Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L01-042 - FISHPRO INC - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTIONLO1-042 DUWAMISH TURMNG : ASIN #3 10054 MARGIANAL WY S (SHORELINE EXEMPTION) Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1, ,/,__ES L/,LEI HEREBY DECLARE THAT Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - ,Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance - ms"1 Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Name: Cj 1 - 11)R- kK 4PT tom Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt ' Mailer's Signature: )60-a)----- Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 .. Other CinVa Ljvut +' � P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this Z(pT /day of JUI- y in the year 20 0/ • - ms"1 q13 Project Name: Cj 1 - 11)R- kK 4PT tom Project Number: LA) -b4 Mailer's Signature: )60-a)----- i Person requesting mailing: DeA9 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this Z(pT /day of JUI- y in the year 20 0/ July 24, 2001 Ms. Patty Michak Senior Fisheries Biologist FISHPRO, Inc. 3780 S.E. Mile Hill Drive Port Orchard, Washington 98366 VIA FAX 360- 871 -4460 We have reviewed your May 31, 2001 letter and associated documentation requesting w z exemption from a Shoreline Substantial Development permit under WAC 173- 27- 040(p). U The exemption criteria are as follows: o 1- Re: Shoreline Management Exemption (L01 -042) Duwamish Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development 10054 Marginal Way South, Tukwila Dear Patty: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director WAC 173- 27- 040(p) A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: (i Steven M. Mullet, Mayor The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose; (ii) The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Chapter 75.20 RCW; and (iii) The local government has determined that the project is consistent with the local shoreline master program. We have received copies of the Hydraulic Project Approval (issued June 26, 2000) and related approvals from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. The project has been found to be consistent 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite # 100 • Tukwila, Washington 98/88 • Phone: 206.431-3670 • Fax: 206 -431-3665 • z Ms. Patty Michak July 24, 2001 Page 2 with the Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. We hereby waive the requirement for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit on this project. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster Director, Community Development cc: Deborah Ritter, Associate Planner Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Ryan Partee, Fisheries Biologist SEATTLE CITY LIGHT No SALE PROJECT LOCATION t NO xa.e PROPERTY LINE 4 ,aa SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATION MAP WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT -OF -WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE. ACCORDING TO SURVEY OF TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST W.M.. IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. ON FILE WITH THE US DEPT. OF INTERIOR GENERAL LAND OFFICE. SPOKANE, WASHINGTON. APPROVED MARCH 31. 1863. WHERE SAID POINT IS INTERSECTED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT 55. MOORE'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS. PAGE 28. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. AS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE SO EXTENDED TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF THE RIGHT -0F —WAY ACOUIRED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING. CY CAUSE NO. 469557. RECORDS OF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. FOR KING COUNTY: THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF SAID RIGHT —OF —WAY TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT 55 TO THE SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED FRAEGER ROAD ADJOINING WHICH. UPON VACATION. ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW; TOGETHER WITH ALL LAND LYING TO THE EASTERLY OF SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE BETWEEN AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID TRACT 55 AND BETWEEN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM. AND THE HIGH WATER LINE OF THE WESTERLY BANK OF THE DUWAMISH RIVER. EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 547035 FOR STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1. SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF KING. STATE OF WASHINGTON. FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP — �' 3 r .a +...t1a.'ti+*' F1SJ-PRO PROPERTY BOUNDARY \ \ ♦ ♦ 'r ♦ _Y N ` -P ♦♦\ G i b 1 • ROOTWADS, ANCHORED SIMILAR TO LOG BUNDLES. 'TYPICAL WHERE SHOWN. ♦ ` < y c ? SCALE IN FEET ` C \ ` S ` 0 20' 40' 60' 80' N. \ ♦ NOMIMAL 40' LONG LOG BUNDLES, TYPICAL EBRIS LOWER BENCH AT ELEVATION +f TO +q.5 (SAND AND GRAVEL) 500 5O FT ROO OLD BARGE EMERGENT ZON ENCH AT ELEVATION +4.5 T I 6050 SO FT TRANSITION AREA +11 TO +14 I g67 SO FT GROUND COVER AND SHRUB ZONE BENCH AT ELEVATION +14 TO +17 1850 5O FT RIPARIAN ZONE AT ELEVATION +17 TO +21 \ 3587 SO FT FIGURE 8. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FISI-PRO Engineers and Environmental Consultants May 31, 2001 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila Washington 98188 Re: Request for City of Tukwila Shoreline Exemption for a fish and wildlife habitat restoration project on Parcel No. 562420 -0907, Turning Basin 3 Kenco Marine property. Dear Mr. Lancaster, In April of 1999 FishPro, Inc, as an agent for the Muckleshoot Tribe, requested an exemption from Tukwila's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the fish and wildlife habitat restoration project at the site know as Turning Basin 3 Kenco Marine property (Parcel No. 562420- 0907). In May of 1999 Jack Pace, Planning Manager, of your office issued a letter (attached) requesting the following documents prior to an issuance of an exemption to the shoreline permit: 1. construction drawings approved by the Corps of Engineers, 2. HPA approval, and 3. final, approved NEPA documents. These documents have been obtained and are enclosed. This project has undergone significant review by both state and federal environmental agencies. It has met with the approval of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. Because the project is a fish and wildlife habitat improvement and restoration project, and has met with the above approvals, an exemption to the State Shorelines Management Act (RCW 90.58) is requested based on WAC 173- 27- 040(p). Please review the enclosed documents and contact me if you have any questions or need additional information to complete your project review. Sincerely, �7 Patty Michak Senior Fisheries Biologist Enclosures Cc: Rod Malcolm, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Rick Covert, FishPro, Inc FISHPRO, INC. • 3780 S.E. Mile Hill Drsve • Port Orchard. WA 98366 • Fax 360/8714460 • Phone 360/871.2727 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008- 5452.• (425) 649-7000 • PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION for STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION and COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CONSISTENCY July 17, 2001 Interested parties are hereby notified that the following applications have been received for a water quality certification in accordance with Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 173 -225 WAC.' For projects in the 15 coastal counties, these applications will also be reviewed for coastal zone consistency in accordance with Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This public notice does not indicate that Ecology or other State agencies have agreed with the proposed projects. This notice is only intended to inform the public of proposed projects, and ask for comments by local, state and federal agencies and the public. EVALUATION: The decision to issue, deny or condition the water quality certification (WQC) or concur with the applicant's Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency statement, will be based on the following: for WQC, it is necessary for the proposed project to comply with the applicable provisions of the federal Clean Water Act and appropriate State aquatic protection requirements. For a project to be declared consistent under the CZMA program, it must be in compliance with State and Federal Clean Water and Air Acts, the Shoreline Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act, and other applicable federal and state regulations. COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD: Ecology is soliciting comments from the public, State, and local agencies and officials, and other interested parties in order to evaluate the impacts of the activity. Any comments received will be considered to determine whether to approve, condition, or deny a certification for the proposed work, and concur or object to the project's statement of consistency with the CZMA. Comments should be sent to: Alice Kelly Department of Ecology 3190 160 Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 -5452 e -mail ake1461 @ecy.wa.gov The comment period will last 21 days, from July 17, 2001 to August 7, 2001. The Department of Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, religion or disability as defined by applicable state and/or federal regulations or statutes. If you have special accommodation needs, please contact Ecology's TDD Headquarters at (360) 407 -6006. r• iJ July 17, 2001 The following application has been received for 401 Water Quality Certification and CZMA consistency determination: PROJECT NUMBER: 1999 -2 -00470 APPLICANT: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe AGENT OR CONTACT: Patty Michak, FishPro, (360) 871 -2727 ECOLOGY PROJECT REVIEWER: Alice Kelly (425) 649 -7145 e-mail: ake1461@ecy.wa.gov TYPE OF NATIONWIDE PERMIT: NWP # 27 — Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities, issued on April 18, 2001. WORK: Construction of an intertidal habitat marsh bench, planted with native vegetation. Three vegetated habitat benches will be excavated and planted with vegetation appropriate to the tidal elevation, as follows: an intertidal or emergent marsh of 6050 square feet in the elevation range of +9.5 to 11.0 feet; a ground cover bench of 1850 square feet in the elevation range of +14 to +17 range; and a riparian bench at +17 to +21 feet. Additional work includes removal of rip rap, concrete rubble, and debris from the shoreline; removal of a pier, pilings and upland structures; removal of existing utilities arid storm drains. LOCATION: On the west bank of the Duwamish River at Turning Basin No. 3, at 10054 W. Marginal Place South, Seattle, WA, located in Section 4, Township 23 N., Range 4 E., King County. PURPOSE: Develop estuarine fish and wildlife habitat in the Duwamish River. July 23, 2001 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ms. Patty Michak Senior Fisheries Biologist FISHPRO, Inc. 3780 S.E. Mile Hill Drive Port Orchard, Washington 98366 VIA FAX 360- 871 -4460 Re: Shoreline Exemption (L01 -042) Duwamish Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development 10054 Marginal Way