Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-23 Hearing Examiner AgendaOp E D o Agenda - Edmonds Hearing Examiner snl,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 23, 2019, 3:00 PM CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING 1. Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Project III. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Hearing Examiner Agenda May 23, 2019 Page 1 2.1 Hearing Examiner Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2019 Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Project Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending that the Hearing Examiner deny the appeal of the Determination of Nonsignificance and approve the five land use permits associated with the development. Narrative The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. Five land use applications have been submitted at this time. A conditional use permit (PLN20180039) for the Senior Center and Park Use, Design Review (PLN20180040), and three Shoreline Substantial Development Permits for the Waterfront Center Building (PLN20180041), bulkhead and beach restoration (PLN20180042), and the overwater walkway (PLN20180043). Since the scope of work triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is required. Projects subject to design review are considered Type III-B decision pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003 as is the conditional use permit. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are Type III -A decisions when a public hearing is required in accordance with ECDC 24.80.100. Since a public hearing is required for the conditional use permit, the subject shoreline application requires a public hearing pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100.A.4 and thus is a Type III -A permit decision. The five applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner who will make the decision on design review and the Packet Pg. 2 2.1 conditional use and shoreline permits following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken (state law prohibits two open record public hearings). The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the proposal as a whole. An appeal of the SEPA DNS was filed with the City of Edmonds on May 10, 2019. IN accordance with WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(v), any SEPA appeal is consolidated with the hearing on the underlying governmental action in a single simultaneous hearing before the hearing officer. For clarity, the SEPA appeal (APL20190002) and City of Edmonds' response is provided in a separate staff report. Attachments: APL20190002 Staff Report with Attachments Land Use Staff Report and Attachments Packet Pg. 3 2.1.a /'' 189v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 511 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.ga� DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Appeal of SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for the Edmonds Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment File Number: APL20190002 — Appeal of SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance Underlying Permits PLN20180039 (Conditional Use Permit), PLN20180040 (Design Review), PLN20180041 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Waterfront Center Building), PLN20180042 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and PLN20180043 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit -Overwater Walkway) Date of Report: iMay 16, 2019 f U From: �_ �. • : -� y ,^^�, Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Public Hearing: May 23, 2019 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. SUMMARY: The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. Five land use applications and supporting documentation were submitted for this project. These applications consist of a conditional use permit (PLN20180039) for the Senior Center and Park Use, Design Review (PLN20180040), and three Shoreline Substantial Development Permits for the Waterfront Center Building (PLN20180041), bulkhead and beach restoration (PLN20180042), and the overwater walkway (PLN20180043). After following the Optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 and the threshold determination process of WAC 197-11-330, the City of Edmonds determined that the project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance. An appeal of the SEPA DNS was filed with the City of Edmonds on May 10, 2019. In accordance with WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(v), any SEPA appeal is consolidated with the hearing on the underlying Packet Pg. 4 2.1.a governmental action in a single simultaneous hearing before the hearing officer. For clarity, an evaluation of the underlying permit applications is provided in a separate staff report. The City of Edmonds suggests the following order for the public hearing on May 23, 2019. The public hearing should be divided into distinct sections. First, issues related to the SEPA appeal should be heard. Second, the hearing should continue with matters related to the underlying permits. For example the hearing examiner could proceed as follows: 1. Evidence and argument from SEPA appellants on the SEPA appeal; 2. Evidence and argument from City in response to appellants; 3. Public comment on the SEPA appeal; 4. Rebuttal from SEPA appellants; 5. Surrebuttal from City; 6. Questions from the Hearing Examiner on the SEPA appeal that have not already been answered; 7. Staff report on the underlying applications; 8. Presentation of applicants on the underlying applications; 9. Public comment on the underlying applications; 10. Response from staff to public comments; 11. Response from applicants to public comments; 12. Questions from the Hearing Examiner on the underlying applications that have not already been answered. II. ATTACHMENTS: 1. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 2. SEPA Checklist 3. Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners' SEPA Appeal 4. Public Notice Documentation — Notice of Application and Optional DNS Process 5. Public Notice Documentation — SEPA DNS Issuance 6. Public Notice Documentation — Notice of Public Hearing 7. Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg August 20, 2018 Comment Letter 8. Herrera September 27, 2018 Response to Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg Comment Letter 9. Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan 10. Biological Evaluation 11. Biological Opinion III. REVIEW PROCESS: In accordance with WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(v), any SEPA appeal is consolidated with the hearing on the underlying governmental action in a single simultaneous hearing before the hearing officer. For clarity, an evaluation of the underlying permit applications is provided in a separate staff report. File No. APL20190002 —Appeal of SEPA DNS Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 5 2.1.a IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is required for this project because the proposed overwater walkway is on lands covered by water and the proposed building exceeds 4,000 square feet of new commercial area and includes over 20 parking stalls. After following the Optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 and the threshold determination process of WAC 197- 11-300, the City of Edmonds issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on April 26, 2019. The SEPA DNS is provided in Attachment 1 and the SEPA Checklist is provided in Attachment 2. Documentation on the notice of SEPA DNS is provided in Attachment 4 (Notice of Optional DNS Process) and Attachment 5 (Notice of Issuance of DNS). V. SEPA APPEAL: An appeal of the SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was submitted by Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg P.S. on behalf of the Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners (Attachment 3). The appeal asserts that the DNS is erroneous because "it fails to consider the significant adverse impact the proposed elevated walkway (hereinafter 'Walkway') will have on forage fish." The appeal states that the City failed to consider their previous objections to issuance of a DNS in the August 20, 2018 comment letter (Attachment 7). In accordance with ECDC 20.06.006, the appellant has the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal. VI. APPEAL RESPONSE: 1. August 20, 2018 Comment Letter Response Firstly, the City of Edmonds would like to note that the comments in the August 20, 2018 letter were, not ignored, but were given careful consideration before issuing the DNS. Initially, the City of Edmonds requested the applicants to respond to issues raised in the comment letter. These responses are provided in Attachment 8. Furthermore, on becoming aware that the National Marine Fisheries Service was preparing a Biological Opinion (which is provided in Attachment 11), the City of Edmonds delayed issuance of the threshold determination until the Biological Opinion was issued. 2. Forage Fish Considerations The primary objection stated in the appeal is that the proposal failed to consider the impacts it would have on forage fish. The appeal states that, "The City should have considered and studied the forage fish habitat issue, which the City's DNS and its accompanying Environmental Checklist fail to do." The City disagrees. On page 2 of the Environmental Checklist under Item 8, there is a list of environmental documents that had been prepared for the subject proposal. Listed here are: Critical Areas Report — Herrera Environmental Consultants —July 2017 (Attachment 9 of this staff report) ■ Biological Evaluation — Herrera Environmental Consultant —July 2017 (Attachment 10 of this staff report) File No. APL20190002 —Appeal of SEPA DNS Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 6 2.1.a Additionally, under staff comments, the ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion dated April 15, 2019 (Attachment 11 of this staff report) is added to the list. These three documents together provide a complete evaluation of the proposals impacts on forage fish as well as other species. 3. Threshold Determination WAC 197-11-794 defines significant as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity (WAC 197-11-330) and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test. The context may vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact. The severity of an impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An imnnnt mni ho ciyi�frrinif itc nhnnrn of nrr„rrnnn is not nrnt ...Nw,,,uy ,, U — ,w.. J ,.u,, ,"' " ,. y, h„t —, .,,. the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. (3) WAC 197-11-330 specifies a process, including criteria and procedures, for determining whether a proposal is likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact. Two key points from this definition are that significant "means reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact" and that significance "does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test." The appeal quotes instances in the Biological Opinion where an adverse impact is noted. But SEPA acknowledges the difference between adverse impacts and significant adverse impacts. So, the mere existence of an adverse impact that is not deemed significant does not warrant the preparation of an EIS. Here, the conclusion of the biological opinion supports the City's conclusion that proposal will not have a significant adverse impact. The conclusion in Section 2.8 on page 34 notes: After reviewing and analyzing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline within the action area, the effects of the proposed action, any effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, and cumulative effects, it is NMFS' opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. The City of Edmonds, after considering all available information, and following the Optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 and the threshold determination process of WAC 197-11-330 appropriately concluded that the project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance. File No. APL20190002 —Appeal of SEPA DNS Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.1.a VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The City of Edmonds complied with all of the SEPA process requirements and appropriately considered all available information in issuing the SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for the Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Project. In accordance with RCW 43.21C.090 the threshold determination by the City's SEPA official should be given substantial weight. The City of Edmonds respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner DENY the SEPA appeal. VIII. PARTIES OF RECORD: City of Edmonds 121— 5ch Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Carrie Hite Director of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 John Yip Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg P.S. 321 First Avenue West Seattle, WA 98119 File No. APL20190002 — Appeal of SEPA DNS Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Page 5 of 5 Daniel Johnson Edmonds Senior Center 220 Railroad Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 Larry Hoppe 200 Beach Place, #401 Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 8 2.1.a A v G CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. [File Nos. PLN20180039 (Conditional Use Permit), PLN20180040 (Design Review), PLN20180041 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Waterfront Center Building), PLN20180042 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and PLN20180043 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit -Overwater Walkway)] Proponent: City of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center Location of proposal, including street address if any: The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be on parcel 27032300104200 located at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement (AFN 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums located at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300. To the north of the bulkhead removal, portions of the adjacent parcels (27032300104400) and a City of Edmonds easement (AFN 8101160178) will be modified to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C 030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Page I of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION REVISE.. ��.>._. Attachment 1 4/25/19.SEPA - Packet Pg. 9 2.1.a Date: April 26, 2019 Signature: -� XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than May 10, 2019 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on April 26, 2019 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center SEPAunit ec .wa. ov) Mailed -to property owners within 300-feet of the site: — — - _— XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents are available at https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number PLN20180039. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: N Applicant N Dept. of Ecology N Parties of Record N Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands N Dept. of Natural Resources N US Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Dept. of Commerce N NMFS ❑ WSDOT N WSDOT— Ferries N Puget Sound Energy N Dept. of Fish & Wildlife N Snohomish PUD ❑ Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑ Olympic View Water & Sewer N Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Alderwood Water District N Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑ Edmonds School District ❑ Port of Edmonds ❑ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency N South County Fire ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council N Swedish Hospital ❑ Puget Sound Partnership N Community Transit N Comcast N Tulalip Tribe N BNSF pc: File No. SEPA Notebook ❑ City of Everett ❑ City of Lynnwood ❑ City of Mountlake Terrace ❑ City of Mukilteo ❑ City of Shoreline ❑ Town of Woodway ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works ❑ Snohomish Co. PDS ❑ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. ❑ King County -Transit ❑ King County — Environ. Planning ❑ Other Page 2 of 2 SEPADETERMINATION REVISED20190311 Attachment 1 4/25/19 SEPA Packet Pg. 10 #P71 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 2. Name of applicant: City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreaton, and Cultural Services Department / Edmonds Senior Center 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Contact for City of Edmonds: Carrie Hite (Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director) 700 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 425-771-0256 (P), 425-771-0253 T] Contact for Edmonds Senior Center: Farrell Fleming (Executive Director) 220 Railroad Avenue. Edmonds. WA 98020 425-954-2518_(P) 4. Date checklist prepared: June I I.2018 Attachment 2 Revised on 9116116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA_final 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 11 2.1.a 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds, Development Services Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7 Demolition of the existin Edmonds Senior Center buildin will be in in Janu 2019 folly ed b construction of the new Edmonds Waterfront Center building, parkinglot a portion of the Edmonds Marine )Ydkway, and bulkhead removal. Together, the demolition and construction is estimated to span approximately I5 to 20 months. Work conducted within or adiacent to the water, including removal of the bulkhead and construction of the overwater walkway, will be timed according to the US Army Co1ps of Engineers SACS and Washin on Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW in - water work window, which is July 16 to October 14. The overwater walkway may be constructed at a later phase of the project, during the in -water work window. (STAFF COMMENTS) Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No future additions, expansions or further activities related to or connected with this project are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 9. ■ Geotechnical Report, Edmonds Senior Center— Shannon & Wilson, Inc. —April 2007 • Critical Areas Report — Herrera Environmental Consultants — July 2017 • Biological Evaluation — Herrera Environmental Consultants — July 2017 • Cultural Resources Assessment for the Edmonds Senior Center Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County_, Washington — SWCA Environmental Consultants —July 2017 • Geotechnical Engineering Report --- Landau Associates — August 2017 • Traffic Stud — Gibson Traffic Consultants Inc. -- Jul 2017 (STAFF COMMENTS) S t� b►r-. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 2 Packet P 12 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx J 2.1.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit —USAGE Coastal Tone Management Act Federal Consistency Determination — Washington State Department of EcoIogy_(EcolM) Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Duality Certification and Construction Stormwater General Permit -- Ecology Hydraulic Project Approval — WDFW Land Use Permit (includes Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Design Review and Critical Areas Review — City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Planning Division Building Permits — City of Edmonds, Development Services Department, Building Division Cultural Resources Assessment — Recreation Conservation Office State of Washi ton (STAFF 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation. and Cultural Services Department City) and the Edmonds Senior Center (Senior Center) propose to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site. to be renamed the Edmonds Waterfront Center, along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. Together, those elements comprise the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (project). The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to continued senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. primarily during weekday evenings, and weekend hours. The Senior Center will operate programs Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The City will operate programs Monday through Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. The Senior Center will rent space on the weekends for community and private events. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet (13.420-square-foot footprint) and 29.5 feet tall. The building size is based on measurements to the exterior face of exterior walls. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water qualify treatment and infiltration. There are two existing outfalls in the bulkhead to Puget Sound, both of which will be shortened to end above mean higher high water (MHHW). The proposed overwater walkway will link the existing, portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway between the Ferry terminal and the Edmonds Marina waterward of the Ebb Tide Condonvniums through an existing City -owned easement. The overwater walkway will be a 10-foot-wide, concrete and prated structure approximately 154 feet long, elevated on seven steel piles. The existing stairs at the south end of the proposed overwater walkway will be demolished. It will be replaced by pile -supported stairs next to the existing stairwa location to -provide beach access. While construction a ui meat is mobilized on site for the proposed project, two concrete foundations and three creosote -treated timber piles from the intertidal zone will be removed. See the site plan for project layout and further details. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, m 0 L a c m E 0. 0 m m m r c 0 L d c c� L d c m U c 0 0 c m 0 Q z 3 0 0. d 0 rn N 0 0 0 rn 0 N J IL Q c m E z U 2 Q Attachment 2 Packet P 13 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx J 2.1.a you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be on parcel 27032300104200 at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds. Washington {Fieure I ). which is in Section 23 of Township 27 North and Range 03 East of the Willamette Meridian. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement (AC 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds. Washington. The overwater walkway will connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300. To the north of the bulkhead removal portions of the adjacent parcels (27032300104400) and a City of Edmonds easement (SP 8101160178) will be modified to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade (Figure 2). (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): (Dotting, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The project site is relatively flat, and the adjacent beach has a slope of up to 10 percent. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Subsurface conditions at the project site were observed to consist _of -about 15 feet of very loose to medium dense fill, consisting of sand to silty sand with gravel and sandy gravel_ which is underlain by medium dense to dense deposits consisting of sandy gravel and sand with little to no silt content, interpreted to be part of the Whidbey_ Formation (,Landau 2017). None of the soils are classified as agricultural soils_ (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The Senior Center buildings have experienced floor settlement, requiring repairs over the decades. The settlement is suspected to be a result of the consolidation and compression of non-native soils under the building (Shannon & Wilson 2007). (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 2 Packet P 14 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA,final 20180514.docx J 2.1.a 9. h. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 3,841 s uare feet 1 A24 cubicyards) of existing parking lot and substrate associated with the bulkhead will be excavated. Beach restoration and construction of j2ublic access stairs and a ramp will occur within the area of bulkhead removal. The ro osed access stairs and tarn will be cast -in- lace concrete 2 QQQ s uare feet m o 300 cubic yards) supported by up to 60 steel sheet piles. Beach restoration will consist of placing large woody a debris boulders, and approximately 1-210 cubic yards of clean, fish -mix gravels and sand for beach nourishment. Imported sands and fish mix gavels will be consistent with the existing characteristics of the sand andgravel present E adjacent to the bulkhead. and and avels will be sourced from a le al local uar . Lar a wood debris and Ea. boulders will be locally sourced. m For the proposed overwater walkway. seven 30-inch-diameter steel piles will be driven into the beach to a depth of proximately50 feet below the gTound surface to sgphort the walkway superstructure. m Based on the current building foundation design strategy, approximately 535 CY_of in -place compacted bank yards r o are to be cut or removed from the site and 2 150 CY of compacted bank yards are to be imported fill in order to raise the finished floor of the Waterfront Center building above the existing finished floor elevation to NAVD 8 d elevation 15 feet. The source of fill will be determined based on market conditions at the time of earthwork construction. One possible source of fill includes Cadman -High Rock in Monroe Washington, C (STAFF COMMENTS) c m U Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. p Common to all construction projects, erosion during construction could occur as a_resul_t of construction activities L particularly earthwork. The potential for erosion will be minimized with adherence_ to best management practices (BMPs)_(Refer to the response to item Lh, below.) .� (STAFF COMMENTS) m E About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for Q example, asphalt or buildings)? t Approximately 85 percent of the existing site is covered_ in impervious surfaces. The proposed project design will 3 result in approximately 80 percent impervious surface coverage,_ which _includes _the Edmonds Waterfront Center - building. parking lot, sidewalks, and stairs: and the walking surface of the overwater walkway. am (STAFF COMMENTS) Cn N O O O Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: CD c N Erosion will be minimized through the development and implementation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation —J Control TESL) Plan and execution of BMPs. including: IL Q • A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be implemented. • TESC measures will be installed prior to clearing, grubbing, excavation. and grading activities. ca • Clearing and ground -disturbing activities will be limited to the minimum area needed to construct the Q ■ Where necessary, TESC measures (e.g., stabilized construction entrance, silt fences, wattles, plastic covering, and drain inlet protection) will be installed to prevent release and discharge of sediments from construction areas. Attachment 2 Packet P 15 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx J 2.1.a 2. AIR ■ High -visibility fencing will be installed to delineate clearing and construction limits. • Any waste material, debris, or spoils will be disposed of at an approved and permitted upland commercial site or api2roved waste site_ • Containment measures will be implemented at stap-ina and material stockpile areas to -prevent runoff. • After construction all TESC measures will be removed and all disturbed SLound surfaces will be 0 m reve etated with native 121ants and mulched to prevent erosion and sedimentation. 0- (STAFF COMMENTS) c m E 0. 0 am a) m a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial c wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. +; 0 Dust could be released into the air during excavation activities, installation ofbackfill materials, and transport -of 3: materials to and from the site. Operating diesel- and gasoline -powered construction equipment._ (water truck, compactors, dump truck, excavator, cement/mortar mixers. cranes, Faders tractors/loaders/hackhoes hull dozers, and front end loaders) will also release exhaust emissions and odors into the air. Removal of creosote -treated timbers could also teLnporarily emit odors. After construction, the project will not generate emissions to the air, and creosote odor will be eliminated. The followin table provides a surnmM of the estimated emissions that will be released in the air as a result of constructing the project. Emissions were estimated according to the Procedures Document for National Emissions Inventory. Criteria Air Pollutants. 1985-1999 (ITS EPA 2001). Air emissions that will be released in the air as a result of operation, maintenance, and recreation visits as a result of the project are expected to be similar to existing T e of Emission Pollutant Estimated Emission tons/yr. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 0.114 Carbon Monoxide CO 0.451 Nitrogen Oxides Ox 1.316 Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns in Diameter M-10 0.097 Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns in Diameter PM-2.5) 0.095 Sulfur Dioxide SOa 0.179 Carbon Dioxide COZ 129.728 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. C. There are no known offsite sources of emissions or odor.that will _affect the project. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: Measures that will be incoEporated during construction to minimize impacts on air quality include: Spray exposed soil and staging areas with water during_da periods to reduce dust__ c M d c m U c 0 m M c m E t 0 Q z 3 0 0. d 0 Cn N O O O rn r O N J IL Q c m E z M Q Attachment 2 Packet P 16 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�aceg nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a • Remove particulate matter dennsited on paved, public roads and sidewalks by sweeping and washing them frequently to reduce mud and dust. • Equip construction equipment with appropriate emission controls. (STAFF COMMENTS) m 0 L a WATER c m a. Surface: 0. 0 (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and m seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. r Puget Sound, a tidal marine water and shoreline of the state, is within and adjacent to the project area o (Figure 1). (STAFF COMMENTS) c c� L (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If +; yes, please describe and attach available plans. m U The majority of the project will occur_ within 200 feet _of Puge_t_Sound_ with the exception of some frontage improvements. The_pmposed overwater walkway will be constructed on the beach over the intertidal zone., See plans for location of project elements_ related to ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and MHHW. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Bulkhead removal: 3.841 square feet (I A24 cubic yards) of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber niles will be removed and disposed of off site at an approved landfill. Beach restoration: 1 210 cubic yards of materials will be placed in Wroximately 3,841 square feet in the area of bulkhead and fill removal. Clean fish -mix avels and sand suitable for forage fish spawning will be placed for beach nourishment Imported sands and fish-mixSravels will be consistent with the existing characteristics of the sand and gravel present adjacent to the bulkhead and will be sourced from a Iegal local quarry. Large woody debris with intact root wads and boulders will be locally sourced and placed in the beach restoration area. Two buried concrete foundations will be removed from the beach between the bulkhead and proposed overwater walkway. An estimated 567 square feet (213 cubic yards) of concrete will be excavated. Three creosote -treated timber piles (9 square feet [27 cubic yards] in the intertidal zone will be Overwater walkway: Seven 30-inch steel piles to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the ground surface (63 cubic yards/35 square feet) will be driven by impact or vibratory hammer. (STAFF COMMENTS) c 0 m M c m E t 0 .r Q z 3 0 0. d 0 N O O O rn r O N J IL Q c m E z c� Q Attachment 2 Packet P 17 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx g 2.1.a (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The project will not require surface water withdrawals or diversions; however, the project will isolate the work area from high tides by_placing filter fabric fences in the upland area and silt curtains and/or debris booms in the intertidal zone. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (6) The project is within the 100-year floodplain, including the bulkhead removal, beach restoration, overwater walkway, stairs, ramp, and portions of the parking lot (see site plan). The existing Senior Center is in the 100-year floodplain, but the proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will not be within the 100-year floodplain due to regrading, which will raise the new building finished floor elevation above the 100-year Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. the project does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters_ (STAFF COMMENTS} b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, groundwater will not be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes. (STAFF COMMENTS} (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground as part of the project. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 2 Packet P 18 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA,final 20180514.docx g 2.1.a d. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The roof of the proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center and parking lot will generate stormwater runoff. The stormwater runoff from the non -pollution generating roof will not require treatment: it will be discharged to Puget Sound through an existing outfall above MHHW (Fi%we 2). PoIlution-generating stormwater runoff from the parking lot will be collected and treated in bioretention cells, in the middle of the parking lot, adiacent to the sidewalk along Railroad Avenue, and near the proposedbeach access stairs. ramp, a 'promenade (Figure 2). The treated stormwater will be infiltrated, and the overflow will be discharged into Puget Sound through a�sting %)utfall pipe in the bulkhead. That outfall will be shortened, once the bulkhead is removed to be located landward of MHHW. (STAFF COMMENTS} (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The parking lot will be subiect to vehicular use and, therefore,_ will be considered a pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS). The stormwater runoff design is outlined_in Question 3.c.(1), above. The remaining eIements ofthe project are not considered to be PGIS orpollution-generating hard surface because they will not be subject to vehicular use, industrial activities, or storage of erodible or leachable materials. wastes, or chemicals. Therefore, no waste materials will _enter the ground or surface waters. Potential soil contamination from historical uses is discussed further in Question Ta.L)Lbelow. Disturbances of previously contaminated soils during construction may cause waste materials to enter&round or surface waters and will require proper remediation prior to construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No. the project does not alter drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: During roiect construction the contractor will reduce and control surface and runoff water impacts by adhering to the requirements of the TESC plan and permit conditions. BMPs implemented during_ construction may include: • Implementation of an SWPPP. Limiting clearing and land disturbing activities to the minimum area needed to construct the project. • Use of wattles and silt fences to control stormwater runoff flow rates and to prevent sediment from entering surface waters. ■ Storm drain inlet protection to prevent sediment discharges_ • Use of turbidity curtains and floating debris booms to protect water quality and prevent discharge of debris into waters of Puget Sound. ■ Conducting upper intertidal demolition work in the dry as feasible to minimize discharge of materials to waters of Puget Sound. Q Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 19 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a • Stabilizing temporary stormwater facilities with rocks or quany spalls to prevent scour and erosion. • Em io 'n tam or e. . weed -free mulch and plastic sheeting) and pennanent mulch cover measures to protect disturbed areas. _ • Temporary covering of fill material stockpiles to prevent erosion and sediment release. • Frequent sweeping of silt from_roadway surfaces to prevent sediment runoff_ • Frequent_ inspection of flow and erosion control TESC facilities and maintenance of facilities for (STAFF 4. Plants L� ,3-b a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: sycamore, cheny do wood evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: eelgrass (mapped off site in nearshore environment) other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. C. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All vegetation around the existing Senior Center building and in the existing parking lot will be removed. That vegetation includes five large sycamore trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The finished project includes landscaping with trees and shrubs around the Edmonds Waterfront Center building and parking lot and with beach vegetation in the restoration area. Native species will be used in the landscaping plan to the greatest extent feasible. (STAFF COMMENTS) List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered plant species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 20 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native Plants will be used to the extent feasible for landscapinglandsegping around the Edmonds Waterfront Center building in the upper beach (i.e., dune) restoration planting& and in the rain gardenlbioretention planters. Native plants that may be planted in the dune restoration area include American dune s EI mus mollis beach strawbe (Fragaria chiloensis), tree lupine (Lupinus arboreus). and Puget Sound gumweed (Grindelia integi'ifalia]. Native plants that may be planted in the b.ioretention area include douglas aster (Aster siihspicatus}, saltgrass (13istic):ills spicata)_Lyn bye's sedge (Carex lyngbveij. Pacific wax myrtle (M rica cal�ornia). cosmopolitan bulrush (Scii maritimus), Douglas spireae (&irea souglasii). and Nootka rose Losa nutkana). (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. There are no noxious weeds or invasive species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) Animals a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: i�kher�on,gle, songbirds Cher: gulls, shorebirds, marbled murrelet, Canada geese mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, -ahnon, trout, herring, shellfis nther: forage fish, southern residentkiller whale (STAFF COMMENTS), : ` . -�.F1I s oa 4-Ij F-'IjI;; b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Species lists and maps were obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 20I7) the_National Marine Fisheries Service MFS 2017 and Washington De artment of Fish and Wildlife WDFW 2017). There are no known threatened or endangered species known to be on the site. Adjacent_ to the site, within Puget Sound, the following ecies could occur: southern resident killer whale Orchms orca chinook salmon Oncorh nchus tsha tscha bull trout Salvelinus corn uentus steelhead trout Gncorh nchus m kiss ellowe e rockfish Sebastes ru6errimus bocaccio rockfish Sebastes aucis iris and marbled murrelet Brach rain hus Attachment 2 Packet P 21 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA final 20180514.docx g 2.1.a Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The project site lies within the Pacific Flyway, one of four major north -south migration routes in the Americas for migratory birds._ Washington State is _part of the Pacific Flyway._ Puget Sound serves as a migratory_ route for anadromous fish to _migrate from their natal streams to the Pacific Ocean and back. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: A fora e�pawn survey will be conducted, using WDFW's protocol, along two 100-foot transects where proiect impacts are proposed: the bulkhead and the overwater walkway. The surveys will be conducted 2 days prior to construction to determine the presence or absence of forage fish spawn within and adjacent_ to the project area. The survey transects will address those impacted areas separately, such that if one element of the project is abandoned or delayed, only one transect may be necessary. Construction waterward of the OHWM must begin within 48 hours of presencelabsence notification to WDFW, and must be completed within 7 days. If the work cannot be completed within 7 days, a subsequent survey will be performed to confirm lack of spawn within and adjacent_ to the work area. If fora e�pawn are determined to be present adjacent to the work area, a 20-foot buffer will be flagged around the location and construction may continue outside that buffer. If spawn are located within the project work area, construction will be delayed for a minimum of 1 week: and subsequent surveys will be conducted weekly until spawn are determined to be absent. Wildlife habitat will be enhanced by the removal of creosote -treated timber piles and fill associated with the existing bulkhead, additional creosote -treated timber piles from the intertidal lone, and concrete foundations, and subsequent beach restoration consisting of native plantings, installation of large woody debris and boulders, and beach The pile -driving installations will be done in the dry during low tidal periods to avoid sound pressure wave impacts If a barge is to be used for construction of the overwater walkway, an eelwass survey will be conducted prior to List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. No invasive animal species are known to be on or near the project site. (STAFF COMMENTS) SA�,na 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The project will use electric and natural gas to meet the project's energy needs. Electricity will be used for lighting and space heating/cooling within the Edmonds Waterfront Center building and for lighting in the _parking lot building_ exterior, and along the overwater walkway. Natural gas will be used for heating domestic water. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Attachment 2 Packet P 22 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx g 2.1.a b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, the proiect will not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. The proposed building will not be higher than surrounding buildings and will not block solar access of adjacent properties. _ (STAFF COMMENTS) m 'o L IL C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: E 0. The project proposes the following energy conservation features: • Highly efficient buildingevelope • CoWlete and enhanced commissioning (test and calibrate_ystems after they are installed to be sure they are operating as designed) 0 • Operational support, training, and operations and maintenance manuals 0 • Lighting controls • LED liQhtine Dackage • Occupancy sensors and dimmers inside and out • CO2/occupancy sensors for HVAC equipment • Photo -voltaic array on roof of new building as fund raising allows • High efficiency VRF (HVAC)heating/cooling system. • One or two electric vehicle charging stations either installed during initial construction or at a later date • Low solar heat -gain coefficient (SHGC)west glazing (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Construction activities will require the use of hazardous materials on site, including -Rasoline,_diesel motor oil, transmission fluid, hydraulic ail, radiator coolant, brake fluid, and metals used in tires. Concrete will also be used. Accidental leaks and spills of hazardous materials could occur where construction equipment is parked, used, fueled. or maintained, and where hazardous materials are stored. During removal of the bulkhead, construction workers and the environment will be exposed to creosote -treated piles and adjacent creosote -contaminated soils. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Soil samples from g.eotechnical borings were analyzed for contaminants of potential concern, which included petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the historical site use as a shingle null, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) associated with coated timbers used to construct the bulkhead, Several samples c M L d c m U c 0 m M c m E t 0 .r Q t 3 0 0. d 0 Cn N O O O rn r O N J IL Q c m E z c� Q Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 23 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPAfnal 20180514.docx 2.1.a indicated the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TP_Hs}_inthe diesel- and oil -range, but none of the concentrations exceeded Ecology's Model Toxins Control Act_(MTCA) Method A cleanup level. Samples also indicated the presence of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons RAW, but none of the detected PAH_ concentrations exceeded the MTCA Method A or B cleanup levels (Landau 2017). Additionally, the bulkhead is currently supported by creosote -treated timber piles that may have contaminated the adjacent_ fill and soils in their immediate vicinity. (STAFF COMMENTS} (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. During bulkhead removal, the project may uncover contaminated soil and hazardous conditions, as described above. The pmject will have a plan in place to contain and remove any contaminated and/or hazardous materials. There are no known underground liquid or gas transmission pipelines within the project area or The bulkhead is currently supported by creosote -treated piles that may have contaminated the adjacent fill and soils. Removal of the bulkhead, piles, and adjacent soils will follow Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) guidelines on creosote -treated debris removal (WDNR 20I7). Fill and soils removed at the site will be disposed at a regulated landfill permitted to accept such contaminated materials (Landau (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Construction activities will require the use of hazardous materials on site, including_gasoline, diesel, motor oil, transmission fluid, hydraulic oil, radiator coolant, brake fluid, and metals used in tires. During_Uperation of the project, chemicals for cleaning the interior of the building will be_kept_on site in clearly marked areas. (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. As with any construction activity, there is a chance_ that emergency services may need to respond to a workplace accident or injury or an inadvertent spill or_reIease of hazardous material. All work will be conducted in accordance with site -specific health and safety plans required in the construction contract specifications. During aeration of the project, emergency services that might be required include those services cuffentl provided, such as fire, ambulance, and police responses. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Attachment 2 Packet P 24 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�aceg nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: All construction activities will be performed in compliance with Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) requirements. The contractor will be required to provide a health and sa&V plan for approval before beginning work Prior to beginning work, the contractor will be required to prepare and implement a spill prevention._ control:, and countermeasure (SPCC)plan to mitigate impacts on soil, surface water, _and -groundwater in the event of a spill. of hazardous substances during construction. The SPCC plan will address spill prevention and - containment, spill response procedures, equipment, and reporting requirements; and the chain of responsibility. Removal of the bulkhead. creosote -treated piles, and potentially creosote -contaminated adjacent soils will follow WDNR guidelines and BMPs for creosote -treated debris removal (WLiNR 2017) and will be disposed of at a regulated landfill permitted to accept such contaminated materials. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Automobile, boat, and train traffic are the dominant existing source of noise in the project area. BNSF and Sound Transit have trains that run frequently on the tracks adjacent to the project site_ The trains are large sources of noise. Automobile noise is associated with the parking lot and Railroad Avenue. Boat noise is associated with boats in Puget Sound and Washington State Ferry horns at the ferry terminal north of the project and the Edmonds Marina to the south_ This noise will not affect the project beyond existing (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Noise will be generated on a short-term basis during construction. Various types of construction equipment that create noise could include water trucks. dump trucks. excavators. cementLmortar tr►ixers, cranes, tractors, loaders, backhoes. front end loaders, generators, and pile drivers. Noise levels during some periods of construction within the project area could exceed 70 dBA within 50 feet of the construction activity. with 70 dBA being the maximum permissible sound leye_I (Edmonds City Code 5.30.0.4_0.}._ Construction hours will be confined to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I .00_a.m. and 6.00,p_m. on Saturdays, with no work occurring on Sundays and federal holidays (Edmonds City Noise generated from daily use and facility operations activities at the Edmonds Waterfront Center are anticipated to include outdoor VRF heat pumps to serve the HVAC system, as well as, pedestrians walkinu along the boardwalk, and special events such as weddings. Generated noise levels will follow the requirements set forth in Edmonds City Code Chapter 5 Part 30 — Noise Abatement and Control. (STAFF COMMENTS) m 0 aL c m E 0. 0 m m m r c 0 L d c c� d c m U c 0 0 c m E 0 Q z �3 0 0. d 0 Cn N 0 0 0 rn 0 N J IL Q c m E z U c� Q Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 25 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: For times when project construction may exceed 70 dBA within 50 feet of the construction acticiM the project will comply. with the re uirements set forth in Edmonds City Code Chapter 5 fart 30 — Noise Abatement and Control. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The project site is currently used by the public as the Senior Center for community services parking, and public each access. Surrounding land uses are commercial industrial residential and recreational and include the fe terminal the BNSF railway, the Port of Edmonds Marina the Ebb Tide Condominiums commerciaUretail uses the Edmonds Marine Walkway, and Brackett's Landing South park. The proposed project will not affect current land uses of the ferry terminal, BNSF railway. or the Port of Edmonds Marina. The project will affect the Ebb Tide Condominiums t constructing an overwater walkway waterward of the Ebb Tide Condominiums where one does not currently exist- but where the Ci owns an easement for such ose. Visual simulations of the pro osed overwater walkway are attached hereto as Attachment A. The overwater walkway will alter the waterward views from the Ebb Tide Condominiums approximately as depicted in the attached simulations. The presence of the overwater walkway may require a change in the route that Ebb Tide Condominium residents will take to access any, portions of the beach that are waterward of the new walkway much of the time that area will be under waterl because it may not be possible to pass under the walkway at certain times. Because the walkway will be at an elevation that is higher than the beach, users of the walkway may be able to see more of the Ebb Tide Condominiums than they would under the present condition, if they were inclined to look in that direction. Because the overwater walkway is expected to occupy the entire width of the City's easement, there would no longer be room for a public path on the sand in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? No the project site has not been used as working farmlands or working forest lands. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No, the project will not affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land operations. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 2 Packet P 26 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�aceg nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable as there will be no displacements. (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proiectwill be designed to comply with all applicable Federal, state,_ and local development regulations to ensure In. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Not applicable as there are no nearb a 'cultural and forest lands of long-term commercial si nificance. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposed project will not provide any housing units. _ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposed project will not eliminate anv housing units. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 2 Packet P 27 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx g 2.1.a Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No impacts on housing are anticipated: therefore, no measures are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed:" The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be 29.5 feet tall from 15 feetNAVD88. if the proiect budget allows,a solar photo -voltaic array would be installed on the roof of the new building and would be compliant with height exemptions for solar energy installations (Edmonds City Code 21.40.030 D. 7). The principle exterior building materials are proposed to bepainted fiber cement siding, fiberglass windows, metal curtainwall/storefront and stone veneer with membrane roofing. The proposed overwater walkway will be less than 17 feet above mean lower Iow water (MLLW) elevation (elevation of 14.3 feet NAVD88). which is similar to the existing walkway elevations on either side ofthe proposed overwater walkway. The height ofthe proposed overwater walkway is restricted by the terms of the City's easement_ which states that no structure greater than I7 feet above MLLW may be constructed within the City's easement_ The overwater walkway structure will be concrete and grating. with approximately 50 percent of the structure footprint grated to allow light to pass onto the beach below (WAC 220-660-380). The overwater walkway structure will be elevated above the beach on seven 30-inch-diameter steel piles- The overwater walkway may include downward Facing. shielded, low-level lighting on the walkway surface only for safety requirements but will not include any high-level lighting or be constructed with glare -producing materials. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The overwater walkway will alter and partially obstruct views of the waterfront from the plaza and first -floor units of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. Views from the remaining residences within the complex will be altered by the new overwater walkway however, the views are not anticipated to be obstructed. For more information about the extent to which the overwater walkway will alter or obstruct views from the Ebb Tide Condominiums,_ please see the visual simulations in Attachment A. Views that would be altered in the immediate vicinity. which is flat terrain and one-story buildings are inherently views from a person's eye level when standing on the ground or at a fast story Ievel. The existing Senior Center building blocks views of the Sound from eye level in the immediate vicinity, The new Waterfront Center building does not extend horizontally as f'ar northeast as the existing building. Because views_ in the immediate vicinityare from ground level and because the new building will not extend as far north as the existing, the new development will provide a wider view corridor than the existing view corridor in the immediate vicinity looking from Railroad Aveue to the Puget Sound). Views from the Ebb Tide Condominimums and office buildings north of the site will not be affected. The new building will comply with view corridor re lations Edmonds City Code 24A0.040 B 1 I)) - (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The design of the proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building is expected to enhance and improve the aesthetics of the site. The aesthetics of all proposed structures are not expected to result in any negative impact on surrounding properties. Structures will be designed in accordance with local guidelines and regulations for height color, and m 0 L a c m E 0. 0 m m m r c 0 d c cc d c m U c 0 0 c m E 0 .r Q �3 0 0. d 0 U) N 0 0 0 rn 0 N J IL Q c am E z U cc Q Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 28 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a proximity to other structures or resources. The design will be vetted through the applicable City's design review (STAFF COMMENTS) - - m 'o 11. Light and Glare L a c a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? E Q. The new uarkine lot will include cut-off LED light fixtures on one-sided bollards, pointing toward the buildin&and approximately 12- to 16-foot-tall poles. Portions of the new marine walkway and steps will have low-level, shielded m step lights, pointing away from shoreline habitat. Wall -mounted cut-off LED lighting will also be installed near the m building entrances. The lighting inside the building will be used during the day,as needed and in the evening durin W events in accordance with lighting restrictions outlined in the Edmonds Cif Code. The overwater walkway may include low-level walkway surface lighting for safety requirements but will not include high-level lghting and is not expected to produce glare. ,L (STAFF COMMENTS) ?� c M L. d b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? V Light and glare associated with the project will not be expected to present a saf6ty hazard or interfere with views. c o The lighting on the overwater walkway will be noticeable from the Ebb Tide Condominium units but the lighting is not expected to interfere with views any more than the structures itself would. (STAFF COMMENTS) c m E C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Q There is existing lighting on adjacent buildings and along Railroad Avenue; however, the existing lighting is s not anticipated to affect the project. 3 (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 d rn d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N c Ail exterior lighting wiI] be arranged and directed so as to direct the light away from adjacent properties to the 0 c greatest extent feasible. Night lighting will be restricted to the minimum required for operational and safety J requirements and will be directed away from roads and sensitive viewpain#s. where_practicab3e. a Q (STAFF COMMENTS) c m E z M 12. Recreation Q Hr What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? On either side of the fegy terminal are two regional Rarks, Brackett's Landing North and South. Collectively, the two parks include public beachpicnic areas inte retive informationpublic restrooms a parking lot and showers. Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 29 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a On the northern side of the ferry is another regionaLpark,_Edmonds Underwater Park.. From the ferry terminal to the Port of Edmonds Marina is a public waterfront walkway. the Edmonds Marine Walkway, with a missing section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. On the southern side of the site is Olympic Beach and a fishing pier, which will be connected to the project site by the proposed overwater walkway. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No. The proposed project wzil retain and enhance the existing recreational uses. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Impacts on recreation will occur only duriqg project construction. To reduce impacts on recreation during construction, signs will -be placed to redirect pedestrian traffic around construction activities. The finished project will improve recreation 2ppormnifies by providinga continuous waterfront walkway and beach access in place of the existing bulkhead. The overwater walkway will com lete the "missing link" and provide continuous ADA access along the waterfront for 1.5 miles_ During construction, the majority of programs_ offered by the Senior Center will be offered _ata_temporary_snace. The completed project will expand current services provided by the Senior Center to include intergenerational Programs that serve people of all ages at the new Edmonds Waterfront Center. These services will be provided by both the Senior Center and the City. Therefore, opportunitiesfor the general public to access he_altlwellness, and exercise activities and programming will be increased over _existing opportunities_ at the site__ (STAFF COMMENTS) 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. No. there are no known historic buildings. structures, or sites on or near the project site that are Iisted or eligible for national, state, or local preservation registers. The Edmonds Senior Center building at 220 Railroad Avenue is a two-story building, built in three phases. The first portion was constructed in 1935.with subsequent portions built in 1952 and 1977. It was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 2013 (SWCA 2017). (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. There are no known landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. A cultural resources study of the area was completed for the project by SWCA Attachment 2 Packet P 30 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�aceg nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a C. d. Environmental Consultants (SWCA 2017). The report details early historical maps that show the project area was part of the intertidal zone prior to historical development of the shoreline. Therefore, pre -contact cultural resources are not expected to be encountered in the project area. Thick deposits of fill with potential for preserved historical surfaces and remnants of historic structures are expected in the project area as a result of the known development history of the Edmonds waterfront and onsite borings (Landau 2017). Historic_period sites, if present in the project area, will likely be related to shingle milling or railroads. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from the early 1900s show where cultural materials relaters to historical industry may be encountered. Boreholes drilled in the project area during preliminary design efforts show that 5.4 to 11.5 feet of fill exists in the project area and that there is heightened potential for encountering historic archaeological resources in the fill between about 5 and 6 feet below the surface where solid -cored wood, a concentration of brick fragments, and associated historic cultural debris were observed. No significant cultural materials were observed during archaeological monitoring of geotechnical borehole drilling. Additional subsurface archaeological investigations were not conducted as part of the assessment. (STAFF COMMENTS) Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic -a Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. M L. SWCA reviewed available pmiect plans and related information, local environmental and cultural information, historical maps,_ and previous studies_ in the area. In addition, SWCA conducted a records search using the V Department of Archaeology and Historic Preseryation's-(DAHP) Washington Information System for Architectural }, and Archaeological Records Data (WISSARD)._SWCA also monitored geotechnical borehole drilling to review 0 sediment samples collected from below the parkin lot asphalt. m (STAFF COMMENTS) M c E Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. 0 Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Q No significant cultural materials were identified during this cultural resources assessment. Though the protect area has heightened archaeological sensitivity due to its position on the shoreline, no additional cultural resources 3 investigations were recommended_ prior to the proposed Waterfront Center construction. Due to the sensitive natural c and cultural setting of the project area, however, SWCA recommended targeted archaeological monitoring of 0. construction within the historical fill following a project -specific Monitoring and Discovery Plan that includes Ww provisions for testing and evaluation, as needed, in addition to inadvertent discovery_ protocols. Archaeological monitoring of ground disturbance to the historical fill will focus on any excavations planned to reach between 5 andCn 6 feet below the surface where solid -cored wood. bricks. and historical cultural debris indicate that structural c remnants of the mills and buildings once in the project area may be present. 00 In the event that ground disturbance or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery rn of archaeological deposits. r 0 work will be halted in the immediate area and contact will be made with the consulting parries, in accordance with CJ the Monitoring and Discovery Plan (SWCA 2017)- Work will be halted until such time as further investigation and a annropriate treatment is agreed upon through consultation. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of Q human remains, work will be immediately halted in the area, the discovery covered and secured against further a disturbance, and contact made with law enforcement personnel following the Monitoring and Discovery Plan E (SWCA 2017 Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological -resources will be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 31 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPAfnal 20180514.docx 2.1.a 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The project site is accessed by Railroad Avenue, from Dayton Avenue and State Route 104 (Edmonds Way) in downtown Edmonds. State Route 104 can be accessed from both State Route 99 and Interstate 5_ Site access will remain the same after construction of the project. (STAFF b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The project site is served by public transit, There is a bus stop on Railroad Avenue adiacent to the ro'ect site which is served by Community Transit Route 130. The Community Transit DART (dial -a -ride transportation) bus services the Senior Center. Edmonds Station is the nearest transit stop, at the coiner of Railroad Avenue and Main Street by the ferU dock. This transit stop is accessed by the Kingston -Edmonds feny, Amtrak train, Sounder train, and Community Transit Routes 116 Edmonds -Silver Firs), 130 (Edmonds --Lynnwood), 196 Edmonds-Alderw ad Mall), and 416 (Edmonds -Downtown Seattle). (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? The existingparking lot contains 77 parking spaces. The project proposes a reconfigured parking lot with 71,parkin g spaces_ There will be 6 fewer parking spaces as a result of the project. (STAR' COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The project will require some minor modifications to Railroad, Avenue for road frontage improvements, including a new curb and sidewalk, minor stomi drain adjustments, and a bus pullout area. Improvements on site include pedestrian sidewalks, bus stop upgrades, plantings, bioretention and water quality treatment planters, and bicycle racks for access to the public building and shoreline Fi e 2). (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project will not directly_ use water, raii, or air transportation but will occur in the vicinity of water and rail transportation. Refer to _description of facilities provided in Question 14.b, above. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 2 Packet P 32 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�aceg nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? According to the traffic study Mepared for the project (Gibson 2017), the project is projected to generate 11.93 PM peak -hour trips 5.14 inbound and 6.79 outbound of which 1.43 trips would be new PM -peak -hour trips. The average daily traffic is projected to be 10 times the PM_peak- hour trips; therefore, the project wi11 result in an average of 14.30 new vehicular trips per da (Gibson 2017), The PM peak -hour trip generation_ was determined based on counts conducted by Traffic Data Gathering on two days(Wednesday, June 14 and Thursday,June 15 (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: A traffic control plan may be developed, if necessary. The plan would detail the route for construction traffic: and, after it is approved by the City, the plan would he in force during construction. Public access to the project site may be limited during construction. Additional traffic control measures such as warning signs and flamers, will be 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Operation of the project is not expected to increase the need for public services beyond existing needs. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: There will be no im act on public services as a result of the proposed ro'ect. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 33 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA�nal 20180514.docx 2.1.a 16. Utilities a. C' es currently available at the site: electricity natural gas aker, refuse service, telephone anitar_y sewer septic system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The project will be served by the Senior Center's existing telephone and refi�se service providers_ The Senior Center currently shares a sewer line with the Ebb Tide Condominiums. The project will reconfigure the sewerage so the Edmonds Waterfront Center building will have its own sewer line connected directly the sewer main in Railroad Avenue. The project will also include new domestic and fire water, natural gas, and electric connections between the Waterfront Center buildigz and Railroad Avenue. (STAFF COMMENTS} C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead a:'Proponent on them to make its decision. Date ubmitted Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 34 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 EWC SEPA,final 20180514.docx 2.1.a REFERENCES Gibson. 2017. Edmonds Waterfront Center, GTC #17-138, City of Edmonds Trip Generation and Mitigation. Prepared for the Edmonds Senior Center by Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. July 12. Landau. 2017. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Edmonds Waterfront Development and Restoration and Ebb Tide Condominiums Walkway Projects, Edmonds, WA. Prepared for Barker Landscape Architects by Landau Associates. August. 'o L NMFS. 2017. Status of ESA listings and critical habitat designations for West Coast salmon and steelhead. Accessed online May 12, a 2017. c <hqp://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/ ig s maps/maps/salmon_steelhead/critical_habitat/wcr_salmonid_ch esajuly2 E 016.pdf>. 0 m Shannon & Wilson. 2007. Geotechnical Report, Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for City of Edmonds by Shannon & Wilson. April 18. r SWCA. 2017. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the Edmonds Senior Center Project, Snohomish County, 0 Washington. Prepared for Barker Landscape Architects by SWCA Environmental Consultants. May 30. 'C d c� USFWS. 2017. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in the proposed project location, and/or may be affected by 3: the proposed project. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Lacey, Washington. c� WDFW. 2017. Priority habitats and species report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed May 12, 2017. +; <hlt2:Hgpps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/>. U WDNR. 2017. Washington Department of Natural Resources Derelict Creosote Piling Removal Best Management Practices for Pile o Removal & Disposal. Accessed online June 26, 2017. <http:Hfile.dnr.wa.goy/publications/agrr rest pileremoval_bmp 2017.pdf>. ,0 m M c m E t .r Q t 3 r- 0 0. d Cn N O O O CD r O N J a El Q Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 a W%. 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 35 2.1.a Note: This page intentionally left blank. Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will co correctly when duplexed. Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 AW4WF4.20180514.dox Packet Pg. 37 I 2.1.a I - ._�� ►• _ _ 0011 -- _ . ����yvvvvvvvvOOOOVOO����`���0�y'�yy�yy.�y��`� -. • . Match E ® • = Jr�st7AD fYi� / �e • • • _ _ m���Z — �s� �1By Stairs—�,�Plaza it _� yv�v��..v0�,r.v��\Cess Easement —� `,`° �► �� , . Reef r r'� �a��. 6 , Apts.Setback Setback Ebb Tide Edmonds 14 • • • u -�Center Underwater Sports 42" Fence/Guardrail Entry Bike O Pk9 f o /� 14 TOW q ��"� C rb ••••"""••••�����all w/ 2 14.5' �ence,�MaHt. 6' �g m 12.9 6" Bollards Typ. 200 f<. Shoreline "Tra°/ 125' � ✓ '� I 54) (55) (56) 7) (58) ° Setback .5' TOW r 3 .�� of w )e• 1 u BNSF R.O.W. 120' TOC Match Existing 11.5±J Bioretention Bioretention Planter ASPHALT Existing Utility Pole/ Planter 1 Overflow, Typ. Street Light, To Remain Existing Utility Pole/ Street RAILROAD AVENUE Light, To Remain an er sl ,erp ptl It C 1 29 t (10)o t J •^`Iza1 ac C t si l 2% x (tat 1 1 C c O t r = c 2.51. t I (e) C ?* (19) ' rvarvv C za1 ae> c zo1 7)o Tre ct c (5)0 l Dra In c Va 1 .3' 13.8 c (2 2.2% (slo an c 4>0 I� ite c � 3) i o (�) t e CURB t c c c c c �;-t :E s ss) c1It P E sal (65) c ' hLT s 20 1Vc Ex. Bus Shelte Bioretention Planter ; ASPHALT Direction Curb RamD. Per RAILROAD AVENUE Z k, CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED BY BY: DATE: NO. DATE: DRAWN BY: REVISION: O ENGINEERING DIVISION DESIGN: 06.22.2017 NM/JB Ci of Edmonds Pre -A City pp 121 FIFTH AVENUE Edmonds SHEET: L 1 EDMONDS, WA 80 OORTH DRAWN: 08.29.2017 PC/NM JARPA Waterfront Redevelopment �' (425)771ER BARKER 1 OF 1 SHEETS LANDSCAPE ARCIUMC75 CITY ENGINEER CHECKED: 06.11.2018 PC/NM SEPA Checklist 220 Railroad Ave, Edmonds, WA 98020 A5V s.19JMCc Date: 06/11/2018 APPROVED: a c m nreaTacW L 2a>.55 ting, Typ LEGEND Landscape Plantings Bioretention Planter Lawn Beach Restoration ® Asphalt Concrete Tree (Max. Ht. 25') — —1 o- — Existing Topography .1 8 �� Proposed Grading --- MHHw— MHHW (El. 8.6) ---- OHW ---- OHW O Boulder Large Woody Debris ---- Property Line --- — Right of Way ----- Limit of Work — — — Easement PARKING - Total Existing Stalls: 77 Proposed Stalls: 71 Standard Stalls: 27 i Compact Stalls: 35 (49%) ADA Std. Stalls: 2 ADA Van Stalls: 1 Van Stalls: 4 NOTE: 1. The entire project is within the Flood Plain Boundary d"09h) 0 10 20 40 Figure 2 - Site Plan Scale: 1" = 20'-0" EaE° (22" x 34" sheet) Packet Pg. 38 match 9 � 8: ty Street Ight, ama771 to CB 2.1.a u m 0 L a r c m E a 0 m m m c 0 L L U c 0 L d N r C d E t V a 3 L 0 N� v! N O O O CD O N J a a r m E M u �a r a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 39 2.1.a ATTACHMENT A Visual Simulations Q Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 40 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� o: c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 41 Vantage Points, Plan View IMF P -I , _ , . low ,Gomm 1, -"ftftft� t I Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. Packet Pg. 42 0 0 Cn N O O O T 0 N J IL Q r c a� E s u r r Q 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 43 Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Barker Landscape Architects, P.. - - Packet Pg. 44 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 45 Viewpoint 1 � Looking North Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Existing Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 46 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 47 Viewpoint 1 � Looking North Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Proposed Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 48 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 49 Viewpoint 2 Looki Am� ng South Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 r Attachment 2 Existing Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 50 0 E s Q s 3 0 Q. d Cn N O 0 0 rn 0 N J a Q c a� E s U r r Q 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 51 Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Proposed Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 52 N C O t C� O N N N O O O O N J a Q C a� s U r r Q 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 53 Viewpoint 3 I Ground Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Existing Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 54 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 55 Viewpoint 3 Ground Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Proposed: In Easement Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 56 0 E s Q s 3 0 Q. d Cn N O O O a) O N J a Q c a� E s U r r Q 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 57 Viewpoint 4 I Second Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Existing Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 58 0 E s Q s 3 0 Q. d Cn N O O O a) O N J a Q c a� E s u r r Q 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 59 Viewpoint 4 I Second Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Proposed Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 60 0 E s Q s 3 0 Q. d Cn N O O O a) O N J a Q c a� E s u r r Q 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 61 aVITI • I • -t- -,Q A.f 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 63 Viewpoint 5 � Fifth Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Attachment 2 Proposed Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. - - Packet Pg. 64 2.1.a m 0 L a. r E 0- 0 N� I.L r 0 L d M M L V 0 L N C N E L V Q t 3 0 a a� ca N O O O O r O N J d Q r C d t V a Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 65 2.1.a RECEIVED MAY 10 2019 LAND USE/SEPA DECISION APPEAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER APPELLANT INFORMATION (Person or group making appeal) Name: The Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners Address: c/o Stephan D. Wakefield and John T. Yip, Attorneys for Appellant Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S. 321 First Avenue West Seattle, WA 98119 Phone: (206) 447-1900 Fax: (206) 447-9075 E-mails: ste Iianw cr),heckerwakefield.com ioliny�a,heekcrwakefield.com Please send us documents via U.S. Mail and email. DECISION BEING APPEALED 1. Decision appealed: Determination of Nonsignificance; Environmental Checklist. Both documents are generally challenged as to their contents and particularly, but without limitation, the portions set forth below. 2. Property address of decision being appealed: 200 Beach Pl., Edmonds, WA 98020 APPEAL INFORMATION 1. What is your interest in this decision? (State how you are affected by it) The Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners (hereinafter "Ebb Tide") is the owner of the real property where the proposed elevated walkway, for which the Determination of Nonsignificance was issued, would be constructed. 2. What are your objections to the decision? (List and describe what you believe to be the errors, omissions, or other problems with this decision.) The decision to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is erroneous as it fails to consider the significant adverse impact the proposed elevated walkway (hereinafter "Walkway") will have on forage fish habitat. In this regard, a DNS may only be issued if the City "has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely." See WAC 197-11-355. Since there are significant adverse environmental impacts stemming from the City's proposal to construct an elevated walkway on the Ebb Tide Beach, the DNS should not have been issued. The City should have considered and studied the forage fish habitat issue, which the City's DNS and its accompanying Environmental Checklist fail to do. Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 66 2.1.a From the outset, the Ebb Tide previously set forth objections to issuance of the DNS in the Comment/Objection Letter to Kernan Lien dated August 20, 2018 (hereinafter "Letter"), which is incorporated by referenced herein along with all its exhibits. A courtesy copy of the Letter and its exhibits are enclosed herewith for your reference and for the record. We renew the objections in the Letter and incorporate them herein by reference. Notably, the Environmental Checklist does not mention or address the concerns expressed in our Letter. Indeed, the Letter was not among the documents listed as "environmental iiiivrTiiatioii you know' about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal," even though the Letter was previously provided to the City of Edmonds in August of 2018. Environmental Checklist ¶ 8. No explanation was provided by the City for ignoring the Letter. The City's issuance of the DNS without considering the issues presented in the Letter is erroneous. The Environmental Checklist references a recent "ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion dated April 15, 2019," which is a report prepared by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (hereinafter, the April 15 report shall be referenced as the "NMFS Report"). Neither the Environmental Checklist, nor the DNS, explains how the NMFS Report substantiates that "significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely." Mr. Lien did include a cover letter with the DNS and Environmental Checklist that references an excerpt of the NMFS Report, which concludes: ...the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. Despite the above conclusion, the NMFS's Report contains multiple highly concerning statements regarding the adverse impact of the proposed elevated walkway on forage fish habitat, PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio (albeit short of their total destruction), and PS Chinook salmon habitat. The concerning statements from the NMFS Report regarding environmental impact of the proposed elevated walkway, are as follows (citations are to the NMFS Report): Chart answering "Yes" to whether the "Action [is] likely to adversely affect critical habitat" of PS Chinook Salmon (a threatened species) and PS/GB Bocaccio (an endangered species). (NMFS Report, third page of cover letter). • "The greatest extent of physical, chemical or biological effects stemming from the proposed action is associated with likely impacts of permanent structures on forage fish populations, which are important prey fishes for listed species." (p. 17) • "The area where detectable effects may occur is driven by forage fish use of the nearshore. We anticipate that the proposed overwater walkway would have long- term impacts on forage fish populations (Pacific herring, sand lance and surf smelt) by causing increased susceptibility to predation from overhead cover and restricted use of known spawning habitats from the blocking nature of the Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 67 2.1.a proposed walkway. These effects would be long-term and are considered permanent, for the life of the structure." (p. 17) • "Forage fish are an important prey source of PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead and PS/GB bocaccio, and an important component of the SRKW trophic prey base. Forage fish species that occur near the project area may contribute to the prey base of listed populations throughout the Puget Sound basin and Strait of Juan de Fuca. Surf smelt spawning is documented at the project site (WDFW 20 i 0)." (p. 10). o Indeed, "[t]he spawning population sizes of Chinook salmon are dangerously below federal recovery goals and are not improving." (p. 19). • "Below HAT [High Average Tide], the proposed structures (overwater walkway and stairway) would have long-term adverse effects on the function of nearshore and intertidal habitat, including PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat. Effects of the new overwater walkway on nearshore and intertidal habitat function may include diminished primary productivity (e.g. phytoplankton and zooplankton, diminished epibenthic invertebrae colonization, and increased risk of predation... These impacts on the PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat conditions are reasonably certain to include adverse effects on the forage PBFs of both species and the cover PBF of PS Chinook salmon. These effects would be long-term and are considered permanent, for the life of the structure." (p.23) "The loss of shade otherwise provided by riparian vegetation may also increase exposure of forage fish eggs to solar radiation and lead to increased rates of desiccation." (p. 23) • "The project site features active surf smelt spawning. Surf smelt are important prey species for PS Chinook salmon, and probably PS/GB bocaccio. In turn, SR killer whales consume PS Chinook salmon. Surf smelt eggs are often unnoticed to the untrained eyes, and spawn timing is not always predictable (Quinn et al. 2012). Thus, the likelihood of surf smelt eggs becoming trampled, buried, or spawning events deterred altogether is reasonable." (p. 29) • "[I]ncidental take is reasonably certain to occur as follows: Harm of juvenile PS Chinook salmon from ... reduced forage fish prey. Harm of PS/GB bocaccio from ... reduced forage fish prey." (p. 35) To be clear, the excerpts from the NMFS Report establish that the proposed elevated walkway will have significant adverse impacts on forage fish, PS Chinook Salmon and PS/GB Boccaccio, and other wildlife such as invertebrates. At minimum, the above cited excerpts clearly tend to refute the City's DNS determination that "significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely." Nonetheless, the City does not reference any above -cited portions of the NMFS Report. The City also does not explain how significant adverse environmental impacts Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 68 2.1.a are unlikely despite the findings in the NMFS Report with regard to the forage fish habitat. Indeed, the Environmental Checklist, Section 5a, did not mention forage fish at all. The City's failure to consider the significant adverse environmental impacts described in our Letter and in the recent NMFS Report, establish that the DNS is incorrect, or at the very least, premature. 3. What relief do you want? (Specify what you want the Examiner to do: reverse the decision, modify conditions, etc.) Ebb Tide respectfully requests that the City of Edmonds withdraw the DNS and not grant any permits based on it. Furthermore, Ebb Tide requests that the City of Edmonds enter a Determination of Significance and/or conduct additional studies and research on the significant adverse environmental impacts highlighted in Ebb Tide's Letter and in the NMFS, including, without limitation, the,impact of the elevated walkway on forage fish habitat. I have read this appeal and believe the contents Date Enclosures: Letter St h i . W field. WSBA No. 22762 John '. ip, W ' BA No. 46597 Hec -r Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S. Attorneys for Ebb Tide City of Edmonds's Cover Letter, DNS, Environmental Checklist and exhibits (including, without limitation, the NMFS Report) Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 69 2.1.a Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 321 First Avenue West Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 447-1900 Facsimile (2U6) 447-9075 August 20, 2018 Mr.. Kernen Lien VIA E-M.AIL: Icernexi.lien(-iedmond. rwa.guv Environmental Programs Manager And Fax: (425) 771-0221 Development Services Department And Legal, Messenger 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Comment/Objection By Ebb Tile Association To DNS AI>'lslicatiun Dear Mr. Lien: Our law firm represents The Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners (hereinafter "Ebb Tide"), which owns/controls the real property at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter "Ebb 'fide Property"). This letter serves as a comment and objection to the Application and Optional Determination of Nonsignificance (hereinafter "DNS Application") submitted by the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "City")(See copy of the DNS Application attached hereto as Exhibit 1).. The DNS Application seeks a "Determination of Nonsignificance" (hereinafter "DNS") for the City plan to "redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center" and to "construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium" (hereinafter the walkway is referenced as the "Walkway" while the project as a whole is referenced as the "Project.") The issuance of a DNS is tantamount to an erroneous determination that the Walkway and Project "is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact, and therefore an EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] is not required." WAC 197-11-734. Here, it is well -documented that the Project poses significant adverse environmental impacts. Notably, the Walkway will destroy protected babitats for sand lance and surf smelt; a primary food source for chinook salmon, a federally -protected species. In turn, chinook salmon are a critical food source for southern resident orcas, also an endangered species, meaning that depriving chinook salmon of a forage -Fish food source will adversely impact orcas. Moreover, the Project area includes critical habitats for numerous federally -protected species. Further., the Project adversely impacts the ecology of the protected shoreline beach. In sum, the Project has a high likelihood of adversely impacting many aspects of the environment. Thus, the DNS Application should be denied. Should the City wish to pursue the Project, a "Determination of Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 70 2.1.a Icemen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 2 Significance" should be issued to require it to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter "PIS"). See WAC 197-11-736. A: Standard ror iRgtxance (of DNS; No G6Signi['icant Adverse Ii nytirownental Impacts" A DNS should be issued by a city only if it "has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely." See WAC 197-11-355. 17he Code goes on to explain the meaning of significance as follows: (2) Significance involves context and intensity (WAC 197-11-330) and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test. The context may vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact. The severity of an impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. Sec WAC 197-11-794. Moreover, significance must be based on the evaluation of several factors set forth in WAC 197-11-330(3). Those factors include, without limitation, whether a proposal will: (i) Adversely affect environmentally sensitive or special areas, such as loss or destruction of historic, scientific, and cultural resources, parks, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or wilderness; (ii) Adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their. habitat: (iii) Conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment; and (iv) Establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, involves unique and unknown risks to the environment, or may affect public health or safety. See WAC 197-11-330(e). It is only after careful consideration of the factors set forth in WAC 197-11-330(3), as well as determination that a project "is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact", that a DNS may be issued. Otherwise, an improperly issued DNS is subject to appeal, Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 71 2.1.a Kernen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 3 with a successful appellant being entitled to attorney fees. See WAC 197-11-680; RCW 4.84.370. B: Washington Law Strongly Fovors Protection of Wildlife and Habitats Washington State has a strong public policy favoring the protection of wildlife and their habitats, as reflected in the list of factors set forth in WAC 197-11-330(3) see supra). It is well - established that an EIS is absolutely necessary if a proposed public action "will jeopardize wildlife and its habitat." lands Council. v. Washinaton State Parks Recreation Com'n, 176 Wn. App. 787, 799 (2013). In fact, in Lands Council, the Court of Appeals found it reversible error for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to grant a DNS for development that will jeopardize wildlife and its habitat without first preparing an F,IS. Id. at 790, 793. Washington law affords special protections to forage .fish habitats. Specifically, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (hereinafter "DFW") has established a no -net -loss rule for forage fish habitats. See WAC 220-660-370. The "no -net -loss rule" is incorporated into the Edmonds City Code itself, which provides as follows: Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater habitats should not be allowed accept where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) necessary to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. See ECC 24.30.030(D)(10) (Emphasis added), Thus, any project that violates the no -net -loss rule necessarily has a significant adverse environmental impact and no DNS may be issued for such project. See WAC 197-11- 330(e)(iii)(providing that significant adverse environmental impact includes "[c]onflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment"). C. The Project Will Violate Washin on Laws ProtecO I+ora c Fish Habitat Here, the Project will violate the no -net -loss rule meaning there should be no issuance of a DNS. The Ebb Tide Property has long been a documented habitat for two species of forage fish, surf smelt and sand lance. In fact, the Washington Department of Nish and Wildlife (hereinafter "DFW") clearly informed the City of the fact in 1999, when the City last proposed Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 72 2.1.a Kemen :Lien August 20, 2018 Page 4 construction of a similar walkway over the Ebb Tide Property beach. See Exhibit 2 (Letter from 1)FW dated April 29, 1999). Indeed, the City's own consultant, Reid Middleton, agreed that the Ebb Tide Property beach is a sand lance habitat protected by WAC 220-110-280(4). See Exhibit 3 (Letter From Reid Middleton dated September 16. 1999). Reid Mid.dleton's letter concluded with the dire warning, [R]eplacing this type of habitat has proven extremely difficult as there are no proven methods for doing so. In addition, since sand lance is a food source for chinook salmon, loss of the habitat would trigger the hndangered Species Act that protects against loss not only of the threatened salmon, but al so loss of the salmon food source. See Exhibit 3. The DF`h confirmed in a subsequent letter that forage fish are indeed important food sources for Chinook and chum salmon and "[w]hen these food resources [i.e. forage fish] are available in abundance young salmonids attain very high growth rates. High growth rates are especially important since increasing body size decreases the number of predators that can consume these small fish." See Exhibit 4. in light of the proposed elevated walkway's probable significant adverse environmental impacts and the Ebb Tide's opposition to the elevated walkway, the City ultimately abandoned its plans to build the elevated walkway in 1999. The City now attempts to resuscitate the plan to build an elevated walkway. Yet, the same environmental concerns persist today. In this regard, Junes Selleck is an Environmental Expert with a Masters in Biology in Marine and Estuarine Science and over fiffeen years of work experience with marine habitats, who specialized in forage fish :habitat in the Puget Sound Region. The Ebb Tide retained him to examine the City Walkway proposal to determine if it has any negative impact on habitat. Mr. Selleck's detailed report outlines the significant harm and damage to the forage fish habitat it the City constructs the proposed walkway. Specifically, his report indicates that "Surf smelt —and Pacific sand lance ... are the two species of forage fish that spawn on local beaches" [i.e. in Edmonds, including the Ebb Tide Property]. His report further includes a map of the region that clearly establishes the Ebb Tide Property beach as a habitat for surf smelt. Moreover, Mr. Selleck opines: "Forage fish are also recognized as a food source associated with critical habitat for ESA -listed dbinook." See Exhibit 5 (Ebb 'fide 280). With the above said, Chinook salmon are a food source for orca whales, a fcderally- protected endangered species, which is becoming increasingly important as southern resident Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 73 2.1.a Kernen lien August 20, 2018 Page 5 orca whales are starving due to lack of sufficient Chinook salmon for food. See htt s:llwww.seattletimes,ccfn�'set�ttle-newslenvixonmentlorcas-headed-is�-exrxiac•tio��-unless-��°e- get-them-mare-chir►caok-and- uicte�-watets_rrt-ssl (copy provided as Exhibit 6). In fact, the Seattle Times report. that "[o]rca whales are on a path to extinction within a century unless they get a big increase of Chinook salmon to cat." Exhibit 6. in such dire circumstances, the City should be finding ways to increase the population of Chinook salmon, not to embark on massive, Projects that will destroy the habitat of the chi nook salmon's key food source. Based on his review of relevant documents and personal observations of the Ebb Tide Property, Mr. Selleck concludes in his report that "the proposed walkway in front of the Ebb Tide beach property will result in the direct net loss of forage fish %pawning habitat" (boldface added). See Exhibit 5 (Ebb Tide 279). Mr. Selleck also criticiacs the report of the City's environmental consultant, Herrera Environinental Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter "ilerrera"), which was prepared for the City's Project. In particular, Herrera incorrectly and inexplicably states that the Ebb Tide Property is not a surf smelt habitat despite a D:>~W map clearly indicating to the contrary. See Exhibits 5, 7. In other words, the City's Project's alleged environmental compliance is based on completely faulty data. Conversely, the DTrW letter, Reid Middleton letter, DFW map, and Mr. Sellcck's report all confirm that the Ebb Tide Property beach has forage fish habitat protected by the "no -net -loss rule" and that the Project will harm the habitat and violate the no -net -loss rule. Since actions by the City resulting in net loss of forage fish spawning habitat are prohibited under WAC 220-660-370 and ECC 24.30.030(I))(10), the DNS Application must be denied. D. The Proicet Fill Pmbably Adversely Affect Encian eyed and Threutened S ecie% In addition to adversely affecting protected forage fish habitats, the Protect will also adversely affect endangered and threatened species. Indeed, the City and its environmental consultant Herrera, indicate the existence of several designated critical habitats for federally - protected species in the "action area" near where the Project will be implertacnted. See Exhibit 8 (Biological Evaluation). Those critical habitats are for Chinook salmon (threatened status), bull trout (threatened status), yclloweye rockfish (threatened status), and bocaccio (a type of fish, endangered status). Particularly concerning is the Herrera report's statement that "Chinook salmon critical habitat includes only the marine nearshore" and "Bull trout critical habitat includes the marine nearshorc." See Exhibits 7, 8. Thus, even the City environmental consultants' evaluation reflects a high likelihood that the Project will adversely impact the habitat for those species, which could in turn affect other species such as the orcas which feed on Chinook salmon. Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 74 2.1.a Kernen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 6 Further, Herrera notes that several other federally -protected species may also be present in the "action area," including steelhead (threatened), eulachon (threatened), and marbled murrelet (threatened). See Exhibit 8. Those Species could also be adversely affected by the Project. Again, "significant adverse environmental impact" includes actions that "[a]dversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat." WAC 197-11-330(3)(e)(ii). The presence of endangered or threatened species and their habitats in the Project's action area indicates a strong likelihood that they will be adversely affected. Thus, the DIMS Application should be denied; the City should instead issue a Determination of Significance and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement if the City wishes to proceed with the Project. E. The Pr•oi:ect Will Also Adversely, hupact. Enviranmcatstiily Sensitive or Special Areas The Project's "significant adverse environmental impact" not only includes harms to wildlife and their habitats, but also harm to "environmentally sensitive or special areas." See WAC 197-11-330(3)(e)(i). In this case, the portion of the Ebb Tide Property beach where the Walkway is proposed to be built is over a stretch of natural beach and part of the Washington shoreline. Indeed, the Washington "legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation." See RCW 90.58.020. 'thus, the Ebb Tide beach is protected by law and harm to that beach will likely constitute a "sigw.ficant adverse environmental impact." it is noteworthy that City itself has identified the Project area, including the Ebb Tide Property where the Walkway will be built, as a protected "Aquatic I" zone. See Exhibit 9 (map -- the Project action area is located in between the purple areas and is the light green trapezoid in the middle of the page). The Edmonds City Code provides that the City should "protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources" of Aquatic f zones. See ECC 24;30.030(A). To that end, the Edmonds City Code promulgated multiple guidelines and :restrictions on the types of uses and activities permissible on Aquatic I zones. See ECC 24.30.030(D). Among those restrictions is one that requires "[tjhe size of new overwater structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support a structure's intended use." See ECC 24.30.030(D)(2). Moreover, the Edmonds City Code requires that "[ajll developments and uses should consider impacts to public views." See ECC 24.30.030(D)(7). Of course and again, the Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 75 2.1.a Kcrnen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 7 City also recognizes that the "no -net -loss" rule for forage fish habitat applies to the Aquatic I protected zone. Nonetheless, the Walkway will be a massive viaduct -like structure that will disturb the ecosystem of a significant portion of the Ebb Tide beach, block public views, and violate the no-net=loss rule. An EIS' should therefore be prepared to assess whether alternatives with lesser impact on wildlife, their habitats and the environment as a whole exist. Thus, the DNS Application should be denied, as granting a DNS without an adequate assessment of whether less intrusive alternatives exist would be improper. In closing, the DNS Application should be denied as the Project poses significant adverse environmental impacts to forage fish habitats, endangered and threatened species, and the beach environment as a whole. Ebb 'fide requests that copies of all future documents relating to the DNS Application, including without limitation the ultimate decision on the DNS Application, be provided to the Ebb Tide's attorneys at "Attn: Stephan D. Wakefield and John T. Yip, Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S., 321 First Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98119." Thank you for your consideration of this comment letter. Very truly yours. John T. Yip JTY/ Cc: Client Enclosures (Exhibits): 1. DNS Application 2. April 29, 1999 DFW Letter 3. September 16, 1999 Reid Middleton Letter 4, September 22, 1999 DFW Letter S. Declaration of James Selleck with attached exhibits 6. Seattle Times newspaper article regarding chinnok salmon and orcas 7. Excerpts from Herrera Report 8. Excerpts from Biological Evaluation submitted by City and Herrera 9. Map of shoreline areas Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 76 EXHIBIT 1 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 77 2.1.a APPLICATION f , .: •' _ ,:ice: ' '�` �• Yr' r4- f�rr _" •�i �ii �� •' -� .'I `�,tr;':.`-�:14ti i,, f Z,r fir, "::.f �� •;7i• a{ 3::., .: •. .' -• '''•:" '•y.: Y� � `L^'w:�Etiµ�er 1, ,;L :�•�_�• `'!rJ [LAN at1` `r lyd 'fQ#► s 5e n iqr Cerifer ai A wig -with its associ.4tqdy�� ` illi►r Iri'front•ofthe,- i r' L, er bulldln will be 5 is f`a r ra rarr:min .duriii` V 6 ¢n v. rriu,nity.`5 r cE s:' s er he ,proposed iyvriiira e: i aikway:to:provide a confinuda han ac e55" [`r*01y i 424'cubic yards of:All--r0 Cre.o5o:e treated a �rp'the existing bulkhead will tier lti 1, Qrted ca€tcre[e siri'? tairs and•raw€th7nt�� li r; :rlcfEi lot wiii be reco�ifigrJ'r� ; �ia17�i:'�rMR.:•i�ir.nrggratn; p3 �' €r pf titer far wader grtality treatment -.and, ifii;' a+r O e-proposed Edm6ndk.V n gated at 220 Rails'aatt'_ t1' J :t:caristruete.43 dth]?I t c ,.avervvatet via[s�va `► s 4 e s parcel 2703230041530D. 7... th'e'rrorth d theY I'pc3stior s.b ryk:.:. 't 03.2 ►0R?.N400} and a City of ' rriotic t <easer exit [Ik!" .,€,; at drannds Marine walkwa to 7t = Y: �L�J• ...... .. t._r.�^•r 'rl}i"r..... ': J, :ra ..,,•in'SY. � I�;�i]r�s�an[sa�:ueve�vpmer�['rermr�-� VValE�rrrarcE �.en�er. ncf€oEn�7�,'�1 N2C31$OC}42 (Shq;relirc 5 hstai�tial pevetopmerit Permit-.8r�lkhLad`and storat.ion}, and OU4,10180043 (Shore(-srie 5ubstOfiil DeveiopMe6t.Permit _ .. �'. !''yyt ��''11 �� LL,-��i• . • .' L�:1; .€':: ..ly. !ir'•''' 1 /•1'St "•; �y.:.:.F}. Y�_-•r.j;fLs I::T�`7.'}i�:!3.�:.F•:,. .�.... C�.�.��� :C.:T !-.. ..�.....1._ Yru!1"��"l�s��� .. 53' .�s. :1"_• : •�'.+yJi.. .. ^V Packet Pg. 78 • ' AJ�•ri,liti.' - l�]:illrgFFil� a , � _��� ■ �Yf }: 9tt:%'• i•9• ` �•y����b fT q 9•C: =''•�r 1.i-` 'a' i ',' r• ■ C 1i�" 1� ieq • A � 0 "-f a fx:',:.(:ll •.7�:' ;s' •! tlrii• ;.s. -•'`+r _ ��t:r, :,`-,: � �■ o nyi� F�Q�� � t " �0^4. pn �f�il� e e ;•'iqA ors @Lvl�,: � ��1��I� s fc; S�Ak� a;U 4F ; e yyti'ur1�b f�: y nj 'sii :'�] tr ; r.;r '�■ ■ r�';,=' ,'r`�a a' `. g 1''�` i .41Y� - ct:``i; a afh��''.! irt``�a ',� 120 7 •� a;{ o a a r;�- `�', !u" a o}`:l;i46'¢�' ■ 7.ii�' a n ��+..r• ,• _ s s ,rxrd •c��'`. 1•' = t.ti-' --:: fl a3,." It�Y ; ■ 4i jVp . 4 [� ] . Y�. r•- Mv•,h ' I:. 'i? >yU _'::`C}fl;lil�� : � f]�Y�#� = .f.Cjf+}�' f ak r � ,. f{ ?.�•�-• if .._ • [ i'^v ■ .. is ' �'i,. � .. '`' ¢¢•I _.—_ 'S-•� .I.'� 4. - l' �}; x :-{• F • �Zt,•::f'a,'pi�� a � � ?..�::7 fl fl 6 a ] i��� " e • ;��tit a ^�i{?': ' a 'lfa,t�� ■ �'! �^i � [�1i Ilan •�' r .. ;� 'i 4 e ••'' ••'• ' �,� - r `a 9 49rs• ! l?�i i"Y 1 - n%i{:t p� 1; � ;t•1c s': i!' :(a a a jt4'�f ;; u e t ]5: ajiS . • !°•=' . i' !�! !� .. •. .,i: r . r!. • • r7 ail.'{ i%'i.' Gi • �l-'i` a'� 4�c'.. r;, 7 . r[l ,i� •`tt'. ;�� : :d, � ,r=ii L'.. _ r6 jr �� a' <i. i37� i;..r<.� .,yam`, • ?� 1S •- �.�" r:i • o tiir,e 'a •a a k; cb,G a •?'„]ri'' . ;�p1��1p . - a+i��.. df' '�i9 [:yr.olr ^V. �;.�nY r� a•'! �}84�� 'la'•'�ui� 9 9 �il�i:F1'f:f •• �..� ., _ .•.. �. .. ..: YI ,f#•., .. :j rC�'.)f �I ■ c` 'iig a ` r Vj{;li. 3 ■ q c�slt [�;�;,i �:i,ZitT' a o r'n.�a7,1;�. C:.. .' ,. V�.: ''7 h F C fl P J'{O, r : G; o G n ■ / -!a / •4'to 1{ - J r r - -.'.. ,tip, �, r=�{• o .i5�" Z y, ;:. � I u ', � �. .0 • c�1�: ■ • r iff."'f"s • 6r.vry d,f��„?rpi '$i: ,ri / :�li . F f} ?igj7 , :� ! I .�'n::'�:?• • ■ �f��+r1�+� off;!. ?' i'" --,k, r i�.• fir: .;�� r6 ", • .'.atpr y`h �,.,�i�• •�✓--;^ F; �i :;'_;�: ,;i:: �!i :5.y i,'i "�• �•,�, 7i J-Mr, n u +. =,ii v o k, i -a o� '•ut a i.`'y '',;f.i,r ■ �' �•`17 fo +:'f'�loTff� }', �: �':. 1:5{ r / •e n Y+f + • . 0.7Z"? �a1; �iiol • 1,ra?i 1 .'.i:ll+li,`i . 9 ��. ;:]i_ 1RE:�ii•I .. t' - _ Z',: p 4 9 ! •gin! :, .� ..y" .. ,Ii''• •:Y ;fair ']'• i ■ I',; �` ali�_h� ■ C=� , :a� i";� �• .. :. ` .. ;y �7: 9 f '' {. ■ 'n7t3-: 1 1 A ..r<:.�' s, �.:k � °i.; �:; �C{ A i+. , ,y�; 1, • •• k �1,;-'". j'•,. ps: a: [ C:.1;: ... ' 1{' .r_v 'd'p• -x r,4ctai�, i,liti ti;'� r�iiu;:;'in�,• �` �1�N�f�f.' � j. tit �'•' —�a'r ' k "l :� :4 '. -`,�� � „, .r'• ..:v7 - ---.__. ..._ � !i� rat°• - - _ ,� ' � r;rS �=S}�;,c.., �,]_ Viz.. _ .. •. a+.. • ' -177 t v i JINA � ,,�.; _'p,- _- _ is �� i.' �+''i • 2.1.a EXHIBIT 2 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 80 -%0 6f WashingLon DEPARTMENT Or FISH AND WILDL v E. Apfil 21), 1991; Reid WdOleft) 72S 1:141"ttr SV'., S (oil u 260 E"trat., Weshinglan 98204 SIJBJF�'C . T Cat6lue.. ts'� EOW(MCIR tin flifidinondsvViftufrotiL oit April 1.2, c 1 E'VO #4ita -is .40 11 early itj 41.4 -a also i to i4ii V-14ps W11WO stir r -.3riltl t and bos- heen docurigti*r, iniftind flint tile growl of the WaAi�gwn Department art i,prW.jlOjj r (W F-W givopor-Oppmp-itt C1Oxvp1'vxh?d(v %%,i1KskiQAr:j*vj I'miterials avu�lmi fled as habi'i ats. ofjpttAl tin a 1%b 461sk Frbrpcojecls wilh poteotiaRy fivairicam jmpacts,,anVk%kQ. .1 tv ion up, r4q W red pi -fd (tM, mvet b qu ell C, hip"I . R0.1141 Cul 11,6. 11 a I I Y.1 ti 111 iall M.IV :1: 00 -TOqW md to be ritnetional prior to pitj'. lxaqgtvalloil, v.40i't:v D" to rroj 1. .11. the altAekd 1-11411 111141t Nile r6TY-16huinal. Sfuld [wince 31111W11.0-g 6151191 ocavra Appro ir fmin the +5 to +4 1: fidW ThOe are two linporlartt fhuxar4 to kerq) in 111ind pip, Ifbanch (ij 111,40OU11101trU Sand 1011CC �pvvvjiilik" alvus fats W s in, :R#tU 1-iiihiediatcly adj:ace ta)a rig A gaiii mui!i si Wor , -Anothel- van alony 111v J�! EleVadwfs hbovk tit a+ I I MLLA-Villark Mil agaill .11-4 %n 1+1 d I a n4a Silawn 1 Og IVA10M. oix the typa jp F hnb4:uUP$k;6[ad ils ch-aix , s #r" g' A ittypill or habitat ()out(!sl ilOWC4 . lioNly hurAlLoN li(� siindho-s iaiid I !ij W.. Attachment 3 E1313 T DE An"'79: I Packet Pg. 81 Me, Faw April 29, I WO -**11*14-ill this al'('il way 1040111al OWl1l) 11101,111D11 tile! AMID WOjjIfj [it: W, ti hilrclldy 11C III U15.1XI-11109, I.-im Its drslawwuf 8 habiva.l, P &,niAlinfil ir- revs !p .4 havills it nctoinffbeftharea, Tile: e[okifiolit ftt)jji. C& I ."I) kills al-vul rwjo DOD + 6 +1 i 0. - ..Li M. L rr-Om +8.75 to 9.60. T ' h ' is. is-k1unlified as tile. niva wIlm t-jw 1pnialily oj'Ijt%4j onvivachnient wautd.pd*Ur.: T-110 en(li-e irea rM.1,11 tKe wM[ w�.[Iorwiwfl 11) i1pp'l-u-SlIllutely 1-i t►I idal elevation fss-pt.j.d14jjPO G(Wre-1 ".,),50 &J-11.1fl; would have lobe,gafwda. Anoffiell- arcualpogg, tr AASM atch of beach, lAt tither vid afllw.s�ior mwoi- parking 10i):W00tv:CnCfoaChmpI1t Nv6qld: O.Ccul, al'o ,,It approxiolad -el evalio 11 all I.-I.spart feet or sand: fatiodluthl till: willuto fievu, to borelowad Ok-Whem aloqg the b%tll. As a net gain 111LI&I QdqjT. ift%biw is pr.o. OWJ464105L. bUt 111-4 r 410itfit Wes rdnwved. Very liftl e4is- kiiuwa abourdt'e 11' 6vetiu-w. raypoputwic 0 logy or locat satid Iona ppki ;itjo i l:5. AfthokighbOffi-sufl'-so fli-lind 5;tn.d I'allce te.u. 11'.41 -taill I'el to APP foximatoty the 11C.'sp1i p Mg ful. th-o asp art .of ilhe HPA Show Ilisof-c'S.Ccisl ve licach eT.Osiw JqUp�sid. f-MV1 Nat only-W661, h b .1jRC -qq�t#i 00f ihMmut lix" its could occur,w,, tl(l 1- ce is*pre. iTaill Jbi the 1W, Ii I;SA-) fig the poh2nfial los-N to. habitat end fOOd prey., IWOOM, Otsuch fquaposal milly lu 1,11. tier th-all Olu bunofil(s Saln-ed Oy. fmvbig it. public.i.urveys,hecil canduqt�j Ill.al this is all plall? 1-1�iw:o.A.oli.i.,�'ott)(ii(hc.tiictl,T Ytul ftlahovv 1l 41'iffil f;U It -fi AW j W t-i fyis%iba 11W:rOrsucli, a structqrt% 'I'llullk you ror 11he QpIxinuoiq to pnoviCIL Ellis larb aljbrl: collU C1 Me 'il-I .14W) 3792K jnF nnn4 7 Attachment 3 EBB T Packet Pg. 82 :Ms, Fa-Vll April 29, 1999 Ponwin r-. Wild PE eel n-io nds.�vpd CC. jktid/Middloton Ai` RIA Ohlft, City-Of.EdniOnds Vdj:kstt k, NWDOTR Ship -man, NV DO]7" Attachment 3 EBB T Packet Pg. 83 OLWOO 3011903 1 XR h. T .16 '41 Un qs1,'I!vq tijoti j 4s W4109$ 7M VPOW93 BL14 Ut &UIUMVdIS. I putt pDjusoln b.11115 V-.3 p ...... ...... 15" -- IUD% Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 84 Ada rood MT saw' .FJIUV4 36. 96:0LIMPI-ted. sand lance spAwhI.A bga,gjjiej in tive E mun4s Prea, tn0humish Co., WA. IM WDFW Balffish Unit 14/k3/95 O-Ovo"'A — le LA Iq Cl Attachment 3 EBB T rlo nnln4-Y Packet Pg. 85 EXHIBIT 3 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 86 . J�Irtru.am 719 1111451"g.-iSw, Sniw2041 F_wera4i.WA 4iilli:1 Pl&;�2+f1a1.3fl!?4. i�tt.•. =i151'lal•�9lifi I o: Arviila ii61,1 : Front: Nicole Ftsghi. Dave Swanso Daw— Septe+llbor ld, 1999 File No.: 24iwtil81-004-001M01 Subject. Edmonds Midwattrfront:'dufttad repair; bulkhead Design Atte-i-na ive in t'rDrit of Ebb Tide Co dombibims On ,tl.ily 14, 1999, .Dave wan.;w) and 1 auidi a presentation tta the fidtikonclD Pla anirl,8 Board regrading options for rt:pair of die 1Mrnonds Mic wa(ertront halal.iaiieads sand troat.i6n 4: f a =tti.nuous- tvaterlyont walkway. We sul�itlitterl rt c�rccil. ri:laCari at tFiat t.irrrie elitif:lt:d "�irrlt�ttris 1vldwatcxfront Walkway Feasibility Study." In mir report we concluded there ware A ne tuber of obsLacics to ev:,ving st coriiinu.om' riha puthwa y, partie.ufady with respect to the portion of'the waaterfrranr: direoly in front cif the r`bb Title Condominiums. Our re.p rt evaltiatod the structural Yeasifrility of an elevatad wall".way far brill-ge in front of the Ebb Tide where therr is no City nwmd propzrcy, only a 104,001 puhl is access e;z=irient along the beach, We cent 1t,4,i.4~d Oats the aleywed structure would be expansive to crarii;tt-UCL In addition, to .avoid the wave ocr io—ji during storlwi, the bridgt would teed to be constructed at a height ex+•.:e.eding the I!-Foor.lic;ight limitation of tho egcess muct'nent. During the pruenrati©n, [be Plat)nittg. go-ard members regacsted review of adrlitianal altcrnativez for connecting the wnllcway together. *The Board requested an evnlurttiorr of cmating, a lxtlHi ad sa rward of the present bu l kltcad and putting thewalkway behind the new bulkhead. "rhk nleino ravitwx this bulkhead aall.tmi ative. The proposed bulkhead design is shown in l-ig+.ire 1 Wilkiehcyd to this Menlo. The mwif:w of the bulkhead altemaliive5 included de, ign elema ts;, discussion will! the ltwiepur•tr ieni of Pi�h and Wildlife (Dr-W) regarding iml)ar.t t;;sue . at'id conversaarilans with the r:-,bh I'ide t„cairdotrriniurri yawners. The° design of the bulkhead alternative curates a raem, bulkhead 15 Net ,cawsard of the Ebb Tide bulkhead zvlth earth fill :iris! .a walkway above the buikbead, 'l: he new bulkhand wall is approximately level wfrh the existirl , cvt.ill, but to 2-foot extensimi to Lhe EBB TIDE 000126 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 87 2.1.a existing; wall is proposed. The path be.twe:ekn the two sea oval Is would be at approximately the saaa e ckcv�tiuta as the cUntirtaEt:�tiart f>f the lttttlj rit gititer t ntl. Seel?i,gure Z Des' m 10ements The addition or a new haalkllcacLljfgt se'Llw trd. of rile existing C:bli Tide bulklaotad would cicprete flonding ol! (hc; EbhTide Cotatkcamfnr uni dut:ing storm events. Wuv.ei would bp forced to t x ert:�rtlwir eri"rgy a �imt ]lie rwv, btili hat't}. ,y ny'veri -- in" e l� " i7f t:c. 5'�{7U ay uakr s�I�lT.ii�'ry r;. v�i�tj i�ee i=iar ii sO �1Z `�sli.st `�.