CHECK: DMT JOB NO: 23369.10 DATE: 01/12/24 Z 0 J m J Ld 0 U ry- > Ld Z (n 0 w () 0 a Z N 0 (/) J N Q 0 Q NN I L I- 0 J AY•��// W Q Z N W < 0 a CL Z O a 0 0 0 W d cD LJ C SHEET C1.0 C low PROPOSED CONTAINER OFFICE FFE: 16.85 ENGINEERING 250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE (425) 778-8500 FAX (425) 778-5536 CB RIM=16.12 �\ IE(NE)=13.92-4"PVC I' x I MAN GATE • °'. .,� \'�I\„., / SD � I I \ 1W=15.09 ,'. I BW=13.41 li� f: I./aT '. ° �. ELECTRIC CABINET TRANSFORMER TW=16.52 ) 1 ELEC BOXES a'� !4°'. y \ TRANSFORMER \f N BW=14.05 ° \ \ \ ELECTRIC CABINET 1 Q,y d. i1AN GATE fG S.ED` MAN S. GATE ELECTRIC CABINET p e° d (IR IGATION S LL-KIT d 4 k �T % %��- IS, ST 110N o NPR a'..,4 CONCRETE p GATE t d �519 M. T }11 mNCRET� d c -rFCB RIM=12.52 IE(NW)=UNABLE TO AEASURE;PIPE F? 2 INSTALL DOWN P T•.a - SPL 6H LQ K P1 _ d 6 a y a OBSCURED BY CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURES STRU =9.82 6"RCP ADA RAMP, GADS E 1QWi113{3 JJ 'g q` 4. Tw d ./� •o d �3/ GATE IEI IBNAL O .. 4 ; j I IE(( X% w NX / '• GATE .. � 7,.' T+ IT o o ASPHALT J':." � l °. .. ! / -. i T:J '.� :4 �. ..e. 1. �B RIM 12 47 IE(SE)-9.27-12 PVC CB RIM=13.43 IE( E=9.53-4"PVC I IE(N=9.63-12"PVC to P DMH RIM 55- .58-' PO I. OIL FILTER N I 0 0 ELECTRIC L CABINETS AND JUN TION BOXES ASPHALT M c6 SDMH RIM=13.86dMANHOLE-G FILLED WITH TIDAL ` WATER; UNABLE TO )Y 1 MEASURE Al DRAINAGE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' CB RIM=13.36 BAGGED 1 IIrr SDMH RIM=13.16 UNOPENABLE; COVE CB RIM 12.60�:..I BY CONCRETE WHET STOP. IE(N)=9.60 12"PVC ORAVEL IE(SE)=9.70 12"PVC �.•;. ASPHALR a' CB RIM= 2.18 " jjIII E(NW)=9.88-1 PVC z:,.. •p., IE(NE)=9.98- 2"PVC '.'.I. }ti / B RIM=13 fi .(SE)=10. 6-6"PVC / p S J(, CB RIM=12.94 IE(SW)=10.14-12"PVC v CB RIM=12.98 /�_ IE(SE)=9 28-8'PVC A GATE IE(NE)=9.28-6"RCP IE(NW)=9.38-10"PVC P O s' STOP SIGN EL H I 51 "DRY STORAGE 2" SIGN ASPHALT / ADMIRAL WAY- - - CB RIM=12.30 SMALL DRAIN RIM=12.62 IE(NW)=9.40-12"PVC JNOPENABLE AND FILLED IE(E)=9.50-6X8"OVAL PVC BUIUDINB ROOF DOWNSPOUT. SEE NOTE 1 DOWNSPOUT EXTENSION ASHBLOCK, ^SEE NOTES 2 GENERAL NOTES: NOTES: 1. MAXIMUM OF 700 SOWRE FEET OF ROOF MEA MAY ORAN TO EACH SPIASHBLOCK. 2. SPLASHBLOCK MAY BE CONCRETE, PLASTC, OR SIMILAR RIGID MATERIAL. eRwvELES- . F TENSION DATE CITY OF EDMONDS TYPICAL DOWNSPOUT SEPEMBER2023 DISPERSION SPLASHBLOCK PUBLIC WORKS FOR ROOFS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL Fa T,- jg9O A'PROVED BY: R. ENGLISH SD-633 © CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAIL 2 SCALE: NTS DESIGN: CCC DRAWN: ATD CHECK: DMT JOB NO: 23369.10 DATE: 01/12/24 Z 0 J m J U a LJ (n L d LJ Q C7 O Z N Q cV Z O Q fN Q O O IL Z Q I..d LJ o Q O Q Z Z O tr O M < 0 0 0 Ql- CL cD LJ c y SHEET C2.1 APPENDIX G Staff Qualifications Steven Quarterman Senior Associate Ecologist Expertise Resource agency coordination Stream habitat and biological assessment Wetland services Biological Assessments Permitting Education Masters of Environmental Management, Duke University, 1999 B.A., Biology, Albion College, 1997 Training 38 hours of U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation Training Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects Stream Restoration, University of Washington Professional and Continuing Ed., 2012 Since 1999, Steven has provided wetland, permitting, and natural resources management services in support of a variety of projects. His experience includes wetland/waterway delineation, assessment of wetland functions and values, wetland/riparian restoration, sensitive species evaluations, and local/state/federal permitting and documentation support services. Steven has received training in wetland delineations and specialized training in identifying wetland