South, Tukwila Dear Patty: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Per my discussion with Alice Kelly at the Department of Ecology, we were able to obtain answers to the questions raised in our June 25, 2001 letter. Accordingly, your Shoreline application has now been found to be complete as of July 23, 2001 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. Essentially, this means that you have supplied the required items listed on the application checklists for this type of permit. We have commenced our technical review process, which is the next phase in the processing of your request for an exemption from a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. Although your application has been found to be "complete ", the items you supplied may have to be revised or amended. The City may also require that you submit additional plans and information to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City and to finalize the review process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 206 -431 -3663. Sincerely, cock Deborah Ritter Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 June 25, 2001 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ms. Patty Michak Senior Fisheries Biologist FISHPRO, Inc. 3780 S.E. Mile Hill Drive Port Orchard, Washington 98366 VIA FAX 360- 871 -4460 Re: Shoreline Exemption (L01 -042) Duwamish Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development 10054 Marginal Way South, Tukwila Dear Patty: We have received and reviewed your exemption request, which we received on June 1, 2001. We have the following comments. Your request for an exemption from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit has been found to be incomplete. In order to continue processing your request there are additional items that must be submitted to the Department of Community Development. These items are listed below. 1. Information regarding the EPA 401 Certification, which was partially denied by the Department of Ecology without prejudice. Was the denial caused by any significant adverse environmental impacts? 2. Information regarding the CZM Consistency Response, which was partially denied by the Department of Ecology without prejudice. Was the denial caused by any significant adverse environmental impacts? 1'1- �, ` ,l;i, Additionally, based on our conversations with the Department of Ecology's SEPA Division, a SEPA Determination will be required. Although a SEPA Determination is not a condition of the Shoreline exemption, the Determination must be issued before the habitat construction can begin. Please let us know what agency will be issuing the Determination and when. Upon receipt of Items 1 and 2 above, the City will continue processing your request. Your request for an exemption will expire if we do not receive the additional information within 90 days of the date of this letter, unless an extension is granted pursuant to Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -366S •l 1 Ms. Patty Michak FISHPRO, Inc. June 25, 2001 Page 2 Section 18.104.070(E) of the Tukwila Municipal Code. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 206 - 431 -3663. Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Associate Planner z • ��-- w U 0' U mo w: Ili =: w O g Q CD a :Z I-0: w ~` U 0 � 0 I-' w of Li- !T .. w • U= ~ Z FISIPRO Engineers and Environmental Consultants May 31, 2001 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster, 1. construction drawings approved by the Corps of Engineers, 2. HPA approval, and 3. final, approved NEPA documents. These documents have been obtained and are enclosed. Sincerely, Patty chak Senior Fisheries Biologist Enclosures Cc: Rod Malcolm, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Rick Covert, FishPro, Inc RFCEWFD JUN 0 1 2001 C0iviMUN$ TY DEVELOPMENT Re: Request for City of Tukwila Shoreline Exemption for a fish and wildlife habitat restoration project on Parcel No. 562420 -0907, Turning Basin 3 Kenco Marine property. In April of 1999 FishPro, Inc, as an agent for the Muckleshoot Tribe, requested an exemption from Tukwila's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the fish and wildlife habitat restoration project at the site know as Turning Basin 3 Kenco Marine property (Parcel No. 562420 - 0907). In May of 1999 Jack Pace, Planning Manager, of your office issued a letter (attached) requesting the following documents prior to an issuance of an exemption to the shoreline permit: This project has undergone significant review by both state and federal environmental agencies. It has met with the approval of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. Because the project is a fish and wildlife habitat improvement and restoration project, and has met with the above approvals, an exemption to the State Shorelines Management Act (RCW 90.58) is requested based on WAC 173- 27- 040(p). Please review the enclosed documents and contact me if you have any questions or need additional information to complete your project review. FISHPRO, INC. • 3780 S.E. Mile Hill Drive • Port Orchard, WA 98366 • Fax 360/871 -4460 • Phone 360/871 -2727 Species Quantity Red alder 7 Black Cottonwood 8 Sitka Spruce 4 Shore Pine 6 to retain this tree, it would result in a decrease of emergent vegetation such as Lyngby's sedge, Three- Square bulrush, and other marsh vegetation due to the need to protect the root structure of this tree and the resultant changes in elevation of the surrounding land. Trees labeled as serials 10 through 12, are in the area currently proposed to be planted with riparian vegetation. It is possible to work around these trees and incorporate these established trees into the planting scheme. The proposed planting scheme for trees as described in Figures 13 and 14 to the BA is summarized in Table 2. Approximately 25 trees will be planted in a riparian area of approximately 3,587 ft between +17 to +21 ft MLLW. The proposed groundcover zone of 1,850 ft to be constructed from +14 to +17 ft MLLW (BA Fig 8) is most similar in location and structure to the fringing vegetation band of approximately 2,000 square feet which will be removed. However, when the proposed groundcover zone is combined with the emergent bench of 6,050 ft between from +9.5 to +11.0 ft MLLW and the transition area of 1,967 ft between 11.0 to +14.0 MLLW; the project will result in a net increase of vegetation providing overwater coverage, detrital input, and insects. Table 2. Tree Planting Scheme. Pg. 2, #4. What work needs to be done inwater. What can be done in the dry? The inwater work consists of removing 132 creosote treated, wood piles. All other work will be done in the dry. Proposed construction will involve excavating approximately 1,794 yd of material below the plane of the OMWM, as extended inland from the current bank. As much as the upland material will be removed as possible before commencing bank excavation work to reduce the time disturbed surfaces are exposed to tidal action. It is not possible to quantify the quantity of fill material that will be removed before commencing bank excavation. When work commences on the bank, it will only be performed during that portion of the tidal cycle where material can be excavated in the dry. However, as the tide rises, the water will submerge the newly disturbed areas. All excavated fill material will be disposed at an authorized off -site disposal, storage, or recycling site selected by the construction contractor Pg. 33, #6. How will rip rap /concrete rubble be removed. Where will it be disposed? Smaller riprap ,rubble, and debris will be gathered by hand and placed in a crane bucket for removal. Larger rip rap, rubble, and debris will be picked and removed by a crane clamshell bucket. All materials will be disposed at an authorized off -site disposal, storage, or recycling site selected by the construction contractor. Pg 3, # 11. If piling is replaced, need to state type of piling to be used (non- creosote). It is proposed that two of the existing pier pilings would be left for tribal fishermen to use a net attachment points during fishing season. If a permit condition is to remove all piles, then replacements of concrete or steel would be used. Whether the two existing pier pilings are left, or concrete or steel replacements are used instead, will depend upon the conditions set by the Services z =1 w Pg. 20. What measures are being used to reduce turbidity during construction? v 0 LLI UD J w U. a w z F . O Z ~ 0 U O - 0 I- w W Pg. 21 Document states that there is the potential for low -level contaminants during pile F removal. How many piles will be removed. What types of contaminants might be u" expected w 0~ Measures to reduce turbidity include the following: a) a silt fence will be maintained at the perimeter of the construction; b) except for pile removal, no underwater excavation will occur; c) a layer of sand will be laid down at the base of each of pile to reduce suspension of fine material during pile removal; d) when newly excavated areas between elevations 0 and +9 reach final design grades, typically underwater, they will be covered with washed sand and gravel The washed sand and gravel will reduce resuspension of fine material from the new excavated bank; e) temporary erosion and sediment controls BMPs will be used in the upland parts of the site; f) as much as the upland material will be removed as possible prior to commencing bank excavation work to reduce the time disturbed surfaces are exposed to tidal action. Piles The number of piles to be removed is 132, plus all of the approximately 3,900 square feet of overwater coverage of treated wood supported by these piles. A term of the condition of sale of the land to the Muckleshoot Tribe was that the previous landowner had the option to take possession of the pier piles and other pier components. Thus, the terms of the sale preclude the Tribe from mandating that the previous owners may not use the piles in another project. However, if the previous owners elect not to take possession of the piles, then the piles will be transported by the construction contractor to an authorized disposal, storage, or recycling site. The MITFD, itself, will not reuse the piles for a construction project. Potential Site Contamination Uplands A Phase II Site Assessment, conducted by the US Corps of Engineers in 1997, determined that a release of diesel and heavy oil had occurred at two small locations on the upland portion of the site (Corps, 1997a). These areas on the upland portion of the site were fully remediated by the previous property own as a condition of sale to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. This upland soil z was removed and subsequent testing indicated that the remaining soils in the two, remediation areas are below acceptable concentrations as listed in the MTCA (Radix Ortega Group, 1998). However, despite removal of soils from the two upland spill areas, soils from the site contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAH) slightly above the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B cleanup levels (Corps 1997a). Excavation of the upland material, will remove these soils from the site. All excavated fill material will be disposed at an authorized off -site disposal, storage, or recycling site selected by the construction contractor. Sediments The low level contaminants expected are organics and metals. None of the samples exceeded DOE Minimum. Cleanup Levels (Corps 1997a). See attached Table 2 form the Phase II Site Assessment (Corps 1997a) for a detailed description of expected contaminants. Following a Level II Site Assessment in 1997 (Corps 1997a), the Corps concluded that sediments adjacent to the property, and the pier, did not contain contaminants above Washington State Sediment Management Standards Minimum Cleanup Levels, though samples exceeded Sediment Quality Standards (Corps 1997a) for arsenic, acenaphthylene, and Bis(2- ethylexly) Phthalate. Arsenic was observed at 82 mg/kg and acenaphthylene at 25,766.9 mg/kg (TOC normalized), Bis(2- ethylexly) Phthalate at 71,428.6 mg/kg (TOC normalized) compared to SQS levels of 57 mg/kg, 16,000 mg/kg, 78,000 mg/kg, respectively. Additionally, during sediment sampling, hydrocarbon sheens were visible in some samples, however, in each case, the sheen was not on the surface of the sample, but at a depth of about 5 cm, reflecting the historical nature of the contamination (Corps 1997a). Several of the sampling stations (see Table 2) contained biochemical concentrations in excess of levels shown to have minor adverse effects on biological resources. The Corps (1997a) concluded that the property contained low levels of contamination consistent with urban waterways in the Puget Sound Basin, however, the contamination is not high enough to eliminate the property from consideration of as a restoration site. The recommendation from the Phase II Site Assessment was to remediate the upland portions of the site where petroleum spills had occurred. This has occurred. Pg 23. The same actions to reduce impacts to chinook should be required from bull trout. The measures listed on page 23 of the BA to reduce impacts to chinook will apply to all species of salmon and trout, including bull trout. Trees to be removed should be used as part of the project. 'Washington State Sediment Management Standards (SMS) describe two regulatory levels for selected contaminants. Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) are designed to provide a regulatory and management goal for the quality of surface sediments are used mainly to inventory sediment quality. Chemical concentrations below SQS are believed to have no adverse impacts on biological resources. The Sediment Management Standards also include Minimum Cleanup Levels (MCUL) which define chemical criteria which have demonstrated minor adverse impacts on aquatic organisms (Corps 1997a) igf?. z ,y3.;)t . f.Flit,- y .t*Wie,'{r Native landscaped trees removed to allow bank and upland excavation will be used in the project as part of the wood emplaced into the water. The non - native trees will also be used as part of the wood placed into the water if that is the direction of the Services. Otherwise, the removed, non- native trees will be removed from the site and transported to an authorized disposal or recycling site selected by the construction contractor. Z • W • aa �� J U U0: `U 0: W I J H •U)LL : W 0; g Q = W 11.1 w Z � h 0` Z I-. U D ;0 (` 0 F-: W . • _ • _ U U U" - am 0 z Table 2. Ana cal results for sediment . . es collected at the Keno Marine site, 12 June 1997. R • . ulato and reference uNeria are listed in be same units as the data. -MIMI_� _ Sam • le Location K1 K2 K3 1C4 K5 K6 K7 K8 SOT MCUL•• Freshwater Criteria Ea rives Anal e D WL TOC rm Normalized D Wt. TOC Normalized D WI. TOC 0 Wt. TOC Normalized 0 Wt. TOC Normalized r Wt. TOC Normalized MI TOC • Normalized 0 WL TOC Normalized - Conventionals: - -.111.1 - Total Solids 53.5 56.3 61.9 57.5 66.0 -® Total Volatile Solids %) ® - _ � _ TOC _ Metals (mg/kg dry vet): Arsenic Barium co t 0 0 m 2 - . ;•• b 33.0 . 64.0 . 62.0 RR' i o 0 ...")) 66.0 57 93 17.0 (1) Cadmium ND NO ND ND ND - IIMEZJ r 6.7 3.53 1 Chromium Lead Mercu 0 0 0 gg 22.0 17.0 ND 23.0 'fli ND 19.0 9.0 17.0 12.0 I.) -111E111 -IIIEIJ - � , r - l - 270 530 0.59 90.0 1 91.3 1 0.486 1 C Selenium ND ND ND r r 1•1111•111101111E1 _INIE3 ' Silver ND ND ND I. . ®' 11111110111MENIMMINIIIIIIIIKE 6.1 0.5 2 -_ -___ Pesticides/PCB 8080A y , • wL : - -MEI H- •tachlor ND 140 ND ND 2.0 119.8 ND ND ND • • ®' ®' ND ND ND- 0.3 3) A)drin . ND ND 140 NO NO ND ND ND ND INIIMIIIMIIIILIIIMINEDIIIIIM ND ND ND- 2 4,4-DDE 2.6 103.7 ND ND 2.0 119.8 ND ND ND 1.1111MMOCCIIIMINE11.11110 ND ND ND - 6.75 1 Endosu)tanII ND ND ND ND 2.8 167.7 ND ND ND IMIIMKEIMIIIIIOIMIIIICONIIIIO ND ND ND Dlddrin ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND _• 1•1111MEINIIIED ND ND NO 68.7 1 4,4-0DO ND' ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND r r _a. ®' NO ND ND- 8.51 1 4,4 -DDT ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 'r r NIIIIKE31•120 ND ND ND 71 Meths • ND ND ND ND 7.0 4192 ND 140 ND ND 10.0 MIEEEIIIIKED ND ND ND Chlordane ND ND ND ND 187.0 11,197.8 ND NO NO NO 140 MIIIMM®' ND ND ND 8.9 1 Arador 1242 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1111111E1111MOINNIMECIIIMCLI ND ND ND Arodor1254 56.0 2,323.7 11.0 484.8 NO ND ND ND ND ND ND NIMINZOINED ND ND ND 12,000.0 65,000.0 60 3 Arador 1260 ND ND ND ND 29.0 1,736.6 ND 14 0 ND • • a • ND ND ND 12,000.0 65,000.0 5 3 Total PCB 56.0 2,323.7 11.0 484.6 29.0 1,738.5 ND ND ND 1111.1.EMECOMMOME111111Z0 ND ND ND 12,000.0 277 1 IIIIIIIIIIIHIMIIIIIIIIMMIIIMMMNIIIMIIMMIIMIIII T'. n �; •,• ND ND ND ND NO ND ND NO NDIMEMEOMMO== 49.3 ND ND MIN Semlvotatle • • an ,.., d wl : -_ Phenol ND - ND - 140 • • MIMMC IIMIMNE®` - ND - 420.0 1200.0 4-Meth j,• end 365 B NO - 218 B r r ■mosmor 248 8 - ND - 670.0 670.0 N: •h)haiene 2- Meth u• tha)ene •. ., • • f zz zz ND ND ND 6.0 359.3 i 00;0 Z ui Z ND 276.2 NO - ' 14.0 (11.0 NDIMMIEDIMIEZI 909.1 2.6623 88.0 • k., 4,171.8 15.5215 ND l arms b I 000 Z n Z � ND 100.0 -stj.. NO 5,376.3 2,957.0 ND 99,000.0 38,000.0 170,000.0 64,030.0 20 4) 10 4 ND NO ND 11.0 658.7 ND ND ND ND ND Dime Phthalate Aeenaph0arme Dibenzofuran p u o r e n e Dleth Phthalate Phenanthrene - - - '0000q0 Z Z Z Z 2 Z i 00 Z Z Z Z 0 Z 000000 Z Z Z Z j Z i 0 0 0 0 ry 0 ZZZZ0Z Oa i i I zz0z 000000 I ! i i 00•7.000 Z Z O, Z Z Z i I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0' Z Z coZZn I i i I i I 00.100.! Z Z •-.ZZel i 1 i I I=HRZ 1111.10.111E1 MEM 1 5,4545 10,000.0 I 140 4e1W.9D • 235.0 . n):) ,, ND '' •'• ND 25766.9 D 14.417.2 17,484.7 ND 595092 D I I 1 I I I 0 0 0 0 0 gi Z Z N Z Z tO I 00 of1,30 z $ ) I ! I 1 ! NO 53,000.0 -- - -- 1 e 0 0 0 0 0 W p N n f 4,838.7 16,000.0 ) 10 (4) 1 3,333.3 ) 2. 1 4,354.8 23,000.0 1 190 (2) 1 430.1 61.000.0 ) g 16.451.6 100.000.0 ) 515 (1) 11125/97 9 once Mor ne Phase 11 A ssessment Z Q 1- = Z ~ cc 2 J U O U co w � w ° u_ = • r = w Z 1- 0 Z Z f'- G U0 co O 1- w w Z w U= O ~ Z Table 2. Analytical rosutts (or sediment samples cd)octed at the Keno Marine sae, 12 June 1997. Regulatory and reference criteria are listed In floe same units as the data. I 1 Sample Location KI K2 K3 K4 IC5 K6 K7 KB SOS' MCUL•• Freshwater Criteria Ecoto Thresh( Aoalyte Dry WL TOC Normalized Dry WL TOC Normalized Dry WL TOC Nommalzed Dry WI TOC Normalized Dry WL TOC Normalized Dry WL TOC Normalized Dry WL TOC Normalized Dry Wt. TOC Normalized Anthracene ND ND ND ND ND ND 11.0 607.7 58.0 3,7662 94.0 5,768.9 8.0 358.7 27.0 1,451.6 220,000.0 1246 220 (2) Carbaza)e NO NO NO NO ND ND ND ND 15.0 974.0 27.0 1,656.4 ND ND 13.0 698.9 D{-n-butyl Phthalate 0 0 0 Z Z I ' ND 0 0 0 Z p p ND ND ND ND ND 0 0 0 Z ND ND ND 12 B 538.1 B ND ND 226000.0 1.7E.06 t ICC F1uoranthene NO 101322 0 230 D 13772.5 D 161.0 8,895,0 37622.3 D rit;4c 48.466.3 146.0 6247.1 321.0 17,258.1 160.000.0 12E.06 2355 (i) 6C brew ND 8810.6 0 210 D 12574.9 0 120.0 6,829.8 23376.6 D 520.0 31,901.8 111.0 4,977.6 211.0 11,344.1 1.0E.06 4.1E+06 875 (1) 66 Butyl Benzyt PMralate ND ND ND NO ND ND 18 6 994.5 6 14.0 . 909.1 NO ND 23.0 1231.4 ND ND 4.900.0 642000 t tOC Benzo(a)ant raoene NO ND ND ND ND ND 41.0 2,2652 104.0 6,7532 188.0 11.411.0 39.0 1,748.9 61.0 3,279.6 110,000.0 270,000.0 385 (1) Chryaeno ND ND ND NO ND NO 58.0 3,093.9 _ 126.0 8,1812 153.0 9,386.5 56.0 2,5112 67.0 3,6022 110,000.0 460,000.0 862 (1) Bis(2- ethylexyl) Phthalate NO ND NO NO ND ND 200 JB 11049.4 JB 1100 JD 71428.6 JOT ND ND 200 6 6968.6 0 ND ND 47,000.0 76,000.0 O- n-0ctyl Phthalate 00'000 zzzzz zzzzz 0 0000 zzzzz 00000 zzzzz 0 0 0 0 0 zlz ND 17.0 939.21 19.0 a gtili 0 0 0 0 0 1, 042.9 6,159,5 00000 TRqg .73 1,076.3 3,924.7 000 RRg NN 8 O O 8 O 8 O O O O O Benzo(b)fidoranaene ND 69.0 3,8122 94.0 Benzo(k)fluorarshene ND 42.0 2,320.4 58.0 4,908.0 2.204.3 240 (2) Benzo(a)pyrene ND 38.0 1,989.0 50.0 4,4785 2,311.8 782 (1) 43 )ndano(1,2,3'c44wLrene ND 52.0 2,872.9 59.0 4,539.9 3,440.9 200 (2) 08enz(a,h)a tlsaoene ND ND ND ND ND ND 7.0 386.7 9.0 584.4 11.0 674.8 7.0 313.9 9.0 483.9 12,000.0 33,000.0 170 (2) Banzo(q.h,l)parylaa ND ND ND ND ND ND 25.0 1,381.2 29.0 1,883.1 37.0 2,289.9 28.0 1,255.6 34.0 1,828.0 31,000.0 78,000.0 60(2) Total PAH ND ND 430.0 15,925.9 6.0 359.3 712.0 39,337.0 2,518.0 183,376.6 3799.0 233,067.5 669.0 30,000.0 1,467.0 78,871.0 4000 (2) 40C Total LPAH ND ND 430.0 15,925.9 6.0 359.3 88.0 4,751.4 1,047.0 67,987.0 1928.0 1182822 77.0 3,452.9 604.0 32,473.1 370,000.0 780,000.0 Total HPAH ND ND ND ND ND ND 626.0 34,585.6 1,469.0 95,389.8 1,871.0 114,785.3 592.0 26.547.1 863.0 46,397.8 960,000.0 5.3E+06 Shaded values exceed an ecotox threshold; bordered values exceed a regulatory crlterla. • WA Marine Sediment Quality Standards * WA Marine Sediment Cleanup Screening Levels 1 r 1. Interim Sedmenl Quality assessment Values (Draft) Probable Effects Levet, Environment Canada. 1994. Adverse biological effects are frequently observed above this level. 2. Guidelines ktr the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Ouatity M Ontario, Lowest Effect Level, Poraaud et al., 1993. Indicates the level of sediment contamination tolerated by most benthic organisms. 3. Guidelines tor the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quaky In Ontario, No Effect Level, Peraaud et al.. 1993. Indicates the level of sediment contamination which has no Impact 10 fish or benthlo organisms. 4. Interim Cdteda for the Evaluation of Sedlnents of the SL Lawrence Fiver, No Effects Level, Environment Canada, 1991. Contaminant concentrations below W4ch no chronic or acute effects have been observed in Wing organisms. 5. U.S. EPA, Effects Range Low, Long et al, 1995. Contaminant concentrations below this level are rarely associated with adverse effects. - 6. U.S. EPA. Se6mert Qualify Cdfe.a, 1993. Adverse biological effects have been observed above this level. 7. U.S. EPA, Sediment Quality Benchmarks, 1995. Adverse biological effects have been observed above this level. • l 8. Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Analysis Program, Screening Level, Mklahon and Shaw, 1998. Concentrations below the Screening Level rarely cause eat effects In doassaye. Data Qualifiers: Ir B - Analyte presort in the blank and the sample. D Ambles analyzed at a secondly? dilution J - Estimated Valu Ambles 11/25197 • 10 Kenco Marine Phase 11 Assessment Z ~ W JU 00 U U W W J H L w -J LL j d = W Z I- 0 Z W C.) O E- W W U. 8 W z s2. - 0 z City of Seattle K.C.S.C. CN: 469557 ss 10 • • End 3 Legend • • 1 • • 2 • City •E ScAttie City •E - _ 4 x7 oil (approx. 