�' betweenhulkhc ads. It is expected tlarai the resulting pool of water would lack the ettetgy Io overtop the landward bulkhead. By clapping the entire area betweem krulklteacis with a concrtrle path, et'tasion of the, rill malerial would be prevented. Sloping scuppexs have. been. provided to tallow drainage of water, which hm overropped the seaward bulkhead. tot fonts from L� W VVc cuntttc:ted Parrs Erstad at the L) W ,about the bulk -he -ad alternative. We asked if Lhe 'irnpact,s frvn-I tlac bUlkftcad design could. be offsDt by mif igr2.t on, She rel'errod us w documentation of sand !Lance spawning has aches in ilac .ludmands aces propared by €?FW and updated February 1999, Tbls information is contained in the drov ing attached a% Figure 3, Fam StMod that df:e D W Etdministrattive code WAC 220-11041 .. s aales mplacement or rwpdir of bulkheads al imad minimize impact on habitat and sKauld minatxtizc a<rtcr'c tihirtg t'urtlaer itat4a a h1tbittu t►re1Q. Specifically, the, admin1srrativt~ cods~ states: The construction of i.. uAheaads and utter bank. prtatection ,shall not rewit i n th:e pcnaanent ]lass of -- sand lance. WAC 220110-290 f4l This l vA-ch is dtzignatedoA FjgUre 3 M sURd lance hdbitUt. `The fore, if the resource. :tarencies appfovad the im.pZct and rnitigaticm could bedesigued, .rnoin likely the midgtation fogy- Ilt'ipacLs frow a pi-pject sarach its the bulkhea t<alrerrmative. must prove s nei grain in habitat, Pain t:ommentod tlmi replacing this Lype of habitat has proved to be extremely adifficult as there are no proven methads for doing so, In addition, :sine.. sand lance is a food oourvie for ch%nook saltzton, loss -of the habitat would trigger lire E,,ndctng.ered Species Act thttr. protects, against loss not Only of thl threatened Salmon, but also lass (if the salmon food source. Pam said: the overw ater bricl,r: alternative had a much greater possibility ofreceiving approval from the hrd-,)Mn agotwicst as; ccatopared to any proposal involving pQ�rmartent lass of habitat m-ea. Contact With l;}die ContiQ�aiililull] You itiforattasLl List you c ontiieied Me Ebb Tide Condominium ownfws;wd discussed the bulkhead :ale rltative wldt ihem. You reporle d back to me that the owners cont!nu to twr coneerne l about bleat Ececl views. In ttciciitifut,S of the conci.tammiaini..11 either the bildge €:ar tlae bulkhead alterrtatiat° is larnposetl, fire nay=n€.rs la:tve indicated they will challenge any perinitOng a=fFbos. EBB TIDE 000127 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 88 EXHIBIT 4 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 89 2.1.a st<lle of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE r;arliun9oitiu--:irtliamiicft-rsfflJ1ttvnrzl-M+(lC14WC.WU5hrnglan118012 i42!;l7757ytE september 2.2, 190':; Ite;d/Middlerori 728 1. 4,h Street Sir l veretl ftshint ton 98204 1)c°_rar leis. ti llin ili Jr:t �`. Request fijr farbrium.ion, Edaltriids Mid-Waterfr�otit Project; p`t`tiposicl Bulkhead; Ebb Tide (*andornhii sills, Snohomish (.-o inty,'8°i€. IA O&NIA1111 As pu your request, I've provided the .rollowing iilrbriiliLilon rcgtuding thu priipug- - ] bulkhend on the buch ill front ❑f; tfi�: I.:131) 'fide (;Dndoniinimm I've outlined general informattun doscr'tbirig, fi+l-t Life fiistorii+es and the 4lc,,tHuiQnt;d efTects of bulkheads on fish habitat, and sp,-c'tlic irifol- matron which addresses the tr:quirL:nleilts of'the Hydraufie Code fur bulkhead cortstrtredon It is irapori,.rftt that work proposals incorporate b3vs-1 MarkEgelilwlt Practico'; (B�17's), v.;hen dosi n nl; 1jew wditer'front development be.v..znuse Chinook salmon are now ht,ted on tilt". Endiin e-red Speaii;; Act (T YSA ) 't'hi '4'rishiri t�irt 1'.tc1i<friiiieiit of%'i,l; �tnd Wilrlhre hirs sr nrci a l erriciruricitarn car" A. rr,:�ymc»t (a1\40A) with th,a United 5ratcs Fish cart) wildfire Scl,vic.e (USFWS) and tile National N- ldiira 1-fisheries Service (NWI S), which stwes ilia[ notification and reviewr is required when it pol-lant hattitatfbiolojzrir,.al features such ,.is herring,, or split([ lance %pawruni; exisi in the UOP Because the btc,flc:h in f'iont of the Ebb Tide Ccindcarxiiliiunis has docrtrilcril r2d Seit:l"l ianCe liiibitat, e nstiltsticill wirll the, NV,.FS would ho required- rur (Iris project. t�r'itc�ral I�rj� „•rr r�.xir�1 r: Upper intwrtidal areas provide Important habkai.. liar Irnl)crLant fcirage Fush speGICS. such as sure` srrieft and sand lance. Stirf'smek and sand I;:tnce spawn on sand stud gravel sralbstratt s in tile, Upper reaclies of the boar b and are impvrtaw food prey for :salmon, iricludin, ChinQpk s ImOn, ti;'laiuh is curren ly listen undii i FSA.. intertidal bc-ich areas are a so iniporumt rOf jtrvertiie sulmrtiiicls, particularly Chinook and ulluni .9sft7tori, rleii•ifil their e:iarly lire liistraty 'rwct of the wc.,st irr..partan? fi nctirjns orthese nestrshore areas ere slarlter from prcd ators and Food production mosl Suvcinile %dolollidl a. Tt,rtnil4,"ialo rronl their tia.tal streams into (lie ra-seine. waters of'Pugat Sound f"0111 Match 15 llirough Juru� f 4 of each year WIt ii (hese yui.- tij; !;at monids leave f vshwatet and t rater s;iltwaier, they nligrrue very close to shoo: during daylight hours This beliavicar physically i,cmoves tlicnil fforts most lit their nalural prerltitort-, inciradlrig birds aria other fish, atliarding then-, tliRi&ifrttirii S4.3r1'l;',il Opportunity. [ {i't<i!I'] feints tc;ourccs round in shallow water tire- rdvally St,litud as prey bcr-hr::v Ca! their vi ibiii . 511C, aficl abundance When tliQ%c food resouic:Cs are availabic ill al-ounrlariCe yot.s1111=.,, SaliiVIltids ilttain %,vry liigli trmvih r;iics Flif;lir �ic'.livtll t'alt:; arrxesricrrtiliy EBB TIDE 000189 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 90 2.1.a Ms Sevic,niber 22. 1999 99 page tnaportant sitarx ruin r{ ayirl1,; hudy .iize dc:crctlsc s ille ita11111rct of pre.dalor` 01,11 cart conson'le dic-se SI11111 tlsfi C:aan.=trLjCt1m1 a r l.n.4.l luatk 1lclow cir'-lirtary high tvatcwr (011W) cfaii rusult in ilia dircct Qx s r:C importarit hahiluts (car bolls filarine and nairnonid fish 1 hcse linpacts can include ilia. lass (11- spawnirre, habitat. ; )Mlow water fiabital. food Production, and 1.1ppriait uagaintive Caver Tlac na.iurial ;a oby IrauIic: sysiem (Jnv- Itialiilt {feeder islul`Ts. litta!ia l diitt curriaicrs• and accIC"for'1 13tu€t;.1€czc;j provides lire s-pawning 5t.rlr.;tr.ata f6l, the id ntili,:;Fl inarine lists slfcc:ir::i and i1►c.lil€ppor iniertidal i'rc:aclt to pographv- 111:11 coinprises the juye.iiilc s�f1CI7onid rr€ifrraiory C.or€'idor "I'li;' con5truc.tion orbulk-heads ad.1-3,atrit to fcedCr trltll'1;s can indirectly impaci the. identified nlarinc-. (1511 species by stuivirq-. tine associated accreticr:c I'vac,11 cal sulastr•nte residli€ g in beac:1r vto siren and lass ors13i!iwning habitr11 la'f Rddition, the construction hardens ilif h. -I€ik. and .r&.Maces natural heat-.iz rttl;jghnc is `!'his urn result in erasion along the tittrlral € di't ct)rridor Icy ao=lerating;1: L rate of drift and by incre.aicing wave eater y waterviard of"the bulkhevid "I'11c resultant beach instability cim zetdtte:z_ availabli: ap,awriing habitat tc:it't,ttr. ldwiiified w ari€le 1i;ali ypuc:ir-%-and advexscly impact th-, production {1f juvk• vile sairntinid foorl aiwnmiinns Via pf-oliferitiQM Of1?u11rdicads, n1ftr€Y 0i VV11,101 ilia: 11GU�a(ic:l t3e21OWL Of lMr ;ind €11eiv €1101 LIC r1G£��:5:9hi) ('ttr erasion t,.0 itrol, contrilaaate5 W NeriCiliti i,t.nnL&tiYc irripilti is its fish rC sfrCara;(:ti till a)trt laiaut PlIgrul Sound The nio.st signif►c am ofjltesr= impacts is the loss of �:powning itabiiat A1ati ii;iirRtir3ii and [a,4s Cie rear€n€g.li ibitat are sis ilorly lrltt-i" Lases in1 fliiC[;i i's_A]16111; From lif€ikllf.' itl L':ocrt3t.t:11€ icrit laa:low Ol• W. 1jsc+t'�i; lr�ar-�rrttfrrrrr l�e.��.xur-c1i1t,�� 1't'er)�rrticri� 1•'rrlk��<<crca' � t�rrr•rrrre•rrr�rr The Revise-d Coda of Washin ton (TIC fir 7120 1601 sins :.s any Lulklicacl aft ri.lt:k kvall to reply ct. or repair an Lxkting bulkhead or rack .vatll sliali he pl:fced along the sane ,flignment tins the, laulkiwad or rock wall it is replacint, C:oll'itruction 0j'ar liew burkli-Carl or rock. wa rr, or replacear ew or r•e1jair ref an awi:slin .faaalkfarrr€rl rrr- rewc fa'rrlf w aterivard c?f the evisliras; wru rfur e -lath riot resuil in the pe,mrviont loss of crillc•rr! rWel fa.elr ur .V11 1 ish h abitn6. VVD1'W ninintairiq a policy trl'110 rVA icIs:: €i( ltat:ft.€?, WhIC-h int,JU'CIC.S Olt: Upper €rliVrtiaitfl lorto!a of ffL gvSourid Theseazreas pruvi(je critical spaNriring i>;atiitat for iMP(lrtaiti marine fish spcc:wN Arrtoag these. species are Sand l;arlcc eulrsch spaWT) afrftr wean higlivi lugh water (MI-I1-I IV) on bcaclws cot iposed of small f!f<aw, l and sand 111cre i:, docur'att'riled liar€ci lance Spawning hallitcl 1i. the beacif in Rant ofthr 1=:1A1 7'ide Co-ndorniiriuitr:; rf u 111111111and would l�rrrtartttixtrifl� x:linjillarlc the exiNtin g srriirl frwee..clars€iwirig haaPiml. Bijl d ton fete irrf"rfrrrirlttrrr; Attachment 3 EBB TIDE 000190 Packet Pg. 91 2.1.a Ms. Septenibor 22, 1999 rase 3 ��ors'tc Jrrrr 3irlcri, the ltroposwl !et built! rr l crlkhrrrrl foaterword rif file avisdag hulkhead ovilt he rlcrr h-d if irn rtl plirrttion is ,rahmil'ted fn P"W Il' 'mink you rear life upporloniiy to plovidu (Ills till-carrtzrttiml [r)"113 have wly quesoolls, 1341C.E se contad nweat 025) 37`.')- ..'Wo Sincerely. i;Artt:;:]a Ers[ad Arca Habitat BiOlOgiS-1 PE:pc,ejiitu well Cr1:. Teti Mullct, VvO 'w EBB TIDE 000191 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 92 EXHIBIT 5 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 93 2.1.a 1 2 3 4 c 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IN TIIE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation, Plaintiff, V. THE EDMONDS EBB TIDE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Defendant. James R. Selleck declares as follows: Case No. 17-2-09476-31 DECLARATION OF JAMES R. SELLECK 1. 1 am over the age of 18 years, am competent to testify, and make this declaration upon I personal knowledge. 2. 1 am a Marine Ecologist with over fifteen years of experience. I have extensive I knowledge of and experience with forage fish habitats in the Puget Sound region and have authored publications on that subject. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae, which further describes my education, experience, and training. 3. Previously, Defendant Ebb Tide approached me to evaluate the probable environmental impact of an elevated walkway, which the City was planning to build on an approximately ten - foot wide stretch of natural beach that is part of the Ebb Tide private beach and is located in front { DECLARATION OF JAMES R. SELLECK - 1 HECKER WAKEFIELD & FEILBEtG, P.S. 321 FIRST AVENUE WEST SCATTLE, WASHING'I'ON 98119 PI ZONE (206) 447-1900 FAX (206) 447-9075 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 94 1 2.1.a 01 3 4 5i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of the Ebb Tidc condominium complex. I understand that the City claims that it has an access easement over the stretch of ]and. A true and correct copy of the Easement, which I reviewed, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 1 will refer to the stretch of land as the "Easement area," though j the Easement did not contain any express indication that the City may constn►ct the walkway. 4. Washington State has a rule known as the "no -net -loss" rule that provides that construction shall not result in a net loss of forage fish habitat. Thus, I was to prepare a report analyzing whether the proposed elevated walkway would result in a net loss of forage fish habitat on the Easement area. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of my report. I verify that the statements and conclusions in the report are true and correct, and I incorporate by reference all the statements and conclusions in the report into this Declaration. 6. As part of my evaluation, I reviewed pertinent documents and records, such as the Easement and the City's Critical Areas Report and Mitigation flan. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife records recognized the Easement area as a habitat for surf smelt, a forage fish species. See Figure 2 to my report). Notably, surf smelt is a food source far Chinook salmon, which is a protected species. I also personally made a site visit to the Easement area and observed that the Easement area is natural beach land suitable for forage fish spawning. ee Figure Ito my report). 7. Eased on my expert knowledge of forage fish habitats, my review of pertinent documents I and records, and my personal observations, my conclusion is that the proposed walkway will 1 result in the direct and irreversible net loss of forage fish spawning habitat; in violation of the no - net -loss rule, notwithstanding the City's mitigation plan. DECLARATION OF JAMES R. SELLECK - 2 - HECKER WAKEFIELD & PEILBERG, P.S. 321 FIRST AVENUE WEST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 Pnow..(20'6)447-9900 Fnx(106)4.47-9075 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 95 1 2.1.a 1 2 3 4 55 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 25 26 1 declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 4� Dated this 11 day of -SKet e. , 2018 in. �e �irf �� Washington, James R. Selieck DECLARATION OF JAMES R. SELL,ECK .3 - HECKER WAKEFIELD &FEILBERG, P.S. 321 PIRSr AVENUE WEST SVATTLR, WASHTNGTaN 98119 N101W (206)447-1900 FA%(206)447-9075 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 96 2.1.a EXHIBIT 1 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 97 2.1.a Tatfftes Seffeck—_M3dne Healo iselFisfi'odes Niblogist Natural Resources Consultants 4039 21st Avenue West, Suite 404 Seattle, WA 98199 �rccn��coni 360-303-8362 jselleckCi .nrccnxp,co — BACKGWOUND NRC1,,0 I'm a partner and project manager at NRC with over 15 years' experience and a deep understanding of Puget Sound marine habitats. E've written, biological evaluations and EIS discipline sections, and have presented mitigation alternatives to the USACE and state agencies as part of the JARPA application process. I have a diverse background working with marine shoreline issues, eelgrass, marine fish, ESA -listed species, invasive invertebrates, and estuarine and freshwater aquatic species and habitats. I have work experience in the tribes, state agencies, non-profit organizations, universities, and consulting firms. I've conducted studies on large-scale eelgrass depth distributions, threatened and endangered rockfish populations, forage fish historical abundance and distribution, wetland restoration and mitigation monitoring, salmon smolt passage through hydroelectric darns, commercial shellfish management, and permitting and design associated with in -water construction and restoration. I'm actively involved with state agencies as a former Chair of the Skagit County MRC, former Vice -Chair on the board of directors and executive committee for the Northwest Straits Commission, Coordinator for the PSEMP Forage Fish Workgroup, and I chair international conference sessions as a recognized expert in marine groundfish and forage fish ecology. I'm a Dive Safety Officer and instructor, and have conducted hundreds of dives monitoring eelgrass, groundfish, shellfish, and general habitat assessments in Puget Sound. _Z 0IJ AT10N Western Washington University M.S. Biology. Marine and Estuarine Science Program 2003 San Diego State University Graduate coursework in ecology and statistics 2001 University of New Hampshire B.S. Biology: Marine and Freshwater program 1997 Coordination of PSEMP Forage Fish and Food Webs Workgroup, Puget Sound Partnership Since 2015, 1 have supported and facilitated a 70-member multi -partner workgroup for the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) that identifies and makes recommendations to the PSEMP Steering Committee for monitoring programs related to the ecology and dynamics of forage fish and related food webs in Puget Sound. Tasks include reporting to the Steering Committee, preparing an annual work plan, coordinating the workgroup chairs from WDFW, facilitating quarterly meetings and communication with technical experts from Washington and British Columbia, submitting meeting minutes, and arranging invited speakers, Prior to working as the coordinator, I was the appointed co-chair, assigned by a vote from the woftroup members. As the coordinator I am also involved in comprehensive planning for proposed Near Term Actions, informing Gaps Analysis for the biennial science work plan, updating Vital Signs for the Pugef Sound Partnership 2020 Action Agenda: and coordinating with the other PSEMP workgroups on Marine Water, Toxics, Stormwater, Marine Birds and Mammals, Freshwater, and Nearshore. I developed collaborative research from the workgroup with WDFW and UW to conduct field trials related to forage fish tagging and distribution of forage fish, and chaired the session on Forage Fish Management and Conservafion at the 2016 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference in Vancouver, BC. Nearshore Distribution of Sand Lance In Waters of the Sallsh Sea, WA managed a collaborative project between the Northwest Straits Commission, SeaDoc Society, and NOAA to map the Puget Sound -wide historical distribution of sand lance, an important food source in the region for a range of birds, fish, and mammals. My publication in Northwest Naturalist is intended to inform management and policy decisions for this poorly understood marine forage fish species. I negotiated data sharing and compiled 40 years of sand lance data throughout the Salish Sea. I developed legal agreements for data sharing between tribes and private consulting firms, along with the procurement of data from public sources at the federal, state, and county levels. Measuring Restoration Effectiveness and Habitat Assessments, Puget Sound Partnership developed fact sheets and background summaries of nearshore restoration projects in the Salish Sea for the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). Restoration and management actions are often reported in technical documents. I worked with PSP to distill information about what's working to restore Puget Sound for PSP partners and decision -makers. The objective was to directly connect effectiveness data to recovery actions, and to improve strategies and funding actions that are the most effective. I coordinated outreach, provided technical interpretations, prepared documents, and managed review by relevant scientists in the community. The projects reviewed included Weaverling Spit soft shoreline stabilization lead by the Samish Tribe, Cornet Bay nearshore restoration lead by the Island County MRC and NW Straits Foundation, and Seahurst Park shoreline armoring removal and restoration lead by the City of Burien. I presented the results at workshops and meetings. a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 98 2.1.a Custom Plywood Remedlation and Forage Fish Restoration, Anacortes, WA Custom Plywood In Anacortes is the MTCA site of a comprehensive cleanup and environmental restoration for the Puget Bound Initiative and Department of Ecology. I managed biological surveys during restoration and construction, and conducted regular forage fish surveys as part of the post-ramediation monitoring effort. The site had extensive contaminated wood waste deposits. Egg survival increased dramatically since restoring productive habitat, and spawning continued to flourish past the first year. Substrate type and size was found to be an important factor for this success. I facilitated discussions with the city, local tribes, end citizens about the site in relation to the larger cleanup of Fidafgo Bay. Monitoring of the forage Fish spawning and beach condition will continue through future phases of the project. Shoreline Management and Geotechnical Assessment Study, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, WA James managed a team for geoengineering and geomorphology services with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, to provide a comprehensive feasibility -level geotechnical and habitat assessment of the Tribe's shoreline, Multiple slides along feeder bluffs below residential housing over the pest 20 years raised concerns over the current slope stability and shoreline management conditions. Study objectives were to provide a risk categorization along the full shoreline, develop management recommendations, and propose mitigation and restoration measures. Considerations for sea-tevei rise and conservation of cultural resources were used to provide analysis and support grant applications for funding protection measures. The Tribe focused on aligning long-term goals with FEMA Pre -Disaster Mitigation and the Puget Sound Watershed Management Assistance Program. Everett Shipyard Cleanup and Central Marina Biological Evaluation, Port of Everett, WA The project objective was to assess the potential effects of the Everett Shipyard MTCA sediment cleanup and Central Marina improvements on fish and wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). I drafted the biological evaluation (BL), assisted the Port on revisions in response to the JARPA application, presented potential Impacts and mitigation measures to the Seattle USAGE, and provided final documents for the Port. The project will eliminate a significant area of degraded marine habitat, resulting in habitat improvements. ESA -Listed Rockfish and Groundfish Monitoring for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salish Sea, WA I managed and participated in Sallsh Sea field operations for WDFW. Surveys included the use of an ROV (remote operated vehicle) to survey deep -water bottom species, annual trawl surveys to determine population assessment of groundflsh and invertebrates, and scuba surveys of marine protected areas to monitor long-term trends. Experimental ROV surveys were conducted in the San Juan Islands and at over 200 sites in Puget Sound to determine efficient methods to assess population estimates. We collected otolith and fin clips for aging and genetic sampling. Species of interest included rockfish, perch, lingcod, flatfish, and invertebrates. Special surveys included lingcod nest surveys, young -of -the -year rockfish surveys, and monitoring low dissolved oxygen events in Hood Canal. I have over 75 hours as an ROV pilot and over 400 scuba dives. Environmental Monitoring Surrounding a Floating Ceoduck Nursery, Harstine Island, WA managed an environmental monitoring plan for Seattle Shellfish LLC. Mason County issued a conditional Shoreline Permit to Seattle Shellfish for a floating geoduck nursery system. The floating system allows Seattle Shellfish to maintain healthy stocks of geodu,_k, while simultaneously minimizing environmendal impacts from sediment accretion, overwater shading, or shoreline modifications. I was responsible for monitoring light levels, depth, fish, macrovegetatlon, and shoreline conditions under the nursery beds, as compared to the surrounding habitat. Quarterly monitoring and annual dive surveys were summarized in an annual report submitted to Mason County. Point Julia Boat launch Pre -Design, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, WA I was the project manager, working with PND, providing the Port Gamble S'Kialiam Tribe with preliminary feasibility, cost estimates, and ecological impacts to replace an existing pier and boat launch. The pier consists of dozens of creosote -treated piles, but was considered an Important structure to the tribe. We presented the tribe with three options for replacement. The tribe is considering a pile -supported ramp with floating docks as presenting the most versatile option for their recreational and fishing vessels, and having the least ecological impact to their shoreline. Tacoma Narrows Bridge Mitigation of Juvenile Rockfish Habitat, Tacoma, WA The construction of the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge required mitigation of disturbed subtidal habitat. I conducted scuba surveys before, during, and after implementation of new rocky reef habitat at Tolive Shoals. Rock was delivered by crane and barge. The rocky reef was designed to attract juvenile and sub -adult rockfish species, and potentially ESA -listed species, Four separate reefs were installed, at varying orientations and depths relative to the channel. Final assessment of the habitat was completed by WDFW. The reef successfully attracted fish and became foraging habitat for Steller sea lions. 11,tiic.'gfVOk' S RAMI,O EN- ' Hart Crowser Edmonds, WA 2013 - 2015, 2010 - 2011 Project Menager/Marfne Ecologist for Jeff Barrett it Managed staff and projects on marine and naarshore habitat assessments, forage fish spawning, and mitigation Worked with Washington tribes, state and county agencies, ports, Navy, non-profit groups, and engineering firms r Wrote permitting for in -water construction and restoration -- BE, JARPA, EIS, shoreline permits Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Mill Creek, WA 2011-2013, 2007, 2004-2005 Marine Dish Biologist for Dayv Lowry • Project manager for annual trawl survey, dive operations, Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) surveys, and field surveys for population density and distribution of ESA -listed and commercial groundfish species • Agency dive safety board, agency union representative, and vessel operations r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 99 2.1.a Northwest Straits Commission Padilla Bay, WA 2010 - 2011 Forage Fish Specialist for Ginny Broadhurst • Worked with science committee to identify current knowledge of Pacific sand lance in the greater Puget Sound . Communicated with federal, state, county, non-profit, consulting, and tribal agencies to acquire sand lance data ■ First author on a peer reviewed manuscript, presentations, and workshops Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. Seattle, WA 2007 - 2009 , Fisheries Biologist for Tracey Steig w Worked on projects with EPA mandated salmon small survival through hydro -electric dams and in -river sites . 3D tracking of tagged salmon and active data of fish through hydroelectric dams on the mid -Columbia river a. The Nature Conservancy Seattle, WA 2006 r Field Ecologist for Danelle Heatwole E Worked in Port Susan Bay, a 4100 acres protected estuary; meetings with NW Estuary Science Advisory Panel Q- Author NOAA-CRPTNC report; including: GIS mapping, statistical analyses m People For Puget Sound Seattle, WA 2006 Sound Stewardship Contract for Kirstin Holsman • Literature review on restoration, monitoring, species assemblages, and nearshore habitat characteristics . Restoration Resource: A public access on-line database to aid the volunteer stewardship program 0 Washington Dept. of Natural Resources Olympia, WA 2005 L Marine Ecologist for Helen Berry Eelgrass ecologist for the Nearshore Habitat Division of the Aquatics Program, PSAMP-SVMP ■ Lead Author WA State report; AreGIS level I and 11 training; statistical analyses, field and boat operations c R ACHI VENFi Y IZ S L Professional Memberships U American Academy of Underwater Sciences, National Association of Underwater Instructors 0 Certifications and Training L `t HAZWOPER 40hr, Motorboat Operator Certification, NAUI SCUBA Instructor, WDFW Forage Fish Spawning Surveys, WDFW Geoduck Surveys. Marbled Murralei Monitoring Certification Professional Project Management Training, ESRI Arc-GIS level 1"and level 2, Microsa9 Access level 1 and level 2 uJ Outreach, Volunteer, and Teaching Science teacher — The Bush School (2010-2011). Western Washington (2001-2003), University of Washington (2002) E Volunteer —Scripps Institute of Oceanography (2000), Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (1999), Long Marine Lab UCSC (1998-1999), Moss Landing Marine Lab (1998-1999) Naturalist educator-- Marine Science Institute, Redwood City, CA (1998-1999); San Francisco Bay Area Ridge Trail Q Council (1999), Seacoast Science Center, Rye, NH (1997-1998) t Publications 3 Antonelis, Selleck, Drinkwin, Saltman, Tonnes, and June. 2018. Bycatch of rockfish in spot prawn traps and o estimated magnitude of trap loss in Washington waters of the Salish Sea. Fisheries Research, in review. 0 Selleck, Gibson, Shull, and Gaydos. 2015. Nearshore Distribution of Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes hexapiarus) in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits. Northwest Naturalist, Vol 96, No 3. Selleck and Gibson. 2011. Northwest Straits Commission, Salish Sea Forage Fish Needs Assessment Workshop, Summary Meeting Notes. y Selleck, 2006. Characteristics of Large Woody Debris in the Hat SIough Distributary Channel of the Port Susan Hay N Preserve: Results from the 2004-2006 Monitoring Data. NOAA-CRP report, The Nature Conservancy. Selleck, Berry, Dowty. 2005. Depth Profiles of Zostera marina Throughout the Greater Puget Sound: Results From 2002-2004 Monitoring Data. WA DNR State report. 2003. Comparative reproductive events of the invasive Varnish Clam, Nuttallia obscurata, and the fisheries CDSelleck. N Littleneck Clam, Venerupisphihpinarum. Masters Thesis, Western Washington University a Q Presentations Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference — 2018 Seattle (session chair, poster, mentor), 2016 Vancouver (session chair), 2013 Seattle (presenter), 2011 Vancouver (session chair and poster), 2009 Seattle (session chair and E poster), 2007 Vancouver (presenter), 2005 Seattle (presenter) Pacific Estuarine Research Society-2015 Seattle (presenter), 2006 (poster) U American Fisheries Society -- 2015 Portland (presenter), 2011 Seattle (presenter) Q Western Groundfish Society —2018 Monterey (poster), 2012 Seattle (presenter) Workshops -- 2018 NOAA PRD San Diego (poster), 2015 Salish Sea Stewards, Padilla Bay; 2014 Beach Watchers, Padilla Bay; 2014 Skagit County MRC, Mount Vernon; 2013 Marker Buoy Dive Club, Seattfe; 2012 Forage Fish Symposium (poster), Friday Harbor; 2010 seven Marine Resource Committees; 2010 Northwest Straits Commission meeting, Bellingham Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 100 2.1.a EXHIBIT 2 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 101 �. iiwil.moor-sr.]o��^.I'Istu.7ltatic�TIFA9,iT7/x€4w�m•°�•+•�rnr a.rrvurr.m-wo-a aay:-lemiwec:rc�-tivmrse7 xrb�'�':-✓j�'i+�:`n`•"••,r...,. �.,..^...-.� ... ii OF01424�4 M. a13pYtn3.t{3ra ANA t• t �'J r j �» •:�� � tAC`CC89 E ENT I:: ,��Qr�. w�l TW~ i • �7 t3G OL HaY, , !41lir 1'Hi9 iNDENTl1RE, merle this ��i_ !i by t[rtd ltetrext`n CFSympLc f roprtYt ills er r B �AfYiaetun cac•pelrntk*$1r anti axsaldrla, nar.�icipalX oc irlt Lein UE Chefi• �.{ n[tJ ts,ntty crt Fdntnttcivlx .R m1l.niaipol �+�CpSr3t.iurl qc the Eiteta cal �teahin!ir.aar, hr!rplilattsr called th "GCenkt,n." F � �.t FEITfiF.L:St:TI! t '� 11het the bald crttnt#t fctX [tt•!d its aanaideration nit one i dtali.ar to Graptor 'llf hand Paid by said besntoar ruttuail l:anaCitd r�rarulnp end athar valuable, legal ecntiLdfiratlon, i Kotraipt vE I+hirh tAE bleaby AOknaw1v41Gdt do by thaaa prelssrw0- L grant, bacgntn', asilp congoy Rntl canLlrnt unto the aaitl cearlunu n r1.cht-aL---rbY euarnnAtht for public accarar una o,nd i afi}riymoot toiiathsr with Cho rlgh't to cpnnLruct and maintain uRkEr iml,—pumvrit~a, lok 114kl,ear u'tilitlnn end nocnbaary +�urtvnanaun, over, tissdu�l+r aartotr and upon Elta EallraNlnq dett rikod pr4¢srty, n1Y�tptx to jodh*d1vh Can�tstPr yaahLndton, mar* Parti4jularly L%Rcribad ad Cnllosrslt- ! ' Commuoo,Lrjq at a plaint +fit tbta Haeturly 01%xgin of t right-of•-uqy Of Sttrunvton Northern Aa,11*d 56.00 Lgah 2, use section l ine�3r�7��tr�uf�il,ltziorrh., n 3aZant W.14., as MQA� awrad along aadti Wnak1l3•y m!argl.n# thence i #forth 41000' 00' E0.ni. 61,0 g •L:hv WeAter}.y Morvin G$ 1 t�l said ri gltC^aE-vny, a dittsnae at 100-60 raert tbonae j ,J Rvrth 49040.1001 H-20tr porpendicA.l r Lith WAid Vigfht- „I# -t7 t1P-�►1ay tYrtrrlSISe a d1a► ern 4C 149.61 'torah t* thO ' ; , va#lpnetatlt mrander line of the vator•w o.f >euyati 8au0# thCriCe Nor" 51°k9174" vkxt, along said lnearndsrr kale, it a d ,.t ' istance at d,41 feet to the Esntorlymostucorncr C-) Cf of Parcel At as detraxllse�d pit: Bilaat l cal' t11A ffleiE'oRt' t VslLSidtt'r":t;E' .. • 1.w3 � �139`."lei$ i , a Prima"'"#yty'#sa:�c�ny�YiS"'Chretagh"3 h nce, N lean . `� ttf 5nah6+atitrh CO1fiaGy, h'anhihg togl Cgntr #C}h xbnU7'44^ al.anq ttte )Tari.tseatrtr~Yiy ILs1& or eniti Pr�rCexl Ap a distance of 50400 East to the True Point of Ae9i 11111t9f Ll..= rc►s caxtint#ing ##ortt# 38v37"69" Haar ,t tiit♦ tdl5dn tiC la,09 rusty Lhems South 47052'11" Went, a diatattrn or 49.450 i41ef tb a kint. an 0%0 Douthwas arly livrn DC a a id f+elc&etl NJ thbnoa scoin ,kao17, 00, zsst ,,xt ,iong saLd SoathwnnL'erly finer or Rk n vamal, Af dietanRn o4 9a.di4t enlet tnhthegtrue Paine 7 t1 8eginni19 a situated In Snohomish Gbunt:Y, "dElilg Stan. '4'i1 t1 Cr uritatjE 1G9 :tlYcC4s �1^a, ttEimp Lot or nanlati.1, - OP11 cpna rur,r, L{t7t.atld, ar [t dbC no =t't"rurturba ar Impravam@nta �pp �cpdn at vit,Etitta the shave Auseribnd ont�!teternt r•igrar. ar' vny, trneiraty v� EV enY ps,rtLan kneptsor axLr:nd:1 a4ovu a flaritontal pkatztc hwvkn4 nn � yaih njnvdt'ian PC 1.7.00 as roL'nr 1^ad r.n Citq of adinvnfls Ustua frinett MV Mipv�r 4estr SiaiaC . a0.�: Lida hgraftwnt shaak be an appurtenant flade"rit a� k cunning v1tYt tha .lrsnd and ahnil hart txlndlnta on the Grantor, its >sueenearara and ant+l.gna Farravox t€a't the iaatnetik of tft'n e MtaS,�. 8'91.107'008.5 EBB TIDE 00080 1 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 102 • Z���!'tM r,�� � If eAir" [ + Grantee as owner of raxi property tacbted immaodiatuly f �. adjacant to kho north aw.4 #auth a8 the euhject property. _ OLYMPic Pgapu gti, Lftc. A $]Chun, fi 6e Prea 41 nt And 1Qcerrbe� I•surphs'1 Ca �t;rFts�s+ltC t STATr OF WASHINUTON 3 _ [ on L I11 A t'h duty of Qvadl ar_ 1943, 130farh ,� j` n,e, Ljze undoruipn 7ft Notary n.lrr Ln xa Cor the State of FtAshingLos}, duty t csrsmiaaion[rd and asrern, perretonalkp nppparad ,- • �• �, Marren hurphy and dawn P. Braun, to so known Lo he fih� ' } '. •: ' lfico P'rooi4eat• and Preaieant } ot Qiympe Fi=partlado .fin¢. t thy-corporat ion t set ;x;M "" the ioCepuLttq• ttustcurnankr and ecknoxlvdged the Bald Lnatrumant to he the ftee and voluntary sct and daed of said - eorporntianr tar Lho %asa And pusrposos thtseain aentioned, and Ark c&th nLeted .khat thgy vrsra authorised to nx+�ruie said E Rnetrumrtnt and that kR- imil AMx1rd ).a the ar�rperate anal 09- Baid Corpoett•ion." � WITNVM my hand €tad f)@klc:lal teal horeta solved the `vlt5h ' ' S.ay and y4lar pa Ir.TitJ'irNt 3vlsi qn. 1 itt C..r•+... Pik . •w,.r`�•u •.• .. s r YAti U L n Car the tto Hashington, raulding at i .rp• ` i•y �� 1ti.il. Y �•� ' y,r• III 1 � w• f 8311070085 • 'f Attachment 3 EBB TIDE 00081 Packet Pg. 103 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r u 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 104 2.1.a N R C - 0 7*Isnrear. Ras(.)Oltc:rc(,(WSkirrAMrs, INC. April 23, 2018 Edmonds flab Tide Az is Oon of Apartment owners c/o Neckar Wakafield & t=ellberg, P.S. 3,21 A rst Ave W Seattle, WA 9811.9 Phone: 206-447-1.900 stephanw@heckerwakefield. coca Re: Shoreline Assessment of the Reach Easement at Ebb Tide Ebb Tide Msoclati on, 40Y) 21 ck ,1s=c W, Suite 404 Se. mile,. A',; , 481199 (�17G� �85-3•3•!i(l ku The purpose of this marrlo is to address envir6n mental concerns ossoc"rated wittj the proposed elevated walkwffa o be cpnstrvcted In front of the Ebb Tide beach front property in Mmonds, as part of the Edrn.o ids Wateefrarit Redevelopment Project: The City of Edmonds is proposing to reconfigure a prrnion of the shoreline, by replacing an upper Intert.1dal bullhead with scxft shoreline stabilization and bacshore vegetation. I reviewed docum.enis including excerpts from the Biplt3gical Evafuatf+a.n,the .IARPA permit application, rigid the ChticalAreAs Report and Mitigation Man (Herrera 2017), Ashorellne sJte visit W.as conducted on March 27, 201B to order to assess forage f $.h:.%patnming habitat on thir-b ach. Pr4seiWad here are results of the site assessment, including evaluatloo otgeheralsubstrate eorrip.00lan, verifitatictn of tidal elevation extending up to the property wall, presence of wozad and other organic debns{ and ctassi'fication of Forage fish spawning habitat. In arty oplilpn, the proposers walkway in front Of the Ebb Tide beach property will result: in the dirert net loss of forage flgh spawning habitat. Site 'ObsetMv'atiolls Weather conditions during the Morning bfMarch 27 were overca.sf vyith good visibility., l allrenheit temperatures in the high forties, end a south wind of 15 to 20 knots. Spa Level Pressure was 3CO5 inches, which Is around average. There were 2 to 4-foot wind waves, and the onshore wind ould have pushed waterbigher than the predicted tidal elevation, The previous hightide was at 03::�V W!th a tidal height of+= 6feetMe.an..ipwertow Water (MLLW), which was approximatelytenfeaffrorn the bulkhead. The beach type was: ratego`rized as consisting of prirnadly flne sands throughout, with a mix of pebble and gobble: With some broken shell between tidal el6vations +5 to +7 feet MLLW (Figure 1). The wrack lure is an area in the tipper intertidal zone where organic material naturAlly accumulates along the high tide line. Wrack often consists of leaves, sengrass, kelp, and wood. Wrack acMmulatiun is generally less In the winter, when .organic material is less available, The wrack at the Ebb 17de beach consisted :costly o woo. d debris, with some Fucus sp. algae, and otherterrestrial plant mat:erlal (Figure 1). The wrack sine corresponded with wet sand indlcatiing the previous high tide line. Occasional winter storms rnaji temporarily increase wrack and debris on the site; and there were large wood logs on the beach to the Attachment 3 E®13 TIP— Packet Pg. 105 2.1.a naafi (Figure 1). There were no durie grass or other 1317nis above the beach, due to the presence of continuous bulichead armoring, Tidal eievadoii on the beach was measured at li9. J0, with a predicted tidal Height. of+S,9 feet MLLW. Th. slope of the beach was gradual, anal the buIkhetrtl was estl ated to be a t a pp rox im aWy +11 feet M LLSW. Foza e Piq.11spwvs•..nin y►' I: 0)ittti Surf srri.elt (Hypomesras prefiosus) and PWclfictand lance: (Arnmogyt�s personatus) are the two species of forage fish that spawn on local beachos. Forage fish spawn,oh the (reach at lrigh tide, often in the evening, Fish do not stay on the beach, bu t leave their mlcrascopiceggs In the sand. Afte.r approximately two weeks the eggs hatch. and the.larva.e sw1m away at Frlgh tide. Forage fist; will spitwrr rrrrxltlfale times on the same beach, 56 that-x--M ran be found an a heachitor months tfuririg Spawning seasons. Documenbrig eggs requir6s'6 certified forage fish bieingist. Surf smelt spawn relatively lrlgher than Pacific sadd la' Oder (turn +7 fe6t MLLW up to xtr ine high water; while Pacific sand I.Ance are known to spawn lower, from +5 M LLW tip to Mean Higher High Water (Ml1f A1), MHHWfor droondsdoturn 944 4.27 is+10.91 feet alcove MI.I,W (Nt7AA "fides and Current�5)b which is immediately below the elevation of the bulkhead. Surf smelt in north Pug%Sound are predominately su[mmerspawners, and In south PugetSounrl are mostly winter,,5pawners. These smelt spawning se-4WM overlap in the Edmonds areawith spbwning heavier In Wintat h1onths, but eggs rAn generally be found year-round. Pacific sand lance only spawn between Novernoerto February. The Critical Areas Report artd Mitigation Plan (W.erierra 2017) state4 that the Ebb Fide beach property south cif the furry terminal is not mapped fbr�►mrf smelt spawning habitat (Page 20),:but that is Incrarrect_ Washington. OplawtM. ent of Fish and Wildlife (Wl3FW) cIgariy clocumernts surfsrrjdit spawning habtat nloh'g the Full I' Ogth.ofthe beach (Figure 2). Forage fall are also recognixe�l i.s a fed sQrarce associated with critical habitat for ESA -listed Chinook, faipaq.ts to Forage Fish f (,tlAtat. WDFW use the hydraulic Projact Approval V IPA) to permit construction that trripact aquatic ha: #cats. ltegulatluns are outlinod by the V1lashfnigton Administrative Code (bWAC). Public recreationail ruler design and location of structures must protect documented surf smelt and Pacific sand lance spawning beds ('li DFW WAC 220-660.39% In addition, the construction of other hahk protection projects mast not result in a permanent lass of suer(smelt or Pacific sand lance spnurriing beds, and shall 4icorporate mitigation measures as neeessaryto aLhNve no -net -loss of productive capacity. of fish and shellfish habitat (WDFW WAC 220-5160.+3701. No -net -loss was initiallyt adapted for regulatory purperset after 1589; The concept of no-act-laas.is de.siginad to prevent,the furthee loss of ecological functians as a result of construction activities: Cumulative lass of forage fish spawning habitat can reduce the survival of an Important early fife history stage critical to the species: The proppsed walkWay to be constructed in front of the Ebb Tide beach prnperty will create overwat -or structure 1.0 feetwida and 154 feet long, Including seven ;ill-inch-diameteir stoel pilings permanently instaille4 in -the Leach. No bulkhead removal, beach r-estoration, orOtheir mitigation measures are tVatural Resources consultant.;, Inc. Attachment 3 E138 TIP` Packet Pg. 106 2.1.a proposed along the beach directly in front of the Ebb Tide property. The walkway will be installed across the beach area from *7 tb +10 MLi.W, directly covering documented surf smelt spawning haYsitat. The height of the walkway abovf the habitat will vary based oil the beach elevation, so that a flat walking surface can be provided. The bottom of the walkway may come in contact with sand a•t ++10 feet MI -LW. Sediment transfer along the shoreline is an important feature for maintaining forago fish spawning habitat (WDrW WAC 220-f60-390). In addition to direct impacts of the proposed walkway an the beach; portions of -the walkway may prevent accretion of new materials by biockingsedIment movement. The general drift of rnatericils along the Edmonds shoreline is South to North (Figure 3). The marina to the south of the Ebb Tide property limits the deposition of new sand material by blocking the source of drifting material. The proposed walkway and seven steel pilings will reflect wave energy, accelerating the loss of Mine sands and other beach material that is irnportantfor forage fish eggs to survive, cotadu.r oil in my opinion, the proposed walkway in front of the Ebb Tide beach property will rnstalt In the direct net loss of forage fish spawning habitat, and no In -kind mitigation for the steel pilings and covered beach area Is addressed. My conclusion is in agreement with previous documents from WDFW (letters to the City,1999). The Urnonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project includes several activities that will Improve upland shoreline functions by removing hard armoring and other materials adjacent tQthe Ebb Tide Property, but these improvements are in relation to other portions of the shoreline located above MHHW, and do not address impacts from installing the walkway directly on the beach. Compensatory mitigation is required for all unavoidable Adverse impacts to fish habitats (WDFW WAC 220-650-080). Furthermore, the Critical areas Report and Mitigation Plan (Herrera 2017) outlines avoidance to forage fish spawning during construction by conducting surveys prior to work cornmencing, but mistakenly fails to identify the beach as forage fish spawning habitat, Mitigation measures outlined in the plan relate to activity above MHHW, focus on restoration of the bulkhead outside of the walkway footprint, and only Include the 35 square foot area from the steel pilings as habitat loss on the beach. The impacts analysis (Herrera 2017) describes the 1,383 square foot overwaterstmicture as not acting as a barrier to fish migration, but falls to address the impedance to forage fish spawn ing directly under the walkway. The design of the walkway displays a 3_foot clearance at +7 feet MLLW intertidai height, but given the width of the walkway and the slope of the beach itwill likely come In contact with the beach at +10feet MLLW, Surf smeftswlm up to the extreme high tide to spawn, and require room on the beach to reach that tidal elevation. Assuming the mlrilrnal gap proposed beneath the walkway, this will not provide enough roam for surf smelt to swim under and spawn during high tide, impeding fish from reaching their ,pawning habitat. Therefore the cornplete area of the walkway should be considered as direct net loss of forage: fish spawning habitat. The base of the bulkhead in front of the ebb Tide beach property is at approximately +11 feet MLLW. The bulkhead is regularly in contact with water at high tide. Recent dates where high tide exceeded a-11 feet MLLW include from March 18 to 21, February 27 to March f, and February 14 to 2L Wind waves associated with storm events can easily push water 2 to 3 feet above the predicted high tide, regularly pushing water over the top of the bulkhead. Low pressuro systems also raise the water level a. to 2 feet above predicted tidal elevations. The proposed walkway Is designed to sit slightly above the beach but will regularly be in direct contact; with water during high tidy: when surf smelt spawn, due to the height Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. Attachment 3 EBB 'III Packet Pg. 107 2.1.a rWrlditins outlined in the access .easement. Storm surge treated by low pressure sys#erns and w€rkd waves would push water ov.er the fop of the walkway, This memo documents direct Impacts to surf smelt spawning and net luss rrf habitat, poter►,t1a31 restrictions to sediment drift can the beach, anti the llrra:Ited elevated helghlt of the propaspd walkway above the beach In OeWibn to annual storm surge.. My conclusion is that the C.:rittcaI Areas Report and M IHgatlon Plan (Herren 2017) mistakc±niy falls to report WOFW docurnehted! forage fish spawning habitat, does rapt Include the complete W21i<VWay structure as direct net loss of habitat, and does not adbqur tefv arlciress these concerns In relation to the beach d€rpetly in front of the Fbb Tide property. Shicerely, Natural Resou s Consuttants, Inc. bmas R Ballad; Marine Ecologist I <sheries Blaloglst ]nilU—M AMZ—C�i109 Figures 1-3 References City of Ecir'AbnI ds. Wvomber 7,1983. Access Easement, Oocurngntg-U-1.07085i City of Edmonds. May 2012. Bioio,gical Earaluation to the JARPA application. H&rera..Septeir,ber 16, 1999. Memo toiht:Oty of Edmonds, Edmunds Midwaterfront Bulkhead Repair: bulkhead Design Alternativa in Front of Et3l rlde C.ondorninlums, H�rrura. September 21, 2017. Critical Areas Roport and Mitigatlon flan, Edmonds Waterftnnt itodnvelopment Projed. Pamela Ersted, In DFW. April 29,1990. Letter to the City cal' Edrnonrls, comments; Edmonds Mid -Waterfront Walkway, Edmonds, WA, Pamela ErstaO, WDFW:. September 22, 1999. Letter to the Cityof Edmonds, Request for Information; Edmonds Mid-Waterrront Proj4d;Propo5ed Bulkhead; I hbTida Condominiums, Snohomish County, WRIA08, Natural Resources Gonsukants; Inc, 4 Attachment 3 EBB T Packet Pg. 108 2.1.a M z - Y Figure 1 General observations of beach substrate, wrack, and large woody debris. Natural Resources Con;ultanls, Inc Attachment 3 E613 TI Packet Pg. 109 2.1.a J6 Figure 2. Satellite view of the project site. The green line indicates surf smelt spawning habitat along the beach (http;//wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html7webmap=1968f74e2d41470cbd80blaf8dedd6b3&ext ent=-126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.0781). The Ebb Tide property, circled, is located in between the marina and the ferry terminal. Natural Resources Consultants, Inc 6 Attachment 3 EBB TI Packet Pg. 110 2.1.a Figure 3. Satellite view of the project site, Yellow lines indicate the movement of sediments, and red lines indicate areas of no appreciable drift (hiih�. ��turtivs, w,r�cf� ury �u ist_il asFas look//kip asgx). No appreciable drift means there is no source of new beach material. The Ebb Tide property, circled, is located in between the marina and the ferry terminal. Nalmal Resources Consultant%, Inc Attachment 3 EBB TI Packet Pg. 111 EXHIBIT 6 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 112 2.1.a 8117/2018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chlnook and quieter waters, report says I The Seattle Times search Environment Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report sags Originally published October 27, 2017 at 6:oo am Updated October 26, 2017 nt 8:36 pm 1 of 2 A pod of orcas swims through the Saratoga Passage near Camano Island earlier this month. The killer whales target chinook salmon for their diet, and they use echolocation —sound —to find their food. (Orca Network) A new study published in Scientific Reports finds that a lower abundance of salmon in a sea noisy from vessel traffic means the whales must forage longer to find their food — stressing their already -endangered population, By Lynda V. Mapes v Seattle Times environment reporter O.rca whales are on a path to extinction within a century unless they get a big increase of chinook salmon to eat, and significantly quieter seas in which to find their food, a https:lAuww.seatlelimes.comiseettle-newslenvironmentlorcas-headed-to-extinction -unless-we-get-them-mare-chinook-and-quieter-waters-report-saysl 1 /7 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 113 2.1.a 8/1712018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report says E The Seattle Times new study has found. The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, evaluated the relative importance of known threats to the survival. of southern -resident killer whales, the salmon -eating whales that frequent Puget Sound. An international team of scientists reviewed 40 years of data and the threats of lack of food, pollutants and excessive noise under different future scenarios. A clear finding emerged: lack of food, specifically Chinook salmon, was the orcas' biggest threat to longterm survival, so much so that a 30 percent increase in Chinook above average levels is needed to recover the orca population. That increase could be cut to -15 percent if vessel noise also is reduced by half. Featured Video Wars' other veterans: Three people move to the U.S. with special visas and rebuild their lives (442) Most Read Local Stories Seattle's dirty air among world's worst, but relief is in sight . Seven members of Washington family dead in head-on Oregon crash 3 Environmentalists sue federal government in Seattle to protect endangered orcas .4 Logging in Upper Skagit River watershed put on hold as Seattle has `grave concern' 5 Handcuffed Kirldand man dies after jumping off Highway 520 bridge Unk-nited Digital Access. $i COI" 4 weeks. httpa-)Ndww.seattletImes.comiseattte-newslanvironmentloreas-headed-lo-extinctiori-unless-we-get-them-more-cNnonk•and-quieter-waters•repdrt-says! 2/7 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 114 2.1.a 8/17/2018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more Chinook and quieter waters, report says I The Seattle Times Otherwise, the populations will continue -to decline and there is a 25 percent chance the whales will be lost within soo years, the scientists found. The findings reflect the unique biology of southern -resident killer whales, which insist on targeting chinook salmon for their diet, virtually to the exclusion of other prey. They also use echolocation -- sound ---- to find their food. Lower abundance of salmon in a sea noisy from vessel traffic means the whales must forage longer to find their food — even as Chinook populations also are declining. And if they can't get enough to eat they burn their own fat, laden with chemicals stored in their tissue, absorbed from pollutants in the waters of the Salish Sea. The linked nature of the threats to orcas means progress must be made on all three fronts, noted Rob Williams, an author on the paper based at Oceans Initiative in Seattle, a nonprofit scientific research firm. The orcas already are in a 30-year population low, with just 76 animals in the J, K and L pods. "The very first thing we should be doing is holding the line, and not increasing threats and harms that are already there, clearly we don't want to be adding to the problem," said Paul Paquet of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation in Sydney, B.C., a lead author on the paper. "There is an urgency here that is not well -appreciated; they are certainly in jeopardy," he said of the orcas. "There is no doubt about that." Bob Lacy, a conservation biologist with the Chicago Zoological Society, and another lead author on the paper, said the southern residents are "just holding on; the population is too fragile to withstand any increased threats. "It is not a cheerful story, but it is a wake-up call." Lynne Barre, Seattle branch chief of the Protected Resources Division at NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region, said the agency is well aware of the orcas' predicament, as their population — at the lowest numbers since the ig8os — continues to drop. They are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. "We are moving in the wrong direction," Barre said. The agency is looking for partners at every level local, state, federal and across the border. in Canada, to ease threats to orca survival she said. https,.Ilwww. seotdetimes.com/seattle-newsle nvironmentlorcas-headed-to-extinction-un less-we-get-them-more-chlnook-and-quieter-waters-report-saysl 31'7 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 115 2.1.a 811712018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more Chinook and quieter waters, report says I The Seattle Times It's not a problem orcas might just fix on their own by turning to other prey. While so-called transient killer whales in Canada feast on marine mammals, especially seals, the southern residents will not switch from Chinook — the most calories for the hunting effort of any salmon — even when the region's most prized fish is scarce. "It seems to be cultural, this is what they learned from their mothers, they live in tight family groups and it makes them unique and very special, but it might be a downfall as well," Barre said. Chinook are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act both in the Columbia River and in Puget Sound. Orcas forage for Chinook at the mouth of the Columbia in the early spring and again in Puget Sound in the summer, especially on the west side of San Juan Island. Scientists have been studying the whales' foraging behavior and can see that vessel traffic affects it, she noted. The agency is considering a proposed change in the critical habitat protected for the whales to include the Vilest Coast all the way to the San Francisco Bay Area, to reflect what scientists are learning about how far the orcas travel for their food, Barre said. Also under review is a protection zone that extends three-quarters of a mile offshore of San Juan Island from Mitchell Point in the north to Cattle Point in the south. All motorized vessels would be excluded from the zone to give the whales a .refuge from their noise. The proposal from Orc.a Relief Citizens Alliance and other conservation groups, under review by NOAA since January, received more than 1,000 comments, including suggestions of new approaches to the problem. James Unsworth, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, even suggested that instead of a fixed protection zone, what is needed is a floating go-slow bubble extending 1,000 yards around every orca as it travels anywhere in Washington's inner marine waters. Within the bubble, vessel speeds would be restricted to not more than 7 knots on the water. That would be a big increase in the Zoo -yard, no -approach zone around every orca imposed by NOAA in 2011. tttlpsllwv^v.. sea ttletrmes-comisealtte-newslenvironn)enVorcas-headed-t"Alnction-unInss-we-gent-them-mnre-chinank-and•gideler-walera-report-says/ 41: Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 116 2.1.a 811712018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report says i The 5ealtle Times Slower travel speeds help orcas by quieting vessel traffic. Some change is already underway on a voluntary basis. The fort of Vancouver, B.C., in a pilot program last summer, asked ships to cut their speed to i.i knots -- a reduction to nearly half speed for some vessels -- to reduce noise levels in a 16-mile-long area of the orcas' prime feeding ground. More than 61 percent of ships using Haro Strait voluntarily participated. It's the kind of measure that perhaps could buy the whales some time and take the pressure off a population struggling to survive, Williams said. "This is a really small populations that is teetering." Not because of some catastrophe, such as an oil spill, he noted, but just because of what their environment has become. "We are looking at their daily lives." Lynda V. Mapes: M6-464-;�515 or Imapes@seattletimes.com We need your support in-depth journalism takes time and effort to produce, and it depends on paying subscribers. If you value these kinds of stories, consider subscribing. iP View 141 Comments Recommended in https:llwwwseatiletimes.comisen(tie-newslenvkronmenVarcas-treaded-t"xtinctiorwntess-we-get theme -mare -Chinook and•quleter-inters-report-says► 5r7 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 117 AAM, MR I - 1001 M Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 118 2.1.a EXECUTIVE TIVE SUM Iif ARY This critical areas report and mitigation plan was prepared for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (hereafter referred to as the project) in accordance with current federal, state, and City of Edmonds regulations and guidance. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc, (Herrera) investigated the project area and surrounding study area for the presence of critical areas, including wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs), and frequently flooded areas; and conducted a habitat assessment and ordinary high water delineation on May 4, 2017. Herrera did not identify any wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas, or critical aquifer recharge areas within the study area; therefore, these critical areas are not discussed further in this report. The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department (City) and the Edmonds Senior Center (Senior Center) propose to redevelop the Edmonds Senior and Community Center; the associated parking lot, bulkhead, and beach access; and to construct an overwater walkway. Together, those elements comprise the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (project). The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Senior Center to continue providing senior and community services, and it will be used by the City for programming and events during the late afternoon and evening hours. The proposed overwater walkway will be constructed on a City -owned easement on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, directly south of the proposed Waterfront Center building - The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. The project is at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington, within Section 23 of Township 27 North and Range 03 East of the Willamette Meridian. The existing parking lot extends onto a bulkhead located partially below mean higher high water (MHHW) of the Puget Sound. The bulkhead is composed of fill material and supported by 36 creosote treated timber piles around the perimeter. The bulkhead timbers and fill will be removed and new beach access will be provided by installing concrete stairs and a ramp within the existing footprint, above MHHW. The stairs and ramp will be supported by no more than 60 steel H-piles. In the area of bulkhead removal, habitat improvements will include installing large woody debris, boulders, and a sand/gravel mix, and planting native vegetation. The parking lot will be reconfigured and will incorporate bioretention planters for water quality treatment and infiltration. There are two existing outfalls in the bulkhead to the Puget Sound, both of which will be shortened to end above (landward of) MHHW. The proposed overwater walkway will link the existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway between the ferry terminal and the Edmonds Marina in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. The overwater walkway will be a 10-foot-wide, concrete and grated structure approximately 154 feet long, elevated on seven steel piles. Approximately 50 percent of the footprint of the 1-1ER;€ERA ix _. ....,..........,..... _................... ... - pQ 17-06494-OOO car_edmdtiwMrnt,do" ' rEDIV10€ 6238 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 119 2.1.a Within the project vicinity, the nearshore subtidal area between the proposed project and the Port of Edmonds Marina is mostly sand, with several areas of artificial reef materials and rock at depths of -15 to -90 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). Between the existing ferry terminal and Dayton Street (approximately 1,200 feet south of the ferry terminal), expansive macroalgae beds were found during surveys for the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program, including Laminaria spp. and Nereocystis spp., from the -5-foot contour to the -60-foot MLLW contour (CH2M Hill 2004). The area directly offshore of and including the docking area of the existing ferry terminal is devoid of macroalgae, probably as a result of propeller -induced turbulence. Sea lettuce (Ulna lactuca), and red algae (Gracilaria sjoestedtii), were found from the marina to the ferry pier and from the ferry pier north through the underwater park and beyond (CH2M Hill 2004). Eelgrass beds were found to be continuous at depths of about -2 feet to -20 feet MLLW during these surveys. These eelgrass beds are beyond the study area and are approximately 300 linear feet waterward of the project area, measured perpendicular to the shoreline. Species Assessment Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout use nearshore areas for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, for migration, and as nursery areas for juveniles. Nearshore area surveys conducted in 2001 found juvenile Chinook at several locations in the Edmonds vicinity (Edmonds 2007). Salmonid stocks that may be present near Edmonds include runs from the Skagit and Stillaguamish Rivers, but are mostly from the Snohomish, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually Rivers and smaller drainages in central and southern Puget Sound (Edmonds 2007). Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat use in the study area and project vicinity would be during periods of juvenile foraging and juvenile and adult migration. The eelgrass beds along the shoreline provide high quality foraging habitat for juveniles. Once juveniles leave estuarine/delta habitats and enter Puget Sound, they distribute widely throughout nearshore ecosystems. Chinook juveniles spend a greater amount of time in the nearshore environment as they grow, whereas steelhead have a longer freshwater rearing time and are larger when they enter the marine environment and are likely to head to deeper waters beyond the nearshore for foraging. Their abundance in shoreline areas of Puget Sound typically peaks in June and July, although some are still present in shoreline habitats through at least October. When juveniles first enter estuarine areas their optimal habitat is low gradient, shallow water, fine-grained substrates (silts and mud), low salinity, and low wave energy. As they grow, they use a greater diversity of Puget Sound habitats including deeper, more offshore habitats, and eventually, most fish leave for the North Pacific Ocean feeding grounds (Fresh 2006). Bull trout use mouths of estuaries and nearshore areas primarily from March to July. In summer, fish may leave estuary/marine areas due to high temperatures (Goetz et al. 2003). Bull trout use nearshore areas such as those in the study area and project vicinity for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, and for foraging, growth, migration, and overwintering (USFWS 2004). Bull trout habitat use in the study area and project vicinity would be during periods of adult foraging and migration (P. Verhey, personal communication). Bull trout display wide-ranging foraging habits Septeniber 2OL7 HERRERA Critical Aria; Repor, rind Mitigation Pljn—Fdrnond� W itoifroro ftedevaluprrienl PrnleL t r9 EDM006260 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 120 2.1.a and are known to consume juvenile salmon (including Chinook) that inhabit shallow nearshore areas (Edmonds 2007). Critical habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout is present with the study area (USFWS 2017, Herrera 2017). Chinook salmon critical habitat includes only the marine nearshore, from extreme high tide to a depth of 30 meters. Bull trout critical habitat includes the marine nearshore, from MHHW to -10 meter MLLW, and any tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. The beach north of the ferry terminal is mapped by WDFW as providing spawning habitat for surf smelt (WDFW 2017a). The beach south of the terminal, within and adjacent to the study area, is not mapped as forage fish spawning habitat (WDFW 2017a); however, the study area has the potential to provide suitable forage fish spawning habitat. While the substrate is suitable for spawning, there is no riparian vegetation to provide shade for forage fish spawn. Pedestrian activity is significant and disturbance to forage fish spawn is likely. Green sturgeon, eulachon, and yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish have all been documented in Puget Sound. Green sturgeon are rare in Puget Sound; they have only been observed in estuaries, thus they are very unlikely to use the study area. Eulachon are infrequent in Puget Sound; they would use the nearshore environment in the study area for incidental migration. Free-floating larval bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish would use the study area for foraging; they have been observed under free floating algae, seagrass and detached kelp. Juvenile bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish are most commonly found on rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms; adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age (NOAA 2017). Marbled murrelets are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters; winter and summer surveys by WDFW conducted near Edmonds found no murrelets in winter and only a few birds in the Edmonds area in summer (Edmonds 2007). The nearest critical habitat is in the Snoqualmie National Forest, approximately 30 miles east of the study area (USFWS 2017). Critical habitat for southern resident killer whale (SRKW) is mapped along the Edmonds waterfront (USFWS 2017). The waterfront is within Area 2, which includes Puget Sound south from the Deception Pass Bridge, entrance to Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal Bridge (71 CFR 69063). The critical habitat designation includes waters deeper than 20 feet based on extreme high water. The study area includes waters that are shallower than 20 feet based on extreme high water. Therefore, the study area does not extend to SRKW critical habitat. Water Quality There are multiple water quality concerns in Puget Sound: • Levels of toxic contaminants in biota that live or feed in Puget Sound The eutrophication of marine waters, producing hypoxic and anoxic regions HERRERA Seplembei 017 Criocrd Arc:w, Report and M1ditigntion Plzen-4dmo mk Watertronl Redevp1opmieni Proton EDM006261 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 121 EXHIBIT 8 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 122 2.1.a .M, B:IOLOGICAL EVALUATION For informal ESA Consultation s� US Army Corps For: (Corps Reference Number) '• of F_nglncers .-v seawe 010161 Version: May 2012 ** This form is for projects that have insignificant or discountable impacts on listed species. It contains all the information required for a biological evaluation, but in abbreviated form and with minimal instructions on how to fill it out. For more detailed instructions, a format for development of a biological assessment or biological evaluation can be found on the Seattle District Corps website (www.nws.usace.army.mil -- click on regulatory and then on endangered species, BA Template). You may also contact the Corps at 206-764-3495 for further information. Drawings and Photographs - Drawings and photographs must be submitted. Photographs must be submitted showing local area, shoreline conditions, existing overwater structures, and location of the proposed protect. Drawings must include a vicinity map; plan, profile, and cross-section drawings of the proposal structures; and aver- and in -water structures on adjacent properties. (For assistance with the preparation of the drawings, please refer to our Drawing Checklist located on our website atww_1rws:usce ar�n 1]1 Select Regulatory — Regulatory/Permits — Forms.) Submit the information to: U,S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, Washington 98124-3755. Date: September .5, 2017 SECTION A — General Information 1, Applicant name Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Mailing address: 700 Main Street, Edmonds, 'WA 98020 Work phone: 14ome phone: Email: Fax. 425-771-0256 ca<rie.hit� dmonclswa. 0 425-771-0253 2, Joint -use applicant name Not applicable Mailing address: Work phone: Home phone: i_ Entail: ax: F 3. Authorized agent name Shelby Petro Madjag address: Herrera Environmental Consultants 2200 Sixth Avenue Suite 1100, Seattle, WA 98120 Work phone: Home phone: Email: 1 Fax: 206-787-8307 si)etro(@hcii,ei-ainc.com 206441-9108 4. Location where proposed work will occur 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA 98020, Snohomish County 200 Beach Place, Edmonds, WA 98020, Snohomish County Waterbody: Puget Sound, WR(A 8, HUC 17110 '/4 Section: SE Section: 23 '1'ownshi : 27N Range: 3E Latitude: 47.81 122 Longitude: -122.3854 EDMOO6197 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 123 2.1.a aquatic action area extends onto the unvegctated upper low tide terrace, and is less than 20 feet in depth relative to extreme high water. Noise and pollution do not define the aquatic action area because their likely impacts will be limited to an area smaller than those of increased turbidity. All pile driving and earth moving will be conducted in the dry at low tide. Although ground vibrations will occur, it is unlikely that they will generate underwater noise at levels sufficient to affect aquatic species given the wide beach at the project location and that pile driving will occur during Iow tide. The distance to the water line and shallow depth of water adjacent to the project footprint will further reduce the likelihood of noise transmission (WSDOT 2017). Therefore, pile driving is not expected to generate a sign ificant in - water noise impact. Stormwatter from pollution generating surfaces on site will be treated and infiltrated in a bioretention cell, then discharged through an existing outfall in the bulkhead that will be shortened to above MI HW. Untreated stormwater wiI I not enter surface Puget Sound. A separate existing outfall and the second shortened outfall from the removed bulkhead will convey stormwater from non -pollution generating surfaces. The project will comply with Washington State surface water quality requirements in marine waters (WAC 173-201A-210). 8. Species Information This biological evaluation (BE) was prepared to determine the potential offects of the proposed project on listed and proposed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat. Species lists and maps were obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2017a), the National Marine li isheries Service (NMFS 2017), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WD.FW 2017a) (Table 3). Table 3. USFWS and NMFS Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat:Potentially Present in the Waterfront Center Project Action Area. i._._.. _... -.....��. ..-....,. ...,�„�..,. '.`•- .....- .w...,... Design St�Jr'rw CriticalIIa� " in the Aato" X. Nm acime' ESU/DPS Area?SteaCommon Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus Puget Sound threatened yes tsharv�rscita Bull trout Salvelinus con uentus Coastal-Yu�ei Sound threatened ves Steelhead OEgo ?Vnchu.I.M s � Yu et Sound _ — threatened no Lulachon T'haleichth s acl ! uny Southern_ threatened uo YeIloweye Sebastes ruberrimus Puget Sound/Georgia threatened yes rockfish Basin Bocaccio Sebastes pauckpinis Puget Sound/Georgia endangered yes Brachyrarnphus Basin CA, OR, WA threatened no Marbled murrelet ESU = evolutionarily significant unit DPS = distinut popul ation segment 9 EDMOO6206 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 124 2.1.a EXHIBIT 9 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 125 A 1• .� r 1• ,- �•,y a .f. �.: E n v lrvn me n 111 Do v lqn el Iona: U4riha Shore Una jl, Figure 3 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 12151h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.go_v DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION April 26, 2019 Mr. John Yip Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg P.S. 321 First Avenue West Seattle, WA 98119 JohnY heckerwakefield.com RE: SEPA DNS for Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Yip: Thank you for your August 20, 2018 comments submitted on behalf of the Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners regarding the Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment project. The City of Edmonds has taken these comments under careful consideration as well as other information associated with the proposals. The comments were largely focused on the impact the walkway structure in the easement in front of the Ebb Tide would have on fish and wildlife habitat. On April 15, 2019 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued the enclosed biological opinion. Table 2 on page 8 summarized that the proposal would have no effect or would not likely adversely affect the following species or their associated habitat: Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Yelloweye rockfish (S. Ruberrimus) Southern DPS of Eulachon (Tholeichthys pacificus), or Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). NMFS did evaluate likely adverse effects to Puget Sound Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and ultimately concluded: After reviewing and analyzing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline within the action area, the effects of the proposed action, any effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, and cumulative effects, it is NMFS' opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. The City of Edmonds, after following the Optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 and the threshold determination process of WAC 197-11-330 has determined that the project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and is issuing the attached Determination of Nonsignificance. Note this is not an approval of the associated permits. The project's design will be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board who will forward a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 127 2.1.a Examiner will consider the design recommendation as well as the conditional use permit and three shoreline substantial development permits in a public hearing. Notice on the specific times and locations of these meetings will be provided at a later date. Thank you again for your comments on this proposal and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sinc reiy, ernen Lien Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds — Planning Division Enck Determination of Nonsignificance SEPA Checklist April 15, 2019 NMFS Biological Opinion Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 128 2.1.a ,` OY LUdf�i v 4� CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. [File Nos. PLN20180039 (Conditional Use Permit), PLN20180040 (Design Review), PLN20180041 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Waterfront Center Building), PLN20180042 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and PLN20180043 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit -Overwater Walkway)] Proponent: City of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center Location of proposal, including street address if any: The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be on parcel 27032300104200 located at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement (AFN 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums located at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300. To the north of the bulkhead removal, portions of the adjacent parcels (27032300104400) and a City of Edmonds easement (AFN 8101160178) will be modified to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS] is not required under RCW 43.21C 030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is avallable to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Page 1 or2 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 129 2.1.a Date: April26.2019 Signature:zyll,_�__ XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than May 10, 2019 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on April 26, 2019 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center -(SEPAunit@ecv.wa.gav). Mailed-to-Vo rty-ownus-Withii-300-feetzif th-esite. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents are available at httos://Permits.edrnonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number PLN20180039. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: ® Applicant ® Dept. of Ecology ® Parties of Record ® Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ® Dept. of Natural Resources ® US Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Dept. of Commerce ® NMFS ❑ WSDOT M WSDOT—Ferries ® Puget Sound Energy ® Dept, of Fish & Wildlife ® Snohomish PUD ❑ Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑ Olympic View Water & Sewer ® Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Alderwood Water District ® Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑ Edmonds School District ❑ Port of Edmonds ❑ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ® South County Fire ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council ® Swedish Hospital ❑ Puget Sound Partnership , ® Community Transit ® Comcast ® Tulalip Tribe ® BNSF pc: File No. SEPA Notebook ❑ City of Everett ❑ City of Lynnwood ❑ City of Mountlake Terrace ❑ City of Mukilteo ❑ City of Shoreline ❑ Town of Woodway ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works ❑ Snohomish Co. PDS ❑ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. ❑ King County -Transit ❑ King County — Environ. Planning ❑ Other Page 2 of 2 SEPA9 E, SEPA REVISED20190311 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 130 2.1.a #P71 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Pupose of Chutniisi. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about yourproposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 2. Name of applicant: Ci�y of Edmonds Parks. Recreation, and Cultural Services Department 1 Edmonds Senior Center 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Contact for City of Edmonds: Carrie Hite (Parks. Recreation, and Cultural Services Director) 700 Main Street Edmonds WA 98020 425-771-0256(P).425-771-0251 (F} Contact for Edmonds qcnior Center: Farrell r1cmin Executive Director 220 Railroad Avenue. Edmonds, WA 98020 425- 54-2518 P 4. Date checklist prepared: June 11, 2018 Revised on 9116116 17-06494-000_A_CN4*AlaA 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 131 2.1.a 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edinotrds. Development_ Services Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Darnolition of the existing f:dmonds Senior Center building will begin in January 2019. followed by_constructi n of the new Edmonds Waterfront Center h ildig&parking lot, a portion of the Edmonds Marine Walkway, and bulkhead removal Together. he demplitiou amd constnictimi is estiniated to span approximately 15 to 20 months. Work c nducted within or ad'acent to the water, including removal of the bulkhead and construction of the oye_rwater walkway, will be limed according to llpe US Army C s of Fn ineers U ACI. and Wa hin tan Dc artment f l�ish and Wildlife Wi]1-W in - water work windo► which is JMly 16 to OglQbar 14. Tie ovorwater walkwav mav he constructed at a later nhase of the project, during the in -water work window. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No future additions Mansions, or further activities related to or connected with this proie t are propnsed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. ■ Geotechnica] Report, lidmond% Senior Center — 5liannon & Wilson. him --April 2007 • Critical Areas Report -- Herrera Environmental Consultants — July 201 • Biological Evaluation — Herrera Environmental Consultants -- July 2017 • Crtltural Resources Assessment for the Edmonds Senior Center Project. Edmonds. Snohomish County Wa4hin t n -- S CA Environmvnl 1 Consultants —jLfly 2017 • Gcatechnical l;n inc�ey� ring Report —Landau Associates —.August 2017 • 3 raffic Study — Gibson Traffic Consultants. Inc. — July 2017 n (STAFF "OMMENTS) o 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None know.__ (STAFF COMMENTS) — - - — Revised on 9/19/16 17-06494-000GMffiba3 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 132 2.1.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Rivers and Harbors Act Section l_a permit—USACI-�. Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Ueteriuinatian — Washington State I)Opartmeni of Ecology_(Ecolo Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Construction Stormwater General Permit--1scnl9gy Hydraulic Pro'ect Approval — WDFW Land Use Permit includes L'_n_nditi2nai se I'cnnit Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, lJ_esi_an f[!L_ tint Critical A s Review) -- CiW of Unmonds Devein ment Services Deparnnotil, Planning Division Building Permits — Clty of Edmonds, 1JGwC1UpIIIGI1L JGI V11:G.1 .VGp[irtS"iiciit 13Allulny, Division Cultural Resources Assessment — Recreation Conservation Office. State of Washington (STAFF COM 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The City of Edmonds Parks Recreation and Cultural Services Department Wit and Ilic Edmonds Senior Center Senior Comer) nronropose to redevelop the Edtnonds Senior Center site to be renam d the Unionds Waterfront Center along with its associated Varking and beach access and to construct an overwater walkway in [)Mntod the Ebb Tide Condominium. Te ether those elements comprise the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project r 'e t The proW§ed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will he used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and nmeranitning during weekdays, In addition to continued senior services the new facift will offer expanded communit services and programming.provided by the City of Edmonds, VHmarily during weekday evenings. and weekend hours. The Senior Center ►vill operate prograins Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 .m. The City will operate pro& ins Monday throw li Thursda from 4;00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Senior Center will rents ace on the wcckends for c Lnmunit and private event •. The 12roposcd overwater wal kway will connect two existing portions of the Hnm nds Marine Walkwa to provide a continuous Vedesirian access along the waterfront. The ro n ed building is approxitnately 26300 sc;ware feet C13 420-s uarc-font fboWrintl and 29.5 feet tall. The buildin siyc is based on measurements to the exterior Lacs: or exterior walls. Approxitnalcly 1.424 cubic yards of rill and 36 creosote -treated timber pilgs that make tip the existin bulkhead will be removed and a new beach access int with Ile -sit ,ported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing roolprint. The narking lot will be reconfigured.,and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. There are two existing outralis in die bulkhead to I'u et Sound both of whieh will be shortened to end above nmcan higher high water Wil-1W). The proposed overwater walkway will Link the existing_ portions of the li monds Marine Walkway between the ferry terminal and the Edmonds Marina waterward of the Ebb Tide Qgndonminiums throw h an existing City -owned casement. The overwater walkway will be a 10-root-wi4e. concrete; an rated structure approximately 154 feet long..elevated on seven steel piies. The existing stairs at the_sauth end of tlic ra osed overwater walkway will be demolished. It will be replaced by pile-Ug)ported stairs next to the existin stairwa location to provide beach access. While construction equipment is mobilised on site for the VM posed project. two concrete foundations and throe creosote -heated timber piles From the intertidal zone will be removed. See die_ site plan for pr4iel�l layout and further details. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your Q proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 VCJ40gJ_20180514.docx Packet Pg. 133 2.1.a you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. f'lpc ro posed Ednpo ds Waterfran Ce�tter ildin ►vill Ue on reel 270323t10104200 at 220lieiilroad Ave a lit Edmonds Washington (rip -tire 1 which is In Scction 23 of 'rownship 27 North and Ran a 03 Fast of the Willamclte Meridian. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned eascoictit (AC. 831 10700R3) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds Washington. The overwater ►valkwa& will connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Wn1kwziX to Iliq h on parcel 270 2 004I Q To the north of the bulkhead removal portions of the adjacent parcels (27032 00104400) and a Cily of Edniands_easement SP A101160178) will be mudif ed to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade (Figure 2). (91-AFI< COMM TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): 0oiling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The project site is relatively flat and the adjacent beach has a slope of up to 10 Rercent. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Subsurface conditions at the project site were observed to consist of about 15 feet ol've loose to medium dense fsl[ cqnsisting of sand to sil!y sand with gravel and sand rave] which is underlain 6 medium den a to dense deposits can isting 0r sand„ypravel and with little to na silt conte��t, interpreted to be part of the Whidney Formation (landau 2012) None of the soils are classified as agricultural soils. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The Senior Cent •r huildin s have experienced floor settlenignl. reguiring re pairs over the decades. The seftlenlent is susnoeted to be a result of the consolidation and compression of non-native sails under the building (Shannon & Wilson 2007). (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000_Ag§Lfia_20180514.docx Packet Pg. 134 2.1.a e. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Anuroximately 3.841 square feet (1,424 cubic yards) of existing parking lot and substrate associated with the bulkhead will be excavated. Beach restoration and construction or Vublic access stairs and a ramp will occur within the area of bulkhead removal. The pro -nosed access stairs and ramp will c ca t-in- lace concrete (2,000 sqgare feet 300 cubic ards supported by up to tect sheet viles. Beach restoration will consist of placing large wood debris, Boulders, and a proximately1,210 cubic ads o1'elaa fish -mix gravels and sand for beach nourishment. Imported sands and fish rnix gravels will be c nsistent with the existin characteristics of the sand and gravel present ad'acettt to the bulkhead. Sand and &Lavels will be sourced from a legal local quarry. Large woody debris and boulders will be locally sourced. For the proposed overwater walkway. seven 30-inch-diameter steel piles will be driven into the beach tcl. a dep h of Approximately50 feet below the ound surface to support the walkway superstructure. Based on the current building foundation design strategy approximately 535 CY of itt-place compacted bank_yards are to be cut, or removed from the site. and 2,150 CY of compacted bank yards are to be imported fill in order to raise the finished floor of the Walcrl'ront Centcr building�abovc the existing Cnished floor elevation, to NAVD88 elevation 15 feet. The source of fill will be determined based on market conditions at the time of earthwork constntction One lwssible source of fill includes Cadman -High Rpek in Monroe Washington. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Common to all constntction projects, erosion during construction could occur as a result of constntction activities artiicularly earthwork. The potential For erosion will be minimized with adherence to best_ InanRgcmetrt pra is (BMPs). (Refer to the response to item 1 h below.) (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? AnpLox.intately 85 percent of the existing site is covered in impervious surfaces. The proposed project desa n will result in approximately 80 Rgrcent impervious surface coverage which includes the L"•dntonds Waterfront Cettter building. parkinglot sidewalks and stairs, and the walking surface of the verwater walkway. (STAFF COM h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be minimized through the development and in plementaiion of a Tc rnngraLy Erosion and Sedimentation Control TCSC Plan and execution of BMf s includin r: ■ A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be implemented. • TESC me• sures will be installed Lnor to clearing, rubbin excavation and radin activities. • Clearing and ground -disturbing activities will be limited to the minimum area needed to construct fte • Whcrer nece -sary, TESL measure e.g., stabilized construct ion entrance ill fences wattles plastic coygring, and drain inlet projection) will be installed to prevent release and discharge of sediments from construction areas. Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 't5'G kjfa3 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 135 2.1.a 2. AIR b. • High visibility fencin¢ will be installed to delineate clearing and construction limits. Any waste material debris or gigils will be dis }osed of at an approved and peraiilted u land com�erci_al .site or approved waste site • Containment measures will be implemented at staging and material stockpile areas to prevent runoff: ► After cans ruction all TI SC measures will be rcnioved and all disturbed ground surfaces will reve etated with native plants and mulched to prev nt erosion and sedimentation. (STAFF COM What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust could be released into the air during excavation activities u3stalla so t Q1 t}ackEil] materials and lrasts }art of material.majeriali to aLid front the site. ❑ eratin diesel- and gasoline -powered eon truction 2equipment water truck comRactors. dump truck, excavator, cemenllmortar mixer's, cranes graders. tractors/loaderg/backhQ s, bull dozers, and front end loaders will also release exhaust emissions and odors into the air. Removal f creosote -treated timbers could also temporarily einil odors. After construction the project will not generate emissions to the air, and creosol odor will be eliminated. The fallowing lable l}rovides a summary+ of Ilse estimated emissions that will be released in_tlte air as a_tasult of cnnstru •ti the ra'ect. Emiss'sons were estimated accordin to lh rocedures Document for National Cntissions Inventory, Criteria Air Pul Want& 1985-19 9 US EPA 20 1). Air emissions that will be released in the air as a result ofoperation, maintenance and recreati n visits as a result of the }ro'ect are ex ected to be similar to existin conditions. TXpe of Emission Pollutant Volatile Or anic Com ounds (VOCs) Estimated Emission (tonslyr.) 0.114 Carbon Monoxide CO 0.451 Nitrogen Oxides Ox 1.3t6 Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns in Diameter f PM-10 0.097 Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns in Diameter (PM-2.5) 0.095 Sulfur Dioxide SO2 0.179 Carbon Dioxide COD 129.728 (STAFF COMMENTS)_ Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no known offsite sources of emissions or odor that will affect -the j}gtjeet. (STAFF COMMENTS) — — Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: Measures that wiU be into . orated Luing construction to minimize im acts on air qualily includ : • SVLU ex w sed soil and staging areas with water during da Refiods to reduce dust. m 'o a` c m E a 0 m m m tY r c 0 d 0 c ce d c m U c 0 0 N c m E t 0 Q t 3 0 0. d 0 Cn N O O O rn r O N J IL Q c m z U ce Q Revised on 9119116 17-06494-OOOAitl7aft'-KMIgDtnal 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 136 2.1.a • Remove particulate matter dQosited (in paytxithtic ru As and sidewalks b sweep in and washin them frequently to reduce mud and dust. • Equip construction equipment with appropriate emission controls. (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Puget Sound, a tidal 111arine water and shoreline oI* the state is within and adjacent to the project area (STAFF COMM (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The maJOW of the ro'ect will ()ccur withi t 200 feet of P et Sound with the exception of sonic fronta e im orovements. The 12rovosed overwater walkway will be constructed on the beach over the intertidal zone. See plans for location of project elaments related to ordinary high water mark (O1IWM) and 1vtI11iW. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of till and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fdl material. Bulkhead removal; 3.841 square feet (1,424 cubicyards) of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber Riles wilt be removed and disposed of off site at an approved landfill Beach restoration: 1.210 cubic ards of materials will be laced in a roximately 3 841 square feet in the area nfbulkhead and fill removal. Clean fish -mix gravels and sand suitable for forage fish s awning wi[1 lse laced for beacls nourishment lm or[ed sands and fish -mix ravels will be consistent wills the exi tin characteristics of the sand and r avel present adjacent to the bulkhead and will a sours from a le al local qua . Lar a wandy debris ►vitlt int c rnot wads and boulders will be local) sourced and lac in the beach restoration area. Two buried concrete foundations will be removed from the beach between the bulkhead and Mposed overwater walkway An estimated 5G7 square feel f213 cubic yards) of concrete will be excavated. Three creosote -treated tim cr piles 9 s Ware feet 27 c hie y rdsl in the intertidal zone will be Overwater walkway., Seven 30-inch stet files to a de th of a roxim tel 5tl Feet below the round rface (63 cubic Mards/35 square feet) will be driven by impact or vibratory hammer_ (STA.FF COM-M Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000— — �-@_* 20180514.docx it Packet Pg. 137 2.1.a (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The nroiect will not require surface water withdrawals or diversions; however, the project will isahite the work area from high tides by placing fllter fabric fences in the upland area and silt curtains, andLor debris booms in the intertidal zone. (STAFF COMM (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (6) The )ro'ect is within the I00- ear n o & lain, inclttdin€t (lie bulkhead removal. beach restoration;_pverwater walkway, stairs rarnp. and wrtions of the ark -in lot see site lap . The gLjging Senior Center is in the I00-year {loodplain, but the proposed Edmonds Waterhut Center building will not be within the I00-uear f[oodi)laiit dt:c to regrading which will raise the new building Finished Floor elevation_ above the I00-year Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, the project does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface wy ttGr,. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No nroundwater will not be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other pWoses. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharae.d into the grrnmd aspartof the nroiect _ (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000-AtKOLVlal20180514.docx Packet Pg. 138 2.1.a Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of eollectiott and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 'I'lle roof of the proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center and.parking lot will enerate storinwater n ff. The stormw ter runoff from the non- ❑Elution eneratin roof will not rep uire treatpne pt- it will be dischar cd to Pu et Sound throe h an existin outfall above M111-lW F's ur 2 . Pallutiotp- cn ML4 starmwater mmoff from the porking 191 will be collected and treated in biorele tion cells. in the middle of the parkingIs adjacent to t is sidew !k alon Railruad Avenue and near the Oro osed beach access stairs ra nip, an m amenadc (Figure 2). The treated stormwater will be 'nliitrate and the overflow will be di •charged into Ngg Sound tlprottgl_ti an exi:,fing outfall17ine in the hulkhead, 'l'hat outrall will be shortened once the bulkhead is removed. to be Eocated landward of 1,11-1W. (STAFF COM (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The parkin, lot will be subject to vehicular use and _therefore will be con idered a pollution- eneratin inp envious surf cc 1'Gl ` . The storm►vater runoff desi n is outlined in Question 3 c. I above. The remaining clementi of theipaject are not considered to be I'G1S or pollution -generating hard surfagg because they will not be subject to vehicular use industrial activities or story a of erodible or leachable mawrialg. wastes or chemicals. Therefore no waste materials will enter the noun r surf ce waters. Potential soil contamination from historical uses is discussed further in Question Ta.()_bclow. Disturbaumps of previotisly contaminated soils d ri ng construction nla f cause waste materials to enter orni ind or surface waters and will require proper remediationnprior to consiniction. (STAFF COMM (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No, the pspr iect does not alter drainage a� tt�in the vicinity of the site. (STAFF COMMENT d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: During project construction the contractor will reduce and C ntrol surface: and runoff water im acls bv adhef ina to the r uirements of the T)SC plan and permit conditions. BM Ps implemented drain construction may includ IMplementation of an SWEEP- ■ Liini6n clcar in a and land disturb in activities to the minimum area needed to construct the r iect. • Use of wattles and silt fences to control stormwater runoff low rates and to prevent sediment from enteringsurface waters. ■ Storm drain inlet Drotection to prevent sediment discharges. ■ Use of turbidity eurtains and iln tin. debris booms to Umtect water unlit and prevent discharge of debris into waters of Puget S end. ■ Coilducting-Wper in erti al d molition work in (lie da as feasible LQ minimize discharge of materials to waters of Puget Sound. v m 'o a c m E a 0 m m m c 0 L d c ce d c m U c 0 L 0 rn c m E t 0 Q t 3 tL 0 a d 0 rn tV O O O rn 0 N J IL Q c m E z U M Q Revised on 9119116 17-06494-00A**rQ1_20180514.docx Packet Pg. 139 2.1.a • Stabilizing temporary stormwater faciI ities with rocks or quarry spans to prevent scour and erosion. • Employing tempvrary_Cc. a., weed -free mulch and plastic shcc( ingI and permanent (mulch) cover measures to protect disturbed areas. • Temporary covering of fill material stockpiles to prevent erosion and sediment release. • Frequent sweeping of silt from roadway surfaces to prevent sediment runoff. • ,Frequent inspection of flaw and erosion control TESL facilities and maintenance of facilities for 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: sycamore, cherry dogwood evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: X shrubs X grass pasture _ crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: X water pin nts: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: eelgrass (mapped off site in nearshore environment) other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMNil.NTS)__ b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All vegetation around the existing Senior Center building and in the existing parking lot will be removed. That vegetation includes five large sycamore trees, shrubs. and groundcover. The finished proiect includes landscaping with trees and shrubs around the Edmonds Waterfront Center building and parking lot, and with beach �sgetation in the restoration area Native species will be used in the landscaping lan to the greatest extent feasible. (STAFF COMMENTS)- C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered plant s ecies known to be on or near tln . site. (STAFF COMM ENTS) Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 A1T6 Qjta 3 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 14A 2.1.a d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Natives will bo used to the extent feasible for landscaping around the Cdnsonds Waterfront Center building, in the upp er beach (i.e . dune) restoration plantings;, and in the rain ttarden/bigretentinn planters. Native plants that may be plantcd in the du tc restoration area include American dune rase L-3 >:t:rs rtrollis beach strawbe (r)-agaria c1d1oe191sis ee lu ine Wqfinys arboreus and l'u ct Sound gitniwqFInefelia hyfgaLblial. Niffly laths that mgy be planied in the bioretet lion atca include doug las aster Aster trbspiculrrs saltgrass (L7isrrelt[1is ,mir•aia]. l.vnabye's sed>;c (Cruet tyrtgh i Pacific wax nt rllc 1ri all orrrirt cnsmn of itan bulru 1t Se6 rrs marittJnus Dou ]ass ireae irea sou lasii and Nootka rose Rosa nutkana . (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. There are no noxious weeds or invasive species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: ta►vk, heron, eagle, songbirds ttlrer: gulls, shorebirds, marbled murrelet, Canada geese _ mammals: deer, bear, clk, beaver, other: fish: bass, •nlmon, trout, herring, shellfis other: forage fish, southern resident killer whale (STAFF COMMENTS) c. v. .r h.J L 13 f A-'> - IL,— k •;L'N— vmtA' -_ -11t, ct n[ � r b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Species lists and maps were obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service USEWS 2017 the National Marine Fisheries Service NM1'S 2017 and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW 2017). Where are no known threatened or endangered species known to be on the site. Adjacent to the site, within Puggi Sound l —e following wies c uld ccur' southeLp resident killer whale Drciiurs orca Chinook sahnan Qnr orit ►ehi tsiraw rscira b 1! tr t Sa ue Li�rrs car: rrerrttis teelltead trout artcort� rrchrrs m kiss elluwe rockfish {Sebasres ruberriruns] bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes-RnuciWiws). and marbled murrelet Brach rrrnr Ltrrs (STAFF COMMENTS ";).? e-- -AD Y j' Revised on 9119116 17-06494-OOAW *r1 nl1 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 141 2.1.a Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Tlie protect site lies within the Pacific Flyway, one of four major north-sotit h migration routes in the Americas for nnip ,ralary birds. Washington State is part of the Pacific Fl a _ Pu et Sound serves as a migratory route far anadromous fish to migrate from their natal streams to the .Pacific Ocean and back (STAF F COMMENTS} d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: A forage fish s awn s jrX- will be conducted using WDI W's )rotocol aloti t�vo 100-foot transects whey r4 cat impacts are ry oscd: the bulkhead and llnc overwater walk►vay. The surveys will be conducted 2 days prior to construction to determine theVresence tar absence of forage fish spawn within and adjacent to the protect area. The sgrvey transect s will address those impacted areas separately, such that if one clement of the pro ieel is abandoned or delaxcd. only one transact may be necessary;-Gtinstniction waterward 2( he OIiWM must begin within 48 hytirs of presgicelabsenge notificalion to WDFW and must be completed within 7 days. if thq w r onnot bc goniDleted within 7 days, a subsequent survey will be performed 1a, c9ntirm lack of spawn within a_n_d_ ft cent tv the work area. If forage fish spawn are determined to be present adjacent to the work area a 20-foot buffer will be flaeeeck rownd the localion and construction may continue outside that buffer. If spawn are located within the project work area, construction will be delt}yed for a minimum of i week: and subscquent surveys will be conducted weekly �ntit spawn are determined to be absent. Wildlife habitat will be enhanced by the removal of creosote -treated timber piles and f ill associated with the existing bulkheatL additional creosote -treated timber piles from the intertidal zone and concrete foundations, and subse uent beach restoration consisting of native 0anthM, installation of large woody debris and boulders, and beach nourishment. The p ile-drivin g i n sinI lot io t s wi I l b o donein ilie d 11 rilig low tidal Ve riods to avo id so ixLpro.v i mpaos on listed species. If a bare is to be used for construction of the overwater walkway, an ce1 rass survey will he cons! toed rior tv baree ffroundine. The baree will he located so that it does not impact anv eclarass or forage fish spawn... (STAFF COMMENTS) f2Q, " • • q . —Told. d >121 0."', . e- List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. No invasive animal species are known to be on or near the project site_ (STAFF COMMENTS) Energy and Natural Resources What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The proiect will use electric and natural as to meet the ro'ect's eqqgy needs. Iflectricity will be used For Ii htin ,and -space heatin cvnlin within the Edmonds Waterfront Center buildin and for li hthi in the parking lot, building exterior, and along the overwater walkway. Natural gas will be used fur heating domestic water. (STAFF COMMENTS) m 0 L a c m E a 0 m m m tY c 0 d c ce d c m U c 0 m 0 c m E t 0 .r a 3 0 sa. d 0 Cn N O O O rn 0 N J IL Q c m E z U ce Q Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000_AWaCWR"Ia�L20180514.docx Packet Pg. 142 2.1.a b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No the raicct will tint affe !the atential use of solar enci+ !]y adjacent grape i '1'lt ran d buildin will not be higher than surrounding buildings and will not block solar access of adjacent properties. (STAFF COMMENTS) What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The oroieci proposes the follnwing energy cattservatinn r aI es: • Highly efficient building envelo e • Com lele and a hanccd commissioning test attd calibrates stems after they are installed to be sure they are operating as designed) ■ Qperational supporttraining and operations and maintenance manuals • Ligbtigg controls • LED lightingPackage • Occmpam sensors and dimmers inside_and out • CD laccu anc sensors for HVAC: a ui meat • Photo -voltaic array on roof of new building as fund raising allows • High efficiency VRF HVAC)_ heating/cooling system • ne or two electric vehicle charging stations either installed during initial construction or at a later date • Low solar heat -gain coefficient SHGC west gJazing (STAFF COMMENTS) Environmental Health Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. t::onstruenon activities will require the use of hazardous materials on site, including gsoline diesel motor oil tr nsmission Fluid hydraulic oil radiator coolant brake fluid and metals used in tires. Concrete will also be used Accidental leaks and spills ofhazardous materials could occur where construction equipment isnarked- used fueled or maintained and where hazardous materials are stored. Durin reinoval orthe bulkhead construction workers -and th environment will be g6poged o Cr s tc treated Iles and adjacent creosote -contaminated soils. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Sail Sam fes from a technical borings. were analyzed For contaminants of )otential concern which included petroleum hydrocarbons ass9piated with the historical site use as a shingle mill, and_polynucicar aromatic hydror n. p I[s) h eoatcd timbers used to construct the hulkhcad. Several sam leg m 0 L a c m E 0. 0 m m m r c 0 L d c ce d c m U c 0 m 0 c m E t 0 .r Q t 3 0 0. d 0 N 0 0 0 rn r O N J IL Q c m E z U ce Q Revised on9119116 17-06494-000PAWWP9%3 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 143 2.1.a indicated the liresence of to al retroleum i drocarbons Tl'1-is Ilt the diesel -An oil -ran but none or the concentrations exceeded Eicol 's Modcl Toxins Control Act MTCA Method A elganup level. Samples also ii�ciicated the . rescncc of QIVIIUCICHT aromatic 11 drocarbons PAIN but none of the detected PA concentrations exceeded the MTCA Method A or B c]Qanup levels Landau 20l7). Additionally. he bulklicad is c rrcnti u rt •[i b creosote -treated timber ilex that ma have c ntamin tEd the adjacent fill and soils in their immediate vicini . (STAFF COMM (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. DuringbulkheaA removal. ie nraiect ma uncover contaminated soil and hazardous conditions, ati descrihaci above. The project will have_a tan n in place to contain and remove any contaminated nd/or hazardous materials. There re no kn wn under round liquid or gas transmission Ri ch cs within title DrOiect area or The bulkhead is currently sunpojied by creo-sote-treptediles that may have contaminated the adjacent till and . ils. Removal of the bulkhcdpilWashington Department of Natural Resources WDNRguidelines on creosote -treated debris removal WDNR 2t717 . Fill and soils removed at the site will bg disposed at a re ulaled landfill permitted to a ce t slEeh containinated materials Landau (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Construction activities will require the use of hazardous materials on site, inchiding_gLsohne. dicscl, motor oil transmission fluid h draulic oil radiator coolant brake fluid and metals use in lire . 17urin a cration of the project, chemicals For cleaning the interior ofthe building will be kept on site in clearly marked ares�s. (STAFF COM (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. As with any Construction activity. there is_a chance llneed to res and to a workplace ac ident or f iu or an inadvertent s ill or release of hazardous material. All work will be conducted in accordance with site -specific health and safe1y Vians reguired in the construct ion contract specifications. U rin o oration of [lie oroiect. emer encF services that Mj ht he re aired include those services currently provided. such as fire ambulance and olice res oases. (STAFF COM Q Revised on 9119116 17-06494-0004W INMnjin31_20180514.docx Packet Pg. 144 2.1.a (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise (1) All construction ac ivities will be performed in Com lion a with Washin tan Industria€ 5afet acid licalah Act WISHA re uimments. The: contractor will 4c required to provide a liealih and safety plan for aRproyal before beginning work. Prior to beginning work the contractor will be re uired to prepare and implement a s ill preventipti, control and countermeasureMCC) plan to mitigate impacts on soil, surface water, and &mundwaler in the event of a spill of hazardous substances during construction. The SPCC plan will address spill prevenlion and containment, spill response procedures. egtJlmew. and reporting requirements' and the chain of responsibility - Removal of the bulkhead creosote -treated piles, and potentially creosote -contaminated adjacent soils ►vi_l_l follow W❑NR Ruidelim and BMI's for creosote -treated debris removal WDN112017 and will be dis po ed of at a regulated landfill pennitted to acce t such contaminated materials (STAFF COMM What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Automobile boat and train traffic are the dominant existing source of noise in the proiect area. BNSF and Sound Transit have trains that nin frc went€ on the tracks adjacent to the project site. The trains are lar c sources of noise. Automobile noise is associated with theparkipZ lot and Railroad Avenue. Boat noise is associated with boats in PL[ et Sotind and Washington State FeEy horns at the fegy lenninal north of the ro'ecl and the Edmonds Marina to the south. This noise will not affect the -project beyond existin (STAFF COMM (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Noise will be generated on a short-term basis during construction. Various types dconsiNction equipment that create noise could include water tnicks, dump trucks, excavators, cememlmorlar mixers, cranm tractars loaders hackhoes font end loaders encra ors and pile drivers. Nai, a levels during some periods or constrUctirn] within the project area could exceed 74 dBA within 5 T et of the construction activity. with 70 dAA being the maximum permissible sound level (Edmonds City Code 5.30.040). Constructionhhpurs will e confined to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 .m. Monday throe h Friday, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. will] no work occurring on Sundays and federal holidays (Ednlonds City_ Code 5.30.110). - Noise Scnerated from it use and facifiLy opMdqns activities at the EdmqAns Water&ant Center are anticipated to include outdoor VRF heat plumps to sme the I€VAC system, as well as, _Pedestrians _walking along the boardwalk, and special events such as weddings. Generated noise levels will follow tlpc requirements set forth in Edmonds City Code Chapter 5 Part 30 —Noise Abatement and Control. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 AWK&MAQ 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 145 2.1.a (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ]'or times when proiect constn:ction nuty exeecd 70 dBA within 50 feet of the construction UfiClty, the project will comply with the -requirements set forth in Edmonds City ode Chapter 5 PartNoise Abatement and Control. (STAFF COMMENTS)_ 8. Land and Shoreline Use H. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. 'ruemoject site is currenft used b the public as the Senior Center for community services, rkin and ublic beach access Surrounding land uses are commercial, industrial, residential, and recreational, and include titc ferry terminal. the BNSir rail jyay. the Pori of I3dmonds Marina. the Ebb'rido Condominiums. com merc i ultra ta i I uses the Edmonds Marine Walkway and Brackett's Landing South park. The proposed proicct will not affect current land uses of the fe terminal BNS1: railway- or the Port of Edmonds Marina. The project will affect the -bb Tide Condominiums b constructing overwater walkway watcrward of the I:bb Tide Condominiums where one does not currently exisL b t where the City owns an casement for such pUrPOSe. Visual simulations of the proposed overwater walkway are attached hereto s Au chment A. "I'he overwater walkway will alter the waterward views f'roin the Ebb Tide Conclominiunts�snroximately as destictcd itt the altaclted simulations. 'I'ltc presence of the onrwater walkway may r c uiN a. ch-grige in Ilig r ute that Pbb Tide Condominium residents will take to access any pprtiensor the beach that are watcrward of the new walkway much of the time that area will be under water), because it may.not be possible to pass under the walkway at certain times. Because the walkway will be at an elevation that is hi gher than the beach, users of the wal kway may be able to sec more of the Ebb 'fide Condominiums than they would tinder the present condition if [hcy were inclined to look in that direction. Because the overwater walkway is expected -to occuRy the en irc width of the Cit 's casement there: would no longer be room fora public path on the saW in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? No. the project site has not been used as working farmlands or working forest lands= (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No tl�ojeet will not affect or he affected by surrounding, working Farin or forest land operalio:is. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000_XffgJff& hcrd20180514.docx Packet Pg. 146 2.1.a j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. — - (STAFF COMMI NTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Nqt applicablf, as there will be no displacements - (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project will be, designed W comply with all applicable federal state and local development regulations to CTltitIrc_ In. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Nei a�lrlicahlc as [harc are no nearby �►�ricul4u al and fgresf lands of long-term cnrrmmc:rcial signifeance. _ (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The propacd project will not r(wide any housing units. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Thep") osed pm ect will not eliminate an housin¢ snits. -- _ (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 17-06494-OOOAUyx MmI]Ilni3!_20180514. docx Packet Pg. 147 2.1.a Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No impacts on housing are antic i aced', therefore no measures are proposed - (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics u. What its the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what J. the principle exterior building material(s) proposed": The Druposed 13dmunds Waterfront Center buildiny, will be 29.5 feel inl!_from 15 feet NAVD88 I. f the vroject budget allows,a solarphoto-voltaic array would be installed on the roof of (lie new building and would be Com I iant with lici ht exemptions ror solar energy installations fridnionds City Code. 21.40.030 1). 