soils and vegetation, as well as preparing biological assessments. He has significant experience in the preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, including authoring sections on wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and supporting discipline reports. City of Shoreline, Echo Lake Park Wetland Areas Investigation; Shoreline, WA. Project manager providing technical lead for wetland delineation, ordinary high water mark delineation, and a landscape design assessment for the City of Shoreline at the Echo Lake Park property. The investigation provided the City with the likely jurisdiction and permitting requirements associated with Echo Lake and an associated piped stream to advance the project. Snohomish County, Centennial Trail Culvert Replacement; Arlington, WA. Steven was task manager providing wetland and ordinary high water mark delineation and permitting support for repair of four culverts along the Centennial Trail. One of the culverts conveys a stream that is considered to be a fish habitat stream, and the design was being prepared in accordance with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Stream Simulation Guidance documents. A land -disturbing activities permit, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section (USACE) 404 permit, and Hydraulic Project Approval were acquired for the project. City of Tukwila, Urban Center Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge; Tukwila, WA. Project manager for oversight and preparation of NEPA/State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation as a subconsultant for the City of Tukwila's pedestrian/bicycle bridge connection between Tukwila's Urban Center and Transit Center and the Tukwila commuter rail/Amtrak station, crossing over Green River. Services included delineation of ordinary high water mark, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, preparation of NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion as documented in a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) form, Biological Assessment, SEPA checklist, Shoreline Substantial Development and Variance applications, cultural/historic resources evaluation, Section 4(f) exemption, JARPA preparation, and acquisition of Hydraulic Project Approval. Using the Revised Wetland/Waterway Delineation Supporting Remedial Investigation; Everett, WA. Project Washington State scientist responsible for delineating wetlands and waterways on approximately 49 acres Wetland Rating System distributed over three properties. Project involved field delineation of wetlands and for Western Washington waterways in accordance with the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and Washington and Eastern Washington, State Department of Ecology Wetland Delineation Manual, providing preliminary stream Coastal Training Program typing in accordance with City Municipal Code and documenting findings. Efforts are in 2008 and 2009 support of installation of a remedial system to extract and treat contaminated groundwater. Backpack Electrofishing College Avenue/Rose Street (CARS) Reconstruction Project; College Place, WA. Project and Fish Handling manager providing oversight of preparation of environmental documentation services for Techniques Northwest the City of College Place reconstruction of CARS, which included culvert replacement along Environmental Training Garrison Creek. Project included delineation of wetland boundaries and ordinary high water Center, 2008 mark. Environmental documentation included completion of NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion as documented in a WSDOT ECS form, Biological Assessment, SEPA checklist, critical areas reporting, and DARPA. LALSANDAU