40 sf) tained Soil Approx p 10A sS) • • • 8 -10 cm composite sediment sample, no riprap Approximately 5' apart • o 8 -10 cm vanveen surface grab samples Approximately 5' off pier x C -: ft composite core samples Collected off corner of pier, CI moot z e ,.. ',.: + �u .'•r .f ,74 r '' Yk , 9 W 1 7 2 0 Provisions > ; ,, . } w y f i t • .. ..: L !C.�„ a �.. ...LtS�n..[ �'...... { .,:�tv.f. t.«P. :• Y.. t'� 'iti « 'k'1St F,3. �" l 5 fsn �r� < < ..•sr. r q�. ;. , s' r s ._ 7:*. u%„ 4 k t. L x � E l uafion of .ConsisEenc }' 3 }�f� _ � :yl!�}t'yT.K ,::.gait ^CJ i:'rSr..F�_ ix4r ii;4.,,,':t {'. :.f.r -,':. . A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage (is exempt), when all of the following apply: • The Dept. of Fish and Wildlife letter dated April 26, 1999, from Pamela Erstad demonstrates that this criteria is satisfied. i. The project has been approved in writing by the department of fish and wildlife as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose; The Dept. of Fish and Wildlife letter dated April 26, 1999, from Pamela Erstad demonstrates that this criteria is satisfied. ii. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the department of fish and wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW; and This criteria is not satisfied. The hydraulic permit is awaiting completion of the NEPA document, which is still being prepared. The National Marine Fisheries Service has also requested a biological evaluation (Pamela Erstad, DFW, 5/3/99). Y May 18, 1999 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ms. Marian Berejikian, Fish Biologist FISHPRO, Inc. 3780 S.E. Mile Hill Drive Port Orchard, WA 98366 re: Request for City of Tukwila Shoreline Exemption on Parcel No. 562420 -0970. Dear Ms. Berejikian: I have reviewed your requested shoreline exemption for . the project reflected in pre - application file PRE99 -002 and the JARPA permit application (received May 12, 1999). The proposed project is subject to two approvals by the Planning Division: a shoreline substantial development permit and SEPA environmental review. Each is discussed below. Applicability of a Shoreline Permit. Your request for a shoreline exemption was based on WAC 173- 27- 040(p). My research shows the following project status relative to those requirements: Southcenter rd Bouleva Su1te 100 • Tukwila !shion 98188 • t nh1 fait -3h • Ray. �n i�nts) 42 1.2Ms :Y. ✓.•f'..n3:i.r.�.z.._ . .. ..�E�M Boulevard YNS!!Mi' t�MUwYI!+v: Jt twu. �t•+' YTtla., �. 11Y. anPt w t4' t'. Y. >r'xxl' MVT 1K^ YEN: aawNkn.+ .rvs ........:.. .... . FISHPRO Request for Shoreline Exemption iii. The local government has determined that the project is consistent with the local shoreline master program. Such a determination would seem to be appropriate, subject to receiving the appropriate Corps of Engineers and DFW permits to demonstrate adequate engineering. I may also be inappropriate to make this determination before completion of the environmental review. Use Of NEPA In Place Of SEPA Environmental Review. SEPA review is required unless it is exempted as implementing a watershed restoration plan which has been previously reviewed under SEPA (WAC 197 -11- 800(27)). NEPA materials may be used to satisfy the required environmental analyses per WAC 197 -11 -610. This authorizes, but does not require, the local SEPA official to use NEPA materials (which have COMPLETED the NEPA review process) to satisfy the required SEPA environmental analyses (WAC 197 -11 -600), subject to independent review (WAC 197 -11- 630(1). The procedural requirements for this SEPA document: "...is not required to meet the adopting agency's own procedures for the preparation of environmental documents (such as circulation, commenting, and hearing requirements) to be adopted." (WAC 197 -11- 630(1)). Copies must be (a)sent to agencies with jurisdiction that have not received the document, as shown by the distribution list for the adopted document, and (b) placed in libraries and other public offices, or sent out upon request (WAC 197 -11- 630(2)). DETERMINATION While supporting the intent and the overall project design, I am unable to exempt the proposed action for a shoreline permit at this time. Similarly, I will be unable to make a SEPA determination until completing a review of the final, approved NEPA document. The materials necessary for me to make a determination on these issues are: 1. the construction drawings approved by the Corps of Engineers 2. the HPA approval and 3. the final, approved NEPA document Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 206 -431 -3684, if I have misunderstood anything or you wish to discuss options for moving forward with this project. Sincerel J ck Pace Planning Manager cc: Vernon Umetsu, Carol Lumb, Gary Schulz, Joanna Spencer. Q: \99 \FISHPRO.DOCCreated on 05/03/99 12:32 PM Pg. 2 05/22/61 TUL 11:32 FAX 253 z '0752 MUCKLESHOOT FISH V l •:�- P.PR 1 9 2001 • Regulatory Branch • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department ATTN: Mr. Glen St. Amant 39015 - 172n Avenue Southeast Auburn, Washington 98092 Gentlemen: REPLY TO ATTENTION OF • Nationwide Permit 27 authorizes the construction of a fish habitat bench in the Duwamish River near Seattle, King County, Washington. The regulations which govern our permit program contain a series of Nationwide Permits (NWPs). Each NWP authorizes a specific category of work, provided certain conditions are met. The NWP 27 (Federal Register, December 13, 1996, Vol. 61, No. 241 and /or March 9, 2000, Vol. 65, No. 47) authorizes "Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities." The entire text of NWP 27 and its specific regional conditions are enclosed. . The.NWP 27 authorizes this proposal. The workmust be performed as depicted on the enclosed drawings and in accordance with the attached general conditions (enclosure 2) in order to remain authorized by the nationwide permit. Endangered Species . Act Compliance: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3765 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 -3755 APR 18 2001 . . Reference: 1999 -2 -00470 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe One•of those attached general conditions that applies to all NWPs is General Condition 11, which deals with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In this case, all the requirements of the ESA have been met, and you are in full compliance with General Condition 11. We have completed the necessary.coordination under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). You must implement the ESA requirements and /or agreements set forth in the document entitled Biological Assessment for the Basin #3 Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project as revised and approved by the U.S. Army -2- Corps of Engineers (Corps) on August 16, 2000. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: (USFWS) concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based on this document on September 28, 2000 (USFVVS Reference Number 1- 3 -00 -1- 1827). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based' on this document on March 23; 2001 (NMFS Reference Number WSB -00 -193). Both agencies•will be informed of this permit issuance and will enforce any known violations of the commitments made in this document pursuant to the ESA. • The State of-Washington has partially denied 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Response under certain conditions. You need to check with the Washington State Department of Ecology (State) to determine any further 401 WQC and CZM requirements. Please telephone or send your plans to the following address prior to starting work: Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 —160 Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • Telephone (425) 649 -7145 You must send us a copy of the individual 401 WQC and CZM Consistency Response authorizations for our file.. In order for this NWP to be valid, you must comply with any conditions the State includes in their 401 WQC and CZM Consistency Response. You may then proceed to construction. If more than 180 days pass and the State has not responded to your individual 401 WQC and CZM Consistency Response request, the 401 WQC .and..CZM Consistency Response become waived. To confirm this, you must send us a of only your 401 WQC application and then receive a letter from the Corps before proceeding with your proposed work. This NWP verification will be valid for 2 years. from the date of this letter or until the NWPs are modified, reissued, or revoked. If the authorized work has not been completed by that date, you should contact us to find out what permit requirements are then in effect. . If the project meets all the conditions, you will need no further authorization from• us for the above - described project. You must still comply with other Federal, State, and MAY 22 '01 11:32 253 931 0752 PAGE.03 Fi,w. . Ytrt:.a',:::i�> :: sEti5, 6�::., if4f>: ri:;;.,•',; y'.' i$ �: i°, �C`"�i�'z7i.'�.vr'c'vl�::iitilh 05/22/01 TUE 11:33 FAX 253 ( Enclosures MUCKLESHOOT FISH -3- 1 • local requirements which may pertain to the project. When you have finished the work, please fill out and retum the enclosed compliance statement. If you have any questions, please contact me at telephone (206) 764-6907. incerely, OV J ck Kennedy, Regulatory y Project Manager E forcement and Tra sportation Section Q004 PAGEm04mnmummi NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 27. Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities. Activities in waters of the United States associated with the restoration of former waters, the enhancement of degraded tidal and non -tidal wetlands and- riparian areas, the creation of tidal and non -tidal wetlands and riparian areas, and the z restoration and enhancement of non -tidal streams and non -tidal open water _ I- areas as follows: 1- w (a). The activity is conducted on: -J o No (1) Non - Federal public lands and private lands, in accordance with co w the terms and conditions of a binding wetland enhancement, co restoration, or creation agreement between the landowner and w o the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the Natural 2 Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or voluntary wetland �, restoration, enhancement, and creation actions documented by co a the NRCS pursuant to NRCS regulations; or w z = f- (2) Any Federal land; or zI- ww (3) Reclaimed surface coal mined lands, in accordance with a D o S Mining Control and Reclamation Act permit issued by the o Office of Surface Mining or the applicable state agency (the future w reversion does not apply to streams or wetlands created, 1 U restored, or enhanced as mitigation for the mining impacts, nor u ., la naturally due to hydrologic or topographic features, nor for a w z mitigation bank); or 0 z MAY 22 '01 11:33 (4) Any private or public land; (b) Notification: For activities on any private or public land that are not described by paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) above, the permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13; and (c) Only native plant species should be planted at the