7). The princiole exterior building materials are proposed to be painted fiber cement siding. fiberglass windows metal curtaimvalllstorefront and stone veneer with membrane roofin . The proposed oyenyater walkway will be lass than _17 reel above mean lower low water MLLW clevation (elevation or 14.3 feet NAVD88] which is similar to the ex isting walkway elevation§ on either side of the proposed overwater walkway. The height of the k%goscd overwatcr walkway is restricted by t be terms of the Cit 's easement which states that no. structure greater than 17 feat 2bove MLLW may be constructed within the Cily'5 casement. The overwater walkway structure will be concrete and grating, with a roxima(el 50 ercent of the tru tore footprint Mted to allow light to pass onto (he beach below (WAC 220-_6 Q-38Q . The overwater walkwa struc ure will be elevated above the beach on seen 30-inch-diameter steel piles. 'The ovetwatcr w'alkwav may include downward facing. shielded low-level lighting on the, waikM rf ee only for safety rcqktjLernqfljS but will not include gay high-level lighting or be constructed with glare -producing materials. (STAFF COM b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The overwater walkway will alter and partially obstruct views oi'the waterfront from (he plaza and first -floor units of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. Views from the remaining residences within the complex will he altered by iltc new overwater walkway: however the views are not anticipated to be obstructed. For more information about the ext nt Io which the overwipter walkway will alter or obstruct views from the Ebb Tide Condominium% lease see the visual simulations in Attachment A_ Views that would be altered in the immediate vicinity, which is flat terrain and one-story buildings are inherently views from a person's eve level when standing on the ground or at a first story lcveL The existing Senior Center building Mocks views of the Sattnd fr m c 1 in the immediate vicinit The new W tcrfront Center b i din d not exten horizontally as rar Northeast s tho existing building. Because views in the immediate vicinity are from gromid level and because the new building will not extend as far north _as_the existing, the new development will provide a wider view corridor t4wLikoxistins view conidor in the immediate vicinity e.., looking from Railroad Aveue to the a PuEet Sound?. Views from the Ebb Tide Condominimunis and office buildings north of the site will not be affected. The new building will comply with view corridor regulations (13dmonds City Code 24.40.0 40(13) 1( (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The design of the proposed Fdmonds_Wate_rfront Center liuiIdin , is ex ecEed enhance and improve tfie aei the Iics orthc. site. The aesthetics of all p r9posed structur •s arc not expected to rgsu3 I in any negative impact nn surrounding properties. Structures will be dcsiened in accordance with local guidelitpos and regulations for height color, and v m 0 L a c m E tz 0 m m m r c 0 d 0 c ce d c m U c 0 m 0 c m E t 0 .r Q z 3 0 a d Cn N O O O rn r O N J IL Q c m E z U ce Q Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000-AltiraeWffkflaA-20180514.docx Packet Pg. 148 2.1.a proximity to other structures or resources. 'fhe design will be veltcd through the apllicable City's dcsig i revic►v (STAFF COMM 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the- proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? T'lu; lraw VaLkiu ]mot will iitciude cat-url'LE D fight fixturi s in1 vi Lg-sided bi+ilaril> pqintia toward [he buildingaiad approximately 12- to 16-foot- all poles. Portions of the new marine walkwa and steps will have low-level shielde step liglits. pointing away from shoreline: habitat. Wall -mounted cut-off LED lighting will also be installed near tile building entrances. The I ighting inside the building will be used durin the day, as needed and in the evening Burin events in accordance with lighting restrictions outlined in the Edmonds City Code. The over►►�ater walkway may include low-level walkway 5url'ace I ip-hLing for safety rc uirements but will not include hi h-level I ghting and i not expected to produce glare (STAFF COMMF NTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? ? -ipht and glare associated with the praiect will not N: expected to nresenl a safety hazard or interfere with views. The lighting on the oycrwater walkway will be noticeable from the F.bb Tide Condominium units but the li lifing is not expected tq interfere with views gny more than the structures itself would. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ']'here N ejXiSfillg li ht i 119 011 adjacent buildings and along Railroad Aventie' however, the existing lighting it not anticipated to affect the project._ (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All exterior lighting will be arranged and directed so as to direct the light away from adjacent pn-erties to the realest extent feasible. Ni ht lighting will be restricted to the minimum required for o crational and sfct requirements and will be directed away from roads and sensitive viewpoints. where practigabl . (START' COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? On either side of [lie ferry terminal are two regional parks. Brackett's Landing North and South. Collectively, the t►vo parks include lsulakic beach. picnic are as. intcmretive information, public restrooms. a parking lot, and showers. Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 A GbTWVFha3 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 149 2.1.a On the northern side ofthe ferEy is another regional park, Edmonds Underwater Park. I'min the ferry terrninal to the Port of Edmonds Marina is a pubiic waterfront w• l kway, the Edmonds Marine WAJ-kway, with a missing cacti in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. On the southern side of the site is Olympic Beaeb and a lishing_pier, which will be connected to the project site by the pIQ12osed overwater walkwa _ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No. Tllc ro oscd project will retain an enhance the qx ^tin" recreational. was - (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Impacts on recreation will ctccur only during project constnrction. To reduce impacts on recreation during construction ins will be placed to redirect pcdestrian traffic around construction activities. The finished proige Will improve recreation onortunities by Mvidigg a continuous waierfiront walkway and beaoh access in 21ace of the existing bulkhead. The over water walkway will complete the "missing fink" and Rovide continuous A_DA access_ along (lie watcrfront For 1.5 miles. During construction. the maiarity of prograrns offered by the Senior Center will be offered at a temporaty space. 17ie completed project will expand current scrvjccs_provided by the Sensor Center to include intemenerational programs that serve people of all ages at the new Edmonds Waterfront Ce-wer. These services will be provid4ddbv both the Senior Center and the City. Therefore, opportunities for [lie gericral public to access health, wellness, and exercise activities and programming will be increased over existing opportunities at the site. (STAFF COMM 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. No. lhurc arc na known historic buildings, structures, or sites on or near the project site that are listed or eligible for national, state, or local preservation registers. The Edmonds Senior Center building at 220 Radrawl_Avvenue is a two-story building, built in three phases. Tlic first portion was constructed in 1935.with subsequent portions_buih in 1962 and 1977. It was determined not eligible for listing in the national Register of 1�to_ric Plaegs in 2[]13 SWCA 2017). (STAFF COMMENTS) Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. There are no brown landmarks. features, or other evidence of_Indian or historic use or occupation on or in I inimediate vie inity of the project site. A cultural resources study of [tic area was completed for llie D[pigg by 5WC,1 Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000_AfVa6WFrJe#fflb 0180514.docx Packet Pg. 150 2.1.a r1 Cnvironntcntal C ns t s SWCA zA 17 'fhe report details early hi toric ul maps that show the ro'ect area wets art cif tkte in e , a id al zone prior to his o rical develo pment or tit • sh rclilie. There rarere-contact cultural re urces are not expected (o be encountered in Elie praiect area. 'Thick deposits of fill with potent ial_lor preserved historical surfaces and remnants of historic structures are expected in the project area as a result afthe known developmw history of the Ednnonds waterfront and onsite borings (Landau 20117). Historie-period siles, irpresent in die projw arcs, will likely he related to shingle milling or railroads. Sanborn hire Insurance naps from the or_ y 1900s show where cultural materials related to historical industry may be encoontered. Bareholes drilled in (lie proicut area during _preliminary design efforts show that 5.4 to 1 l.5 fee( of fill cxists in the projec( area and l[ta( tliere is heightened potential Far encounte ring ]niswric arcltaeol gical resources in the fill between about5 and b feet below the surface where solid -cored wood, a concentration of'hrick fragments, and associated historic cultural debris were Q served. No significant cultural materials were obsetye l din-ing archaeological monitoring of t eotechnical orehale dri11Jiig ^ dditi na] su lsur face 0 rch c ! ryical inyg� ' igation s werc no gondueted as part of the ass esstnent. (STAFF COMMENTS) Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. SWCA reviewed available project plans and related inforna[ion, local environmental and cukural information, historical maps_ and previotts sitidics in the area. In addition, SWCA condt:cted a records search using tits lJeparttnew of Archaeolouy and Historic Preservation's (DAI IP] Washington Information System for Architectural_ and Archaeological Records Dam (WISSAR❑), SWCA also monitored geotechnical borehole drilling to review sediment samples collected from below the parkins; lot asphalt. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. No si an ificant cultural materials were identified during this cultural resources assessnu:nt. Though the project area has heightened_ a_r_Cllaeological SCTI$ilivity due tp its_ position ran the shoreline, no addi4ional cultural resources investigations were recotntnended prior to the proposed Waterfront Center construction. Due to the sensitive natural and cultural setting, of the project area however, SWCA recommended targeted archaeological_ monitoring of consinic#inn within tine historicat fill following a project -specific Moniloritng and Discovery Plan (batiinct_tacfe:s 13royisipnj for testing arnd evaluation as needed in addition to inadvertent discovery protocols. Archaec Wical monitoring_orground disturbanGc_W the historical fill will focus on tiny excavations piannedto reach between 5 and C Feet below the surface where solid -cored wood, bricks, and historical cultural debris indigide [hat structural remnants of the It ills and buildin s once in the project greil inay be presem. In the event that round disturbance or other activities result its the inadvertent discove of archaealrs scat de aasits work will be hatted in the immediate area and c uMct will c made with the consulting paLtiles in accordance with the Monitoring and Discove Plan SWCA 2017). Work will he halted ontil sucti time as further investigation and approoriale treatment is agreed u oon through consultation. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains work will be itnmediatel y hailed in the area the discovery covered a d secured against further distur once. and cantac_[ made with la v enrorcernent n rsonnef following the Monitoring and ❑iscovc Plan (SWCA 2017). Com fi nee with alla plicahle laws_perlaining to archaeological resources will be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 udBr&l�jt"lia3 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 151 2.1.a 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Thetromect ite is accessed by Railroad Avenue r—rQm Dayton Avenue and State Route 104 E morals Way) - downtown Edmonds. State Route 104 can be accessed from both State Route 99 and Interstate S. Site access will remain the same after construction of the PrOlOCt. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The V ro'cc[ site is served by 11 abbe transit. 'I'Itcre is a bus stop on Railroad Avenue ad'acent to I he pro-ect S ite which is served by Community Transit Itnutc 136. '1 lte CommunityTransit C)AR'l' (dial -a -ride Transport tin bus services the Senior Center. Edmonds Station is thenearest transit •to)at A lie orner of Rail road Avenue and Main Street b the rerry dock. 'Phis transit stn p is accessed by the Kin lion-Edmostds fern • Amtrak I rain' Sounder train an Community Transit Routes 116 Edmonds -Silver Firs 130 Edmonds-1. nnwo d 196(Ednionds-AldgwoQd Mall). and 416 ('Edmonds-Downtov8M Seattle). (STAFF COMM C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? I'he existing L)arking lo[ con[aictis 77 parKiLias tacati.'1'lig trct ct Dr uses a rc c n i ur 3 ar9t ir" lat with 71 parking spaces- There will be 6 fewer parking spaces as a result of the prqject. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The project will require suing minor modifications to Railroad Avenue [or road frontag improvements. including a new curb and sidewalk minor storm drain adjustments. and a bus pullout aria. Improvements on site inclutic pedestrian sidewalks bus stop upgmdes. Viantings,biarctcntion and water qualiAy treatment planiqrs ai:d is cic racks for access to the public building and shoreline Fi ure 2 . (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. ;I'lze lo'ect will not directly use water, rail. or air transportation but will occur in the vicinity of water and rail transportation. &efcr to description of facilities pmvided in Question 14.b above, (STAFF COM Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 &il'd'Ck'11?MRr a� 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 152 2.1.a f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Recording to the trarric study prepared_ For [tie project fGibson 2017). thr nroiccE_is_proiected to generate 11.93 I'M peak -hour trips f5.14 inbound and 6,79 ou(bound). of which 1.43 [rips would lac new PM peak -Hour trips. 'I'h4 ;►veraac daily traffic is projected to be 10 limes tltt PM peak-Itaur trips; iher_do-r_e the prjeet will result in an average of 14.30 new vehicular trips per day [Gi-Won 2017). 'the I'M peak -hour trip gerteration was determined based on counts conducted by Traffic Data Qatherin n two da s(Wednesday,June 14 and Thursday. .tune 15, (STA PIP CO M M g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: trafli ct n1rol plan inay be devel ied it'neecssary. Tlie plan would detail the route for consintction lraffic: and atier it is approved by the City, the pan would be in Force during construction. Public access to (lie pmjecl site may be limited during construction. Additional traffic control measures, such as wa�tiing_signs and flaggm., will be cm In ed along the constniction access rot:lcti as n eded. (STAFF OMMFNTS) t. I y •s� ck- 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. er ti n of the project is not expected to increase the need for public services beyond exigfing needs. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: There will be no impact on pubbc services as a result of the proposed project. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000_EA*0QhP)12rAaB 20180514.docx Packet Pg. 153 2.1.a 16. Utilities a. C cs currently available at the site: electricity nattkral gas vatrr, refuse service, telephone vanit;ik y sc�vck septic system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The project will be served by the Senior Center's exk tirEg telephone and refikse service providgrs._Tim Senior Center currentlysliares a sewer line with the Ebb Tide Condominiums. The project will reconfipurc thes_t�wcrage so the Edmonds Waterfront Center building will have its own sewer line connected directly the sewer train in Railroad Avenue. The project will also include new domestic and lire water, natural as and electric connections between the Waterfront Center building and Railroad Avenue_ _ (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead afenc r ing on them to make its decision. //-- C� �Z ignaturc of Proponent I Date ubmitted Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000 Af1WLdMq*Ata$_20180514.docx Packet Pg. 154 2.1.a REFERENCES Gibson. 2017. Edmonds Waterfront Center, GTC #17-138, City of Edmonds Trip Generation and Mitigation. Prepared for the Edmonds Senior Center by Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. July 12. Landau. 2017. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Edmonds Waterfront Development and Restoration and Ebb Tide m Condominiums Walkway Projects, Edmonds, WA. Prepared for Barker Landscape Architects by Landau Associates. August. 0 a NUTS. 2017. Status of ESA listings and critical habitat designations for West Coast salmon and steelhead. Accessed online May 12, 2017. {htt:!liv�vtis.�eestcQast.l:shc:'ics:toaa.vai�� ublications/pis maps,/maps/salmon steelhegd/rrisiral habitat/wer salmonid ch esa 'uiv2 E 0. 0 0 016.pdf>. Shannon & Wilson. 2007. Geotechnical Report, Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for City of Edmonds by m Shannon & Wilson. April 18. r c SWCA. 2017. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the Edmonds Senior Center Project, Snohomish County, 0 Washington. Prepared for Barker Landscape Architects by SWCA Environmental Consultants. May 30. USFWS. 2017. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in the proposed project location, and/or may be affected by the proposed project. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Lacey, Washington. WDFW. 2017. Priority habitats and species report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed May 12, 2017. L d �htt ://a s.wdfw.wa, ov/ hsonthewpbl>. V WDNR. 2017. Washington Department of Natural Resources Derelict Creosote Piling Removal Best Management Practices for Pile c 0 Removal &Disposal. Accessed online June 26, 2017. <htt :l/file.dnr.wa, ovl ublicatiottsla r rest iferemnval bm 2017. dfy. It m rn c m E t 0 .r Q t 3 0 0. d 0 N O O O CD r O N J a El c m E z c� Q Revised on 9/19/16 17-06494-000 � IAV20180514.docx Packet Pg. 155 vZ 14 aSil1l1 ' r ��• �' hjitr i tt011i y sa y�11 Washln�ton State Ferry Terminal Port of Edmonds Marina BNSF Raliway-11, mom 2.1.a Note: This page intentionally left blank. Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. Revised on 9119116 17-06494-000jj&fa_ 20180514.do,, Pagge 28 0 29 Packet Pg. 157 EAE11ng Eknlbn rim Marne Walkway a/w ma/ O PWehx nti Eaaemera I L I IAC 8311070085) E%3.N wafer"n from FWiB,, SE., \p moved Bu.ort��rlr4.IM�wrr I L -�- ��udusm+ZYNM+/ be Reeach �y� +ilttp/tl/MVi+.4 rpr/le/lept J I �� .. ice•• `--�-��- i ---- ------A---------!-------5----------�- ---------------------�-- ---_-------- --�--.-----�--»5- 6------------,------ _ _ LEGEND - ---- _ - -_-- �_ ------WaTkwaY-0efwa-ter----+-^--- ----- r - ----�- - 9--------_---- - - - - L.,t�n v' a$ •'I� ____B_ Landscape Plantings M. ' - - _ _ •--g-- _ _ _ _ -. . _ _ _ _ - h,� spy ij .'I : • ' •�b�Te .:1. I` ybdr -g` Bioretention Planter _--_-_---1t}.--___ J • Oddd ErahrN- '�! •' 1' ° 'y-'Fle`afian _�-10-- _� _ - �-.dr+'y�..__•�_.-�.- �� ,�q � n91. _ Lawn (••% Il, ti dm.rd, Marne b•• MMm Ed+xy ,. .i k: walkway ` I Ebb life _ '�(4U l• . ,� X _ �„ �, _ _ MRBeach Restoration C P1= 5+.k - { xis' ! •a•`- `u' I '.:.\ '"p ivneu �kae.:,un».s 0 "Y 16- RKTIM1T/1 Asphalt t� ,9 L ,` .. •y'(rQ '8n.d. Typ• Concrete r R6B! A io M. I• I ,-, �¢�_•`"'��'' ir.� _ PPP, Smack Tree (Max. Ht.25') Existing Topography N Ebb Tide Edmonds ,�, , ,._ 4�'�� �' ,,,,o• ++ _ 1111 Condominiums Waterfront .. -- _ _ j . 111 Proposed Grading ! 1 Center _ �1� '.---MHHW-MHHW(EI.&6) E 1 E,.y Underwater c MWAw Sports mom 9tiiRv Its _ 1 Sven-Z ?N- l2.. 6NSF 0.0 W.-- w 31—teMohP.,,«r. EyeWy U1W f1a6' Planter 1 Ovarfbw. Typ" SVeet Llght,TMP�Nn Exleth� udwy Po $-W RAILROAD AVENUE yam' T Fe1rrIF1 h t�� r�� a ---OHW ---- OHW i Boulder �r Large Woody Debris —Y Property Line Right of Way ----- Limit of Work ++ Easement L 0 iiri,Typ Q h Rrrf�w 1"U Exlstlng CB SHEET: L 1 1 OF 1 SHEETS Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment 220 Rtilroatl Ave, Edmonds, WA 98020 cm or somorvos arrf�>x'Mnw'MJ.M z nPaROlsp ar pnre p Ravmfi : pNMIJE Pevision: Figure 2 - Site Plan fKsl6r 06222017 Cly of Edmonds P-App Da2g.20,7 PGNM JARPA �, a -TY ENGINEER D6.1t 2018 PC/NM SEPA Checklist � pnirmDl d h R N PARKING- C - - Total Existing Stalls: 77 CD Proposed Stalls: 71 Standard Stalls: 27 Compact Stalls: 35 (49%) Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 158 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 159 2.1.a ATTACH M ENT A Visual Simulations L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M U 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 160 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 161 2.1.a Vantage Points, Plan View MAWM 3 ` - ON Swum go ft00000lo _�e - . �. numb Iftft.I • _- 11 �, A' 10o, look000loo1iANINIMIN11 MR.�1���t����r -- - '04"oft 4( Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway ! May 2017 Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. — .W 0 U c O d N C d t a O a CO N O O O CD O N J a a E u r Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 162 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 163 2.1.a Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 c 0 L L Y L U r c O L 2� 7 CD E s 0 M a s �3 0 CL m �a N O O O CD T— O N J a a E Barker I v Landscape r Architect" , P.S. � Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 164 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 165 2.1.a Viewpoint 1 1 Looking North Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Existing Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. 0 L U r c O L a.+ 2� 7 Y E V a.+ a 3 0 a m �a N O O O CD T— O N J a a E r Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 166 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 167 2.1.a Viewpoint 1 I Looking North Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway f May 2017 Proposed Barker Landscape r Architects, P.S. 0 L U r c 0 L a.+ 2� 7 Y E V a.+ a 3 0 a m �a N O O O O) T- O N J a. a E u r Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 168 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 169 2.1.a Viewpoint 2 1 Looking South Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway j May 2017 Existing Barker r Landscape Architects, P.S. _ 0 r- 4) L U r c O L a.+ 2� 7 Y E V a.+ a 3 0 a m �a N O O O CD T- O N J a. a E r Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 170 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 171 2.1.a Viewpoint 2 1 Looking South Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Proposed Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. 0 L U r c O L a.+ 2� 7 Y E V a.+ a 3 0 a m �a N O O O CD T- O N J a a E a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 172 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 173 2.1.a Viewpoint 3 1 Ground Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Existing 7 3 t 0 a m r- M N O O O CD T— O N J a Gl m E Barker v Landscape Architects, 1?S. Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 174 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 175 2.1.a Viewpoint 3 I Ground Floor Proposed: In Easement Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 N O O O CD T— O N J a. Gl m E Barker` U Landscape Architects, P.S. E=— Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 176 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 177 2.1.a Viewpoint 4 1 Second Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Existing c IMF L U r c O L a.+ 2� 7 Y E V a.+ Q 3 0 a m �a N O O O CD T- O N J a. Gl m E Barker` 5 Landscape Architects, P.S. OMM Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 178 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 179 2.1.a Viewpoint 4 1 Second Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Proposed h 1, :i 0 L U r c O L a.+ 2� 7 Y E V a.+ a 3 0 a m �a N O O O CD T- O N J a. a E Barker L v Landscape P Architects, P.S. Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 180 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 181 2.1.a Viewpoint 5 1 Fifth Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Existing N O O O O O N J a. Q m E M Barker u Landscape r Architects, P.S. Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 182 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 183 2.1.a Viewpoint 5 1 Fifth Floor Ebb Tide Waterfront Walkway I May 2017 Proposed N O O O O O N J a Q aD E Barker' Landscape r Architects, P.S. Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 184 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 185 2.1.a y UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE --. r M National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 4 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region reap+ 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97232 Refer to NMFS Consultation No.: WCRO-2018-00112 April 15, 2019 Michelle Walker Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch CENWS-OD-RG P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Edmonds Waterfront Center Project, Edmonds, Washington, USACE Number: NWS-2017-867 (Lat: 47.81170 N, Long:-122.38514 W) Dear Ms. Walker: Thank you for your letter of September 13, 2018, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorization of Edmonds Waterfront Center Project (Project). Thank you, also, for your request for consultation pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in Section 305(b) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)(16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) for this action. The enclosed document contains the biological opinion (Opinion) prepared by NMFS pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA on the effects of the proposed action. In this Opinion, NMFS concludes that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect but not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB) bocaccio. NMFS also concludes that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon, not likely to adversely affect PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat, but is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of those designated critical habitats. In this Opinion, we also conclude that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rockfish and its designated critical habitat; and southern resident (SR) killer whales and its designated critical habitat. �k r3sTMw�... WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 186 2.1.a -2- As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has provided an incidental take statement with this Opinion. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this action, and sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions that the USACE must comply with to meet those measures. Incidental take from actions that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA's prohibition against the take of listed species. This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action's likely effects on essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to Section 305(b) of the MSA. NMFS reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on EFH, and concluded that the action would adversely affect designated EFH for Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species. Therefore, we have included the results of that review in Section 3 of this document. Please contact David Price in the North Puget Sound Branch of the Oregon/Washington Coastal Office at (360) 753-9598, or by electronic mail at David.Price@noaa.gov if you have any questions concerning this consultation, or if you require additional information. cc: Jerry Gregory, USACE Sincerely, Kim W. Kratz, Ph.D. Assistant Regional Administrator Oregon Washington Coastal Office WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 187 2.1.a Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Edmonds Waterfront Center Project Edmonds, Washington (USAGE Number: NWS-2017-867) NMFS Consultation Number Action Agency: WCRO-2018-00112 U.S. Arnry Corps of Engineers Affected 5 ecies and Determinations: ESA -Listed Species Status Is Action Is Action Is Action Is Action Likely Likely to Likely To Likely to To Destroy or Adversely Jeopardize Adversely Adversely Affect the Affect Critical Modify Critical Species?_ S ecies? Habitat? Habitat? Puget Sound Chinook sahnon Threatened Yes No Yes No (Oncorlwnchus tshain,tscha) Puget Sound steelhead (O. Threatened No No N/A No wvkiss) Puget Sound /Georgia Basin Endangered Yes No Yes No Bocaccio (Sebastes aucis iris) Threatened^ Puget Sound /Georgia Basin No _ No No No Yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrinnis) Southern DPS of Eulachon Endangered No No No No (ThaleichtJn•s aci icus) Southern Resident Killer Endangered No No No No whales (0I'Ci1111S orca) N A = not apl.)licablt. The action area is outside desigaated critical habitat. Affected Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and NMFS' Determinations: Fisheiy Management Plan That Describes EFH in the Project Area Does Action Have an Adverse Effect on EFH? Are EFH Conservation Recommendations Provided? Pacific Coast Salmon Yes Yes Pacific Coast Groundfish Yes Yes Coastal Pelagic Species Yes Yes Consultation Conducted By: National Marcie Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Issued By: •w A im W. tz, Ph.D. Assistant Regional Administrator Oregon Washington Coastal Office Date: April 15, 2019 WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 188 2.1.a TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... I 1.1 Background......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action.................................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions.................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Construction Activities Associated with the Proposed Action .................................. 6 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT.................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Analytical Approach........................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Range -wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................................................... 9 2.2.1 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Criteria............................................................ 11 2.2.2 Status of the Species................................................................................................ 12 2.2.3 Status of Critical Habitat.......................................................................................... 16 2.3 Action Area....................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Environmental Baseline.................................................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Environmental Conditions at the Project Site and the Surrounding Area ............... 20 2.5 Effects of the Action......................................................................................................... 21 2.5.1 Effects on Critical Habitat....................................................................................... 21 2.5.2 Effects on Listed Species......................................................................................... 24 2.6 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 29 2.7 Integration and Synthesis.................................................................................................. 30 2.7.1 ESA -listed Species................................................................................................... 31 2.7.2 Critical Habitat......................................................................................................... 32 2.8 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 34 2.9 Incidental Take Statement................................................................................................. 34 2.9.1 Amount or Extent of Take....................................................................................... 35 2.9.2 Effect of the Take..................................................................................................... 37 2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures........................................................................... 37 2.9.4 Terms and Conditions.............................................................................................. 37 2.10 Conservation Recommendations.................................................................................... 39 2.11 Reinitiation of Consultation............................................................................................ 40 2.12 Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations............................................................. 40 2.12.1 Effects on List Species........................................................................................... 41 2.12.2 Effects on Critical Habitat..................................................................................... 42 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION......................................................................43 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project................................................................. 44 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat........................................................................ 44 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations.................................................. 44 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement...................................................................................... 45 3.5 Supplemental Consultation............................................................................................... 45 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE -DISSEMINATION REVIEW .....46 5. REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................47 WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -i- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 189 2.1.a 1. INTRODUCTION This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below. 1.1 Background The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (Opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. We also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action, in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. We completed pre -dissemination review of this document using standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-554). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon Washington Coastal Office. 1.2 Consultation History The NMFS received an email and Memorandum for the Services (MFS) from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) on June 19, 2018 requesting informal consultation for the proposed action. Additional information was transmitted to the NMFS through the AMRDEC FTP site on July 2, 2018 because the files were too large for email transmittal. On July 24, 2018, we received additional drawings and plans that had been inadvertently excluded from the original request for consultation. The consultation request also included an enclosed biological evaluation and project drawings for the proposed action. On September 12, 2018, NMFS responded to the USACE stating that formal consultation would be required for the proposed action, and requested additional information. On September 13, 2018, the USACE responded with a request for formal consultation. After that date, multiple e- mails were exchanged between NMFS and the USACE, and a conference call with the USACE, applicant and consultant was held on October 30, 2018. NMFS received the last of the required additional information on September 13, 2018. Formal consultation was initiated on that date. This Opinion is based on the review of the information and project drawings identified above; supplemental materials and responses to NMFS questions for the proposed action; recovery plans, status reviews, and critical habitat designations for ESA -listed Puget Sound -(PS) Chinook salmon and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB) bocaccio; published and unpublished scientific information on the biology and ecology of those species; and relevant scientific and gray literature (see References). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon Washington Coastal Office (OWCO) in Lacey, Washington. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -I- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 190 2.1.a 1.3 Proposed Action The USACE proposes to authorize a new overwater walkway in the City of Edmonds (Figure 1). The City of Edmonds (the applicant) is proposing to construct an elevated 154-foot long, 10-foot wide partially grated concrete walkway supported by seven 30-inch diameter steel piling which would be partially located waterward of the Mean Higher High Water mark (MHHW). Grating would have 60% open area and cover 50% of the walkway before accounting for 147 additional square feet of total pile cap (which is concrete) resulting in 20% functional light penetration. The applicant submitted compensatory mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts to the aquatic environment, including removal of an existing bulkhead composed of 36 creosote treated piling, removal of the fill behind the bulkhead (including a partial parking lot), and placement of sand and gravel substrate, large wood (LWD), and the planting of native riparian vegetation. Two isolated concrete foundations and three additional creosote treated piling located waterward of the ordinary high water line (and partially or wholly waterward of the MHHW) would also be removed from the beach. See Table 1 for a summary of activities associated with the proposed action. Figure 1. The Edmonds Waterfront Center project site on Puget Sound, Edmonds, Washington. The Edmonds ferry terminal is visible to the northeast end of the image while the Edmonds fishing pier is oriented -to the southwest of the image. The project site is in the center of the image (black circle). The proposed overwater walkway will link existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway between the Edmonds ferry terminal and the Edmonds marina and fishing pier. The proposed walkway will be 50% grated with 60% open area in the grated area to achieve an overall open WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -2- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 191 2.1.a area of 30%. However, the additional concrete pile caps not accounted for in the BE are roughly 49 square feet each, which adds 147 square feet of light -blocking structure to the walkway, creating only 20% total light penetration. The walkway will be supported with seven 30" steel piles all of which would be installed below the ordinary high water line (OHW) and two of which would be installed below the MHHW (Figure 2). This work will be conducted in the dry (i.e., while the tide is low). f + Puget found (No appreciable nat drat) l { w� Top of Walkway; 1, r� � �.�' mqrrwirr www�rrwa r, 14.71• *r 201 ♦� ever-�. .•___ - �4later Y .._ iarOHW k1Na rl Ebb Tide Plaza Existing promenade; to remain F f Ebb Tide Condominiums 14 z - Meet & Match E Edmonds Waterfront Center Figure 2. The Edmonds Waterfront Center project site featuring the overwater walkway and location of associated piles and tide lines. The proposed action includes the removal of a mixed material bulkhead and associated parking lot (about 3,841 sf.). Thirty six creosote supporting piles will be removed along with supporting fill and creosote timber supports. The bulkhead and parking lot will be replaced with concrete stairs and a ramp and placed landward of the existing structure (+11 ft. to +13.4ft. MLLW). Two stormwater outfalls will be shortened to terminate above the MHHW (Figure 3). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -3- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 192 2.1.a Remove Intertidal plies Y- t Puget ❑und (No app viable Rerttovn concrete - foundaVon from beach �— - MHHW - - Existing outfall, to Remain :2 Exislidg PraTngn�da"iv rem:ilre II� - rErcksting t7uFfalf, to be Relocated rrrrrririrx Edmonds ...........r........- Senior Center Figure 3. The Edmonds Waterfront Center project site featuring the removal of the bulkhead, partial parking lot, and relocation of two outfalls. The removal of two concrete foundations and three intertidal creosote piles are also shown. Large wood and a sand/gravel fish -mix will be added for beach nourishment. Native vegetation will be planted above the OHW where the parking lot currently exists. The remaining parking area will be reconfigured to incorporate a new bio-filtration area to address existing stormwater runoff (Figure 4). This work will be conducted in the dry. PLANTER PROMENADE BEACH RESTORATION OHW, for Proposed Design Existing Parking Existing Fill, to be Removed MHHW, for Proposed Design o p and fill to be Stairs Exiaung OHW Removed Proposed Grade Existing MHHW 15' 10, Bioretentlon Cell Existing bulkhead 9 Plle support For consisting of creosote- Exlsflrty Grade/Beach, toe of stairs -� treated timber piles and -"r to Remain legging, to be removed. Figure 4. Profile view of removed bulkhead, partial parking lot, and relocation of the stairs relative to the reconstructed beach profile with added beach nourishment. An existing set of concrete stairs will be removed from the beach (below the OHW) and replaced with stairs immediately adjacent to the existing stairs. The new stairs will be supported by no WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -4- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 193 2.1.a more than 60 steel 16 or 18" H-piles. In addition, two reimiant concrete foundations (567 square feet), which are partially buried below the sand substrate will be removed frorm the beach (Figure 3). This work will be conducted in the dry. Lastly, three creosote piles will be extracted fronn the intertidal zone (Figure 3). This work may be conducted in -water, depending on tidal elevations. Table 1. A summary of the installation and removal activities associated with the action. Proposed activity Volume (CY) Area S Remove 36 creosote piles and fill 1.424 3,841 from bulkhead and parking lot HHW—O Remove three creosote piles from 27 9 intertidal zone &1owNIIIIIM Remove hvo concrete foundations 213 567 from the beach HHW — O Vibratory drive seven 30-inch 63 35 steel pile to support walkway CgHHW — OHW_)_ Install overivater walkway n/a 1.540 HHW — OH Remove south concrete stairs 45 150 OHM Install south access stairs O 45 150 Install six 16- or 18-inch H-pile to 30 15 support stairs (OHW -south Install beach north access stairs .300 2,000 with H-pile support and ramp above O Install up to 60 16- or 18-inch H- 300 140 pile to support north stairs above OHW Place sand/gravel fish mix on 1,210 3,841 beach for restoration (OHW- MHHW) 1.3.1 Interrelated and Interde entlent :fictions "Action" means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies (50 CFR 402.02). "Interrelated actions" are those that are part of a larger action and depend oil the larger action for their justification. "Interdependent actions" are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). Vessel activity is very unlikely to increase as a result of the action because the new structure will not feature mooring facilities. However, the new walkway will likely invite increased pedestrian traffic because the existing beach will be expanded and provide continuous foot traffic from the project site to the ferry terminal. Additionally, a new stairs and ramp will create all attractive WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -5- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 194 2.1.a setting for beach goers where access is currently less inviting. Thus, the added stairway and ramp constitute interrelated actions associated with the proposed action. See Section 2.5.2 for an assessment of the effects of the interrelated action. 1.3.2 Construction Activities Associated with the Proposed Action Land -based equipment will be used to remove the bulkhead, 36 creosote piles, partial parking lot, north and south stairs, and other features. All equipment operating on the beach will be track - mounted and limited to the upper beach at low tide. All removed materials will be stored landward of the OHW and in a manner that prevents material from washing into the water. The barge -mounted crane, with a vibratory pile extractor, would be used to pull three 10-inch diameter creosote -treated timber piles from the intertidal zone. The barge will not ground on eelgrass or other aquatic vegetation. All removed piles would also be placed on the barge and disposed of off -site at an approved landfill. Based on similar projects, about 30 minutes of vibratory extraction would be required per pile. Therefore, pile extraction would likely occur in a matter of 2 — 3 hours. Seven new 30-inch steel piles would be installed in support of the overwater walkway. Installation would occur using a vibratory hammer to the maximum extent possible. Proofing using this method is reportedly necessary and would take 15 minutes per pile (about 300 strikes) to fully proof the supports (Herrera 2017). If necessary, an impact hammer may be used, but only at low tide and while the site is dry to prevent sound compression waves from impacting listed species. About 3,500 strikes per pile (about 105 minutes per pile) would be required using this method, and two piles would be installed per day. Up to six steel H-piles will be installed below the OHW and up to 60 steel H-piles will be installed landward of the OHW to support the stairs and pedestrian ramp. The use of sheet pile may be used in place of the H-piles, but will not increase the footprint of the structure. All pile installation will occur while the tide is low and the site is dry. All work (except possibly the three creosote pile extractions) below the OHW will occur between July 15 and October 14 outside of the water and will not include in -water work. The contractor would comply with the BMPs and impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE (Herrera 2017), and in the provisions listed in the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for this project once authorized. 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT The ESA establishes a national program for conserving threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat upon which they depend. As required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, each Federal agency must ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitat. Per the requirements of the ESA, Federal action agencies consult with WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -6- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 195 2.1.a NMFS and section 7(b)(3) requires that, at the conclusion of consultation, NMFS provides an opinion stating how the agency's actions would affect listed species and their critical habitat. If incidental take is reasonably certain to occur, section 7(b)(4) requires NMFS to provide an ITS that specifies the impact of any incidental taking and includes non -discretionary reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and terms and conditions to minimize such impacts. In support of the BE, the USACE determined the proposed action would not likely adversely affect or would have no effect on all of the species and critical habitats identified in Table 2. NMFS does not concur that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio and their designated critical habitat. NMFS also does not concur that the action will have no effect on SRKW. Instead, NMFS finds that the action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect SRKW. NMFS concurs that the action will have no effect on SRKW critical habitat. Although the USACE proposed a NLAA determination for Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Eulachon, NMFS determined that the proposed action would have no effect on the species or its critical habitat. There are no known populations of Eulachon in Puget Sound east of the Elwha River, and critical habitat for the species does not include Puget Sound (NMFS 2017c). Our concurrence with the USACE's "not likely to adversely affect" determinations for the remaining species and critical habitats is documented in the "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" Determinations section (2.12). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -7- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 196 2.1.a Table 2. ESA -listed marine species and critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed action. species Status Species Critical Habitat Listed / CH Designated Puget Sound Chinook Threatened LAA LAA 06/28/05 (70 FR 37160) / salmon 09/02/05 (70 FR 52630) (OncorIk1whus Puget Sound/Georgia Endangered L-AA NLAA 04/28/10 (75 FR 22276) / Basin Bocaccio 11/13/14 (79 FR 68042) (Sebastes paucis iris Puget Sound Threatened NLAA N/A 05/11/07 (72 FR 26722) / Steelhead O. mykiss 02/24/16 81 FR 9252 Puget Sound/Georgia Threatened NLAA No effect 04/28/10 (75 FR 22276) / Basin Yelloweye 11/13/14 (79 FR 68042) rockfish (S. rrrberrimrrs) _ Endangered Southern DPS No effect No effect 03/18/10 (75 FR 13012) / of Eulachon 10/20/11 (76 FR 65324) (Thaleichlhys aci rcus Southern Resident Endangered NLAA No effect 11/18/05 (70 FR 57565) / Killer Whales 11/29/06 (71 FR 69054) Orcinus orca LAA = likely to adversely affect NLAA = not likely to adversely affect N/A = not applicable. The action area is outside designated critical habitat. 2.1 Analytical Approach This biological opinion includes both a jeopardy analysis and an adverse modification analysis. The jeopardy analysis relies upon the regulatory definition of "to jeopardize the continued existence of" a listed species, which is "to engage in an action that would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species" (50 CFR 402.02). Therefore, the jeopardy analysis considers both survival and recovery of the species. This biological opinion relies on the definition of "destruction or adverse modification," which "mnearns a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features" (81 FR 7214). Past critical habitat designations have used the terns primary constituent element (PCE) or essential -feature (EF) to identify important habitat qualities. However, the new critical habitat regulations (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016) replace those terns with physical or biological features (PBF). This shift in terminology does not change the approach used in conducting our analysis, whether the original designation identified PCE, EF, or PBF. For simplicity, we urniversally apply the term PBF 'ill this Opinion for all critical habitat, regardless of the tenor used in the specific critical habitat designation. WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -8- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 197 2.1.a We use the following approach to determine whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize listed species or to cause the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat: + Identify the range -wide status of the species and critical habitat expected to be adversely affected by the proposed action. ■ Describe the environmental baseline in the action area. ■ Analyze the effects of the proposed action on both species and their habitat using an "exposure -response -risk" approach. ■ Describe any cumulative effects in the action area. • Integrate and synthesize the above factors by: (1) Reviewing the status of the species and critical habitat; and (2) adding the effects of the action, the environmental baseline, and cumulative effects to assess the risk that the proposed action poses to species and critical habitat. + Reach a conclusion about whether species are jeopardized or critical habitat is adversely modified. • If necessary, suggest a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to the proposed action. 2.2 Range -wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat This Opinion examines the status of each species that would be adversely affected by the proposed action. The status is determined by the level of extinction risk that the listed species face, based on parameters considered in documents such as recovery plans, status reviews, and listing decisions. This informs the description of the species' likelihood of both survival and recovery. The species status section also helps to inform the description of the species' current "reproduction, numbers, or distribution" as described in 50 CFR 402.02. This Opinion also examines the condition of critical habitat throughout the designated area, evaluates the conservation value of the various watersheds and coastal and marine environments that make up the designated area, and discusses the current function of the essential PBF that help to form that conservation value. One factor affecting the status of ESA -listed species considered in this opinion, and aquatic habitat at large, is climate change. Climate change is likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the abundance and distribution of ESA -listed species, and the conservation value of designated critical habitats, in the Pacific Northwest. These changes will not be spatially homogeneous across the Pacific Northwest. The largest hydrologic responses are expected to occur in basins with significant snow accumulation, where warming decreases snow pack, increases winter flows, and advances the timing of spring melt (Mote et al. 2014, Mote et al. 2016). Rain -dominated watersheds and those with significant contributions from groundwater may be less sensitive to predicted changes in climate (Tague et al. 2013, Mote et al. 2014). During the last century, average regional air temperatures in the Pacific Northwest increased by 1-1.4°F as an annual average, and up to 2°F in some seasons (based on average linear increase per decade; Abatzoglou et al. 2014; Kunkel et al. 2013). Warming is likely to continue during the next century as average temperatures are projected to increase another 3 to 10°F, with the largest increases predicted to occur in the summer (Mote et al. 2014). Decreases in summer precipitation of as much as 30% by the end of the century are consistently predicted across climate models WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -9- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 198 2.1.a (Mote et al. 2014). Precipitation is more likely to occur during October through March, less during summer months, and more winter precipitation will be rain than snow (IPCC 2007; Mote et al. 2013; Mote et al. 2014). Earlier snowmelt will cause lower stream flows in late spring, summer, and fall, and water temperatures will be warmer (IPCC 2007; Mote et al. 2014). Models consistently predict increases in the frequency of severe winter precipitation events (i.e., 20-year and 50-year events), in the western United States (Dominguez et al. 2012). The largest increases in winter flood frequency and magnitude are predicted in mixed rain -snow watersheds (Mote et al. 2014). In addition to changes in freshwater conditions, predicted changes for coastal waters in the Pacific Northwest as a result of climate change include increasing surface water temperature, increasing but highly variable acidity, and increasing storm frequency and magnitude (Mote et al. 2014). Elevated ocean temperatures already documented for the Pacific Northwest are expected to be 1.0-3.7°C higher by the end of the century (IPCC 2014). Habitat loss, shifts in species' ranges and abundances, and altered marine food webs could have substantial consequences to anadromous, coastal, and marine species in the Pacific Northwest (Tillmann and Siemann 2011; Reeder et al. 2013). Additionally, increasing ocean temperatures and shifting ocean conditions (including currents and offshore nutrient upwelling) due to climate change will likely impact the food web and ultimately the marine survival of salmonids. Recent early marine survival rates of several Puget Sound steelhead populations have been quite low (Moore et al. 2015; Moore and Berejikian 2017) and may be limiting the populations' productivity. A warming ocean is likely to further reduce marine survival of steelhead and salmon migrating from Puget Sound. These fish make extensive seasonal migrations across broad areas of the North Pacific Ocean. A recent study on tagged California steelhead suggests that the fish closely track preferred sea surface temperatures (and likely other conditions) during their marine migrations (Hayes et al. 2016). However, in certain cases steelhead have been documented remaining off the coast from their natal river and returning there just a few months after ocean entry. An increased and more wide-ranging prevalence of this life history strategy may indicate thermally -blocked marine migratory corridors or changing ocean conditions. Moreover, as atmospheric carbon emissions increase, increasing levels of carbon are absorbed by the oceans, changing the pH of the water. Acidification also impacts sensitive estuary habitats, where organic matter and nutrient inputs further reduce pH and produce conditions more corrosive than those in offshore waters (Feely et al. 2012, Sunda and Cai 2012). Global sea levels are expected to continue rising throughout this century, reaching likely predicted increases of 10-32 inches by 2081-2100 (IPCC 2014). These changes will likely result in increased erosion and more frequent and severe coastal flooding, and shifts in the composition of nearshore habitats (Tillmann and Siemann 2011; Reeder et al. 2013). Estuarine -dependent salmonids such as chum and Chinook salmon are predicted to be impacted by significant reductions in rearing habitat in some Pacific Northwest coastal areas (Glick et al. 2007). Historically, warm periods in the coastal Pacific Ocean have coincided with relatively low abundances of salmon and steelhead, while cooler ocean periods have coincided with relatively WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -10- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 199 2.1.a high abundances, and therefore these species are predicted to fare poorly in warming ocean conditions (Scheuerell and Williams 2005; Zabel et al. 2006). Changes to estuarine and coastal conditions, as well as the timing of seasonal shifts in these habitats, have the potential to impact a wide range of listed aquatic species (Tillmann and Siemann 2011; Reeder et al. 2013). The adaptive ability of these threatened and endangered species is depressed due to reductions in population size, habitat quantity and diversity, and loss of behavioral and genetic variation. Without these natural sources of resilience, systematic changes in local and regional climatic conditions due to anthropogenic global climate change will likely reduce long-term viability and sustainability of populations in many of these ESUs (NMFS 2017a). New stressors generated by climate change, or existing stressors with effects that have been amplified by climate change, may also have synergistic impacts on species and ecosystems (Doney et al. 2012). These conditions will possibly intensify the climate change stressors inhibiting recovery of ESA -listed species in the future. 2.2.1 Viable SAimonid Population VSP Criteria For Pacific salmonids, we commonly use four VSP criteria (McElhany et al. 2000) to assess the viability of the populations that constitute the species. These four criteria (spatial structure, diversity, abundance, and productivity) encompass the species' "reproduction, numbers, or distribution" as described in 50 CFR 402.02. When these parameters are collectively at appropriate levels, they maintain a population's capacity to adapt to various environmental conditions and allow it to sustain itself in the natural environment. "Spatial structure" refers both to the spatial distributions of individuals in the population and the processes that generate that distribution. A population's spatial structure depends on habitat quality and spatial configuration, and the dynamics and dispersal characteristics of individuals in the population. "Diversity" refers to the distribution of traits within and among populations. These range in scale from DNA sequence variation in single genes to complex life history traits. "Abundance" generally refers to the number of naturally -produced adults that return to their natal spawning grounds. "Productivity" refers to the number of naturally -spawning adults produced per parent. When progeny replace or exceed the number of parents, a population is stable or increasing. When progeny fail to replace the number of parents, the population is in decline. For species with multiple populations, we assess the status of the entire species based on the biological status of the constituent populations, using criteria for groups of populations, as described in recovery plans and guidance documents from technical recovery teams. Considerations for species viability include having multiple populations that are viable, ensuring that populations with unique life histories and phenotypes are viable, and that some viable populations are both widespread to avoid concurrent extinctions from mass catastrophes and spatially close to allow genetic exchange among populations (McElhany et al. 2000). WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -11- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 200 2.1.a 2.2.2 Status of the Species The summaries that follow describe the status of the ESA -listed species and their designated critical habitats that occur within the geographic area of this proposed action and are considered in this opinion (Table 3). More detailed information on the status and trends of these listed resources, and their biology and ecology, are available on the NMFS West Coast Region website (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.govo and are incorporated by reference. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -12- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 201 2.1.a Table 3. Summary of status and listing factors for listed species addressed in this opinion. Species Listing Classification and Date Recovery Plan Reference Most Recent Status Review Status Summary Limiting Factors Puget Sound Threatened Shared Strategy NMFS 2017a This ESU comprises 22 populations distributed . Degraded floodplain and in -river channel Chinook salmon 6/23i05 for Puget Sound over five geographic areas. Most populations structure 2007 within the ESU have declined in abundance • Degraded estuarine conditions and loss of NMFS 2006 over the past 7 to 10 years, with widespread estuarine habitat negative trends in natural -origin spawner • Degraded riparian areas and loss of in -river abundance. and hatchery -origin spawners large woody debris present in high fractions in most populations . Excessive fine-grained sediment in spawning outside of the Skagit watershed. Escapement gravel levels for all populations remain well below the . Degraded water quality and temperature TRT planning ranges for recovery. and most . Degraded nearshore conditions populations are consistently below the . Impaired passage for migrating fish spawner -recruit levels identified by the TRT as . Severely altered flow regime consistent with recovery. ` Puget Sound Threatened In review NNffS 2017a This DPS comprises 32 populations. The DPS • Continued destruction and modification of Steelhead 5/11/07 is currently at very low viability, with most of habitat the 32 populations and all three population . Widespread declines in adult abundance groups at low viability. Information considered despite significant reductions in harvest during the most recent status review indicates • Threats to diversity posed by use of two that the biological risks faced by the Puget hatchery steelhead stocks Sound Steelhead DPS have not substantively • Declining diversity in the DPS, including the changed since the listing in 2007. or since the uncertain but weak status of summer -run fish 2011 status review-. Furthermore. the Puget • A reduction in spatial structure Sound Steelhead TRT recently concluded that . Reduced habitat quality the DPS was at very low viability. as were all . Urbanization three of its constituent MPGs, and many of its . Dikes„ hardening of banks with riprap, and 32 populations. In the near term. the outlook channelization for environmental conditions affecting Puget Sound steelhead is not optimistic. While harvest and hatchery production of steelhead in Puget Sound are currently at low levels and are not likely to increase substantially in the foreseeable future. some recent environmental trends not favorable to Puget Sound steelhead survival and production are expected to continue. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -13- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 202 2.1.a Species Puget Sound. Georgia Basin DPS of Bocaccio Southem resident killer whale Listing Classification and Date Endangered 04128i 10 11!18/05 Recovery Plan Reference NMFS 2017b NMFS 2008 Most Recent Status Review Tonnes et al. 2016 Ford 2013 WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -14- Status Summary Though bocaccio were never a predominant segment of the multi -species rockfish poptlation within the Puget Sound'Georgia Basis_ their present-day abundance is likely a fraction of their pre -contemporary fishery abiuidance. Most bocaccio within the DPS may have been historically spatially limited to several basins within the DPS. They were apparently historically most abundant in the Central and South Sotusd with no documented occurrences in the San Juan Basin tmtil 2008. The apparent reduction of populations of bocaccio in the Main Basin and South Sound represents a further reduction in the historically spatially limited distribution of bocaccio. and adds significant risk to the viability of the DPS. The Southern Resident killer whale DPS is composed of a single population that ranges as far south as central California and as far north as southeast Alaska. The estimated effective size of the population (based on the number of breeding individuals tinder ideal genetic conditions) is very small — <30 whales. or about 1/3 of the current population size. The small effective population size. the absence of gene flow from other populations. and documented breeding within pods may elevate the risk from inbreeding and other issues associated with genetic deterioration. As of July 1, 2013. there were 26 whales in J pod. 19 whales in K pod and 37 whales in L pod. for a total of 82 whales. Estimates for the historical abundance of Southern Resident killer whales range from 140 whales (based on public display removals to 400 whales. as used in Limiting Factors • Over harvest • Water pollution • Climate -induced changes to rockfish habitat • Small population dynamics • Quantity and quality of prey • Exposure to toxic chemicals • Disturbance from sound and vessels • Risk from oil spills Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 203 2.1.a Species Listing Classification and Date Recovery Plan Reference Most Recent Status ReNzew Status Summary Limiting Factors Southern DPS Threatened NMFS 2017c Gustafson et al. The Southern DPS of eulachon includes all e Changes in ocean conditions due to climate of eulachon 3i 18110 2016 naturally -spawned populations that occur in change, particularly in the southern portion of rivers south of the INTass River in British the species' range where ocean warming trends Columbia to the Mad River in California. Sub may be the most pronounced and may alter populations for this species include the Fraser prey. spawning. and rearing success. River. Columbia River. British Columbia and e Climate -induced change to freshwater habitats the Klamath River. In the early 1990s, there e Bycatch of eulachon in commercial fisheries was an abnipt decline in the abundance of e Adverse effects related to dams and water eulachon returning to the Columbia River. diversions Despite a brief period of unproved returns in a Water quality. 2001-2003, the returns and associated . Shoreline construction commercial landings eventually declined to the . Over harvest low levels observed in the unnid-1990s. . Predation Although eulachon abundance in monitored rivers has generally improved, especially in the 2013-2015 return years. recent poor ocean conditions and the likelihood that these conditions gill persist into the near future suggest that population declines maybe widespread in the upcoming return years Puget Sound' Threatened NMFS 2017b Tonnes et al. 2016 Yelloweye rockfish,.4ithin the Puget • Over harvest Georgia Basin 04i28110 Sound/Georgia Basin (in U.S. waters) are very . Water pollution DPS of Yelloweye likely the most abundant within the San Juan a Climate -induced changes to rockfish habitat Rockfish Basin of the DPS. Yelloweye rockfish spatial e Small population dynamics structure and connectivity is threatened by the apparent reduction of fish within each of the basins of the DPS. This reduction is probably most acute within the basins of Riget Sound proper. The severe reduction of fish in these basins may eventually result in a contraction of the DPS' range. WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -15- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 204 2.1.a 2.2.3 Status of Critical Habitat This section describes the status of designated critical habitat affected by the proposed action by examining the condition and trends of the essential physical and biological features of that habitat throughout the designated areas. These features are essential to the conservation of the ESA -listed species because they support one or more of the species' life stages (e.g., sites with conditions that support spawning, rearing, migration and foraging). For salmon, NMFS's critical habitat analytical review teams (CHARTS) ranked watersheds within designated critical habitat at the scale of the fifth -field hydrologic unit code (HUC5) in terms of the conservation value they provide to each ESA -listed species that they support (NMFS 2005). The conservation rankings were high, medium, or low. To determine the conservation value of each watershed to species viability, the CHARTS evaluated the quantity and quality of habitat features, the relationship of the area compared to other areas within the species' range, and the significance to the species of the population occupying that area. Even if a location had poor habitat quality, it could be ranked with a high conservation value if it were essential due to factors such as limited availability, a unique contribution of the population it served, or serving another important role. In designating critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon in estuarine and nearshore marine areas, NMFS determined that the area from extreme high water extending out to the maximum depth of the photic zone (no greater than 30 meters relative to mean lower low water; MLLW) contain essential features that require special protection. For nearshore marine areas, NMFS designated the area inundated by extreme high tide because it encompasses habitat areas typically inundated and regularly occupied during the spring and summer when juvenile salmon are migrating in the nearshore zone and relying heavily on forage, cover, and refuge qualities provided by these occupied habitats. All PBFs of estuarine, and nearshore marine critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and critical habitat for PS/GB bocaccio rockfish have been degraded throughout the PS region. The causes for critical habitat degradation include human development along the shoreline, including bulkheads, overwater structures, diking, filling of wetlands and bays, channelization, and the elimination of riparian habitats. The continued human population and development growth contributes to the anthropogenic simplification and hardening of PS shorelines and is the major factor in the cumulative loss of nearshore and estuarine habitat. Bank hardening and the introduction of obstructions in the nearshore diminish shade for forage fish egg development, disrupt juvenile salmonid migration and increase predation risk, diminish aquatic food supply, and can contribute to water pollution (Shipman et al. 2010; Fresh et al. 2011; Morley et al. 2012; Dethier et al. 2016). The degradation of multiple aspects of PS Chinook and bocaccio rockfish critical habitat indicates that the conservation potential of the critical habitat is not being reached, even in areas where the conservation value of habitat is ranked high. Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (70 FR 52630, designated 9/02/2005) includes 1,683 miles of streams, 41 square miles of lakes, and 2,182 miles of nearshore marine habitat in WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -16- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 205 2.1.a Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has 61 freshwater and 19 marine areas within its range. Of the freshwater watersheds, 41 are rated high conservation value, 12 low conservation value, and 8 received a medium rating. Of the marine areas, all 19 are ranked with high conservation value. PBFs relevant for this consultation include: 1) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality and aquatic vegetation to support juvenile transition and rearing; and 2) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality conditions, forage, submerged and overhanging large wood, and aquatic vegetation to support growth and maturation. Critical habitat for PS/GB bocaccio in the United States (79 FR 68042, designated 11/13/2014) includes 590.4 square miles of nearshore habitat and 414.1 square miles of deepwater habitat. Based on the natural history of bocaccio and their habitat needs, NMFS identified two physical or biological features, essential for their conservation: 1) Deepwater sites (>30 meters) that support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; 2) Nearshore juvenile rearing sites with sand, rock and/or cobbles to support forage and refuge. Only nearshore critical habitat is present within the action area. Habitat threats to PS/GB bocaccio include degradation of rocky habitat, loss of eelgrass and kelp, introduction of non-native species that modify habitat, and degradation of water quality. Critical habitat for steelhead, yelloweye rockfish, and SRKW excludes shallow water marine areas (81 FR 9252, 79 FR 68042, and 71 FR 69054, respectively). 2.3 Action Area "Action area" means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area is defined by both temporary effects associated with construction -related impacts and long-term effects associated with the installation of the overwater walkway and modification of the nearshore on habitat function, as described below. The action area is determined by the greatest extent of physical, chemical and biological effects stemming from the project. For the proposed action, there are both short-term construction - related effects and long-term permanent structure -related effects. The greatest extent of physical, chemical or biological effects stemming from the proposed action is associated with likely impacts of permanent structures on forage fish populations, which are important prey fishes for listed species. The area where detectable effects may occur is driven by forage fish use of the nearshore. We anticipate that the proposed overwater walkway would have long-term impacts on forage fish populations (Pacific herring, sand lance and surf smelt) by causing increased susceptibility to predation from overhead cover and restricted use of known spawning habitats from the blocking nature of the proposed walkway. These effects would be long-term and are considered permanent, for the life of the structure. For this assessment we consider the life of the proposed structures to be 50 years. These impacts on nearshore and intertidal habitat and function are discussed in detail in the Effects of the Action (Section 2.5). ESA -listed species in the action area include PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, PS/GB bocaccio and SRKW. The area is also critical WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -17- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 206 2.1.a habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio and EFH for multiple species (see Section 3.1). Forage fish are an important prey source of PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead and PS/GB bocaccio, and an important component of the SRKW trophic prey base. Forage fish species that occur near the project area may contribute to the prey base of listed populations throughout the Puget Sound basin and Strait of Juan de Fuca. Surf smelt spawning is documented at the project site (WDFW 2018). However, the maximum detectable range of effects would be limited to the marine waters and substrates within about 200 meters northeast (approximately to the Edmonds ferry terminal) and 200 meters southwest (approximately to the Edmonds marina) around the project site. Therefore, for the purposes of this consultation, the action area is limited to the marine waters and substrates within 200 meter radius around the Edmonds Waterfront Center project site. The action area described above overlaps with the geographic ranges and boundaries of the ESA -listed species and designated critical habitat identified earlier in Table 3. The action area also overlaps with areas that have been designated, under the MSA, as EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species. The extent of short-term, construction -related effects of the proposed action is within the action area defined by long-term, structure -related effects. The greatest extent of direct construction associated effects from proposed project activities is the extent of elevated turbidity and potential release of toxic chemicals from the bulkhead and parking lot removal. The size of this project area is estimated to be a 150-foot radius surrounding all proposed in -water activity to account for the point of compliance for aquatic life turbidity criteria set forth in the Washington State Water Quality Standards for marine waters (173-201A-210 Washington Administrative Code). Because construction activities will not occur in -water, the effects from vibratory pile -driving sound is discountable. 2.4 Environmental Baseline The "environmental baseline" includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The action area includes the area of Puget Sound described above, which for purposes of this biological opinion, includes all marine waters and shoreline below the highest astronomical tide (HAT). Puget Sound is the largest estuary in the United States by volume, and the second largest estuary by area. Puget Sound has over 2,400 miles of shoreline, more than 2 million acres of estuarine surface waters, and contains a watershed of more than 8 million acres. In 1987, Puget Sound was given priority status in the National Estuary Program. This established it as an estuary of national significance under an amendment to the Clean Water Act. In 2006, the Center for Biological Diversity recognized the Puget Sound Basin as a biological hotspot with over 7,000 species of organisms that rely on the wide variety of habitats provided by Puget Sound. Puget WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -18- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 207 2.1.a Sound is also unique by way of its high salmon species richness and its high natural productivity, which historically has been among the greatest in the world (Lombard 2006). The State of the Sound biennial report produced by the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP 2017) summarizes how different indicators of health of the Puget Sound ecosystem are changing through time. Their assessment can be summarized to a few key points: (1) development pressure continues to impact habitat in the marine and freshwater, especially within the range of listed species; (2) improvements in human use patterns are slow at best; and (3) few of the 2020 improvement targets identified by the PSP will be reached. While this report refers to all of Puget Sound, the key points also apply to the action area. In more detail, this most recent report points out the following with regard to habitat, species and water vital sign indicators: • Indicators of habitat restoration in estuaries, floodplains, riparian, and shoreline areas have made modest gains. Such areas are important to many key species, including Chinook salmon. • Forest habitats, particularly those deemed as having high ecological value, continue to be lost. • Sound -wide, eelgrass habitat area is holding steady, though local gains have been made. This habitat is important to small fish, shellfish, and other marine organisms. • The spawning population sizes of Chinook salmon are dangerously below federal recovery goals and are not improving. • With the loss of three whales in the summer of September 2018, the Southern Resident killer whale population has only 74 individuals; recovery depends on increasing its main prey, salmon (especially Chinook salmon); reducing the load of toxins entering Puget Sound; and minimizing the impacts and risks of vessel traffic. • Pacific herring (small forage fish that are important prey for salmon, birds, and mammals) and marbled murrelets continue to show signs of decline. • The health of the populations of small marine animals that live in the sediment at the bottom of Puget Sound shows signs of decline. • Overall marine water quality continues to decline, particularly in the last 3 years, when the temperature of the ocean's surface was unusually high. • Contaminants in Pacific herring and English sole (a bottom fish species) surpass levels considered safe for fish in some areas, though other areas are getting better. About 4.5 million people inhabit the Puget Sound Basin, with more than 80,000 new people added every year. There are a suite of impacts of human development on aquatic habitat conditions and species in the Puget Sound, including water quality effects of stormwater runoff, fishing pressure, and noise, wake and pollution from vessel traffic, to name a few (see PSP et al. 2017). Associated with this population growth, the magnitude and extent of infrastructure development has altered the Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem rapidly and perhaps permanently Major physical changes documented in the Puget Sound include the filling in, isolation, and simplification of river deltas; the elimination or isolation of small coastal embayments, the cut- off and reduction in forage fish spawning sediment supplies to the foreshore due to beach armoring, and the loss of tidally influenced wetlands and salt marsh (Fresh et al. 2011). The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP), an investigation project between the Corps and the state of Washington, reviewed the historical changes to Puget WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -19- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 208 2.1.a Sound's shoreline environment between 1850-1880, and 2000-2006, and found the most pervasive change to Puget Sound to be the simplification of the shoreline and reduction in natural shoreline length (Simenstad et al. 2011). In addition to shoreline armoring, other intertidal and nearshore impairments including over - water structures, marinas, roads, and railroads have reduced habitat quality and impacted fish migrations. The simplification of the largest river deltas has caused a 27% decline in shoreline length compared to historical conditions. Of 884 historic small embayments, 308 have been eliminated. About 27% of PS's shorelines are artificially armored and only 112 of 828 shoreline segments remain in properly functioning condition (Simenstad et al. 2011). Tidal wetlands have been reduced 26% in Puget Sound river deltas (Fresh et al. 2011). Each of these habitat changes is related to human development and individually and cumulatively has reduced the quality and quantity of PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead habitat in the Puget Sound nearshore marine environment. The reductions to shallow water habitat, as well as reduced forage potential resulting from shoreline armoring, may cause juvenile salmonids and juvenile bocaccio to temporarily utilize deeper habitat, thereby exposing them to increased piscivorous predation. Typical piscivorous predators of juvenile salmonid include flatfish (e.g., sole and flounder), sculpin, and larger salmonids (e.g., cutthroat trout). Juvenile Chinook salmon enter the marine environment as small as 40mm (range 40-120mm), and generally rear and feed in the shallowest nearshore waters especially in the earliest periods of their marine residency. When juvenile salmonids temporarily leave the relative safety of shallow water or when shallow water is deeper adjacent to shoreline structures, they are exposed to increased predation risk. This has been shown in the marine environment where juvenile salmonid consumption by piscivorous predators increased fivefold when juvenile pink salmon were forced to leave the shallow nearshore (Willette 2001). 2.4.1 Environmental Contlitiolis at the Yro'ect Site and the Surrounding Area The project site is located in marine waters of Puget Sound in Edmonds (Figure 1). The shoreline is open and exposed to large tidal fluctuations and frequent large wind -driven waves as well as the wakes of large ocean-going vessels, which regularly pass the site. The OHW runs along the highly developed shoreline, including a rail line of the BNSF railroad that extends along the shoreline for several miles north and south of the site. The marine substrate along the shoreline consists of gently sloping sand and gravels for about 100 meters waterward of the OHW. Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) exists beyond 100 meters of the OHW (-2 to -20 feet MLLW). Littoral drift and sediment transport at the site is reportedly very low (Ecology 2018a). The site is located on an urban shoreline that has been impacted by more than 100 years of development. European explorers first arrived in the area during the late 1700s. European settlers began to exploit natural resources such as lumber, coal, fur, and fish in early 1850s. The railroad that runs along the shoreline at the site was first built in the early 1890s. Currently, with the exception of a few forested patches that are largely restricted to the riparian corridors of nearby streams, the areas upland of the project site are covered by nearly continuous residential and urbanizing properties. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -20- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 209 2.1.a Ecology (2018b) identifies several water quality impairments in the action area, including exceedances for bacteria detected in ambient water testing and toxic contamination in fish samples, including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, and Chrysene (collectively, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Adult PS Chinook salmon populations from the Whidbey Basin Major Population Group (MPG) as well as the Central/South Puget Sound Basin MPG are likely to migrate past the project site to reach their spawning habitats. Juveniles from those MPGs are likely to shelter and forage in the action area as they migrate and continue to adapt to the marine environment. Larval PS/GB bocaccio may drift into or though the action area on the currents, and some juveniles may utilize the eelgrass as rearing habitat before moving into deep -water habitats offshore. The action area is designated as critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. SRKW are known to periodically travel and feed offshore. The past and ongoing anthropogenic impacts described above have impacted these species and critical habitats through reduced quantity and quality of the migratory and rearing habitat, including reduced water quality caused by the introduction of low levels of pollutants related to upland development and vessel operations. 2.5 Effects of the Action Under the ESA, "effects of the action" means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02). Direct effects are caused by exposure to action -related stressors that occur at the time of the action. Indirect effects are effects caused by the proposed action that occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur. Likely effects from the proposed action are associated with temporary, short term construction impacts, and permanent impacts of the proposed structures. Effects on listed species reasonably certain to occur from the proposed action include 1) temporary, short-term elevated levels of turbidity during both removal of the bulkhead; 2) temporary, short-term benthic disturbance by construction equipment and substrate removal and placement; 3) temporary, short-term elevated levels of PAHs and PCBs from the removed creosote piles; 4) temporary, short-term and spatially limited displacement of forage fish during pile driving; 5) permanent (50 years) overwater shading and associated potential predation impacts, and restricting access to known surf smelt spawning sites from the revetment -like overwater structure; and 6) permanent interrelated effects of pedestrian traffic on surf smelt spawning habitat. 2.5.1 Effects on Critical Habitat The proposed action would have effects on the shoreline, intertidal and nearshore environments. Within the action area, construction -related effects and long-term effects of placement of permanent structures (overwater walkway and stairway) would have effects on designated critical habitat of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -21- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 210 2.1.a Designated critical habitat within the action area for PS Chinook salmon consists of estuarine and marine rearing sites, migration corridors, and their essential physical and biological features. Critical habitat for bocaccio within the action area includes designated juvenile nearshore settlement habitats immediately adjacent to the project site, and designated benthic adult habitat areas in deeper portions of Puget Sound. For the project site under this review, the extreme high tide (HAT) at the Seattle tidal station (closest tidal station with HAT determination) is 13.26 feet, which is 1.90 feet above mean higher high water (MHHW) at this station. Accordingly, NMFS has assessed potential effects on designated critical habitat separate from the USACE's choice of MHHW for asserting jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. In this case, the overwater walkway proposed for installation is waterward of HAT and partially waterward of MHHW. The PBFs of PS Chinook salmon critical habitat in the action area include: • Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. The PBFs for PS/GB bocaccio in the action area include: • Juvenile settlement habitats located in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp with the following attributes; ■ Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and • Water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities. Temporary Effects Temporary, short-term, and localized impacts to critical habitat from the proposed action may result from construction effects related to the new overwater walkway; removal of the bulkhead, piles, and associated parking lot; and installation of the replacement stairway. Water quality would be affected by the generation of a small amount of suspended sediments during installation, as well as by the movement of construction equipment on the beach. Some temporary beach disturbance would be minimized by the proposed BMPs (e.g. narrow work corridor, and sandy substrate). By working only in the dry and during low tides, we expect only slightly elevated levels of turbidity during tidal inundations of work areas during the first high tide following project completion. Project -related turbidity is expected to abate within a matter of hours, and the area in which sediment creates turbid conditions would be localized (within a 150-foot radius to account for the point of compliance for aquatic life turbidity criteria set forth in the Washington State Water Quality Standards for marine waters; 173-201A-200 Washington Administrative Code). For these reasons, we expect that turbid water quality would be a very minor impact to PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat. Any elevated levels of turbidity, or benthic disturbance associated with in -water construction activities would be minimized by the proposed BMPs and conservation measures, and are WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -22- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 211 2.1.a expected to be minor, localized and short-term. Therefore, any impact of proposed construction activities on forage fish or primary productivity are expected to have a temporary and minor effect on forage potential of PS Chinook salmon and bocaccio. The project site currently lacks large woody debris, boulders, and riparian vegetation. No disturbance of eelgrass or other lower shore zone submerged aquatic vegetation is anticipated. Therefore, we expect any disturbance to the substrate or woody material from construction activities to have a temporary and minor effect on the PBF associated with cover availability for PS Chinook salmon of PS/GB bocaccio. Permanent Effects Below HAT, the proposed structures (overwater walkway and stairway) would have long-term adverse effects on the function of nearshore and intertidal habitat, including PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat. Effects of the new overwater walkway on nearshore and intertidal habitat function may include diminished primary productivity (e.g. phytoplankton and zooplankton), diminished epibenthic invertebrate colonization, and increased risk of predation (Shipman et al. 2010; Dethier et al. 2016). The steel piles supporting the overwater walkway would reduce drift wood from depositing on the beach. This would further reduce primary productivity within the intertidal zone and'diminish invertebrate populations associated with beach wrack (Morley et al. 2012; Dethier et al. 2016). However, despite restricting surf smelt access to the beach, the proposed overwater walkway may suppress wave energy on the beach by acting as a porous breakwater, reducing episodic substrate erosion or scour events. These impacts on the PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat conditions are reasonably certain to include adverse effects on the forage PBFs of both species and the cover PBF of PS Chinook salmon. These effects would be long-term and are considered permanent, for the life of the structure. The proposed replacement of the south concrete stairway would continue to result in the suppression of riparian vegetation growth in that portion of the project site. Additionally, the stairway maintains the vertical distance between potential riparian vegetation along the top of the bank and the beach or water surface. This would result in the continued influence of poor shading and increased substrate temperatures in the upper intertidal, maintaining the risk of desiccation of invertebrates and reduction of intra-sediment moisture, which is important for intertidal invertebrate survival (Rice 2006; Holsman and Willig 2007). The loss of shade otherwise provided by riparian vegetation may also increase exposure of forage fish eggs to solar radiation and lead to increased rates of desiccation (Rice 2006). This, combined with reduced input of detritus and terrestrial insects from riparian vegetation further reduces forage potential for juvenile salmonids and bocaccio (Brennan and Culverwell 2004; Holsman and Willig 2007; Toft et al. 2007). The removal of 36 creosote piles, mixed -material bulkhead, and associated parking lot will improve habitat. Creosote harbors PAH chemicals, and is known to occur in fish tissue near the project site. The removal of the piles will improve long-term water quality at the site. The bulkhead and associated parking lot currently limit surf smelt spawning habitats and restrict sediment drift (which is nominal in the action area). The removal of this structure will improve WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -23- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 212 2.1.a forage fish habitat and improve sediment drift to facilitate continuous beach habitat northward to the ferry terminal. The removal of two large concrete foundations (576 square feet total) will improve surf smelt spawning habitat. The proposal adds a biofiltration element to the existing parking lot to additionally improve water quality by treating stormwater runoff. Lastly, the addition of LWD provides some production of epibenthic community, which increases productivity and forage. The action area for the effects to forage fish populations is broadly defined to account for the range of movement of fish that encounter degraded intertidal and nearshore habitat resulting from the proposed permanent structure (overwater walkway and replaced stairway). However, we expect that there would be no measureable impact to Chinook salmon (and also steelhead) or bocaccio forage potential (i.e. abundance) outside of the intertidal and nearshore areas. Because effects of permanent structures on individual forage fish would be localized to this area, there would be a very small effect to forage fish populations through decreased fitness of individual fish (e.g. from decreased primary productivity) and impaired spawning habitat availability, relative to the forage fish populations of the wider area (i.e., Puget Sound). Beyond this area close to the project site, within the broader action area, we anticipate diminishing effects on forage fish populations, no detectable effect on Chinook salmon or bocaccio abundance or critical habitat. 2.5.2 Effects on Listed Species Proposed construction will occur between July 15 and October 14. Construction is expected to take 15 — 20 months, although work waterward of the OHW will only occur during the work window and will not include in -water work. PS Chinook salmon inhabit the waters in and near the project site. Although most juvenile Chinook salmon will have moved further off shore and toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca by mid - July, some may reasonably be present, especially during the early phases of construction. Adult Chinook salmon will be present off shore, but will not be present in the action area. PS/GB bocaccio juveniles may occur within 100 meters of the project site in association with eelgrass and coarse substrate. PS steelhead and SRKW may be present near the site, but are very unlikely to be present in the action area because neither species is known to occupy the nearshore environment except under very rare occasions. The work window timing would minimize exposure to juvenile PS Chinook salmon migrating through the nearshore, and working out of the water will further minimize exposure to juvenile Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. PS/GB bocaccio larvae and young of the year juveniles may be present at the project site year-round but are most likely to be present between March and August (Greene and Godersky 2012; NMFS 2016b; Palsson et al. 2009). Larvae may be carried in by the currents and young of the year juveniles may rear in the eelgrass beds within 100 meters of the project site, but suitable habitat for bocaccio does not exist within the construction zone. Therefore we expect very few listed fish to be present at the project site and in the action area during construction. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -24- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 213 2.1.a Noise Although very few listed fish are expected to be within the action area, those that are may be exposed to construction -related effects. While all listed fish will experience the sound of pile driving in their habitat, vibratory pile driving is not known to cause injury to fish. The sounds created by vibratory pile driving are different from impact installation, and responses by fishes are also expected to differ. We expect these fish can hear the sounds produced by vibratory pile driving, although the sound is at the low end and below the optimal hearing range of fishes. Altered behavior or harm can occur to fishes with the use of impact pile driving techniques (Stadler and Woodbury 2009). Behavioral effects associated with elevated sound levels are temporary, and generally characterized by increased heart rate and elevated cortisol levels, and may interrupt normal behavior (Wysocki et al. 2006). Listed Chinook salmon, and rockfish are likely to occur in the action area during the construction period when vibratory pile driving will occur. However, these behavioral response are expected to cease shortly (minutes to hours) after the cessation of pile driving each day. SRKW are extremely unlikely to be within the action area during construction. That construction will be limited to out -of -water work will greatly minimize sound effects from the project on listed species and greatly decrease the range of noise detection. Suspended Sediment Exposure to construction -related degraded water quality would cause minor effects in PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. Water quality would be temporarily diminished by increased turbidity. Turbidity plumes may result from bottom sediments that are mobilized by pile and debris removal, spud lifting, and by propeller wash from the contractor's tugboat and barge (Robertson et al. 2006). Those plumes would be localized and short-lived, and consist of low concentrations of total suspended sediments (TSS). Tugboats would also mobilize bottom sediments. Based on similar projects, tugboat/barge trips to the site could be infrequent. Therefore, propeller wash turbidity plumes would be infrequent and low in number. The intensity and duration of propeller wash turbidity plumes are uncertain because barge equipment may or may not be used. However, given the low speeds of the tug when positioning the barge near the project site, the sandy substrate, and high level of water exchange at the site, sediment mobilization from propeller wash would likely consist of relatively low -concentration plumes that would extend no more than 100 meters from the site, and last less than an hour. As described above, construction -related turbidity would be very short-lived and at concentrations too low to cause more than temporary, non -injurious behavioral effects such as avoidance of the plume, minor gill flaring, and slightly reduced feeding rates and success (Berg and Northcote 1985; Robertson et al. 2006). None of these potential responses, individually, or in combination would affect the fitness of the few exposed individuals present. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -25- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 214 2.1.a Toxic Chemicals Water quality may also be impaired by the introduction of toxic materials as described in Section 2.5.1. Toxic materials may be introduced to the water through construction related spills and discharges, the mobilization of contaminated sediments, and/or the release of creosote -related PAHs directly from the piles during their removal. PS Chinook salmon or PS/GB bocaccio in the action area may be exposed to contaminants through direct uptake through their gills, and through dietary exposure (Karrow et al. 1999; Lee and Dobbs 1972; McCain et al. 1990; Meador et al. 2006; Neff 1982; Varanasi et al. 1993). Many of the pollutants that may enter the water column due to project activities can cause effects in exposed fish that range from avoidance of an affected area, to reduced growth, altered immune function, and immediate mortality in exposed individuals. The intensity of effects depends largely on the pollutant, its concentration, and/or the duration of exposure (Brette et al. 2014; Feist et al. 2011; Gobel et al. 2007; Incardona et al. 2004, 2005, and 2006; McIntyre et al. 2012; Meadore et al. 2006; Sandahl et al. 2007; Spromberg et al. 2015; Tierney et al. 2010). PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio may be exposed to toxic chemicals through the food chain. Amphipods and copepods uptake PAHs from contaminated sediments (Landrum and Scavia 1983; Landrum et al. 1984; Neff 1982), and pass them to juvenile Chinook salmon and other fish through the food web. The primary effects of dietary PAH exposure in salmonids include reduced growth, increased susceptibility to infection, and increased mortality. Varanasi et al. (1993) found high levels of PAHs in the stomach contents of juvenile Chinook salmon in a contaminated waterway (Duwamsh River). They also reported reduced growth, suppressed immune competence, as well as increased mortality in juvenile Chinook salmon. Meador et al. (2006) demonstrated that dietary exposure to PAHs caused "toxicant -induced starvation" with reduced growth and reduced lipid stores in juvenile Chinook salmon. The authors surmised that these impacts could severely impact the odds of survival in affected juvenile Chinook salmon. Juvenile PS/GB bocaccio were not specifically addressed in the available literature, but it is reasonable to expect that they may be similarly affected by dietary uptake of action -related contaminants. The sediments around the creosote -treated piles very likely contain PAHs, which may also be released directly from the piles and timbers during their removal (Evans et al. 2009; Parametrix 2011; Smith 2008; Werme et al. 2010). The amount of intensity and duration of PAHs that would be mobilized by construction activities is likely to be small. Most lighter -weight PAHs would dissipate within a few hours after their release into the water through evaporation and dilution (Smith 2008; Werme et al. 2010). The remaining contaminants would quickly settle out of the water along with the sediments, or be quickly diluted by the high rate of water exchange in the action area. Many of the fuels, lubricants, and other fluids used by common construction -related equipment are petroleum -based hydrocarbons with PAHs that are known to be injurious to fish. However, the project includes comprehensive BMPs to reduce the risk and intensity of discharges and spills from construction -related equipment. In the unlikely event of a construction -related spill or discharge, the event would likely be very small, quickly contained and cleaned, and most of the WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -26- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 215 2.1.a fuels and lubricants that used for this type of work would evaporate relatively quickly, and/or be quickly diluted by the tidal currents at the site. Based on the best available information, the in - water presence of construction -related contaminants would be very infrequent, very short-lived, and at concentrations too low to cause detectable effects should a listed fish be exposed to them. Based on the best available information, as described above, any fish that may be exposed to construction -related water quality impacts would experience no more than temporary low-level behavioral effects which, individually, or in combination would not affect the fitness of exposed individuals. Additionally, very few listed fish are unlikely to be exposed to PAHs that may be released as a result of the planned construction. Therefore, any PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio present would experience only minor effects from exposure to construction -related water quality impacts. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) impacts would cause minor effects in PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. SAV (i.e. macro algae and eelgrass) provides important structural environments that small fish, such as juvenile Chinook salmon and bocaccio, use to avoid predators. These plants form the foundation of detrital -based food webs that are a source of secondary production by supporting epiphytic plants, animals, and microbial organisms which are in turn are grazed upon by other invertebrates and by larval and juvenile fish (NMFS 1997). The loss of SAV would reduce primary production, and remove habitat that contributes to trophic systems, which in turn may reduce prey availability for juvenile Chinook salmon and bocaccio. Construction would damage very little SAV. Construction is likely to disturb a minimal amount of sandy -gravel substrate. The contractor's use of BMP specifies that avoiding SAV will be a priority for any barge -based landings, and aquatic vegetation extends from -2 to -20 MLLW, creating an unlikely influence of vessel traffic on listed species. Light Penetration and Avoidance Behavior The new overwater walkway structure would be installed over nearshore marine substrate between about +9.3 and +12.3 feet MLLW (note the tidal elevations provided in the BE are about 2.3 ft. lower due to the use of NAV 88 vertical projections). The structure would have a surface area of about 1540 square feet and be 50% grated with 60 percent open -area grating. This equates to about 20% light penetration after considering the pile caps, which add 147 square feet of concrete below the grating and are not accounted for in the BE. The planned location and orientation of the structure avoids existing eelgrass beds and patches and other submerged aquatic vegetation. The overwater walkway would be installed over intertidal substrates. The underside of the walkway base would lie between 2 and 2.5 feet above the substrate. In the seven locations of the piles, the pile caps would be in contact with the substrate at the minimum and one foot above the substrate at the maximum. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that scour pockets may form immediately adjacent to the pile and below the pile caps where water flowing from tides and WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -27- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 216 2.1.a from storm surge will erode sandy substrates. These pockets, if they form, could become attractive nuisances that trap and then strand fish as the tide recedes. Juvenile Chinook salmon and surf smelt are pelagic and less likely to become entrapped than other fishes (e.g., surf perch, sculpin), but it is not beyond reason that listed fish or their prey could become stranded or killed if scour occurs. Structure -related shade would reduce productivity. It is also likely to alter the migratory patterns, and may increase vulnerability to predators. The intensity of shadow effects are likely to vary based on the brightness and angle of the sun. They would be most intense on sunny days, and less pronounced to possibly inconsequential on cloudy days. Productivity is likely to be reduced under the new structure. Shade can limit primary production and reduce the diversity of the aquatic communities under over -water structures (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001; Simenstad et al. 1999). Although the structure's shadow would be less intense than would be caused by a solid -decked structure of the same size, 20% light penetration is low for a structure this size and may fail to meet state regulatory standards (WAC 220-660-380). The shadow is likely to cause some reduction in the growth of microorganisms under and adjacent to the structure. This, in turn, may reduce the production of invertebrate prey organisms for juvenile salmonids and rockfish. The degree to which productivity would be reduced under the new structure is uncertain, but it is likely to be relatively small based on its size and design. Similarly, shade -related reduction in prey is likely to be very small, and the effects of the reduction would be quickly diminished by mixing with the waters from nearby areas with higher productivity. Therefore the effects of shade -related prey reduction would be too small to cause detectable effects on the behaviors or fitness of juvenile Chinook salmon and bocaccio in the area. The migration patterns and distances travelled for some juvenile PS Chinook salmon are likely to be altered by the new structure's shadow. Many of the juvenile Chinook salmon that migrate through the action area would still be largely shoreline obligated. The new structure would create a 154-foot long by 10-foot wide (or wider depending on the angle of the sun) shadow across the shallow water routes likely to be followed by juvenile salmon migrating along this section of shoreline. Additionally, the depth of the walkway will functionally prohibit migrating juvenile Chinook salmon from using the shoreline and force them into deeper water with increasing tidal elevation. Numerous studies demonstrate that juvenile salmonids, in both marine and freshwater habitats, are more likely to avoid the shadow of an overwater structure than to pass through the shadow (Celedonia et al. 2008a and b; Kemp et al. 2005; Moore et al. 2013; Munsch et al. 2014; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001; Ono et al. 2010; Southard et al. 2006). The intensity of the effect increases with proximity of the structure to the water and the increased contrast between light and dark areas. Swimming around overwater structures increases the migratory distance, which has been positively correlated with increased mortality in juvenile Chinook salmon (Anderson et al. 2005). Celedonia et al. (2008a) report that two thirds of the juvenile Chinook salmon tracked during their study experienced a detectable delay in their migration under the SR 520 Bridge, where WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -28- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 217 2.1.a there is no option to go around. One third of the fish experienced an average delay of 15- minutes. One third experienced delays of under 1 minute, and one third showed no delay. Although the SR-520 Bridge is an imperfect analog for the applicant's structure, the authors' findings support the understanding that at least some of the juvenile PS Chinook salmon that migrate past the project site would swim around the structure to avoid its shadow. The structure's shadow is unlikely to affect juvenile bocaccio because they are most likely to be holding substantially deeper in the SAV where the effects of under -structure shade would be non- existent. Predation Risk Predation exposure is unlikely to increase due to the structure's shadow. The high intertidal location of the walkway is unlikely to harbor predators, such as sculpin (Cottidae sp.), and even at OHW, the depth would only be about two feet deep. The effects that the new structure's shade and physical barrier may cause a minor increased risk of predation in PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio but the effects would be undetectable. As described in Section 1.3.2, the proposed action imposes a interrelated actions. The new stairs and ramp will create an attractive setting for beach goers where access is currently less inviting. Thus, the added stairway and ramp constitute interrelated actions associated with the proposed action. Indeed, the added stairway and ramp are designed to attract pedestrians to the beach. As described previously, the project site features active surf smelt spawning. Surf smelt are important prey species for PS Chinook salmon, and probably PS/GB bocaccio. In turn, SR killer whales consume PS Chinook salmon. Surf smelt eggs are often unnoticed to untrained eyes, and spawn timing is not always predictable (Quinn et al. 2012). Thus, the likelihood of surf smelt eggs becoming trampled, buried, or spawning events deterred altogether is reasonable. 2.6 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, which are reasonably certain to occur within the action area (50 CFR 402.02). Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. Some continuing non -Federal activities are reasonably certain to contribute to climate effects within the action area. However, it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between the action area's future environmental conditions caused by global climate change that are properly part of the environmental baseline vs. cumulative effects. Therefore, all relevant future climate -related environmental conditions in the action area are described in the Environmental Baseline section (Section 2.4). The current condition of ESA -listed species and designated critical habitat within the action area are described in the Status of the Species and critical habitat and Environmental Baseline sections above. The contribution of non-federal activities to those conditions include past and on- going shoreline development and maritime activities, as well as upstream forest management, WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -29- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 218 2.1.a agriculture, urbanization, road construction, water development, and restoration activities. Those actions were driven by a combination of economic conditions that characterized traditional natural resource -based industries, general resource demands associated with settlement of local and regional population centers, and the efforts of social groups dedicated to river restoration and use of natural amenities, such as cultural inspiration and recreational experiences. NMFS is unaware of any specific future non-federal activities that are reasonably certain to affect the action area. However, NMFS is reasonably certain that future non-federal actions such as the previously mentioned shoreline and upstream activities are all likely to continue and increase in the future as the human population continues to grow across the region. Continued habitat loss and degradation of water quality from development and chronic low-level inputs of non -point source pollutants will likely continue into the future. Recreational and commercial use of nearshore marine waters within the action area is also likely to increase as the human population grows. The intensity of these influences depends on many social and economic factors, and therefore is difficult to predict. Further, the adoption of more environmentally acceptable practices and standards may gradually reduce some negative environmental impacts over time. Interest in restoration activities has increased as environmental awareness rises among the public. State, tribal, and local governments have developed plans and initiatives to benefit ESA -listed PS Chinook salmon within several watersheds around the action area. Similar activities are in development for PS/GB bocaccio in Puget Sound. However, the implementation of plans, initiatives, and specific restoration projects are often subject to political, legislative, and fiscal challenges that increase the uncertainty of their success. 2.7 Integration and Synthesis The Integration and Synthesis section is the final step in our assessment of the risk posed to species and critical habitat as a result of implementing the proposed action. In this section, we add the effects of the action (Section 2.5) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.4) and the cumulative effects (Section 2.6), taking into account the status of the species and critical habitat (Section 2.2), to formulate the agency's biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to: 1) Appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution; or 2) appreciably diminish the value of designated or proposed critical habitat for the conservation of the species. As described in more detail above at Section 2.4, climate change is likely to increasingly affect the abundance and distribution of the ESA -listed species considered in the Opinion. It is also likely to increasingly affect the PBF of designated critical habitats. The exact effects of climate change are both uncertain, and unlikely to be spatially homogeneous. However, climate change is reasonably likely to cause reduced instream flows in some systems, and may impact water quality through elevated in -stream water temperatures and reduced DO, as well as by causing more frequent and more intense flooding events. Climate change may also impact coastal waters through elevated surface water temperature, increased and variable acidity, increasing storm frequency and magnitude, and rising sea levels. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -30- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 219 2.1.a The adaptive ability of listed -species is uncertain, but likely reduced due to reductions in population size, habitat quantity and diversity, and loss of behavioral and genetic variation. The proposed action will cause direct and indirect effects on the ESA -listed species and critical habitats considered in the Opinion well into the foreseeable future. However, the action's effects on water quality, substrate, and the biological environment are expected to be of such a small scale that no detectable effects on ESA -listed species or critical habitat through synergistic interactions with the impacts of climate change are expected. 2.7.1 ESA -fisted Series The species considered in this Opinion have been listed under the ESA, based on declines from historic levels of abundance and productivity, loss of spatial structure and diversity, and an array of limiting factors as a baseline habitat condition. Each species will be affected over time by cumulative effects, some positive — as recovery plan implementation and regulatory revisions increase habitat protections and restoration, and some negative — as climate change and unregulated or difficult to regulate sources of environmental degradation persist or increase. Overall, to the degree that habitat trends are negative, as described below, effects on viability parameters of each species are also likely to be negative. In this context we consider the effects of the proposed action's effect on individuals of the listed species at the population scale. The action area provides habitat for nearshore marine life histories of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. For PS Chinook salmon, the action area supports PS Chinook salmon adult and juvenile migration, and juvenile growth and adaptation to marine waters, particularly for PS Chinook salmon from populations within the Whidbey Basin and the Central/South Puget Sound Basin MPGs. Although the Whidbey Basin MPG is considered to be at relatively low -risk of extinction, their abundance is low relative to historic levels. The other four MPGs are considered to be at high risk of extinction due to low abundance and productivity, and the long-term abundance trend for the ESU is slightly negative. Reduced or eliminated accessibility to historically important habitat, combined with degraded conditions in available habitat due to land use activities are the greatest threats to the recovery of PS Chinook salmon. The project site is located along the eastern shore of Puget Sound, in Edmonds. The environmental baseline within the action area has been degraded by more than 100 years of shoreline development, maritime activities, upland urbanization, and road building and maintenance. The WDOE reports impaired water and sediment quality exceedances in the action area, and eelgrass is documented at depths between about -2 to -20 feet below MLLW along the shoreline within the action area. The action area remains supportive of PS Chinook salmon, and provides migratory habitat for adults and juveniles. The planned work window overlaps with the later stages of out -migration by shoreline -obligated juvenile Chinook salmon that pass through the action area. Adults Chinook salmon or bocaccio are very unlikely to be present or detectably affected by the work or by the new structure. During construction, very low numbers of out -migrating juveniles may experience fitness impacts and increased susceptibility to predation due to behavioral responses to construction noise. Following construction, very low numbers of juveniles may be exposed annually to ever- WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -31- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 220 2.1.a decreasing levels of contaminated forage from mobilized sediments, and/or exposed to structure - related altered migration and exposure to propeller wash over the decades -long expected life of the structure. These stressors, both individually and collectively, are likely to cause a range of effects that would include some combination of altered behaviors, delayed migration, reduced fitness, and mortality in some exposed individuals. Based on the best available information, the scale of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, when considered in combination with the degraded baseline, cumulative effects, and the impacts of climate change, would be too small to cause detectable effects on any of the characteristics of a viable salmon population (abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, or genetic diversity) for the affected populations. Therefore, the proposed action would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of this listed species. For PS/GB bocaccio, the action area provides habitat features that are supportive of juvenile rearing. However, PS/GB bocaccio are relatively uncommon throughout the range of the DPS, and it is uncertain whether or not PS/GB bocaccio currently utilize the habitat off shore from the project site. No reliable population estimates are available for the DPS, but the best available information indicates that bocaccio were never a predominant segment of the total rockfish abundance in Puget Sound. Fishing removals and derelict fishing gear, combined with degraded water quality appear to be the greatest threats to the recovery of the DPS. Based on the best available information, the scale of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, when considered in combination with the degraded baseline, cumulative effects, and the impacts of climate change, would be too small to cause detectable effects on any of the characteristics of a viable population (abundance, productivity, distribution, or genetic diversity) for the PS/GB bocaccio DPS. Therefore, the proposed action would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of this listed species. 2.7.2 Critical Habitat As described above at Section 2.5.1, the proposed action is likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. For PS Chinook salmon critical habitat, past and ongoing land and water use practices have degraded salmonid critical habitat throughout the Puget Sound basin. Hydropower and water management activities have reduced or eliminated access to significant portions of historic spawning habitat. Timber harvests, agriculture, industry, urbanization, and shoreline development have adversely altered floodplain and stream morphology in many watersheds, diminished the availability and quality of estuarine and nearshore marine habitats, and reduced water quality across the region. Global climate change is expected to increase in -stream water temperatures and alter stream flows, possibly exacerbating impacts on baseline conditions in freshwater habitats across the region. Rising sea levels are expected to increase coastal erosion and alter the composition of nearshore habitats, which could further reduce the availability and quality of estuarine habitats. Increased ocean acidification may also reduce the quality of estuarine habitats. In the future, non-federal land and water use practices and climate change are likely to increase and continue acting against the quality of salmonid critical habitat. The intensity of those WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -32- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 221 2.1.a influences on salmonid habitats is uncertain, as is the degree to which those impacts may be tempered by adoption of more environmentally acceptable land use practices, by the implementation of non-federal plans that are intended to benefit salmonids, and by efforts to address the effects of climate change. The PBF for PS Chinook salmon critical habitat in the action area are limited to estuarine and nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation. The site attributes of those PBF that would be affected by the action are limited to water quality, natural cover, and forage that support juvenile growth and maturation, and juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater. As described above, the environmental conditions within the action area have been degraded by past and ongoing human activity, but remains supportive of PS Chinook salmon. The construction and long-term presence of the new overwater structure would cause conditions within about 200 meters of the site that would cause minor long term effects on obstruction and predation, minor ephemeral effects on water quality, minor long-term effects on natural cover, and minor long term effects on forage. The proposed removal of creosote -treated piles and timbers are likely to provide long-term beneficial effects on water and sediment quality through the removal of the source of PAH contamination at the site. Based on the best available information, the scale of the proposed action's effects, when considered in combination with the degraded baseline, cumulative effects, and the impacts of climate change, would be too small to cause any detectable long-term negative changes in the quality or functionality of the estuarine and nearshore marine area PBFs in the action area. Therefore, this critical habitat will maintain its current level of functionality, and retain its current ability for PBF to become functionally established, to serve the intended conservation role for PS Chinook salmon. For PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat, nearshore critical habitat has been degraded by past and ongoing shoreline development that has altered shoreline substrates, and reduced eelgrass and kelp habitats in many areas of Puget Sound. Agriculture, industry, urbanization, and maritime activities have reduced water quality throughout Puget Sound, and the widespread presence of derelict fishing gear in both nearshore and deep -water critical habitat areas has altered bottom composition, reduces prey availability, and directly kills rockfish. Rising sea levels, caused by climate change, are expected to increase coastal erosion and alter the composition of nearshore critical habitat for PS/GB bocaccio. Elevated sea surface temperatures and increased ocean acidification may also reduce the quality of nearshore marine habitats, and reduce prey availability by reducing ocean productivity. Future non-federal actions and climate change are likely to increase and continue acting against the quality of PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat. The intensity of those influences is uncertain, as is the degree to which those impacts may be tempered by adoption of more environmentally acceptable practices, by restoration activities such as efforts to remove derelict fishing gear, and by efforts to address the effects of climate change. WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -33- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 222 2.1.a The PBF for PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat in the action area is limited to nearshore settlement habitats with sand, rock, and/or cobble substrates that also support kelp. The site attributes of that PBF that would be affected by the action are limited to prey quantity, quality, and availability, and water quality to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities. As described above, the environmental conditions within the action area have been degraded by past and ongoing human activity, but remains supportive of juvenile PS/GB bocaccio. The construction and long-term presence of the new overwater structure would cause conditions within about 200 meters of the site that would cause minor long term effects on the quantity, quality, and availability of prey; and minor ephemeral effects on water quality. The proposed removal of creosote -treated piles and timbers are likely to provide long-term beneficial effects on water and sediment quality through the removal of the source of PAH contamination at the site. Based on the best available information, the scale of the proposed action's effects, when considered in combination with the degraded baseline, cumulative effects, and the impacts of climate change, would be too small to cause any detectable long-term negative changes in the quality or functionality of the nearshore settlement PBF in the action area. Therefore, this critical habitat will maintain its current level of functionality, and retain its current ability for PBF to become functionally established, to serve the intended conservation role for PS/GB bocaccio. 2.8 Conclusion After reviewing and analyzing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline within the action area, the effects of the proposed action, any effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, and cumulative effects, it is NMFS' opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. 2.9 Incidental Take Statement Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. "Take" is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined by regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). "Incidental take" is defined by regulation as takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.02). Section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) provide that taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA if that action is performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement (ITS). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -34- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 223 2.1.a 2.9.1 Amount or Extent of Take In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that incidental take is reasonably certain to occur as follows: Harm of juvenile PS Chinook salmon from: • exposure to noise from pile extraction and driving, • exposure to contaminated forage, • altered migratory behaviors, and • reduced forage fish prey. Harm of PS/GB bocaccio from: • exposure to noise from pile extraction and driving, and • exposure to contaminated forage, • reduced forage fish prey. The distribution and abundance of fish that occur within an action area are affected by habitat quality, competition, predation, and the interaction of processes that influence genetic, population, and environmental characteristics. These biotic and environmental processes interact in ways that may be random or directional, and may operate across far broader temporal and spatial scales than are affected by the proposed action. Thus, the distribution and abundance of fish within the action area cannot be attributed entirely to habitat conditions, nor can NMFS precisely predict the number of fish that are reasonably certain to be injured or killed if their habitat is modified or degraded by the proposed action. Therefore, we cannot predict with meaningful accuracy the number of juvenile PS Chinook salmon and juvenile PS/GB bocaccio that are reasonably certain to be injured or killed by exposure to increased predation, construction noise and contaminated forage. Nor can we predict the number of juvenile PS Chinook salmon that are reasonably certain to experience altered migratory behaviors, or that would be injured or killed by exposure to impaired water quality. Additionally, NMFS knows of no device or practicable technique that would yield reliable counts of individuals that experience these impacts. In such circumstances, NMFS uses the causal link established between the activity and the likely extent and duration of changes in habitat conditions to describe the extent of take as a numerical level of habitat disturbance. The most appropriate surrogates for take are action -related parameters that are directly related to the magnitude of the expected take. For this action, the type and size of the piles that would be removed and installed, the method of their extraction and installation, and the total number of days of pile work are the best available surrogates for the extent of take of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio from exposure to noise from pile extraction and driving. The size of the visible turbidity plume is the best available surrogate for the extent of take of juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio from exposure to contaminated forage. The size and configuration of the applicant's overwater walkway is the best available surrogate for the extent of take of juvenile PS Chinook salmon from altered migratory behaviors or potential predation. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -35- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 224 2.1.a The type and size of the piles, the method of their extraction and installation, and the total number of days of pile work are the best available surrogates because the intensity of effect is positively correlated to the loudness of the sound, which is determined by the type and size of the pile and the method of its extraction/installation. Further, the number of fish that would be exposed to the noise is positively correlated with the range of effect and the number of days that the action area would be impacted by sound. In short, as the sound level increase, the intensity of effect and the size of the affected area increases, and as the size of the ensonified area increases, and/or as the number of days the area is ensonified increases, the number of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio that would be exposed to the sound would increase despite the out -of -water work, and low density and random distribution of individuals of these species in the action area. Based on the best available information about the planned pile extraction and installation, as described in Section 2.5, the applicable ranges of effect for this project are driven by the type and size of the piles and the method of their extraction and installation, not by the duration of vibratory work. Therefore, duration of vibratory work is not considered a measure of take for this action. The size of the visible turbidity plume is the best available surrogate for the extent of take from exposure to contaminated forage because the number of prey organisms that would uptake contaminants that are mobilized by this action would be proportional to the size of the area where contaminated sediments would settle back to the bottom. Therefore, as the size of the visible turbidity plume increases, the number of prey organisms that may become contaminated and then eaten by juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio would increase, despite the low density and random distribution of juveniles of both of these species in the action area. The size and configuration of the applicant's overwater walkway is the best available surrogate for the extent of take from altered migratory behaviors because migratory effects are positively correltated with the size of the structure and with its opacity. As the size of a structure increases, the distance required to swim around and the associated risk of predation increases. As the opacity of the structure increases, the intensity of its shadow typically increases. The darker the shadow, the greater the likelihood that a juvenile salmonid would avoid it, and consequently delay its migration or abandon its normal shoreline path in favor of swimming around the shadow (i.e., further into deeper water). In summary, the extent of take for this action is defined as: Puget Sound Chinook salmon: a. A maximum of 5 days of pile installation; b. Vibratory extraction of up to 39 timber creosote piles (three of which may occur in - water); c. Vibratory installation of a maximum of seven steel pipe piles no larger than 30 inches in diameter, and up 66 H-pile 16 or 18 inches in size (or sheet pile with equal or smaller footprint), which will occur out of surface waters; d. A visible turbidity plume not to exceed 100 meters from the project site during any portion of the project, including movement of the contractor's tugboat; and e. The size and configuration of the applicant's overwater walkway, as described in the proposed action section of this biological opinion. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -36- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 225 2.1.a 2. Puget Sound Georgia Basin bocaccio: a. A maximum of 5 days of pile installation; b. Vibratory extraction of up to 39 timber creosote piles and H-posts 16 to 18 inches in diameter; c. Vibratory installation of a maximum of seven steel pipe piles no larger than 30 inches in diameter, and H-posts 16 to 18 inches in diameter, which will occur out of surface waters; d. A visible turbidity plume not to exceed 100 meters from the project site during any portion of the project, including movement of the contractor's tugboat; and e. The size and configuration of the applicant's overwater walkway, as described in the proposed action section of this biological opinion. Exceedance of any of the exposure limits described above would constitute an exceedance of authorized take that would trigger the need to reinitiate consultation. 2.9.2 Effect of the Take In the Opinion, NMFS determined that the amount or extent of anticipated take, coupled with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for either of these species (Section 2.8). 2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures "Reasonable and prudent measures" (RPMs) are nondiscretionary measures to minimize the amount or extent of incidental take (50 CFR 402.02). The USACE shall: 1. Minimize incidental take of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio from exposure to pile extraction and driving noise. 2. Minimize incidental take of PS Chinook salmon PS/GB bocaccio from exposure to contaminated forage. 3. Minimize incidental take of PS Chinook salmon from altered migratory behaviors. 4. Avoid entrapment and potential predation from substrate scour adjacent to the walkway piles. 5. Implement monitoring and reporting to confirm that the take exemption for the proposed action is not exceeded. 2.9.4 Terms and Conditions The terms and conditions described below are non -discretionary. The USACE or any applicant must comply with them in order to implement the RPM (50 CFR 402.14). The USACE or any applicant has a continuing duty to monitor the impacts of incidental take and must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species as specified in this ITS (50 CFR 402.14). If the entity to whom a term and condition is directed does not comply with the following terms and conditions, protective coverage for the proposed action would likely lapse. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -37- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 226 2.1.a 1. To implement RPM Number 1, Minimize incidental take of listed fish from exposure to noise from pile extraction and driving, the USACE shall require the applicant to: a. Require their contractors to comply with the impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE including avoiding in -water work and employing a vibratory hammer to minimize noise, and in the provisions of the WDFW HPA for this project when issued; b. Require their contractor to utilize vibratory pile extraction and installation; and 2. To implement RPM Number 2, Minimize incidental take of listed fish from exposure to contaminated forage, the USACE shall require the applicant to: a. Require their contractors to comply with the impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE (Herrera 2017), and in the provisions identified in the WDFW HPA for this project when issued; b. Require their contractors to install a containment boom (preferably full -depth silt curtain if practicable) around pile extraction and debris removal if conducting in - water work for the three creosote pile extractions; c. Require their contractors to limit pile removal to vibratory extraction and/or simple pull techniques (no water jetting, no clamshell excavation); and d. Require their contractors and tugboat operators to adjust work practices to ensure that turbidity does not exceed 100 meters from the project site, and to halt work should the visible turbidity plume approach and that range; and e. Require their contractors to prohibit shore -based demolitions and associated debris from coming in contact with marine waters. f. Require non -toxic and/or biodegradable lubricants and fluids (which are commonly used by many of the local contractors) for all machinery operating on the project, particularly when machinery operates waterward of the OHW. 3. To implement RPM Number 3, Minimize incidental take of PS Chinook salmon from altered migratory behaviors, the USACE shall require the applicant to ensure that the size and configuration of the overwater walkway structure does not exceed the dimensions described in the proposed action section above. In particular: a. The structure's overwater footprint shall not exceed a total of 1540-square feet; b. The pier shall be no larger than 154 feet long and 10 feet wide, and its underside shall be at least 8 feet above mean lower low water; c. The overwater walkway shall be 50% decked with grating that has at least 60 percent open area; d. The overwater walkway shall meet the minimum standards for light penetration (see WAC 220-660-380); e. The total number of steel piles shall be limited to seven 30-inch diameter; and f. The replacement stairs extend no further waterward than the existing structure. 4. To implement RPM Number 4, implement a test of the structure and site conditions prior to construction to ensure that the design does not form scour pockets and potentially WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -38- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 227 2.1.a strand fish. Using the existing concrete foundation prior to its removal is a suitable analog for this test. 5. To implement RPM Number 5, implement a monitoring and reporting program to confirm that the take exemption for the proposed action is not exceeded, the USACE shall require the applicant to collect and report details about the take of listed fish. That plan shall: a. Require the contractor to maintain and submit construction logs to verify that all take indicators are monitored and reported. Minimally, the logs should include: i. The dates (with workday start and stop times) for all pile extraction and installation work; ii. The type, size, and number of piles extracted and/or installed, per day; iii. The duration of vibratory pile extraction, per pile; iv. The duration of vibratory pile installation, per pile; v. A description of any containment boom installed around pile and debris extraction (full -depth silt curtain if possible); and vi. The extent (feet) and duration of visible turbidity plumes around pile and debris extraction, and during tugboat operations. b. Establish procedures for the submission of the construction logs, and other materials, to the appropriate USACE office, which will draft and submit a report to NMFS. c. Submit an electronic post -construction report to NMFS within six months of project completion. Send the report to: projectreports.wcr@noaa.gov. Be sure to include the NMFS Tracking number for this project in the subject line: Attn: WCRO-2018- 00112. 2.10 Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and endangered species. Specifically, conservation recommendations are suggestions regarding discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information (50 CFR 402.02). 1. The USACE should request the applicant design the project to achieve at least 30% light penetration for the overwater walkway. 2. The USACE should encourage the applicant to require their contactors to install full - depth silt curtains around in -water pile and debris extraction to minimize the spread of creosote -contaminated sediments. 3. The USACE and the applicant should encourage contracted tugboat operator(s) to use the lowest safe maneuvering speeds and power settings when maneuvering in shallow waters close to the shoreline, with the intent to minimize propeller wash and mobilization of sediments at the site. 4. The USACE should encourage the applicant to install clean capping material over substrates where contaminated sediments may settle out after pile and debris extraction (beyond any planed filling of depressions where the piles where removed). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -39- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 228 2.1.a 5. The USACE should encourage the applicant to develop a plan to reduce the environmental impacts at the overwater walkway. Suggested measures include: a. Inform pedestrians about the importance of the nearshore marine habitats at the site to migrating juvenile salmon and rearing rockfish; b. Require beachgoers to avoid harming eelgrass at low tides; c. Prohibit anchoring in or near eelgrass; d. Prohibit fueling and maintenance of power boats while on the water; and e. Establish a system to prevent and/or remove litter and wastes from the area around the walkways; and 6. The Corps should conduct or support research to better understand the distribution, abundance, and habitat use of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio in the action area. 2.11 Reinitiation of Consultation This concludes formal consultation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' authorization of Beach Camp at Sunset Bay to install a pile -supported pier, ramp, and float mooring structure at their shoreline facility on Puget Sound, Washington. As 50 CFR 402.16 states, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and if: (1) The amount or extent of incidental taking specified in the ITS is exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion, (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect on the listed species or critical habitats that was not considered in this Opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the action. 2.12 Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations This concurrence was prepared pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402 and agency guidance for preparation of letters of concurrence. Refer to the opinion for a description of the proposed action and action area. As described in section 1.2, the USACE determined the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the species and critical habitats identified in Table 1. However, as described in the Opinion above, NMFS did not concur that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, and designated critical habitat for both of those species. Our concurrence with the USACE's "not likely to adversely affect" determinations for PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and designated critical habitat for PS/GB yelloweye follows. Detailed information on the biology, habitat, and conservation status and trend of these listed resources can be found in the recovery plans and other sources at: http://www.mnfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/, http://www.mnfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/, and in the listing regulations and critical habitat designations published in the Federal Register. That information is incorporated here by reference. The applicable standard to find that a proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat is that all of the effects of the action are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -40- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 229 2.1.a without any adverse effects to the species or critical habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. As described above in Section 2.5, the proposed action is likely to affect listed species and/or critical habitat features through construction and structure -related effects. For simplicity, the effects analysis in this section relies heavily on the discussions in Section 2.5, and the stressors have been grouped into the following categories: degraded water quality, shade, and impacts to forage resources. 2.12.1 Effects on List Species Construction- and Structure -related Elevated Noise: Exposure to action -related elevated noise would cause minor effects in PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. PS steelhead and PS/GB yelloweye rock fish are extremely unlikely to be in areas where they would be exposed to levels of action -related noise. Additionally, because pile installation and extraction will occur outside of the water (i.e., in the dry), noise -related effects are expected to be very minor and not disruptive to fish in the area. PS steelhead are rarely reported in nearshore marine habitats. Juvenile steelhead are generally 2-3 years old and over 160 mm long when they enter marine water, and like adult steelhead, they are very uncommon in shallow nearshore areas. Out -migrating PS steelhead spend two to three weeks in Puget Sound and migrate toward the middle of the channel. Similarly, the nearest deepwater habitats that would be supportive of juvenile and adult PS/GB yelloweye rock fish are well outside of the area of acoustic effect for fish. Further, in the unlikely event that individuals of either species are exposed to action -related noise, they would, at most, experience minor temporary behavioral effects, that would result in no meaningfully impact on their fitness or normal behaviors of an exposed individual. In the event that SR killer whales enter the area of acoustic effect, it is extremely unlikely that individuals would approach close enough to the project site. Should any whales approach close enough to hear project related noise, they would, at most, experience brief periods of low-level acoustic masking (virtually undetectable against the ambient noise in the area), and may exhibit temporary minor avoidance of the waters very close to the project site. The exposure would cause no impacts on the fitness of exposed SR killer whales, and it would cause no meaningful impacts on their normal behaviors. Degraded Water Quality; Exposure to action -related degraded water quality would cause negligible and discountable effects in PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. As described in the Opinion above, construction and structure -related operations would cause short-term minor effects on water quality within about 150 feet of the project site, and those impacts would cause no meaningful effects in exposed fish. It is extremely unlikely that PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales would approach within 200 meters of the site, especially during construction. Further, in the unlikely event that individuals of any of these species become exposed to water of reduced quality that is attributable to the proposed action, the best available information suggests that the exposure would cause no meaningful impacts on their fitness or normal behaviors. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -41- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 230 2.1.a Shade: Exposure to action -related shading would cause no more than minor effects in PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. As described in the Opinion above, action -related shade effects would be largely limited the area directly under and adjacent to the new overwater structure. It is extremely unlikely that PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales would approach the action area. Further, in the unlikely event that individuals of any of these species become exposed to action -related shade, the best available information suggests that the exposure would cause no meaningful impacts on their fitness or normal behaviors. lm acts on Submer ed A uatic Vegetation SAV and Forage Resources: Impacts on SAV and forage resources would cause no more than minor effects in PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. As described in the Opinion above, construction and shade would not impact SAV in the area immediately surrounding the project site. PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales are extremely unlikely utilize SAV or to forage within the action area. Further, none of these species would be detectably affected by prey availability or quality because the action would cause no population -level effects on prey species, and the number of potentially contaminated prey organisms that may be consumed by an individual would be too low to cause any detectable effects. Therefore, action - related impacts on SAV and forage resources would cause no detectable effects on the fitness or normal behaviors of PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. Debris removal is expected to mobilize contaminated sediments within 150 feet of the project site, and slightly increase the contamination of some invertebrate organisms that may be eaten by small fish and other organisms within that area. The small fish that consume the contaminated forage in the action area would become contaminated forage for larger species that feed on them. However, the number of small fish that may be affected by the consumption of action -related contaminated prey would be too low to cause any detectable effects in the predators that may later consume them. 2.12.2 Effects on Critical Habitat This assessment considers the intensity of expected effects in terms of the change they would cause in affected PBFs from their baseline conditions, and the severity of each effect, considered in terms of the time required to recover from the effect. Ephemeral effects are those that are likely to last for hours or days, short-term effects would likely to last for weeks, and long-term effects are likely to last for months, years or decades. PS/GB Yelloweve Rockfish Critical Habitat; The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat that has been designated for PS/GB yelloweye rockfish. The essential PBF of this critical habitat is limited to substrates at depths greater than 98 feet (30 m) and the waters above that substrate. That habitat occurs beyond the expected range of potential effects from the proposed action. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the action would cause any detectable effect on any PBF of this critical habitat. WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -42- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 231 2.1.a SR killer whale Critical Habitat: The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat that has been designated for SR killer whales. Designated critical habitat for SR killer whales includes marine waters of the Puget Sound that are at least 20 feet deep. The expected effects on SR killer whale critical habitat from completion of the proposed action, including full application of the conservation measures and BMP, would be limited to the impacts on the PBF as described below. 1. Water uali to support growth and develo ment The proposed action would cause ephemeral minor effects on water quality. It would cause no measurable changes in water temperature and salinity. The presence of detectable levels of contaminants, including suspended sediments, would be so ephemeral, infrequent, localized, and of such low concentrations that changes in water quality would cause insignificant effects on this PBF. 2. Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth. reproduction, and development, as well as overall ponulationgro_wth The proposed action would cause long-term minor effects on prey. Construction -related impacts on prey resources, including juvenile salmonid exposure to contaminated prey would be too small to cause any detectable reduction in prey availability for SR killer whales. Also, the level of potential contamination in the action area and the of number of juvenile salmon that may consume action -related contaminated prey would be too low to cause any detectable effects or bioaccumulation in SR killer whales that may later consume those fish. 3. Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging The proposed action would cause ephemeral minor effects on passage conditions. Detectable levels of construction -related noise may radiate within 150 feet around the project site due to the work being performed in the dry. Exposure to this noise would, at most, cause brief episodic periods of low-level acoustic masking (virtually undetectable against the ambient noise in the area, and avoidance of the area immediately around the project. However, the temporary areal avoidance would not hinder migration, or limit access to important habitat resources. For the reasons expressed immediately above, NMFS concurs with the USACE's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect ESA -listed PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rockfish and its designated critical habitat, and SR killer whales and their designated critical habitat. 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION Section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The MSA (section 3) defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality or quantity of EFH, and may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the waters or substrate and loss of (or injury to) benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -43- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 232 2.1.a effects on EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of it and may include site -specific or EFH-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). Section 305(b) also requires NMFS to recommend measures that can be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH. This analysis is based, in part, on the EFH assessment provided by the applicant and descriptions of EFH for Pacific Coast groundfish (PFMC 2005), coastal pelagic species (PFMC 1998), and Pacific Coast salmon (PFMC 2014) contained in the fishery management plans developed by the PFMC and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project The proposed action and action area for this consultation are described in section 1 of this document. The action area includes areas designated as EFH for various life -history stages of Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species. The PFMC described and identified EFH for Pacific coast groundfish (PFMC 2005), Pacific salmon (PFMC 2014), and coastal pelagic species (PFMC 1998). In addition, the action area is designated as a habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) for estuarine habitat and for eelgrass. 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat The ESA portion of this document describes the adverse effects of this proposed action on ESA - listed species and critical habitat, and is relevant to the effects on EFH for Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species. Based on the analysis of effects presented in Section 2.5 the proposed action will cause small scale adverse effects on this EFH through direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the water or substrate, and through alteration of benthic communities, and the reduction in prey availability. Therefore, we have determined that the proposed action would adversely affect the EFH identified above. 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations Implementation of the following conservation recommendations would minimize and/or avoid adverse effects on EFH for Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species that are likely to result from the proposed action. To reduce adverse alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of the water and substrate: a. Require their contractors to comply with the impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE (Herrera 2017), in the WDFW HPA for this project when issued; b. Require the use of a containment boom (preferably full -depth silt curtain if practicable) around all in -water pile and debris removal; c. Require that pile removal be limited to vibratory extraction and/or simple pull techniques (no water jetting, no clamshell excavation); and WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -44- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 233 2.1.a d. Require that contractors and tugboat operators adjust work practices to ensure that turbidity does not exceed 100 meters from the project site, and to halt work should the visible turbidity plume approach and that range. 2. To reduce adverse alteration of benthic communities and reduction in prey availability: a. Require compliance with the design plans provided with the consultation request for this action, particularly: i. Do not exceed the number, type, and size of new piles that would be installed; ii. Place all new piles in locations that minimize impacts on eelgrass; iii. Do not reduce the heights, exceed the widths, or exceed the total square footage of the described structure; iv. Install the mooring float no closer to shore than described; and v. Install fully -grated decking that meets or exceeds 60 percent open area and achieves at least 30% light penetration; b. Require their contractors to comply with the impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE (Herrera 2017), and in the WDFW HPA for this project when issued. 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement As required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA, the USACE must provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS within 30 days after receiving an EFH Conservation Recommendation. Such a response must be provided at least 10 days prior to final approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations unless NMFS and the Federal agency have agreed to use alternative time frames for the Federal agency response. The response must include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, minimizing, mitigating, or otherwise offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the Conservation Recommendations, the Federal agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects (50 CFR 600.920(k)(1)). In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many conservation recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, we ask that in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this consultation, you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations accepted. 3.5 Supplemental Consultation The USACE must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(1)). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -45- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 234 2.1.a 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE -DISSEMINATION REVIEW The Data Quality Act (DQA) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the Opinion addresses these DQA components, documents compliance with the DQA, and certifies that this Opinion has undergone pre -dissemination review. 4.1 Utility Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. The intended user of this Opinion is the USAGE. Other users could include WDFW, and the citizens of Island County. Individual copies of this Opinion were provided to the USACE. The format and naming adheres to conventional standards for style. 4.2 Integrity This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix III, `Security of Automated Information Resources,' Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act. 4.3 Objectivity Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They adhere to published standards including the NMFS ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA regulations, 50 CFR 402.01 et seq., and the MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 CFR 600. Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available information, as referenced in the References section. The analyses in this Opinion and EFH consultation contain more background on information sources and quality. Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly referenced, consistent with standard scientific referencing style. Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in ESA and MSA implementation, and reviewed in accordance with West Coast Region ESA quality control and assurance processes. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -46- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 235 2.1.a 5. REFERENCES Abatzoglou, J.T., Rupp, D.E. and Mote, P.W. 2014. Seasonal climate variability and change in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Journal of Climate 27(5): 2125-2142. Anderson, J.J., E. Gurarie, and R.W. Zabel. 2005. Mean free -path length theory of predator -prey interactions: Application to juvenile salmon migration. Ecological Modelling. 186:196- 211. Berg, L., and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in Territorial, Gill -Flaring, and Feeding Behavior in Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Following Short -Term Pulses of Suspended Sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 1410-1417. Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Washington Sea Grant Program, UW Board of Regents Seattle, WA. 34 p. Brette, F., B. Machado, C. Cros, J.P. Incardona, N.L. Scholz, and B.A. Block. 2014. Crude Oil Impairs Cardiac Excitation -Contraction Coupling in Fish. Science Vol 343. February 14, 2014. 10.1126/science.1242747. 5 pp. Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, S. Damm, D.W. Lantz, T.M. Lee, Z. Li, J.-M. Pratt, B.E. Price, and L. Seyda. 2008a. Movement and Habitat Use of Chinook Salmon Smolts, Northern Pikeminnow, and Smallmouth Bass Near the SR 520 Bridge — 2007 Acoustic Tracking Study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. October 2008. 139 pp. Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, D.W. Lantz, and J. Grettenberger. 2008b. Movement and Habitat Use of Chinook Salmon Smolts and Two Predatory Fishes in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. 2004-2005 Acoustic Tracking Studies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. December 2008. 129 pp. Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, H.D. Berry. 2016. Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuarine, Coast., and Shelf Sci. 175:106- 117. Dominguez, F., E. Rivera, D. P. Lettenmaier, and C. L. Castro. 2012. Changes in Winter Precipitation Extremes for the Western United States under a Warmer Climate as Simulated by Regional Climate Models. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(5). Doney, S.C., M. Ruckelshaus, J.E. Duffy, J.P. Barry, F. Chan, C.A. English, H.M. Galindo, J.M. Grebmeier, A.B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N.N. Rabalais, W.J. Sydeman, and L.D. Talley. 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 4:11-37. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -47- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 236 2.1.a Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2010. Reports reconfirm surface runoff as leading source of toxics in Puget Sound. Water Quality Program. Ecology. 2018a. Washington State Coastal Atlas. https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx Ecology. 2018b. Washington State Water Quality Atlas. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterqualityatlas/map.aspx Evans, M., K. Fazakas, J. Keating. 2009. Creosote Contamination in Sediments of the Grey Owl Marina in Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada. Water Air Soil Pollution. 201:161-184. Feely, R.A., T. Klinger, J.A. Newton, and M. Chadsey (editors). 2012. Scientific summary of ocean acidification in Washington state marine waters. NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Special Report. Feist, B.E., E.R. Buhle, P. Arnold, J.W. Davis, and N.L. Scholz. 2011. Landscape ecotoxicology of coho salmon spawner mortality in urban streams. Plos One 6(8):e23424. Ford, M.J. 2013. Status Review update of the Southern Resident killer whales. National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA. 41pp. Fresh, K.L., M. Dethier, C. Simenstad, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C. Tanner, T. Leschine, T. Mumfor, G. Gelfenbaum, R. Shuman, and J. Newton. 2011. Implications of observed anthropogenic changes to the nearshore ecosystems in Puget Sound. Technical Report 201103. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project. Glick, P., J. Clough, and B. Nunley. 2007. Sea -Level Rise and Coastal Habitats in the Pacific Northwest: An analysis for Puget Sound, southwestern Washington, and northwestern Oregon. National Wildlife Federation, Seattle, WA. Gobel, P., C. Dierkes, & W.C. Coldewey. 2007. Storm water runoff concentration matrix for urban areas. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 91, 26-42. Greene, C. and A. Godersky. 2012. Larval rockfish in Puget Sound surface waters. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. December 27, 2012. 16 pp. Gustafson, R., Y.-W. Lee, E. Ward, K. Somers, V. Tuttle, and J. Jannot. 2016. Status Review update of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) listed under the Endangered Species Act: Southern District Population Segment. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. Hayes, S.A., A.J. Ammann, J.A. Harding, J.L. Hassrick, L. deWitt, and C.A. Morgan. 2016. Observations of steelhead in the California Current lead to a marine -based hypothesis for the "half -pounder" life history, with climate change implications for anadromy. N. Pac. Anadr. Fish Comm. Bull. 6: 97-105. doi: 10.23 849/npafcb6/97.105. WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -48- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 237 2.1.a Herrera. 2017. Biological Evaluation: Edmonds Waterfront Center Project. Seattle, WA. 25pp. Holsman, K.K. and J. Willig. 2007. Large-scale patterns in large woody debris and upland vegetation among armored and unarmored shorelines of Puget Sound, WA. People for Puget Sound RPT, 07-1. Incardona, J.P., T.K. Collier, and N.L. Scholz. 2004. Defects in cardiac function precede morphological abnormalities in fish embryos exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 196:191-205. Incardona, J.P., M.G. Carls, H. Teraoka, C.A. Sloan, T.K. Collier, and N.L. Scholz. 2005. Aryl hydrocarbon receptor -independent toxicity of weathered crude oil during fish development. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:1755-1762. Incardona, J.P., H.L. Day, T.K. Collier, and N.L. Scholz. 2006. Developmental toxicity of 4-ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in zebrafish is differentially dependent on AH receptor isoforms and hepatic cytochrome P450 IA metabolism. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 217:308-321. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (eds R.K. Pachauri & A. Reisinger). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1, Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Karrow, N., H.J. Boermans, D.G. Dixon, A. Hontella, K.R. Soloman, J.J. White, and N.C. Bols. 1999. Characterizing the immunotoxicity of creosote to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): a microcosm study. Aquatic Toxicology. 45 (1999) 223-239. Kemp, P.S., M.H. Gessel, and J.G. Williams. 2005. Seaward migrating subyearling Chinook salmon avoid overhead cover. Journal of Fish Biology. 67:10. Kunkel, K. E., L. E. Stevens, S. E. Stevens, L. Sun, E. Janssen, D. Wuebbles, K. T. Redmond, and J. G. Dobson. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment: Part 6. Climate of the Northwest U.S. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-6. 83 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Washington, D.C. Landrum, P.F., and D. Scavia. 1983. Influence of sediment on anthracene uptake, depuration, and biotransformation by the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Canada. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 40:298-305. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -49- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 238 2.1.a Landrum, P.F., B.J. Eadie, W.R. Faust, N.R. Morehead, and M.J. McCormick. 1984. Role of sediment in the bioaccumulation of benzo(a)pyrene by the amphipod, Pontoporeia hoyi. Pages 799-812 in M. Cooke and A.J. Dennis (eds.). Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons: mechanisms, methods and metabolism. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio. Lee, R. and G. Dobbs. 1972. Uptake, Metabolism and Discharge of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Marine Fish. Marine Biology. 17, 201-208. Lombard, J. 2006. Saving Puget Sound: a conservation strategy for the 215t century. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. McCain, B., D.C. Malins, M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, W.D. Gronlund, L.K. Moore, and S-L. Chan. 1990. Uptake of Aromatic and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons by Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in an Urban Estuary. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19, 10-16 (1990). McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U.S Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42. June 2000. 156 pp. McIntyre, J.K, D.H. Baldwin, D.A. Beauchamp, and N.L. Scholz. 2012. Low-level copper exposures increase visibility and vulnerability of juvenile coho salmon to cutthroat trout predators. Ecological Applications, 22(5), 2012, pp. 1460-1471. Meadore, J.P., F.C. Sommers, G.M. Ylitalo, and C.A. Sloan. 2006. Altered growth and related physiological responses in juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshwaytscha) from dietary exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Canadian Journal of fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 63: 2364-2376. Moore, M.E., B.A. Berejikian, and E.P. Tezak. 2013. A Floating Bridge Disrupts Seaward Migration and Increases Mortality of Steelhead Smolts in Hood Canal, Washington State. PloS one. September 2013. Vol 8. Issue 9. E73427. 10 pp. Moore, M.E., B.A. Berejikian, F.A. Goetz, A.C. Berger, S.S. Hodgson, E.J. Connor, and T.P. Quinn. 2015. Multi -population analysis of Puget Sound steelhead survival and migration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 537:217-232. Moore, M.E., and B.A. Berejikian. 2017. Population, habitat, and marine location effects on early marine survival and behavior of Puget Sound steelhead smolts. Ecosphere 8(5):e01834. 10.1002/ecs2.1834. Morley, S.A., J.D. Toft., and K.M. Hanson. 2012. Ecological effects of shoreline armoring on intertidal habitats of a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts, 35(3):774-784. WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -50- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 239 2.1.a Mote, P.W., J.T. Abatzglou, and K.E. Kunkel. 2013. Climate: Variability and Change in the Past and the Future. In Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities, edited by M.M. Dalton, P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover, 41-58. Island Press, Washington, DC. Mote, P.W, A. K. Snover, S. Capalbo, S.D. Eigenbrode, P. Glick, J. Littell, R.R. Raymondi, and W.S. Reeder. 2014. Ch. 21: Northwest. In Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 487-513. Mote, P.W., D.E. Rupp, S. Li, D.J. Sharp, F. Otto, P.F. Uhe, M. Xiao, D.P. Lettenmaier, H. Cullen, and M. R. Allen. 2016. Perspectives on the cause of exceptionally low 2015 snowpack in the western United States, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, doi: 10. 1002/2016GLO69665. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, and E.E. Morgan. 2014. Effects of Seawalls and Piers on Fish Assemblages and Juvenile Salmon Feeding Behavior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 34:814-827. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Status review update for coho salmon from the Oregon and Northern California coasts. West Coast coho salmon Biological Review Team, 28 March. 70 p. + appendices. NMFS. 2005. Final assessment of NOAA Fisheries' Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. Portland, OR. 583 pp. NMFS. 2006. Final Supplement to the Shared Strategy's Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. Prepared by NMFS Northwest Region. November 17, 2006. 47 pp. NMFS. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. NMFS. 2016. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish, and Bocaccio of the Puget Sound/ Georgia Basin. NMFS West Coast Region, Protected Resources Division, Seattle, WA. 72 pp. NMFS. 2017a. 2016 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Hood Canal Summer -run Chum Salmon, and Puget Sound Steelhead. NMFS West Coast Region, Portland, Oregon. April 6, 2017. 98 pp. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -51- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 240 2.1.a NMFS. 2017b. Rockfish Recovery Plan: Puget Sound / Georgia Basin Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) and Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). NMFS West Coast Region, Protected Resources Divisions, Seattle, Washington. October 13, 2017. 164 pp. NMFS. 2017c. Recovery plan for the southern distinct population segment of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Protected Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. Neff, J.M. 1982. Accumulation and release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from water, food, and sediment by marine animals. Pages 282-320 in N.L. Richards and B.L. Jackson (eds.). Symposium: carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons n the marine environment. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency Rep. 600/9-82-013. Nightingale, B. and C.A Simenstad. 2001. Overwater structures: Marine issues white paper. Prepared by the University of Washington School of Marine Affairs and the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences for the Washington State Department of Transportation. May 2001. 177 pp. Ono, K., C.A. Simenstad, J.D. Toft, S.L. Southard, K.L. Sobocinski, and A. Borde. 2010. Assessing and Mitigating Dock Shading Impacts on the Behavior of Juvenile Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.): Can Artificial Light Mitigate the Effects? Prepared for Washington State Dept. of Transportation. WA-RD 755.1 July 2010. 94 pp. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998. Description and identification of essential fish habitat for the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Appendix D to Amendment 8 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. PFMC, Portland, Oregon. December 1998. 41 pp. PFMC. 2005. Amendment 18 (bycatch mitigation program), Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington groundfish fishery — Appendix B Part 3 — Essential Fish Habitat text Descriptions. PFMC, Portland, Oregon. November 2005. 361 pp. PFMC. 2014. Appendix A to the Pacific Coast salmon fishery management plan, as modified by amendment 18 to the pacific coast salmon plan: identification and description of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon. PFMC, Portland, OR. September 2014. 196 p. + appendices. Palsson, W.A., T.S. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W Cheng, and R.E. Pacunski. 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. FPT 09-04. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Division, Olympia, WA. September 2009. 190 pp. Parametrix. 2011. Creosote Release from Cut/Broken Piles. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -52- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 241 2.1.a PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2017. 2017 State of the Sound. Olympia, Washington. November 2017. http://www.psp.wa.gov/sos.php Quinn, T., K. Krueger, K. Pierce, D. Pentilla, K. Perry, T. Hicks, and D. Lowry. 2012. Patterns of surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus, intertidal spawning habitat use in Puget Sound, Washington State. Estuaries and Coasts 35:1214-1228. Rice, C. 2006. Effects of shoreline modification on a Northern Puget Sound beach: Microclimate and embryo mortality in surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). Reeder, W.S., P.R. Ruggiero, S.L. Shafer, A.K. Snover, L.L Houston, P. Glick, J.A. Newton, and S.M. Capalbo. 2013. Coasts: Complex Changes Affecting the Northwest's Diverse Shorelines. In Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities, edited by M.M. Dalton, P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover, 41-58. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Robertson, M.J., D.A. Scruton, R.S. Gregory, and K.D. Clarke. 2006. Effect of suspended sediment on freshwater fish and fish habitat. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2644, 37 p. Sandahl, J.F., D. Baldwin, J.J. Jenkins, and N.L. Scholz. 2007. A Sensory System at the Interface between Urban Stormwater Runoff and Salmon Survival. Environmental Science and Technology. 2007, 41, 2998-3004. Scheuerell, M.D., and J.G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate -induced changes in the survival of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries Oceanography 14:448-457. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (SSPS). 2007. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan — Volume 1. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, 1411 4t' Ave., Ste. 1015, Seattle, WA 98 10 1. Adopted by NMFS January 19, 2007. 503 pp. Shipman, H., M.N. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, K.L. Fresh, and R.W. Dinicola, eds. 2010. Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring —Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010 5254. Simenstad, C.A., B. Nightingale, R.M. Thom, and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Migrating Along Puget Sound Shorelines Phase I: Synthesis of State of Knowledge. Prepared by Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington for Washington State Department of Transportation Research Office, Report WA-RD 472.1, Olympia, Washington. June 1999. 100 pp. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -53- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 242 2.1.a Simenstad, C., M. Ramirez, J. Burke, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C. Tanner, J. Toft, B. Craig, C. Davis, J. Fung, P. Bloch, K. Fresh, D. Myers, E. Iverson, A. Bailey, P. Schlenger, C. Kiblinger, P. Myre, W. Gertsel, and A. MacLennan. 2011. Historical change of Puget Sound shorelines: Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Project Change Analysis. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 201101. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Smith, P. 2008. Risks to human health and estuarine ecology posed by pulling out creosote treated timber on oyster farms. Aquatic Toxicology 86 (2008) 287-298. Southard, S.L., R.M. Thom, G.D. Williams, T.J. D. Toft, C.W. May, G.A. McMichael, J.A. Vucelick, J.T. Newell, and J.A. Southard. 2006. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Movement along Puget Sound Shorelines. Prepared for WSDOT by Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. PNWD-3647. June 2006. 84 pp. Spromberg, J.A, D.H. Baldwin, S.E. Damm, J.K. McIntyre, M. Huff, C.A. Sloan, B.F. Anulacion, J.W. Davis, and N.L. Scholz. 2015. Coho salmon spawner mortality in western US urban watersheds: bioinfiltration prevents lethal storm water impacts. Journal of Applied Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2264.12534. Stadler, J.H., and D.P. Woodbury. 2009. Assessing the effects to fishes from pile driving: Application of new hydroacoustic criteria. 8 pp. Sunda, W. G., and W. J. Cai. 2012. Eutrophication induced CO2-acidification of subsurface coastal waters: interactive effects of temperature, salinity, and atmospheric CO2. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(19): 10651-10659. Tague, C.L., J.S. Choate, G. Grant. 2013a. Parameterizing sub -surface drainage with geology to improve modeling streamflow responses to climate in data limited environments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17 (1), 341-354, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-341-2013. Tierney, K.B., D.H. Baldwin, T.J. Hara, P.S. Ross, N.L. Scholz, and C.J. Kennedy. 2010. Olfactory toxicity in fishes. Aquatic Toxicology. 96:2-26. Tillmann, P., and D. Siemann. 2011. Climate Change Effects and Adaptation Approaches in Marine and Coastal Ecosystems of the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative Region. National Wildlife Federation. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. Fish Distribution, Abundance, and Behavior along City Shoreline Types in Puget Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 27:465-480. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -54- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 243 2.1.a Tonnes, D., M. Bhuthimethee, J. Sawchuk, N. Tolimieri, K. Andrews, and K. Nichols. 2016. Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), and bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. NMFS West Coast Region, Protected Resources Divisions, Seattle, Washington. April 2016. 131 pp. Varanasi, U., E. Casillas, M.R. Arkoosh, T. Hom, D.A. Misitano, D.W. Brown, S.L. Chan, T.K. Collier, B.B. McCain, and J.E. Stein. 1993. Contaminant Exposure and Associated Biological Effects in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Urban and Nonurban Estuaries of Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- NWFSC-8. NMFS NFSC Seattle, WA. April 1993.69 pp. WDFW. 2018a. Forage Fish maps. http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=l 968f74e2d41470cbd 80b 1 af8dedd6b3 &extent=- 126.13 68,45.6684,-119.6494,49.078 1#! Werme C., J. Hunt, E. Beller, K. Cayce, M. Klatt, A. Melwani, E. Polson, and R. Grossinger. 2010. Removal of Creosote -Treated Pilings and Structures from San Francisco Bay. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy. Contribution No. 605. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California. December 2010.247 pp. Willette, T.M. 2001. Foraging behavior of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and size -dependent predation risk. Fisheries Oceanography, 10(1):110-131. Wysocki, L.E., J.P. Dittami, F. Ladich. 2006. Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater fishes. Biol. Conserv. 128:501-508. Zabel, R.W., M.D. Scheuerell, M.M. McClure, and J.G. Williams. 2006. The interplay between climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook salmon. Conservation Biology, 20:190-200. WCRO-2018-00112 (USAGE) -55- Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 244 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180039 — PLN20180043 Applicant: City of Edmonds/Edmonds Senior Center DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 24th day of July, 2018, the attached Notice of Application and Optional SEPA DNS was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 24th day of July,-201.8, at Edmonds, Washington. l Signed: 1 {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 245 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180039 — PLN20180043 Applicant: City of Edmonds/Edmonds Senior Center DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 24th day of July, 2018, the attached Notice of Public Application and Optional SEPA DNS was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Debbie Rothfus, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 24th day of July, 2018, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 246 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180039 - 43 APPLICANT: CITY/SENIOR CTR DECLARATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF APPLICATION & OPTIONAL DNS On the 24 day of July, 2018, the attached Notice of Application & Optional DNS was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 24 day of July, 2018 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed:'_�W' -- b AYV.,-(- � S Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 247 2.1.a CITY OF EDM ON DS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ")C. 189., PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be on parcel 27032300104200 located at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement (AFN 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums located at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300. To the north of the bulkhead removal, portions of the adjacent parcels (27032300104400) and a City of Edmonds easement (AFN 8101160178) will be modified to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade. NAME OF APPLICANTS: City of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center FILE NUMBER: PLN20180039 (Conditional Use Permit), PLN20180040 (Design Review), PLN20180041 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Waterfront Center Building), PLN20180042 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and PLN20180043 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit - Overwater Walkway) DATE OF APPLICATION: June 12, 2018 DATE OF COMPLETENESS' July 10, 2018 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: July 24, 2018 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: The responsible official has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). The Optional DNS process is being used pursuant to WAC 197-11-355. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. The proposal may include mitigation measures under the applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation regardless of whether an EIS is prepared. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination may be obtained upon request. Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 248 2.1.a REQUESTED PERMITs: Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Three Shoreline Substantial Development Permits. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit (US Army Corps of Engineers), Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Determination (Washington State Department of Ecology), Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Construction Stormwater General Permit (Ecology), Hydraulic Permit Approval (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), Cultural Resources Assessment (Recreation Conservation Office, State of Washington), Building Permits (City of Edmonds). EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Areas Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Geotechnical Reports, Critical Area Report, Biological Evaluation, Cultural Resources Assessment, and Traffic Study DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.040, the application will be reviewed for consistency with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Edmonds Community Development Code, Shoreline Master Program and applicable State and Federal regulations. COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: August 23, 2018 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 51h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday. Information can also be viewed online through the City's website at https:llpermits.edmonds.wo.us/citizen. All of the information on all permits have been consolidated and attached under permit PLN20180039. Search for permit PLN20180039. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 249 2.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH818226 PLN20170039 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 07/24/2018 and ending on 07/24/2018 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $172.0 !� f Q Subscribed and sworn afore me on this �/ day of 4ota,ryPand for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN VVV Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington MyAppolntment Expiroe 081291" I4R,. Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 250 Classified Proof 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION; The City of EdmoAdr and the Edmonds Senior Canter are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in from of the Ebb TIde Condominium. Trip propoied Edmonds Waterfront Cenler building will be used by l e E+Nnonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weak" In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provired by the City of Edmonds The proposed bullding 6 appraxlrnalely 26.J00 Some fact. Trio proposed overwriler walkway YAC connect two existing orta of the Edmonds Marine INalkwOyy 10 p�� a cant rFLMth5 POGO Tan Mass along the welerffanL Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote•Veated V~ piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed and a new beach access point with pile-supporled concrete stabs and ramp will be added vrilNn the exis" footprint The parking 101 will be reconfiguroC Find will racotporaw R 4lorelennOn planter for water qua lily trealmem and infiltration PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be on parcel 270a23001P420C located at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. The overwaler walkway will be constructed within a Ctty-owned easement (AFN 8311070085) on the beach in hbnt of the Ebb Tide Condominiums located at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington. The overwMarwelkway will connatl to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300 To the north of the bulkhead removal, Etlthe lac m4nds f easement (AFN8101160178) twill be amodi modified to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade, NAME OF APPLICANTS: City of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center FILE NO,: PLNZ(1lfl )WO [[Conditional Use Pomul] PLN20180040 p@@��llggn Review), PLN20160041 IShoraMe Subeton0al evotappmmont Permit - Walerfrolit Conlor 810000). ALNZO11004Z (Shoreline Substantial Development Parmd - BOIlehea ct ono Basch AWoralion), and PLN20180(43 (SMinillno Substonlial Dowelopment Permil-Ovei we ter Walkway) DATE nF APPLICATION: June 12, 2018 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: July 10, 2018 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: July 24, 201B STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: The responsible official 1103 laviewed ow proposed "act for probable edyarso onvirgnmonlpl impacts and a%pecls 10 13so& a Date tritmhon of NorMgmhcartce CONS). The Optional DNS process is being used pursuant to WAC 197-11.355 Thla may ba your only opporiumly to conlmat an the envirortrnania1 Impacts of fhe propose). The piopoSil1 may Include rtlNlpaljen measures under the oP.W.1. codes, and the pro[eci review process may Incofp0rsth or require mitigation regardlaes 01 whether an EIS Is propmed A copy of the cubsequaril threshold delarminaWri may Oo obtained upon faoxi%t. REQUESTED PERMITs: ConrOlional Use Permit, Design Review and Three Shoreline Substantial Development Permits. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. OT8FR REQUIRED PERMt75i RW m and Harbors Act Sectlon 10 ppearmil (US Army Corpa of Engineers), Coastal Zoft Management Act Federal Consistency Determination lWasnkhgum Salta Oapallmanl of Ecology]. Clean Water Act Section 401 Wsla1 Ouatity Car Bf1Ca00n and COn%1[1usrton Slomirwafer General Pemiil (Ecology), Hydratlec Pemrlt Approval (Washington Department of Frah and Wildlife , Cultural Resources Assessment (Recreation Conservation O ice, State of Washinglon), Bulldrnp Permits (City of Edmonds). EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. Critical Areas Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Geotechnical Q Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 07/24/2018 08:10:23 am Attachment 4 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 251 Classified Proof 2.1.a Repave, Cnpca] Aura ROporL BlalvglcaI EValvatlon_ cultural Resources A5%e vmen[, and TralliC Stu¢y o ETCRMINATION OF COr4313TENCY; Pustant Id RCW 36.'1118.p40. Ilia appeCaBan will oe iawad Sor cvnsiacney wIM I. Cily of Edrtlands Comprehen6iva Pian, Edmonds Cwnmunity Developn+anl Codo, Shasalins Mastar Program and appllcal,la Slam and Fedora] re4qqulAta7ns. COMMENTS ON PRO OSAL DUE Au¢uS 23, 2018 Any pelaon has I ri to cwnmenf an ants apprICAAon during .pa a co at paned receive notlen. and par6Cipale In any heor]rr�rg0ss, and request a copy of the decision on the aWicaddn Trio CV1y may eccepf public commence OF any tlmo prior to MO clvslnq a1 ale sac Ord of an open record padecksron hoaing. If any, er, If no open record prodecislon hearing Is Provided, prior to me dacislan on the project parmd. Unry pavies of record a6 de "a In ECDC 20 07 003 havE 5Isncling To nuhate an adnynislraare appeal Inforrnabdn an this devetoomenl appllealion can he vinwd or ablatndd nt tho [:vy a! Edmendf Davdlopim 1 Sonr10as oeparlmenl, 121 - 51h Ava Naflh, Edmonds. WA 98020 belwaen the fours of SAD A.M and 4:30 P.M Monday, Tuesday. Thursday and Friday; balwaon the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday. Informatlon can also be vhswed online thfdttgh 1he Clly's websile at htips,! p-ednlanda-wa-uslc PUzon. A8 of the In}pmlpbDh On aa-ff 19% have den conso and allached under ppeermit PLN 180079. Search for Wout PLMR0180039. CITY CflN "APIL KUrnen Llen, Environmenial Programs Manager kernen lien@edmondswa gov 425-771-0220 Publiahed: July 24, 2018, EDH818226 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 07/24/2018 08:10:23 am Page: 3 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 252 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180039 — PLN20180043 Applicant: City of Edmonds/Edmonds Senior Center DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 25t" day of April, 2019, the attached Notice of SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this.25t' day of Apiil, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. D Signed: {BFP747893.DOC; 1 \00006.900000\ ) Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 253 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 254 2.1.a 1. E 1) A. CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the following project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. [File Nos. PLN20180039 (Conditional Use Permit), PLN20180040 (Design Review), PLN20180041 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Waterfront Center Building), PLN20180042 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and PLN20180043 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit -Overwater Walkway)] PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center DATE DNS ISSUED: April 26, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be on parcel 27032300104200 located at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement (AFN 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums located at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300. To the north of the Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 255 2.1.a bulkhead removal, portions of the adjacent parcels (27032300104400) and a City of Edmonds easement (AFN 8101160178) will be modified to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade. SEPA COMMENTS DUE: This DNS is being issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. APPEAL PERIOD: You may appeal this determination by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than May 10, 2019 by 4:00 PM. SEPA MATERIALS: The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and proposed amendments are available at https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number PLN20180039. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division, located on the second floor of Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 PUBLISH: April 26, 2018 Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 256 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180039 — PLN20180043 Applicant: City of Edmonds/Edmonds Senior Center DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 261h day of April, 2019, the attached cover letter and SEPA DNS was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 261h day of April, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed:' {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 257 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 258 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION April 26, 2019 RE: SEPA DNS for Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Project Dear Interested Party: Please find the enclosed SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for Waterfront Center and Waterfront redevelopment projects. The City of Edmonds, after following the Optional DNS process in WAC 197-11- 355 and the threshold determination process of WAC 197-11-330, has determined that the project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and is issuing the attached Determination of Nonsignificance. Note this is not an approval of the associated permits. The project's design will be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board who will forward a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will consider the design recommendation as well as the conditional use permit and three shoreline substantial development permits in a public hearing. Notice on the specific times and locations of these meetings will be provided at a later date. Thank you again for your comments on this proposal and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. lSit .eely, r• K men Lien Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds — Planning Division Encl: Determination of Nonsignificance Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 259 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 260 2.1.a µ 01 CITY OF EDMONDS r•,.1So* 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. [File Nos. PLN20180039 (Conditional Use Permit), PLN20180040 (Design Review), PLN20180041 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Waterfront Center Building), PLN20180042 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and PLN20180043 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit -Overwater Walkway)] Proponent: City of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center Location of proposal, including street address if any: The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be on parcel 27032300104200 located at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement (AFN 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums located at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300. To the north of the bulkhead removal, portions of the adjacent parcels (27032300104400) and a City of Edmonds easement (AFN 8101160178) will be modified to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C 030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 261 2.1.a Date: Aril 26 2019 Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Le, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than May 10, 2019 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on April 26, 2019 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center -(SEPAunit ec .wa. oy). Mailed -to proWty O-Wtiers within-300-feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents are available at https:Llpermits.edmonds.wa.uslcitizen. Search for file number PLN20180039. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5t" Avenue NnrthFrimnnric %A/A o 2n2n Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: N Applicant N Dept, of Ecology N Parties of Record N Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands N Dept. of Natural Resources N US Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Dept. of Commerce N NMFS ❑ WSDOT N WSDOT— Ferries N Puget Sound Energy N Dept. of Fish & Wildlife N Snohomish PUD ❑ Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑ Olympic View Water & Sewer N Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Alderwood Water District N Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑ Edmonds School District ❑ Port of Edmonds ❑ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency N South County Fire ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council N Swedish Hospital ❑ Puget Sound Partnership N Community Transit N Comcast N Tulalip Tribe N BNSF pc; File No. SEPA Notebook ❑ City of Everett ❑ City of Lynnwood ❑ City of Mountlake Terrace ❑ City of Mukilteo ❑ City of Shoreline ❑ Town of Woodway ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works ❑ Snohomish Co. PDS ❑ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. ❑ King County -Transit ❑ King County — Environ. Planning ❑ Other Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION_ REVISED 20190311 4/25/19 SEPA Attachment S Packet Pg. 262 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180039 — PLN20180043 Applicant: City of Edmonds/Edmonds Senior Center DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 61h day of May, 2019, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 6th day of May, 2019, at Edmonds, r Washington. } F Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 263 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180039 — PLN20180043 Applicant: City of Edmonds/Edmonds Senior Center DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 6th day of May, 2019, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Debbie Rothfus, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 6th day of May, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: IBFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 264 2.1.a I� CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING /oc. lg`)L, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays. In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parking lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be on parcel 27032300104200 located at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement (AFN 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums located at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300. To the north of the bulkhead removal, portions of the adjacent parcels (27032300104400) and a City of Edmonds easement (AFN 8101160178) will be modified to connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade. NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center FILE NO.: PLN20180039 (Conditional Use Permit), PLN20180040 (Design Review), PLN20180041 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Waterfront Center Building), PLN20180042 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and PLN20180043 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Overwater Walkway) REQUESTED PERMIT: Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and three Shoreline Substantial Development Permits. REVIEW PROCESS: The conditional use and design review of the project are Type III-B decisions while the shoreline permits are Type III -A decision. The five applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner who will make the decision on the design review, conditional use and the three shoreline permits following a public hearing. In accordance with WAC 197-11- 680(3)(a)(v), any SEPA appeal will also be consolidated in the hearing on the permits in a single simultaneous hearing. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the proposal as a whole. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner on May 23, 2019 at 3 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250 — 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 265 2.1.a COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: May 23, 2019 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or online through the City's website at https:llpermits. edmonds.wa.uslcitixen. Search for permit PLN20180039. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD PUBLIC MEETING: A public meeting will be held before the Architectural Design Board on May 13, 2019 at 7 p.m. in the uouncil chambers located at 250 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. NOTE: No public testimony on the proposal will be taken at the Architectural Design Board (ADB) meeting. The ADB will be considering the design aspects of the proposal and will forward a recommendation on the design of the proposed project to the Hearing Examiner. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 266 2.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH855574 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 05/06/2019 and ending on 05/06/2019 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee f r such publication is $166.52. Subscribed and sworn before me on this PL gFgkF'll�r day of .P 5s�o�v '+ 0 op •a_ . O +OTA/QA 2 i N% AVB`�G 10 �A Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds -LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 267 2.1.a Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR1Nr3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center Ara PrOPosmg 10 tedevelop tree Edmonds Senior Center- site along wllh Its associated pofking and coach adage and 10 conatruct an ovefwatar walk way In front of me Ebb lido Condominium. The Mposed Edmonds WaEertront Center bulldingg will be used by ma Edmonds Senior Center to con5nua providing senior services and programming during Weekdays In addition to senior tervices, The new lacivty Will oiler expanded wmmunHy services and programml% provided by the City of Edmonds. Thsa proposed building Is apgrdxlmatety 26,300 square feet The proposed overwalor walkway wt connect two existing poraona at the Edmonds Madrwalkway (v 1pitinpedealflan aWnge the wateriionl. Rpprovid*xana[e:cony 1,424uous cubic yards arAkeccoes and 36 creosote -treated Umtw piles that make up the exhill bWkriead will be removed, and a now beach accons point with plle-supporled concreto slulm and ramp win be ridded with the exleling {oalprint. The parking lap will be reconrlgured, and Wha Incarporak ! blemlenhon planter for walar quality trealmard slid IrnAlba4art PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center (wltdahj will be on parcel 2703230D10420D located at 220 RalNoed Avenue In Edmonds washinglon. The ovanvntar walkway vAll bd oonstREted wim{n a Clty-owrad easenlofd {AFN 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb 7lde CondoWnlums located at 200 fjcoch Place in Efknends, WeaMnpton The overwater walkway wIG connect to Ilia exishrq Edmontla Marine Walkway to the south on parcel 27032300415300. To the north of the bulkhead removal, ppaar0 of the adjacent parcel! (270323D01R460p)and a CIIy d1 EGhnonda eaanmonl (AFN 8101160170) will t. medrl6ed W connect ire Edmonds Manse waacway to Ota new promenade. NAME OF APPLICANT: Ctly of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center FILE NO.- PLN 20 18=9 (Canditia net Use Parrrut), PLN20180040 {Tesign Review), PLN2018MI (Shoreline Substantial PLN2011000042 (Sh1961ina Subst8n4e h0avalopment Parmlf�)- Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and KA20100042 (Shoreline S.ubstarntal Davelaplllem Permit - Ovemwater WalkwayI REQUESTED PERMIT Conditioner use Permit. Design Review ono lbres Snorotne Substantial Devabpmani Permits. REVIEW PROCESS. The condillonal use Ord design review of the project are Type lll-0 decisions while the slhonellne ymrmhts are Type III-w decision The live appecaboris are being combined Mpant to ECDC 20.01.002. when applications are combined, DB'a review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result In a necornmendat on o the Hearing Examiner wlho will make the decision on the design rovlaw, cohditlanat use and the throe slhoroeno pofmtta fallowing a public hearing- in eceardanco with WAC 1a7.II-6H 3j(ajjq any SEPA appeal will 0150 be consaildated In the h anng on the permits In a singie simusaneous hearing. The Hearing Examiner will "la a puml: hoahrtg la take pubse comment on the proposal no as a whole. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A puNc heanng will be hold before the Hearing Examiner on tvlay ", 2019 of 3 p.m in the Council Chambers, totaled at 250 - 5(h Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: May 23.2010 Ilan non the righi fa commrnI an dug applcation dunng comm.Rl pedod, recAtva notice and pareclpate in any rirnr0a, and request a copy of the decision on me application. The Clfy may accept public wmmant5 all any 9me prior to trio aiming of the record at an open record predecksioa 11e41rhg. 11 Any. Or. If no open record prodecolon heanT9 Is 010vid0d, prof Idefned inIMECDCm20 project 7 003 have sitar it �10 ofrecordOn adminlatrarivo appeal. Information on INS davoloPment OPPIltatian con be VIOwed Or Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 05/06/2019 10:22:08 am Ci d O a` C O E am O d d C O d C L d C U C O L r 'M v fit r+ C t :.1 Q t �3 O !Z N r Cn N O O O CD V— O N J a Q c at E z U M r r Q Page: 2 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 268 2.1.a Classified Proof 0btalnod at the CttY of FOrnonde dmel0pmant se"d". Department, W Sm Ave North, Edmonds, WA g8020 batwoen the hours of 8:00 AM and 4!30 P.M. Monday. Tuesday, Thuraday end Frlday; between the hours of 8�0 AM and Noah on Wednesday: or onbne through the CBya Webs40 Al _! tla�_I�ss 7�7 ermlte_�nxiuds.wa.us cltltan Search for pennEl jyL-RMJaO029 A Copy 07 the staff report WIG be 4vallahle at feral Gels" clays prlvf to the hearing. ARCH{TECTURAL. DESIGN BOARD PUBLIC tAEETING. A public rR9eilrtg Mn pa held halos Ble Awhlleclural Design Beard on t try f 5 201g 0I 7 pp.m. in lho reunell Chambers klcacen at 250 - Sth Avenue Nortk Edmonds, WA OW20. NOTE. No publlo teetlmony an Ills proposal WIG W taken at Me AWIMP tural Design Board (ADS) meeting. TW A03 wlp be corisldoring She dasign aepecrs of Ina plaposal and wfs forward a rocammendaeon on the design of pie proposed prated b the Heanng ExarhlnQf. GiTY CONTACT: Ksrnon Lien, Environmental Progrwne MOT11198r kemen.11e odrnoneswo.gw 425-T71-02 0 Pubflshed, May 0. 2010. EDH866574 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 05/06/2019 10:22:08 am Q Page: 3 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 269 2.1.a Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 321 First Avenue West Seattle, WA 98119 (206)447-1900 Facsimile (206) 447-9075 August 20, 2018 Mr. Kernen Lien VIA E-MAIL: kernen.licn(d)cdliiondswa.gov Environmental Programs Manager And Fax: (425) 771-0221 Development Services Department And Legal Messenger 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Comment/Objection By Ebb Tide Association To DNS Application Dear Mr. Lien: Our law firm represents The Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners (hereinafter "Ebb Tide"), which owns/controls the real property at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter "Ebb Tide Property"). This letter serves as a comment and objection to the Application and Optional Determination of Nonsignificance (hereinafter "DNS Application") submitted by the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "City")(See copy of the DNS Application attached hereto as Exhibit 1).. The DNS Application seeks a "Determination of Nonsignificance" (hereinafter "DNS") for the City plan to "redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center" and to "construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium" (hereinafter the walkway is referenced as the "Walkway" while the project as a whole is referenced as the "Project.") The issuance of a DNS is tantamount to an erroneous determination that the Walkway and Project "is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact, and therefore an EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] is not required." WAC 197-11-734. Here, it is well -documented that the Project poses significant adverse environmental impacts. Notably, the Walkway will destroy protected habitats for sand lance and surf smelt; a primary food source for chinook salmon, a federally -protected species. In turn, chinook salmon are a critical food source for southern resident orcas, also an endangered species, meaning that depriving chinook salmon of a forage fish food source will adversely impact orcas. Moreover, the Project area includes critical habitats for numerous federally -protected species. Further, the Project adversely impacts the ecology of the protected shoreline beach. In sum, the Project has a high likelihood of adversely impacting many aspects of the environment. Thus, the DNS Application should be denied. Should the City wish to pursue the Project, a "Determination of Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 270 2.1.a Kernen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 2 Significance" should be issued to require it to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter "EIS"). See WAC 197-11-736. A. Standard for Issuance of DNS: No "Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts" A DNS should be issued by a city only if it "has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely." See WAC 197-11-355. The Code goes on to explain the meaning of significance as follows: (2) Significance involves context and intensity (WAC 197-11-330) and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test. The context may vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact. The severity of an impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. See WAC 197-11-794. Moreover, significance must be based on the evaluation of several factors set forth in WAC 197-11-330(3). Those factors include, without limitation, whether a proposal will: (i) Adversely affect environmentally sensitive or special areas, such as loss or destructio-i of historic, scientific, and cultural resources, parks, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or wilderness; (ii) Adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat; (iii) Conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment; and (iv) Establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, involves unique and unknown risks to the environment, or may affect public health or safety. See WAC 197-11-330(e). It is only after careful consideration of the factors set forth in WAC 197-11-330(3), as well as determination that a project "is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact", that a DNS may be issued. Otherwise, an improperly issued DNS is subject to appeal, Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 271 2.1.a Kernen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 3 with a successful appellant being entitled to attorney fees. See WAC 197-11-680; RCW 4.84.370. B. Washington Law Strongly Favors Protection of Wildlife and Habitats Washington State has a strong public policy favoring the protection of wildlife and their habitats, as reflected in the list of factors set forth in WAC 197-11-330(3) (see supra). It is well - established that an EIS is absolutely necessary if a proposed public action "will jeopardize wildlife and its habitat." Lands Council v. Washin ton State Parks Recreation Com'n, 176 Wn. App. 787, 799 (2013). In fact, in Lands Council, the Court of Appeals found it reversible error for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to grant a DNS for development that will jeopardize wildlife and its habitat without first preparing an EIS. Id. at 790, 793. Washington law affords special protections to forage fish habitats. Specifically, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (hereinafter "DFW") has established a no -net -loss rule for forage fish habitats. See WAC 220-660-370. The "no -net -loss rule" is incorporated into the Edmonds City Code itself, which provides as follows: Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater habitats should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) necessary to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. See ECC 24.30.030(D)(10) (Emphasis added). Thus, any project that violates the no -net -loss rule necessarily has a significant adverse environmental impact and no DNS may be issued for such project. See WAC 197-11- 330(e)(iii)(providing that significant adverse environmental impact includes "[c]onflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment"). C. The Project Will Violate Washington Laws Protecting Forage Fish Habitat Here, the Project will violate the no -net -loss rule meaning there should be no issuance of a DNS. The Ebb Tide Property has long been a documented habitat for two species of forage fish, surf smelt and sand lance. In fact, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (hereinafter "DFW") clearly informed the City of the fact in 1999, when the City last proposed Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 272 2.1.a Kernen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 4 construction of a similar walkway over the Ebb Tide Property beach. See Exhibit 2 (Letter from DFW dated April 29, 1999). Indeed, the City's own consultant, Reid Middleton, agreed that the Ebb Tide Property beach is a sand lance habitat protected by WAC 220-110-280(4). See Exhibit 3 (Letter from Reid Middleton dated September 16, 1999). Reid Middleton's letter concluded with the dire warning, [R]eplacing this type of habitat has proven extremely difficult as there are no proven methods for doing so. In addition, since sand lance is a food source for chinook salmon, loss of the habitat would trigger the Endangered Species Act that protects against loss not only of the threatened salmon, but also loss of the salmon food source. See Exhibit 3. The DF)� confirmed in a subsequent letter that forage fish are indeed important food sources for Chinook and chum salmon and "[w]hen these food resources [i.e. forage fish] are available in abundance young salmonids attain very high growth rates. High growth rates are especially important since increasing body size decreases the number of predators that can consume these small fish." See Exhibit 4. In light of the proposed elevated walkway's probable significant adverse environmental impacts and the Ebb Tide's opposition to the elevated walkway, the City ultimately abandoned its plans to build the elevated walkway in 1999. The City now attempts to resuscitate the plan to build an elevated walkway. Yet, the same environmental concerns persist today. In this regard, James Selleck is an Environmental Expert with a Masters in Biology in Marine and Estuarine Science and over fifteen years of work experience with marine habitats, who specialized in forage fish habitat in the Puget Sound Region. The Ebb Tide retained him to examine the City Walkway proposal to determine if it has any negative impact on habitat. Mr. Selleck's detailed report outlines the significant harm and damage to the forage fish habitat it the City constructs the proposed walkway. Specifically, his report indicates that "Surf smelt ... and Pacific sand lance ... are the two species of forage fish that spawn on local beaches" [i.e. in Edmonds, including the Ebb Tide Property]. His report further includes a map of the region that clearly establishes the Ebb Tide Property beach as a habitat for surf smelt. Moreover, Mr. Selleck opines: "Forage fish are also recognized as a food source associated with critical habitat for ESA -listed chinook." See Exhibit 5 (Ebb Tide 280). With the above said, Chinook salmon are a food source for orca whales, a federally - protected endangered species, which is becoming increasingly important as southern resident Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 273 2.1.a Kernen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 5 orca whales are starving due to lack of sufficient chinook salmon for food. See lltt s:liwww.seattletimes.comiscattle-newslenvironmentlorcas-headed-to-extiiictiori-unless-we- et-them-snore-chinook-and- uicter-waters-re ort-saysl (copy provided as Exhibit 6). In fact, the Seattle Times reports that "[o]rca whales are on a path to extinction within a century unless they get a big increase of Chinook salmon to eat." Exhibit 6. In such dire circumstances, the City should be finding ways to increase the population of Chinook salmon, not to embark on massive Projects that will destroy the habitat of the chinook salmon's key food source. Based on his review of relevant documents and personal observations of the Ebb Tide Property, Mr. Selleck concludes in his report that "the proposed walkway in front of the Ebb Tide beach property will result in the direct net loss of forage fish spawning habitat" (boldface added). See Exhibit 5 (Ebb Tide 279). Mr. Selleck also criticizes the report of the City's environmental consultant, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter "Herrera"), which was prepared for the City's Project. In particular, Herrera incorrectly and inexplicably states that the Ebb Tide Property is not a surf smelt habitat despite a DFW map clearly indicating to the contrary. See Exhibits 5, 7. In other words, the City's Project's alleged environmental compliance is based on completely faulty data. Conversely, the DFW letter, Reid Middleton letter, DFW map, and Mr. Selleck's report all confirm that the Ebb Tide Property beach has forage fish habitat protected by the "no -net -loss rule" and that the Project will harm the habitat and violate the no -net -loss rule. Since actions by the City resulting in net loss of forage fish spawning habitat are prohibited under WAC 220-660-370 and ECC 24.30.030(D)(10), the DNS Application must be denied. D. The Pro'eet Will Probabl Adverse! Affect Endan4ered and Threatened Sp ecies In addition to adversely affecting protected forage fish habitats, the Project will also adversely affect endangered and threatened species. Indeed, the City and its environmental consultant Herrera, indicate the existence of several designated critical habitats for federally - protected species in the "action area" near where the Project will be implemented. See Exhibit 8 (Biological Evaluation). Those critical habitats are for Chinook salmon (threatened status), bull trout (threatened status), yelloweye rockfish (threatened status), and bocaccio (a type of fish, endangered status). Particularly concerning is the Herrera report's statement that "Chinook salmon critical habitat includes only the marine nearshore" and "Bull trout critical habitat includes the marine nearshore." See Exhibits 7, 8. Thus, even the City environmental consultants' evaluation reflects a high likelihood that the Project will adversely impact the habitat for those species, which could in turn affect other species such as the oreas which feed on Chinook salmon. Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 274 2.1.a Kernen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 6 Further, Herrera notes that several other federally -protected species may also be present in the "action area," including steelhead (threatened), eulachon (threatened), and marbled murrelet (threatened). See Exhibit 8. Those species could also be adversely affected by the Proj ect. Again, "significant adverse environmental impact" includes actions that "[a]dversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat." WAC 197-11-330(3)(e)(ii). The presence of endangered or threatened species and their habitats in the Project's action area indicates a strong likelihood that they will be adversely affected. Thus, the DNS Application should be denied; the City should instead issue a Determination of Significance and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement if the City wishes to proceed with the Project. E. The Project Will Also Adverse!Impact Environmentall-V Sensitive or Special Areas The Project's "significant adverse environmental impact" not only includes harms to wildlife and their habitats, but also harm to "environmentally sensitive or special areas." See WAC 197-11-330(3)(e)(i). In this case, the portion of the Ebb Tide Property beach where the Walkway is proposed to be built is over a stretch of natural beach and part of the Washington shoreline. Indeed, the Washington "legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation." See RCW 90.58.020. Thus, the Ebb Tide beach is protected by law and harm to that beach will likely constitute a "significant adverse environmental impact." It is noteworthy that City itself has identified the Project area, including the Ebb Tide Property where the Walkway will be built, as a protected "Aquatic I" zone. See Exhibit 9 (map — the Project action area is located in between the purple areas and is the light green trapezoid in the middle of the page). The Edmonds City Code provides that the City should "protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources" of Aquatic I zones. See ECC 24.30.030(A). To that end, the Edmonds City Code promulgated multiple guidelines and restrictions on the types of uses and activities permissible on Aquatic I zones. See ECC 24.30.030(D). Among those restrictions is one that requires "[t]he size of new overwater structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support a structure's intended use." See ECC 24.30.030(D)(2). Moreover, the Edmonds City Code requires that "[a]ll developments and uses should consider impacts to public views." See ECC 24.30.030(D)(7). Of course and again, the Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 275 2.1.a Kernen Lien August 20, 2018 Page 7 City also recognizes that the "no -net -loss" rule for forage fish habitat applies to the Aquatic I protected zone. Nonetheless, the Walkway will be a massive viaduct -like structure that will disturb the ecosystem of a significant portion of the Ebb Tide beach, block public views, and violate the no -net -loss rule. An EIS should therefore be prepared to assess whether alternatives with lesser impact on wildlife, their habitats and the environment as a whole exist. Thus, the DNS Application should be denied, as granting a DNS without an adequate assessment of whether less intrusive alternatives exist would be improper. In closing, the DNS Application should be denied as the Project poses significant adverse environmental impacts to forage fish habitats, endangered and threatened species, and the beach enviromnent as a whole. Ebb Tide requests that copies of all future documents relating to the DNS Application, including without limitation the ultimate decision on the DNS Application, be provided to the Ebb Tide's attorneys at "Attn: Stephan D. Wakefield and John T. Yip, Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S., 321 First Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98119." Thank you for your consideration of this comment letter. Very truly yours, John T. Yip JTY/ Cc: Client Enclosures (Exhibits): 1. DNS Application 2. April 29, 1999 DFW Letter 3. September 16, 1999 Reid Middleton Letter 4. September 22, 1999 DFW Letter 5. Declaration of lames Selleck with attached exhibits 6. Seattle Times newspaper article regarding chinook salmon and orcas 7. Excerpts from Herrera Report 8. Excerpts from Biological Evaluation submitted by City and Herrera 9. Map of shoreline areas Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 276 2.1.a EXHIBIT 1 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 277 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION NAME OF APPLICANTS FILE NUMBER TE OF APPLICATION. :DATE OF COMPLETENESS DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: STATE. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: I 2.1.a I The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center are proposing to redevelop the_ Edmonds Senior Center site along with its associated parking and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Edmonds Senior Center to continue providing senior services and programming during weekdays, In addition to senior services, the new facility will offer expanded community services and programming provided by the City of Edmonds. The proposed building is approximately 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront, Approximately 1,424 cubic yards of fill and 36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existinr; bulkhead will be removed, and a new beach access point with ;pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp will be added within the existing footprint. The parkinf; lot will be reconfigured, and will incorporate a bioretention planter for w,tnr quality troal,nient and infiltration. The proposed Ednwrick 1Naterfiant Center building will be on parcel 27032300104200 located at 220 Railroad Avenue in F-dmonds, Washington. The overwater walkway will be constructed v,7ithin a City -awned easement (AFN 8311070085) on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condonnrniunis iocated at 200 Beach Place in Edmonds, Washington. . The overwater walkwd y lwiii connect to the existing Edmonds Marine Walkway to the south on parcel Z703?30J? ] 5_,CaO. Te the north of the bulkhead removal, portions of the adjacent parcels and a City of Edmonds easement (AFN �! 8101160178) will be modiliec, :, connect the Edmonds Marine Walkway to the new promenade. City of Edmonds and Edmonds Senior Center PLN20180039 (Conditional Use Permit), PLN20180040 (Design Review), PLN20180041 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Waterfront Center Building), PLN20180042 (Shoreline �;uhstantial Development Permit — Bulkhead and Beach Restoration), and PLN20180043 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Overwater Walkway) June 12, 2018 July 10, 2018 July 24, 2018 The responsible official has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a Determination of Nonsigniticance (DNS). The Optional DNS process is being used pursuant to WAC 197-11-355. This maybe your only opportunity to comment on the environmental Impacts of the proposal. The proposal may include mitigation measures under the applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation regardless of whether an EIS is prepared. A copy of the subsequent threshold-determinatlon may_ be obtained upon request. Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 278 r 2.1.a REQUESTED PERMITS: Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Three Shoreline Substantial Development Permits. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit (US Army Corps of Engineers), Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Determination (Washington State Department of Ecology), Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Construction Stormwater General Permit (Ecology), Hydraulic Permit Approval (Washington 0 Department of Fish and Wildlife), Cultural Resources Assessment (Recreation a` Conservation Office, State of Washington), Building Permits (City of Edmonds). E rvlcT1^�IC ELN%V'ItION0 NACNITAI L^I.iIIIVU L V VII1V1 IVILIV 1/1L a. 0 DOCUMENTS: Critical Areas Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Geotechnical Reports, Critical Area Report, Biological Evaluation, Cultural Resources Assessment, and Traffic w Study c 0 DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: Pursuant to RCW 36,708,046, the application will be reviewed for consistency with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Edmonds Community Development Code, ?: Shoreline Master Program and applicable State and Federal regulations. 0 L COMMENTS ON m PROPOSAL DUE: August 23, 2018 v Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and o participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the :application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20,07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative app'cic L A � Information on this development application can be vievred or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 51h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M ;g Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday. Information car s also be viewed online through the City's website at https:llpermits.ednionds.wa.us/citizen. All of the information 3 on all permits have been consolidated and attached under permit PLN20180039. Search for permit PLN20180039. 0 0 CITY CO NTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 42S-771-0220 2.1.a EXHIBIT 2 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 280 2.1.a s ��' .� s r� " - f n �til iAel y„4. State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE f�ugwn 4 Office 160113 Milt Crbek F]puievaul, • FAdf Creek, wl11191nn q8o l• (425) 775•Ii t 1 Api li 29, 1991) Nhcolc Fg.hnt Reid Middleton 728 13411 Street SM., Suite 200 Eve:rcit, Wmhin ton 98204 •l�CF11 ��1s.1'�IL'hU1: SUBJECT: f t>ninlenls; Etlnlorids i1'titl-1�`atetl'r�nt 117a1h1r�a��, ,EdIllonels"Washin-ioil Listed below are roitlmenls pertaining to (he site v15111 at the. Edr»onus waterlir ot.oil April 12, 1999. I've k►:pt [he comrncnts gencric since tl)i .project is still early in the 1ilattnin stages. I've also enclosed site rn1ps where surf snlelt and 'sand lance spavening.habitat his been documented Please keep in mind that the goal ofthe Witsitington Department offish and Wildli(e.(11'DF\4') is 16 achieve no-ttet-loss of N bitat.ftinctions (POL-Msb€>2). Surfsn.ieli and sand lance spawning uvounds or eWe0s irr: close ploximity witlr similar bed materials are classified as habittlts of sjieci 11 concern (WAL' 220-1:10 50) antl conslt°ucfiott 11CHViliC.q shall 1101 l'esult rn the p rnlanem loss of these Habitats. For projects with potentially swil ficant impacts, it ntilitation aareen.lem nuiv lit - required prior to rssuFlrg the HP11. Replacenteill 411d 1111tw ation n.lav be rcgLlired to lie establislted rind unction al prior to project coltstrllctioat YOU'll notice 6_0111,111r a[t tehctl ill -all plat thlerc i,� dMulliotlte d s,tnil 1i111ee spmYlurls. llabf(at soelkh oftlic ferry. lenninal: Sand 1,n1ce spilrnitt habitat occurs approximately1'1'g111 the +-5 to = i I Will cle.vations- There are two intljortant factors io keep innnind yvhon tiesigntw, this 1s110 iccl If hcach encroachment occi<trs irt.t.locumcnted sand lance spawnim, awns (as well ns an areas immediately adjncent to) ivnei gait%owst occur in another area alevi7the lip acll Elevations above the. 1 MUM inar€� will not he considered �.1 � ain ifit is otitaitic t1l sand lance spawniny.'ha ital illiti!,atioli For habitat loss auiis; typicrllly it i5 a2-1 ratio. hilt nws I}c 111�l3or,eleltendlilt! cliff tho type ol'habttatlos€ alld its chalices ofrizCovcry' etsc�whcic lYw /nUot.vrfr,et eve of ctr7+ o.w 11 Lell'e1in� to IhC1:Z1n1ond5 kulikll(:a I(u11luC bltu Alan's on i)ayc 1, 1!C'1 iele'111ICicd u net _Ao', of Ilnt3iuit ( ncoteti Inmlc(twieiy nelrttt erfti, s�lrrtlilers ilnd 2 sl�ltfi��s l.tl,i:, ,1 hulkhc.lzl at Clev plans .utywhere Gorr) 11) 92 to I I I I I VVI I 1 AV) lidal oliti%:Itloll 1 ti bil.11 Attachment 7 EBB Packet Pg. 281 2.1.a Ms. Figen M. April79, lttt)'i Page 2 wins in this .u•ca may be nrininral even tholi-li Ilic %vall wotlil ,rlrcady ill the uppermost inuits of spawn1w, iiairitai. :riics�,n�ie hrowcit, Occurs rrnmciaiawly south of llie cuiidontinitlin , willuli is �tnotlicr arerr 11t tt I ate lrtt it ttl�nn lip tl ;�w haV'.in,; n lie.[ gaw of beach area, The-clevanons, in fr6111 ot'llic hulklleAd 1rt thtti ar-Q;i rallu � From It 10 29 la i 1 59. "tidal cievat ions it file ht(lk-lWild tin I)a��c ? 01` the plats (nC: lr ll�rc. cttrici vtc 5tI uc ttri'Cti) front 4-8.75 to 17�66i I'hts is identified its the ilrea Mhere the rtta city cif hc;scll encroachntenl vvotild occur. The attire ;+rca front the wall w Me.rward to alrltrG>.r�tt�atel4 1•5 tidal cle.vation is sand lance.habitat; zis a resell, the entiresquai-c I' ct (,t h,thtt.tt It�si Nvottld have to be dined in another area a.lono this stretch ofbettch. The.tw( other rti`eas (it either end of tlic senior center parking, lat)-where ct croachiitent would Occur are at approximately the +8 tidal elevation and 891 .square feet of sand laiicc lilibital vxotllil hire-e to be relocated elsewhere along the beach. As,menlioned above, a itet gain MUSt. occur tf habitat is_propased to be lost, btit uncenainly Mill exists whether -or not. sand lance Mould "adapt" another- area of lacach if - their existing habitat was rentoved, Very ht.tic is known ab tit tlte 1110velie.ntas 01` population blulog}� ol'k,cal sand lance llolnilalions Although both su iT.Sni,clt-arid t,ailLl lance:semi to return to approxitttately the s,lrirz spawning vtread yeat after vQ'11, we could not s w for certain whether Or not they would re-establish thenlsOvcs, aloe)!. the sallic vicinity for any1wherc.else k)rti7at imatlet)ofsliol-clinc- Annual beach worisliment may bC rct'11,61-rd 'as part al'.tlrea.l I)A it the encrtmehcd arcits Oow sins of excessive beach erosion, I ques►i.on lire value of the accessible Runp to the beach. Not only would divect losses 61, h;thtt;il occur, but indirect lasses could occur, as well. Sand lanve is a prey itetti for C'llillool� %alilloi1. .which is now listed as a threatened spCCieS Linderthe Frtdan,ered $penes Aci (BA). Coil tltc potential loss to habitat and food pir v, the cos! ot'sitch it plIciposul rttay Itc: rirtrclt lrilier than the benefits wined by having it, liar-e puhhc surveys bccri con[lu�ted di ntunslratln,. Milli this is an iniportatil component of the plan') Flow often mould it be tlwd" 1` oil imm htrVc a ttiffictilt ttrttc jusliCyitr±; the need for such a structuwe f hank yop flu the opporiunity to provitlt: 1111S trtft M]"Itiort:.tf YOU lUlve aity (ItIVS11onS. Ialciugv ccn[acl iite it (4 `r) 179-23t1.t:r ",PanQnUJa Attachment 7 EBPacket Pg. 282 AIMS. F;Igcn A=uril 29. 1099 i I'olllcl,t l rsl.xl 11 . L-pe:ednlonds wpd CL: Shannon Kinsella, Keid/Middleton rliA,ill t Ohldc, City of Edmonds .loa€i Vclikanjic, NWf_i.OV Hii"h Shipni;.n, NWDOEI Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 283 EBB 2.1.a '� au70 7000 Fi=t �0 a - cm7 ,� 1Gy7 .ars sobs d no,rir, Wells ` /46 SNOHOMM KING CO -19 Figure 38, Documented sand lance spawning beaches in the 'Ednionds area, Snohomish Co., WA. WDFW Bait`ish Unit 10/13/95 53 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 284 EB 2.1.a i 4 lowA9W �01" ® Well -X s o ohsr�rt CO, I" a, 1 1 I Figure 38. Documented sand lance spawning :beaches in the Edmonds area., Snohomish Co., WA. WUFW gaitfish Unit 10/13/95 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 285 BBB 2.1.a EXHIBIT 3 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 286 2.1.a ` " r::rcrcrr.WA 1A204 RLY,, 4 '5,'-M 1.39 l0 N1EMORAND 1!M To-, Arvillat ❑tilde Finn[: Nicole > agtai Da va Swanwo t e' Date.: Septemtier 16, 1999 File No.: 24-98-004-001-01 Subject: Edmonds Ntidwaterfron( Buliclar a d Repair: Bulkhead T)csign Alternative in front of Ebla Tide Condonaiuiutms On July 14, 1999, Dave Swanson arid I made, at presentation to the Ednionds Planning Board regarding options For repair of the Ednarands Midwaaterfronr hulkhe ads and creation of a continuous waterfront walkway, We submitted as draft report at that[ tithe entitled" l draaonds MidwaterfroriL Walkway Feasibility Study," In our report we concluded thcrc Were a Minter of trbsta c-lcs to creating ai continuous the pathway, particularly with rtspcct to the portion of the waterfront directly in front rat' the Ebb Tide. Coodominiurns. Our teport evaluated flat' structural feasibility of an elevated walkway or bridge in front of the Ebb "Tide where there is no City owned property, only a If? -foot public access casernent along the belch. We concluded that [lie elevated structure would he expensive to construct, Ira addition, t6 avoid the wave action during storms, (lie bridgee would need to be constructed at a height exceeding the 17-foot height limitation of the access easement. During the: presentation, the Planning Board mornbers requested review of additional altertrative.:a for connecting the walkway together. The Board requested in evaluation of creaating, as bulkhead seaward of thin presentt bulkhead and putting the walkway behind the new, bulkhead. This rne�tno reviews this bulkhead alternative. The proposed bulkhead dcsign is shown in figure I attached, to this menaca. The review of the bulkhead alternatives included design elements, 4iscussion with the Depaarnnew of Fish and Wildlife (i)FW) regarding, impact isSueS, and coriversarions with the Ebb Tide C'ondoininiurn owners. The design ofthe bulkhead alternative creates as new bulkhead 15 feet seaward of the Ebb `fide bulkhead with earth fill and a avatlkway above the. latilkheatd. The new bulkhead wall is approximately level with the existing wall, but as 2-footc.xtension to the Attachment 7 Eg Packet Pg. 287 2.1.a existing wall is proposed, The path between the two sea walls would be at approximately the Sallie elevaticna ',is the continaration of the path at either end. See Figure 2. Design -Elements The addition of at new bulkheacULreet seaward of the: existing Ebb "tide bulkhead would decrease flooding, orthe Ebb Tide COrtdontinium during storrta events, Waves Would be Corc_ed to expend their energy ag aimt the new bullhead, and any Overtopping would occur into, the space between bulkheads. it is expected that (lie resulting pool of water would lack [.lie energy to overtop the landward bulkhead. By capping the entire area betwer n bulkheads with a concrete path. erosion or the, fill material would be prevented. Sloping scuppers have been provided to allow dratinagtr of water, which has overtopped the seaward bulkhead. Comments 1'rorrr DI-W We contacted F'ana Erstad at tfae DFW about the bulkhead alternrttive, We risked if the impacts frtatn the bulkhead design could be offset by mitigaation. She referred Its ua documentation of sand lance spawning beaches .in the Edmonds area prepared by DFW and updated i'ebwary 1999. This information is contained in Lite. drawing attached as Figure 3, Parrs stated that the-13FW administrative code WAC 220-110280 states replacement (it, repair of bulkheads should minimize impact on habitat and should minimize encroaching further into as habitat area. Specifically, the atdministraative code states: The construction cif'bulkheads and Other batik protection shall not result .ira the permanent loss of ... sand lance. WAC 220-1 10-280 (4) This beach is dcsiuriated on Figure 3 as sand lance, h abitat, Therefore, if the. resource agencies approved the impact and mitigation could Lae designed, most, likely the Mitigation for impacts from a project such as the bulkhead alternative must prove a net gain in habitat. Parrs contnaented that replacing this type of habitat hats proved to be extremely difficult as there are no proven methods for doing soIn atddition, since sand lance is a food source for chinook salmon, loss ()f the habitat would trigger the Endangered Species Act that protects against loss not only of the threatened salmon, but also loss or the sal nion food source. Pam said the overwater bridge alternative had a much greater possibility of receiving approval from the habitat agencies as compared to any proposal involving, permanent loss of a habitat area. Contact With Ebb Tide Condominium You infortned us yc)u contacted the Ebb Tide Condornini€trri raavners and discussed the bulkheard alternative with theraa. YOU reported back to race that the owners continue to be concerned about blocked views, In addition, Lhjcc would refer_da-re were (10 Ubhc �asentent in �raW of the condominium. if either the. hridge or the bulkhead alternative is prczjosed, the owners have indicated they will challenge ;any permuting efforts. Attachment 7 Eg Packet Pg. 288 EXHIBIT 4 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L M E L Q t 3 0 a a� M N O O O O r O N J a. a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 289 2.1.a State of Wt shingtrarh DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE raoMon 4 PMw 16018 M-11 erws .. Rom Iovwd hid# Giop;k. Wrrshmnjlon 94012 1d2b1 ? 25 131 1 Sr;l-1 rnber 22, 1990 hcWMiddleion A'I'"l'LN"l' ON Nicole hai�yllirs 728 1346' Street SW Everett, W ashi"JAWrh 98204 Uenr Nis Fraglhin SUCbJECO IWItre.st fc,r lrhfcrrhlationt I drnrrnds tIN1id-Wa(erfrOnt Project; Proposed Bulkhead; Math Tide Undarnininnhs, Snohomish County, 1' HUA 08-MA111 As per your reeluaat, 14c provided the fohwvin.g info immion regarding the.IaropOsa.d bulkhead ern the beach in front nFtl e Ebb 'Fide Conclonhinlaw 1'vc rlthtline<l �e,neral ithli�rihhatiian dusrribiin� Ash HE histories and the deuirthtsnl.<il efle.cts ofbulkheads mi hsh habitat, and specific information which addresses the realuirerneMs of the Hydraulic Code for bulkhead construction, It is important that work proposals incorporate hest Management Practices (T Nfl's), v,+lien designing jwvv rkgaterfrow developthhe.nt becmu-se Chinook sa.lnlon are now listed can the Endangered Species Act (ESM Tbe_ Washins Urn D~ partrneM of Fab and Wildlife ha.; signers a Menhorandurn of Aj;reenaent. (rj\-,1CiA) with Ow United States Fish raid Wildlife Service (UST"!><IS) and the Mational Marine I°ia;heries Service (NMhS), which states that notitication and reviaw is required when important habitatFbehAgWal features such ;as !lure€, or sam:l !awe lhawr Kg exist its One area Because (lie beach err Rant of -the Elora I -He i.-�lnriowAums has daairnenlerl sand lance habitat, con5uliatiOu hVith tlhc. NMI'S would 1.1e: required loi Ihi;s prt:l ec� 't General Iilfcar1trr 11wr: Upper intertidal areas provide important haabilat for important forage fish species such as surf smelt and sand lance Surf smeh and salted lance spawn on sand and gravel substrates in the sipper rudwsofbe beach and are important food prey fbr- s€tlrnov Awkidirlg (Snook salrixm, vvWclh is Currently listed urvi _r ESA Imertidal Wadi areas are also important fear juvenile, s'almcinids, particularly 01nook and chum saknol dcu6ng their ourly lily: history Two of the nwA impchrh ni functions orthese neambore areas <are shelter frorn predators and food production Most juvenile sahmanids outnhigralc from their nat I swunIs iruo the "mrine waters of Puget Sound Ctinh March 15 through June. 14 ol'each year Wherl We young salmonids leave freshwater and enter sahwwor, they migrate very chase to shore dwrrng dayfight !tours This behavior physically removes them Rom most of their natural pretlatiav including thirds and other fish, affording then! r1laXiHIL1111 511rvival Opl3=nky Urtahin !lathd re vanes !errand in shallow water are ideally suited as prey because of tram vi ;RA ity, On maid abuitance When We fund resources are available! in abuntlrhnce young salrno ids wain +.-ery higk groo,,1h rates High growilr rates are especially Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 290 EB 2.1.a Nis Sortenibcr 22, 1990 Page '2 inipwaol since i'r uma.sing body size ductuascs the nurti ur of pwdator that can consume. these Small nAl C onmuc.hun of L>ulkW& beloot,r ordinary high wale,r (Ul INV) can rusuh in the direct loss col` important habitats fior both marine and salmonid fish These unpas is can inchlde the Iris of Spawning habitat, Shallow %yatr_i habitat, to od pi-o h ct€can, and ripari.art vepLtalive cover Thu natural gc«hyd.r.ti.tli,_ syst(:rii Iinvluding feeder 1601 I€ anal dnO, cort cu", and acuetion beaches) lort)vid 4 the slorirvning strhsirstlr= QW 01C. idcutiried marine fish species and the, upper iniertid rl beach tiortoc;raphy that c(nliprises tlic juvende, Fa n owd migratory ci)iriticor The c,cins:trucGon of bull.Iteads adjacum to we.r loon's can indirectly impact thc� identified mar-ine fish SpeAs by starving; the am ociated accrv6orr beach ofsttllyltale resohinf, in beach erosion arrd loss ofspawning habital In additimv, the constninticin toff tAkhaids haMN, the hank and reduces natural hutch roughness. This can result in erasion along, the liu anal drib celrrldor by amelerating the rats ofddR and by increasing wave energy water.a,rard oFthe bulkhead The resultant beach instability can reduce avadahle spawning hatrimt Erna' the ideaililted niarino gash spades and adv rAdy inWac;l Ole procir.ictinn ofjove'nile satlnaconicl food orgeni nwi Thc proliferation rofhc14,hcadS, n1ally tifa;-lu& iirsr Oceted bela:ov UIM? and may not be riuu� ssriry lar ercodon c rnfol, c ontnblAcs to SCrtntiti inlpiCIS ila 11;Sh reSiatrrcCS tilt 011.glIOUt Pugt't SOUnd Tha, most signlfi€ grit of ilicsc, impacts is tlar' lom (rl' -foawriint, habitat M odilicatinon and loss of rearing 11abitm are sinlilarly inlpotlarit iF]lpil[l;: r+'SUltini.; Rom lluThead enC.rirfmWilent below CyIM ,ljoecf c lti/orrnutioii ReKar< dig l'rrojn).N d Bldhhc acl ('rxn.,airrrc rrrarr: T`he NOW Cade of Washi i ton (IYCVV 75 20 1 W) slaw any bulkhead of i 4.ock wall to replace• cw repair an cutting; Ioullchead or rock will shall be Maud along the sanw alynownt as the bulkhead or rock wall h is replacing Cc.rnslrur6an of nov harll haorl or nwk aiWf, or relalncenar:nt or rgnaair trf an acvWing hulkhoaul or rock n,111l n,atkrflroral of the ctt-i.s6og �trvtcfurr, shalt rant result in the pee) anent has of critie al jrrrirl sh or shellfish huhit al,%, G'1foT"VV norrhhNns a policy cif n o net loss; of h<tn;;ah WhIC11 inclLidcs the tiloper inter -tidal ,roles; col, Pti6,et Sound These areas provide critical spav"lling. habitat ftor important niarinc fish sj c;ic�; 14"ung these gw6es am sand lance Mch spawn near near, hig;hcr high water (hl€UM) nn beaches composed or mait gravel and sand There is ducuinepled and lnnce spy;wnbg, hAdmi oll the bca h in Ront of the, Ebb Tide t :crndriniiriiuin, Cr,ur:r'traai�firiat rrf it Ataflrllcoof tooilld laenu arrengy Xuinurc Tha` exi,,tiitg i'tlilfl Iti bina1, Prlsed on the allji)rouf(ion Attachment 7 EBPacket Pg. 291 2.1.a Ms_ September 22, 1999 Page 3 you've lwovirled, the pr(.po sal to build o halkJoeod walenvard of tlrr a i,cting bulkhowl will bE,, tlerti.11 roll application is_crobmirteol to R1.) 'IF Thank ybu rof tlae Opportunity to provide (Iris idarrim(lon ll'you have any quc56011:8, I)ICasc cant -act me at (425) 379-2306 Sincerely, Pamela Erstad Area Habitat Biologist PE: pe' emvv_ w pd cc: Ted Muller. WDVW Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 292 EB 2.1.a EXHIBIT 5 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 293 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation, Plaintiff, V. THE EDMONDS EBB TIDE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Defendant. 1 James R. Selleck declares as follows: Case No. 17-2-09476-31 DECLARATION OF JAMES R. SELLECK 1. I am over the age of 18 years, am competent to testify, and make this declaration upon personal knowledge. 2. I am a Marine Ecologist with over fifteen years of experience. I have extensive knowledge of and experience with forage fish habitats in the Puget Sound region and have authored publications on that subject. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae, which further describes my education, experience, and training. 3. Previously, Defendant Ebb Tide approached me to evaluate the probable environmental impact of an elevated walkway, which the City was planning to build on an approximately ten - foot wide stretch of natural beach that is part of the Ebb Tide private beach and is located in front DECLARATION OF JAMES R. SELLECK - 1 HECKER WAKEFIELD & FEILBERG, P.S. 321 FIRST AVENUE WEST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 PHONE (206) 447-1900 FAX (206) 447-9075 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 294 1 2.1.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of the Ebb Tide condominium complex. I understand that the City claims that it has an access easement over the stretch of land. A true and correct copy of the Easement, which I reviewed, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. I will refer to the stretch of land as the "Easement area," though the Easement did not contain any express indication that the City may construct the walkway. 4. Washington State has a rule known as the "no -net -loss" rule that provides that construction shall not result in a net loss of forage fish habitat. Thus, I was to prepare a report analyzing whether the proposed elevated walkway would result in a net loss of forage fish habitat on the Easement area. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of my report. I verify that the statements and conclusions in the report are true and correct, and I incorporate by reference all the statements and conclusions in the report into this Declaration. 6. As part of my evaluation, I reviewed pertinent documents and records, such as the Easement and the City's Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife records recognized the Easement area as a habitat for surf smelt, a forage fish species. (See Figure 2 to my report). Notably, surf smelt is a food source for Chinook salmon, which is a protected species. I also personally made a site visit to the Easement area and observed that the Easement area is natural beach land suitable for forage fish spawning. (See Figure 1 to my report). 7. Based on my expert knowledge of forage fish habitats, my review of pertinent documents and records, and my personal observations, my conclusion is that the proposed walkway will result in the direct and irreversible net loss of forage fish spawning habitat in violation of the no - net -loss rule, -.notwithstanding the City's mitigation plan. DECLARATION OF JAMES R. SELLECK - 2 - HECKER WAKEFIELD & FEILBERG, P.S. 321 FIRST AVENUE WEST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 PHONE (206) 447-1900 FAx (206) 447-9075 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 295 1 2.1.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I declare underpenalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is trite and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this F day of ��o'i , 2018 in Se �i T �e .Washington, X James R. SeLck I DECLARATION OF JAMES R. SELLECK - 3 - HECKER WAKEFIELD & FEILBERG, P.S. 321 FIRST AVENUE WEST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 PHONE(206)447-1900 FAX(206)447-9075 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 296 1 2.1.a EXHIBIT 1 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 297 2.1.a - MRdne Ecologist/Fisheries Biologist Natural Resources Consultants 4039 21st Avenue West, Suite 404 Seattle, WA 98199 nrccormconi 4 360-303-8362 selleck&nrccor 13Af:ISGROt: A'D I'm a partner and project manager at NRC with over 15 years' experience and a deep understanding of Puget Sound marine habitats. I've written biological evaluations and EIS discipline sections, and have presented mitigation alternatives to the USACE and state agencies as part of the JARPA application process. I have a diverse background working with marine shoreline issues, eelgrass, marine fish, ESA -listed species, invasive invertebrates, and estuarine and freshwater aquatic species and habitats. I have work experience in the tribes, state agencies, non-profit organizations, universities, and consulting firms. I've conducted studies on large-scale eelgrass depth distributions, threatened and endangered rockfish populations, forage fish historical abundance and distribution, wetland restoration and mitigation monitoring, salmon smolt passage through hydroelectric dams, commercial shellfish management, and permitting and design associated with in -water construction and restoration. I'm actively involved with state agencies as a former Chair of the Skagit County MRC, former Vice -Chair on the board of directors and executive committee for the Northwest Straits Commission, Coordinator for the PSEMP Forage Fish Workgroup, and I chair international conference sessions as a recognized expert in marine groundfish and forage fish ecology. I'm a Dive Safety Officer and instructor, and have conducted hundreds of dives monitoring eelgrass, groundfish, shellfish, and general habitat assessments in Puget Sound. EDUCATION Western Washington University M.S. Biology: Marine and Estuarine Science Program 2003 San Diego State University Graduate coursework in ecology and statistics 2001 University of New Hampshire B.S. Biology: Marine and Freshwater program 1997 PROD C-TF.X. MIPLES Coordination of PSEMP Forage Fish and Food Webs Workgroup, Puget Sound Partnership Since 2015, 1 have supported and facilitated a 70-member multi -partner workgroup for the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) that identifies and makes recommendations to the PSEMP Steering Committee for monitoring programs related to the ecology and dynamics of forage fish and related food webs in Puget Sound. Tasks include reporting to the Steering Committee, preparing an annual work plan, coordinating the workgroup chairs from WDFW, facilitating quarterly meetings and communication with technical experts from Washington and British Columbia, submitting meeting minutes, and arranging invited speakers. Prior to working as the coordinator, I was the appointed co-chair, assigned by a vote from the workgroup members. As the coordinator I am also involved in comprehensive planning for proposed Near Term Actions, informing Gaps Analysis for the biennial science work plan, updating Vital Signs for the Puget Sound Partnership 2020 Action Agenda; and coordinating with the other PSEMP workgroups on Marine Water, Toxics, Stormwater, Marine Birds and Mammals, Freshwater, and Nearshore. I developed collaborative research from the workgroup with WDFW and UW to conduct field trials related to forage fish tagging and distribution of forage fish, and chaired the session on Forage Fish Management and Conservation at the 2016 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference in Vancouver, BC. Nearshore Distribution of Sand Lance in Waters of the Salish Sea, WA I managed a collaborative project between the Northwest Straits Commission, SeaDoc Society, and NOAA to map the Puget Sound -wide historical distribution of sand lance, an important food source in the region for a range of birds, fish, and mammals. My publication in Northwest Naturalist is intended to inform management and policy decisions for this poorly understood marine forage fish species. I negotiated data sharing and compiled 40 years of sand lance data throughout the Salish Sea. I developed legal agreements for data sharing between tribes and private consulting firms, along with the procurement of data from public sources at the federal, state, and county levels. Measuring Restoration Effectiveness and Habitat Assessments, Puget Sound Partnership I developed fact sheets and background summaries of nearshore restoration projects in the Salish Sea for the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). Restoration and management actions are often reported in technical documents. I worked with PSP to distill information about what's working to restore Puget Sound for PSP partners and decision -makers. The objective was to directly connect effectiveness data to recovery actions, and to improve strategies and funding actions that are the most effective. I coordinated outreach, provided technical interpretations, prepared documents, and managed review by relevant scientists in the community. The projects reviewed included Weaverling Spit soft shoreline stabilization lead by the Samish Tribe, Cornet Bay nearshore restoration lead by the Island County MRC and NW Straits Foundation, and Seahurst Park shoreline armoring removal and restoration lead by the City of Burien. I presented the results at workshops and meetings. Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 298 2.1.a Custom Plywood Remediation and Forage Fish Restoration, Anacortes, WA Custom Plywood in Anacortes is the MTCA site of a comprehensive cleanup and environmental restoration for the Puget Sound Initiative and Department of Ecology. I managed biological surveys during restoration and construction, and conducted regular forage fish surveys as part of the post-remediation monitoring effort. The site had extensive contaminated wood waste deposits. Egg survival increased dramatically since restoring productive habitat, and spawning continued to flourish past the first year. Substrate type and size was found to be an important factor for this success. I facilitated discussions with the city, local tribes, and citizens about the site in relation to the larger cleanup of Fidalgo Bay. Monitoring of the forage fish spawning and beach condition will continue through future phases of the project. Shoreline Management and Geotechnical Assessment Study, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, WA James managed a team for geoengineering and geomorphology services with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, to provide a comprehensive feasibility -level geotechnical and habitat assessment of the Tribe's shoreline. Multiple slides along feeder bluffs below residential housing over the past 20 years raised concerns over the current slope stability and shoreline management conditions. Study objectives were to provide a risk categorization along the full shoreline, develop management recommendations, and propose mitigation and restoration measures. Considerations for sea -level rise and conservation of cultural resources were used to provide analysis and support grant applications for funding protection measures. The Tribe focused on aligning long-term goals with FEMA Pre -Disaster Mitigation and the Puget Sound Watershed Management Assistance Program. Everett Shipyard Cleanup and Central Marina Biological Evaluation, Port of Everett, WA The project objective was to assess the potential effects of the Everett Shipyard MTCA sediment cleanup and Central Marina improvements on fish and wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). I drafted the biological evaluation (BE), assisted the Port on revisions in response to the JARPA application, presented potential impacts and mitigation measures to the Seattle USACE, and provided final documents for the Port. The project will eliminate a significant area of degraded marine habitat, resulting in habitat improvements. ESA -Listed Rockfish and Groundfish Monitoring for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salish Sea, WA I managed and participated in Salish Sea field operations for WDFW. Surveys included the use of an ROV (remote operated vehicle) to survey deep -water bottom species, annual trawl surveys to determine population assessment of groundfish and invertebrates, and scuba surveys of marine protected areas to monitor long-term trends. Experimental ROV surveys were conducted in the San Juan Islands and at over 200 sites in Puget Sound to determine efficient methods to assess population estimates. We collected otolith and fin clips for aging and genetic sampling. Species of interest included rockfish, perch, lingcod, flatfish, and invertebrates. Special surveys included lingcod nest surveys, young -of -the -year rockfish surveys, and monitoring low dissolved oxygen events in Hood Canal. I have over 75 hours as an ROV pilot and over 400 scuba dives. Environmental Monitoring Surrounding a Floating Geoduck Nursery, Harstine Island, WA I managed an environmental monitoring plan for Seattle Shellfish LLC. Mason County issued a conditional Shoreline Permit to Seattle Shellfish for a floating geoduck nursery system. The floating system allows Seattle Shellfish to maintain healthy stocks of geoduck, while simultaneously minimizing environmental impacts from sediment accretion, overwater shading, or shoreline modifications. I was responsible for monitoring light levels, depth, fish, macrovegetation, and shoreline conditions under the nursery beds, as compared to the surrounding habitat. Quarterly monitoring and annual dive surveys were summarized in an annual report submitted to Mason County. Point Julia Boat Launch Pre -Design, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, WA I was the project manager, working with PND, providing the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe with preliminary feasibility, cost estimates, and ecological impacts to replace an existing pier and boat launch. The pier consists of dozens of creosote -treated piles, but was considered an important structure to the tribe. We presented the tribe with three options for replacement. The tribe is considering a pile -supported ramp with floating docks as presenting the most versatile option for their recreational and fishing vessels, and having the least ecological impact to their shoreline. Tacoma Narrows Bridge Mitigation of Juvenile Rockfish Habitat, Tacoma, WA The construction of the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge required mitigation of disturbed subtidal habitat. I conducted scuba surveys before, during, and after implementation of new rocky reef habitat at Toliva Shoals. Rock was delivered by crane and barge. The rocky reef was designed to attract juvenile and sub -adult rockfish species, and potentially ESA -listed species. Four separate reefs were installed, at varying orientations and depths relative to the channel. Final assessment of the habitat was completed by WDFW. The reef successfully attracted fish and became foraging habitat for Steller sea lions. PPEITIOUS E 11PL0YMENT Hart Crowser Edmonds, WA 2013 - 2015, 2010 - 2011 Project Manager/Marine Ecologist for Jeff Barrett Managed staff and projects on marine and nearshore habitat assessments, forage fish spawning, and mitigation Worked with Washington tribes, state and county agencies, ports, Navy, non-profit groups, and engineering firms Wrote permitting for in -water construction and restoration — BE, JARPA, EIS, shoreline permits Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Mill Creek, WA 2011-2013, 2007, 2004-2005 Marine Fish Biologist for Dayv Lowry • Project manager for annual trawl survey, dive operations, Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) surveys, and field surveys for population density and distribution of ESA -listed and commercial groundfish species ■ Agency dive safety board, agency union representative, and vessel operations Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 299 2.1.a Northwest Straits Commission Padilla Bay, WA 2010-2011 Forage Fish Specialist for Ginny Broadhurst • Worked with science committee to identify current knowledge of Pacific sand lance in the greater Puget Sound • Communicated with federal, state, county, non-profit, consulting, and tribal agencies to acquire sand lance data • First author on a peer reviewed manuscript, presentations, and workshops Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. Seattle, WA 2007 - 2009 Fisheries Biologist for Tracey Steig ■ Worked on projects with EPA mandated salmon smolt survival through hydro -electric dams and in -river sites 3D tracking of tagged salmon and active data of fish through hydroelectric dams on the mid -Columbia river The Nature Conservancy Seattle, WA 2006 Field Ecologist for Danelle Heatwole Worked in Port Susan Bay, a 4100 acres protected estuary; meetings with NW Estuary Science Advisory Panel • Author NOAA-CRP TNC report; including: GIS mapping, statistical analyses People For Puget Sound Seattle, WA 2006 Sound Stewardship Contract for Kirstin Holsman Literature review on restoration, monitoring, species assemblages, and nearshore habitat characteristics Restoration Resource: A public access on-line database to aid the volunteer stewardship program Washington Dept. of Natural Resources Olympia, WA 2005 Marine Ecologist for Helen Berry • Eelgrass ecologist for the Nearshore Habitat Division of the Aquatics Program, PSAMP-SVMP • Lead Author WA State report; ArcGIS level I and II training; statistical analyses, field and boat operations ACHIE, VL MlEN?S Professional Memberships American Academy of Underwater Sciences, National Association of Underwater Instructors Certifications and Training HAZWOPER 40hr, Motorboat Operator Certification, NAUI SCUBA Instructor, WDFW Forage Fish Spawning Surveys, WDFW Geoduck Surveys, Marbled Murrelet Monitoring Certification Professional Project Management Training, ESRI Arc-GIS level 1 and level 2, Microsoft Access level 1 and level 2 Outreach, Volunteer, and Teaching Science teacher— The Bush School (2010-2011), Western Washington (2001-2003), University of Washington (2002) Volunteer — Scripps Institute of Oceanography (2000), Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (1999), Long Marine Lab UCSC (1998-1999), Moss Landing Marine Lab (1998-1999) Naturalist educator — Marine Science Institute, Redwood City, CA (1998-1999); San Francisco Bay Area Ridge Trail Council (1999); Seacoast Science Center, Rye, NH (1997-1998) Publications Antonelis, Selleck, Drinkwin, Saltman, Tonnes, and June. 2018. Bycatch of rockfish in spot prawn traps and estimated magnitude of trap loss in Washington waters of the Salish Sea. Fisheries Research, in review. Selleck, Gibson, Shull, and Gaydos. 2015. Nearshore Distribution of Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits. Northwest Naturalist, Vol 96, No 3. Selleck and Gibson. 2011. Northwest Straits Commission, Salish Sea Forage Fish Needs Assessment Workshop, Summary Meeting Notes. Selleck. 2006. Characteristics of Large Woody Debris in the Hat Slough Distributary Channel of the Port Susan Bay Preserve: Results from the 2004-2006 Monitoring Data. NOAA-CRP report, The Nature Conservancy. Selleck, Berry, Dowty. 2005. Depth Profiles of Zostera marina Throughout the Greater Puget Sound: Results From 2002-2004 Monitoring Data. WA DNR State report. Selleck. 2003. Comparative reproductive events of the invasive Varnish Clam, Nuttallia obscurata, and the fisheries Littleneck Clam, Venerupis philippinarum. Masters Thesis, Western Washington University Presentations Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference — 2018 Seattle (session chair, poster, mentor), 2016 Vancouver (session chair), 2013 Seattle (presenter), 2011 Vancouver (session chair and poster), 2009 Seattle (session chair and poster), 2007 Vancouver (presenter), 2005 Seattle (presenter) Pacific Estuarine Research Society — 2015 Seattle (presenter), 2006 (poster) American Fisheries Society — 2015 Portland (presenter), 2011 Seattle (presenter) Western Groundfish Society-2018 Monterey (poster), 2012 Seattle (presenter) Workshops — 2018 NOAA PRD San Diego (poster), 2015 Salish Sea Stewards, Padilla Bay; 2014 Beach Watchers, Padilla Bay; 2014 Skagit County MRC, Mount Vernon; 2013 Marker Buoy Dive Club, Seattle; 2012 Forage Fish Symposium (poster), Friday Harbor; 2010 seven Marine Resource Committees; 2010 Northwest Straits Commission meeting, Bellingham Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 300 2.1.a EXHIBIT 2 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 301 2.1.a -r 4 -• --- — r -�.a, 1--.. 3 rs a a rr+ AwK . Oolt i , .� ay,+n,, 4 t, I n1A `i T4 •l4 d Lw ll Gl I j{rr11 ` GV• �i 'C}SI9 !'[ptNTIFR$, ao.+Ae trhis r,tn day Of k[•v, 19tt , And betvatn Olympic yropnrtlaa lnc., A Washinyton L7 corporation, and analyna, narrinafter called the '>rrantot*, F-{ And On City a{ F.dmnndrl, a raunlclpal corporation of the p{Ata r-i of Washinr,}ton+ harAlnAftjc called the "Orentea," 41 N1THr..133ET111 r� That the nald Grantor for and in canAidesratian of one dolinr to Grantor in hand paid by aald Grantee, mutual 6,,* f[to Accruing and other valuable, 1ngal connidoration, rece[pt of which In hereby acknowledgodl do by theaa Prannntn grant, bargnln, 8011, convoy and cane'ir[a unto asr said Grantee a rlghk`of-y+oY nannrsent for public ncconn, unn and r rn ynymani , togaCF}e r w itlt the right to conntralCt and reai eta i n 4I public fncilitlaaf utilltlnn And n+ycnAaary •,?purten,ancca. over, through, acrorsa and upon the following doscribed property, 4jtU&ta In Snohomish County, MaahLnyt0" more particularly datscrt" d as L'ollowa, i caeamencing at a point on the westerly margin of fgettHOctherlyffaonit•heton Northern Southline of Government Lot 2, SectlOn 23, Townclhip 27 Morth, Rnrf9a 3 rAnt said wnaterl margin) tic,'ncn ti�.ts.. as MCA Is along y mar in Of 11 Vorth 41ad0'00" East: n10 9 trio Westafrly 9 I r said right -Of -way, a distance of 100.00 feet, thence [� J _ North 49000'd0" went, parpeldicular with said sight j i `I Governmargin, l ct to mentmeanderline Ofetance the 4 thewatars9.61 ea of Puget9"ndl ` thence ?Ioclth Slol9,14" East, along said meander line, LI 1 a distance of 6.91 feat to the Eantarlymost�fcorner dr Parcel A, as deacrihed on Shoat 1 of ilia l+1aE'•vE Iil " EL,U'Tide;.:e-candamiRiWlr at-vecorded £n volume 4A -0f L l` =" p•1nte; "Oli'pagen k75 through' 101' •inclusive, records . Z Of snalyamlah County, NashirsgiOnf thence North ]e ]7 _ Crest, Along the NortheaateVI line of as Parcel A, } a dlutnnGc o: 60.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning] 1 Lj*.= trrc continuing North 3II037'09" west n dintancn of la 10.00 feet: thence South 41052,11, West, a•diatanca of 99.60 fact to a pOlnt on the Southwesterly lino 0f paid Parcel h) thence South 38077,00^ East, along said Southwolateely line of said Parcel A, a distance of 10.00 lthence a[ 99.60 recttotholE True Point ofbeginning- diecapoa Situ,zt_cd in SnohomLsh County, W.Aahington. Tho Crantetl, its sUcr_esaoro, neental or aauigfk�, andil r_an.�'eruet, tn-gzal.l, ar r,ra[G no nt.ruc.turoa ar tmproYamanta upon or ,,,th1n the abnvn daaeribod rsasemGnt right Of V uheroby any portion theraor axttnr]:s nuovu a 1tor1znrt'n1 istd�o I:lfietin cYinq an `tl=� ation ur 17.00 an rerorrod to j-ity or Edmand5 Datum U) P IDor)Lover Lou Nntarl, A LL Thle Agronmont shall be an appurtanent easement r cunning vlth the land And 91- 11 be binding on the-Crant:or, !f a) [a Ito succnsaora and AnalQna fornyor Cos tjiv tlnnefit of the o I w r 20-1 i Attachment 7 EBI Packet Pg. 302 r' Cr3nteu as owner of ronl property located i"ediately adjacent to the north and south oL the eubject property. OLYMPIC PROPeRTIEfl, IHC. B n ea I. Braunr Prasi eR nt and E3Y-an^�'+� ltar„en J. Murphy, GP vrnssdont STATE OF WASHINGTON j y COU14TY OF } On thin 4th day of Hovemva1, 1903, b6fora mc, the undersigned, a votary i'vn.lTcin and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Warren Murphy and James R. Braun, to roe known to be the V£ee President and President o[ Olympic Propertiese Inc.? the corporat an that nxdcutad the foregoing 2instrumentt and acknowledged the sold i instrument to be the free and voluntary act and dend of said corporation, for the upon and purposes therein mentioned, and an oath stated that they were authorized to execute acid t LnS trUment and that the seal affixed to the corporate meal of said corporation.` WITNESS my hand and gfficial seal hereto affixed the day and year flret above written. } ,.. _. i'•. tUTAR% URI. C n a for the St to Washington, residing at Vnl. i8j.5 tlGt2W ' 2 I i ' • �,. .'•'.. .. rk J.. '. 1,•' Sr,• '. r Attachment 7 EB Packet Pg. 303 2.1.a EXHIBIT 3 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 304 4039 ">lst.ls'c 11'. A 9 199 N RC 5e:,t.iie, ��'r1 �18 tr�q (206) 295-3•180 Mu'crRALkEu3uaGE-ScorstrIJANTrs,[Nc. April 23, 2018 Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners c/o Hecker Wakefield & Feil.berg, P.S. 321 First Ave W Seattle, WA 98119 Phone; 20&447-1900 stephanw@heckerwakefield.com Res Shoreline Assessment of the Beach Easement at Ebb Tide Ebb Tide Association, The purpose of this memo is to address environmental concerns associated with the proposed elevated walkway to be constructed in front of the Ebb Tide beach front property in Edmonds, as part of the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project: The City of Edmonds is proposing to reconfigure a portion of the shoreline, by replacing an upper intertidal bulkhead with soft shoreline stabilization and backshore vegetation, 1 reviewed documents inclvding excerpts from the Biological Evaluation, the DARPA permit application, and the Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (Herrera 2017). A shoreline site visit was conducted on March 27; 2018 in order to assess forage fish spawning habitat on the beach, Presented here are results of the site assessment, including evaluation of general substrate composition, verification of tidal elevation extending up to the property wall, presence of wood and other organic debris, and classification of forage fish spawning habitat. In my opinion, the proposed walkway in front of the Ebb Tide beach property will result in the direct net loss of forage fish spawning habitat. Site ohser4rc1 loins Weather conditions during the morning of March 27 were overcast with good visibility, Fahrenheit temperatures in the high forties, and a south wind of 15 to 20 knots. Sea Level Pressure was 30.25 inches, which is around average. There were 2 to 4400t wind waves, and the onshore wind could have pushed water higher than the predicted tidal elevation. The previous high tide was at 03.19 with a tidal height of +10,6 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), which was approximately ten feet from the bulkhead. The beach type was. categorized as consisting of primarily fine sands throughout, with a mix of pebble and cobble with some broken shell between tidal elevations +5 to +7 feet MLLW (Figure 1). The wrack line is an area In the upper intertidal zone where organic material naturally accumulates along the high tide line. Wrack often consists of leaves, se.agrass, kelp, and wood. Wrack accumulation is generally less in the winter, when organic material is less avallaNe. , The wrack at the Ebb Tide beach consisted mostly of wood debris, with ,some Fucus sp. algae, and other terrestrial plant material (Figure 1). The wrack line corresponded with wet sand indicating the previous high tide line, Occasional winter storms may temporarily increase wrack and debris on the site; and there were large wood logs on the beach to the Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 305 EBB 2.1.a north (Figure 1), There were no dune grass or other plants above the beach, clue to the presence of continuous bulkhead armoring. Tidal elevation on the beach was measured at 09.1ti, with a predicted tidal height of+5.9 feet MLLW; The slope of the beach was gradual, and the bulkhead was estimated to be at approximately+11 feet MLLW. Fora Dish Spawti.inti Habitat Surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiostns) and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes personatus) are the two species of forage fish that spawn on local beaches. Forage fish spawn on the beach at high tide, often in the evening, Fish do not stay on the beach, but leave their microscopic eggs in the sand, After approximately two weeks the eggs hatch and the larvae swim away at high tide. Forage fish will spawn multiple times on the same reach, so that eggs can be found on a beach For months during spawning seasons. Documenting eggs requires a certified forage fish biologist. Surf smelt spawn relatively higher than Pacific sand lance, from 4-7 feet MLLW up to extreme high water, while Pacific sand lance are known to spawn} lower, from +5 MLLW up to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW). My IIiW for Edmonds datum 9447427 is +10.91 feet above MLLW (NOAA Tides and Currents), which is immediately below the elevation of the bulkhead. Surf smelt in north Puget Sound are predominately summer spawners, and in south Puget Sound are mostly winter spawners, These smelt spawnitng:seasons overlap in the Edmonds area, with spawning heavier in winter months, but eggs can generally be found year-round. Pacific sand lance only spawn between Novemberto February. The Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (Herrera 2017) states that the Ebb Tide beach property south of the ferry terminal is not napped for surf smelt spawning habitat (Page 20), but that is Incorrect. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) clearly documents surf smelt spawning habitat along the full length of the beach (Figure 2). Forage fish are also recognized as a food source associated With critical habitat for ESA4isted Chinook. 'Impacts to honige Fish Habitat WDFW use the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) to permit construction that impact aquatic habitats. Regulations are outlined by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Public recreational pier design and location of structures must protect documented surf smelt and Pacific sand lance spawning beds (WDFW WAC 220-660-380). In addition, the construction of other bank. protection projects must not result in a permanent loss of surf smelt or Pacific sand lance spawning beds, and shall incorporate mitigation measures as necessary to achieve no -net -loss of productive capacity, of fish and shellfish habitat (WDFW WAC 220-660-370). No -net -loss Was initially adapted for regulatory purposes after 1989, The concept of no -net -loss is designed to prevent the further loss of ecological functions as a result of construction activities. Cumulative loss of forage fish spawning habitat can reduce the survival of an important early life history stage critical to the species. The.proposed walkway to be constructed in front of the Ebb Tide beach property will create overwater structure 1.0 feet wide and 154 feet long, including seven 30- inch -diameter steel pilings permanently installed in the beach. No bulkhead removal, beach restoration, or other mitigation measures are Natural Resources consultants, Inc. Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 306 EBB 2.1.a proposed along the beach directly in front of the Ebb Tide property. The walkway will be installed across the beach area from +7 to +10 MLLW, directly covering documented surf smelt spawning habitat. The height of the walkway above the habitat will vary based on the beach elevation, so that a flat walking surface can be provided. The bottorn of the walkway may come in contact with sand at +10 feet MLLW, Sediment transfer along the shoreline is an important feature for maintaining forage fish spawning habitat (WDFW WAC 220-660-390). In addition to direct impacts of the proposed walkway on the beach, portions of the walkway may prevent accretion of new materials by blocking sediment movement, The general drift of materials along the Edmonds shoreline is South to North (Figure 3). The marina to the south of the Ebb Tide property limits the deposition of new sand material by blocking the source of drifting material. The proposed walkway and seven steel pilings will reflect wave energy, accelerating the loss of fine sands and other beach material that is importantfor forage fish eggs to survive. conclusion in my opinion, the proposed walkway in front of the Ebb Tide beach property will result in the direct net loss of forage fish spawning habitat, and no in -kind mitigation for the steel pilings and covered beach area is addressed. My conclusion is in agreement with previous documents from WDFW (letters to the City, 1999). The Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project includes several activities that will improve upland shoreline functions by removing hard armoring and other materials adjacent to the Ebb Tide Property, but these improvements are in relation to other portions of the shoreline located above MHHW, and do not address impacts from installing the walkway directly on the beach. Compensatory mitigation is required for all unavoidable adverse impacts to fish habitats (WDFW WAC 220-660-080). Furthermore, the Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (Herrera 2017) outlines avoidance to forage fish spawning during construction by conducting surveys prior to work commencing, but mistakenly fails to identify the beach as forage fish spawning habitat. Mitigation measures outlined in the plan relate to activity above MHHW, focus on restoration of the bulkhead outside of the walkway footprint, and only include the 35 square foot area from the steel pilings as habitat loss on the beach. The impacts analysis . (Herrera 2017) describes the 1,383 square foot overwater structure as not acting as a barrier to fish migration, but fails to address the impedance to forage Fish spawning directly under the walkway. The design of the walkway displays a 3-foot clearance at +7 feet MLLW intertidal height, but given the width of the walkway and the slope of the beach it will likely come in contact with the beach at +10feet MLLW. Surf smeltswim up to the extreme high tide to spawn, and require room on the beach to reach that tidal elevation. Assuming the minimal gap proposed beneath the walkway, this will not provide enough room for surf smelt to swim under and spawn during high tide, impeding fish from reaching their spawning habitat. Therefore the complete area of the walkway should be considered as direct net loss of forage fish spawning habitat. The base of the bulkhead in front of the Ebb Tide beach property is at approximately +11 feet MLLW. The bulkhead is regularly in contact with water at high tide. Recent dates where high tide exceeded +11 feet MLLW include from March 18 to 21, February 27 to March 6, and February 14 to 22. Wind waves associated with storm events can easily push water 2 to 3 feet above the predicted high tide, regularly pushing water over the top of the bulkhead. Low pressure systems also raise the water level 1 to 2 feet above predicted tidal elevations. The proposed walkway is designed to sit slightly above the beach but will regularly be in direct contact with water during high tide when surf smelt spawn, due to the height Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 307 EBB 2.1.a restrictions outlined in the access easement. Storm surge created by low pressure systems and wind waves would push water over the top of the walkway. This memo documents direct impacts to surf smelt spawning and net loss of habitat, poten-flai restrictions to sediment drift on the beach, and the limited elevated height.of the:proposed walkway above the beach in relation to annual storm surge. My conclusion is that the Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (Herrera 2617) mistakenly falls to report WDFW documented forage fish spawning habitat, does not include the complete walkway structure as direct net loss of habitat and. does not adequately address these concerns in relation to the beach directly in front of the Ebb Tide property. Sincerely, Natural Resources Consultants, Inc., James R Selleck Marine Ecologist / Fisheries Biologist lselleck@nrecorp.com Attachments Figures 1-3 References City of Edmonds. November 7, 1983. Access Easement, Document 8311070085, City of Edmonds, May 2012, Biological Evaluation to the DARPA application. Herrera. September 1.6, 1999..Memo to the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Midwaterfront Bulkhead" Repair: Bulkhead Design Alternative in Front of Ebb Tide Condominiums, Herrera, September 21; 2017. Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan, Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project: Pamela Erstad, WDFW, April 29,1999. Letter to the City of Edmonds, Comments; Edmonds Mid -Waterfront Walkway, Edmonds, WA, Pamela Erstad, WDFW: September 22, 1999. Letter to the City of Edmonds, Request for Information; Edmonds Mid -Waterfront Project; Proposed Bulkhead; Ebb Tide Condominiums, Snohomish County, WRIA 08. Natural Resources Consultants; Inc. 4 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 308 EBB ERZOGO s ')0l 'S)IiellnsuO) sO:W)Os.Id IPJ"IeN 'Sli q;)p Apoom alliel pue'loeim '-,)iejlsqns q:)Laq jo SUOIILIAJasqo lej@uaD T ainYjj Ow - AV 4FJp' wlp� Attachment 7 I Packet Pg. 309 2.1.a Figure 2. Satellite view of the project site. The green line indicates surf smelt spawning habitat along the beach (http:Hwdfw. maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=1968f74e2d41470cbd8Oblaf8dedd6b3&ext ent=-126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.0781). The Ebb Tide property, circled, is located in between the marina and the ferry terminal. Natural Resources Consultants, Inc- 6 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 310 -EBB ' . s 2.1.a Figure 3, Satellite view of the project site. Yellow lines indicate the movement of sediments, and red lines indicate areas of no appreciable drift(https:�Ifortress_wa-nVle4vlcaastatatias(tools�M�_asLx). No appreciable drift means there is no source of new beach material. The Ebb Tide property, circled, is located in between the marina and the Ferry terminal. Natural Resources Consultants, Inc_ m 0 L 0 0 E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r 0 a) V 0 0 L 0 0 0) E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J IL a r c m E t U 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 311 EBB 2.1.a EXHIBIT 6 m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 312 2.1.a 8/17/2018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report says I The Seattle Times Environment ASearch orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report says Originally published October 27, 2017 at 6:oo am Updated October 26,2017 at 8:36 pm ," - — - --• 1 of 2 A pod of orcas swims through the Saratoga Passage near Camano Island earlier this month. The killer whales target chinook salmon for their diet, and they use echolocation — sound — to find their food. (Orca Network) A new study published in Scientific Reports finds that a lower abundance of salmon in a sea noisy from vessel traffic means the whales must forage longer to find their food — stressing their already -endangered population. By Lynda V. Mapes v Seattle Times environment reporter Orca whales are on a path to extinction within a century unless they get a big increase of chinook salmon to eat, and significantly quieter seas in which to find their food, a https://www.seattletimes.com/seaftle-news/environment/orcas-heade,®rtl.aehK1 CT-Itngss-we-get-them-more-chinook-and-quieter-water Packet Pg. 313 2.1.a 8/17/2018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report says I The Seattle Times new study has found. The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, evaluated the relative importance of known threats to the survival of southern -resident killer whales, the salmon -eating whales that frequent Puget Sound. An international team of scientists reviewed 40 years of data and the threats of lack of food, pollutants and excessive noise under different future scenarios. A clear finding emerged: lack of food, specifically chinook salmon, was the orcas' biggest threat to long-term survival, so much so that a 30 percent increase in chinook above average levels is needed to recover the orca population. That increase could be cut to 15 percent if vessel noise also is reduced by half. Featured Video Wars' other veterans: Three people move to the U.S. with special visas and rebuild their lives (4:42) Most Read Local Stories Seattle's dirty air among world's worst, but relief is in sight Seven members of Washington family dead in head-on Oregon crash Environmentalists sue federal government in Seattle to protect endangered orcas Logging in Upper Skagit River watershed put on hold as Seattle has `grave concern' Handcuffed Kirkland man dies after jumping off Highway 52o bridge Unlimited Digital Access, 1 far 4 weeks. htlps:l/wawv.seatVeVmes.comiseatt le- news/environ ment/orcas-headeA*S&p rsrfss•we•get-them-more•chinook-and-quieter-water Packet Pg. 314 2.1.a 8/17/2018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report says I The Seattle Times Otherwise, the populations will continue to decline and there is a 25 percent chance the whales will be lost within too years, the scientists found. The findings reflect the unique biology of southern -resident killer whales, which insist on targeting chinoolc salmon for their diet, virtually to the exclusion of other prey. They also use echolocation — sound — to find their food. Lower abundance of salmon in a sea noisy from vessel traffic means the whales must forage longer to find their food — even as chinoolc populations also are declining. And if they can't get enough to eat they burn their own fat, laden with chemicals stored in their tissue, absorbed from pollutants in the waters of the Salish Sea. The linked nature of the threats to orcas means progress must be made on all three fronts, noted Rob Williams, an author on the paper based at Oceans Initiative in Seattle, a nonprofit scientific research firm. The orcas already are in a 30-year population low, with just 76 animals in the J, K and L pods. "The very first thing we should be doing is holding the line, and not increasing threats and harms that are already there, clearly we don't want to be adding to the problem," said Paul Paquet of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation in Sydney, B.C., a lead author on the paper. "There is an urgency here that is not well -appreciated; they are certainly in jeopardy," he said of the orcas. "There is no doubt about that." Bob Lacy, a conservation biologist with the Chicago Zoological Society, and another lead author on the paper, said the southern residents are "just holding on; the population is too fragile to withstand any increased threats. "It is not a cheerful story, but it is a wake-up call." Lynne Barre, Seattle branch chief of the Protected Resources Division at NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region, said the agency is well aware of the orcas' predicament, as their population — at the lowest numbers since the 198os — continues to drop. They are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. "We are moving in the wrong direction," Barre said. The agency is looking for partners at every level — local, state, federal and across the border in Canada, to ease threats to orca survival she said. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environmentlorcas-headeA-Iog cjino@pQnrhss-we-get-them-more-chinook-and-quieter-water Packet Pg. 315 2.1.a 8/17/2018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report says I The Seattle Times It's not a problem orcas might just fix on their own by turning to other prey. While so-called transient killer whales in Canada feast on marine mammals, especially seals, the southern residents will not switch from chinook — the most calories for the hunting effort of any salmon — even when the region's most prized fish is scarce. "It seems to be cultural, this is what they learned from their mothers, they live in tight family groups and it makes them unique and very special, but it might be a downfall as well," Barre said. Chinook are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act both in the Columbia River and in Puget Sound. Orcas forage for chinook at the mouth of the Columbia in the early spring and again in Puget Sound in the summer, especially on the west side of San Juan Island. Scientists have been studying the whales' foraging behavior and can see that vessel traffic affects it, she noted. The agency is considering a proposed change in the critical habitat protected for the whales to include the West Coast all the way to the San Francisco Bay Area, to reflect what scientists are learning about how far the orcas travel for their food, Barre said. Also under review is a protection zone that extends three-quarters of a mile offshore of San Juan Island from Mitchell Point in the north to Cattle Point in the south. All motorized vessels would be excluded from the zone to give the whales a refuge from their noise. The proposal from Orca Relief Citizens Alliance and other conservation groups, under review by NOAA since January, received more than 1,000 comments, including suggestions of new approaches to the problem. James Unsworth, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, even suggested that instead of a fixed protection zone, what is needed is a floating go-slow bubble extending 1,000 yards around every orca as it travels anywhere in Washington's inner marine waters. Within the bubble, vessel speeds would be restricted to not more than 7 knots on the water. That would be a big increase in the zoo -yard, no -approach zone around every orca imposed by NOAA in 2011. https://www.seattleti mes.com/seattle-news/envi ronmentlorcas-heade)ktq-@dpMtr"ross-we-get-them-more-chi nook-and-q uiete r-waters Packet Pg. 316 2.1.a 8/17/2018 Orcas headed to extinction unless we get them more chinook and quieter waters, report says i The Seattle Times Slower travel speeds help orcas by quieting vessel traffic. Some change is already underway on a voluntary basis. The Port of Vancouver, B.C., in a pilot program last summer, asked ships to cut their speed to 11 knots — a reduction to nearly half speed for some vessels — to reduce noise levels in a 16-mile-long area of the orcas' prime feeding ground. More than 61 percent of ships using Haro Strait voluntarily participated. It's the kind of measure that perhaps could buy the whales some time and take the pressure off a population struggling to survive, Williams said. "This is a really small population that is teetering." Not because of some catastrophe, such as an oil spill, he noted, but just because of what their environment has become. "We are looking at their daily lives." Lynda V. Mapes: 2o6-464-2515 or lmapes@seattletimes.com We need your support In-depth journalism takes time and effort to produce, and it depends on paying subscribers. If you value these kinds of stories, consider subscribing. qR View 141 Comments Recommended in https://www,seattletimes.com/seattle-newslanvironmentforcas-headeAtd-&C�ML ANtbl?ss•we-get-them-more-chinook-and-quieter-waters packet Pg. 317 EXHIBIT 7 �I m 'o L a r c m E ai 0 m as r c 0 L r L d 0 L M E L Q t 3 0 a a� M N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E 0 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 318 2.1.a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This critical areas report and mitigation plan was prepared for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (hereafter referred to as the project) in accordance with current federal, state, and City of Edmonds regulations and guidance. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) investigated the project area and surrounding study area for the presence of critical areas, including wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs), and frequently flooded areas; and conducted a habitat assessment and ordinary high water delineation on May 4, 2017. Herrera did not identify any wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas, or critical aquifer recharge areas within the study area; therefore, these critical areas are not discussed further in this report. The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department (City) and the Edmonds Senior Center (Senior Center) propose to redevelop the Edmonds Senior and Community Center; the associated parking lot, bulkhead, and beach access; and to construct an overwater walkway. Together, those elements comprise the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (project). The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Senior Center to continue providing senior and community services, and it will be used by the City for programming and events during the late afternoon and evening hours. The proposed overwater walkway will be constructed on a City -owned easement on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, directly south of the proposed Waterfront Center building The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. The project is at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington, within Section 23 of Township 27 North and Range 03 East of the Willamette Meridian. The existing parking lot extends onto a bulkhead located partially below mean higher high water (MHHW) of the Puget Sound. The bulkhead is composed of fill material and supported by 36 creosote -treated timber piles around the perimeter. The bulkhead timbers and fill will be removed and new beach access will be provided by installing concrete stairs and a ramp within the existing footprint, above MHHW. The stairs and ramp will be supported by no more than 60 steel H-piles. In the area of bulkhead removal, habitat improvements will include installing large woody debris, boulders, and a sand/gravel mix, and planting native vegetation. The parking lot will be reconfigured and will incorporate bioretention planters for water quality treatment and infiltration. There are two existing outfalls in the bulkhead to the Puget Sound, both of which will be shortened to end above (landward of) MHHW. The proposed overwater walkway will link the existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway between the ferry terminal and the Edmonds Marina in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. The overwater walkway will be a 10-foot-wide, concrete and grated structure approximately 154 feet long, elevated on seven steel piles. Approximately 50 percent of the footprint of the pj 17-06494-000 car_edrnc1 wtrirntdocx EDM006238 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 319 2.1.a Within the project vicinity, the nearshore subtidal area between the proposed project and the Port of Edmonds Marina is mostly sand, with several areas of artificial reef materials and rock at depths of -15 to -90 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). Between the existing ferry terminal and Dayton Street (approximately 1,200 feet south of the ferry terminal), expansive macroalgae beds were found during surveys for the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program, including Laminaria spp. and Nereocystis spp., from the -5-foot contour to the -60-foot MLLW contour (CH2M Hill 2004). The area directly offshore of and including the docking area of the existing ferry terminal is devoid of macroalgae, probably as a result of propeller -induced turbulence. Sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca), and red algae (Gracilaria sjoestedtic), were found from the marina to the ferry pier and from the ferry pier north through the underwater park and beyond (CH2M Hill 2004). Eelgrass beds were found to be continuous at depths of about -2 feet to -20 feet MLLW during these surveys. These eelgrass beds are beyond the study area and are approximately 300 linear feet waterward of the project area, measured perpendicular to the shoreline. Species Assessment Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout use nearshore areas for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, for migration, and as nursery areas for juveniles. Nearshore area surveys conducted in 2001 found juvenile Chinook at several locations in the Edmonds vicinity (Edmonds 2007). Salmonid stocks that may be present near Edmonds include runs from the Skagit and Stillaguamish Rivers, but are mostly from the Snohomish, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually Rivers and smaller drainages in central and southern Puget Sound (Edmonds 2007). Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat use in the study area and project vicinity would be during periods of juvenile foraging and juvenile and adult migration. The eelgrass beds along the shoreline provide high quality foraging habitat for juveniles. Once juveniles leave estuarine/delta habitats and enter Puget Sound, they distribute widely throughout nearshore ecosystems. Chinook juveniles spend a greater amount of time in the nearshore environment as they grow, whereas steelhead have a longer freshwater rearing time and are larger when they enter the marine environment and are likely to head to deeper waters beyond the nearshore for foraging. Their abundance in shoreline areas of Puget Sound typically peaks in June and July, although some are still present in shoreline habitats through at least October. When juveniles first enter estuarine areas their optimal habitat is low gradient, shallow water, fine-grained substrates (silts and mud), low salinity, and low wave energy. As they grow, they use a greater diversity of Puget Sound habitats including deeper, more offshore habitats, and eventually, most fish leave for the North Pacific Ocean feeding grounds (Fresh 2006). Bull trout use mouths of estuaries and nearshore areas primarily from March to July. In summer, fish may leave estuary/marine areas due to high temperatures (Goetz et al. 2003). Bull trout use nearshore areas such as those in the study area and project vicinity for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, and for foraging, growth, migration, and overwintering (USFWS 2004). Bull trout habitat use in the study area and project vicinity would be during periods of adult foraging and migration (P. Verhey, personal communication). Bull trout display wide-ranging foraging habits September 2017 HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 19 EDM006260 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 320 2.1.a and are known to consume juvenile salmon (including Chinook) that inhabit shallow nearshore areas (Edmonds 2007). Critical habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout is present with the study area (USFWS 2017, Herrera 2017). Chinook salmon critical habitat includes only the marine nearshore, from extreme high tide to a depth of 30 meters. Bull trout critical habitat includes the marine nearshore, from MHHW to -10 meter MLLW, and any tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. The beach north of the ferry terminal is mapped by WDFW as providing spawning habitat for surf smelt (WDFW 2017a). The beach south of the terminal, within and adjacent to the study area, is not mapped as forage fish spawning habitat (WDFW 2017a); however, the study area has the potential to provide suitable forage fish spawning habitat. While the substrate is suitable for spawning, there is no riparian vegetation to provide shade for forage fish spawn. Pedestrian activity is significant and disturbance to forage fish spawn is likely. Green sturgeon, eulachon, and yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish have all been documented in Puget Sound. Green sturgeon are rare in Puget Sound; they have only been observed in estuaries, thus they are very unlikely to use the study area. Eulachon are infrequent in Puget Sound; they would use the nearshore environment in the study area for incidental migration. Free-floating larval bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish would use the study area for foraging; they have been observed under free floating algae, seagrass and detached kelp. Juvenile bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish are most commonly found on rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms; adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age (NOAA 2017). Marbled murrelets are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters; winter and summer surveys by WDFW conducted near Edmonds found no murrelets in winter and only a few birds in the Edmonds area in summer (Edmonds 2007). The nearest critical habitat is in the Snoqualmie National Forest, approximately 30 miles east of the study area (USFWS 2017). Critical habitat for southern resident killer whale (SRKW) is mapped along the Edmonds waterfront (USFWS 2017). The waterfront is within Area 2, which includes Puget Sound south from the Deception Pass Bridge, entrance to Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal Bridge (71 CFR 69063) The critical habitat designation includes waters deeper than 20 feet based on extreme high water. The study area includes waters that are shallower than 20 feet based on extreme high water. Therefore, the study area does not extend to SRKW critical habitat. 'dilater Quality There are multiple water quality concerns in Puget Sound: ■ Levels of toxic contaminants in biota that live or feed in Puget Sound The eutrophication of marine waters, producing hypoxic and anoxic regions Pt� HERRERA September 2017 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan --Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 7 EDM 0 26 Packet Pg. 321 2.1.a EXHIBIT 8 m 0 L a. E Q 0 d Nd LIB 0 L d 2R 7 L d 0 L E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a. a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 322 2.1.a BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION - rw For informal ESA Consultation j US Army corps For: of Engineers (Corps Reference Number) ,A; I Seahle Distriel Version: May 2012 ` nr xx This form is for projects that have insignificant or discountable impacts on listed species. It contains all the information required for a biological evaluation, but in abbreviated form and with minimal instructions on how to fill it out. For more detailed instructions, a format for development of a biological assessment or biological evaluation can be found on the Seattle District Corps website (www.nws.usace.army.mil — click on regulatory and then on endangered species, BA Template). You may also contact the Corps at 206-764-3495 for further information. Drawings and Photographs - Drawings and photographs must be submitted. Photographs must be submitted showing local area, shoreline conditions, existing overwater structures, and location of the proposed project. Drawings must include a vicinity map; plan, profile, and cross-section drawings of the proposed structures; and over- and in -water structures on adjacent properties. (For assistance with the preparation of the drawings, please refer to our Draiving Checklist located on our website at www.nws.usace.arM.mil Select Regulatory — Regulatory/Permits — Forms.) Submit the information to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, Washington 98124-3755. Date: September 5, 2017 SECTION A — General Information 1. Applicant name Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Mailing address: 700 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 Work phone: 425-771-0256 Home phone: 1 Email: 1 carrie.hite edmondswa. ov Fax: 425-771-0253 2. Joint -use applicant name Not applicable Mailing address: Work phone: Home phone: Email: Fax: 3. Authorized agent name Shelby Petro Mailing address: Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Seattle, WA 98120 Work phone: 206-787-8307 Home phone: 1 Email: 1 s etro herrerainc.com Fax: 206-441-9108 4. Location where proposed work will occur 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA 98020, Snohomish County 200 Beach Place, Edmonds, WA 98020, Snohomish County Waterbody: Puget Sound, WRIA 8, HUC 17110 '/4 Section: SE Section: 23 Township: 27N Range: 3E Latitude: 47.81122 Longitude: -122.3854 Attachment 7 EDM006197 Packet Pg. 323 2.1.a aquatic action area extends onto the unvegetated upper low tide terrace, and is less than 20 feet in depth relative to extreme high water. Noise and pollution do not define the aquatic action area because their likely impacts will be limited to an area smaller than those of increased turbidity. All pile driving and earth moving will be conducted in the dry at low tide. Although ground vibrations will occur, it is unlikely that they will generate underwater noise at levels sufficient to affect aquatic species given the wide beach at the project location and that pile driving will occur during low tide. The distance to the water line and shallow depth of water adjacent to the project footprint will further reduce the likelihood of noise transmission (WSDOT 2017). Therefore, pile driving is not expected to generate a significant in - water noise impact. Stormwater from pollution generating surfaces on site will be treated and infiltrated in a bioretention cell, then discharged through an existing outfall in the bulkhead that will be shortened to above MHHW. Untreated stormwater will not enter surface Puget Sound. A separate existing outfall and the second shortened outfall from the removed bulkhead will convey stormwater from non -pollution generating surfaces. The project will comply with Washington State surface water quality requirements in marine waters (WAC 173-201A-210). 8. Species Information This biological evaluation (BE) was prepared to determine the potential effects of the proposed project on listed and proposed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat. Species lists and maps were obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2017a), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2017), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2017a) (Table 3). Table 3. USFWS and NMFS Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat Potentially Present in the Waterfront Center Project Action Area. Designated Critical Habitat Federal in the Action Common Name Scientific Name ESU/DPS Puget Sound Status threatened Area? yes Chinook salmon I Oncorhynchus tshaipvtscha Bull trout Salveliniis con uentus Coastal -Puget Sound threatened yes Steelhead Oncorh nchus m kiss Puget Sound threatened no Eulachon Thaleichth s paci mcus Southern threatened no Yelloweye Sebastes ruberrimus Puget Sound/Georgia threatened yes rockfish Basin Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Puget Sound/Georgia endangered yes Basin Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus CA, OR, WA threatened no marmoratus ESU = evolutionarily significant unit DPS = distinct population segment Attachment 7 EDM006205 Packet Pg. 324 2.1.a EXHIBIT 9 Q Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 325 Environmental Des lsnWorw Fgure 2.1.a (&JA HERRERA September 27, 2018 Kernen Lien Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Response to Comment/Objection by Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners to DNS Application Dear Mr. Lien: We read the comment letter from representatives of the Edmonds Ebb Tide Association of Apartment Owners (the Ebb Tide). Per your request, here are our responses to their comments. No response as item is outside of Herrera's scope. This is a position statement, not a statement about science. This item only considers the walkway portion of the project; it does not consider the full project, including restoration and mitigation impacts when evaluating no net loss. Table 1 summarizes the impacts and mitigation to the forage fish spawning range described by Pentilla (2007), including all components of the project. When all components are considered, it is clear that over 3,500 net square feet of habitat will be created through restoration. Table 1. Summary of area of permanent impacts and mitigation as part of the Edmonds Waterfront Center project. Action Impact Area (square feet) Restored Area (square feet) Ebb Tide Walkway 35 N/A Bulkhead and Parking Lot Removal N/A —3,000* Concrete Debris Removal N/A 587 *Removal includes removal of pollutant -generating surfaces (60 2200 Sixth Avenue I Suite 1100 1 Seattle, Washington 1 981211 p 206 4419080 1 f 206 4419108 SEATTLE, WA 1 PORTLAND, OR I MISSOULA, MT 1 OLYMPIA, WA I BELLINGHAM, WA Attachment 8 3 Packet Pg. 327 2.1.a Kernen Lien September 27, 2018 Page 2 ITEM C Exhibits 2 through 4 Exhibits 2 through 4 in the comments refer to a completely different project than the one currently proposed. The project proposed nearly 20 years ago only proposed a walkway. The current project proposes a different type of walkway, as one component of a larger project. The current larger project includes a mitigation plan: the removal of creosote -treated bulkhead and beach restoration on adjacent City property, suitable for forage fish spawning. These exhibits also predate the alternatives analysis that occurred in the last five years. Some of these alternatives had significant, clear net habitat gains (i.e., no permanent impacts), but were rejected by the Ebb Tide. For a full discussion, see the Conclusions section below. The specific citation regarding difficulty of forage fish spawning restoration is also dated and no longer accurate. All the letters (Exhibits 2 through 4) are nearly 20 years old. Twenty years ago, there were very few forage fish restoration projects constructed in the region, and forage fish habitat restoration was largely an academic question/proposition. However, in the last 20 years, Herrera and others, including our collaborators on this project, have completed multiple projects with documented gains in forage fish habitat following construction. Like the bulkhead removal project at Edmonds, these projects involved removal of relict pollutant generating bulkheads. This removal of the adjacent bulkhead is not mentioned at all in the discussion of these old exhibits; yet it is central to the environmental goals of the project. Exhibits 2 through 4 refer to the beach in front of the Ebb Tide and Senior Center as potential forage fish spawning habitat for both sand lance and surf smelt. This determination was made based on erroneous data, as explained below. Forage fish mapping Herrera (2017) reviewed the City's shoreline map for critical areas, the City's GIS portal critical areas data, and WDFW's PHS data to evaluate forage fish spawning habitat in front of the Ebb Tide and Senior Center. During this review, Herrera noted discrepancies between the City's and WDFW's data. The City's shoreline map for critical areas included spawning habitat for both surf smelt and sand lance. This map was dated 2006 and referenced 2003 data from WDFW. The City's GIS portal critical areas information did not map any forage fish spawning habitat in front of the Ebb Tide or Senior Center. WDFW's PHS data did not map any forage fish spawning x 0 habitat in front of the Ebb Tide or Senior Center. 0 a v c v E E O N N 0 O O V V O r '-I 3 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 328 2.1.a Kernen Lien September 27, 2018 Page 3 To determine the correct mapping of forage fish spawning, Herrera inquired with the City and WDFW. Herrera confirmed that the City's GIS portal data references WDFW's PHS data (personal communication with Kernen Lien, Senior Planner, June 20, 2017). Herrera then confirmed that WDFW's sand lance spawning habitat layers were created in error sometime between 1992 —1995 (personal communication with Laura Arbor, WDFW Habitat Biologist, June 19, 2017 and April 20, 2018) and were recently corrected in the PHS database. Therefore, the City's shoreline map for critical areas was referencing incorrect data and the City's GIS portal critical areas data and WDFW's PHS data are correct. There is no mapped forage fish use in front of the Ebb Tide and Senior Center. Because forage fish can spawn anywhere where suitable habitat exists, during construction, in - water work and impacts to potential forage fish spawn will be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. A qualified biologist will conduct a forage fish spawn survey before construction. If eggs are found, impacts will be avoided by locating construction and barge grounding in areas where eggs are not present, staging equipment on uplands, and by timing work waterward of MHHW to occur during dry, low -tide conditions. Exhibit 5 - Letter from James Selleck Mr. Selleck's analysis focuses entirely on habitat area, and then only qualitatively. There are two components to his analysis. The first component documents the impacts to the beach in front of the Ebb Tide from the walkway. These impacts are acknowledged in the documentation already prepared for this project (Herrera 2017). The second component of the analysis concerns proposed mitigation, which he ultimately disregards. There are several errors in Mr. Selleck's analysis. First, in the conclusion section, he states: "The Edmonds Waterfront Development Project includes several activities that will improve upland shoreline functions by removing hard armoring and other materials adjacent to the Ebb Tide Property, but these improvements are in relation to other portions of the shoreline located above MHHW" (emphasis added). This statement is incorrect. Figure 2 of the SEPA Checklist (and related figures in the JARPA submittal) clearly show the mean higher high water (MHHW) line (8.6 feet NAVD88) intersecting the existing bulkhead. Surveying to support the project found the wall to be less than 8 feet NAVD88, approximately 1 foot below MHHW. As a result, the lowest elevations of the bulkhead are in contact with marine waters (and generating pollutants to Puget Sound) at least once per day, every day. This is independently confirmed by the observation that there are barnacles growing at the base of the wall (Figure 1). Finally, 9 creosote pilings and 567 square feet of concrete debris at elevations between 5 and 10 feet NAVD88 will also be removed from adjacent intertidal areas. While the pilings are not in 10 areas where forage fish will spawn, the existing concrete debris does preclude forage fish v spawning where it occurs and does not appear to be addressed by Mr. Selleck based on the o comment above. 0 0 0 Attachment 8 3 Packet Pg. 329 Kernen Lien 2.1.a September 27, 2018 Page 4 Another error in Mr. Selleck's analysis is his implication that there is no ecological or habitat value to restoration actions above MHHW. Forage fish can spawn between 5 feet above mean lower low water and extreme high water (Pentilla 2007). Extreme high water at the proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center is approximately 12 feet NAVD88, more than 3 feet above MHHW (Herrera 2015). These elevations also span nearly the entire elevation range of the beach restoration work, which totals approximately 3,000 square feet of spawnable area. This is in sharp contrast to the area of impact from the new structure, which has approximately 35 square feet of direct permanent impact (and only two of the seven of these will be below MHHW). Supratidal areas (from MHHW up to extreme high water) are key components of the nearshore ecosystem (Sobocinski 2003). The new plants and large woody debris added as a part of the project will support macroinvertebrates that serve as a food source to a range of nearshore species, including forage fish (Sobocinski 2003). Finally, the new structure will also not be pollutant generating, unlike the current bulkhead and pilings being removed (and the stormwater outfalls, which will be relocated to supratidal areas). These water quality benefits from the project were not examined by Mr. Selleck but do add to the ecological benefits of the project actions. Therefore, we disagree with Mr. Selleck's primary conclusion that there will be net loss to forage fish habitat from the project. In fact, there will be a significant forage fish habitat gain, both in quantity and quality. The increase in forage fish habitat creates the potential for increased prey for Chinook salmon and bull trout and will therefore not decrease available prey for Southern Resident killer whales (orcas) that feed on Chinook salmon. Figure 1. Barnacles growing on the existing creosote -treated bulkhead. Attachment 8 3 Packet Pg. 330 2.1.a Kernen Lien September 27, 2018 Page 5 ITEM D The City prepared a biological evaluation (BE) to address the potential impacts of the project on species listed as threatened and endangered, and their designated critical habitat, under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon is defined as "all nearshore marine areas (including areas adjacent to islands) of the Strait of Georgia (south of the international border), Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (to the western end of the Elwha River delta) from the line of extreme high tide out to a depth of 30 meters." (70 FR52630 — 52858). Designated critical habitat for bull trout in Puget Sound is similarly defined by the USFWS: "In marine nearshore areas, the inshore extent of critical habitat is the mean higher high-water (MHHW) line, including the uppermost reach of the saltwater wedge within tidally influenced, freshwater heads of estuaries. Critical habitat extends offshore to the depth of 10 meters (m) (33 feet (ft)) relative to the mean low low-water (MLLW) line." (75 FR 63898 — 64070). The BE readily acknowledges the presence of designated Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout critical habitat in the project vicinity, which the Ebb Tide letter calls "particularly concerning", as well as other threatened and endangered species. However, the mere presence of listed species and designated critical habitat in the project vicinity does not automatically indicate an adverse effect to those resources. Although there is the potential for adverse impacts to listed species and critical habitat, the City will implement numerous conservation measures to minimize and offset those impacts: • The impact area will be small (35 square feet) relative to the proposed mitigation (over 3,000 square feet), thereby increasing potential forage fish habitat; • Removal of creosote -treated piles will improve water quality; • Construction will be timed to avoid in -water work when listed fish species are likely to be in the action area; • The overwater structure will be grated or made of glass to allow light to penetrate through the structure, reducing shading that could pose a barrier to fish migration through the project area. The increase in potential forage fish habitat relative to project impacts could have long-term x 0 benefits to listed fish species and critical habitat by increasing the amount of prey available to Puget Sound Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout, and is not likely to adversely affect prey availability for orcas. 0 v 0 0 0 3 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 331 2.1.a Kernen Lien September 27, 2018 Page 6 ITEM E Ebb Tide uses Edmonds' Shoreline Management Program (SMP) to argue against constructing the walkway. One of the core goals of the original Shoreline Management Act that is the basis of the SMP was to facilitate and increase public use of Washington's shorelines. This is why ECC 30.030 states that: "New overwater structures should be limited and allowed only for water - dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration." The primary reason for the walkway is to facilitate and improve public access and water -dependent use of the beach and adjacent public shoreline areas in Edmonds. The size of the facility is as small as it can be given the wave environment and cost considerations. The location of the walkway is the only feasible alignment that uses the City's easement, connects the existing walkway on the south side and can connect to the proposed, improved walkway on the north side. There are other alternatives that are "less intrusive", but those were previously rejected by the Ebb Tide (see next section). CONCLUSIONS We conclude that the proposed mitigation will more than offset any potential adverse effects to forage fish, ESA species, and critical habitat and a DNS is warranted. It is important to mention that in the alternatives analysis mentioned above, the least environmentally impactful option, a walkway on the Ebb Tide patio, was rejected by the Ebb Tide. This option would have no loss of forage fish, Chinook, or orca habitat; and would include creation of more than one hundred lineal feet of new beach where there is currently a pollutant - generating bulkhead. This option would also be significantly less expensive for the City to construct. Both Herrera and City staff were hopeful that the Ebb Tide could be persuaded that this was a better outcome for the environment, but they rejected it. Therefore, the only location where the project can be located is the proposed alignment in the City's easement. REFERENCES Herrera. 2015. The Risk Associated with Reconstruction of the Senior Center at the Edmonds Waterfront Site. Letter to Farrell Fleming, Edmonds Senior Center. November 25, 2015. Herrera. 2017. Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan, Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Prepared for: City of Edmonds. September 21, 2017. 0 v Pentilla, D. 2007. Marine Forage Fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Technical Report 2007-03. 0 v 0 0 0 3 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 332 Kernen Lien 2.1.a September 27, 2018 Page 7 Sobocinski, K.L. 2003. The Impact of Shoreline Armoring on Supratidal Beach Fauna of Central Puget Sound. MS Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Sincerely, Her e a Enviro ental Consultants, Inc. tJf a sons, PhD, PE iate Engineer Shelby Petro, MESM, PWS Senior Scientist 16 zea��� Geor e Ritchotte, MS, PWS Sen r Scientist P Attachment 8 3 Packet Pg. 333 2.1.a CRITICAL AREAS REPORT AND MITIGATION PLAN EDMONDS WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared for City of Edmonds Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (LikA HERRERA Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 334 2.1.a Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 335 2.1.a CRITICAL AREAS REPORT AND MITIGATION PLAN EDMONDS WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared for City of Edmonds Contact: Carrie Hite Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services 700 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Contact: Shelby Petro 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080 September 21, 2017 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 336 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 337 2.1.a CONTENTS Disclaimer...................................................................................................... Herrera Qualifications............................................................................... Executive Summary ................... .................................................................... v .................................................................. vi i ................................................. ix Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................1 ProjectSetting.........................................................................................................................................................1 ProjectNarrative.....................................................................................................................................................4 StudyObjectives.....................................................................................................................................................7 Applicable Laws and Regulations....................................................................................................................8 Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401..............................................................................................8 WashingtonState Laws............................................................................................................................9 City of Edmonds Community Development Code........................................................................9 Methodsand Materials...............................................................................................................................................11 Review of Available Information ........................................ Frequently Flooded Areas Assessment ............................ Habitat Assessment................................................................. Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation ........................... ImpactAnalysis......................................................................... Results................................................................................................... ............................................................................11 ............................................................................11 ............................................................................12 ............................................................................12 ............................................................................13 ......................................................................15 Analysis of Available Information..................................................................................................................15 Wetlandsand Streams...........................................................................................................................15 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Use..............................................................................................................15 Frequently Flooded Areas Assessment........................................................................................................17 HabitatAssessment.............................................................................................................................................17 SiteDescription.........................................................................................................................................17 SpeciesAssessment.................................................................................................................................19 WaterQuality.............................................................................................................................................20 State Management Recommendations...........................................................................................21 Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation.......................................................................................................23 ImpactsAnalysis............................................................................................................................................................25 HERRERA pp 17-06494-000_car _edmds_wtrfrnt.docx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 338 2.1.a Mitigation Plan ....................... ..........................................................27 MitigationSequencing.................................................................................. ImpactAvoidance............................................................................... ImpactMinimization.......................................................................... Impact Rectification............................................................................ Impact Reduction Over Time.......................................................... Impact Compensation and Monitoring ...................................... RestorationPlan.............................................................................................. Monitoring and Maintenance Plan........................................................... Goal, Objective, and Performance Standards ........................... Monitoring Duration and Schedule ............................................. Maintenance and Contingencies................................................... Long-term Protection........................................................................ References ............................... APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B TABLES Table ES-1. Table ES-2. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. ii Project Plans Photographic Documentation ....................................................27 ....................................................27 ....................................................2 8 ....................................................29 ....................................................2 9 ....................................................29 .................................................... 30 ....................................................3 0 .................................................... 31 .................................................... 32 .................................................... 33 ....................................................3 3 .............................................................. 35 Summary of Permanent Impacts for the Edmonds Waterfront RedevelopmentProject................................................................................. Summary of Restoration Activities for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project................................................................................. Summary of Permanent Impacts for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project..................................................................................... ............ x ........... xi ...................2 5 Summary of Restoration Activities for the Edmonds Waterfront RedevelopmentProject................................................................................................................30 Plant Schedule for Beach Restoration at the Edmonds Waterfront RedevelopmentProject................................................................................................................30 Performance Standards for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project.................................................................................................................................................31 HERRERA pjj 17-06494-000_car_edmds_wtrfrntdocx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 339 2.1.a FIGURES Figure 1. Location Map for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project, Edmonds, Washington....................................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Vicinity Map for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project, Edmonds, Washington....................................................................................................................3 Figure 3. Site Plan for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project, Edmonds, Washington......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Previously Mapped Critical Areas in the Vicinity of the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project, Edmonds, Washington.........................................16 Figure 5. Frequently Flooded Areas Mapped in the Vicinity of the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project, Edmonds, Washington.........................................18 HERRERA pjj 17-06494-000_car _edmds_wtrfrnt.docx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 340 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d NNd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 341 2.1.a DISCLAIMER Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. has prepared this report for use by the City of Edmonds, Washington. The results and conclusions in this report represent the professional opinion of Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. They are based upon examination of public domain information concerning the study area, site reconnaissance, and data analysis. The work was conducted according to accepted standards of determining the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines of the state using the definition set forth in Washington Administrative Code 173-22-030 (5), Revised Code of Washington 90.58.030(2)(c), and Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). However, final determination of jurisdictional boundaries pertinent to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the responsibility of the Seattle District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Various agencies of the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds may require a review of final site development plans that could potentially affect zoning, buffer requirements, water quality, or habitat functions of lands in question. Therefore, the findings and conclusions in this report should be reviewed by appropriate regulatory agencies prior to construction. HERRERA pp 17-06494-000_car _edmds_wtrfrnt.docx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 342 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 343 2.1.a HERRERA QUALIFICATIONS Established in 1980, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) is an innovative, employee -owned, consulting firm focused on three practice areas: water, restoration, and sustainable development. Herrera's interdisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers, and planners provide scientifically defensible and realistic solutions to complex resources challenges facing municipalities, utilities, government agencies, tribes, nonprofits, and businesses. Herrera's philosophy is to integrate protection of environmental, cultural, and economic values into all of our projects. The following staff authored this report and conducted fieldwork in support of this report. Shelby Petro, PWS Shelby Petro is a wetland scientist and environmental permit coordinator with 8 years of professional experience in environmental consulting, specializing in natural resources management, wetland science, and regulatory compliance for public and private development projects. Shelby delineates wetlands and ordinary high water marks (OHWMs) of streams and shorelines; conducts habitat assessments and surveys for special -status plant and wildlife species; prepares technical reports and documentation for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National and State Environmental Policy Act (NEPA and SEPA) compliance; and prepares wetland and stream delineation reports, critical area reports, and mitigation plans for impacts to wetlands, streams, and buffers. Shelby coordinates with local, state, and federal agencies, completes applications, and obtains permits and approvals for project compliance with regulations including local critical area ordinances, shoreline master programs, the State Hydraulic Code, SEPA, NEPA, ESA, and Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404. Credentials • BS, Biology, Indiana Wesleyan University, 2007 • MESM, Master of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2014 • Certificate in Wetland Science and Management, University of Washington, 2015 • Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) #2837, Society of Wetland Scientists, 2017 HERRERA Vil pp 17-06494-000_car _edmds_wtrfrnt.docx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 344 2.1.a Jeffrey Parsons, PhD, PE Jeff Parsons is a geomorphologist with 16 years of experience working on the rivers, streams and shorelines of the Pacific Northwest. Dr. Parsons brings an interdisciplinary approach to the solution of complex environmental problems by drawing on his diverse background in civil engineering, geology, and oceanography. He has developed engineering plans for restoration and infrastructure protection projects in a variety of settings, including but not limited to beaches, salt marshes, and rivers and floodplains. In addition, he has performed research on sediment transport, led feasibility studies for habitat restoration efforts, and provided scientific input to planning decisions and engineering design. This work has included developing engineering cost estimates and design plans, acquiring survey for engineering design and hydraulic modeling efforts, and numerical and laboratory analysis. He has modeled dozens of rivers, creeks and shorelines, using everything from simple spreadsheet models to the most sophisticated two-dimensional models available. Many of these projects involved some combination of wood placement, fill removal, levee or revetment setbacks and beach nourishment. In addition to his project work, Dr. Parsons has also taught several courses at the University of Washington on sediment transport and geomorphology. • Affiliate Assistant Professor, School of Oceanography and Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, 2000-present • PhD, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, 1998 • MS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, 1995 • BS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, 1993 • Registered Professional Engineer in Washington #51599, 2014 viii 6 HERRERA pjj 17-06494-000_car_edmds_wtrfrntdocx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 345 2.1.a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This critical areas report and mitigation plan was prepared for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (hereafter referred to as the project) in accordance with current federal, state, and City of Edmonds regulations and guidance. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) investigated the project area and surrounding study area for the presence of critical areas, including wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs), and frequently flooded areas; and conducted a habitat assessment and ordinary high water delineation on May 4, 2017. Herrera did not identify any wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas, or critical aquifer recharge areas within the study area; therefore, these critical areas are not discussed further in this report. The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department (City) and the Edmonds Senior Center (Senior Center) propose to redevelop the Edmonds Senior and Community Center; the associated parking lot, bulkhead, and beach access; and to construct an overwater walkway. Together, those elements comprise the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (project). The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Senior Center to continue providing senior and community services, and it will be used by the City for programming and events during the late afternoon and evening hours. The proposed overwater walkway will be constructed on a City -owned easement on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, directly south of the proposed Waterfront Center building The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. The project is at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington, within Section 23 of Township 27 North and Range 03 East of the Willamette Meridian. The existing parking lot extends onto a bulkhead located partially below mean higher high water (MHHW) of the Puget Sound. The bulkhead is composed of fill material and supported by 36 creosote -treated timber piles around the perimeter. The bulkhead timbers and fill will be removed and new beach access will be provided by installing concrete stairs and a ramp within the existing footprint, above MHHW. The stairs and ramp will be supported by no more than 60 steel H-piles. In the area of bulkhead removal, habitat improvements will include installing large woody debris, boulders, and a sand/gravel mix, and planting native vegetation. The parking lot will be reconfigured and will incorporate bioretention planters for water quality treatment and infiltration. There are two existing outfalls in the bulkhead to the Puget Sound, both of which will be shortened to end above (landward of) MHHW. The proposed overwater walkway will link the existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway between the ferry terminal and the Edmonds Marina in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. The overwater walkway will be a 10-foot-wide, concrete and grated structure approximately 154 feet long, elevated on seven steel piles. Approximately 50 percent of the footprint of the HERRERA ix pp 17-06494-000_car _edmds_wtrfrnt.docx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 346 2.1.a structure will be grated, with 60 percent of the grating having an open area (meeting the requirements of WAC 220-660-380). A portion of the City's easement is waterward of MHHW, requiring two of the steel support piles to be installed below MHHW. Steel piles will be installed only during low tide, outside the water, avoiding the need for in -water work. A barge may be used for construction or staging equipment. A set of stairs at the south end of the proposed overwater walkway will be demolished. It will be replaced with stairs next to the existing stairway location to provide beach access. No more than six steel H-piles will be installed to support the stairs. Piles will be installed above MHHW between high -tide cycles. The project will permanently impact FWHCAs by constructing the overwater walkway and temporarily impact critical areas during construction by operating construction equipment on the beach. Permanent impacts include the loss of beach habitat by installing seven 30-inch- diameter steel piles and placing the overwater walkway structure above the beach (Table ES-1). Table ES-1. Summary of Permanent Impacts for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Project Element Volume (CY) Area (SF) Drive seven 30-inch-diameter steel piles for the overwater walkway 63 35 Place overwater walkway structure n/a 1,383 During construction, access to the easement on track -mounted equipment or by barge will temporarily disturb unvegetated portions of the beach and intertidal zone. Temporary impacts will be minimized by conducting work on the beach during low tide and completely avoiding in - water work. Impacts to forage fish spawn will be avoided by conducting preconstruction surveys and, if eggs are identified to be present, access will avoid these areas or construction will be delayed until no eggs are present. Impacts to eelgrass will be avoided by conducting preconstruction surveys and locating the barge in areas void of eelgrass. Other elements of the project, including access stairs south of the overwater walkway and the beach access stairs and ramp will be constructed within the existing developed footprint and will not result in impacts to critical areas. To mitigate for unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed overwater walkway, the project will restore the beach within the footprint of the existing bulkhead such that there is no net loss of critical area functions and values (Table ES-2). The bulkhead will be removed, including 36 creosote -treated timber piles and fill that support the existing parking lot. Restoration of the bulkhead area will consist of planting native vegetation and placing large woody debris, boulders, and a clean mix of gravels and sand that match existing beach characteristics and provide forage fish spawning habitat. Additionally, the project will remove three creosote -treated timber piles from within the intertidal zone adjacent to the bulkhead and two concrete foundations buried in the beach in front of the existing Senior Center. The beach restoration area will be monitored for a period of 10 years to establish that performance YW HERkERA pjj 17-06494-000_car_edmds_wtrfrntdocx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 347 2.1.a standards have been achieved. Monitoring reports will be provided to permitting agencies that document mitigation milestones, successes, any problems, and any necessary contingency actions. Table ES-2. Summary of Restoration Activities for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Project Element Volume (CY) Area (SF) Remove 36 creosote -treated timber piles and fill from bulkhead 1,424 3,841 Remove three creosote -treated timber piles from the intertidal zone 27 9 Remove two concrete foundations 213 567 Restore beach by placing sand/gravel mix, large woody debris, and boulders; and planting native vegetation 1,210 3,841 HERRERA pjj 17-06494-000_car _edmds_wtrfrnt.docx Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 348 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 349 2.1.a INTRODUCTION This critical areas report and mitigation plan was prepared for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (hereafter referred to as the project). This report describes the conditions of critical areas including frequently flooded areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) occurring within the study area of the project; how critical areas will be affected by the project; and how adverse impacts to critical areas will be mitigated. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) conducted a habitat assessment and ordinary high water delineation on May 4, 2017. Other critical areas, including wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and geologically hazardous areas are not located within the study area and are therefore not discussed in this report. This report also identifies applicable federal, state, and City of Edmonds regulations. This report was prepared in support of permits from the City of Edmonds Development Services Department; a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); and a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit and Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). PROJECT SETTING The project is within the city of Edmonds in Snohomish County, Washington (Figure 1). The project is further located in Section 23 of Township 27 North, Range 03 East of the Willamette Meridian on parcels 27032300104200 (Edmonds Senior Center), 27032300415300 and 27032300104400 (City of Edmonds), AC 8311070085 (City -owned easement waterward of the Ebb Tide Condominiums), and SP 8101160178 (City -owned easement for the Marine Walkway). The project area is identified on Figure 2. The study area includes the area within 200 feet of the project area. Adjacent land uses include commercial (office space), railroad (BNSF), and residential (Ebb Tide Condominiums). The Washington State Ferries terminal, the BNSF railway, and the Port of Edmonds Marina are dominant land uses in the vicinity. The railway borders a large portion of the marine shoreline. On each side of the ferry terminal are two regional parks including Brackett's Landing North and South. Collectively, these parks include public beach, picnic areas, interpretive information, public restrooms, a parking lot, and showers. Pedestrian activity and beachcombing is common. From the ferry terminal to the Port of Edmonds Marina, through the project area, is the Edmonds Marine Walkway, a public waterfront walkway (Figure 2). September 2017 N HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 1 Packet Pg. 350 2.1. Puget Sound CASPERS 31` Brackett's Edmonds Landing A Stoll Underwater I�lllgNorth Park oilds t E�111 1 Washington Sta Ferry Terminal ��. _ WALEY S s ��e f •Q� j d R k. e.... Brackett's '� x a4l Landing South � 4 �' . ' ' �c'• :I � - �" !. - �a. .! .! BELL ST Port of Edmonds Marina j -r a DAYTON STE !1It- IVIAPEE ST �* WALNUT'S T ''reek w - i Edmond Marsh E -0CK WAy PI f S M rl�+f Q 7 W • �i O 2 � Fi. ! Q . _ BNSF Railway i Iz _ r 2.1.a PROJECT NARRATIVE The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department (City) and the Edmonds Senior Center (Senior Center) propose to redevelop the Edmonds Senior and Community Center, the associated parking lot, bulkhead, and beach access, and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium building (Figure 3; Appendix A). Together, those elements comprise the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project (project). The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Senior Center to continue providing senior and community services, and it will be used by the City for programming and events during the late afternoon and evening hours. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. The project site for the Edmonds Waterfront Center, parking lot, and beach access is at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington, within Section 23 of Township 27 North and Range 03 East of the Willamette Meridian. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, directly south of the proposed Waterfront Center building. The existing parking lot extends onto a bulkhead located partially below mean higher high water (MHHW) of Puget Sound. The bulkhead is composed of fill material and supported by 36 creosote -treated timber piles around the perimeter. The bulkhead timbers and fill will be removed by equipment such as cranes, excavators, bulldozers, and dump trucks staged on uplands in the existing parking lot. The creosote -treated timber piles will be removed following the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for pile removal (WDNR 2017a). The preferred method of removal is vibratory extraction with a vibratory hammer suspended from a crane or excavator staged in uplands. If this method does not remove the piles, then the contractor shall utilize direct pulling, clamshell removal, or cutting per the WDNR guidelines. After the bulkhead is removed, a new beach access will be provided by installing concrete stairs and a ramp within the existing footprint, above MHHW. The stairs and ramp will be supported by no more than 60 steel H-piles. Large woody debris, boulders, and a sand/gravel mix suitable for forage fish spawning will be used to nourish the beach. The nourishment material will be placed both landward and waterward of MHHW, using dump trucks, and excavators. Sediment size will match adjacent beach substrate. The grade of the nourished area will match adjacent beach grades. Native vegetation will be planted in the area of bulkhead removal to create a backshore dune habitat. The parking lot will be reconfigured and will incorporate bioretention planters for water quality treatment and infiltration. There are two existing outfalls in the bulkhead to Puget Sound, both of which will be shortened to end above (landward of) MHHW. 4 HERRERA September 2017 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 353 I 2.1.a I I 1 Creosote treated timber piles to be I f removed f TAX N0, 00724500100000 Edge of water, recorded on 12/2/20/2016 zlf ITAX NO. 27032300104400 --------a----------- 1-------_-_ Concrete Foundations to----_-------4_--------------'---------------_ - - - - - - - be Removed from Beach - - - - ----5------------ - S-------------- --5 -------- ----- -------- - - - - - - _ _ Public ccess Easement - - - - - TAX NO. 2703230010420-Q- _ - Remove creosote treated timber TAX N0. 2ZQ323QQ�7`�3Q0--1---- -- (AC 88 10700�5)--------------�. 6 --- ------------ - 6- -Piles/bukhead/filrandrestoree-b"O -- - - - - - - ---6- -- -_----_VerVili�terW�kwway-----1----- y `�------------------- ----- _- ---- --- - 7 - - _-_- - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - Relocated Outfall - -----------8- �v1HHW - - ---- MHHW-- or -wpose e51 1_—MHHW -- --- �, 9------- ----— --� —"— — — 1� - - j Existing Outfall Relocated 1;' Matchf�sting 9 j- - - - 1 -Remain- - - Outfall 1 - Elevation - _10- - --- � / ----- -- � 14 0' TOW- ^'--_-0HW. H ,For Pro ose Desi f'128 - - - _-- — romans aawall ' T Edmonds Marine Ebb Tide M tc Existing - Elevation �✓ 9 T 13 — — — — — — z Q ; Plaza . •_ U _ �� Bioretention- . cA O Wedding =: Ra P Planter 4 Pu c A ss Easement 'ass o 1g:9$.. •_ Lawn ' ` {•.. S (81 160178) � P'rorne d SONS. F • rY � '. Replace Existing CB PI ANTFRPo CONC. WALL eD ". Reef r T cONC. PATIO }48 3 Bioretention hoo a 1 Apts. i Planter Bike °o 1� 13.4Parking (4)Overflow A 9 rnx No. 27032300400700 Ebb Tide ' Edmonds Condominiums Waterfront Parking(5) 13 s 3 Center- p C IS 5 ryp 1 �Q 1P Bioretention Cam. 4 Planter3 C 2.5% �. c- C o 0 1 5 2% 13-4 120' Tre ch CD Mai 6. C Dra o 0 En 20.0 C 20 0' --1 C z o a o a a En c P 8' C x N Q 13. VAN C a—� vq o y o_ 13.8' C q 8) 22% C ' oo 2.9 C II Underwater I Sports � Trench � o w � Curb, ❑ o \- Drain, Typ. Typ. s, o ❑ o � - - 12.9' 1 `? 1 .6' 2.3 h 0 102. C C �' C 29' ?0.0' 25' � -�' l8`5' 2, 0 r --------�---------- -- ------------------------------ -- .. - _ -- - -- - - --- - -------- 0 T Bus Shelter o . Match Existing 11.5t Bioretention Bioretention Bioretention Bioretention Match Existing Connect to ASPHALT Planter 1 Planter Overflow Planter OyWf RW Planter 2 11.5± Existing CB O B RAILROAD AVENUE RAILROAD AVENUE Z a 10in� CITY OF EDMONDS O m ENGINEERING DIVISION 121 FIFTH AVENUE Edmonds EDMONDS, WA 80 OORTH SHEET: L 1 (425) 771-0220 Waterfront Redevelopment BARKER 1 OFT! SHEETS RCHIT nee 220 Railroad Ave, Edmonds, WA 9802014 nxc rs 3002NW 6.ffi68'h Sc APPROVED BY DESIGN: DRAWN: CITY ENGINEER CHECKED: Date: 08/04/2017 APPROVED: BY: DATE: NO. DATE: DRAWN BY: REVISION: 06.22.2017 NM/JB City of Edmonds Pre-App 08.29.2017 1 PC/NM Figure 3 - Site Plan LEGEND Landscape Plantings Beach Restoration Asphalt Concrete Tree (Sub 25') - Existing Topography �— Proposed Topography MHHW - MHHW (El. 8.6) ---- OHW ---- OHW 0 Boulder Large Woody Debris —/--- Property Line ------- Right of Way ----- Limit of Work - — - Easement Parking Count: Total Existing Stalls: 77 Proposed Stalls: 72 Compact Stalls: 35 (49% ADA Stalls: 3 Van Stalls: 4 Notes: 1. The entire project is within the Flood Plain Boundary 0 10 20 40 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" (22" x 34" sheet) Packet Pg. 354 2.1.a u m 0 L a r c m E a 0 m m m c 0 L L U c 0 L d N r C d E t V a 3 L N� v! N O O O CD O N J a a r m E M u �a r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 355 2.1.a The overwater walkway will link the existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway between the ferry terminal and the Edmonds Marina in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums through a City -owned easement (Figure 3). The overwater walkway will be a 10-foot-wide, concrete and grated structure approximately 154 feet long, elevated on seven 30-inch-diameter steel piles. Approximately 50 percent of the footprint of the structure will be grated, with 60 percent of the grating having an open area (meeting the requirements of WAC 220-660-380). A portion of the City's easement is waterward of MHHW, requiring two of the steel support piles to be installed below MHHW. Steel piles will be installed by vibratory or impact hammer suspended from a crane or excavator during low tide, outside the water, avoiding the need for in -water work. Precast concrete caps will be set on top of each pile using a crane from the uplands, temporary barge, or from the beach area during low tides. Precast concrete walkway segments will be transported to the site on trucks or by barge, then placed on top of the pile caps with a crane staged on uplands, on a barge, or track -mounted cranes on the beach during low tide periods. The concrete segments will be secured in place using a closure pour. Railings, curbs, and details will be installed from the walkway surface, from adjacent uplands, or from on a temporary barge. A set of stairs at the south end of the proposed overwater walkway will be demolished and replaced with stairs next to the existing stairway location to provide beach access (Figure 3). No more than six steel H-piles will be installed to support the stairs. Piles will be installed above MHHW between high -tide cycles by equipment staged in uplands. While construction equipment is mobilized on site for the proposed project, two concrete foundations and three creosote -treated timber piles will be removed from the intertidal zone (Figure 3). The concrete foundations are buried on the beach and will be removed by an excavator staged in uplands. The creosote -treated timber piles will be removed following the WDNR guidelines for pile removal (WDNR 2017a). Demolition of the Senior Center building will begin in June 2018, followed by the construction of the new Waterfront Center building, parking lot, and bulkhead removal. Together, the demolition and construction will span approximately 15 to 20 months. Work conducted within or adjacent to the water, including removal of the bulkhead, construction of the overwater walkway, and beach restoration will be timed according to the USACE and WDFW in -water work window, which is July 16 to October 14. The overwater walkway and stairs south of the walkway may be constructed as a later phase of the project, during the in -water work window in 2019. STUDY OBJECTIVES The objectives of Herrera's study were to: • Identify and evaluate critical areas occurring within the study area in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and 24.40. • Delineate the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of shorelines of the state using the definition set forth in WAC 173-22-030 (5) and RCW 90.58.030(2)(c); and in accordance September 2017 N HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 7 Packet Pg. 356 2.1.a with Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). • Identify regulations and guidance applicable to project impacts on critical areas set forth by federal, state, and City of Edmonds authorities. • In accordance with ECDC 23.40.120 and 24.40.020, describe mitigation sequencing measures taken into account during design of the project. • In accordance with ECDC 23.40.130, detail compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts. • In accordance with ECDC 24.40.020, detail a monitoring and maintenance program for mitigation measures. APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS Environmentally critical areas (i.e., FWHCAs) are subject to a variety of federal, state, and local regulations. Federal laws regulating marine waters include Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (United States Code, Title 33, Chapter 1344 [33 USC 13441). Washington State laws and programs designed to control the loss of critical areas include the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; administered by the City of Edmonds) and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology], as mandated by the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act). The study area is located within the city limits of Edmonds and furthermore within the shoreline management zone of the City of Edmonds; therefore, the project is subject to ECDC Chapters 23 and 24, which specify development standards and mitigation requirements for activities proposed within and adjacent to critical areas within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401 Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act regulates the placement or removal of soil or other fill, grading, or alteration (hydrologic or vegetative) in waters of the United States, including tidally influenced areas waterward of the mean higher high water (MHHW) mark (33 USC 1344) USACE administers the permitting program under the act. The permits include nationwide (general) permits for projects involving minor fills, grading, or alteration, and individual permits for projects that require larger areas of disturbance to waters of the United States. USACE does not regulate buffers. Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) covers activities required for the construction of linear transportation projects (e.g., trails). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that proposed dredge (removal) and fill activities permitted under Section 404 be reviewed and certified to ensure that such activities meet state water quality standards. Washington State 401 certification is administered by Ecology for all Section 404 permits. Washington State 401 certification is granted without the need for a HERRERA September 2017 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 357 2.1.a separate permit from Ecology for projects that qualify for a Section 404 nationwide permit, meet specific Section 401 certification conditions of the nationwide permit, and meet Ecology 401 General Conditions. If that is not the case, Ecology requires an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification permit. Washington State Laws Washington State laws and programs designed to control the loss of critical areas include SEPA (administered by the City of Edmonds) and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (a federal law implemented by Ecology). WDFW administers the HPA program under the state Hydraulic Code (WAC 220-110), which was specifically designed to protect fish life. An HPA permit is required for projects that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or fresh waters of the state. City of Edmonds Community Development Code The City of Edmonds regulates wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs), within its jurisdiction as critical areas (ECDC 23.40-90). The only critical areas identified within the study area are frequently flooded areas and FWHCAs, other critical areas were not identified and are therefore not discussed further in this report. ECDC 23.70 specifics the standards for designation, rating, and mapping of frequently flooded areas. ECDC 23.90 specifies standards for the designation, delineation, and classification, and development standards for FWHCAs. ECDC 24.40.020 specifies development standards and procedures for proposed modifications to critical areas within the city's shoreline jurisdiction. Those standards include provisions for mitigation sequencing requirements (e.g., impact avoidance, minimization, and rectification) and providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on critical areas. Frequently Flooded Areas The City of Edmonds designates frequently flooded areas as critical areas (ECDC 23.70). Frequently flooded areas include those that are areas of special flood hazard as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The study area is mapped within a 100-year floodplain; therefore, the project will affect regulated frequently flooded areas and is subject to the development standards specified in ECDC 23.70.040 and ECDC Title 19. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The City of Edmonds designates FWHCAs as critical areas (ECDC 23.90). FWHCAs include: 1) streams; 2) areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association, or offer important fish and wildlife habitat within the urban environment; 3) state priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species September 2017 V HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 9 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 358 2.1.a as identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); 4) habitats and species of local importance as identified by the City of Edmonds; 5) commercial and recreational shellfish areas; 6) kelp and eelgrass beds and herring and smelt spawning areas; 7) naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres; and 8) waters of the state, which include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses as classified in WAC 222-16-030 or 222-16-031. FWHCAs are known to occur within the study area, therefore, the project is subject to the development standards specified in ECDC 23.90.030 and 23.90.040. FWHCAs identified within the study area include areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association, state priority habitats, and waters of the state (i.e., salt waters). HERRERA September 2017 10 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 359 2.1.a METHODS AND MATERIALS Evaluating the presence, extent, and type of critical areas requires a review of available information about the site (e.g., surveys and studies), followed by an onsite habitat assessment and OHWM delineation. The following sections describe the research methods and field protocols for the habitat assessment and OHWM evaluation. REVIEW OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION Herrera staff reviewed available literature to determine the historical and current presence of critical areas in and near the study area. Sources of information included: • Aerial photographs of the study area and project vicinity • City of Edmonds geographic information system (GIS) inventory of critical areas (Edmonds 2017) • National Wetlands Inventory map of wetland areas in the study area (USFWS 1973 and 1980) • Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data (WDFW 2017a) • SalmonScape computer mapping system (WDFW 2017b) • Puget Sound intertidal habitat and shorezone inventory maps (WDNR 2017b) • Floodplain maps (FEMA 2017) FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS ASSESSMENT Frequently flooded areas were identified within the study area by reviewing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance maps and noting areas of special flood hazard (FEMA 2017). Areas of special flood hazard include those lands in the floodplain subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (i.e., Zone A and Zone V). Flood risk was addressed in an earlier phase of the project (Herrera 2015). September 2017 ( HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 11 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 360 2.1.a HABITAT ASSESSMENT Herrera investigated the study area to evaluate the potential presence or absence of designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat in accordance with ECDC 23.90.020.C. To assess the habitat within the study area, a Herrera biologist evaluated field conditions by traversing the study area, where accessible, and noting vegetation, substrate, fish, wildlife, and human disturbance. The biologist evaluated field conditions within 200 feet of the project area. ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK DELINEATION The ordinary high water marks (OHWMs) of shorelines of the state were delineated using the definition set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-22-030 (5) and Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030(2)(c). According to that definition, the OHWM of tidal water is "that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation." In addition, methods were applied in the publication, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). According to this guidance, in high energy tidal environments, the OHWM is typically associated with the line of persistent (perennial) vegetation. Where no vegetation is observed for 100 feet, the OHWM is parallel with the line of vegetation adjacent to the study area. Where bulkheads are present and no vegetation is waterward of the bulkhead, then the OHWM is at the face of the bulkhead. Where the OHWM cannot be found using field indicators, the OHWM is the elevation of mean higher high tide (RCW 90.58.030(2)(c)). To delineate the OHWM, Herrera biologists examined the shore zone of the study area for indications of regular high water events. Factors considered when assessing the location of the OHWM include: • Presence and absence of persistent (perennial) vegetation • Elevation of persistent vegetation in areas adjacent to the study area • Drift logs, wrack, and debris • Erosional and depositional features • Barnacles, lichens, and water marks on bulkheads, piles, rocks, or other in -water structures V HERRERA September 2017 12 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 361 2.1.a M PACT ANALYSIS Impacts on critical areas were determined by evaluating the effect that the project design would have on those resources. Project limits were used to quantify impact areas waterward of the delineated OHWM. The footprints of permanent features (e.g., walkway supports) were used to determine permanent impacts that result in the loss of habitat. Impact area analysis was conducted by project engineers and architects using computer -assisted drafting (CAD) software by overlaying design footprints on habitat areas. In addition, qualitative impacts to critical areas and habitat was determined by evaluating the effects of the project on habitat functions. September 2017 HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 13 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 362 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 363 2.1.a RESULTS This section discusses the results of the habitat assessment, frequently flooded areas review, and OHWM delineation, including a review of information obtained from various references, and an analysis of conditions in the study area as observed during field investigations. ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION The following subsections present a summary of available existing information compiled for the habitat assessment. Wetlands and Streams No streams are mapped within the project study area. The National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 1973 and 1980) and PHS database (WDFW 2017a) indicate the presence of estuarine and marine wetlands within the study area. Shell Creek and Shellabarger Creek drain directly to the Puget Sound 0.7 miles north and 0.6 miles south of the project footprint, respectively. Edmonds Marsh is located approximately 0.25 mile south of the study area and is associated with Shellabarger Creek. These resources are shown on Figure 4. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Use The only fish and wildlife habitat mapped within the study area is eelgrass (WDNR 2017b, Edmonds 2017, Figure 4). Within the project vicinity, WDFW's PHS and SalmonScape databases indicate the presence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Shellabarger Creek and Shell Creek and resident coastal cutthroat (O. ciarkii) in Shellabarger Creek (WDFW 2017a, WDFW 2017b). No Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), steelhead (O. mykiss), or bull trout (Saiveiinus confiuentus) are mapped within Shell Creek or Shellabarger Creek (WDFW 2017a, WDFW 2017b). Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) breeding areas are located within Edmonds Marsh (WDFW 2017a). Additionally, geoduck (Panope abrupta) and Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) presence are also mapped approximately 400 feet waterward of the project area (WDFW 2017a). The nearest biodiversity area and corridor is mapped approximately 0.85 mile east of the project area along Shell Creek in Yost Park. The nearest bald eagle (Haiiaeetus feucocephaius) occurrence is mapped approximately 0.9 mile south in the neighborhood of Woodway. The beach north of the ferry terminal, approximately 600 feet north of the study area, is mapped by WDFW as providing spawning habitat for surf smelt (WDFW 2017a). September 2017 Fi E R R E RA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 15 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 364 2.1.a FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS ASSESSMENT A review of the FEMA flood map for the project area indicates that the entire study area is located within the 100-year floodplain (FEMA 2017; Figure 5). The proposed Waterfront Center building design took into consideration high marine water events, sea level rise, storm waves, and tsunamis (Herrera 2015). To address concerns related to these events, the building will be constructed in accordance with ECDC 23.70.020 and 23.70.030; and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19 (Herrera 2015). HABITAT ASSESSMENT The project site is located along the Puget Sound nearshore environment (intertidal and shore zones), which is defined by the City of Edmonds as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA). FWHCAs are regulated by the City of Edmonds as an environmentally critical area in accordance with Edmonds City Code Chapter 23.90. This habitat assessment includes a review of previously prepared documents and a site visit on May 4, 2017. An assessment of the project impacts to habitat within the study area is provided in the Impacts Assessment section of this report. Site Description Most of the shoreline within the study area is occupied with seawalls and fill resulting in the loss of upper intertidal and backshore vegetation. The upper intertidal shoreline in the study area is entirely armored with wood and concrete. There is a section of natural beach and restored native vegetation at Brackett's Landing South, approximately 250 feet north of the bulkhead to be removed as part of the project, outside of the study area. Pedestrian and boat activity along the stretch of shoreline and in the nearshore area throughout the study area is significant. Vegetation in the marine riparian zone (the narrow shoreline adjacent to the Puget Sound) has been highly modified by development and disturbance, including fill associated with the railroad bed, the ferry terminal, and bulkheads and seawalls for shoreline protection. The landward portion of the study area is highly developed; the shoreline is dominated by urban structures, including transportation -related, residential, and commercial facilities, and pavement. Likewise, the highly developed marine aquatic areas in the project vicinity include the railroad bed, bulkheads, ferry docks, commercial piers, sewer and stormwater outfalls, and a few residential structures. September 2017 HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 17 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 366 2.1.a r 1� '4• V � r f I ♦ } 104 4 • ,A�,' .- E-sri, USDA Farm Service Agency � Legend Figure 5. Q Study Area Frequently Flooded Areas Mapped in the Vicinity of the Edmonds Waterfront Project Area Redevelopment Project, FEMA Flood Hazard (Zone AE) Edmonds, Washington. - Ferry route N 0 200 400 800 A Feet AJ HERRERA Attachment 9 K:\Prq-t-201M7-0"94-000\ProjedRepoMCAR\frequent_lloo Packet Pg. 367 2.1.a Within the project vicinity, the nearshore subtidal area between the proposed project and the Port of Edmonds Marina is mostly sand, with several areas of artificial reef materials and rock at depths of -15 to -90 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). Between the existing ferry terminal and Dayton Street (approximately 1,200 feet south of the ferry terminal), expansive macroalgae beds were found during surveys for the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program, including Laminaria spp. and Nereocystis spp., from the -5-foot contour to the -60-foot MLLW contour (CH2M Hill 2004). The area directly offshore of and including the docking area of the existing ferry terminal is devoid of macroalgae, probably as a result of propeller -induced turbulence. Sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca), and red algae (Gracilaria sjoestedtii), were found from the marina to the ferry pier and from the ferry pier north through the underwater park and beyond (CH2M Hill 2004). Eelgrass beds were found to be continuous at depths of about -2 feet to -20 feet MLLW during these surveys. These eelgrass beds are beyond the study area and are approximately 300 linear feet waterward of the project area, measured perpendicular to the shoreline. Species Assessment Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout use nearshore areas for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, for migration, and as nursery areas forjuveniles. Nearshore area surveys conducted in 2001 found juvenile Chinook at several locations in the Edmonds vicinity (Edmonds 2007). Salmonid stocks that may be present near Edmonds include runs from the Skagit and Stillaguamish Rivers, but are mostly from the Snohomish, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually Rivers and smaller drainages in central and southern Puget Sound (Edmonds 2007). Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat use in the study area and project vicinity would be during periods of juvenile foraging and juvenile and adult migration. The eelgrass beds along the shoreline provide high quality foraging habitat for juveniles. Oncejuveniles leave estuarine/delta habitats and enter Puget Sound, they distribute widely throughout nearshore ecosystems. Chinook juveniles spend a greater amount of time in the nearshore environment as they grow, whereas steelhead have a longer freshwater rearing time and are larger when they enter the marine environment and are likely to head to deeper waters beyond the nearshore for foraging. Their abundance in shoreline areas of Puget Sound typically peaks in June and July, although some are still present in shoreline habitats through at least October. When juveniles first enter estuarine areas their optimal habitat is low gradient, shallow water, fine-grained substrates (silts and mud), low salinity, and low wave energy. As they grow, they use a greater diversity of Puget Sound habitats including deeper, more offshore habitats, and eventually, most fish leave for the North Pacific Ocean feeding grounds (Fresh 2006). Bull trout use mouths of estuaries and nearshore areas primarily from March to July. In summer, fish may leave estuary/marine areas due to high temperatures (Goetz et al. 2003). Bull trout use nearshore areas such as those in the study area and project vicinity for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, and for foraging, growth, migration, and overwintering (USFWS 2004). Bull trout habitat use in the study area and project vicinity would be during periods of adult foraging and migration (P. Verhey, personal communication). Bull trout display wide-ranging foraging habits September 2017 4 H E R R E RA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 19 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 368 2.1.a and are known to consume juvenile salmon (including Chinook) that inhabit shallow nearshore areas (Edmonds 2007). Critical habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout is present with the study area (USFWS 2017, Herrera 2017). Chinook salmon critical habitat includes only the marine nearshore, from extreme high tide to a depth of 30 meters. Bull trout critical habitat includes the marine nearshore, from MHHW to -10 meter MLLW, and any tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. The beach north of the ferry terminal is mapped by WDFW as providing spawning habitat for surf smelt (WDFW 2017a). The beach south of the terminal, within and adjacent to the study area, is not mapped as forage fish spawning habitat (WDFW 2017a); however, the study area has the potential to provide suitable forage fish spawning habitat. While the substrate is suitable for spawning, there is no riparian vegetation to provide shade for forage fish spawn. Pedestrian activity is significant and disturbance to forage fish spawn is likely. Green sturgeon, eulachon, and yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish have all been documented in Puget Sound. Green sturgeon are rare in Puget Sound; they have only been observed in estuaries, thus they are very unlikely to use the study area. Eulachon are infrequent in Puget Sound; they would use the nearshore environment in the study area for incidental migration. Free-floating larval bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish would use the study area for foraging; they have been observed under free floating algae, seagrass and detached kelp. Juvenile bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish are most commonly found on rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms; adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age (NOAA 2017). Marbled murrelets are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters; winter and summer surveys by WDFW conducted near Edmonds found no murrelets in winter and only a few birds in the Edmonds area in summer (Edmonds 2007). The nearest critical habitat is in the Snoqualmie National Forest, approximately 30 miles east of the study area (USFWS 2017). Critical habitat for southern resident killer whale (SRKW) is mapped along the Edmonds waterfront (USFWS 2017). The waterfront is within Area 2, which includes Puget Sound south from the Deception Pass Bridge, entrance to Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal Bridge (71 CFR 69063) The critical habitat designation includes waters deeper than 20 feet based on extreme high water. The study area includes waters that are shallower than 20 feet based on extreme high water. Therefore, the study area does not extend to SRKW critical habitat. Water Quality There are multiple water quality concerns in Puget Sound: • Levels of toxic contaminants in biota that live or feed in Puget Sound • The eutrophication of marine waters, producing hypoxic and anoxic regions V HERRERA September 2017 20 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 369 2.1.a • Wastewater contamination, principally from combined sewer overflows or septic systems • Harmful algal blooms, which introduce toxins that enter the food web Acidification of marine waters, and the adverse ecological effects that result (Encyclopedia of Puget Sound 2017) Water quality in the project vicinity is impaired due to exceedances of criteria for bacteria in water samples taken at Brackett's Landing and exceedances of toxic contaminants, including Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), in tissue samples (Ecology 2017). The creosote -treated timber piles in the intertidal zone and associated with the bulkhead are sources of water pollution. State Management Recommendations Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout (Knight 2009) provides management recommendations for salmon habitat protection and recovery. As the study area is focused within the marine nearshore environment, only management recommendations for salmonids pertaining to this habitat will be discussed. The marine nearshore is an important habitat for fish foraging and refuge, and many critical physical, chemical, and biological processes can be affected by urban development. Knight (2009) focuses on the eleven categories as key management recommendations; only relevant management recommendations to the project are discussed below. Integration of Salmon Recovery Plans Interagency coordination in project plans is recommended for implementation of land use policies and regulations. Multiple pre -application meetings with the design team, the City, WDFW, the Tulalip Tribes, and USACE discussed project alternatives, impacts, mitigation opportunities, and beach restoration plans. Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is a major contributor to water pollution including contaminants such as metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and herbicides that are suspected to detrimentally affect salmon. Recommendations include limiting impervious surfaces, retaining vegetation, and retaining natural soils and topography. Also new discharge facilities should be prohibited from adding pollutants and excessive artificial nutrients to riparian areas. Temporary or permanent erosion and sedimentation controls should be required to prevent the introduction of sediments or pollutants to water bodies within salmonid habitat. September 2017 Fi E R R E RA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 21 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 370 2.1.a The project includes removal of pollution generating materials, including the impervious parking lot that extends onto the bulkhead and creosote -treated timber piles associated with the bulkhead and those located within the intertidal zone. Furthermore, bioretention planters, vegetated with native herbaceous and shrub vegetation, located upslope of the beach restoration will collect and filter stormwater collected from the parking lot and other impervious surfaces. Restoration of beach habitat and associated native vegetation will support the recommendation of retaining vegetation and natural topography. Prior to and during construction, erosion will be minimized through the development and implementation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan and execution of Best Management Practices (BMPs). TESC measures (e.g., stabilized construction entrance, silt fences, wattles, plastic covering, and drain inlet protection) will be installed to prevent release and discharge of sediments from construction areas. Containment measures will be implemented at staging and material stockpile areas to prevent runoff. These measures are further discussed in the Mitigation Sequencing section of this report. Nearshore Areas Nearshore habitats are often impacted by stormwater runoff (discussed above), loss of riparian vegetation, shoreline armoring, and outwater structures by decreasing water quality, negatively impacting refugia and prey sources through shading and grounding, and impacting environmental processes by blocking, delaying, or eliminating sediment delivery to beaches necessary for sustaining smelt and sand lance spawning habitat (Pentilla 2007 in Knight 2009). Management recommendations includes maintaining vegetated shoreline buffers and restoring native vegetation, maintaining or restoring connectivity to other habitats, considering alternatives to in -kind replacement in bulkhead rebuilds, locating new piers and other structures away from marine vegetation, and encouraging community use of piers, boat ramps and access sites. The project includes removal of a bulkhead and restoration to a vegetated beach that will match grade of the adjacent beach. The project also includes construction of an overwater walkway supported by steel piles in unvegetated areas of the beach. Approximately 50 percent of the footprint of the overwater walkway structure will be grated, with 60 percent of the grating having an open area (meeting the requirements of WAC 220-660-380). In addition, the project will avoid impacts to forage fish spawn and eelgrass habitat by conducting forage fish spawn and eelgrass surveys before construction and conducting construction activities in a manner that avoids surveyed resources. If necessary, construction will be delayed in forage fish spawning areas if eggs are found. Barges deployed for construction equipment staging will not be grounded or anchored on eelgrass beds or forage fish spawning areas. Large Woody Debris Recruitment Large woody debris in marine shorelines provides functions such as beach stabilization, increasing habitat complexity, and aiding sedimentation process important for forage fish spawning grounds. Management recommendations include retaining and placing large woody HERRERA September 2017 22 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 371 2.1.a debris, prohibiting removal of large woody debris, and salvage logging (including driftwood) along shorelines. The restoration plan includes placement of large woody debris near the ordinary high water line below a native plant restoration zone in the area of the bulkhead removal. The orientation and location of the large woody debris will encourage natural recruitment of large woody debris from the surrounding waters. Floodplain Areas On marine shorelines, floodplain areas may be affected by increased frequency and magnitude of storm events and sea -level rise that result in possible unpredictable flooding events and coastal erosion. Management recommendations include removal of flood control structures, prohibiting new development or alterations in floodplain areas, except habitat improvements, and researching potential local effects of climate change and increased floods. The project area is mapped as a floodplain according to Edmond's GIS mapping system (Edmonds 2017) and FEMA's flood maps (map 53061C1292E; FEMA 2017) designate the project area as Zone AE where base flood level is determined. The project addresses short term and long term flooding events through removal of the bulkhead and concrete foundations and beach nourishment with gravels and sand to match the substrate of the adjacent beach. Restoration of the beach, including installation of vegetation, will help slow water velocities and promote infiltration in cases of flooding. Water Quality Good water quality is essential for all stages of life of salmonids. Water quality degradation is often associated with development through stormwater release into waters, removal of vegetation, and high amounts of impervious surfaces. The project will improve water quality locally by removing pollution generating materials, including the impervious parking lot that extends onto the bulkhead, creosote -treated timber piles associated with the bulkhead and those located within the intertidal zone; and by restoring the bulkhead area to a vegetated beach habitat. Stormwater benefits of the project are discussed above. BMPs are further discussed in the Mitigation Sequencing section of this report. ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK DELINEATION The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is used to determine the shoreland regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The OHWM delineation was conducted by Herrera biologist Shelby Petro on May 4, 2017. The weather conditions during the fieldwork consisted of daytime high temperatures of approximately 74 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with mostly sunny conditions. Within the study area, the upper beach is armored with bulkheads and no vegetation was observed waterward of the bulkheads. Barnacles and water marks were observed along the bulkhead to be removed. North of the study area in Brackett's Landing North, persistent September 2017 HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 23 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 372 2.1.a vegetation was observed along with drift logs, wrack, and debris was observed at an elevation higher than the bulkheads present within the study area. Following the guidance in Anderson et. al. (2016), the OHWM was delineated at the face of the bulkheads within the study area (Figure 3; Appendix B). (6 HERRERA September 2017 24 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 373 2.1.a I M PACTS ANALYSIS The project will permanently impact critical areas by constructing the overwater walkway and temporarily impact critical areas during construction by operating track mounted construction equipment on the beach. Permanent impacts include the loss of beach habitat by installing seven 30-inch-diameter steel piles and placing the overwater walkway structure above the beach (Table 1). Other elements of the project, including access stairs south of the overwater walkway and the beach access stairs and ramp will be constructed within the existing developed footprint and will not result in impacts to critical areas. Table 1. Summary of Permanent Impacts for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Project Element Volume (CY) Area (SF) Drive seven 30-inch-diameter steel piles for the overwater walkway 63 35 Place overwater walkway structure n/a 1,383 The proposed overwater walkway piers will place a small amount of fill in the nearshore environment, however these impacts will be more than offset by bulkhead removal and beach restoration, as detailed in the Mitigation Plan section of this report. Work conducted below the MHHW will cause minor amounts of turbidity during high tides following the cessation of construction activity. Short term effects on water quality will be minimized by use of BMPs, as detailed in the Mitigation Sequencing section of this report, and will be of limited scope and duration. The overwater walkway is not expected to be a barrier to migration for fish species. The overwater walkway surface and curbs will be grated to allow light to penetrate through the structure, limiting shading. If a barge is used for construction it would temporarily shade the area directly beneath the barge. Shading could impact juvenile salmon migration behavior in the study area; however, impacts would be minimized by adhering to the USACE and WDFW- approved work window, when migrating juveniles are least likely to be present. Turbidity during construction could temporarily degrade water quality, but effects will be of short duration and will be minimized by adhering to BMPs and conservation measures, and therefore will have minimal effects on migration. Water quality will be temporarily degraded due to turbidity from substrate disturbance associated with fill removal and bulkhead setback and from the first tidal inundation after sediment disturbance from work done in the dry. Increased suspended sediments will be localized and of short duration. Bulkhead removal will remove a structure from the marine environment, thereby improving habitat. Removing the creosote -treated pilings will eliminate a source of pollution and provide the opportunity for localized water quality improvement. September 2017 HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 25 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 374 2.1.a Impacts to forage fish spawn will be avoided by conducting preconstruction surveys and, if eggs are identified to be present, delaying construction until no eggs are present in the work area or modifying construction activity to avoid surveyed eggs. If a barge is used for construction equipment it would not be grounded in forage fish spawning areas, as confirmed by a forage fish spawning survey prior to construction. Nearshore restoration will improve forage fish spawning habitat, and may improve the food base. Impacts to eelgrass will be avoided by conducting preconstruction surveys and locating the barge in areas devoid of eelgrass. Although there is eelgrass near the project site, impacts on eelgrass are not anticipated because the eelgrass is over 300 feet offshore. Therefore, any sedimentation caused by the project is not likely to affect eelgrass. Finlayson (2006) has shown that there is very little, if any, exchange of sediment between the foreshore (project area) and the low tide terrace (where eelgrass occurs). Additionally, the size and grade of the placed sand/gravel material will be matched to areas adjacent to it such that the area backfilled will not be a significant source of sediment. The embayment formed will likely trap more material than will be exported due to the new shoreline geometry. Furthermore, larger volumes of backfill at comparable distances were placed at Brackett's Landing South without detrimental impact to the same eelgrass beds. (6 HERRERA September 2017 26 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 375 2.1.a MITIGATION PLAN The project design has avoided and minimized impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Construction of the walkway is not feasible outside of the city -owned easement. As a result, some permanent and temporary impacts on FWHCAs are unavoidable. After construction is complete, onsite mitigation for permanent impacts will be provided by removing three creosote -treated timber piles from within the intertidal zone adjacent to the bulkhead and two concrete foundations buried in the beach in front of the existing Senior Center; and by restoring the beach within the footprint of the removed bulkhead. Restoration will include placing large woody debris, boulders, and a clean sand -gravel mix; and planting native vegetation such that there is no net loss of critical area functions and values. MITIGATION SEQUENCING Impacts on critical areas will be mitigated through a sequence of actions intended to maintain or improve ecological functions currently present at the site following project completion. The project has made all reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, and compensate for impacts on critical areas in a manner that maintains ecological functions. Mitigation for the project will be achieved through the following sequence of actions, in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120 and 24.40.020. Impact Avoidance Ultimately, a no -development alternative for the project would avoid impacts on critical areas to the maximum extent. However, a no -development alternative does not meet the City's objective of providing the missing link to the marine walkway and removing an existing contaminant source (i.e., the creosote -treated bulkhead). The project team studied three alternatives for constructing the overwater walkway. Initially, the team considered constructing the walkway along the bulkhead in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums or on the plaza of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. However, upon further review, these alternatives were deemed infeasible due to concerns from the Ebb Tide Condominium owners. During the design process, project engineers, architects, and biologists coordinated to design a project alternative and construction sequence that avoids impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent feasible. This was achieved by limiting the number of piles necessary for the overwater walkway, locating new project elements (e.g., access stairs and stormwater outfalls) in already developed areas, and staging equipment in uplands. In addition, the design avoids impacts to forage fish spawn and eelgrass habitat by conducting forage fish spawn and eelgrass surveys before construction; and modifying construction activities accordingly. Complete September 2017 Fi E R R E RA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 27 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 376 2.1.a avoidance of impacts to critical areas is not feasible due to the need to construct the overwater walkway in the City -owned easement and operate construction equipment on the beach. Impact Minimization The project design minimizes impacts to critical areas by utilizing developed areas in the uplands for construction access and staging; and by conducting work on the beach during low tide to avoid in -water work and associated noise and turbidity. All pile removal will be conducted in accordance with WDNR BMPs and guidelines for removing creosote piling removal and disposal (WDNR 2017a). During construction of the project, the contractor will minimize erosion and reduce and control surface and runoff water impacts through the development and implementation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan and execution of Best Management Practices (BM Ps): • Implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). • Installing TESC measures prior to clearing, grubbing, excavation, and grading activities. • Limiting clearing and ground -disturbing activities to the minimum area needed to construct the project. • Where necessary, installing erosion and sediment control measures (e.g., stabilized construction entrance, silt fences, wattles, plastic covering, and drain inlet protection) to prevent release and discharge of sediments from construction areas. • Installing high visibility fencing to delineate clearing and construction limits. • Disposing of any waste material, debris, or spoils at an approved and permitted upland commercial site or approved waste site. • Implementing containment measures at staging and material stockpile areas to prevent runoff. • After construction, removing all TESC measures, and revegetating disturbed ground surfaces with native plants and mulch to prevent erosion and sedimentation. • Installing storm drain inlet protection to prevent sediment discharges. • Stabilizing temporary stormwater facilities with rocks or quarry spalls to prevent scour and erosion. • Employing temporary (e.g., weed -free mulch and plastic sheeting) and permanent (mulch) cover measures to protect disturbed areas. V HERRERA September 2017 28 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 377 2.1.a • Frequent sweeping of silt from roadway surfaces to prevent sediment runoff. • Frequent inspection of flow and erosion control TESC facilities and maintenance of facilities for continued proper functioning. • Employing temporary (e.g., weed -free mulch and plastic sheeting) and permanent (mulch) cover measures to protect disturbed areas. • Frequent sweeping of silt from roadway surfaces to prevent sediment runoff. • Frequent inspection of flow and erosion control TESC facilities and maintenance of facilities for continued proper functioning. Impact Rectification Once construction of the overwater walkway is complete, all temporarily disturbed areas will be restored to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project and TESC materials will be removed from the site. See Impact Compensation and Monitoring section for details on how beach habitat will be restored to historical conditions. Impact Reduction Over Time The City will reduce the impact of the project over time by monitoring the project, including the performance of native vegetation in the restored beach area. The restoration area will be monitored for a minimum of 10 years (ECDC 24.40.020). Maintenance measures will be implemented as necessary during that 10-year period to ensure compliance with vegetation performance criteria (see the Maintenance and Monitoring Plan section). Impact Compensation and Monitoring To mitigate for unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed overwater walkway, the project will restore the beach within the footprint of the existing bulkhead such that there is no net loss of critical area functions and values (Table 2). The bulkhead will be removed, including 36 creosote -treated timber piles and fill that support the existing parking lot and contribute to localized impaired water quality. Restoration will consist of planting native vegetation and placing large woody debris, boulders, and clean fish -mix gravels and sand that match existing beach characteristics for beach nourishment and forage fish spawning habitat. Additionally, the project will remove three creosote -treated timber piles from within the intertidal zone adjacent to the bulkhead and two concrete foundations buried in the beach in front of the existing Senior Center. The beach restoration area will be monitored for a period of 10 years to establish that performance standards have been achieved and monitoring reports provided to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project (ECDC 24.40.020). September 2017 H E R R E RA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 29 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 378 2.1.a Table 2. Summary of Restoration Activities for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Project Element Volume (CY) Area (SF) Remove 36 creosote -treated timber piles and fill from bulkhead 1,424 3,841 Remove three creosote -treated timber piles from the intertidal zone 27 9 Remove two concrete foundations 213 567 Restore beach by placing sand/gravel mix, large woody debris, boulders; and planting native veqetation 1,210 3,841 RESTORATION PLAN After the bulkhead timbers and fill are removed, the area will be restored to a more natural beach condition. Approximately 1,210 cubic yards of a clean mix of gravels and sand that match existing beach substrate characteristics will be placed in the bulkhead footprint to match the adjacent beach contours. This gravel/sand nourishment will support forage fish spawning habitat. Large woody debris and boulders will be placed near the new access stairs to provide upper beach habitat and protection of the new structures. The large woody debris will be placed in such a way as to encourage natural recruitment of more ambient large woody debris. Native dune vegetation will be planted in 346 square feet landward of the large woody debris (Figure 3). Plant species and spacing proposed for dune restoration planting are listed in Table 3 Suitable native plant species were based on their adaptation to water and light conditions on the project site. Table 3. Plant Schedule' for Beach Restoration at the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Scientific Name Common Name Spacing/Size Elymus mollis American dunegrass 20 percent/12 inches on center Fragaria chiloensis Beach strawberry 20 percent/12 inches on center Grindelia integrifolia Puget Sound gumweed 30 percent/30 inches on center Lupinus arboreus Tree lupine 30 percent/72 inches on center a From Barker Landscape Architects Additionally, three creosote -treated timber piles within the intertidal zone adjacent to the bulkhead and two concrete foundations buried in the beach in front of the existing Senior Center will be removed. Removing these structures will eliminate sources of pollution to the environment and provide additional habitat area. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN The following sections describe the proposed monitoring and maintenance plan for mitigation activities. HERRERA September 2017 30 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 379 2.1.a Goal, Objective, and Performance Standards The overall goal of this mitigation plan is to improve resource functions, which include water quality improvement, stormwater filtration, and fish and wildlife habitat. Removal of the bulkhead, creosote -treated piles, and concrete foundations; beach nourishment; installation of large woody debris and boulders; and planting of native vegetation will improve all of those functions. Annual monitoring of the mitigation areas will be done for 10 years following project construction. Goa/ The goal of the mitigation plan is to compensate for permanent impacts such that there is no loss of functions resulting from the project. Objective The objective is to remove three creosote -treated timber piles and two concrete foundations from the intertidal zone; and restoring beach and dune habitat where the bulkhead is removed. Where dune habitat is restored, the objective is to plant species that will develop into a mature zone of native vegetation of which performance standards will apply to. Densely planted, native vegetation will improve the habitat functions provided by the planted area. The native plants will also improve the functions for water quality improvement and stormwater infiltration by trapping sediments from runoff not collected in the bioretention planters. Performance Standards Performance of the mitigation will be determined based on meeting standards for minimum plant survival, minimum cover of native vegetation, and maximum allowed cover of invasive, nonnative plant species over ten growing seasons (Table 4; ECDC 24.40.020). Invasive, nonnative plant species include those on the current Snohomish County Noxious Weed List (Snohomish County 2017). Table 4. Performance Standards for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Performance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 5 Year 7 Year 10 Standard (2019) (2020) (2021) (2023) (202S) (2028) Plant Survival Rate 100 >80 N/A N/A N/A N/A (percent) Native Vegetation N/A N/A >40 >60 >80 >80 Cover (percent) Invasive, Nonnative <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Plant Cover (percent) September 2017 H E R R E RA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 31 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 380 2.1.a Year 1 • 100 percent of the planted species will have survived or will be replaced. • Less than 10 percent cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. Year 2 • Greater than 80 percent of the planted species will have survived or will be replaced. Less than 10 percent cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. Year 3 • Greater than 40 percent cover of native vegetation will be present within areas of planted vegetation. Native volunteers may count towards this performance standard. Less than 10 percent cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. Year 5 • Greater than 60 percent cover of native vegetation will be present within areas of planted vegetation. Native volunteers may count towards this performance standard • Less than 10 percent cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. Years 7 and 10 • Greater than 80 percent cover of native vegetation will be present within areas of planted vegetation. Native volunteers may count towards this performance standard • Less than 10 percent cover of invasive, nonnative plants will be present within areas of planted vegetation. Monitoring Duration and Schedule Monitoring of mitigation planting areas will take place after installation of plants for a minimum of ten growing seasons (ECDC 24.40.020). Starting the first year after plant installation (Year 1), the City will arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct monitoring visits annually in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 to evaluate compliance with performance standards. Monitoring will include evaluating plant mortality; establishing photo points; and documenting cover of native and invasive, nonnative species. Incidental observation of wildlife or evidence of wildlife presence HERRERA September 2017 32 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 381 2.1.a (e.g., scat or tracks) and human disturbance (e.g., trails or trash) will be recorded during each monitoring visit. Upon completion of each site visit, the qualified biologist will prepare a monitoring report that documents the monitoring methods, results, photo documentation, and any necessary contingency and maintenance measures. The report will include photos and approximate locations of invasive, nonnative plants that need to be removed or controlled. The report will be submitted to permitting agencies before the end of each monitoring year. Maintenance and Contingencies During Year 1, the planting contractor will be responsible for achieving 100 percent plant survival and successful establishment of planted vegetation within the planting zone. In accordance with Year 1 plant establishment requirements, the contractor will provide necessary maintenance of planted vegetation on a monthly basis during the growing season for a period of 365 days after acceptance of initial planting. Plant establishment maintenance will include, but is not limited to, supplemental irrigation during summer months; removal and control of invasive, nonnative vegetation; and replacing plants that have died. Before plants are replaced, the contractor will consult with the project biologist assigned by the City to determine why certain species are not surviving and, if necessary, which native plant substitutions are appropriate. The City will arrange for annual maintenance of the planting zones during Years 2 through 10, with the goal of meeting all the applicable performance standards. If success criteria for percent coverage of native vegetation and invasive, nonnative species have not been satisfied, maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to, plant replacement, plant substitution, adjustment of the planting layout to reflect specific or changing site conditions, weed control, and installation and adjustment of plant protection devices. Long-term Protection The City will provide documentation that the restoration area has been permanently preserved from future development or alteration that would be inconsistent with the functions of the restoration area. This documentation may include a conservation easement, deed restriction, or other agreement and shall be recorded with the Snohomish County auditor (ECDC 24.40.020). September 2017 HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 33 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 382 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 383 2.1.a REFERENCES Anderson, P., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Ecology Publication 16-06-029. Washington State Department of Ecology. October. CH2M Hill. 2004. SR 104 Edmonds Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared for US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and Washington State Department of Transportation. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Seattle, Washington. Ecology. 2017. Washington State Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) List. Accessed May 12, 2017. <https://fortress.wa._ oq v/ecy/approvedwga/ApprovedSearch.aspx?LISTING ID=42487>. Edmonds, City of (Edmonds). 2007. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Inventory & Characterization. SMA Grant Agreement No. 60600108. Prepared for City of Edmonds. Prepared by Sea -Run Consulting, TetraTech, Inc., Reid Middleton, Inc., and Pentec. Edmonds, City of (Edmonds). 2017. Geographic Information System data. Accessed June 19, 2017. <http://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=html>. Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. 2017. Puget Sound Institute, University of Washington. Accessed May 12, 2017. <https://www.eopugetsound.org/science-review/section-l-introduction-1>. FEMA. 2017. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed August 3, 2017. <https://msc.fema.gov/portal>. Finlayson, D.P. 2006. The geomorphology of Puget Sound beaches. PhD Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. Fresh, K.L. 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006-06. Published by Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Goetz, F., E. Jeanes, G. Hart, C Ebel, J. Starkes, and E. Conner. 2003. Behavior of Anadromous Bull Trout in the Puget Sound and Pacific coast of Washington. Presented at Estuarine Research Federation Conference. Seattle, Washington. September. Herrera. 2015. The Risk Associated with Reconstruction of the Senior Center at the Edmonds Waterfront Site. Prepared for the Edmonds Senior Center by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, WA. November. September 2017 4:! HERRERA Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project 35 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 384 2.1.a Herrera. 2017. Biological Evaluation for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Prepared for the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. August. Knight, K. 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. NOAA. 2017. Threatened Yelloweye and Endangered Bocaccio in Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Fisheries Westcoast Region. Accessed July 20, 2017. <http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected species/rockfish/rockfish in puget sound.html>. Pentilla, D. 2007. Marine Forage Fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-03. Published by Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. <http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical reports.htm. 23 pp>. Snohomish County. 2017. Noxious Weed List. Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control Program. Accessed July 24, 2017. <https://snohomishcountywa.gov/750/Noxious-Weeds-List> WDFW. 2017a. Priority Habitats and Species Database. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed June 19, 2017. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/>. WDFW. 2017b. SalmonScape mapping system. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed June 19, 2017. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html>. v/mapping/salmonscape/index.html>. WDNR. 2017a. Washington Department of Natural Resources Derelict Creosote Piling Removal Best Management Practices for Pile Removal & Disposal. Accessed June 26, 2017. <http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/aqr rest pileremoval bmp 2017.pdf>. WDNR. 2017b. Puget Sound Intertidal Habitat and Shorezone Inventory Data. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Obtained June 19, 2017, from agency website: <http://www.dnr.wa.goy/programs-and-services/aquatics/aquatic-science/washington-marine- vegetation-atlas>. USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Sofve(inus conf(uentus). Volumes I (Puget Sound Management Unit, 389 + xvii pp.) and II (Olympic Peninsula Management Unit, 277 + xvi pp.). US Fish and Wildlife Service., Portland, Oregon. USFWS. 1973 and 1980. Raster scan data of National Wetlands Inventory wetlands maps. Digital data created in 2012. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed May 8, 2017. <http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html >. USFWS. 2017. Critical Habitat Mapper. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed May 12, 2017. <https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=l>. HERRERA September 2017 36 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 385 2.1.a APPENDIX A Project Plans L CL C 0 0- 0 0 L L C U r c 0 L R C a) E t :i R a r r L 0 Q NN� v/ N O O O O O N J d Q r C d t V R r-+ Q V HERRERA Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 386 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 387 I 2.1.a I / P.,.V Puget / Sound " Brackeu's/ / � s 's Land pg n ,Slforeline m � z = a ._Edds. K�gst /Sanctuary_ av < _ h oalzr Sk nalxr5t 17 Edmonds-Kin95t° n ferry-- s a Edmonds Bala Main Street See Location oayons 0FraniAnderSonCarter Map Right m '� PaF a A Alit i■ir s[�park Edmoli A.O Marsh we""'ram Marina Beach Park 3 L coV/ Edmonds o v. \ 220thstsw � � Woodway a 224ta asw w �r st \ i Noaa SR 104 VICINITY MAP APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 -- tel: 206.783.2870 fax: 206.783.3212 PROJECT: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A 9802oa c h Washington State Puget Ferry Terminal dma d o Sound Passe°9er Tcominal Q a� Brackett's �aP Landing South waiMitigation Area r Project Area \\ ��% / / \Edmonds Station QSpudFis E+rvwawnod ali Fired Pizza Port of Edmonds Cascadia Art MuseumQ E ti Q F Marina oA e c6 Armes® aaP w � Ile � P D o } W Dayton St W Dayton St LOCATION MAP US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: nt 9 TITLE: VICINITY MAP DATE: 08.29.2017 REVISION DATE: SHEET: 01 OF 14 Note: See sheet 03 for adjacent property owners c 0 fC C d U r 0 d fC V a 3 0 Q d N Q O O rT O N J a a t U c� r Q i Packet Pg. 388 1 I 2.1.a I Concrete Intertidal Piles I Puget Sound I Edmonds Marine Public Access Existing Walkway _ Easement Foundation .� Outfalls — -----_4_---_------ —--------- 4— _ _ _ -- ------4----------_ ------------------------�._�---- - - - - - - x�s-fing__- _-- - - - - - - - - - - - - ----6- _- - - - - - - _ - --- MHHW '�-r�� -- i �— - 8_-- _ -- _ e R oo \ MHyW— — — MHHW — —' Existing Bulkhead -MHHW s ego r� OHW RD _ 3 - o CONC. W LL SDIO Reef Apts. Ebb Tide o„1aa� 10 Condominiums Edmonds Senior Center — — F Z -N Underwater I I Sports I 127'-6" L p \ A� 61'-4" ----------------------- Railroad Ave NOTE: See Sheet 03 for Property Ownership �See Sheet 04 for site photos. (> This symbol on the above plan indicates the location and direction each photo was taken from. APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 -- tel: 206.783.2870 fax: 206.783.3212 PROJECT: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A 98020-Alta c h ----.ry----7-------------- inne — Vertical Datum: NAVD88 0 30' 60' Horizontal Datum: NAVD83/91 To convert MLLW from NAVD88 add Scale: 1" = 60'-0" 2.29ft. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: TITLE: EXISTING CONDITIONS OVERALL SITE PLAN nt 9 LEGEND c 0 a� fC a� c m U c 0 t aD M N C d v fC r Q 3 0 a m tQ to N O O 0 rn 0 N J a Q tv E t — - - — Parcel Lines �a DATE: - - - - - - - - Project Limits Q 08.29.2017 Bulkhead Boundary REVISION DATE: MHHW Mean Higher High Water SHEET:---oHW--- Ordinary Hi h Water 02 OF 14 A Packet Pg. 389 I 2.1.a I �I27032300401400 27032300415300 1 `� I 27032300103800 I 27032300401401 I1 Puget Sound 1 1 27032300104400 I 27032300400300 1AC (8311070085) Edmo 27032300400400 . _ _ _ 1 i*1 r % 1 Mari �� - — walkway 2703230040�5b0 � _ _ — — — _ — — _ � �� �" I + 1 �� Ir—— dmon8'si�anneti4'Ra wad VtRu all r� 1 I 1Jn 9.'' i ` SP 8101160178 1 _ 27032300401300 I 1 ' Reef i ) 1 LAptsEdmonds Senior Center ' 1 as I ` N — I 27032300104300 1 I 1 27032300415900 ` I 27032300104200 1 \j Underwate 1 `I Sports 1 270 - -- - -- --� L-- -- -- -- — I-------------------------------- 00724500110100 00724500130300 Railroad Ave 00724500110200 00724500130400 27032300105700 — — — — — — 00724500110300 _ 00724500140100 _ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. — — 00724500110400 00724500140200 00724500120100 00724500140300 00724500120200 00724500140400 00724500120300 00724500150100 00724500120400 00724500150200 00724500130100 00724500150300 00724500130200 00724500150400 NOTE: See Attachment C for more information about specific parcel ownership. APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, PROJECT: US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: Recreation, and Cultural Edmonds Waterfront Services Department Redevelopment Project BARKER WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: TITLE: DATE: LANDSCAPE CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N 08.29.2017 COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: PROPERTY REVISION DATE ARCHITECTS STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W OWNERSHIP MAP 3002 NW 68th St. SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: Seattle, WA 98117 TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave SHEET: tel: 206.783.2870 RANGE: 3E., WM Edmonr� A c h e nt 9 fax: 206.783.3212 980230 03 OF 14 3 t O d NTS a N O O O Cn O N J a 2 aD t U c� LEGEND Q — — — — Parcel Lines -------- Project Limits Packet Pg. 390 1 I 2.1.a I O Ebb Tide Condominiums Looking north at the proposed over water walkway location adjacent to the Ebb Tide Condominiums. 4: 'ik, Looking south at the terminus of the northern portion of the current Edmonds Marine walkway. The proposed over water walkway will provide the missing link to the southern walkway. A The bulkhead that will be removed for beach restoration. u _ - c m c Looking east over the patio of the Ebb Tide Condominiur (j where the proposed over water walkway will be just visit c over the wall. L V1 -- �- �..,. RaAr u �% �• Ebb Tide Condominiums U Senior Center ry To Pt Q ,� ` �,, ,� ■"., . g Ind `Sy 1_.._ !„ — and Fishl 3 Bulkhead ~� ==Marine z _ _ _______— _____� i - ` — — Walkway"", c' %/ Approximate �� — — — — — - — — = — _ _ _= Edmonds ---_ C yip--- =-----=------------ — Marine -- a Project �i—-------- alkway. — - os ation of r An aerial view of the project extents. The existing bulkhead is to be removed and replaced with a vegetated dune and better bead ci access. The proposed over water walkway will provide a missing link, connecting the northern portion of the Edmonds Marine c Walkway at Brackett's Landing South with the southern portion of the walkway at Olympic Beach, the Marina Boardwalk, and rn Fishing Pier. o APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, PROJECT: Recreation, and Cultural Edmonds Waterfront Services Department Redevelopment Project BARKER WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: LANDSCAPE CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: ARCHITECTS STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W 3002 NW 68th St. SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: Seattle, WA 98117 TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave -- tel: 206.783.2870 RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A a c h 1%ra fax: 206.783.3212 98020 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: TITLE: DATE: EXISTING CONDITIONS 08.29.2017 SITE PHOTOS REVISION DATE: nt 9 SHEET: 04 OF 14 N J a a t U ca r Q Packet Pg. 391 1 2.1.a ' I DETAIL PLAN 1,1 ' 'DETAIL PLAN 2 I ' Puget Sound i ' 1 � 1 D t� C B A Proposed over water ---- ----- ------__ 1_-- 11 11 walkway 10' wide by ----_ 12 a -- ---------------- -----a- 154' long ------_ T-liver Water---�ulsl--- ---- -Acc�— -9--- -------- -- ---�s __- ----___ _,- 1--- - ---s- r-� C talkway ---- 1 _ — ♦ ------ - - - - ---Beach __ - — --- ____--------s- L. i —i __-- 7_ • � �� � -- �8 ---F — st6ratlon � � � Edm y � _ _-_ F — y �_'��� ♦�----- MHHW� — orP i MHH Bu o es1§ Marine r "� h s 12 ? ♦ irExlstingPromenade ■ _ --- s- Walkway) — ' Ebb Tick Plaza Reef Ebb Tide Appartments Condominiums 1 Wedding L wn — Edmonds Waterfront Center o 0 r. Underwater Sports iA I y x,LT Railroad Ave. BIOREM DETAIL PLAN 1 See sheet 6 for Demolition Plan South See sheet 8 for Grading and Drainage Plan South See sheet 13 Restoration Plan South APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 tel: 206.783.2870 Eff—..:.::r,-V fax: 206.783.3212 150'-0" NIL 1 at'A�• dam. Walkway �1 �f �4• i.�Mdmn� l��Irm� Stairs, Typ. 4 Promenade 16- r Bioretention Cell 13.0" rRamp �I � I I ;y[ It F+S 07 �alx._11 __ it � _.-. •.•x.i ,}^r //� , CB CONNECT TO VJ BIORETENTIONJ BIORETENT N BIORETENFION EXISTING CB (V PLANTER OVERFLOW PLANTER OVERFLOW PLANTER 0 DETAIL PLAN 2 See sheet 7 for Demolition Plan North See sheet 9 for Grading and Drainage Plan North See sheet 14 Restoration Plan North PROJECT: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave RANGE: 3E., WM Edmonr� A 98020-4 c h US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: TITLE: DATE: PROPOSED CONDITIONS 08.29.2017 OVERALL SITE PLAN REVISION DATE: EET- nt 9 S 5 0OF 14 0 30' 60' o Cn 0 N Scale: V = 60'-0" J d a Vertical Datum: NAVD88 +: Horizontal Datum: NAVD83/91 (D To convert MLLW from NAVD88 add 2.2 E LEGEND r — - - — Parcel Lines Q - - - - - - - - Project Limits —MHHW— Mean Higher High Wa ---°HW--- Ordinary High Water Plan Packet Pg. 392 2.1.a ► I ► I ' ' I ► I ► I I ' ' Puget Sound I I--- Iti ,° bap ------ ----------------4--netdaf#� ---------- ---� ------------ � --------►--------------- Existing stairs to be 5--------------------1--- _Remove conc to I _ _ _ - _ V) foundation from beacFi--- c L removed & relaoee - - ------------------6----------------- i a� with relocated stairs. Uplands-ta-be- - - ►----------------7------------------ ___ _ ♦ �6 - I ♦ d -- ��� '--- ------ •--------------- .� ----J= �� - MHHW - J V ► ►-�s�.�r� 9------go- f��-----�=-� 't ACCESS EASEMENT __ �♦-eiaiove upper - - a� L1 ---------------1 0-----__ Portion of bulkhead) ?� ♦ to accommodate �,--------- OHW-------- - 14.0' ►► '-- new alkway Jw ♦ i --- — -- ---- W_! n C — Existing Pr me ade, to Ebb Tide Remain Plaza Pv�+ oss �J Existing lawn to Q °o be removed LEGEND 3 L Reef Apts. Ebb Tide Condominiums ---- Parcel Lines $ C(m ds rfl Center - - - - - - - - Project Limits NOTE: Any voids on beach that result from Area of U) bulkhead, piling, or concrete debris will be Demolition c filled with beach nourishment material. e Mean Higher High MHHW Water c ---OHW--- Ordinary High Watei � a a APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, PROJECT: Recreation, and Cultural Edmonds Waterfront US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: c ' N 1 5 3� Services Department Redevelopment Project BARKER WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: TITLE: DATE: Scale: 1" — 30'-0" Q LANDSCAPE CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: 08.29.2017 DEMOLITION PLAN ARCHITECTS STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: SOUTH REVISION DATE: Vertical Datum: NAVD88 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 . tel: 206.783.2870 TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A SHEET: ent 9 ,4 Horizontal Datum: NAVD83/91 To convert MLLW fro AA `... � fax: 206.783.3212 98020jaCh 0s of Packet Pg. 393 I 2.1.a I f � Remove intertidal piles • Puget Sound (No appreciable CD ne rl CD---------------- ---4-------------------------------- t — --Remove concre%------ Ifoundation from beach--------15_____— -- 4) IC ICUIIIUI IUS Senior Center NOTE: Any voids on beach that result from bulkhead, piling, or concrete debris will be filled with beach nourishment material. APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, PROJECT: Recreation, and Cultural Edmonds Waterfront Services Department Redevelopment Project BARKER WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: LANDSCAPE CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: ARCHITECTS STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W 3002 NW 68th St. SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: Seattle, WA 98117 TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave — tel: 206.783.2870 `...�� fax: 206.783.3212 RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon } A 98020aCh US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO TITLE: DATE: DEMOLITION PLAN 08.29.2017 NORTH REVISION DATE: nt 9 SHEET: 07 OF 14 — ig Outfall, Relocatesl HW�_� E t �a r r LEGEND Q r — Parcel Lines 3 L Project Limits °a a� Area of Demolition Area of Bulkhead r In & Fill Removal o 0 Mean Higher High rn —MHHW— Water o ---OHW--- Ordinary High Watei N a Q c 0 15' 30' E Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Q Vertical Datum: NAVD88 Horizontal Datum: NAVD83/91 To convert MLLW from ^'^" Packet Pg. 394 1 Relocate stairs and — reconfigure bulkhead to accommodate new walkway. Drive H-Piling shoreward of MHHW and OHW as required to support relocated stairs. Top and bottom of relocated stairs-tomeet and match existing. I ► ► IPuget Sound (No appreciable Inet drift) _— — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- / Top of Walkway, ♦�� - - � 14.71' I 2.1.a ► I I ► I� ° I ► I °' Icn L --- Q ► N Note: Refer to the Critical Areas L I Report and Mitigation Plan (Hererra, - ,�. I .= 2017b) for more details about impact - ► -- ---- Wat -Over - - - ; er Walk- rr`� .":. <'r'.I'r©fii7:: ►- --- ----- ---- OHW ----- Way ---- 41 --- -- Meet and match Ebb Tide existing grade Existing Plaza promenade, to remain Reef Apts. Ebb Tide Condominiums I M PACT AREAS Total Waterward MHHW Landward MHHW O Steel Driven Piles 35 SF/63 CY 10 SF/18 CY 25 SF/45 CY ORemove Concrete 317 SF/117 CY 157 SF/58 CY 160 SF/59 CY Foundation APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 -- tel: 206.783.2870 fax: 206.783.3212 PROJECT: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A 98020-Alta c h � 2 t areas for this project. _ rI� =r-8--- =MHHW o ---- — LEGEND -- — - - — Parcel Lines - - - - - - - - Project Limits op-�f W 11,. 13.0' Proposed Spot Elevation U M Meet & Match Elev. --_-- ----------------- r _--_---_-- s�%- Proposed Q TYP Direction of Slope r Edmonds Waterfront Center I 0 Concrete I o Foundation a m ® Beach Nourishment r Steel Pilings U) N 0 Mean Higher High c MHHW CD Water _-- OHW --- Ordinary High Watei J a Q c d US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: 0 151 311"111 C s TITLE: DATE: Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Q GRADING AND 08.29.2017 DRAINAGE PLAN REVISION DATE: SOUTH nt 9 SHEET: 08 OF 14 Vertical Datum: NAVD88 Horizontal Datum: NAVD83/91 To convert MLLW fro Packet Pg. 395 Note: Refer to the Critical Ar 2.1.a Report and Mitigation Plan (Hererra, 2017b) for more details about impact 0 area s for this project. Remove intertidal piles I 00 Puget Sound O ` o apprecia a -----net-driftr4------------------------ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _----------5_------------------------\ ------------------------ \ _ —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---------- ___ — —Relocated -------�� I 2% _—___--- t --- — — — — — — ----- ' ' Outfall -------. _ � MHHW - — i , For -xo osed esl MHHW ca----- --------------� -- �2 I Existing out -fall Relocated �! 3> \� --- �----------Out---all -- ti LEGEND _ --F Tow �---0 ' : - H , For .. t r o o .��i r sed esi n 1 Parcel Lines � . . _. Eirr�iing Pres'fneiYade,;„ •�' ;fir T � ` o Y E1' ________ Project Limits t /'� t1 �t3s � �, ioretention 13.0' Proposed Spot Q �. .. 3� ------------------- r� "^ xt*;7�' Wedding Ramp o Cell i Elevation t r Edmonds 1,-4�9$ Lawn `� A Promenade O Proposed 3 r _ a 3.4' O TYP Direction of Slope o Waterfront Center r -> r .o ' Concrete a m IMPACT AREAS 0 Foundation Beach Nourishment U) Total Waterward MHHW Landward MHHW O Remove Intertidal Piles 9 SF/27 CY 9 SF/27 CY - Ex. Mean Higher N MHHW High Water c CD Q Remove Concrete Foundation 250 SF/96 CY 172 SF/64 CY O 78 SF/32 CY — --oHW--- Ex. Ordinary J 3O Remove Bulkhead 3841 SF/1424 CY 1039 SF/400 CY 2802 SF/1024 CY High Water a Q s= APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, PROJECT: Recreation, and Cultural Edmonds Waterfront US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: r ' 0 1 cJ 3� E Services Department Redevelopment Project r BARKER WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: TITLE: DATE: Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Q LANDSCAPE CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: GRADING AND os.zs.2o17 ARCHITECTS STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"w SECTION: SE q of Section 23 ADDRESS: DRAINAGE PLAN REVISION DATE: Vertical Datum: NAVD88 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A tel: 206.783.2870 98020,��aCh NORTH SHEET: ent 9 °F 1a Horizontal Datum: NAVD83/91 To convert MLLW fro fax: 206.783.3212 0g Packet Pg. 396 I 2.1.a I PLANTER PROMENADE Existing Parking Existing Fill, to be Removed and fill to be Stairs, see Grading Plan, Sheet 9� Removed Proposed Grade _________ __________ - - - ____________ Bioretention Cell, See Grading Plan, Sheet 9 Scale: 1" = 10'-0" PROMENADE Large Woody Debris Proposed Beach Restoration Grade-\ A Area / Dune ------------------ ---- Boulder ------- SECTION B-I Scale: 1" = 10'-0" APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 -- tel: 206.783.2870 fax: 206.783.3212 Pile supported concrete wall Pile support for toe of stairs BEACH RESTORATION OHW, for Proposed Design MHHW, for Proposed Design Existing OHW Existing MHHW ----------------------- --- -- 15' O ____ ______________________ _________ _______________________________________ L n.\ ----------------------- --------------------- --- ------ -- ---------------- - -------- —----------- txlsting DUIKneaa consisting of creosote - treated timber piles and lagging, to be removed. BEACH RESTORATION Existing Fill, to be Removed Proposed Grade / Beach Restoration Area txlsung DulKneaa conslsring Or creosote- treated timber piles and lagging, to be removed. --- ------------------ 5' O Existing Grade/Beach, c to Remain r c O L a.+ N r C �OHW, for Proposed Design E MHHW, for Proposed Design U Existing OHW Q Existing MHHW 15, 3 --------- --- ----------- --- O 0. - --- -- --- — 10, PROJECT: US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: TITLE: DATE: CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N 08.29.2017 COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: SECTIONS 01 REVISION DATE: STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave SHEET: RANGE: 3E., WM Edmond A %Rch ent 9 9802o-4 jQ OF 14 ----------- 5' N O 0 Existing Grade/Beach, rn to Remain c N J a 2 Note: °' Horizontal Datum: NAD 83/91 t Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 cu r To Convert to MLLW from Q NAVD 88, Add 2.29 Ft. Packet Pg. 397 1 I 2.1.a I WEDDING LAWN PROMENADE BEACH RESTORATION Proposed Grade Existing Fill to be Removed Proposed Grade / Beach / Restoration Area I \ -----___ - ::_= Stairs, see Grading Plan, sheet 9� -_—----------- Pile Pile support for toe of stairs SECTION C-c Scale: 1" = 10'-0" EDMONDS WATERFRONT CENTER (FIFE Elev. 15) Tilllllll!� ►� 10' 5'----------------- SECTION D-d Scale: 1" = 10'-0" APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department 111W. BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 -- tel: 206.783.2870 fax: 206.783.3212 EXISTING PROMENADE Proposed Grade/ OHW, for Proposed Design �MHHW, for Proposed Design Existing OHW Existing MHHW o --------------- ----- 15' 0 _ --- ---- — — 10, a - ------------------ _ _.._.._ Existing bulkhead consisting of creosote- treated timber piles --------------- -- ExistingGrade/ 5 and lagging to be removed. ____- Beach, to Remain V r EXISTING EXISTING CONCRETE BEACH FOUNDATION Planter Existing Promenade to Remain c 0 L m �a N C U 0 Existing OHW Q Existing MHHW - 15 3 - -- -- ------ - -- — - --- ------- ---- --------------------------- -------------------------- — — — Existing Grade / Beach to Remain Existing Concrete Foundation. Depth unknown, estimated depth of removal to be 4-5 ft. below beach level. PROJECT: US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: TITLE: DATE: CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N 08.29.2017 COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: SECTIONS 02 REVISION DATE: STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave SHEET: RANGE: 3E., WM Edmonds A 9 98020-Attach ent 11 OF 14 R 5' 04 O 0 0 rn 0 N J a 2 Note: (D Horizontal Datum: NAD 83/91 t Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 cu r To Convert to MLLW from Q NAVD 88, Add 2.29 Ft. I Packet Pg. 398 1 2.1a EBB TIDE CONDOMINIUMS NOTE: Portable, removable access may be added to design at some 15' later point fU➢ 5' Scale: 1" = 10'-0" 15't EBB TIDE PLAZA OVER WATER WALKWAY Concrete Walkway, 4 ft. wide 10' 01 Grated Curbs, 3 wid City of Edmonds Public Access Easement 5, h' u 25O.C., Typ. F SECTION F-f �5 Scale: 1" = 10'-0" -------------- Steel Pile - Depth of 50' OVER WATER WALKWAY Graded Curbs, 14.71' Concrete Walkway, 13.71' Pile Cap Steel Pile -Steel Grating Support -Pile cap -Existing OHW -Existing MHHW o 15' 10, --:-------------- --------- 5' c Beach to Remair 0 U c 0 L �a N r C d U 2 Q ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- - — 0 -------------------f----- - -------------------- ---- ----- -- ---- - ----------�Jin �y �Xy Existing OHW o Existing MHHW c 30" Diam., Typ. Existing Grade / Beach to Remain Cn 0 N J a APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, PROJECT: US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: Recreation, and Cultural Edmonds Waterfront Services Department Redevelopment Project 111W. BARKER WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: TITLE: DATE: LANDSCAPE CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N 08.29.2017 COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: SECTIONS 03 REVISION DATE: ARCHITECTS STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W 3002 NW 68th St. SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: Seattle, WA 98117 TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave SHEET: tel: 206.783.2870 RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A C it e nt 9 fax: 206.783.3212 98020-a 12 OF 14 s= Note: (D Horizontal Datum: NAD 83/91 t Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 cu r To Convert to MLLW from Q NAVD 88, Add 2.29 Ft. Packet Pg. 399 I / I Puget Sound I (No appreciable 1 net drift) 1 1 _ =-�----------ZSver VWater Walkway - -'�,-�---- --—— - — — — — - ----- ---- OHW Ebb Tide Existing promenade 1 ! to remain Plaza Reef Apartments Ebb Tide Condominiums PLANT LEGEND BIORETENTION AND SHRUB PLANTING AREAS 600 SF Aster subspicatus / Douglas Aster Carex lyngbyei / Lyngbye's Sedge Distichlis spicata / Saltgrass Myrica californica / Pacific Wax Myrtle Rosa nutkana / Nootka Rose Scirpus maritimus / Cosmopolitan Bulrush Spiraea douqlasii / Western Spirea APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 -- tel: 206.783.2870 fax: 206.783.3212 I 1 / I / / I MHHW r �- --10 KAi `--- a Edmonds Waterfront Center BEACH RESTORATION Spacing/Size 1% - " oc 155% - 3030" oc O Concrete Foundation 15% - 24" oc Removal 10% - 96" oc 15% - 54" oc 20% - 24" oc 15% - 36" oc PROJECT: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: CITY: Edmonds 47°48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: STATE: Washington 122°23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A 98020-Alta c h 12 EXIS I 2.1.a I LEGEND — - - — Parcel Lines m - - - - - - - - Project Limits ca Restoration Area Q Mean Higher High t 3 _MmW_ Water ---oHw--- Ordinary High Watei Q r Total Waterward MHHW Landward MHHV N 317 SF 157 SF 160 SF o 0 0 N J a US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO TITLE: DATE: RESTORATION PLAN 08.29.2017 SOUTH REVISION DATE: nt 9 SHEET: 13 OF 14 2 c 0 15' 30' Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Q Vertical Datum: NAVD88 Horizontal Datum: NAVD83/91 To convert MLLW fro Packet Pg. 400 . ; 2.1.a I Q = Puget Sound BEACH RESTORATION Intertidal piles (No appreciable I TotE net drift) 0 Intertidal Pilings Removal 9 S o T Waterward MHHW Landward MHH -------------------------- N I-------- New Beach (Beach nourishmgnimatertaF}- --- -__--__ 5--------------------'- -_--. Concrete Foundation Tots ----- _----- --6 _---- �, -t5rge-Woody Debris _--------------- \�- O Removal 250: --- + y---`--------------- II -- __--'"-, Waterward MHHW Landward MHH -------------BtSurers -- `----------- ------ — U 172 SF 78 SF I2 r � c ---- -- -------_—i % ---- v - - - i, ' ' , H V11, or/ xopose / esl MHHW Tots M ----- '%,- -MHHW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- ; Bulkhead Removal, 3841 � O i 3 Beach Nourishment �•r Ir _ I_ + A %; ,,�; ,� ,%,, ; r ^^ ry� ` Waterward MHHW Landward MHH g rglnrsa e, Edmonds L Waterfront Center PLANT LEGEND lm �DUNE PLANTING AREA 346 SIF � Elymus mollis /American Dunegrgrass ���� Fragaria chiloensis / Beach Strawberry Grindelia integrifolia / Puget Sound Gumweed Lupinus arboreus / Tree Lupine APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3002 NW 68th St. Seattle, WA 98117 -- tel: 206.783.2870 fax: 206.783.3212 1039 SF 2802 SF aa) F� E LEGEND u — - - — Parcel Lines Q - - - - - - - - Project Limits 3 o Restoration Area Spacing/Size BIORETENTION AND SHRUB PLANTING AREAS 1574 SF Spacing/Size U) 20% - 12" oc Aster subspicatus / Douglas Aster 10% - 24" oc o 20% 12" oc -- Carex lyngbyei / Lyngbye's Sedge 15% - 30" oc p 30% - 30" oc �— e "'`- ° Distichlis spicata / Saltgrass 15% - 24" oc 30% - 72" oc Myrica californica / Pacific Wax Myrtle 10% - 96" oc o Rosa nutkana / Nootka Rose 15% - 54" oc J Scirpus maritimus / Cosmopolitan Bulrush 20% - 24" oc Q Spiraea douqlasii / Western Spirea 15% - 36" oc PROJECT: Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project WATERBODY: Puget Sound LATITUDE: CITY: Edmonds 47'48'42.13"N COUNTY: Snohomish LONGITUDE: STATE: Washington 122'23'6.49"W SECTION: SE a of Section 23 ADDRESS: TOWNSHIP: 27 N 220 Railroad Ave RANGE: 3E., WM Edmon A 980230 c h C US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REFERENCE NO: 0 1 5' 30' E U TITLE: DATE: Scale: 1" = 30'-0" Q RESTORATION PLAN 08.29.2017 NORTH REVISION DATE: Vertical Datum: NAVD88 Horizontal Datum: NAVD83/91 ant 9 SHEET: To convert MLLW fro 14 OF 14 Packet Pg. 401 2.1.a APPENDIX B Photographic Documentation Q V HERRERA Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 402 2.1.a m 0 L a. E 0- 0 d Nd LPL 0 L r 2� 7 L r V 0 L 0 0 E L Q t 3 0 a a� c� N O O O O r O N J a a r c m E M u 2 r a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 403 2.1.a CRITICAL AREAS REPORT AND MITIGATION PLAN - EDMONDS WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION Photo 1. Looking south from the Senior Center at the Ebb Tide Condominiums and Edmonds Marina. The overwater walkway will be constructed in a City of Edmonds easement on the beach waterward of the Ebb Tide Condominiums. Photo shows low tide, summer beach conditions. The upper beach is armored with concrete bulkheads and lacks vegetation in this stretch of the project area. Pedestrian activity is abundant in this area. Note the concrete foundation partially exposed from the beach (see Photo 4). 4 HERRERA September 2017 B-1 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project —Photographic Documentation Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 404 2.1.a Photo 2. Looking north at the bulkhead (36 creosote -treated timber piles and associated fill supporting the parking lot) that will be removed. The current conditions are unvegetated. The bulkhead will be replaced with clean fish gravels and sands, large woody debris, boulders, and native dune vegetation waterward of new pedestrian access stairs and ramp. Photo shows low tide, summer beach conditions. HERRERA September 2017 B-2 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project —Photographic Documentation Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 405 2.1.a r Photo 3. Looking north from the bulkhead to be removed at the Edmonds Marine Walkway, Brackett's Landing North, and the ferry terminal. The vegetation at Brackett's Landing North is representative of the approximate ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in a natural beach environment. Within the study area, there is no vegetation and the OHWM was delineated at the face of the bulkheads (Anderson et al. 2016). HERRERA September 2017 B-3 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project —Photographic Documentation Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 406 2.1.a v- e " Ta'ri Photo 4. One of the concrete foundations partially buried on the beach in front of the Senior Center. This foundation, and a second buried adjacent to this one, will be removed as part of mitigation for impacts associated with the overwater walkway. 4 HERRERA September 2017 B-4 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project —Photographic Documentation Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 407 2.1.a Photo 5. Three creosote -treated timber piles to be removed as part of mitigation for impacts associated with the overwater walkway. 4 HERRERA September 2017 B-5 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project —Photographic Documentation Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 408 Photo 6. Looking north at the bulkhead and stairs to be removed as part of the project. Photo shows high tide, winter beach conditions with large woody debris. 4 HERRERA September 2017 B-6 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project —Photographic Documentation Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 409 2.1.a Photo 7. Looking south at the Senior Center and Edmonds Marine Walkway towards the Ebb Tide Condominiums and Edmonds Marina. Photo shows high tide, winter beach conditions with large woody debris. The overwater walkway will connect to the existing walkway and will be constructed in a City of Edmonds easement on the beach waterward of the Ebb Tide Condominiums near where the large woody debris is shown in the photo. The overwater walkway will be constructed to withstand high tides, storm events, and contact with large woody debris. 4 HERRERA September 2017 B-7 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project —Photographic Documentation Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 410 2.1.a Photo 8. Photo looking east at the Edmonds waterfront during a winter storm. 4 HERRERA September 2017 B-8 Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan —Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment Project —Photographic Documentation Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 411 2.1.a BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION �``pP4 fQy For informal ESA Consultation 9p US Army corps For: (Corps Reference Number) of Engineerso Seaule Distriot Version: May 2012 ** This form is for projects that have insignificant or discountable impacts on listed species. It contains all the information required for a biological evaluation, but in abbreviated form and with minimal instructions on how to fill it out. For more detailed instructions, a format for development of a biological assessment or biological evaluation can be found on the Seattle District Corps website (www.nws.usace.army.mil — click on regulatory and then on endangered species, BA Template). You may also contact the Corps at 206-764-3495 for further information. Drawings and Photographs - Drawings and photographs must be submitted. Photographs must be submitted showing local area, shoreline conditions, existing overwater structures, and location of the proposed project. Drawings must include a vicinity map; plan, profile, and cross-section drawings of the proposed structures; and over- and in -water structures on adjacent properties. (For assistance with the preparation of the drawings, please refer to our Drawing Checklist located on our website at www.nws.usace.g.M.mil Select Regulatory — Regulatory/Permits — Forms.) Submit the information to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, Washington 98124-3755. Date: Seutember 5, 2017 SECTION A — General Information 1. Applicant name Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Mailing address: 700 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 Work phone: 425-771-0256 Home phone: Email: carrie.hite(kedmondswa.gov Fax: 425-771-0253 2. Joint -use applicant name Not applicable Mailing address: Work phone: Home phone: Email: Fax: 3. Authorized agent name Shelby Petro Mailing address: Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Seattle, WA 98120 Work phone: 206-787-8307 Home phone: Email: s etro herrerainc.com Fax: 206-441-9108 4. Location where proposed work will occur 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA 98020, Snohomish County 200 Beach Place, Edmonds, WA 98020, Snohomish County Waterbod : Puget Sound, WRIA 8, HUC 17110 1/4 Section: SE Section: 23 Township: 27N Range: 3E Latitude: 47.81122 Longitude:-122.3854 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 412 2.1.a 5. Description of Work Project Description The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department (City) and the Edmonds Senior Center (Senior Center) propose to redevelop the Edmonds Senior and Community Center; the associated parking lot, bulkhead, and beach access; and to construct an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium building (Figure 1; Figure 2). Together, those elements comprise the Edmonds Waterfront Center Project (project). The proposed Edmonds Waterfront Center building will be used by the Senior Center to continue providing senior and community services, and it will be used by the City for programming and events during the late afternoon and evening hours. The proposed overwater walkway will connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. The project site for the Edmonds Waterfront Center, parking lot, and beach access is at 220 Railroad Avenue in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1), within Section 23 of Township 27 North and Range 03 East of the Willamette Meridian. The overwater walkway will be constructed within a City -owned easement on the beach in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, directly south of the proposed Waterfront Center building (Figure 2). The existing parking lot extends onto a bulkhead located partially below mean higher high water (MHHW) of Puget Sound. The bulkhead is composed of fill material and supported by 36 creosote - treated timber piles around the perimeter. The bulkhead timbers and fill will be removed and new beach access will be provided by installing concrete stairs and a ramp within the existing footprint, above MHHW (Figure 2). The stairs and ramp will be supported by no more than 60 steel H-piles. Large woody debris, boulders, and a sand/gravel mix for beach nourishment will be installed, and native vegetation will be planted in the area of bulkhead removal. The parking lot will be reconfigured and will incorporate a bioretention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration. There are two existing outfalls in the bulkhead to Puget Sound, both of which will be shortened to end above (landward of) MHHW. The proposed overwater walkway will link the existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway between the ferry terminal and the Edmonds Marina in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums through a City -owned easement. The overwater walkway will be a 10-foot-wide, concrete and grated structure approximately 154 feet long, elevated on seven steel piles. Approximately 50 percent of the footprint of the structure will be grated, with 60 percent of the grating having an open area (meeting the requirements of WAC 220-660-380). A portion of the City's easement is waterward of MHHW, requiring two of the steel support piles to be installed below MHHW. Steel piles will be installed only during low tide, outside the water, avoiding the need for in -water work. A barge may be used for construction or staging equipment. A set of stairs at the south end of the proposed overwater walkway will be demolished. It will be replaced with stairs next to the existing stairway location to provide beach access. No more than six steel H-piles will be installed to support the stairs. Piles will be installed above MHHW between high -tide cycles. While construction equipment is mobilized on site for the proposed project, two concrete foundations and three creosote -treated timber piles will be removed from the intertidal zone (Figure 2). Table 1 summarizes the volumes and areas of activities proposed for the project. 