site, if permittee is vegetating the project site. Activities authorized by this NWP include, but are not limited to: the removal of accumulated sediments; the installation, removal, and maintenance of small water control structures, dikes, and berms; the installation of current deflectors; the enhancement, restoration, or creation of riffle and pool stream structure; the placement of in- stream habitat structures; modifications of the stream bed and/or banks to restore or create stream meanders; the backfilling of artificial channels and drainage ditches; the removal of existing drainage structures; the construction of small nesting islands; the construction of open water areas; activities needed to 1 253 931 0752 PAGE.05 VU/ LG /,Vl 1 U 11 . JJ 11 //A 1. ./ V 1 U4 NUUI\LLVl1VU1 1 'lUL ( NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 Y�.2201.11 reestablish vegetation, including plowing or discing for seed bed preparation; mechanized Iandclearing to remove undesirable vegetation; and other related activities. This NWP does not authorize the conversion of a stream to another aquatic use, such as the creation of an impoundment for waterfowl habitat. This NWP does not authorize stream channelization. This NP does not authorize the conversion of natural NV VP wetlands to another aquatic use, such as creation of waterfowl impoundments where a forested wetland previously existed. However, this NWP authorizes the relocation of non -tidal waters, • including non -tidal wetlands, on the project site provided there are net gains in aquatic resource functions and values. For example, this NWP may authorize the creation of an open water impoundment in a non -tidal emergent wetland, provided the non tidal emergent wetland is replaced by creating that wetland type on the project site. This NWP does not authorize the relocation of tidal waters or the conversion of tidal waters, including tidal wetlands, to other aquatic uses, such as the conversion of tidal wetlands into open water impoundments. Reversion. For enhancement, restoration, and creation projects conducted under paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(4), this NWP does not authorize any future discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the reversion of the area to its prior condition. In such cases a separate permit would be required for any reversion. For restoration, enhancement, and creation projects conducted under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3), this NWP also authorizes any future discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the reversion of the area to its documented prior condition and use (Le., prior to the restoration, enhancement, or creation activities) within five years after expiration of a limited term wetland restoration or creation agreement or permit, even if the discharge occurs after this NWP expires. This NWP also authorizes the reversion of wetlands that were restored, enhanced, or created on prior - converted cropland that has not been abandoned, in accordance with a binding agreement between the landowner and NRCS or FWS (even though the restoration, enhancement, or creation activity did not require a Section 404 permit). The five -year reversion limit does not apply to agreements without time limits reached under paragraph (a)(1). The prior condition will be documented in the original agreement or permit, and the determination of return to prior conditions will be made by the Federal agency or appropriate State agency executing the agreement or permit. Prior to any reversion activity, the permittee or the appropriate Federal or State agency must notify the District Engineer and include the documentation of the prior condition. Once an area has reverted back to its prior physical condition, it will be subject to whatever the Corps regulatory requirements will be at that future date. (Sections 10 and 404) 2 • a^1 PAGE.06 NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/? JUNE 2000 MAY' 22 '01 11:34 NOTE: Compensatory mitigation is not required for activities authorized by this NWP, provided the authorized work results in a net increase in aquatic resource functions and values in the project area. This NWP can be used to authorize compensatory mitigation projects, including mitigation banks, provided the permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13, and the project includes compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States caused by the authorized work. However, this NWP does not authorize the reversion of an area used for a compensatory mitigation project to its prior condition. NWP 27 can be used to authorize impacts at a mitigation bank, but only in circumstances where it has been approved under the Interagency Federal Mitigation Banks Guidelines. V _ fia„ii qulr .• .- • r�;� ertt °cif e:.�±4 � :: i ., l idea • resour twatp ;& a trori a l • X2 {tsj ;_Qe g na t e if: rtca/= Zest o Regional Conditions — 1. If the proposed work results in impacts to a special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands or riffle and pool complexes), the "Notification" must include a statement of why the impacts are necessary, how the impacts have b een minimized, and how the overall project is beneficial, despite these impacts. 2. The permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13 for proposed projects in stream or wetland restoration and enhancement areas previously authorized as mitigation by a Department of the Army permit. 3. The permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13 for a stream and wetland restoration projects occurring in a designated Federal Superfund site (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and - Liability Act), hazardous waste clean -up site (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), or State clean -up site (Model Toxics Control Act). EPA 401 Certification — Partially denied without prejudice. An individual. 401 Certification is required for projects authorized under this NWP if required by any EPA Regional General 401 Condition and for: 3 253 931 0752 +rWPnQ +.�.:ti..ea, PAGE.07 05/22/01 TUE 11:34 FAX 253 9, 0752 MJCKLESHOOT FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICTR JUNE 2000 1. Discharges of dredged or fill material associated with the reversion of a restored wetland to its prior condition and use. 2. Impacts to waters of the U.S. adversely affecting more than 1/3 (one - third) acre. 3. Use of this NWP to create open water areas from wetlands. Puyallup Tribe and Chehalis Tribe 401 Certification — Denied without prejudice. An individual 401 Certfication is required for all Section 404 activities. State 401 Certification — Partially denied without prejudice. An individual 401 Certification is required for projects or activities authorized under this NWP if required by any State'Regional General 401 Condition and for the following, 1. Any use of this NWP for projects or activities in wetlands that does not receive written approval from Ecology. 2. Any use of this NWP for projects or activities adversely affecting more than 1/4 (one - quarter) acre of any waterbody (e.g., construction of berms or dikes larger than 1/4 acre, impounding water in an area greater than 1/4 acre, etc.). CZM Consistency Response — Partially denied without prejudice. An individual CZM Consistency Response must be obtained for projects that the Seattle District has not yet determined are in compliance with ESA, or that require individual 401 Certification, and that are located within counties in the coastal zone. Consistency with CZM cannot be determined until any necessary consultation or concurrence required under ESA is completed. The State's CZM review will start upon completion of ESA requirements. 4 x NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 National Conditions. The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by an NWP to be valid: 1. Navigation: No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on a navigation. • w Ce 2. Proper Maintenance. Ariy structure or fill authorized shall g be properly 6 g maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety. - c) o u) 0 cn 3. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and w _ sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating _ u) u _ condition during construction, and all.exposed soil and other fills, as well as w o any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be § permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. co 4. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the _ movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, Z ~ including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the o a primary purpose is to impound water. Culverts placed in streams w must be installed to maintain low flow conditions. 0 • 0 O D- 5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on o i- . mats, orother measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. i 0 ` 6. Regional and Case -By -Case Conditions. The . activity must comply with w Z any regional conditions which may have been added by the division o i engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions o g- added by the Corps or by the State or tribe in its Section 401 water quality z certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination. 7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the • river is in an official study status; unless the appropriate Federal agency, with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation, or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the.appropriate Federal land management agency in the area (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 8. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but notlimited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. MAY 22 '01 11:35 CONDITIONS FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS �r. 1 253 931 0752 PAGE.09 • • 05/22 %01 TUE 11:35 FAX 253 .y '• MUCKLESHOOT FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/? JUNE 2000 9. Water Quality. (a) In certain States and tribal lands an individual 401 water quality certification must be obtained or waived (See 33 CFR 330.4(c)). (b) For NWPs 12, 14, 17, 18, 32, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44, where the State or tribal 401 certification (either generically or individually) does not require or approve a water quality management plan, the permittee must include design criteria and techniques that will ensure that the authorized work does not result in more than minimal.degradation of water quality. An important component of a water quality management plan includes.starmwater management that minimizes.degradation of the downstream aquatic system, including water quality. Refer to General Condition 21 for stomiwater management requirements. Another important component of a water quality management plan is the establishment and maintenance of vegetated buffers next to open waters, including streams. Refer to General Condition 19 for . vegetated buffer requirements for the NWPs. 10. Coastal Zone Management. In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived (see Section 330.4(d)). 11. Endangered Species. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act, or which will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Non - federal permittees shall notify the District Engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or is located in the designated critical habitat and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For activities that may affect Federally- listed endangered . or threatened species or designated critical habitat, the notification . must include the name(s) of the endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the proposed work or that utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or NMFS, the District Engineer may add species - specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs. (b) Authorization of an activity by a nationwide permit does not authorize the "take" of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the 2 nn�YrPAr,F�e 1 ;j • NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 13. Notification. MAY 22 '01 1136 Federal Endangered Species Act. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with "incidental take" provisions, etc.) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both lethal and non- lethal "takes" of protected species are in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service or their world wide web pages at http: / /www.fws.gov /r9endspp /endspp.html and - http:// www. nfms .gov /protres/esahome.html, respectively. .12. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized, until the DE has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR part 325, Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed, determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,-and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). For activities that may affect historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places, the notification must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. (a) Timing: Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer with a preconstruction notification (PCN) as early as possible. The District Engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 days of the date of receipt and can request the additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, -if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information, then the District Engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the District Engineer. The prospective permittee shalt not begin the activity: (1) Until notified in writing by the District Engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the District or Division Engineer; or 3 253 931 0752 PAGE.11 05/22/01 TUE 11:36 FAX 253 � 0752 HUCKLESHOOT FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 (2) If notified in writing by the District or Division Engineer that an individual permit is required; or Unless 45 days have passed from the District Engineer's receipt of the complete notification and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from the District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee's right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure' set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2). (3) (b) Contents of Notification: The notification•must be in writing and • include the following information: - • (1) Name, address, and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; . (2) Location of the proposed Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other.NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity; and (4) For NWPs 7, 12, 14, 18, 21, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43, the PCN must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands, vegetated shallows (e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation, seagrass beds), and riffle and pool complexes (see paragraph 13(0); (3) For NWP 7, Outfall Structures and Maintenance, the PCN must include information regarding the original design capacities and configurations of those areas of the facility where Maintenance dredging or excavation is proposed. (6) For NWP 14, Linear Transportation Crossings, the PCN must include a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset permanent losses of waters of the United States and a statement describing how temporary losses of waters of the United States will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. (5) (7) For NWP 21, Surface Coal Mining Activities, the PCN must include an Office of Surface Mining (OSM) or state - approved mitigation plan. R1012. NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT17 JUNE 2000 M1V no ' t 1 11:z", (8) For NWP 27, Stream and Wetland Restoration, the PCN must include documentation of the prior condition of the site that will be reverted by the permittee. (9) For NWP 29, Single - Family Housing, the PCN must also include: z • (1) Any past use of this NWP by the individual permittee and /or z the permittee's spouse; re z w (ii) A statement that the single - family housing activity is for a v o personal residence of the permittee; UJ _ (iii) A description of the entire parcel, including its size, and a u) u_ delineation of wetlands. For the purpose of this NWP, w o parcels of land measuring % acre or less will not require a g formal on -site delineation. However, the.applicant shall u_ provide an indication of where the wetlands are and the = d amount of wetlands that exists on the property. For parcels 1- _ greater than % acre in size, a formal wetland delineation z F must be prepared in accordance with the current method z o required by the Corps. (See paragraph 1 3(f)); w U� (iv) A written description of all and (including, if available, legal o P- descriptions) owned by the prospective permittee and /or the w w prospective perrnittee's spouse, within a one mile radius of i the parcel, in any form of ownership (including any land owned as a partner, corporation, joint tenant, co- tenant, or w z as a tenant -by- the - entirety) and any land on which a purchase and sale agreement or other for sale or o ♦- purchase has been executed; z (10) For NWP 31, Maintenance of Existing Flood Control Projects, the prospective pemiittee must either notify the District Engineer with . a PCN prior to each maintenance activity or submit a. five year (or less) maintenance plan. In addition, the PCN must include all of the following: (1) Sufficient baseline information so as to identify the approved channel depths and configurations and existing facilities. Minor deviations are authorized, provided the approved flood control protection or drainage is not increased; (ii) A delineation of any affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands; and, (iii) Location of the dredged material disposal site. 5 '3Z QZ1 (717f'7 PDrp 1 Z 05/22/01 TUE 11:37 FAX 253 0752 MUCKLESROOT FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 (11) For NWP 33, Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering, the PCN must also include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources. (12) For NWPs 39, 43, and 44, the PCN must also include a written statement to the District Engineer explaining how avoidance and minimization of losses of waters of the United States were achieved on the project site. (13) For NWP 39, Residential, Commercial, and Institutional .Developments, and.NWP 42, Recreational Facilities; the PCN must include a compensatory mitigation proposal that offsets unavoidable losses of waters of the United States or justification explaining why compensatory mitigation should not be required. (14) For NWP 40, Agricultural Activities, the PCN must include a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset losses of waters of the United States. (15) For NWP 43, Stormwater Management Facilities, the PCN must include, for the construction of new stormwater management facilities, a maintenance plan (in accordance with State and local requirements, if applicable) and a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset losses of waters of the United States. (16) For NWP 44, Mining Activities, the PCN must include a description of all waters of the United States adversely affected by the project, a description of measures taken to minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States, a description of measures taken to comply with the criteria of the NWP, and a reclamation plan (for aggregate mining activities in isolated waters and non - tidal wetlands adjacent to headwaters and any hard rock/mineral mining activities). (17) For activities that may adversely affect Federally - listed endangered or threatened species, the PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the proposed work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. (18) For activities that may affect historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places,.the PCN must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. 6 iJ014 'ai, aR?es�.a;OAI"!r4tu 'nY?x.t± > ,JJ: +�u+:,r,4 r�.;::•;,d ;�:��e .,:.. = ,.u,r. ca�7w.,,• P. ,. - • �.... f ' t NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICTr7 JUNK 2000 MAY 22 '01 11:38 (19) For NWPs 12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44, where the proposed work involves discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States resulting in permanent, above -grade fills within 100 -year floodplains (as identified on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA - approved local floodplain maps), the notification must include documentation demonstrating that the proposed work complies with the appropriate FEMA or FEMA- approved local floodplain construction requirements. (c) Form of Notification: The standard individual permit application form . (Form ENG 4345) may be used as the notification but must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must include all of the information required in (b) (1) -(19) of General Condition 13. A letter containing the requisite information may also be used. (d) District Engineer's Decision: in reviewing the PCN for the proposed activity, the District Engineer will determine whether the activity . . authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest. The prospective permittee may, optionally, submit a proposed mitigation plan with the PCN to expedite the process and the District Engineer will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation the applicant has included in the proposal in determining whether the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the proposed work are minimal. If the District Engineer determines that the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal, the District Engineer will notify the permittee and include any conditions the District Engineer deems necessary. Any compensatory mitigation proposal must be approved by the District Engineer prior to commencing work. If the prospective permittee is required to submit a compensatory mitigation proposal with the PCN, the proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. If the prospective permittee elects to submit a compensatory mitigation plan with the PCN, the District Engineer will expeditiously review the proposed compensatory mitigation plan. The District Engineer must review the plan within 45 days of receiving a complete PCN and determine whether the conceptual