2 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 413 2.1.a Table 1. Proposed Project Activities and Associated Volumes and Areas Affected. LO Proposed Activity Volume (CY) Area (SF) Remove 36 creosote -treated timber piles and fill from bulkhead 1,424 3,841 Remove three creosote -treated timber piles from the intertidal zone 27 9 Remove two concrete foundations 213 567 Drive seven 30-inch-diameter steel piles for the overwater walkway 63 35 Place overwater walkway structure n/a 1,383 Install access stairs (south of overwater walkway) 45 150 Drive up to six 16-inch or 18-inch steel H-piles for stairs 30 15 Install beach access stairs and ramp 300 2,000 Drive up to 60 16-inch or 18-inch steel H-piles for beach access stairs and ramp 300 140 Place sand/gravel mix for beach restoration 1,210 3,841 m 0 L a c a) E 0. 0 m m m c 0 a� 0 c ca L a� c m U c 0 m M c a) E 0 Q z 3 0 0. d 0 Cn N O O O CD r O N J a Q c a) E z U ca Q Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 414 2.1.a Pile Driving Pile driving will occur for a maximum of 5 days for 240 minutes per day. If a vibratory hammer is used for installation, proofing would require 15 minutes for each pile. If an impact hammer is used, installation would take approximately 105 minutes for each pile. Pile -driving details are provided in Table 2. Table 2. Pile Driving Proposed for the Edmonds Waterfront Center Project. 5.1 Number of piles being replaced: 36 creosote -treated timber piles will be removed from the existing bulkhead; 3 creosote -treated timber piles will be removed from the intertidal zone; 7 new 30-inch diameter steel piles will be installed for the overwater walkway; up to 6 H-piles will be installed to support new stairs leading to the beach; up to 60 H-piles will be installed to support the stairs and ramp access landward of the beach. 5.2 Replacement pile type: Steel (e.g., ACZA-treated wood, steel, coating used on steel piles) 5.3 Replacement pile size: 30-inch-diameter steel piles for overwater walkway (e.g., 12-inch) 16-inch and 18-inch steel H-piles to support new stairs and ramp access 5.4 Installation method: Piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer to the extent possible. (e.g., vibratory, impact hammer) Piles may be proofed with an impact hammer, if necessary, to reach the appropriate load -bearing capacity. Piles will be installed during low tide to avoid any in -water impact driving and to minimize the potential for sound pressure wave impacts on listed species. 5.5 Anticipated dates, number of Anticipated dates: July 15—October 14 minutes, and number of days Minutes per day: 240 vibratory pile driving Number of days: 37 5.6 For vibratory installation, will Yes. Number of pile strikes per pile: 300 proofing be required? If so, how many pile strikes per pile? 5.7 For impact hammer installation, If a vibratory hammer is not used, then an impact hammer will be estimate the number of pile strikes used. Number of strikes per pile: 3,500 required per pile: 5.8 For impact hammer installation Proofing: or proofing, estimated number of Number of strikes per day: 7,000 (install 2 piles per day) pile strikes per day: Anticipated dates: July 15—October 14 5.9 For impact hammer pile driving Not applicable, all impact driving will be done in the dry or proofing, sound attenuation measures: 5.10 Anticipated dates, number of Anticipated dates: July 15—October 14 minutes and number of days of Minutes per day: 240 impact hammer pile driving or Number of days: 37 proofing: 5.11 Describe substrate into which The substrate consists of 15 feet of sand to silty sand with gravel and piling will be driven: sandy gravel, underlain by medium dense to dense deposits of sandy gravel and sand with little to no silt content (Landau 2017). 4 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 415 2.1.a Avoidance and Minimization Measures Potential impacts to forage fish spawning habitat have been avoided or minimized by designing the minimum possible footprint below the MHHW elevation. During construction, in -water work and impacts to potential forage fish spawn (i.e., eggs) will be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable by conducting a forage fish spawn survey before construction, by avoiding any construction and barge grounding in spawning areas if eggs are found, by staging equipment on uplands, and by timing work waterward of MHHW to occur during dry, low -tide conditions. An eelgrass survey will be conducted prior to barge use. A barge would not be grounded or anchored on eelgrass beds or forage fish spawning areas, and would be located to avoid shading eelgrass beds. Soil stabilization and stormwater controls are described in Sections 6.I and 6.K, and a full list of conservation measures is provided in Section 11. Mitigation To mitigate for unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed overwater walkway, the project will restore the beach within the footprint of the removed bulkhead. Restoration will consist of planting native vegetation and placing large woody debris, boulders, and clean fish -mix gravels and sand that match existing beach characteristics for beach nourishment and forage fish spawning habitat. This proposed habitat enhancement will compensate for the two new steel piles that will be placed below MHHW to support the overwater walkway. Refer to the Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (Herrera 2017) for details. Additionally, the project will remove three creosote - treated timber piles from within the intertidal zone adjacent to the bulkhead and two concrete foundations buried in the beach in front of the existing Senior Center (Figure 2). 6. Construction Techniques A. Construction sequencing and timing of each stage (duration and dates) Demolition of the Senior Center building will begin in June 2018, followed by construction of the Waterfront Center building, parking lot, bulkhead removal, and beach restoration. Together, the demolition and construction will span approximately 15 to 20 months. Work conducted within or adjacent to the water, including removal of the bulkhead, piles, and concrete, and construction of the overwater walkway, will be timed according to the USACE in -water work window, which is July 14 to October 14. The overwater walkway may be constructed as a later phase of the project during the in -water work window in 2019. B. Site preparation The site will be prepared by installing temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) best management practices (BMPs) prior to demolition. Once the TESC BMPs are in place, land -based equipment will be used to demolish the existing building, parking area, landscaping, bulkhead, and other site features. Materials will be hauled off site for disposal at existing permitted and approved upland disposal sites. The site will be regraded and prepared for installation of the site utilities, Edmonds Waterfront Center building, overwater walkway, beach access, parking area, and other amenities (Figure 2) C. Equipment to be used Construction equipment may include water trucks, compactors, dump trucks, excavators, cement/mortar mixers, cranes, graders, tractors/loaders/backhoes, bull dozers, front end loaders, Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 416 2.1.a vibratory and impact hammers for pile driving, and barges. Any equipment that will be operated on the beach will be track -mounted and operated on the upper beach during low tides. D. Construction materials to be used The overwater walkway supports will be steel, and the overwater walkway structure will be concrete with grating to allow light to penetrate below. Beach restoration and installation of access stairs and ramp will occur within the footprint of the removed bulkhead. The stairs and ramp will be concrete supported by up to 60 H-piles. Beach restoration will consist of the placement of large woody debris, boulders, and clean fish -mix gravels and sand for beach nourishment. Upland materials will be standard construction materials for the building and parking lot, including concrete, timber, plastic piping, and other common materials. E. Work corridor The work corridor will be limited to the project footprint, which includes the existing Senior Center and parking lot (tax parcel 27032300104200), the 10-foot-wide City easement (AC 8311070085) in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, and portions of the walkway north and south for connection purposes (tax parcels 27032300415300 and 27032300104400; and SP 8101160178, a City of Edmonds easement). Equipment will be operated from uplands to the greatest extent feasible. Some track -mounted equipment may be operated on the upper beach in the dry during low tides. No equipment will be operated in wetted areas, other than barges. If a barge is used, it would be partially grounded within 40 feet of the proposed overwater walkway within a temporary construction easement on the Ebb Tide Condominium property. (The City will obtain that easement.) Prior to barge use, an eelgrass survey will be conducted to identify appropriate locations for the barge and anchors (i.e., locations that will avoid impacts on eelgrass communities). F. Staging areas and equipment wash outs Construction staging for bulkhead removal will occur landward of MHHW. Staging for the overwater walkway construction will occur within the footprint of the existing parking lot or in a barge grounded on the low -tide terrace. If a barge is used, it will not be grounded on eelgrass or forage fish habitat. Equipment wash out areas will be located near the construction entrance(s). G. Stockpiling areas All materials will be stored or stockpiled in previously developed areas. They will be stored in a manner that prevents material from washing into the water. H. Running of equipment during construction Construction hours would be confined to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays (with the approval of the City Engineer) No construction work will be done on Sundays and federal holidays, per Edmonds City Code 5.30.110. 6 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 417 2.1.a I. Soil stabilization needs/techniques Erosion will be minimized through the development and implementation of a TESC plan and execution of BMPs, such as: • A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be implemented. • TESC measures will be installed prior to clearing, grubbing, excavation, and grading activities. • Clearing and ground -disturbing activities will be limited to the minimum area needed to construct the project. • Where necessary, erosion and sediment control measures (e.g., stabilized construction entrance, silt fences, wattles, plastic covering, and drain inlet protection) will be installed to prevent release and discharge of sediments from construction areas. • High -visibility fencing will be installed to delineate clearing and construction limits. • Any waste material, debris, or spoils will be disposed of at an approved and permitted upland commercial site or approved waste site. • Containment measures will be implemented at staging and material stockpile areas to prevent runoff. • After construction, all TESC measures will be removed, and all disturbed ground surfaces will be revegetated with native plants and mulched to prevent erosion and sedimentation. J. Clean-up and re -vegetation Construction materials will be removed from temporarily impacted areas, and the area will be restored to preconstruction conditions. The beach restoration area will be planted with appropriate native beach vegetation per the planting plan included in the Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (Herrera 2017). K. Storm water controls / management During construction of the project, the contractor will reduce and control surface and runoff water impacts by adhering to the requirements of the TESC plan and permit conditions. BMPs implemented during construction may include: • Implementation of a SWPPP • Limiting clearing and land disturbing activities to the minimum area needed to construct the project • Use of wattles and silt fences to control stormwater runoff flow rates and to prevent sediment from entering surface waters • Storm drain inlet protection to prevent sediment discharges • Use of turbidity and debris curtains to prevent any discharge of materials to waters of Puget Sound • Stabilizing temporary stormwater facilities with rocks or quarry spalls to prevent scour and erosion 7 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 418 2.1.a • Employing temporary (e.g., weed -free mulch and plastic sheeting) and permanent (mulch) cover measures to protect disturbed areas. • Temporary covering of fill material stockpiles to prevent erosion and sediment release • Frequent sweeping of silt from roadway surfaces to prevent sediment runoff • Frequent inspection of flow and erosion control TESC facilities and maintenance of facilities for continued proper functioning L. Source location of any fill used Imported clean sands and gravels placed landward and waterward of MHHW will be sourced from a legal local quarry. Large woody debris, with intact root wads where possible, and boulders will be locally sourced. M. Location of any spoil disposal Creosote -treated timber piles, concrete, and fill associated with the bulkhead removal will be disposed of off site at an approved landfill. Disposal of creosote -treated materials will follow the BMPs outlined by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) guidance on creosote -treated timber piling removal and disposal (WDNR 2017). 7. Action Area The project action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not only the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402.02). The action area includes the project footprint and all surrounding areas where project activities could potentially affect the environment. The extent of the action area encompasses direct and indirect effects, as well as any effects of interrelated or interdependent actions. The terrestrial and aquatic action areas are shown on Figure 3. The terrestrial extent of the action area is defined by temporary increases in noise that may result from construction. For this project, the construction activity with the largest area of potential effect is terrestrial pile driving using an impact or vibratory hammer for pile installation. Terrestrial impact pile driving is expected to produce an estimated peak sound pressure of 110 dBA at 50 feet. Jackhammers and graders are the next loudest pieces of equipment, estimated at 89 dBA at 50 feet. Using the rules of decimal addition project noise is estimated at 110 dBA. Typical ambient noise levels in Edmonds near the waterfront are assumed to be 78 dBA, based on typical, high -density, urban areas (WSDOT 2017). This is likely a conservative estimate due to the proximity of the Edmonds Ferry Terminal (about 500 feet to the north of the project site). Using attenuation rates for hard sites (i.e., pavement or water), it is estimated that in -air project noise will attenuate to ambient noise at 0.38 mile (1,991 feet). The aquatic action area is determined by the greatest extent of increased turbidity from construction. Any increase in suspended sediment is expected to be localized, of short duration, and confined to the beach foreshore. Increased turbidity is expected due to substrate disturbance associated with fill removal and bulkhead setback and from the first tidal inundation after construction. Increased suspended sediments from removal of fill, pile driving, and beach nourishment in areas subject to future tidal inundation is anticipated to be limited to approximately 150 feet seaward of the project site and extend along and within the active beach foreshore north to the ferry terminal pier and south to the Edmonds Marina, resulting in an area of approximately 3.8 acres of aquatic action area. This Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 419 2.1.a aquatic action area extends onto the unvegetated upper low tide terrace, and is less than 20 feet in depth relative to extreme high water. Noise and pollution do not define the aquatic action area because their likely impacts will be limited to an area smaller than those of increased turbidity. All pile driving and earth moving will be conducted in the dry at low tide. Although ground vibrations will occur, it is unlikely that they will generate underwater noise at levels sufficient to affect aquatic species given the wide beach at the project location and that pile driving will occur during low tide. The distance to the water line and shallow depth of water adjacent to the project footprint will further reduce the likelihood of noise transmission (WSDOT 2017). Therefore, pile driving is not expected to generate a significant in - water noise impact. Stormwater from pollution generating surfaces on site will be treated and infiltrated in a bioretention cell, then discharged through an existing outfall in the bulkhead that will be shortened to above MHHW. Untreated stormwater will not enter surface Puget Sound. A separate existing outfall and the second shortened outfall from the removed bulkhead will convey stormwater from non -pollution generating surfaces. The project will comply with Washington State surface water quality requirements in marine waters (WAC 173-201A-210). 8. Species Information This biological evaluation (BE) was prepared to determine the potential effects of the proposed project on listed and proposed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat. Species lists and maps were obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2017a), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2017), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2017a) (Table 3). Table 3. USFWS and NMFS Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat Potentially Present in the Waterfront Center Project Action Area. Designated Critical Habitat Federal in the Action Common Name Scientific Name ESU/DPS Status Area? Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus Puget Sound threatened yes tshawytscha Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Coastal -Puget Sound threatened yes Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Puget Sound threatened no Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus Southern threatened no Yelloweye Sebastes ruberrimus Puget Sound/Georgia threatened yes rockfish Basin Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Puget Sound/Georgia endangered yes Basin Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus CA, OR, WA threatened no marmoratus ESU = evolutionarily significant unit DPS = distinct population segment 9 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 420 2.1.a Species lists from USFWS indicate the potential presence of North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) in the action area. No suitable habitat exists within the action area for those species. Examination of the PHS database maps from WDFW and an analysis of habitat types and conditions within the action area showed that the species do not occur in the action area; therefore, there will be no effect on wolverine, streaked horned lark, or cuckoo, and they are not addressed further in this BE Species lists from NMFS indicate the potential presence of Southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca; SRKW) and Southern DPS green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) in the action area. SRKW have been observed along the Edmonds waterfront. The action area does not extend to waters deeper than 20 feet. SRKW do not use the shallow waters contained within the action area. SRKW will not occur in the action area, so the proposed project will have no effect on SRKW. Southern DPS green sturgeon forage in estuaries in Washington, Oregon, and California during the summer months, and congregate off of northern Vancouver Island B.C. and Canada in the winter months. There is no suitable foraging habitat for green sturgeon in the action area The species is rare in Puget Sound, which is not considered within its natural range; therefore, the project will have no effect on green sturgeon. Use of the action area by listed salmonid species is discussed in Section 91. Use of the action area by eulachon, yelloweye rockfish, and bocaccio is discussed in Section 9.11. Use of the action area by marbled murrelet is discussed in Section 9.J. 9. Existing Environmental Conditions A. Shoreline riparian vegetation and habitat features The project site is located along the Puget Sound nearshore environment (intertidal and shore zones), which is defined by the City of Edmonds as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA). FWHCAs are regulated by the City of Edmonds as environmentally critical areas in accordance with Edmonds City Code Chapter 23. Most of the shoreline within the action area is occupied with seawalls and fill; there is only a small area of upper intertidal and backshore vegetation. The upper intertidal shoreline is entirely armored with rock, wood, and concrete, except for a 250-foot section of natural beach and restored native vegetation at Brackett's Landing South, approximately 250 feet north of the bulkhead to be removed. A narrow sand and gravel beach extends north and south of the ferry terminal. The beach north of the terminal is mapped by WDFW as providing spawning habitat for surf smelt (WDFW 2017a). The beach south of the terminal, within and adjacent to the project area, while it may be suitable for forage fish spawning, is not mapped as forage fish spawning habitat (WDFW 2017a). Pedestrian activity along this shoreline is significant. Vegetation in the marine riparian zone (the narrow shoreline adjacent to the Sound) has been highly modified by development and disturbance, including fill associated with the BNSF railroad bed, the ferry terminal, and bulkheads and seawalls for shoreline protection. B. Aquatic substrate and vegetation The nearshore subtidal area between the project site and the Port of Edmonds Marina is mostly sand, with several areas of artificial reef materials and rock at depths of -15 to -90 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). Between the ferry terminal and Dayton Street (approximately 1,200 feet south of the ]0 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 421 2.1.a ferry terminal), expansive macroalgae beds were found during surveys for the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program, including Laminaria spp. and Nereocystis spp., from the -5-foot contour to the -60-foot MLLW contour (CH2M Hill 2004). The area directly offshore of and including the docking area of the ferry terminal is devoid of macroalgae, probably as a result of propeller -induced turbulence. The green algae, Ulva lactuca, and the red algae, Gracilaria sjoestedtii, were found from Edmonds Marina to the ferry pier and from the ferry pier north through Edmonds Underwater Park and beyond (CH2M Hill 2004). Eelgrass beds were found to be continuous at depths of about -2 feet to -20 feet MLLW during the surveys (CH2M Hill 2004). The eelgrass beds start at approximately 300 linear feet waterward from the project site, and 150 linear feet from the project action area, both measured perpendicular to the shoreline. Although there is eelgrass near the project site, impacts on eelgrass are not anticipated because: • The eelgrass is over 300 feet offshore, and in a different geomorphic unit (foreshore and backshore versus low tide terrace). Finlayson (2006) has shown that there is very little, if any, exchange of sediment between the foreshore and the low tide terrace. • The size and grade of the placed sand/gravel material will be matched to areas adjacent to it such that the area backfilled will not be a significant source of sediment. • The embayment formed will likely trap more material than will be exported due to the new shoreline geometry. • Larger volumes of backfill at comparable distances were placed at Brackett's Landing South without detrimental impact to the same eelgrass beds. If a construction barge is used, it would not be grounded on eelgrass beds, because they are located far offshore; also, an eelgrass survey will be done prior to barge use to confirm areas suitable for barge and anchor placement. The nearshore subtidal area within the aquatic action area north of the ferry terminal is mixed coarse substrate and sand. Dense eelgrass is present starting about 1 mile northeast of the project site, between Northstream Creek and Perrinville Creek. A dense band of kelp was mapped off the mouth of Shell Creek (0.8 mile northeast of the project site) (Edmonds 2007). C. Surrounding land/water uses The shoreline in the action area is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW) and Public Use (P). The Washington State Ferries terminal, the BNSF railway, and the Port of Edmonds Marina are dominant land uses in the action area. The railway borders a large portion of the marine shoreline in the action area. On either side of the ferry terminal are two regional parks, Brackett's Landing North and South. Collectively, the two parks include public beach, picnic areas, interpretive information, public restrooms, a parking lot, and showers. Pedestrian activity and beachcombing is intense and dispersed. On the northern side of the ferry terminal is another regional park, Edmonds Underwater Park. From the ferry terminal to the Port of Edmonds Marina is the Edmonds Marine Walkway, a public waterfront walkway. Surrounding land uses are commercial, industrial, and residential. D. Level of development The terrestrial action area is highly developed; the shoreline is dominated by urban structures and pavement related to transportation, residential, and commercial facilities. Likewise, the highly developed marine aquatic areas include the railroad bed, bulkheads, ferry docks, commercial piers, sewer and stormwater outfalls, and a few residential structures. 11 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 422 2.1.a E. Water quality At the Puget -Sound scale, there are multiple water quality concerns (Encyclopedia of Puget Sound 2017): • Levels of toxic contaminants in biota that live or feed in Puget Sound • The eutrophication of marine waters, producing hypoxic and anoxic regions • Wastewater contamination, principally from combined sewer overflows or septic systems • Harmful algal blooms, which introduce toxins that enter the food web • Acidification of marine waters, and the adverse ecological effects that result At the action -area scale, water quality is impaired due to exceedances of criteria for bacteria in water samples taken at Brackett's Landing and exceedances of toxic contaminants, including Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in tissue samples (Ecology 2017). F. Describe use of the action area by listed salmonid fish species. Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout use nearshore areas for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, for migration, and as nursery areas for juveniles. Nearshore area surveys conducted in 2001 found juvenile Chinook at several locations in the Edmonds vicinity. Salmonid stocks that may be present near Edmonds include runs from the Skagit and Stillaguamish Rivers, but are mostly from the Snohomish, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually Rivers and smaller drainages in central and southern Puget Sound (Edmonds 2007). No Chinook, steelhead, or bull trout have been observed in Shell Creek or Shellabarger Creek, which drain directly to Puget Sound 0.7 mile north and 0.6 mile south of the project footprint, respectively (WDFW 2017b). Chinook salmon and steelhead use of habitat in the action area would be during periods of juvenile foraging and juvenile and adult migration. The eelgrass beds along the shoreline provide high quality foraging habitat for juveniles (Edmonds 2007). Once juveniles leave estuarine/delta habitats and enter Puget Sound, they distribute widely throughout nearshore ecosystems. Chinook juveniles spend a greater amount of time in the nearshore environment as they grow, whereas steelhead have a longer freshwater rearing time and are larger when they enter the marine environment, so they are likely to head to deeper waters beyond the nearshore for foraging. Chinook salmon abundance in shoreline areas of Puget Sound typically peaks in June and July, although some are still present in shoreline habitats through at least October. When juveniles first enter estuarine areas, their optimal habitat is low gradient, shallow water, fine-grained substrates (silts and mud), low salinity, and low wave energy. As they grow, they use a greater diversity of Puget Sound habitats including deeper, more offshore habitats, and eventually, most fish leave for North Pacific Ocean feeding grounds (Fresh 2006). Bull trout use mouths of estuaries and nearshore areas primarily from March to July. Some fish re- enter marine areas briefly in the fall to return to foraging areas. In summer, fish may leave estuary/marine areas due to high temperatures (Goetz et al. 2003). Bull trout habitat use in the action area would be during periods of adult foraging and migration (P. Verhey, personal communication). Bull trout display wide-ranging foraging habits and are known to consume juvenile salmon (including Chinook) that inhabit shallow nearshore areas (Edmonds 2007). 12 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 423 2.1.a G. Is the project located within designated/proposed bull trout or Pacific salmon critical habitat? If so, please address the proposed projects' potential direct and indirect effect to primary constituent elements. Designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon and for bull trout is present with the action area. Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat Chinook salmon critical habitat includes only the marine nearshore, from extreme high tide to a depth of 30 meters. Chinook salmon PCE 5 is present in the action area. PCE S. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. Existing Conditions. Most of the existing (terrestrial) shoreline within the action area lacks natural elements and complexity because it is lined with seawalls and fill, so only a small area of backshore vegetation remains. The upper intertidal shoreline is entirely armored with rock, wood, and concrete, except for a 250-foot section of natural beach and restored native vegetation at Brackett's Landing South, approximately 250 feet north of the bulkhead to be removed. Vegetation in the marine riparian zone (the narrow shoreline adjacent to the Sound) has been highly modified by development and disturbance, including fill associated with the BNSF railroad bed, the ferry terminal, and bulkheads and seawalls for shoreline protection. The nearshore and beach areas in the action area are subject to human disturbance caused by, for example, pedestrians and boats. Effects to PCE. The proposed overwater walkway piers will place a small amount of fill in the nearshore environment; however, the impacts will be more than offset by bulkhead removal and shoreline restoration, as detailed in Section 5, Description of Work. Work conducted below the MHHW will cause minor amounts of turbidity. Short-term effects on water quality will be minimized by use of BMPs, and will be of limited scope and duration. Effects on forage fish will be minimized by avoiding disturbance of forage fish spawning areas, as described in Section 11, Conservation Measures. Bull Trout Critical Habitat Bull trout critical habitat includes the marine nearshore, from MHHW to -10 meter MLLW, and any tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. Bull trout PCEs 2, 3, 4, and 8 are present in the action area. PCE 2. Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including, but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. Existing Conditions. Bull trout use nearshore areas, such as the action area, for adapting from freshwater to saltwater, and for foraging, growth, migration, and overwintering (USFWS 2004). Within the action area, water quality is impaired due to exceedances of criteria for bacteria in water samples taken at Brackett's Landing and exceedances of toxic contaminants, including Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), in tissue samples (Ecology 2017). The creosote -treated 13 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 424 2.1.a piles in the intertidal zone and associated with the bulkhead are sources of water pollution. The existing water quality impairments are not expected to act as a barrier to migration in the action area. There are no other barriers to migration that would impede migration in the action area. Effects to PCE. The overwater walkway is not expected to be a barrier to migration. The overwater walkway surface and curbs will be grated to allow light to penetrate through the structure, limiting shading. If a barge is used for construction, it would temporarily shade the area directly beneath the barge. Shading could impact juvenile salmon migration behavior in the action area; however, impacts would be minimized by adhering to the USACE-approved work window, when migrating juveniles are least likely to be present. Turbidity during construction could temporarily degrade water quality, but effects will be of short duration and will be minimized by adhering to BMPs and conservation measures, and, therefore, will not affect this PCE. Bulkhead removal will remove a structure from the water, thereby improving habitat. Removing the creosote -treated pilings will eliminate a source of pollution and provide the opportunity for localized water quality improvement. Therefore, the project would not negatively affect this PCE PCE 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. Existing Conditions. The beach north of the ferry terminal is mapped by WDFW as providing spawning habitat for surf smelt (WDFW 2017a). The beach south of the ferry terminal, within and adjacent to the project area, is not mapped as forage fish spawning habitat (WDFW 2017a); however, the action area provides suitable forage fish spawning habitat. Effects to PCE. The bulkhead removal will improve nearshore habitat for migrating and foraging bull trout by restoring the shoreline with native substrate and vegetation. Nearshore restoration will improve forage fish spawning habitat and may improve the food base. Detrimental effects on forage fish will be minimized by avoiding disturbance of potential forage fish spawning habitat, as described in Section 11, Conservation Measures. If a barge is used for construction, it would not be grounded on eelgrass beds or in forage fish spawning areas, as confirmed by eelgrass mapping and forage fish spawning surveys prior to construction. PCE 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. Existing Conditions. Most of the existing shoreline within the action area lacks natural elements and complexity because it is developed with seawalls. The upper intertidal shoreline is entirely armored with rock, wood, and concrete, except for a 250-foot section of natural beach and restored native vegetation at Brackett's Landing South, approximately 250 feet north of the bulkhead to be removed. Vegetation in the marine riparian zone (the narrow shoreline adjacent to the Sound) has been highly modified by development and disturbance, including fill associated with the BNSF railroad bed, the ferry terminal, and bulkheads and seawalls for shoreline protection. Effects to PCE. The bulkhead removal will improve nearshore habitat for migrating and foraging bull trout by restoring the shoreline with native substrate and vegetation. The proposed project will, therefore, have a beneficial effect on this PCE. 14 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 425 2.1.a PCE 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. Existing Conditions. There are multiple water quality concerns in Puget Sound, as noted above. Within the action area, water quality is impaired due to exceedances of criteria for bacteria in water samples taken at Brackett's Landing and exceedances of toxic contaminants, including Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), in tissue samples (Ecology 2017). The creosote -treated piles in the intertidal zone and associated with the bulkhead are sources of water pollution. Effects to PCE. Removing the creosote -treated pilings will eliminate a source of pollution and provide the opportunity for localized water quality improvement. Water quality will be temporarily degraded due to turbidity from substrate disturbance associated with fill removal and bulkhead setback, and from the first tidal inundation after sediment disturbance from work done in the dry. Increased suspended sediments will be localized and of short duration; therefore, no measurable effects on this PCE are expected. H. Describe use of the action area by other listed fish species Green sturgeon, eulachon, and yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish have all been documented in Puget Sound. Green sturgeon are rare in Puget Sound; they have only been observed in estuaries, thus they are very unlikely to use the action area. Eulachon are infrequent in Puget Sound; they would use the nearshore environment in the action area for incidental migration. Free-floating larval bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish would use the action area for foraging; they have been observed under free- floating algae, seagrass, and detached kelp (79 FR 68043). Juvenile bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish are most commonly found on rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms; adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age (NOAA 2017). I. Is the project located within designated/proposed critical habitat for any of the species listed below? Southern resident killer whale Marbled murrelet Northern spotted owl Green sturgeon Western snowy plover Eulachon There is no designated critical habitat for northern spotted owl, green sturgeon, marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, or eulachon within the action area; and they are not discussed further in this BE. Critical habitat for SRKW is mapped offshore along the Edmonds waterfront. The waterfront is within Area 2, which includes Puget Sound south from the Deception Pass Bridge, entrance to Admiralty Inlet, and Hood Canal Bridge (71 CFR 69063). The critical habitat designation includes waters deeper than 20 feet based on extreme high water. The aquatic action area includes waters that are shallower than 20 feet based on extreme high water. Therefore, the aquatic extent of the action area does not extend to SRKW critical habitat; and it is not discussed further in this BE. Critical habitat for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio is present in the action area. The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of adult bocaccio and adult and juvenile yelloweye rockfish are: 1) quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, 15 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 426 2.1.a survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; 2) water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and 3) the type and amount of structure and rugosity that supports feeding opportunities and predator avoidance (79 FR 68054). For juvenile bocaccio, those features include: 1) quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and 2) water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities (79 FR 68054). J. Describe use of action area by marbled murrelets. In the Puget Sound region, marbled murrelets are typically found in fall and winter, and many are winter residents only. They are associated with the nearshore marine environment fewer than 3 miles from shore. They are most commonly seen in the San Juan Islands and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Striplin and Battelle 2001). The nearest critical habitat is in the Snoqualmie National Forest, approximately 30 miles east of the action area (USFWS 2017b). Marbled murrelets are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters. Winter and summer surveys conducted by WDFW in 2000 from Mukilteo (7 miles north of Edmonds) to Golden Gardens Park (8 miles south of Edmonds), found no murrelets in winter and only one to four birds during the summer (Striplin and Battelle 2001). During surveys between Edmonds and Golden Gardens Park, marbled murrelets were only seen in 8 out of 17 years between 1983 and 2000; between 1 and 17 birds were observed each year they were present (Striplin and Battelle 2001). K. Describe use of action area by the spotted owl. The action area is not used by spotted owls. L. Describe use of action area by Southern Resident killer whales. SRKW are observed intermittently in Puget Sound, with the fewest sightings from May through July. During early autumn, southern resident pods, especially J pod, routinely expand their movements into Puget Sound, likely to take advantage of chum and Chinook salmon runs (71 CFR 69063). Extremely shallow waters of Puget Sound (less than 20 feet deep) are not considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the species (NMFS 2006); therefore, SRKW would not be found in the action area. M. How far is the nearest Steller sea lion haulout site from the action area? Describe their use of the action area. The eastern DPS of the Steller sea lion was delisted in 2013 (78 FR 66139); therefore, they are not discussed in this BE. N. Forage Fish Habitat Check box if Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) documented habitat is present Surf Smelt: ❑ Pacific Herring: ❑ Sand Lance: ❑ Check box if the proposed action will occur in potentially suitable forage fish spawning habitat: Surf Smelt: ® Pacific Herring: ❑ Sand Lance: 16 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 427 2.1.a Laminaria spp. and Nereocystis spp. are present in sand substrate from the -5-foot contour to the -60-foot MLLW contour, and eelgrass beds are present at depths of about -2 feet to -20 feet MLLW in sand substrate (CH2M Hill 2004), none of which are within the aquatic action area. Green algae and red algae are present from the marina to the ferry pier and from the ferry pier north through the underwater park and beyond (CH2M Hill 2004). They are within the aquatic action area but are not attached to the substrate. 10. Effects Analysis Direct Impacts: The overwater walkway element of the project includes installation of seven steel piles, two of which will be below MHHW. Pile driving is expected to produce an estimated peak sound pressure of 110 dBA at 50 feet. Although ground vibrations will occur adjacent to shallow water, it is unlikely that they will generate underwater noise significant enough to affect listed species. Using attenuation rates for hard sites (i.e., pavement or water), it is estimated that in -air project noise will attenuate to ambient noise at 0.38 mile (1,991 feet). Pile driving could affect marbled murrelet foraging; however, proofing of piles is typically of short duration (less than 30 minutes) and is intermittent with long breaks between installation of each pile, reducing the likelihood that murrelets would be exposed to impact pile -driving noise. If piles are installed by impact hammer, the distance within which pile - driving noise could mask murrelet communication is about 140 feet (WSDOT 2017). Murrelets are unlikely to be that close to project activities due to the level of disturbance during construction. Water quality will be temporarily degraded due to turbidity from substrate disturbance associated with fill removal and bulkhead setback and from the first tidal inundation after sediment disturbance from work done in the dry. Increased suspended sediments will be localized and of short duration. Turbidity effects on listed fish species depend on the amount and timing of exposure. The response of fish to elevated suspended solids concentrations is highly variable and dependent upon life -history stage, species, background suspended solids concentrations, and ambient water quality. Responses range from avoidance (the most common response) to reduced feeding rates, reduced growth rates, elevated blood sugars, gill flaring, and coughing (Berg and Northcote 1985; Servizi and Martens 1991; Spence and Hughes 1996).Bulkhead removal will eliminate approximately 36 creosote -treated timber piles from marine waters (Table 2). Removing the creosote -treated timber piles will eliminate a source of pollution and provide the opportunity for localized water quality improvement. All stormwater generated on pollution -generating surfaces of the project site will be treated and infiltrated in a bioretention cell, thus eliminating untreated stormwater discharge to Puget Sound and providing further opportunity for localized water quality improvement. As stated above, use of a construction barge would create shading, which has been demonstrated to affect salmon migration behavior. Impacts would be minimized by adhering to the USACE-approved work window, when migrating juveniles are least likely to be present. The barge would not be anchored over eelgrass or other macroalgae beds and, therefore, would not affect primary productivity. Indirect Impacts: Indirect effects are those caused by, or resulting from, the proposed action and are later in time but still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR §402.02). Indirect effects could be caused by changes to ecological systems resulting in altered habitat or predator/prey relationships or anticipated changes in human activities, including changes in land use. There are no changes in land use expected from the project. 17 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 428 2.1.a Removal of creosote -treated timber piles, bulkhead fill, concrete foundations, and beach restoration with nourishment (sand and gravel), revegetation, and habitat structures will benefit habitat and prey availability for salmon by improving riparian condition and forage fish spawning habitat. 11. Conservation measures Proposed work window: The USACE-designated approved work windows for Tidal Reference Area 6 (Edmonds) are: • Salmon: July 2 through March 2 • Bull trout: July 16 through February 15 • Pacific Sand Lance: March 2 through October 14. Combining these work windows, the project could be constructed July 16 through October 14 (USACE 2012). USACE does not provide a work window for surf smelt in Tidal Reference Area 6 Other conservation measures: All pile driving and removal, and other work below MHHW, will be conducted during low tide to avoid in -water work and associated noise and turbidity. All pile removal will be conducted in accordance with WDNR BMPs and guidelines for removing creosote piling removal and disposal (WDNR 2017). During construction of the project, the contractor will minimize erosion and reduce and control surface and runoff water impacts through the development and implementation of a TESC plan and execution of BMPs and conservation measures, which may include: • Implementation of a SWPPP. • Installing TESC measures prior to clearing, grubbing, excavation, and grading activities. • Limiting clearing and ground -disturbing activities to the minimum area needed to construct the project. • Use of track -mounted equipment to reduce substrate compaction. • Where necessary, installing erosion and sediment control measures (e.g., stabilized construction entrance, silt fences, wattles, plastic covering, and drain inlet protection) to prevent release and discharge of sediments from construction areas. • Installing high -visibility fencing to delineate clearing and construction limits. • Use of silt curtains and debris booms to prevent discharge of materials to Puget Sound. • Disposing of any waste material, debris, or spoils at an approved and permitted upland commercial site or approved waste site. • Implementing containment measures at staging and material stockpile areas to prevent runoff. • After construction, removing all TESC measures, and revegetating all disturbed ground surfaces with native plants and mulch to prevent erosion and sedimentation. • Installing storm drain inlet protection to prevent sediment discharges. 18 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 429 2.1.a • Stabilizing temporary stormwater facilities with rocks or quarry spalls to prevent scour and erosion. • Employing temporary (e.g., weed -free mulch and plastic sheeting) and permanent (mulch) cover measures to protect disturbed areas. • Frequent sweeping of silt from roadway surfaces to prevent sediment runoff. • Frequent inspection of flow and erosion control TESC facilities and maintenance of facilities for continued proper functioning. • If a barge is used for construction or staging, the barge would not be grounded on eelgrass beds or forage fish spawning areas, and would not shade eelgrass beds. A forage fish spawn survey will be conducted along two 100-foot transects where project impacts are proposed: the bulkhead and overwater walkway. The surveys will be conducted 2 days prior to construction to determine the presence/absence of forage fish spawn within and adjacent to the project area. The transects will address those impacted areas separately, such that if one element of the project is abandoned or delayed, only one transect may be necessary. Construction waterward of the MHHW must begin within 48 hours of presence/absence notification to WDFW and must be completed within 7 days. If the work cannot be completed within 7 days, a subsequent survey must be performed to confirm lack of spawn within and adjacent to the work area. If forage fish spawn is determined to be present adjacent to the work area, a 20-foot buffer will be flagged around the location; and construction may continue outside that buffer. If spawn is located within the project work area, construction must be delayed for a minimum of 1 week and subsequent surveys must be conducted weekly until spawn are determined to be absent. 12. Determination of Effect Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Chinook Critical Habitat The project may affect Puget Sound Chinook because: • Chinook salmon could be present in the action area. • Chinook salmon and their prey could be exposed to effects from elevated turbidity if present in the action area during project activities. • The project involves permanent impacts on the nearshore environment from placement of overwater walkway pilings. The project is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook for the following reasons: • The proposed work window (July 16 through October 14) avoids periods when Chinook are likely to be in the action area. • Elevated turbidity will be of short duration and limited extent. • No significant underwater noise would be generated by the project, as all pile driving would be terrestrial. • Bulkhead and fill removal combined with habitat restoration will offset placement of overwater walkway pilings. The project may affect Chinook critical habitat because it will create short-term modifications to water quality through slight increases in suspended sediments and placement of piles below MHHW. 19 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 430 2.1.a The project is not likely to adversely affect Chinook critical habitat because: • Suspended sediments will be of short duration and limited extent and will not occur at levels that will have any effect on habitat function. • The project will increase the function of critical habitat by reducing the amount of armoring, increasing the amount of intertidal habitat, and enhancing riparian vegetation. • Removal of creosote -treated piles is expected to provide the opportunity for localized water quality improvement. • The project is expected to have no adverse effects on forage fish spawning or submerged aquatic vegetation with implementation of the proposed conservation measures. Bull Trout and Bull Trout Critical Habitat The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, bull trout and bull trout critical habitat for the same reasons as listed for Chinook salmon. Steelhead The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, steelhead for the same reasons as listed for Chinook salmon. Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish and Critical Habitat The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish and their critical habitat for the same reasons as listed for Chinook salmon. Eulachon The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, eulachon for the same reasons as listed for Chinook salmon. Marbled Murrelet The project may affect marbled murrelet because they could be foraging in the action area during project activities. The project is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelet for the following reasons: • Murrelets are rare in the action area, surveys by WDFW during the in -water work window documented presence of only 1 to 17 birds in only 8 out of 17 years. • Proofing of piles is typically of short duration (fewer than 30 minutes) and is intermittent with long breaks between installation of each pile, further reducing the likelihood that murrelets would be exposed to impact pile -driving noise • If piles are installed by impact hammer, the distance within which pile -driving noise could mask murrelet communication is about 140 feet (WSDOT 2017). Murrelets are unlikely to be that close to project activities due to the level of disturbance during construction. 20 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 431 2.1.a 13. EFH Analysis Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is broadly defined by the Act (now called the Magnuson -Stevens Act or the Sustainable Fisheries Act) to include "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. " This language is interpreted or described in the 1997Interim Final Rule [62 Fed. Reg. 66551, Section 600.10 Definitions] -- Waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include historic areas if appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle. Additional guidance for EFH analyses can be found at the NOAA Fisheries web site under the Sustainable Fisheries Division. A. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action is described in Section 5 of the BE. B. Addresses EFH for Appropriate Fisheries Management Plans (FMP) The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fishes, and coastal pelagic fisheries. The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above the impassible barriers identified by PFMC (2014). In estuarine and marine areas, proposed designated EFH for salmon extends from near -shore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception (PFMC 2014). The Pacific salmon management unit includes Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). All three of these species use Puget Sound for adult migration, juvenile out -migration, and rearing where suitable habitat is present. The EFH designation for ground and coastal pelagic fishes is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to ensure the production needed to support a long-term sustainable fishery. The marine extent of ground fish and coastal pelagic EFH includes those waters from the near -shore and tidal submerged environment within Washington, Oregon, and California state territorial waters out to the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km [231.5 miles]) offshore between Canada and the Mexican border The west coast ground fish management unit includes 83 species that typically live on or near the bottom of the ocean. Species groups include skates and sharks, rockfishes (55 species), flatfishes (12 species) and ground fishes. Ground fishes such as lingcod (Ophiodon elongates), Cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), and brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) potentially occur in Puget Sound (NOAA Fisheries 1998). Coastal pelagic are schooling fishes, not associated with the ocean bottom, that migrate in coastal waters. West coast pelagic fish include the pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific chub (Scomber japonicas), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and market squid (Loligo opalescens). These fishes are primarily associated with the open ocean and coastal areas (PFMC 1998) and are not likely to occur in the action area. 21 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 432 2.1.a C. Effects of the Proposed Action i. Effects on EFH Groundfish Essential fish habitat for ground fishes is present in the project action area. The project will result in a minor, temporary effect on water quality. No permanent adverse effects on EFH for ground fishes or their prey species will result from the project actions. Therefore, the project will not adversely affect EFH for ground fishes. Coastal Pelagic Species Coastal pelagic species are not likely to occur in the action area; therefore, the project will not adversely affect EFH for coastal pelagic fishes. Pacific Salmon Essential fish habitat for Pacific salmon is present in the project action area. The project will result in a minor, temporary effect on water quality. No permanent adverse effects on EFH for ground fishes or their prey species will result from the project actions. Therefore, the project will not adversely affect EFH for Pacific salmon. ii. Effects on Managed Species The project will not adversely affect managed species because impacts will be minimized through project design and implementation of BMPs to minimize sedimentation and turbidity. Moreover, it is unlikely that managed species will be present in the action area during project construction. iii. Effects on Associated Species, Including Prey Species Chinook and coho salmon prey on surf smelt and sand lance. There is no documented spawning for surf smelt or sand lance in the action area. Preconstruction surveys will occur, and no construction will occur in spawning areas, as described above in Section 11 of the BE. Chinook and coho salmon prey, in part, on benthic macroinvertebrates. The project will not involve any in -water work; however, the project could cause minor temporary effects on benthic macroinvertebrates. Impacts will be minimized through project design and implementation of BMPs to minimize sedimentation. D. Proposed Conservation Measures The habitat requirements for the Magnuson -Stevens Act -managed species within the action area (i.e., EFH) are similar or identical to those of the ESA -listed salmonid species. Conservation measures are listed in Sections 5 and 11 of the BE. E. Conclusions by EFH The proposed project will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic species, or Pacific Salmon. 22 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 433 2.1.a 14. References Berg, L., and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill -flaring, and feeding behavior in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42.8 (1985): 1410-1417. CH2M Hill. 2004. SR 104 Edmonds Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared for US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and Washington State Department of Transportation. Prepared by CH2MHILL, Seattle, Washington. Ecology. 2017. Washington State Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) List. Accessed May 12, 2017, <https://fortress.wa..og v/ecy/gpprovedwga/ApprovedSearch.aspx?LISTING_ID=42487>. Edmonds, City of. 2007. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Inventory & Characterization. SMA Grant Agreement No. 60600108. Prepared for City of Edmonds. Prepared by Sea -Run Consulting, TetraTech, Inc., Reid Middleton, Inc., and Pentec. Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. 2017. Puget Sound Institute, University of Washington. Accessed May 12, 2017. <hitps://www.egpugetsound.org/science-review/section-I-introduction-1>. Finlayson, D.P. 2006. The geomorphology of Puget Sound beaches. PhD Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. Fresh, K.L. 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006-06. Published by Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Goetz, F., E. Jeanes, G. Hart, C Ebel, J. Starkes, and E. Conner. Behavior of Anadromous Bull Trout in the Puget Sound and Pacific coast of Washington. Presented at Estuarine Research Federation Conference. September, 2003, Seattle, Washington. Herrera. 2017. Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan. Prepared for the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. August. Landau. 2017. Draft Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Edmonds Waterfront Development and Restoration and Ebb Tide Condominiums Walkway Projects Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Barker Landscape Architects. Prepared by Landau Associates, Edmonds, Washington. Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16.4 (1996): 693-727. NOAA. 2017. Threatened Yelloweye and Endangered Bocaccio in Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Fisheries Westcoast Region. Accessed July 20, 2017. <hqp://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.goy/protected species/rockfish/rockfish_in puget_sound.html>. NMFS. 2006. Designation of Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whales Biological Report. National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region. 23 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 434 2.1.a NMFS. 2017. Status of ESA listings and critical habitat designations for West Coast salmon and steelhead. Accessed online May 12, 2017. <hqp://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.goy//publications/ ig s maps/maps/salmon_ steelhead/critical_habitat/ wcr_salmonid_ch_esajul, 2�pdf>. PFMC. 1998. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. PFMC. 2014. Amendment 18 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Servizi, J.A., and D.W. Martens. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48.3 (1991): 493-497. Spence, B.C., and R.M. Hughes. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services, Corporation. Striplin and Battelle. 2001. King County Marine Habitat Report. Prepared for King County Division of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division, Seattle, Washington. Prepared by Stiplin Environmental Associates, Seattle, Washington and Battelle Marine Science Laboratory, Sequim, Washington. USACE. 2012. Approved work windows for fish protection for all marine/estuarine areas excluding the mouth of the Columbia River (Baker Bay) by tidal reference area. August 14. Accessed June 9, 2017. <http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/re ug latoO /ESA%20fonns%20and%20templates/Mann e%20Fish%20Work%20Windows%20(8-14-121.pdf>. USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volumes I (Puget Sound Management Unit, 389 + xvii pp.) and 11 (Olympic Peninsula Management Unit, 277 + xvi pp.). US Fish and Wildlife Service., Portland, Oregon. USFWS. 2017a. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in the proposed project location, and/or maybe affected by the proposed project. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Lacey, Washington. USFWS. 2017b. Critical Habitat Mapper. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed May 12, 2017. <https:Hfws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExistigg 1>. WDFW. 2017a. Priority habitats and species report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed May 12, 2017.<http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/>. WDFW. 2017b. SalmonScape interactive map. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed May 12, 2017. <http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html>. WDNR. 2017. Washington Department of Natural Resources Derelict Creosote Piling Removal Best Management Practices for Pile Removal & Disposal. Accessed online June 26, 2017. <h4p://file.dnr.wa.goy/publications/aqr rest pileremoval bmp_2017.pdf>. WSDOT. 2017. Biological Assessment Guidance. WSDOT BA Preparation Manual. Washington State Department of Transportation. Accessed June 9, 2017. <http://www.wsdot.wa. gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm>. 24 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 435 2.1.a 15. Appendices As needed include mitigation, revegetation plans, monitoring plans, results of studies, water quality information, etc. 25 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 436 I 2.1.a I - ._�� ►• _ _ 0011 -- _ . ����yvvvvvvvvOOOOVOO����`���0�y'�yy�yy.�y��`� -. • . Match E ® • = Jr�st7AD fYi� / �e • • • _ _ m���Z — �s� �1By Stairs—�,�Plaza it _� yv�v��..v0�,r.v��\Cess Easement —� `,`° �► l� , . Reef r r'� �a��. 6 , Apts.Setback Setback Ebb Tide Edmonds 14 • • • u -�Center Underwater Sports 42" Fence/Guardrail Entry Bike O Pk9 f o /� 14 TOW q ��"� C rb ••••"""••••�����all w/ 2 14.5' �ence,�MaHt. 6' �g m 12.9 6" Bollards Typ. 200 f<. Shoreline "Tra°/ 125' � ✓ '� I 54) (55) (56) 7) (58) ° Setback .5' TOW r 3 .�� al w )e• 1 u BNSF R.O.W. 120' TOC Match Existing 11.5±J Bioretention Bioretention Planter ASPHALT Existing Utility Pole/ Planter 1 Overflow, Typ. Street Light, To Remain Existing Utility Pole/ Street RAILROAD AVENUE Light, To Remain an er . sl ,erp dt) It C 1 29 t (30)o t J •^`Iza1 ac C t si l 2% x (tat 1 1 C c O t r = c 2.51. t I (e) C ?* (19) ' rvarvv C za1 ae> c zo1 7)o Tre ct c (5)o I Dra In c Va 13.8 c (2 2.2% (slo an c 4>0 I� ite c � 3) i o (�) t e CURB t c c c c c �;-t :E s ss) c1It P E sal (65) c ' hLT s 20 1Vc Ex. Bus Shelte Bioretention Planter ; ASPHALT Direction Curb Ramp. Per RAILROAD AVENUE Z k, CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED BY BY: DATE: NO. DATE: DRAWN BY: REVISION: O ENGINEERING DIVISION DESIGN: 06.22.2017 NM/JB Ci of Edmonds Pre -A City pp 121 FIFTH AVENUE Edmonds SHEET: L 1 EDMONDS, WA 80 OORTH DRAWN: 08.29.2017 PC/NM JARPA Waterfront Redevelopment �' (425)771ER BARKER 1 OF 1 SHEETS LANDSCAPE ARCHrLEC75 CITY ENGINEER CHECKED: 06.11.2018 PC/NM SEPA Checklist 220 Railroad Ave, Edmonds, WA 98020 A5195. 190MCc Date: 06/11/2018Attach APPROVED: e reaTaG WA99188 �: za.>83.zazo ting, Typ match 9 � 8: ty Street Ight, ama771 to CB LEGEND Landscape Plantings Bioretention Planter Lawn Beach Restoration ® Asphalt Concrete Tree (Max. Ht. 25') — —1 o- — Existing Topography .1 8 �� Proposed Grading --- MHHw— MHHW (El. 8.6) ---- OHW ---- OHW O Boulder Large Woody Debris ---- Property Line --- — Right of Way ----- Limit of Work — — — Easement PARKING- c Total Existing Stalls: 77 Proposed Stalls: 71 C, Standard Stalls: 27 0 Compact Stalls: 35 (49%) ADA Std. Stalls: 2 i ADA Van Stalls: 1 i Van Stalls: 4 a NOTE: # 1. The entire project is within the Flood Plain Boundary dd�16 0 10 20 40 Figure 2 -Site Plan MIw-„ oro„ Scale: 1" = 20'-0" (22" x 34" sheet) Packet Pg. 438 2.1.a u m 0 L a r c m E a 0 m m m c 0 L L U c 0 L d N r C d E t V a 3 L 0 N� v! N O O O CD O N J a a r m E M u �a r a Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 4 9771 2.1.a r Diu CASPERS S 2 ti Q- r'' �OtipS DALEY ST sr � LLI Q FS h� �P w ST MAIN ST404 �! Z �. r+� W DAYTON ST N �.� DAYTON ST to MAPLE ST p ; N z Q w -� 1• F- DE ST= Lo - • �'' '� ��- �- � WALNUT ST ' _HOLLY DR , a M. oti �104 p - - • _. E-sri,, USDA Farm Service Agency Legend Figure 3. Project Area Action Areas for the Edmonds Waterfront Center Project, Aquatic Action Area Edmonds, Washington. Terrestrial Action Area Street Ferry N 0 350 700 1,400 A Feet HERRER►4 Attachment 10 Kea.oJ dc\V2onm-os494-000\FmjecnRep.tl\6E\zcfion_ Packet Pg. 440 2.1.a ���CIyT OP�'b' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ` NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region s�Teso� 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97232 Refer to NMFS Consultation No.: WCRO-2018-00112 Michelle Walker Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch CENWS-OD-RG P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 April 15, 2019 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Edmonds Waterfront Center Project, Edmonds, Washington, USACE Number: NWS-2017-867 (Lat: 47.81170 N, Long:-122.38514 W) Dear Ms. Walker: Thank you for your letter of September 13, 2018, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorization of Edmonds Waterfront Center Project (Project). Thank you, also, for your request for consultation pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in Section 305(b) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)(16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) for this action. The enclosed document contains the biological opinion (Opinion) prepared by NMFS pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA on the effects of the proposed action. In this Opinion, NMFS concludes that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect but not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB) bocaccio. NMFS also concludes that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon, not likely to adversely affect PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat, but is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of those designated critical habitats. In this Opinion, we also conclude that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rockfish and its designated critical habitat; and southern resident (SR) killer whales and its designated critical habitat. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 441 -2- 2.1.a As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has provided an incidental take statement with this Opinion. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this action, and sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions that the USACE must comply with to meet those measures. Incidental take from actions that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA's prohibition against the take of listed species. This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action's likely effects on essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to Section 305(b) of the MSA. NMFS reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on EFH, and concluded that the action would adversely affect designated EFH for Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species. Therefore, we have included the results of that review in Section 3 of this document. Please contact David Price in the North Puget Sound Branch of the Oregon/Washington Coastal Office at (360) 753-9598, or by electronic mail at David.Price@noaa.gov if you have any questions concerning this consultation, or if you require additional information. Sincerely, /< V� Kim W. Kratz, Ph.D. Assistant Regional Administrator Oregon Washington Coastal Office cc: Jerry Gregory, USACE WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 442 2.1.a Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Edmonds Waterfront Center Project Edmonds, Washington (LTSACE Number: NWS-2017-867) NMFS Consultation Number: Action Agency: WCRO-2018-00112 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Affected Species and Determinations: ESA -Listed Species Status Is Action Is Action Is Action Is Action Likely Likely to Likely To Likely to To Destroy or Adversely Jeopardize Adversely Adversely Affect the Affect Critical Modify Critical Species? Species? Habitat? Habitat? Puget Sound Chinook sahnon Threatened Yes No Yes No (ancorhynchus tshmtytscha) Puget Sound steelhead (o. Threatened No No NIA No mvkiss) Puget Sound /Georgia Basin Endangered Yes No Yes No Bocaccio (Sehastes paucispints) Puget Sound /Georgia Basin Threatened No No No No Yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrunus) Southern DPS of Eulachon Endangered No No No No (Thaleichthvs pacifacus) Southern Resident Killer Endangered No No No No Whales (Orcinus orca) NIA = not applicable. The action area is outside designated critical habitat. Affected Essential Fish Habitat EFH and NMFS' Determinations: Fishery Management Plan That Describes EFH in the Project Area Does Action Have an Adverse Effect on EFH? Are EFH Conservation Recommendations Provided? Pacific Coast Sahnon Yes Yes Pacific Coast Groundfish Yes Yes Coastal Pelagic Species Yes Yes Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Issued By: war V. im W. tz, Ph.D. Assistant Regional Administrator Oregon Washington Coastal Office Date: April 15, 2019 WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 443 2.1.a TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action.................................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions.................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Construction Activities Associated with the Proposed Action .................................. 6 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT.................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Analytical Approach........................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Range -wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................................................... 9 2.2.1 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Criteria............................................................ 11 2.2.2 Status of the Species................................................................................................ 12 2.2.3 Status of Critical Habitat.......................................................................................... 16 2.3 Action Area....................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Environmental Baseline.................................................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Environmental Conditions at the Project Site and the Surrounding Area ............... 20 2.5 Effects of the Action......................................................................................................... 21 2.5.1 Effects on Critical Habitat....................................................................................... 21 2.5.2 Effects on Listed Species......................................................................................... 24 2.6 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 29 2.7 Integration and Synthesis.................................................................................................. 30 2.7.1 ESA -listed Species................................................................................................... 31 2.7.2 Critical Habitat......................................................................................................... 32 2.8 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 34 2.9 Incidental Take Statement................................................................................................. 34 2.9.1 Amount or Extent of Take....................................................................................... 35 2.9.2 Effect of the Take..................................................................................................... 37 2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures........................................................................... 37 2.9.4 Terms and Conditions.............................................................................................. 37 2.10 Conservation Recommendations.................................................................................... 39 2.11 Reinitiation of Consultation............................................................................................ 40 2.12 Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations............................................................. 40 2.12.1 Effects on List Species........................................................................................... 41 2.12.2 Effects on Critical Habitat..................................................................................... 42 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION......................................................................43 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project................................................................. 44 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat........................................................................ 44 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations.................................................. 44 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement...................................................................................... 45 3.5 Supplemental Consultation............................................................................................... 45 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE -DISSEMINATION REVIEW .....46 5. REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................47 WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -i- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 444 2.1.a 1. INTRODUCTION This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below. 1.1 Background The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (Opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. We also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action, in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. We completed pre -dissemination review of this document using standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-554). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon Washington Coastal Office. 1.2 Consultation History The NMFS received an email and Memorandum for the Services (MFS) from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) on June 19, 2018 requesting informal consultation for the proposed action. Additional information was transmitted to the NMFS through the AMRDEC FTP site on July 2, 2018 because the files were too large for email transmittal. On July 24, 2018, we received additional drawings and plans that had been inadvertently excluded from the original request for consultation. The consultation request also included an enclosed biological evaluation and project drawings for the proposed action. On September 12, 2018, NMFS responded to the USACE stating that formal consultation would be required for the proposed action, and requested additional information. On September 13, 2018, the USACE responded with a request for formal consultation. After that date, multiple e- mails were exchanged between NMFS and the USACE, and a conference call with the USACE, applicant and consultant was held on October 30, 2018. NMFS received the last of the required additional information on September 13, 2018. Formal consultation was initiated on that date. This Opinion is based on the review of the information and project drawings identified above; supplemental materials and responses to NMFS questions for the proposed action; recovery plans, status reviews, and critical habitat designations for ESA -listed Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB) bocaccio; published and unpublished scientific information on the biology and ecology of those species; and relevant scientific and gray literature (see References). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon Washington Coastal Office (OWCO) in Lacey, Washington. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -I- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 445 2.1.a 1.3 Proposed Action The USACE proposes to authorize a new overwater walkway in the City of Edmonds (Figure 1). The City of Edmonds (the applicant) is proposing to construct an elevated 154-foot long, 10-foot wide partially grated concrete walkway supported by seven 30-inch diameter steel piling which would be partially located waterward of the Mean Higher High Water mark (MHHW). Grating would have 60% open area and cover 50% of the walkway before accounting for 147 additional square feet of total pile cap (which is concrete) resulting in 20% functional light penetration. The applicant submitted compensatory mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts to the aquatic environment, including removal of an existing bulkhead composed of 36 creosote treated piling, removal of the fill behind the bulkhead (including a partial parking lot), and placement of sand and gravel substrate, large wood (LWD), and the planting of native riparian vegetation. Two isolated concrete foundations and three additional creosote treated piling located waterward of the ordinary high water line (and partially or wholly waterward of the MHHW) would also be removed from the beach. See Table 1 for a summary of activities associated with the proposed action. Figure 1. The Edmonds Waterfront Center project site on Puget Sound, Edmonds, Washington. The Edmonds ferry terminal is visible to the northeast end of the image while the Edmonds fishing pier is oriented to the southwest of the image The project site is in the center of the image (black circle). The proposed overwater walkway will link existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway between the Edmonds ferry terminal and the Edmonds marina and fishing pier. The proposed walkway will be 50% grated with 60% open area in the grated area to achieve an overall open WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -2- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 446 2.1.a area of 30%. However, the additional concrete pile caps not accounted for in the BE are roughly 49 square feet each, which adds 147 square feet of light -blocking structure to the walkway, creating only 20% total light penetration. The walkway will be supported with seven 30" steel piles all of which would be installed below the ordinary high water line (OHW) and two of which would be installed below the MHHW (Figure 2). This work will be conducted in the dry (i.e., while the tide is low). IPuget. Sound I I (No appreciable t net drift). _ f.... . f i t r a Top of Walkway, • ���-�. 14.71' MHHW _.. i...Over atellalkay� ==— fe . Pa* —. . — oHW _ — __ CIO ►` Ebb Tide Plaza Existing promenade;.to remain f Ebb Tide Condominiums / 1:4.0 , %—Meet & Match E --------------- Edmonds Waterfront Center Figure 2. The Edmonds Waterfront Center project site featuring the overwater walkway and location of associated piles and tide lines. The proposed action includes the removal of a mixed material bulkhead and associated parking lot (about 3,841 sf.). Thirty six creosote supporting piles will be removed along with supporting fill and creosote timber supports. The bulkhead and parking lot will be replaced with concrete stairs and a ramp and placed landward of the existing structure (+11 ft. to +13.4ft. MLLW). Two stormwater outfalls will be shortened to terminate above the MHHW (Figure 3). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -3- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 447 2.1.a Remove intertidal plies Puget Sound (No appreciable Remove concrete foundation from beach — MHHW - — Existing Outfall, to Remain ExrSEin Pr6tii�deG. [o ra�ae Demolish and remove existing stairway Damollsh and remove bulkhead. Remove fill from beach area Ex sting MUM to he Relocated � � 9Y1rfr✓ri1i Edmonds :� i ■ Senior Center Figure 3. The Edmonds Waterfront Center project site featuring the removal of the bulkhead, partial parking lot, and relocation of two outfalls. The removal of two concrete foundations and three intertidal creosote piles are also shown. Large wood and a sand/gravel fish -mix will be added for beach nourishment. Native vegetation will be planted above the OHW where the parking lot currently exists. The remaining parking area will be reconfigured to incorporate a new bio-filtration area to address existing stormwater runoff (Figure 4). This work will be conducted in the dry. PLANTER PROMENADE BEACH RESTORATION 0HW, for Proposed Design Existing Parking Existing Pill, to be Removed MHHW, for Proposed Design y and fill to be Stairs Existing OHW Removed Proposed Grade Existing MHHW ---------- ---- ---.- .---.. -------- ------ ----------------- ---------- ---_..�................._.. IT Bioretentlon Call PExisting bulkhead Pile support fur toe Of Stairs consisting of creosote- Existing Gradelt3aach, treated timber piles and — to Remain lagging, to W removed. Figure 4. Profile view of removed bulkhead, partial parking lot, and relocation of the stairs relative to the reconstructed beach profile with added beach nourishment. An existing set of concrete stairs will be removed from the beach (below the OHW) and replaced with stairs immediately adjacent to the existing stairs. The new stairs will be supported by no WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -4- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 448 2.1.a more than 60 steel 16 or 1 S" H-piles. In addition, two remnant concrete foundations (567 square feet), which are partially buried below the sand substrate will be removed from the beach (Figure 3). This work will be conducted in the dry_ Lastly, three creosote piles will be extracted from the intertidal zone (Figure 3). This work may be conducted in -water, depending on tidal elevations. Table 1. A summary of the installation and removal activities associated with the action. Proposed activity Volume Area S Remove 36 creosote piles and rill 1,424 3,841 from bulkhead and parking lot HHW—D Remove three creosote piles from 27 9 intertidal zone(below AM Remove two concrete foundations 213 567 from the beach — D Vibratory drive seven 30-inch 63 35 steel pile to support walkway HHW — D Install overwa ter walkway nla 1,540 HHW — D Remove south concrete stairs 45 150 Install south access stairs 45 150 Install six 16- or 18-inch H-pile to 30 15 support south stairs ❑ Install beach north access stairs 300 2,000 with H-pile support and ramp above D Install up to 60 16- or 18-inch H- 300 140 Pile to support north stairs above D Place sand/gravel fish mix on 1,210 3,841 beach for restoration (DHW- 1.3.1 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions "Action" means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies (50 CFR 402.02)_ "Interrelated actions" are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. "Interdependent actions" are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). Vessel activity is very unlikely to increase as a result of the action because the new structure will not feature mooring facilities. However, the new walkway will likely invite increased pedestrian traffic because the existing beach will be expanded and provide continuous foot traffic from the project site to the ferry terminal. Additionally, a new stairs and ramp will create an attractive WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -�- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 449 2.1.a setting for beach goers where access is currently less inviting. Thus, the added stairway and ramp constitute interrelated actions associated with the proposed action. See Section 2.5.2 for an assessment of the effects of the interrelated action. 1.3.2 Construction Activities Associated with the Proposed Action Land -based equipment will be used to remove the bulkhead, 36 creosote piles, partial parking lot, north and south stairs, and other features. All equipment operating on the beach will be track - mounted and limited to the upper beach at low tide. All removed materials will be stored landward of the OHW and in a manner that prevents material from washing into the water. The barge -mounted crane, with a vibratory pile extractor, would be used to pull three 10-inch diameter creosote -treated timber piles from the intertidal zone. The barge will not ground on eelgrass or other aquatic vegetation. All removed piles would also be placed on the barge and disposed of off -site at an approved landfill. Based on similar projects, about 30 minutes of vibratory extraction would be required per pile. Therefore, pile extraction would likely occur in a matter of 2 — 3 hours. Seven new 30-inch steel piles would be installed in support of the overwater walkway. Installation would occur using a vibratory hammer to the maximum extent possible. Proofing using this method is reportedly necessary and would take 15 minutes per pile (about 300 strikes) to fully proof the supports (Herrera 2017). If necessary, an impact hammer may be used, but only at low tide and while the site is dry to prevent sound compression waves from impacting listed species. About 3,500 strikes per pile (about 105 minutes per pile) would be required using this method, and two piles would be installed per day. Up to six steel H-piles will be installed below the OHW and up to 60 steel H-piles will be installed landward of the OHW to support the stairs and pedestrian ramp. The use of sheet pile may be used in place of the H-piles, but will not increase the footprint of the structure. All pile installation will occur while the tide is low and the site is dry. All work (except possibly the three creosote pile extractions) below the OHW will occur between July 15 and October 14 outside of the water and will not include in -water work. The contractor would comply with the BMPs and impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE (Herrera 2017), and in the provisions listed in the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for this project once authorized. 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT The ESA establishes a national program for conserving threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat upon which they depend. As required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, each Federal agency must ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitat. Per the requirements of the ESA, Federal action agencies consult with WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -6- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 450 2.1.a NMFS and section 7(b)(3) requires that, at the conclusion of consultation, NMFS provides an opinion stating how the agency's actions would affect listed species and their critical habitat. If incidental take is reasonably certain to occur, section 7(b)(4) requires NMFS to provide an ITS that specifies the impact of any incidental taking and includes non -discretionary reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and terms and conditions to minimize such impacts. In support of the BE, the USACE determined the proposed action would not likely adversely affect or would have no effect on all of the species and critical habitats identified in Table 2. NMFS does not concur that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio and their designated critical habitat. NMFS also does not concur that the action will have no effect on SRKW. Instead, NMFS finds that the action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect SRKW. NMFS concurs that the action will have no effect on SRKW critical habitat. Although the USACE proposed a NLAA determination for Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Eulachon, NMFS determined that the proposed action would have no effect on the species or its critical habitat. There are no known populations of Eulachon in Puget Sound east of the Elwha River, and critical habitat for the species does not include Puget Sound (NMFS 2017c). Our concurrence with the USACE's "not likely to adversely affect" determinations for the remaining species and critical habitats is documented in the "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" Determinations section (2.12). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -7- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 451 2.1.a Table 2. ESA -listed marine species and critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed action. Species Status Species Critical Habitat Listed 1 CH Designated Puget Sound Chinook Threatened LAA LAA 06/28/05 (70 FR 37160) / salmon 09/02/05 (70 FR 52630) (Oncorhynch us tsha tscha Puget Sound/Georgia Endangered LAA NLAA 04/28/10 (75 FR 22276) / Basin Bocaccio 11/13/14 (79 FR 68042) Sebastes aucis iris Puget Sound Threatened NLAA NIA 05/11/07 (72 FR 26722)1 Steelhead O. m kiss 02/24/16 81 FR 9252 Puget Sound/Georgia Threatened NLAA No effect 04/28/10 (75 FR 22276) / Basin Yelloweve 11/13/14 (79 FR 68042) rockfish (S. ruberrimus Southern DPS Endangered No effect No effect 03/18/10 (75 FR 13012)1 of Eulachon 10/20/11 (76 FR 65324) (Thaleichthys aci wus Southern Resident Endangered NLAA No effect 11/18/05 (70 FR 57565) / Killer Whales 11/29/06 (71 FR 69054) Orcinus area LAA = likely to adversely affect NLAA = not likely to adversely affect NIA = not applicable. The action area is outside designated critical habitat. 2.1 Analytical Approach This biological opinion includes both a jeopardy analysis and an adverse modification analysis. The jeopardy analysis relies upon the regulatory definition of "to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, which is "to engage in an action that would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species" (50 CFR 402.02). Therefore, the jeopardy analysis considers both survival and recovery of the species. This biological opinion relies on the definition of "destruction or adverse modification," which "means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features" (81 FR 7214). Past critical habitat designations have used the terms primary constituent element (PCE) or essential feature (EF) to identify important habitat qualities. However, the new critical habitat regulations (81 FR 7414; February 11, 2016) replace those terms with physical or biological features (PBF). This shift in terminology does not change the approach used in conducting our analysis, whether the original designation identified PCE, EF, or PBF. For simplicity, we universally apply the term PBF in this Opinion for all critical habitat, regardless of the term used in the specific critical habitat designation. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -8- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 452 2.1.a We use the following approach to determine whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize listed species or to cause the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat: • Identify the range -wide status of the species and critical habitat expected to be adversely affected by the proposed action. • Describe the environmental baseline in the action area. • Analyze the effects of the proposed action on both species and their habitat using an "exposure -response -risk" approach. • Describe any cumulative effects in the action area. • Integrate and synthesize the above factors by: (1) Reviewing the status of the species and critical habitat; and (2) adding the effects of the action, the environmental baseline, and cumulative effects to assess the risk that the proposed action poses to species and critical habitat. • Reach a conclusion about whether species are jeopardized or critical habitat is adversely modified. • If necessary, suggest a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to the proposed action. 2.2 Range -wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat This Opinion examines the status of each species that would be adversely affected by the proposed action. The status is determined by the level of extinction risk that the listed species face, based on parameters considered in documents such as recovery plans, status reviews, and listing decisions. This informs the description of the species' likelihood of both survival and recovery. The species status section also helps to inform the description of the species' current "reproduction, numbers, or distribution" as described in 50 CFR 402.02. This Opinion also examines the condition of critical habitat throughout the designated area, evaluates the conservation value of the various watersheds and coastal and marine environments that make up the designated area, and discusses the current function of the essential PBF that help to form that conservation value. One factor affecting the status of ESA -listed species considered in this opinion, and aquatic habitat at large, is climate change. Climate change is likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the abundance and distribution of ESA -listed species, and the conservation value of designated critical habitats, in the Pacific Northwest. These changes will not be spatially homogeneous across the Pacific Northwest. The largest hydrologic responses are expected to occur in basins with significant snow accumulation, where warming decreases snow pack, increases winter flows, and advances the timing of spring melt (Mote et al. 2014, Mote et al. 2016). Rain -dominated watersheds and those with significant contributions from groundwater may be less sensitive to predicted changes in climate (Tague et al. 2013, Mote et al. 2014). During the last century, average regional air temperatures in the Pacific Northwest increased by 1-1.4°F as an annual average, and up to 2°F in some seasons (based on average linear increase per decade; Abatzoglou et al. 2014; Kunkel et al. 2013). Warming is likely to continue during the next century as average temperatures are projected to increase another 3 to 10°F, with the largest increases predicted to occur in the summer (Mote et al. 2014). Decreases in summer precipitation of as much as 30% by the end of the century are consistently predicted across climate models WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -9- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 453 2.1.a (Mote et al. 2014). Precipitation is more likely to occur during October through March, less during summer months, and more winter precipitation will be rain than snow (IPCC 2007; Mote et al. 2013; Mote et al. 2014). Earlier snowmelt will cause lower stream flows in late spring, summer, and fall, and water temperatures will be warmer (IPCC 2007; Mote et al. 2014). Models consistently predict increases in the frequency of severe winter precipitation events (i.e., 20-year and 50-year events), in the western United States (Dominguez et al. 2012). The largest increases in winter flood frequency and magnitude are predicted in mixed rain -snow watersheds (Mote et al. 2014). In addition to changes in freshwater conditions, predicted changes for coastal waters in the Pacific Northwest as a result of climate change include increasing surface water temperature, increasing but highly variable acidity, and increasing storm frequency and magnitude (Mote et al. 2014). Elevated ocean temperatures already documented for the Pacific Northwest are expected to be 1.0-3.7°C higher by the end of the century (IPCC 2014). Habitat loss, shifts in species' ranges and abundances, and altered marine food webs could have substantial consequences to anadromous, coastal, and marine species in the Pacific Northwest (Tillmann and Siemann 2011; Reeder et al. 2013). Additionally, increasing ocean temperatures and shifting ocean conditions (including currents and offshore nutrient upwelling) due to climate change will likely impact the food web and ultimately the marine survival of salmonids. Recent early marine survival rates of several Puget Sound steelhead populations have been quite low (Moore et al. 2015; Moore and Berejikian 2017) and may be limiting the populations' productivity. A warming ocean is likely to further reduce marine survival of steelhead and salmon migrating from Puget Sound. These fish make extensive seasonal migrations across broad areas of the North Pacific Ocean. A recent study on tagged California steelhead suggests that the fish closely track preferred sea surface temperatures (and likely other conditions) during their marine migrations (Hayes et al. 2016). However, in certain cases steelhead have been documented remaining off the coast from their natal river and returning there just a few months after ocean entry. An increased and more wide-ranging prevalence of this life history strategy may indicate thermally -blocked marine migratory corridors or changing ocean conditions. Moreover, as atmospheric carbon emissions increase, increasing levels of carbon are absorbed by the oceans, changing the pH of the water. Acidification also impacts sensitive estuary habitats, where organic matter and nutrient inputs further reduce pH and produce conditions more corrosive than those in offshore waters (Feely et al. 2012, Sunda and Cai 2012). Global sea levels are expected to continue rising throughout this century, reaching likely predicted increases of 10-32 inches by 2081-2100 (IPCC 2014). These changes will likely result in increased erosion and more frequent and severe coastal flooding, and shifts in the composition of nearshore habitats (Tillmann and Siemann 2011; Reeder et al. 2013). Estuarine -dependent salmonids such as chum and Chinook salmon are predicted to be impacted by significant reductions in rearing habitat in some Pacific Northwest coastal areas (Glick et al. 2007). Historically, warm periods in the coastal Pacific Ocean have coincided with relatively low abundances of salmon and steelhead, while cooler ocean periods have coincided with relatively WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -10- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 454 2.1.a high abundances, and therefore these species are predicted to fare poorly in warming ocean conditions (Scheuerell and Williams 2005; Zabel et al. 2006). Changes to estuarine and coastal conditions, as well as the timing of seasonal shifts in these habitats, have the potential to impact a wide range of listed aquatic species (Tillmann and Siemann 2011; Reeder et al. 2013). The adaptive ability of these threatened and endangered species is depressed due to reductions in population size, habitat quantity and diversity, and loss of behavioral and genetic variation. Without these natural sources of resilience, systematic changes in local and regional climatic conditions due to anthropogenic global climate change will likely reduce long-term viability and sustainability of populations in many of these ESUs (NMFS 2017a). New stressors generated by climate change, or existing stressors with effects that have been amplified by climate change, may also have synergistic impacts on species and ecosystems (Doney et al. 2012). These conditions will possibly intensify the climate change stressors inhibiting recovery of ESA -listed species in the future. 2.2.1 Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Criteria For Pacific salmonids, we commonly use four VSP criteria (McElhany et al. 2000) to assess the viability of the populations that constitute the species. These four criteria (spatial structure, diversity, abundance, and productivity) encompass the species' "reproduction, numbers, or distribution" as described in 50 CFR 402.02. When these parameters are collectively at appropriate levels, they maintain a population's capacity to adapt to various environmental conditions and allow it to sustain itself in the natural environment. "Spatial structure" refers both to the spatial distributions of individuals in the population and the processes that generate that distribution. A population's spatial structure depends on habitat quality and spatial configuration, and the dynamics and dispersal characteristics of individuals in the population. "Diversity" refers to the distribution of traits within and among populations. These range in scale from DNA sequence variation in single genes to complex life history traits. "Abundance" generally refers to the number of naturally -produced adults that return to their natal spawning grounds. "Productivity" refers to the number of naturally -spawning adults produced per parent. When progeny replace or exceed the number of parents, a population is stable or increasing. When progeny fail to replace the number of parents, the population is in decline. For species with multiple populations, we assess the status of the entire species based on the biological status of the constituent populations, using criteria for groups of populations, as described in recovery plans and guidance documents from technical recovery teams. Considerations for species viability include having multiple populations that are viable, ensuring that populations with unique life histories and phenotypes are viable, and that some viable populations are both widespread to avoid concurrent extinctions from mass catastrophes and spatially close to allow genetic exchange among populations (McElhany et al. 2000). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -11- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 455 2.1.a 2.2.2 Status of the Species The summaries that follow describe the status of the ESA -listed species and their designated critical habitats that occur within the geographic area of this proposed action and are considered in this opinion (Table 3). More detailed information on the status and trends of these listed resources, and their biology and ecology, are available on the NMFS West Coast Region website (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/) and are incorporated by reference. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -12- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 456 2.1.a Table 3. Summary of status and listing factors for listed species addressed in tills opinion. Species Listing Classification and Date Recovery Plan Reference Most Recent States Review Status Summary Limiting Factors Puget Sound Threatened Shared Strategy NMFS 2017a This ESU comprises 22 populations distributed a Degraded floodplain and in -river channel Chinook salmon 6/28/05 for Puget Sound over five geographic areas. Most populations structure 2007 within the ESU have declined in abundance . Degraded estuarine conditions and loss of NMFS 2006 over the past 7 to 10 years, with widespread estuarine habitat negative trends in natural -origin spawner e Degraded riparian areas and loss of in -river abundance, and hatchery -origin spawners large woody debris present in high fractions in most populations . Excessive fine-grained sediment in spawning outside of the Skagit watershed. Escapement gravel levels for all populations remain well below the . Degraded water quality and temperature TRT planning ranges for recovery, and most a Degraded nearshore conditions populations are consistently below the a Impaired passage for migrating fish spawner -recruit levels identified by the TRT as • Severely altered flow regime consistent with recovery, Puget Sound Threatened In review NMFS 2017a This DPS comprises 32 popnlations. The DPS . Continued destruction and modification of Steelhead 5/11/07 is currently at very low viability, with most of habitat the 32 populations and all three population a Widespread declines in adult abundance groups at low viability. Information considered despite significant reductions in harvest during the most recent status review indicates . Threats to diversity posed by use of two that the biological risks faced by the Puget hatchery steelhead stocks Sound Steelhead DPS have not substantively a Declining diversity in the DPS, including the changed since the listing in 2007, or since the uncertain but weak status of sutumer-run fish 2011 status review. Furthermore, the Puget . A reduction in spatial structure Sound Steelhead TRT recently concluded that . Reduced habitat quality the DPS was at very low viability, as were all ' Urbanization three of its constituent MPGs, and many of its ' Dikes, hardening of banks with riprap, and 32 populations. In the near term, the outlook channelization for environmental conditions affecting Puget Sound steelhead is not optimistic. While harvest and hatchery production of steelhead in Puget Sound are currently at low levels and are not likely to increase substantially in the foreseeable future, some recent environmental trends not favorable to Puget Sound steelhead survival and production are expected to continue. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -13- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 457 2.1.a Species Listing Classification and Date Recovery Plan Reference Most Recent Status Review Status Summary Limiting Factors Puget Sound: Endangered NMFS 2017b Tonnes et al. Though bocaccio were never a predominant . Over harvest Georgia Basin 04/28/10 2016 segment of the multi -species rockfish . Water pollution DPS of population within the Puget SoundlGeorgia . Climate -induced changes to rockfish habitat Bocaccio Basin, their present-day abundance is likely a . Small population dynamics fraction of their pre -contemporary fishery abundance. Most bocaccio within the DPS may have been historically spatially limited to several basins within the DPS. They were apparently historically most abundant in the Central and South Sound with no documented occurrences in the San Juan Basin until 2008. The apparent redaction of populations of bocaccio in the Main Basin and South Sound represents a further reduction in the historically spatially limited distribution of bocaccio, and adds significant risk to the viability of the DPS. Southern resident Endangered NUTS 2008 Ford 2013 The Southern Resident killer whale DPS is . Quantity and quality of prey killer whale 11 18i05 composed of a single population that ranges as . Exposure to toxic chemicals far south as central California and as far north . Disturbance from sound and vessels as southeast Alaska. The estimated effective . Risk from nil spills size of the population (based on the number of breeding individuals under ideal genetic conditions) is very small — <30 whales, or about 113 of the current population size. The small effective population size, the absence of gene flow from other popuations, and documented breeding within pods may elevate the risk from inbreeding and other issues associated with genetic deterioration. As of July 1, 2013, there were 26 whales in J pod, 19 whales in K pod and 37 whales in L pod, for a total of 82 whales. Estimates for the historical abundance of Southern Resident killer whales range from 140 whales (based on public display removals to 400 whales, as used in population viability analysis scenarios. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -14- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 458 2.1.a Species Listing Classification and Date Recovery Plan Reference Most Recent Status Review Status Summary Limiting Factors Southern DPS Threeatmed NMFS 2017c Gustafson et al. The Southern DPS of eulachon includes all • Changes in ocean conditions due to climate of eulachon 3118'10 2016 naturally -spawned populations that occur in change, particularly in the southern portion of rivers south of the Nass River in British the species' range where ocean wmnii�nu trends Columbia to the Mad River in California. Sub may be the most pronounced and may alter populations for this species include the Fraser prey, spawning, and rearing success. River, Columbia River, British Columbia and • Climate -induced change to freshwater habitats the Klamath River. In the early 1990s, there a Byeatch of eulachon in commercial fisheries was an abrupt decline in the abundance of • Adverse effects related to dams and water eulachon returning to the Columbia River. diversions Despite a brief period of improved returns in . Water quality, 2001-2003, the returns and associated . Shoreline construction commercial landings eventually declined to the . Over harvest low levels observed in the mid-1990s. a Predation Although eulachon abundance in monitored rivers has generally improved, especially in the 2013-2015 return years, recent poor ocean conditions and the likelihood that these conditions will persist into the near future suggest that population declines may be widespread in the upcoming return years Puget Sound/ Threatened NMFS 2017b Tonnes et al. 2016 Yelloweye rockfish within the Puget a Over harvest Georgia Basin 04/28/10 Sound/Georgia Basin (in U.S. waters) are very a Water pollution DPS of Yelloweye likely the most abundant within the San Juan a Climate -induced changes to rockfish habitat Rockfish Basin of the DPS. Yelloweye rockfish spatial . Small dynamics population structure and connectivity is threatened by the apparent reduction of fish within each of the basins of The DPS. This reduction is probably most acute within the basins of Puget Sound proper. The severe reduction of fish in these basins may eventually result in a contraction of the DPS' range. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -15- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 459 2.1.a 2.2.3 Status of Critical Habitat This section describes the status of designated critical habitat affected by the proposed action by examining the condition and trends of the essential physical and biological features of that habitat throughout the designated areas. These features are essential to the conservation of the ESA -listed species because they support one or more of the species' life stages (e.g., sites with conditions that support spawning, rearing, migration and foraging). For salmon, NMFS's critical habitat analytical review teams (CHARTs) ranked watersheds within designated critical habitat at the scale of the fifth -field hydrologic unit code (HUC5) in terms of the conservation value they provide to each ESA -listed species that they support (NMFS 2005). The conservation rankings were high, medium, or low. To determine the conservation value of each watershed to species viability, the CHARTs evaluated the quantity and quality of habitat features, the relationship of the area compared to other areas within the species' range, and the significance to the species of the population occupying that area. Even if a location had poor habitat quality, it could be ranked with a high conservation value if it were essential due to factors such as limited availability, a unique contribution of the population it served, or serving another important role. In designating critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon in estuarine and nearshore marine areas, NMFS determined that the area from extreme high water extending out to the maximum depth of the photic zone (no greater than 30 meters relative to mean lower low water; MLLW) contain essential features that require special protection. For nearshore marine areas, NMFS designated the area inundated by extreme high tide because it encompasses habitat areas typically inundated and regularly occupied during the spring and summer when juvenile salmon are migrating in the nearshore zone and relying heavily on forage, cover, and refuge qualities provided by these occupied habitats. All PBFs of estuarine, and nearshore marine critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and critical habitat for PS/GB bocaccio rockfish have been degraded throughout the PS region. The causes for critical habitat degradation include human development along the shoreline, including bulkheads, overwater structures, diking, filling of wetlands and bays, channelization, and the elimination of riparian habitats. The continued human population and development growth contributes to the anthropogenic simplification and hardening of PS shorelines and is the major factor in the cumulative loss of nearshore and estuarine habitat. Bank hardening and the introduction of obstructions in the nearshore diminish shade for forage fish egg development, disrupt juvenile salmonid migration and increase predation risk, diminish aquatic food supply, and can contribute to water pollution (Shipman et al. 2010; Fresh et al. 2011; Morley et al. 2012; Dethier et al. 2016). The degradation of multiple aspects of PS Chinook and bocaccio rockfish critical habitat indicates that the conservation potential of the critical habitat is not being reached, even in areas where the conservation value of habitat is ranked high. Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (70 FR 52630, designated 9/02/2005) includes 1,683 miles of streams, 41 square miles of lakes, and 2,182 miles of nearshore marine habitat in WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -16- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 460 2.1.a Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has 61 freshwater and 19 marine areas within its range. Of the freshwater watersheds, 41 are rated high conservation value, 12 low conservation value, and 8 received a medium rating. Of the marine areas, all 19 are ranked with high conservation value. PBFs relevant for this consultation include: 1) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality and aquatic vegetation to support juvenile transition and rearing; and 2) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality conditions, forage, submerged and overhanging large wood, and aquatic vegetation to support growth and maturation. Critical habitat for PS/GB bocaccio in the United States (79 FR 68042, designated 11/13/2014) includes 590.4 square miles of nearshore habitat and 414.1 square miles of deepwater habitat. Based on the natural history of bocaccio and their habitat needs, NMFS identified two physical or biological features, essential for their conservation: 1) Deepwater sites (>30 meters) that support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; 2) Nearshore juvenile rearing sites with sand, rock and/or cobbles to support forage and refuge. Only nearshore critical habitat is present within the action area. Habitat threats to PS/GB bocaccio include degradation of rocky habitat, loss of eelgrass and kelp, introduction of non-native species that modify habitat, and degradation of water quality. Critical habitat for steelhead, yelloweye rockfish, and SRKW excludes shallow water marine areas (81 FR 9252, 79 FR 68042, and 71 FR 69054, respectively). 2.3 Action Area "Action area" means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area is defined by both temporary effects associated with construction -related impacts and long-term effects associated with the installation of the overwater walkway and modification of the nearshore on habitat function, as described below. The action area is determined by the greatest extent of physical, chemical and biological effects stemming from the project. For the proposed action, there are both short-term construction - related effects and long-term permanent structure -related effects. The greatest extent of physical, chemical or biological effects stemming from the proposed action is associated with likely impacts of permanent structures on forage fish populations, which are important prey fishes for listed species. The area where detectable effects may occur is driven by forage fish use of the nearshore. We anticipate that the proposed overwater walkway would have long-term impacts on forage fish populations (Pacific herring, sand lance and surf smelt) by causing increased susceptibility to predation from overhead cover and restricted use of known spawning habitats from the blocking nature of the proposed walkway. These effects would be long-term and are considered permanent, for the life of the structure. For this assessment we consider the life of the proposed structures to be 50 years. These impacts on nearshore and intertidal habitat and function are discussed in detail in the Effects of the Action (Section 2.5). ESA -listed species in the action area include PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, PS/GB bocaccio and SRKW. The area is also critical WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -17- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 461 2.1.a habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio and EFH for multiple species (see Section 3.1). Forage fish are an important prey source of PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead and PS/GB bocaccio, and an important component of the SRKW trophic prey base. Forage fish species that occur near the project area may contribute to the prey base of listed populations throughout the Puget Sound basin and Strait of Juan de Fuca. Surf smelt spawning is documented at the project site (WDFW 2018). However, the maximum detectable range of effects would be limited to the marine waters and substrates within about 200 meters northeast (approximately to the Edmonds ferry terminal) and 200 meters southwest (approximately to the Edmonds marina) around the project site. Therefore, for the purposes of this consultation, the action area is limited to the marine waters and substrates within 200 meter radius around the Edmonds Waterfront Center project site. The action area described above overlaps with the geographic ranges and boundaries of the ESA -listed species and designated critical habitat identified earlier in Table 3. The action area also overlaps with areas that have been designated, under the MSA, as EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species. The extent of short-term, construction -related effects of the proposed action is within the action area defined by long-term, structure -related effects. The greatest extent of direct construction associated effects from proposed project activities is the extent of elevated turbidity and potential release of toxic chemicals from the bulkhead and parking lot removal. The size of this project area is estimated to be a 150-foot radius surrounding all proposed in -water activity to account for the point of compliance for aquatic life turbidity criteria set forth in the Washington State Water Quality Standards for marine waters (173-201A-210 Washington Administrative Code). Because construction activities will not occur in -water, the effects from vibratory pile -driving sound is discountable. 2.4 Environmental Baseline The "environmental baseline" includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The action area includes the area of Puget Sound described above, which for purposes of this biological opinion, includes all marine waters and shoreline below the highest astronomical tide (HAT). Puget Sound is the largest estuary in the United States by volume, and the second largest estuary by area. Puget Sound has over 2,400 miles of shoreline, more than 2 million acres of estuarine surface waters, and contains a watershed of more than 8 million acres. In 1987, Puget Sound was given priority status in the National Estuary Program. This established it as an estuary of national significance under an amendment to the Clean Water Act. In 2006, the Center for Biological Diversity recognized the Puget Sound Basin as a biological hotspot with over 7,000 species of organisms that rely on the wide variety of habitats provided by Puget Sound. Puget WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -18- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 462 2.1.a Sound is also unique by way of its high salmon species richness and its high natural productivity, which historically has been among the greatest in the world (Lombard 2006). The State of the Sound biennial report produced by the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP 2017) summarizes how different indicators of health of the Puget Sound ecosystem are changing through time. Their assessment can be summarized to a few key points: (1) development pressure continues to impact habitat in the marine and freshwater, especially within the range of listed species; (2) improvements in human use patterns are slow at best; and (3) few of the 2020 improvement targets identified by the PSP will be reached. While this report refers to all of Puget Sound, the key points also apply to the action area. In more detail, this most recent report points out the following with regard to habitat, species and water vital sign indicators: • Indicators of habitat restoration in estuaries, floodplains, riparian, and shoreline areas have made modest gains. Such areas are important to many key species, including Chinook salmon. • Forest habitats, particularly those deemed as having high ecological value, continue to be lost. • Sound -wide, eelgrass habitat area is holding steady, though local gains have been made. This habitat is important to small fish, shellfish, and other marine organisms. • The spawning population sizes of Chinook salmon are dangerously below federal recovery goals and are not improving. • With the loss of three whales in the summer of September 2018, the Southern Resident killer whale population has only 74 individuals; recovery depends on increasing its main prey, salmon (especially Chinook salmon); reducing the load of toxins entering Puget Sound; and minimizing the impacts and risks of vessel traffic. • Pacific herring (small forage fish that are important prey for salmon, birds, and mammals) and marbled murrelets continue to show signs of decline. • The health of the populations of small marine animals that live in the sediment at the bottom of Puget Sound shows signs of decline. • Overall marine water quality continues to decline, particularly in the last 3 years, when the temperature of the ocean's surface was unusually high. • Contaminants in Pacific herring and English sole (a bottom fish species) surpass levels considered safe for fish in some areas, though other areas are getting better. About 4.5 million people inhabit the Puget Sound Basin, with more than 80,000 new people added every year. There are a suite of impacts of human development on aquatic habitat conditions and species in the Puget Sound, including water quality effects of stormwater runoff, fishing pressure, and noise, wake and pollution from vessel traffic, to name a few (see PSP et al. 2017). Associated with this population growth, the magnitude and extent of infrastructure development has altered the Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem rapidly and perhaps permanently. Major physical changes documented in the Puget Sound include the filling in, isolation, and simplification of river deltas; the elimination or isolation of small coastal embayments, the cut- off and reduction in forage fish spawning sediment supplies to the foreshore due to beach armoring, and the loss of tidally influenced wetlands and salt marsh (Fresh et al. 2011). The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP), an investigation project between the Corps and the state of Washington, reviewed the historical changes to Puget WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -19- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 463 2.1.a Sound's shoreline environment between 1850-1880, and 2000-2006, and found the most pervasive change to Puget Sound to be the simplification of the shoreline and reduction in natural shoreline length (Simenstad et al. 2011). In addition to shoreline armoring, other intertidal and nearshore impairments including over - water structures, marinas, roads, and railroads have reduced habitat quality and impacted fish migrations. The simplification of the largest river deltas has caused a 27% decline in shoreline length compared to historical conditions. Of 884 historic small embayments, 308 have been eliminated. About 27% of PS's shorelines are artificially armored and only 112 of 828 shoreline segments remain in properly functioning condition (Simenstad et al. 2011). Tidal wetlands have been reduced 26% in Puget Sound river deltas (Fresh et al. 2011). Each of these habitat changes is related to human development and individually and cumulatively has reduced the quality and quantity of PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead habitat in the Puget Sound nearshore marine environment. The reductions to shallow water habitat, as well as reduced forage potential resulting from shoreline armoring, may cause juvenile salmonids and juvenile bocaccio to temporarily utilize deeper habitat, thereby exposing them to increased piscivorous predation. Typical piscivorous predators of juvenile salmonid include flatfish (e.g., sole and flounder), sculpin, and larger salmonids (e.g., cutthroat trout). Juvenile Chinook salmon enter the marine environment as small as 40mm (range 40-120mm), and generally rear and feed in the shallowest nearshore waters especially in the earliest periods of their marine residency. When juvenile salmonids temporarily leave the relative safety of shallow water or when shallow water is deeper adjacent to shoreline structures, they are exposed to increased predation risk. This has been shown in the marine environment where juvenile salmonid consumption by piscivorous predators increased fivefold when juvenile pink salmon were forced to leave the shallow nearshore (Willette 2001). 2.4.1 Environmental Conditions at the Project Site and the Surrounding Area The project site is located in marine waters of Puget Sound in Edmonds (Figure 1). The shoreline is open and exposed to large tidal fluctuations and frequent large wind -driven waves as well as the wakes of large ocean-going vessels, which regularly pass the site. The OHW runs along the highly developed shoreline, including a rail line of the BNSF railroad that extends along the shoreline for several miles north and south of the site. The marine substrate along the shoreline consists of gently sloping sand and gravels for about 100 meters waterward of the OHW. Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) exists beyond 100 meters of the OHW (-2 to -20 feet MLLW). Littoral drift and sediment transport at the site is reportedly very low (Ecology 2018a). The site is located on an urban shoreline that has been impacted by more than 100 years of development. European explorers first arrived in the area during the late 1700s. European settlers began to exploit natural resources such as lumber, coal, fur, and fish in early 1850s. The railroad that runs along the shoreline at the site was first built in the early 1890s. Currently, with the exception of a few forested patches that are largely restricted to the riparian corridors of nearby streams, the areas upland of the project site are covered by nearly continuous residential and urbanizing properties. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -20- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 464 2.1.a Ecology (2018b) identifies several water quality impairments in the action area, including exceedances for bacteria detected in ambient water testing and toxic contamination in fish samples, including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, and Chrysene (collectively, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Adult PS Chinook salmon populations from the Whidbey Basin Major Population Group (MPG) as well as the Central/South Puget Sound Basin MPG are likely to migrate past the project site to reach their spawning habitats. Juveniles from those MPGs are likely to shelter and forage in the action area as they migrate and continue to adapt to the marine environment. Larval PS/GB bocaccio may drift into or though the action area on the currents, and some juveniles may utilize the eelgrass as rearing habitat before moving into deep -water habitats offshore. The action area is designated as critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. SRKW are known to periodically travel and feed offshore. The past and ongoing anthropogenic impacts described above have impacted these species and critical habitats through reduced quantity and quality of the migratory and rearing habitat, including reduced water quality caused by the introduction of low levels of pollutants related to upland development and vessel operations. 2.5 Effects of the Action Under the ESA, "effects of the action" means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02). Direct effects are caused by exposure to action -related stressors that occur at the time of the action. Indirect effects are effects caused by the proposed action that occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur. Likely effects from the proposed action are associated with temporary, short term construction impacts, and permanent impacts of the proposed structures. Effects on listed species reasonably certain to occur from the proposed action include 1) temporary, short-term elevated levels of turbidity during both removal of the bulkhead; 2) temporary, short-term benthic disturbance by construction equipment and substrate removal and placement; 3) temporary, short-term elevated levels of PAHs and PCBs from the removed creosote piles; 4) temporary, short-term and spatially limited displacement of forage fish during pile driving; 5) permanent (50 years) overwater shading and associated potential predation impacts, and restricting access to known surf smelt spawning sites from the revetment -like overwater structure; and 6) permanent interrelated effects of pedestrian traffic on surf smelt spawning habitat. 2.5.1 Effects on Critical Habitat The proposed action would have effects on the shoreline, intertidal and nearshore environments. Within the action area, construction -related effects and long-term effects of placement of permanent structures (overwater walkway and stairway) would have effects on designated critical habitat of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -21- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 465 2.1.a Designated critical habitat within the action area for PS Chinook salmon consists of estuarine and marine rearing sites, migration corridors, and their essential physical and biological features. Critical habitat for bocaccio within the action area includes designated juvenile nearshore settlement habitats immediately adjacent to the project site, and designated benthic adult habitat areas in deeper portions of Puget Sound. For the project site under this review, the extreme high tide (HAT) at the Seattle tidal station (closest tidal station with HAT determination) is 13.26 feet, which is 1.90 feet above mean higher high water (MHHW) at this station. Accordingly, NMFS has assessed potential effects on designated critical habitat separate from the USACE's choice of MHHW for asserting jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. In this case, the overwater walkway proposed for installation is waterward of HAT and partially waterward of MHHW. The PBFs of PS Chinook salmon critical habitat in the action area include: • Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. The PBFs for PS/GB bocaccio in the action area include: • Juvenile settlement habitats located in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp with the following attributes; • Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and • Water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities. Temporary Effects Temporary, short-term, and localized impacts to critical habitat from the proposed action may result from construction effects related to the new overwater walkway; removal of the bulkhead, piles, and associated parking lot; and installation of the replacement stairway. Water quality would be affected by the generation of a small amount of suspended sediments during installation, as well as by the movement of construction equipment on the beach. Some temporary beach disturbance would be minimized by the proposed BMPs (e.g. narrow work corridor, and sandy substrate). By working only in the dry and during low tides, we expect only slightly elevated levels of turbidity during tidal inundations of work areas during the first high tide following project completion. Project -related turbidity is expected to abate within a matter of hours, and the area in which sediment creates turbid conditions would be localized (within a 150-foot radius to account for the point of compliance for aquatic life turbidity criteria set forth in the Washington State Water Quality Standards for marine waters; 173-201A-200 Washington Administrative Code). For these reasons, we expect that turbid water quality would be a very minor impact to PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat. Any elevated levels of turbidity, or benthic disturbance associated with in -water construction activities would be minimized by the proposed BMPs and conservation measures, and are WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -22- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 466 2.1.a expected to be minor, localized and short-term. Therefore, any impact of proposed construction activities on forage fish or primary productivity are expected to have a temporary and minor effect on forage potential of PS Chinook salmon and bocaccio. The project site currently lacks large woody debris, boulders, and riparian vegetation. No disturbance of eelgrass or other lower shore zone submerged aquatic vegetation is anticipated. Therefore, we expect any disturbance to the substrate or woody material from construction activities to have a temporary and minor effect on the PBF associated with cover availability for PS Chinook salmon of PS/GB bocaccio. Permanent Effects Below HAT, the proposed structures (overwater walkway and stairway) would have long-term adverse effects on the function of nearshore and intertidal habitat, including PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat. Effects of the new overwater walkway on nearshore and intertidal habitat function may include diminished primary productivity (e.g. phytoplankton and zooplankton), diminished epibenthic invertebrate colonization, and increased risk of predation (Shipman et al. 2010; Dethier et al. 2016). The steel piles supporting the overwater walkway would reduce drift wood from depositing on the beach. This would further reduce primary productivity within the intertidal zone and diminish invertebrate populations associated with beach wrack (Morley et al. 2012; Dethier et al. 2016). However, despite restricting surf smelt access to the beach, the proposed overwater walkway may suppress wave energy on the beach by acting as a porous breakwater, reducing episodic substrate erosion or scour events. These impacts on the PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat conditions are reasonably certain to include adverse effects on the forage PBFs of both species and the cover PBF of PS Chinook salmon. These effects would be long-term and are considered permanent, for the life of the structure. The proposed replacement of the south concrete stairway would continue to result in the suppression of riparian vegetation growth in that portion of the project site. Additionally, the stairway maintains the vertical distance between potential riparian vegetation along the top of the bank and the beach or water surface. This would result in the continued influence of poor shading and increased substrate temperatures in the upper intertidal, maintaining the risk of desiccation of invertebrates and reduction of intra-sediment moisture, which is important for intertidal invertebrate survival (Rice 2006; Holsman and Willig 2007). The loss of shade otherwise provided by riparian vegetation may also increase exposure of forage fish eggs to solar radiation and lead to increased rates of desiccation (Rice 2006). This, combined with reduced input of detritus and terrestrial insects from riparian vegetation further reduces forage potential for juvenile salmonids and bocaccio (Brennan and Culverwell 2004; Holsman and Willig 2007; Toft et al. 2007). The removal of 36 creosote piles, mixed -material bulkhead, and associated parking lot will improve habitat. Creosote harbors PAH chemicals, and is known to occur in fish tissue near the project site. The removal of the piles will improve long-term water quality at the site. The bulkhead and associated parking lot currently limit surf smelt spawning habitats and restrict sediment drift (which is nominal in the action area). The removal of this structure will improve WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -23- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 467 2.1.a forage fish habitat and improve sediment drift to facilitate continuous beach habitat northward to the ferry terminal. The removal of two large concrete foundations (576 square feet total) will improve surf smelt spawning habitat. The proposal adds a biofiltration element to the existing parking lot to additionally improve water quality by treating stormwater runoff. Lastly, the addition of LWD provides some production of epibenthic community, which increases productivity and forage. The action area for the effects to forage fish populations is broadly defined to account for the range of movement of fish that encounter degraded intertidal and nearshore habitat resulting from the proposed permanent structure (overwater walkway and replaced stairway). However, we expect that there would be no measureable impact to Chinook salmon (and also steelhead) or bocaccio forage potential (i.e. abundance) outside of the intertidal and nearshore areas. Because effects of permanent structures on individual forage fish would be localized to this area, there would be a very small effect to forage fish populations through decreased fitness of individual fish (e.g. from decreased primary productivity) and impaired spawning habitat availability, relative to the forage fish populations of the wider area (i.e., Puget Sound). Beyond this area close to the project site, within the broader action area, we anticipate diminishing effects on forage fish populations, no detectable effect on Chinook salmon or bocaccio abundance or critical habitat. 2.5.2 Effects on Listed Species Proposed construction will occur between July 15 and October 14. Construction is expected to take 15 — 20 months, although work waterward of the OHW will only occur during the work window and will not include in -water work. PS Chinook salmon inhabit the waters in and near the project site. Although most juvenile Chinook salmon will have moved further off shore and toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca by mid - July, some may reasonably be present, especially during the early phases of construction. Adult Chinook salmon will be present off shore, but will not be present in the action area. PS/GB bocaccio juveniles may occur within 100 meters of the project site in association with eelgrass and coarse substrate. PS steelhead and SRKW may be present near the site, but are very unlikely to be present in the action area because neither species is known to occupy the nearshore environment except under very rare occasions. The work window timing would minimize exposure to juvenile PS Chinook salmon migrating through the nearshore, and working out of the water will further minimize exposure to juvenile Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. PS/GB bocaccio larvae and young of the year juveniles may be present at the project site year-round but are most likely to be present between March and August (Greene and Godersky 2012; NMFS 2016b; Palsson et al. 2009). Larvae may be carried in by the currents and young of the year juveniles may rear in the eelgrass beds within 100 meters of the project site, but suitable habitat for bocaccio does not exist within the construction zone. Therefore we expect very few listed fish to be present at the project site and in the action area during construction. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -24- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 468 2.1.a Noise Although very few listed fish are expected to be within the action area, those that are may be exposed to construction -related effects. While all listed fish will experience the sound of pile driving in their habitat, vibratory pile driving is not known to cause injury to fish. The sounds created by vibratory pile driving are different from impact installation, and responses by fishes are also expected to differ. We expect these fish can hear the sounds produced by vibratory pile driving, although the sound is at the low end and below the optimal hearing range of fishes. Altered behavior or harm can occur to fishes with the use of impact pile driving techniques (Stadler and Woodbury 2009). Behavioral effects associated with elevated sound levels are temporary, and generally characterized by increased heart rate and elevated cortisol levels, and may interrupt normal behavior (Wysocki et al. 2006). Listed Chinook salmon, and rockfish are likely to occur in the action area during the construction period when vibratory pile driving will occur. However, these behavioral response are expected to cease shortly (minutes to hours) after the cessation of pile driving each day. SRKW are extremely unlikely to be within the action area during construction. That construction will be limited to out -of -water work will greatly minimize sound effects from the project on listed species and greatly decrease the range of noise detection. Suspended Sediment Exposure to construction -related degraded water quality would cause minor effects in PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. Water quality would be temporarily diminished by increased turbidity. Turbidity plumes may result from bottom sediments that are mobilized by pile and debris removal, spud lifting, and by propeller wash from the contractor's tugboat and barge (Robertson et al. 2006). Those plumes would be localized and short-lived, and consist of low concentrations of total suspended sediments (TSS). Tugboats would also mobilize bottom sediments. Based on similar projects, tugboatibarge trips to the site could be infrequent. Therefore, propeller wash turbidity plumes would be infrequent and low in number. The intensity and duration of propeller wash turbidity plumes are uncertain because barge equipment may or may not be used. However, given the low speeds of the tug when positioning the barge near the project site, the sandy substrate, and high level of water exchange at the site, sediment mobilization from propeller wash would likely consist of relatively low -concentration plumes that would extend no more than 100 meters from the site, and last less than an hour. As described above, construction -related turbidity would be very short-lived and at concentrations too low to cause more than temporary, non -injurious behavioral effects such as avoidance of the plume, minor gill flaring, and slightly reduced feeding rates and success (Berg and Northcote 1985; Robertson et al. 2006). None of these potential responses, individually, or in combination would affect the fitness of the few exposed individuals present. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -25- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 469 2.1.a Toxic Chemicals Water quality may also be impaired by the introduction of toxic materials as described in Section 2.5.1. Toxic materials may be introduced to the water through construction related spills and discharges, the mobilization of contaminated sediments, and/or the release of creosote -related PAHs directly from the piles during their removal. PS Chinook salmon or PS/GB bocaccio in the action area may be exposed to contaminants through direct uptake through their gills, and through dietary exposure (Karrow et al. 1999; Lee and Dobbs 1972; McCain et al. 1990; Meador et al. 2006; Neff 1982; Varanasi et al. 1993). Many of the pollutants that may enter the water column due to project activities can cause effects in exposed fish that range from avoidance of an affected area, to reduced growth, altered immune function, and immediate mortality in exposed individuals. The intensity of effects depends largely on the pollutant, its concentration, and/or the duration of exposure (Brette et al. 2014; Feist et al. 2011; Gobel et al. 2007; Incardona et al. 2004, 2005, and 2006; McIntyre et al. 2012; Meadore et al. 2006; Sandahl et al. 2007; Spromberg et al. 2015; Tierney et al. 2010). PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio may be exposed to toxic chemicals through the food chain. Amphipods and copepods uptake PAHs from contaminated sediments (Landrum and Scavia 1983; Landrum et al. 1984; Neff 1982), and pass them to juvenile Chinook salmon and other fish through the food web. The primary effects of dietary PAH exposure in salmonids include reduced growth, increased susceptibility to infection, and increased mortality. Varanasi et al. (1993) found high levels of PAHs in the stomach contents of juvenile Chinook salmon in a contaminated waterway (Duwamsh River). They also reported reduced growth, suppressed immune competence, as well as increased mortality in juvenile Chinook salmon. Meador et al. (2006) demonstrated that dietary exposure to PAHs caused "toxicant -induced starvation" with reduced growth and reduced lipid stores in juvenile Chinook salmon. The authors surmised that these impacts could severely impact the odds of survival in affected juvenile Chinook salmon. Juvenile PS/GB bocaccio were not specifically addressed in the available literature, but it is reasonable to expect that they may be similarly affected by dietary uptake of action -related contaminants. The sediments around the creosote -treated piles very likely contain PAHs, which may also be released directly from the piles and timbers during their removal (Evans et al. 2009; Parametrix 2011; Smith 2008; Werme et al. 2010). The amount of intensity and duration of PAHs that would be mobilized by construction activities is likely to be small. Most lighter -weight PAHs would dissipate within a few hours after their release into the water through evaporation and dilution (Smith 2008; Werme et al. 2010). The remaining contaminants would quickly settle out of the water along with the sediments, or be quickly diluted by the high rate of water exchange in the action area. Many of the fuels, lubricants, and other fluids used by common construction -related equipment are petroleum -based hydrocarbons with PAHs that are known to be injurious to fish. However, the project includes comprehensive BMPs to reduce the risk and intensity of discharges and spills from construction -related equipment. In the unlikely event of a construction -related spill or discharge, the event would likely be very small, quickly contained and cleaned, and most of the WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -26- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 470 2.1.a fuels and lubricants that used for this type of work would evaporate relatively quickly, and/or be quickly diluted by the tidal currents at the site. Based on the best available information, the in - water presence of construction -related contaminants would be very infrequent, very short-lived, and at concentrations too low to cause detectable effects should a listed fish be exposed to them. Based on the best available information, as described above, any fish that may be exposed to construction -related water quality impacts would experience no more than temporary low-level behavioral effects which, individually, or in combination would not affect the fitness of exposed individuals. Additionally, very few listed fish are unlikely to be exposed to PAHs that may be released as a result of the planned construction. Therefore, any PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio present would experience only minor effects from exposure to construction -related water quality impacts. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) impacts would cause minor effects in PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. SAV (i.e. macro algae and eelgrass) provides important structural environments that small fish, such as juvenile Chinook salmon and bocaccio, use to avoid predators. These plants form the foundation of detrital -based food webs that are a source of secondary production by supporting epiphytic plants, animals, and microbial organisms which are in turn are grazed upon by other invertebrates and by larval and juvenile fish (NMFS 1997). The loss of SAV would reduce primary production, and remove habitat that contributes to trophic systems, which in turn may reduce prey availability for juvenile Chinook salmon and bocaccio. Construction would damage very little SAV. Construction is likely to disturb a minimal amount of sandy -gravel substrate. The contractor's use of BMP specifies that avoiding SAV will be a priority for any barge -based landings, and aquatic vegetation extends from -2 to -20 MLLW, creating an unlikely influence of vessel traffic on listed species. Light Penetration and Avoidance Behavior The new overwater walkway structure would be installed over nearshore marine substrate between about +9.3 and +12.3 feet MLLW (note the tidal elevations provided in the BE are about 2.3 ft. lower due to the use of NAV 88 vertical projections). The structure would have a surface area of about 1540 square feet and be 50% grated with 60 percent open -area grating. This equates to about 20% light penetration after considering the pile caps, which add 147 square feet of concrete below the grating and are not accounted for in the BE. The planned location and orientation of the structure avoids existing eelgrass beds and patches and other submerged aquatic vegetation. The overwater walkway would be installed over intertidal substrates. The underside of the walkway base would lie between 2 and 2.5 feet above the substrate. In the seven locations of the piles, the pile caps would be in contact with the substrate at the minimum and one foot above the substrate at the maximum. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that scour pockets may form immediately adjacent to the pile and below the pile caps where water flowing from tides and WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -27- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 471 2.1.a from storm surge will erode sandy substrates. These pockets, if they form, could become attractive nuisances that trap and then strand fish as the tide recedes. Juvenile Chinook salmon and surf smelt are pelagic and less likely to become entrapped than other fishes (e.g., surf perch, sculpin), but it is not beyond reason that listed fish or their prey could become stranded or killed if scour occurs. Structure -related shade would reduce productivity. It is also likely to alter the migratory patterns, and may increase vulnerability to predators. The intensity of shadow effects are likely to vary based on the brightness and angle of the sun. They would be most intense on sunny days, and less pronounced to possibly inconsequential on cloudy days. Productivity is likely to be reduced under the new structure. Shade can limit primary production and reduce the diversity of the aquatic communities under over -water structures (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001; Simenstad et al. 1999). Although the structure's shadow would be less intense than would be caused by a solid -decked structure of the same size, 20% light penetration is low for a structure this size and may fail to meet state regulatory standards (WAC 220-660-380). The shadow is likely to cause some reduction in the growth of microorganisms under and adjacent to the structure. This, in turn, may reduce the production of invertebrate prey organisms for juvenile salmonids and rockfish. The degree to which productivity would be reduced under the new structure is uncertain, but it is likely to be relatively small based on its size and design. Similarly, shade -related reduction in prey is likely to be very small, and the effects of the reduction would be quickly diminished by mixing with the waters from nearby areas with higher productivity. Therefore the effects of shade -related prey reduction would be too small to cause detectable effects on the behaviors or fitness of juvenile Chinook salmon and bocaccio in the area. The migration patterns and distances travelled for some juvenile PS Chinook salmon are likely to be altered by the new structure's shadow. Many of the juvenile Chinook salmon that migrate through the action area would still be largely shoreline obligated. The new structure would create a 154-foot long by 10-foot wide (or wider depending on the angle of the sun) shadow across the shallow water routes likely to be followed by juvenile salmon migrating along this section of shoreline. Additionally, the depth of the walkway will functionally prohibit migrating juvenile Chinook salmon from using the shoreline and force them into deeper water with increasing tidal elevation. Numerous studies demonstrate that juvenile salmonids, in both marine and freshwater habitats, are more likely to avoid the shadow of an overwater structure than to pass through the shadow (Celedonia et al. 2008a and b; Kemp et al. 2005; Moore et al. 2013; Munsch et al. 2014; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001; Ono et al. 2010; Southard et al. 2006). The intensity of the effect increases with proximity of the structure to the water and the increased contrast between light and dark areas. Swimming around overwater structures increases the migratory distance, which has been positively correlated with increased mortality in juvenile Chinook salmon (Anderson et al. 2005) Celedonia et al. (2008a) report that two thirds of the juvenile Chinook salmon tracked during their study experienced a detectable delay in their migration under the SR 520 Bridge, where WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -28- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 472 2.1.a there is no option to go around. One third of the fish experienced an average delay of 15- minutes. One third experienced delays of under 1 minute, and one third showed no delay. Although the SR-520 Bridge is an imperfect analog for the applicant's structure, the authors' findings support the understanding that at least some of the juvenile PS Chinook salmon that migrate past the project site would swim around the structure to avoid its shadow. The structure's shadow is unlikely to affect juvenile bocaccio because they are most likely to be holding substantially deeper in the SAV where the effects of under -structure shade would be non- existent. Predation Risk Predation exposure is unlikely to increase due to the structure's shadow. The high intertidal location of the walkway is unlikely to harbor predators, such as sculpin (Cottidae sp.), and even at OHW, the depth would only be about two feet deep. The effects that the new structure's shade and physical barrier may cause a minor increased risk of predation in PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio but the effects would be undetectable. As described in Section 1.3.2, the proposed action imposes a interrelated actions. The new stairs and ramp will create an attractive setting for beach goers where access is currently less inviting. Thus, the added stairway and ramp constitute interrelated actions associated with the proposed action. Indeed, the added stairway and ramp are designed to attract pedestrians to the beach. As described previously, the project site features active surf smelt spawning. Surf smelt are important prey species for PS Chinook salmon, and probably PS/GB bocaccio. In turn, SR killer whales consume PS Chinook salmon. Surf smelt eggs are often unnoticed to untrained eyes, and spawn timing is not always predictable (Quinn et al. 2012). Thus, the likelihood of surf smelt eggs becoming trampled, buried, or spawning events deterred altogether is reasonable. 2.6 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, which are reasonably certain to occur within the action area (50 CFR 402.02). Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. Some continuing non -Federal activities are reasonably certain to contribute to climate effects within the action area. However, it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between the action area's future environmental conditions caused by global climate change that are properly part of the environmental baseline vs. cumulative effects. Therefore, all relevant future climate -related environmental conditions in the action area are described in the Environmental Baseline section (Section 2.4). The current condition of ESA -listed species and designated critical habitat within the action area are described in the Status of the Species and critical habitat and Environmental Baseline sections above. The contribution of non-federal activities to those conditions include past and on- going shoreline development and maritime activities, as well as upstream forest management, WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -29- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 473 2.1.a agriculture, urbanization, road construction, water development, and restoration activities. Those actions were driven by a combination of economic conditions that characterized traditional natural resource -based industries, general resource demands associated with settlement of local and regional population centers, and the efforts of social groups dedicated to river restoration and use of natural amenities, such as cultural inspiration and recreational experiences. NMFS is unaware of any specific future non-federal activities that are reasonably certain to affect the action area. However, NMFS is reasonably certain that future non-federal actions such as the previously mentioned shoreline and upstream activities are all likely to continue and increase in the future as the human population continues to grow across the region. Continued habitat loss and degradation of water quality from development and chronic low-level inputs of non -point source pollutants will likely continue into the future. Recreational and commercial use of nearshore marine waters within the action area is also likely to increase as the human population grows. The intensity of these influences depends on many social and economic factors, and therefore is difficult to predict. Further, the adoption of more environmentally acceptable practices and standards may gradually reduce some negative environmental impacts over time. Interest in restoration activities has increased as environmental awareness rises among the public. State, tribal, and local governments have developed plans and initiatives to benefit ESA -listed PS Chinook salmon within several watersheds around the action area. Similar activities are in development for PS/GB bocaccio in Puget Sound. However, the implementation of plans, initiatives, and specific restoration projects are often subject to political, legislative, and fiscal challenges that increase the uncertainty of their success. 2.7 Integration and Synthesis The Integration and Synthesis section is the final step in our assessment of the risk posed to species and critical habitat as a result of implementing the proposed action. In this section, we add the effects of the action (Section 2.5) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.4) and the cumulative effects (Section 2.6), taking into account the status of the species and critical habitat (Section 2.2), to formulate the agency's biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to: 1) Appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution; or 2) appreciably diminish the value of designated or proposed critical habitat for the conservation of the species. As described in more detail above at Section 2.4, climate change is likely to increasingly affect the abundance and distribution of the ESA -listed species considered in the Opinion. It is also likely to increasingly affect the PBF of designated critical habitats. The exact effects of climate change are both uncertain, and unlikely to be spatially homogeneous. However, climate change is reasonably likely to cause reduced instream flows in some systems, and may impact water quality through elevated in -stream water temperatures and reduced DO, as well as by causing more frequent and more intense flooding events. Climate change may also impact coastal waters through elevated surface water temperature, increased and variable acidity, increasing storm frequency and magnitude, and rising sea levels. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -30- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 474 2.1.a The adaptive ability of listed -species is uncertain, but likely reduced due to reductions in population size, habitat quantity and diversity, and loss of behavioral and genetic variation. The proposed action will cause direct and indirect effects on the ESA -listed species and critical habitats considered in the Opinion well into the foreseeable future. However, the action's effects on water quality, substrate, and the biological environment are expected to be of such a small scale that no detectable effects on ESA -listed species or critical habitat through synergistic interactions with the impacts of climate change are expected. 2.7.1 ESA -listed Species The species considered in this Opinion have been listed under the ESA, based on declines from historic levels of abundance and productivity, loss of spatial structure and diversity, and an array of limiting factors as a baseline habitat condition. Each species will be affected over time by cumulative effects, some positive — as recovery plan implementation and regulatory revisions increase habitat protections and restoration, and some negative — as climate change and unregulated or difficult to regulate sources of environmental degradation persist or increase. Overall, to the degree that habitat trends are negative, as described below, effects on viability parameters of each species are also likely to be negative. In this context we consider the effects of the proposed action's effect on individuals of the listed species at the population scale. The action area provides habitat for nearshore marine life histories of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. For PS Chinook salmon, the action area supports PS Chinook salmon adult and juvenile migration, and juvenile growth and adaptation to marine waters, particularly for PS Chinook salmon from populations within the Whidbey Basin and the Central/South Puget Sound Basin MPGs. Although the Whidbey Basin MPG is considered to be at relatively low risk of extinction, their abundance is low relative to historic levels. The other four MPGs are considered to be at high risk of extinction due to low abundance and productivity, and the long-term abundance trend for the ESU is slightly negative. Reduced or eliminated accessibility to historically important habitat, combined with degraded conditions in available habitat due to land use activities are the greatest threats to the recovery of PS Chinook salmon. The project site is located along the eastern shore of Puget Sound, in Edmonds. The environmental baseline within the action area has been degraded by more than 100 years of shoreline development, maritime activities, upland urbanization, and road building and maintenance. The WDOE reports impaired water and sediment quality exceedances in the action area, and eelgrass is documented at depths between about -2 to -20 feet below MLLW along the shoreline within the action area. The action area remains supportive of PS Chinook salmon, and provides migratory habitat for adults and juveniles. The planned work window overlaps with the later stages of out -migration by shoreline -obligated juvenile Chinook salmon that pass through the action area. Adults Chinook salmon or bocaccio are very unlikely to be present or detectably affected by the work or by the new structure. During construction, very low numbers of out -migrating juveniles may experience fitness impacts and increased susceptibility to predation due to behavioral responses to construction noise. Following construction, very low numbers of juveniles may be exposed annually to ever- WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -31- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 475 2.1.a decreasing levels of contaminated forage from mobilized sediments, and/or exposed to structure - related altered migration and exposure to propeller wash over the decades -long expected life of the structure. These stressors, both individually and collectively, are likely to cause a range of effects that would include some combination of altered behaviors, delayed migration, reduced fitness, and mortality in some exposed individuals. Based on the best available information, the scale of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, when considered in combination with the degraded baseline, cumulative effects, and the impacts of climate change, would be too small to cause detectable effects on any of the characteristics of a viable salmon population (abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, or genetic diversity) for the affected populations. Therefore, the proposed action would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of this listed species. For PS/GB bocaccio, the action area provides habitat features that are supportive of juvenile rearing. However, PS/GB bocaccio are relatively uncommon throughout the range of the DPS, and it is uncertain whether or not PS/GB bocaccio currently utilize the habitat off shore from the project site. No reliable population estimates are available for the DPS, but the best available information indicates that bocaccio were never a predominant segment of the total rockfish abundance in Puget Sound. Fishing removals and derelict fishing gear, combined with degraded water quality appear to be the greatest threats to the recovery of the DPS. Based on the best available information, the scale of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, when considered in combination with the degraded baseline, cumulative effects, and the impacts of climate change, would be too small to cause detectable effects on any of the characteristics of a viable population (abundance, productivity, distribution, or genetic diversity) for the PS/GB bocaccio DPS. Therefore, the proposed action would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of this listed species. 2.7.2 Critical Habitat As described above at Section 2.5.1, the proposed action is likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. For PS Chinook salmon critical habitat, past and ongoing land and water use practices have degraded salmonid critical habitat throughout the Puget Sound basin. Hydropower and water management activities have reduced or eliminated access to significant portions of historic spawning habitat. Timber harvests, agriculture, industry, urbanization, and shoreline development have adversely altered floodplain and stream morphology in many watersheds, diminished the availability and quality of estuarine and nearshore marine habitats, and reduced water quality across the region. Global climate change is expected to increase in -stream water temperatures and alter stream flows, possibly exacerbating impacts on baseline conditions in freshwater habitats across the region. Rising sea levels are expected to increase coastal erosion and alter the composition of nearshore habitats, which could further reduce the availability and quality of estuarine habitats. Increased ocean acidification may also reduce the quality of estuarine habitats. In the future, non-federal land and water use practices and climate change are likely to increase and continue acting against the quality of salmonid critical habitat. The intensity of those WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -32- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 476 2.1.a influences on salmonid habitats is uncertain, as is the degree to which those impacts may be tempered by adoption of more environmentally acceptable land use practices, by the implementation of non-federal plans that are intended to benefit salmonids, and by efforts to address the effects of climate change. The PBF for PS Chinook salmon critical habitat in the action area are limited to estuarine and nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation. The site attributes of those PBF that would be affected by the action are limited to water quality, natural cover, and forage that support juvenile growth and maturation, and juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater. As described above, the environmental conditions within the action area have been degraded by past and ongoing human activity, but remains supportive of PS Chinook salmon. The construction and long-term presence of the new overwater structure would cause conditions within about 200 meters of the site that would cause minor long term effects on obstruction and predation, minor ephemeral effects on water quality, minor long-term effects on natural cover, and minor long term effects on forage. The proposed removal of creosote -treated piles and timbers are likely to provide long-term beneficial effects on water and sediment quality through the removal of the source of PAH contamination at the site. Based on the best available information, the scale of the proposed action's effects, when considered in combination with the degraded baseline, cumulative effects, and the impacts of climate change, would be too small to cause any detectable long-term negative changes in the quality or functionality of the estuarine and nearshore marine area PBFs in the action area. Therefore, this critical habitat will maintain its current level of functionality, and retain its current ability for PBF to become functionally established, to serve the intended conservation role for PS Chinook salmon. For PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat, nearshore critical habitat has been degraded by past and ongoing shoreline development that has altered shoreline substrates, and reduced eelgrass and kelp habitats in many areas of Puget Sound. Agriculture, industry, urbanization, and maritime activities have reduced water quality throughout Puget Sound, and the widespread presence of derelict fishing gear in both nearshore and deep -water critical habitat areas has altered bottom composition, reduces prey availability, and directly kills rockfish. Rising sea levels, caused by climate change, are expected to increase coastal erosion and alter the composition of nearshore critical habitat for PS/GB bocaccio. Elevated sea surface temperatures and increased ocean acidification may also reduce the quality of nearshore marine habitats, and reduce prey availability by reducing ocean productivity. Future non-federal actions and climate change are likely to increase and continue acting against the quality of PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat. The intensity of those influences is uncertain, as is the degree to which those impacts may be tempered by adoption of more environmentally acceptable practices, by restoration activities such as efforts to remove derelict fishing gear, and by efforts to address the effects of climate change. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -33- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 477 2.1.a The PBF for PS/GB bocaccio critical habitat in the action area is limited to nearshore settlement habitats with sand, rock, and/or cobble substrates that also support kelp. The site attributes of that PBF that would be affected by the action are limited to prey quantity, quality, and availability, and water quality to support individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities. As described above, the environmental conditions within the action area have been degraded by past and ongoing human activity, but remains supportive of juvenile PS/GB bocaccio. The construction and long-term presence of the new overwater structure would cause conditions within about 200 meters of the site that would cause minor long term effects on the quantity, quality, and availability of prey; and minor ephemeral effects on water quality. The proposed removal of creosote -treated piles and timbers are likely to provide long-term beneficial effects on water and sediment quality through the removal of the source of PAH contamination at the site. Based on the best available information, the scale of the proposed action's effects, when considered in combination with the degraded baseline, cumulative effects, and the impacts of climate change, would be too small to cause any detectable long-term negative changes in the quality or functionality of the nearshore settlement PBF in the action area. Therefore, this critical habitat will maintain its current level of functionality, and retain its current ability for PBF to become functionally established, to serve the intended conservation role for PS/GB bocaccio. 2.8 Conclusion After reviewing and analyzing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline within the action area, the effects of the proposed action, any effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, and cumulative effects, it is NMFS' opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio. 2.9 Incidental Take Statement Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. "Take" is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined by regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). "Incidental take" is defined by regulation as takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.02). Section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) provide that taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA if that action is performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement (ITS). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -34- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 478 2.1.a 2.9.1 Amount or Extent of Take In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that incidental take is reasonably certain to occur as follows: Harm of juvenile PS Chinook salmon from: • exposure to noise from pile extraction and driving, • exposure to contaminated forage, • altered migratory behaviors, and • reduced forage fish prey. Harm of PS/GB bocaccio from: • exposure to noise from pile extraction and driving, and • exposure to contaminated forage, • reduced forage fish prey. The distribution and abundance of fish that occur within an action area are affected by habitat quality, competition, predation, and the interaction of processes that influence genetic, population, and environmental characteristics. These biotic and environmental processes interact in ways that may be random or directional, and may operate across far broader temporal and spatial scales than are affected by the proposed action. Thus, the distribution and abundance of fish within the action area cannot be attributed entirely to habitat conditions, nor can NMFS precisely predict the number of fish that are reasonably certain to be injured or killed if their habitat is modified or degraded by the proposed action. Therefore, we cannot predict with meaningful accuracy the number of juvenile PS Chinook salmon and juvenile PS/GB bocaccio that are reasonably certain to be injured or killed by exposure to increased predation, construction noise and contaminated forage. Nor can we predict the number of juvenile PS Chinook salmon that are reasonably certain to experience altered migratory behaviors, or that would be injured or killed by exposure to impaired water quality. Additionally, NMFS knows of no device or practicable technique that would yield reliable counts of individuals that experience these impacts. In such circumstances, NMFS uses the causal link established between the activity and the likely extent and duration of changes in habitat conditions to describe the extent of take as a numerical level of habitat disturbance. The most appropriate surrogates for take are action -related parameters that are directly related to the magnitude of the expected take. For this action, the type and size of the piles that would be removed and installed, the method of their extraction and installation, and the total number of days of pile work are the best available surrogates for the extent of take of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio from exposure to noise from pile extraction and driving. The size of the visible turbidity plume is the best available surrogate for the extent of take of juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio from exposure to contaminated forage. The size and configuration of the applicant's overwater walkway is the best available surrogate for the extent of take of juvenile PS Chinook salmon from altered migratory behaviors or potential predation. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -35- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 479 2.1.a The type and size of the piles, the method of their extraction and installation, and the total number of days of pile work are the best available surrogates because the intensity of effect is positively correlated to the loudness of the sound, which is determined by the type and size of the pile and the method of its extraction/installation. Further, the number of fish that would be exposed to the noise is positively correlated with the range of effect and the number of days that the action area would be impacted by sound. In short, as the sound level increase, the intensity of effect and the size of the affected area increases, and as the size of the ensonified area increases, and/or as the number of days the area is ensonified increases, the number of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio that would be exposed to the sound would increase despite the out -of -water work, and low density and random distribution of individuals of these species in the action area. Based on the best available information about the planned pile extraction and installation, as described in Section 2.5, the applicable ranges of effect for this project are driven by the type and size of the piles and the method of their extraction and installation, not by the duration of vibratory work. Therefore, duration of vibratory work is not considered a measure of take for this action. The size of the visible turbidity plume is the best available surrogate for the extent of take from exposure to contaminated forage because the number of prey organisms that would uptake contaminants that are mobilized by this action would be proportional to the size of the area where contaminated sediments would settle back to the bottom. Therefore, as the size of the visible turbidity plume increases, the number of prey organisms that may become contaminated and then eaten by juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio would increase, despite the low density and random distribution of juveniles of both of these species in the action area. The size and configuration of the applicant's overwater walkway is the best available surrogate for the extent of take from altered migratory behaviors because migratory effects are positively correltated with the size of the structure and with its opacity. As the size of a structure increases, the distance required to swim around and the associated risk of predation increases. As the opacity of the structure increases, the intensity of its shadow typically increases. The darker the shadow, the greater the likelihood that a juvenile salmonid would avoid it, and consequently delay its migration or abandon its normal shoreline path in favor of swimming around the shadow (i.e., further into deeper water). In summary, the extent of take for this action is defined as: Puget Sound Chinook salmon: a. A maximum of 5 days of pile installation; b. Vibratory extraction of up to 39 timber creosote piles (three of which may occur in - water); c. Vibratory installation of a maximum of seven steel pipe piles no larger than 30 inches in diameter, and up 66 H-pile 16 or 18 inches in size (or sheet pile with equal or smaller footprint), which will occur out of surface waters; d. A visible turbidity plume not to exceed 100 meters from the project site during any portion of the project, including movement of the contractor's tugboat; and e. The size and configuration of the applicant's overwater walkway, as described in the proposed action section of this biological opinion. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -36- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 480 2.1.a 2. Puget Sound Georgia Basin bocaccio: a. A maximum of 5 days of pile installation; b. Vibratory extraction of up to 39 timber creosote piles and H-posts 16 to 18 inches in diameter; c. Vibratory installation of a maximum of seven steel pipe piles no larger than 30 inches in diameter, and H-posts 16 to 18 inches in diameter, which will occur out of surface waters; d. A visible turbidity plume not to exceed 100 meters from the project site during any portion of the project, including movement of the contractor's tugboat; and e. The size and configuration of the applicant's overwater walkway, as described in the proposed action section of this biological opinion. Exceedance of any of the exposure limits described above would constitute an exceedance of authorized take that would trigger the need to reinitiate consultation. 2.9.2 Effect of the Take In the Opinion, NMFS determined that the amount or extent of anticipated take, coupled with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for either of these species (Section 2.8). 2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures "Reasonable and prudent measures" (RPMs) are nondiscretionary measures to minimize the amount or extent of incidental take (50 CFR 402.02). The USACE shall: 1. Minimize incidental take of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio from exposure to pile extraction and driving noise. 2. Minimize incidental take of PS Chinook salmon PS/GB bocaccio from exposure to contaminated forage. 3. Minimize incidental take of PS Chinook salmon from altered migratory behaviors. 4. Avoid entrapment and potential predation from substrate scour adjacent to the walkway piles. 5. Implement monitoring and reporting to confirm that the take exemption for the proposed action is not exceeded. 2.9.4 Terms and Conditions The terms and conditions described below are non -discretionary. The USACE or any applicant a must comply with them in order to implement the RPM (50 CFR 402.14). The USACE or any z applicant has a continuing duty to monitor the impacts of incidental take and must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species as specified in this ITS (50 CFR 402.14). If Q the entity to whom a term and condition is directed does not comply with the following terms and conditions, protective coverage for the proposed action would likely lapse. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -37- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 481 2.1.a To implement RPM Number 1, Minimize incidental take of listed fish from exposure to noise from pile extraction and driving, the USACE shall require the applicant to: a. Require their contractors to comply with the impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE including avoiding in -water work and employing a vibratory hammer to minimize noise, and in the provisions of the WDFW HPA for this project when issued; b. Require their contractor to utilize vibratory pile extraction and installation; and 2. To implement RPM Number 2, Minimize incidental take of listed fish from exposure to contaminated forage, the USACE shall require the applicant to: a. Require their contractors to comply with the impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE (Herrera 2017), and in the provisions identified in the WDFW HPA for this project when issued; b. Require their contractors to install a containment boom (preferably full -depth silt curtain if practicable) around pile extraction and debris removal if conducting in - water work for the three creosote pile extractions; c. Require their contractors to limit pile removal to vibratory extraction and/or simple pull techniques (no water jetting, no clamshell excavation); and d. Require their contractors and tugboat operators to adjust work practices to ensure that turbidity does not exceed 100 meters from the project site, and to halt work should the visible turbidity plume approach and that range; and e. Require their contractors to prohibit shore -based demolitions and associated debris from coming in contact with marine waters. f. Require non -toxic and/or biodegradable lubricants and fluids (which are commonly used by many of the local contractors) for all machinery operating on the project, particularly when machinery operates waterward of the OHW. 3. To implement RPM Number 3, Minimize incidental take of PS Chinook salmon from altered migratory behaviors, the USACE shall require the applicant to ensure that the size and configuration of the overwater walkway structure does not exceed the dimensions described in the proposed action section above. In particular: a. The structure's overwater footprint shall not exceed a total of 1540-square feet; b. The pier shall be no larger than 154 feet long and 10 feet wide, and its underside shall be at least 8 feet above mean lower low water; c. The overwater walkway shall be 50% decked with grating that has at least 60 percent open area; d. The overwater walkway shall meet the minimum standards for light penetration (see WAC 220-660-380); e. The total number of steel piles shall be limited to seven 30-inch diameter; and f. The replacement stairs extend no further waterward than the existing structure. 4. To implement RPM Number 4, implement a test of the structure and site conditions prior to construction to ensure that the design does not form scour pockets and potentially WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -38- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 482 2.1.a strand fish. Using the existing concrete foundation prior to its removal is a suitable analog for this test. 5. To implement RPM Number 5, implement a monitoring and reporting program to confirm that the take exemption for the proposed action is not exceeded, the USACE shall require the applicant to collect and report details about the take of listed fish. That plan shall: a. Require the contractor to maintain and submit construction logs to verify that all take indicators are monitored and reported. Minimally, the logs should include: i. The dates (with workday start and stop times) for all pile extraction and installation work; ii. The type, size, and number of piles extracted and/or installed, per day; iii. The duration of vibratory pile extraction, per pile; iv. The duration of vibratory pile installation, per pile; v. A description of any containment boom installed around pile and debris extraction (full -depth silt curtain if possible); and vi. The extent (feet) and duration of visible turbidity plumes around pile and debris extraction, and during tugboat operations. b. Establish procedures for the submission of the construction logs, and other materials, to the appropriate USACE office, which will draft and submit a report to NMFS. c. Submit an electronic post -construction report to NMFS within six months of project completion. Send the report to: projectreports.wcr@noaa.gov. Be sure to include the NMFS Tracking number for this project in the subject line: Attn: WCRO-2018- 00112. 2.10 Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and endangered species. Specifically, conservation recommendations are suggestions regarding discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information (50 CFR 402.02). 1. The USACE should request the applicant design the project to achieve at least 30% light penetration for the overwater walkway. 2. The USACE should encourage the applicant to require their contactors to install full - depth silt curtains around in -water pile and debris extraction to minimize the spread of creosote -contaminated sediments. 3. The USACE and the applicant should encourage contracted tugboat operator(s) to use the lowest safe maneuvering speeds and power settings when maneuvering in shallow waters close to the shoreline, with the intent to minimize propeller wash and mobilization of sediments at the site. 4. The USACE should encourage the applicant to install clean capping material over substrates where contaminated sediments may settle out after pile and debris extraction (beyond any planed filling of depressions where the piles where removed). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -39- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 483 2.1.a 5. The USACE should encourage the applicant to develop a plan to reduce the environmental impacts at the overwater walkway. Suggested measures include: a. Inform pedestrians about the importance of the nearshore marine habitats at the site to migrating juvenile salmon and rearing rockfish; b. Require beachgoers to avoid harming eelgrass at low tides; c. Prohibit anchoring in or near eelgrass; d. Prohibit fueling and maintenance of power boats while on the water; and e. Establish a system to prevent and/or remove litter and wastes from the area around the walkways; and 6. The Corps should conduct or support research to better understand the distribution, abundance, and habitat use of PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio in the action area. 2.11 Reinitiation of Consultation This concludes formal consultation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' authorization of Beach Camp at Sunset Bay to install a pile -supported pier, ramp, and float mooring structure at their shoreline facility on Puget Sound, Washington. As 50 CFR 402.16 states, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and if: (1) The amount or extent of incidental taking specified in the ITS is exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion, (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect on the listed species or critical habitats that was not considered in this Opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the action. 2.12 Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations This concurrence was prepared pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402 and agency guidance for preparation of letters of concurrence. Refer to the opinion for a description of the proposed action and action area. As described in section 1.2, the USACE determined the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the species and critical habitats identified in Table 1. However, as described in the Opinion above, NMFS did not concur that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect PS Chinook salmon and PS/GB bocaccio, and designated critical habitat for both of those species. Our concurrence with the USACE's "not likely to adversely affect" determinations for PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and designated critical habitat for PS/GB yelloweye follows. Detailed information on the biology, habitat, and conservation status and trend of these listed resources can be found in the recovery plans and other sources at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/, and in the listing regulations and critical habitat designations published in the Federal Register. That information is incorporated here by reference. The applicable standard to find that a proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat is that all of the effects of the action are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -40- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 484 2.1.a without any adverse effects to the species or critical habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. As described above in Section 2.5, the proposed action is likely to affect listed species and/or critical habitat features through construction and structure -related effects. For simplicity, the effects analysis in this section relies heavily on the discussions in Section 2.5, and the stressors have been grouped into the following categories: degraded water quality, shade, and impacts to forage resources. 2.12.1 Effects on List Species Construction- and Structure -related Elevated Noise: Exposure to action -related elevated noise would cause minor effects in PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. PS steelhead and PS/GB yelloweye rock fish are extremely unlikely to be in areas where they would be exposed to levels of action -related noise. Additionally, because pile installation and extraction will occur outside of the water (i.e., in the dry), noise -related effects are expected to be very minor and not disruptive to fish in the area. PS steelhead are rarely reported in nearshore marine habitats. Juvenile steelhead are generally 2-3 years old and over 160 mm long when they enter marine water, and like adult steelhead, they are very uncommon in shallow nearshore areas. Out -migrating PS steelhead spend two to three weeks in Puget Sound and migrate toward the middle of the channel. Similarly, the nearest deepwater habitats that would be supportive of juvenile and adult PS/GB yelloweye rock fish are well outside of the area of acoustic effect for fish. Further, in the unlikely event that individuals of either species are exposed to action -related noise, they would, at most, experience minor temporary behavioral effects, that would result in no meaningfully impact on their fitness or normal behaviors of an exposed individual. In the event that SR killer whales enter the area of acoustic effect, it is extremely unlikely that individuals would approach close enough to the project site. Should any whales approach close enough to hear project related noise, they would, at most, experience brief periods of low-level acoustic masking (virtually undetectable against the ambient noise in the area), and may exhibit temporary minor avoidance of the waters very close to the project site. The exposure would cause no impacts on the fitness of exposed SR killer whales, and it would cause no meaningful impacts on their normal behaviors. Degraded Water QualitK Exposure to action -related degraded water quality would cause negligible and discountable effects in PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. As described in the Opinion above, construction and structure -related operations would cause short-term minor effects on water quality within about 150 feet of the project site, and those impacts would cause no meaningful effects in exposed fish. It is extremely unlikely that PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales would approach within 200 meters of the site, especially during construction. Further, in the unlikely event that individuals of any of these species become exposed to water of reduced quality that is attributable to the proposed action, the best available information suggests that the exposure would cause no meaningful impacts on their fitness or normal behaviors. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -41- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 485 2.1.a Shade: Exposure to action -related shading would cause no more than minor effects in PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. As described in the Opinion above, action -related shade effects would be largely limited the area directly under and adjacent to the new overwater structure. It is extremely unlikely that PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales would approach the action area. Further, in the unlikely event that individuals of any of these species become exposed to action -related shade, the best available information suggests that the exposure would cause no meaningful impacts on their fitness or normal behaviors. Impacts on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV) and Forage Resources: Impacts on SAV and forage resources would cause no more than minor effects in PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. As described in the Opinion above, construction and shade would not impact SAV in the area immediately surrounding the project site. PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales are extremely unlikely utilize SAV or to forage within the action area. Further, none of these species would be detectably affected by prey availability or quality because the action would cause no population -level effects on prey species, and the number of potentially contaminated prey organisms that may be consumed by an individual would be too low to cause any detectable effects. Therefore, action - related impacts on SAV and forage resources would cause no detectable effects on the fitness or normal behaviors of PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rock fish, and SR killer whales. Debris removal is expected to mobilize contaminated sediments within 150 feet of the project site, and slightly increase the contamination of some invertebrate organisms that may be eaten by small fish and other organisms within that area. The small fish that consume the contaminated forage in the action area would become contaminated forage for larger species that feed on them. However, the number of small fish that may be affected by the consumption of action -related contaminated prey would be too low to cause any detectable effects in the predators that may later consume them. 2.12.2 Effects on Critical Habitat This assessment considers the intensity of expected effects in terms of the change they would cause in affected PBFs from their baseline conditions, and the severity of each effect, considered in terms of the time required to recover from the effect. Ephemeral effects are those that are likely to last for hours or days, short-term effects would likely to last for weeks, and long-term effects are likely to last for months, years or decades. PS/GB Yelloweye Rockfish Critical Habitat: The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat that has been designated for PS/GB yelloweye rockfish. The essential PBF of this critical habitat is limited to substrates at depths greater than 98 feet (30 m) and the waters above that substrate. That habitat occurs beyond the expected range of potential effects from the proposed action. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the action would cause any detectable effect on any PBF of this critical habitat. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -42- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 486 2.1.a SR killer whale Critical Habitat: The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat that has been designated for SR killer whales. Designated critical habitat for SR killer whales includes marine waters of the Puget Sound that are at least 20 feet deep. The expected effects on SR killer whale critical habitat from completion of the proposed action, including full application of the conservation measures and BMP, would be limited to the impacts on the PBF as described below. 1. Water quality to support growth and development The proposed action would cause ephemeral minor effects on water quality. It would cause no measurable changes in water temperature and salinity. The presence of detectable levels of contaminants, including suspended sediments, would be so ephemeral, infrequent, localized, and of such low concentrations that changes in water quality would cause insignificant effects on this PBF. 2. Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability. t�pport individual _growth, reproduction, and development, as well as overall population growth The proposed action would cause long-term minor effects on prey. Construction -related impacts on prey resources, including juvenile salmonid exposure to contaminated prey would be too small to cause any detectable reduction in prey availability for SR killer whales. Also, the level of potential contamination in the action area and the of number of juvenile salmon that may consume action -related contaminated prey would be too low to cause any detectable effects or bioaccumulation in SR killer whales that may later consume those fish. 3. Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging The proposed action would cause ephemeral minor effects on passage conditions. Detectable levels of construction -related noise may radiate within 150 feet around the project site due to the work being performed in the dry. Exposure to this noise would, at most, cause brief episodic periods of low-level acoustic masking (virtually undetectable against the ambient noise in the area, and avoidance of the area immediately around the project. However, the temporary areal avoidance would not hinder migration, or limit access to important habitat resources. For the reasons expressed immediately above, NMFS concurs with the USACE's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect ESA -listed PS steelhead, PS/GB yelloweye rockfish and its designated critical habitat, and SR killer whales and their designated critical habitat. 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION Section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The MSA (section 3) defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality or quantity of EFH, and may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the waters or substrate and loss of (or injury to) benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -43- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 487 2.1.a effects on EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of it and may include site -specific or EFH-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). Section 305(b) also requires NMFS to recommend measures that can be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH. This analysis is based, in part, on the EFH assessment provided by the applicant and descriptions of EFH for Pacific Coast groundfish (PFMC 2005), coastal pelagic species (PFMC 1998), and Pacific Coast salmon (PFMC 2014) contained in the fishery management plans developed by the PFMC and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project The proposed action and action area for this consultation are described in section 1 of this document. The action area includes areas designated as EFH for various life -history stages of Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species. The PFMC described and identified EFH for Pacific coast groundfish (PFMC 2005), Pacific salmon (PFMC 2014), and coastal pelagic species (PFMC 1998). In addition, the action area is designated as a habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) for estuarine habitat and for eelgrass. 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat The ESA portion of this document describes the adverse effects of this proposed action on ESA - listed species and critical habitat, and is relevant to the effects on EFH for Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species. Based on the analysis of effects presented in Section 2.5 the proposed action will cause small scale adverse effects on this EFH through direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the water or substrate, and through alteration of benthic communities, and the reduction in prey availability. Therefore, we have determined that the proposed action would adversely affect the EFH identified above. 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations Implementation of the following conservation recommendations would minimize and/or avoid adverse effects on EFH for Pacific Coast Salmon, Pacific Coast Groundfish, and Coastal Pelagic Species that are likely to result from the proposed action. To reduce adverse alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of the water and substrate: a. Require their contractors to comply with the impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE (Herrera 2017), in the WDFW HPA for this project when issued; b. Require the use of a containment boom (preferably full -depth silt curtain if practicable) around all in -water pile and debris removal; c. Require that pile removal be limited to vibratory extraction and/or simple pull techniques (no water jetting, no clamshell excavation); and WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -44- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 488 2.1.a d. Require that contractors and tugboat operators adjust work practices to ensure that turbidity does not exceed 100 meters from the project site, and to halt work should the visible turbidity plume approach and that range. 2. To reduce adverse alteration of benthic communities and reduction in prey availability: a. Require compliance with the design plans provided with the consultation request for this action, particularly: i. Do not exceed the number, type, and size of new piles that would be installed; ii. Place all new piles in locations that minimize impacts on eelgrass; iii. Do not reduce the heights, exceed the widths, or exceed the total square footage of the described structure; iv. Install the mooring float no closer to shore than described; and v. Install fully -grated decking that meets or exceeds 60 percent open area and achieves at least 30% light penetration; b. Require their contractors to comply with the impact minimization measures identified in the applicant's BE (Herrera 2017), and in the WDFW HPA for this project when issued. 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement As required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA, the USACE must provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS within 30 days after receiving an EFH Conservation Recommendation. Such a response must be provided at least 10 days prior to final approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations unless NMFS and the Federal agency have agreed to use alternative time frames for the Federal agency response. The response must include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, minimizing, mitigating, or otherwise offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the Conservation Recommendations, the Federal agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects (50 CFR 600.920(k)(1)). In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many conservation recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, we ask that in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this consultation, you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations accepted. 3.5 Supplemental Consultation The USACE must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(1)). WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -45- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 489 2.1.a 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE -DISSEMINATION REVIEW The Data Quality Act (DQA) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the Opinion addresses these DQA components, documents compliance with the DQA, and certifies that this Opinion has undergone pre -dissemination review. 4.1 Utility Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. The intended user of this Opinion is the USACE. Other users could include WDFW, and the citizens of Island County. Individual copies of this Opinion were provided to the USACE. The format and naming adheres to conventional standards for style. 4.2 Integrity This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix III, `Security of Automated Information Resources,' Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act. 4.3 Objectivity Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They adhere to published standards including the NMFS ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA regulations, 50 CFR 402.01 et seq., and the MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 CFR 600. Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available information, as referenced in the References section. The analyses in this Opinion and EFH consultation contain more background on information sources and quality. Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly referenced, consistent with standard scientific referencing style. Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in ESA and MSA implementation, and reviewed in accordance with West Coast Region ESA quality control and assurance processes. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -46- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 490 2.1.a 5.REFERENCES Abatzoglou, J.T., Rupp, D.E. and Mote, P.W. 2014. Seasonal climate variability and change in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Journal of Climate 27(5): 2125-2142. Anderson, J.J., E. Gurarie, and R.W. Zabel. 2005. Mean free -path length theory of predator -prey interactions: Application to juvenile salmon migration. Ecological Modelling. 186:196- 211. Berg, L., and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in Territorial, Gill -Flaring, and Feeding Behavior in Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Following Short -Term Pulses of Suspended Sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 1410-1417 Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Washington Sea Grant Program, UW Board of Regents Seattle, WA. 34 p. Brette, F., B. Machado, C. Cros, J.P. Incardona, N.L. Scholz, and B.A. Block. 2014. Crude Oil Impairs Cardiac Excitation -Contraction Coupling in Fish. Science Vol 343. February 14, 2014. 10.1126/science.1242747. 5 pp. Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, S. Damm, D.W. Lantz, T.M. Lee, Z. Li, J.-M. Pratt, B.E. Price, and L. Seyda. 2008a. Movement and Habitat Use of Chinook Salmon Smolts, Northern Pikeminnow, and Smallmouth Bass Near the SR 520 Bridge — 2007 Acoustic Tracking Study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. October 2008. 139 pp. Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, D.W. Lantz, and J. Grettenberger. 2008b. Movement and Habitat Use of Chinook Salmon Smolts and Two Predatory Fishes in Lake Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. 2004-2005 Acoustic Tracking Studies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. December 2008. 129 pp. Dethier, M.N., W.W. Raymond, A.N. McBride, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, A.S. Ogston, S.M. Heerhartz, H.D. Berry. 2016. Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuarine, Coast., and Shelf Sci. 175:106- 117. Dominguez, F., E. Rivera, D. P. Lettenmaier, and C. L. Castro. 2012. Changes in Winter Precipitation Extremes for the Western United States under a Warmer Climate as Simulated by Regional Climate Models. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(5). Doney, S.C., M. Ruckelshaus, J.E. Duffy, J.P. Barry, F. Chan, C.A. English, H.M. Galindo, J.M. Grebmeier, A.B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N.N. Rabalais, W.J. Sydeman, and L.D. Talley. 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 4:11-37. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -47- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 491 2.1.a Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2010. Reports reconfirm surface runoff as leading source of toxics in Puget Sound. Water Quality Program. Ecology. 2018a. Washington State Coastal Atlas. https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx Ecology. 2018b. Washington State Water Quality Atlas. https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterqualityatlas/map.aspx Evans, M., K. Fazakas, J. Keating. 2009. Creosote Contamination in Sediments of the Grey Owl Marina in Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada. Water Air Soil Pollution. 201:161-184. Feely, R.A., T. Klinger, J.A. Newton, and M. Chadsey (editors). 2012. Scientific summary of ocean acidification in Washington state marine waters. NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Special Report. Feist, B.E., E.R. Buhle, P. Arnold, J.W. Davis, and N.L. Scholz. 2011. Landscape ecotoxicology of coho salmon spawner mortality in urban streams. Plos One 6(8):e23424. Ford, M.J. 2013. Status Review update of the Southern Resident killer whales. National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA. 41pp. Fresh, K.L., M. Dethier, C. Simenstad, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C. Tanner, T. Leschine, T. Mumfor, G. Gelfenbaum, R. Shuman, and J. Newton. 2011. Implications of observed anthropogenic changes to the nearshore ecosystems in Puget Sound. Technical Report 201103. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project. Glick, P., J. Clough, and B. Nunley. 2007. Sea -Level Rise and Coastal Habitats in the Pacific Northwest: An analysis for Puget Sound, southwestern Washington, and northwestern Oregon. National Wildlife Federation, Seattle, WA. Gobel, P., C. Dierkes, & W.C. Coldewey. 2007. Storm water runoff concentration matrix for urban areas. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 91, 26-42. Greene, C. and A. Godersky. 2012. Larval rockfish in Puget Sound surface waters. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. December 27, 2012. 16 pp. Gustafson, R., Y.-W. Lee, E. Ward, K. Somers, V. Tuttle, and J. Jannot. 2016. Status Review update of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) listed under the Endangered Species Act: Southern District Population Segment. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. Hayes, S.A., A.J. Ammann, J.A. Harding, J.L. Hassrick, L. deWitt, and C.A. Morgan. 2016. Observations of steelhead in the California Current lead to a marine -based hypothesis for the "half -pounder" life history, with climate change implications for anadromy. N. Pac. Anadr. Fish Comm. Bull. 6: 97-105. doi:10.23849/npafcb6/97.105. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -48- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 492 2.1.a Herrera. 2017. Biological Evaluation: Edmonds Waterfront Center Project. Seattle, WA. 25pp. Holsman, K.K. and J. Willig. 2007. Large-scale patterns in large woody debris and upland vegetation among armored and unarmored shorelines of Puget Sound, WA. People for Puget Sound RPT, 07-1. Incardona, J.P., T.K. Collier, and N.L. Scholz. 2004. Defects in cardiac function precede morphological abnormalities in fish embryos exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 196:191-205. Incardona, J.P., M.G. Carls, H. Teraoka, C.A. Sloan, T.K. Collier, and N.L. Scholz. 2005. Aryl hydrocarbon receptor -independent toxicity of weathered crude oil during fish development. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:1755-1762. Incardona, J.P., H.L. Day, T.K. Collier, and N.L. Scholz. 2006. Developmental toxicity of 4-ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in zebrafish is differentially dependent on AH receptor isoforms and hepatic cytochrome P450 IA metabolism. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 217:308-321. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (eds R.K. Pachauri & A. Reisinger). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1, Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Karrow, N., H.J. Boermans, D.G. Dixon, A. Hontella, K.R. Soloman, J.J. White, and N.C. Bols. 1999. Characterizing the immunotoxicity of creosote to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): a microcosm study. Aquatic Toxicology. 45 (1999) 223-239. Kemp, P.S., M.H. Gessel, and J.G. Williams. 2005. Seaward migrating subyearling Chinook salmon avoid overhead cover. Journal of Fish Biology. 67:10. Kunkel, K. E., L. E. Stevens, S. E. Stevens, L. Sun, E. Janssen, D. Wuebbles, K. T. Redmond, and J. G. Dobson. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment: Part 6. Climate of the Northwest U.S. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-6. 83 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Washington, D.C. Landrum, P.F., and D. Scavia. 1983. Influence of sediment on anthracene uptake, depuration, and biotransformation by the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Canada. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 40:298-305. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -49- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 493 2.1.a Landrum, P.F., B.J. Eadie, W.R. Faust, N.R. Morehead, and M.J. McCormick. 1984. Role of sediment in the bioaccumulation of benzo(a)pyrene by the amphipod, Pontoporeia hoyi. Pages 799-812 in M. Cooke and A.J. Dennis (eds.). Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons: mechanisms, methods and metabolism. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio. Lee, R. and G. Dobbs. 1972. Uptake, Metabolism and Discharge of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Marine Fish. Marine Biology. 17, 201-208. Lombard, J. 2006. Saving Puget Sound: a conservation strategy for the 21s' century. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. McCain, B., D.C. Malins, M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, W.D. Gronlund, L.K. Moore, and S-L. Chan. 1990. Uptake of Aromatic and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons by Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in an Urban Estuary. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 19, 10-16 (1990). McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42. June 2000. 156 pp. McIntyre, J.K, D.H. Baldwin, D.A. Beauchamp, and N.L. Scholz. 2012. Low-level copper exposures increase visibility and vulnerability of juvenile coho salmon to cutthroat trout predators. Ecological Applications, 22(5), 2012, pp. 1460-1471. Meadore, J.P., F.C. Sommers, G.M. Ylitalo, and C.A. Sloan. 2006. Altered growth and related physiological responses in juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshwaytscha) from dietary exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Canadian Journal of fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 63: 2364-2376. Moore, M.E., B.A. Berejikian, and E.P. Tezak. 2013. A Floating Bridge Disrupts Seaward Migration and Increases Mortality of Steelhead Smolts in Hood Canal, Washington State. PloS one. September 2013. Vol 8. Issue 9. E73427. 10 pp. Moore, M.E., B.A. Berejikian, F.A. Goetz, A.C. Berger, S.S. Hodgson, E.J. Connor, and T.P. Quinn. 2015. Multi -population analysis of Puget Sound steelhead survival and migration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 537:217-232. Moore, M.E., and B.A. Berejikian. 2017. Population, habitat, and marine location effects on early marine survival and behavior of Puget Sound steelhead smolts. Ecosphere 8(5):e01834. 10.1002/ecs2.1834. Morley, S.A., J.D. Toft., and K.M. Hanson. 2012. Ecological effects of shoreline armoring on intertidal habitats of a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts, 35(3):774-784 WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -50- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 494 2.1.a Mote, P.W., J.T. Abatzglou, and K.E. Kunkel. 2013. Climate: Variability and Change in the Past and the Future. In Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities, edited by M.M. Dalton, P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover, 41-58. Island Press, Washington, DC. Mote, P.W, A. K. Snover, S. Capalbo, S.D. Eigenbrode, P. Glick, J. Littell, R.R. Raymondi, and W.S. Reeder. 2014. Ch. 21: Northwest. In Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 487-513. Mote, P.W., D.E. Rupp, S. Li, D.J. Sharp, F. Otto, P.F. Uhe, M. Xiao, D.P. Lettenmaier, H. Cullen, and M. R. Allen. 2016. Perspectives on the cause of exceptionally low 2015 snowpack in the western United States, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, doi: 10. 1002/2016GLO69665. Munsch, S.H., J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, and E.E. Morgan. 2014. Effects of Seawalls and Piers on Fish Assemblages and Juvenile Salmon Feeding Behavior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 34:814-827. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Status review update for coho salmon from the Oregon and Northern California coasts. West Coast coho salmon Biological Review Team, 28 March. 70 p. + appendices. NMFS. 2005. Final assessment of NOAA Fisheries' Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. Portland, OR. 583 pp. NMFS. 2006. Final Supplement to the Shared Strategy's Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. Prepared by NMFS Northwest Region. November 17, 2006.47 pp. NMFS. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. NMFS. 2016. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish, and Bocaccio of the Puget Sound/ Georgia Basin. NMFS West Coast Region, Protected Resources Division, Seattle, WA. 72 pp. NMFS. 2017a. 2016 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Hood Canal Summer -run Chum Salmon, and Puget Sound Steelhead. NMFS West Coast Region, Portland, Oregon. April 6, 2017. 98 pp. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -51- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 495 2.1.a NMFS. 2017b. Rockfish Recovery Plan: Puget Sound / Georgia Basin Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) and Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). NMFS West Coast Region, Protected Resources Divisions, Seattle, Washington. October 13, 2017. 164 pp. NMFS. 2017c. Recovery plan for the southern distinct population segment of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Protected Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. Neff, J.M. 1982. Accumulation and release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from water, food, and sediment by marine animals. Pages 282-320 in N.L. Richards and B.L. Jackson (eds.). Symposium: carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons n the marine environment. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency Rep. 600/9-82-013. Nightingale, B. and C.A Simenstad. 2001. Overwater structures: Marine issues white paper. Prepared by the University of Washington School of Marine Affairs and the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences for the Washington State Department of Transportation. May 2001. 177 pp. Ono, K., C.A. Simenstad, J.D. Toft, S.L. Southard, K.L. Sobocinski, and A. Borde. 2010. Assessing and Mitigating Dock Shading Impacts on the Behavior of Juvenile Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.): Can Artificial Light Mitigate the Effects? Prepared for Washington State Dept. of Transportation. WA-RD 755.1 July 2010. 94 pp. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998. Description and identification of essential fish habitat for the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Appendix D to Amendment 8 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. PFMC, Portland, Oregon. December 1998. 41 pp. PFMC. 2005. Amendment 18 (bycatch mitigation program), Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington groundfish fishery — Appendix B Part 3 — Essential Fish Habitat text Descriptions. PFMC, Portland, Oregon. November 2005. 361 pp. PFMC. 2014. Appendix A to the Pacific Coast salmon fishery management plan, as modified by amendment 18 to the pacific coast salmon plan: identification and description of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon. PFMC, Portland, OR. September 2014. 196 p. + appendices. Palsson, W.A., T.S. Tsou, G.G. Bargmann, R.M. Buckley, J.E. West, M.L. Mills, Y.W Cheng, and R.E. Pacunski. 2009. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. FPT 09-04. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Division, Olympia, WA. September 2009. 190 pp. Parametrix. 2011. Creosote Release from Cut/Broken Piles. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -52- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 496 2.1.a PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2017. 2017 State of the Sound. Olympia, Washington. November 2017. http://www.psp.wa.gov/sos.php Quinn, T., K. Krueger, K. Pierce, D. Pentilla, K. Perry, T. Hicks, and D. Lowry. 2012. Patterns of surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus, intertidal spawning habitat use in Puget Sound, Washington State. Estuaries and Coasts 35:1214-1228. Rice, C. 2006. Effects of shoreline modification on a Northern Puget Sound beach: Microclimate and embryo mortality in surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). Reeder, W.S., P.R. Ruggiero, S.L. Shafer, A.K. Snover, L.L Houston, P. Glick, J.A. Newton, and S.M. Capalbo. 2013. Coasts: Complex Changes Affecting the Northwest's Diverse Shorelines. In Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities, edited by M.M. Dalton, P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover, 41-58. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Robertson, M.J., D.A. Scruton, R.S. Gregory, and K.D. Clarke. 2006. Effect of suspended sediment on freshwater fish and fish habitat. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2644, 37 p. Sandahl, J.F., D. Baldwin, J.J. Jenkins, and N.L. Scholz. 2007. A Sensory System at the Interface between Urban Stormwater Runoff and Salmon Survival. Environmental Science and Technology. 2007, 41, 2998-3004. Scheuerell, M.D., and J.G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate -induced changes in the survival of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries Oceanography 14:448-457. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (SSPS). 2007. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan — Volume 1 Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, 14110 Ave., Ste. 1015, Seattle, WA 98 10 1. Adopted by NMFS January 19, 2007. 503 pp. Shipman, H., M.N. Dethier, G. Gelfenbaum, K.L. Fresh, and R.W. Dinicola, eds. 2010. Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring —Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010 5254. Simenstad, C.A., B. Nightingale, R.M. Thom, and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Migrating Along Puget Sound Shorelines Phase I: Synthesis of State of Knowledge. Prepared by Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington for Washington State Department of Transportation Research Office, Report WA-RD 472.1, Olympia, Washington. June 1999. 100 pp. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -53- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 497 2.1.a Simenstad, C., M. Ramirez, J. Burke, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C. Tanner, J. Toft, B. Craig, C. Davis, J. Fung, P. Bloch, K. Fresh, D. Myers, E. Iverson, A. Bailey, P. Schlenger, C. Kiblinger, P. Myre, W. Gertsel, and A. MacLennan. 2011. Historical change of Puget Sound shorelines: Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Project Change Analysis. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2011 01. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Smith, P. 2008. Risks to human health and estuarine ecology posed by pulling out creosote treated timber on oyster farms. Aquatic Toxicology 86 (2008) 287-298. Southard, S.L., R.M. Thom, G.D. Williams, T.J. D. Toft, C.W. May, G.A. McMichael, J.A. Vucelick, J.T. Newell, and J.A. Southard. 2006. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Movement along Puget Sound Shorelines. Prepared for WSDOT by Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. PNWD-3647. June 2006. 84 pp. Spromberg, J.A, D.H. Baldwin, S.E. Damm, J.K. McIntyre, M. Huff, C.A. Sloan, B.F. Anulacion, J.W. Davis, and N.L. Scholz. 2015. Coho salmon spawner mortality in western US urban watersheds: bioinfiltration prevents lethal storm water impacts. Journal of Applied Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2264.12534. Stadler, J.H., and D.P. Woodbury. 2009. Assessing the effects to fishes from pile driving: Application of new hydroacoustic criteria. 8 pp. Sunda, W. G., and W. J. Cai. 2012. Eutrophication induced CO2-acidification of subsurface coastal waters: interactive effects of temperature, salinity, and atmospheric CO2. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(19): 10651-10659. Tague, C.L., J.S. Choate, G. Grant. 2013a. Parameterizing sub -surface drainage with geology to improve modeling streamflow responses to climate in data limited environments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17 (1), 341-354, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-341-2013. Tierney, K.B., D.H. Baldwin, T.J. Hara, P.S. Ross, N.L. Scholz, and C.J. Kennedy. 2010. Olfactory toxicity in fishes. Aquatic Toxicology. 96:2-26. Tillmann, P., and D. Siemann. 2011. Climate Change Effects and Adaptation Approaches in Marine and Coastal Ecosystems of the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative Region. National Wildlife Federation. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. Fish Distribution, Abundance, and Behavior along City Shoreline Types in Puget Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 27:465-480. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -54- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 498 2.1.a Tonnes, D., M. Bhuthimethee, J. Sawchuk, N. Tolimieri, K. Andrews, and K. Nichols. 2016. Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), and bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. NMFS West Coast Region, Protected Resources Divisions, Seattle, Washington. April 2016. 131 pp. Varanasi, U., E. Casillas, M.R. Arkoosh, T. Hom, D.A. Misitano, D.W. Brown, S.L. Chan, T.K. Collier, B.B. McCain, and J.E. Stein. 1993. Contaminant Exposure and Associated Biological Effects in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Urban and Nonurban Estuaries of Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- NWFSC-8. NMFS NFSC Seattle, WA. April 1993. 69 pp. WDFW. 2018a. Forage Fish maps. http://wdfw.maps. arcgis. com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=1968f 74e2d4 l 470cbd 80b 1 af8dedd6b3 &extent=-126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.0781 #! Werme C., J. Hunt, E. Beller, K. Cayce, M. Klatt, A. Melwani, E. Polson, and R. Grossinger. 2010. Removal of Creosote -Treated Pilings and Structures from San Francisco Bay. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy. Contribution No. 605. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California. December 2010. 247 pp. Willette, T.M. 2001. Foraging behavior of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and size -dependent predation risk. Fisheries Oceanography, 10(1):110-131. Wysocki, L.E., J.P. Dittami, F. Ladich. 2006. Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater fishes. Biol. Conserv. 128:501-508. Zabel, R.W., M.D. Scheuerell, M.M. McClure, and J.G. Williams. 2006. The interplay between climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook salmon. Conservation Biology, 20:190-200. WCRO-2018-00112 (USACE) -55- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 499