or specific proposed mitigation would ensure no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. If the net adverse effects of the project on the aquatic environment (after consideration of the compensatory mitigation proposal) are determined by the District Engineer to be minimal, the District Engineer will provide a timely written response to the applicant stating that the project can proceed under the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit. 7 253 931 0752 PAGE.15 05/22/01 TUE 11:38 FAX 253 ( 0752 MUCKLESHOOT FISH IJ NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICTR JUNE 2000 If the District Engineer determines that the adverse effects of the proposed work are more than minimal, then he will notify the applicant either: (1) That the project does not qualify for authorization under the NWP and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit; (2) that the project is authorized under the NWP subject to the applicant's submission of a mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level; or (3) that the project is authorized under the NWP with specific modifications or conditions. Where the District Engineer determines that mitigation is required in order to ensure no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment, the activity will be authorized within the 45 -day PCN period, including the necessary conceptual or specific mitigation or a requirement that the applicant submit a mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level. When conceptual mitigation is included, or a mitigation plan is required under item (2) above, no work in waters of the United States will occur until the District Engineer has approved a specific mitigation plan. (e) Agency Coordination: The District Engineer will consider any comments from Federal and State agencies concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the project's adverse effects on the aquatic environment to a minimal level. For activities requiring notification to the District Engineer that result in the Toss of greater than 'A acre of waters of the United States, the District Engineer will, upon receipt of a notification, provide immediately (e.g., via facsimile transmission, overnight, mail, or other expeditious manner), a copy to the appropriate offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service, State natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and, if appropriate, the National Marine Fisheries Service. With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will then have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone or fax the District Engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive, site - specific comments. If so contacted by an agency, the District Engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the notification. The 8 L 1 NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRiCTR JUNE 2000 District Engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame, but will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The District Engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each notification that the resource agencies' concerns were considered. As required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and z Management Act, the District Engineer will provide a response to a National Marine Fisheries Service within 30 days of receipt of any = z Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations. Applicants are ce 6 en to provide the Corps multiple copies of notifications to -J o expedite agency notification. o co w (f) Wetlands Delineations: Wetland delineations must be prepared in -I i_ accordance with the current method required by the Corps. For NWP w o 2 see paragraph (b)(9)(iii) for parcels less than'h° acre in size. The 2 permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic site. g Q There may be some delay if.the Corps does the delineation. u. Furthermore, the 45-day period will not start until the wetland z w delineation has been completed and submitted to the Corps, where Z appropriate. i- o z- 14. Compliance Certification. Every permittee who has received a Nationwide permit verification from the Corps will submit a signed certification regarding o the completed work and any required mitigation. The certification will be o i-- forwarded by the Corps with the authorization letter. The certification will w w include: 1 0 �o (a) A statement that the authorized work was done in accordance with the iii z Corps authorization, including any general or specific conditions; p: 1 0 z 15. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is prohibited, except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum 'acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1/3 acre. MAY 22 '01 11:39 (b) A statement that any required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions; and (c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the work and mitigation. 9 253 931 0752 PAGE.17 05/22/01 TU2 11 :39 FAX 253 T -. 0752 HUCKLESH00T FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICTR JUNE 2000 16. Water Supply Intakes. No activity, including structures and work in navigable'waters of the United States or discharges of dredged or fill material, may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the activity, is for repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. 17. Shellfish Beds. No activity, including structures and work in navigable waters of the United States or discharges of dredged or fill material, may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWP 4. 18. Suitable Material. No activity, including structures -and work in navigable waters of the United States or discharges of dredged or fill material, may consist of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.) and material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act). 19. Mitigation. The project must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site). Mitigation will be required when necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The District Engineer will consider the factors discussed below when determining the acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to offset adverse effects on the aquatic environment that are more than minimal. (a) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio will be required for all wetland impacts requiring a PCN. Consistent with National policy, the District Engineer will establish a preference for restoration of wetlands to meet the minimum compensatory mitigation ratio, with preservation used only in exceptional circumstances. (b) To be practicable, the mitigation must be available and capable of being done considering costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purposes. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include, but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar functions and values, preferably in the same watershed; (c) The District Engineer will require restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of other aquatic resources in order to offset the authorized impacts to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. An important element 10 • CJ 018 hsy NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 M. J nn P41 41 . AM of any compensatory mitigation plan for projects in or near streams or other open waters is the establishment and maintenance, to the maximum extent practicable, of vegetated buffers next to open waters on the project site. The vegetated buffer should consist of native species. The District Engineer will determine the appropriate width of the vegetated buffer and in which cases it will be required. Normally, the vegetated buffer will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the District Engineer may require wider vegetated buffers to address documented water quality concerns. If there are open waters on the project site and the District Engineer requires compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts to ensure that the net adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal, any vegetated buffer will comprise no more than 1/3 of the remaining compensatory mitigation acreage after the permanently filled wetlands have been replaced on a one-to -one acreage basis. In addition, compensatory mitigation must address adverse effects on wetland functions and values and cannot be used to offset the acreage of wetland losses that would occur in order to meet the acreage limits of some of the NWPs (e.g., for NWP 39, 1 /4 acre of wetlands cannot be created to change a 1 /2 acre loss of wetlands to a 1 /4 acre loss; however, '/z acre of created wetlands can be used to reduce the impacts of a 1/3 acre Toss of wetlands). If the prospective permittee is required to submit a compensatory mitigation proposal with the PCN, the proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. (d) To the extent appropriate, permittees should consider mitigation banking and other appropriate forms of compensatory mitigation. If the District Engineer determines that compensatory mitigation is necessary to offset losses of waters of the United States and ensure that the net adverse effects of the authorized work on the aquatic environment are minimal, consolidated mitigation approaches, such as mitigation banks, will be the preferred method of providing compensatory, mitigation, unless the District Engineer determines that activity - specific compensatory mitigation is more appropriate, based on which is best for the aquatic environment. These types of mitigation are preferred because they. involve larger blocks of protected aquatic environment, are more likely to meet the mitigation goals, and are more easily checked for compliance. If a mitigation bank or other consolidated mitigation approach is not available in the watershed, the District Engineer will consider other appropriate forms of compensatory mitigation to offset the losses of waters of the United States to ensure that the net adverse effects of the authorized work on the aquatic environment are minimal. 11 ^1 �J m74 f]f1C"1 Me1r1— 4f1 .. .. � .. ..-.'. �`�k. cv�+: r. �lN`!71,�J:,''P't'::�8'! >Iry'V'. + �rx .UfC«VtY.������•�+`GVMk511.CH` .t�'V.j���f��*Fi1�� ram,..... ... � , 05/22/01 TUE 11:40 FAX 253 4 ' 0752 MUCKLESHOOT FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 20. Spawning Areas. Activities, including structures and work in navigable waters of the United States or discharges of dredged or fill material, in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., excavate, fill, or smother downstream by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized. 21. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the activity must be designed to maintain preconstruction downstream flow conditions (e.g., location, capacity, and flow rates). Furthermore, the activity must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows .(unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters) and the structure or discharge of dredged or fill material must withstand expected high flows. The activity must, to the maximum extent practicable, provide for retaining excess flows from the site, provide for maintaining surface flow rates from the site similar to preconstruction conditions, and must not increase water flows from the project site, relocate water, or redirect water flow beyond preconstruction conditions. In addition, the activity must, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce adverse effects such as flooding or erosion downstream and upstream of the project site, unless the activity is part of a larger system designed to manage water flows. 22. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity, including structures and work in navigable waters of the United States or discharge of dredged or fill material, creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and /or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 23. Waterfowl Breeding Areas. Activities, including structures and work in navigable waters of the United States or discharges of dredged or fill material, into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 24. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas retumed to their preexisting elevation. 25. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA - designated marine sanctuaries, National Estuarine Research Reserves, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, critical habitat for Federally listed threatened and endangered species, coral reefs, State natural heritage sites, and outstanding national resource waters or other waters officially designated by a State as having particular environmental or ecological significance and identified by the District Engineer after notice and opportunity for public comment. The District Engineer may also ' 12 11020 { NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/? JUNE 2000 designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for comment. (a) Except as noted below, discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 for any activity within, or directly critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters. Discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States may be authorized by the above NWPs in National Wild and Scenic Rivers if the activity complies with General Condition 7. Further, such discharges may be authorized in designated critical habitat for Federally listed threatened or endangered species if the activity complies with General Condition 11 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service has concurred in a determination of compliance with this condition. (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38, notification is required in accordance with General Condition 13, for any activity proposed in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The District Engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after he determines that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than minimal. 26. Fills Within 100 - Year Floodplains. For purposes of this general condition, 100 -year floodplains will be identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA- approved local floodplain maps. (a) Discharges Below Headwaters. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States resulting in permanent, above -grade fills within the 100 -year floodplain at or below the point on a stream where the average annual flow is five cubic feet per second (i.e., below headwaters) are not authorized by NWPs 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44. For NWPs 12 and 14, the prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13 and the notification must include documentation that any permanent, above -grade fills in waters of the United States within the 100 -year floodplain below headwaters comply with FEMA or FEMA- approved local floodplain construction requirements. (b) Discharges in Headwaters (i.e., above the point on a stream where the average annual flow is five cubic feet per second). 13 05/22/01 TUE 11:41 FAX 253 NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/? JUNE 2000 Section 10 Only Condition 1. Removal, Relocation or Other Alteration to Structures. The permitee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States requires the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Arrny or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. Special Condition 0752 MUCKLESIIOOT FISH UO22 (1) Flood Fringe. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States resulting in permanent, above -grade fills within the flood fringe of the 100 -year floodplain of headwaters are not authorized by NWPs 12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44, unless the prospective permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13. The notification must include documentation that such discharges comply with FEMA or FEMA- approved local floodplain construction requirements. (2) Floodway. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters. of the United States resulting in permanent, above -grade fills within the floodway of the 100. -year floodplain of headwaters are not authorized by NWPs 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44. For NWPs 12 and 14, the permittee must notifythe District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13 and the notification must include documentation that any permanent, above grade fills proposed in the floodway comply with FEMA or FEMA- approved local floodplain construction requirements. 1. Access. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. 14 MAY 27 'R1 11:d7 NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICTT7 JUNE 2000 Corps Regional General Conditions 1. Bog and Bog - like Wetlands. The use of NWPs is specifically prohibited in bog and bog - like wetlands or just the bog or bog -like component of a wetland system (as defined in the Definition section of this Public Notice), except for projects provided coverage under the following NWPs: NWP 3(i,ii) — NWP 20 — NWP 32 — NWP 38 — NWP 40(a) — NWP 3(1,11) — NWP 20 . — NWP 32 — NWP 38 — NWP 40(a) — Maintenance Oil Spill Cleanup Completed Enforcement Actions Cleanup of Hazardous and Toxic Waste USDA program participant NOTE: NWP regulations do not allow the regional conditioning of NWP 40(a). 2. Mature Forested Wetlands. The use of NWPs is specifically prohibited in mature forested systems or just the mature forested component of a wetland system (as defined in the Definition section of this Public Notice), except for projects provided coverage under the following NWPs: Maintenance Oil Spill Cleanup Completed Enforcement Actions Cleanup of Hazardous and Toxic Waste USDA program participant NOTE: NWP regulations do not allow the regional conditioning of NWP 40(a). 3. Revegetation. Though applying to all NWPs where wetland vegetation is temporarily removed, this condition most often applies to NWPs 12, 13, 14, and 33 which require restoration and /or revegetation of the temporarily impacted areas or work areas. This condition does not apply to any NWP authorizations which require a separate mitigation plan. Upon completion of the work authorized by the NWP, the site shall be replanted with the appropriate native upland or wetland vegetation during the first available planting season. Vegetation removal or destruction shall be held to the absolute minimum necessary. The applicant shall take appropriate measures to ensure revegetation success, as defined below. Success is defined as 80% of the planted area being covered with native species five years after construction is completed. If this standard is not equaled or exceeded, remedial measures (e.g., replanting, soil amendments, additional monitoring, etc.) may be required until success is 15 ' 0'71 ra c,orc 77 05/22/01 TUE 11:42 FAX 253 •0752 HUCKLESHOOT FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 achieved. Measures such as hydroseeding with annual or non - invasive grasses or'groundcovers may be used for temporary erosion control. 4. Commencement Bay. An individual permit is required in the Commencement Bay Study Area (CBSA) for activities which would have qualified for the following NWPs: NWP 12 — Utility Line Activities (substations and access roads) NWP 13 — Bank Stabilization NWP 14 -- Linear Transportation Crossings NWP 23 — Approved Categorical Exclusions NWP 29 — Single- Family.Housing NWP 39 — Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Developments NWP 40 -- Agricultural' Activities NWP 41 — Reshaping Existing DrainageDitches NWP 42 — Recreational Facilities NWP 43 -- Stormwater Management Facilities The CBSA is located near the southern end of Puget Sound's main basin at Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. The CBSA extends from Brown's Point around the bay to Point Defiance and includes the commercial waterways, wetlands, and any other jurisdictional waters. From Point Defiance, the line runs southeast to State Route 7 (Pacific Avenue), then south to the centerline of 1 -5; then east (northbound lanes) along 1 -5 to the Puyallup River. The boundary extends 200 feet on either side of the Puyallup River southeast to the Clark Creek Road (Melroy) Bridge. From the Puyallup River, the boundary extends east along 1 -5 to 70th Avenue E. The line then returns to Brown's Point to the northwest, following the 100 - foot contour elevation above sea level located east of Hylebos Creek and Marine View Drive. 5. Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). Within the boundaries of the (SAMP), only the following NWPs can be used in those areas designated as "Developable Wetlands ": NWP 14 — Linear Transportation Crossings NWP 23 — Approved Categorical Exclusions NWP 29 — Single - Family Housing NWP 33 -- Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering NWP 39 — Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Developments NWP 40 — Agricultural Activities NWP 41 -- Reshaping Existing Drainage Ditches NWP 42 — Recreational Facilities NWP 43 — Stomiwater Management Facilities Until the SAMP is approved, the users of these NWPs listed above (except NWP 40a.) must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General 16 1�j024 NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 MAY 22 '01 11:43 Condition 13 for any acreage or volume proposed. Once the SAMP is approved, the "Notification" limits will be as specified in the individual NWPs. Mitigation requirements for these projects must either be onsite or within the areas designated as "Preferred Mitigation Sites ". Mitigation plans must comply with the•requirements found within the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan, King County, Washington, dated April 2000. An individual permit is required for all proposals in "Developable Wetlands" that would have qualified for NWPs other than those listed above. NWP 27, Stream Restoration and Enhancement Activities, can be used within the SAMP, but, must comply with the requirements found within the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan, King County, Washington. The Mill Creek SAMP applies to all areas and tributaries drained by Mill Creek, (Auburn), Mullen Slough, Midway Creek, Aubum Creek, and the area bounded by 4 Street Northeast in Aubum on the south, and the Ordinary High Water mark of the Green River on the east and north. 6. Prohibited Work Times for Bald Eagle Protection. For compliance with National General Condition 11, the following construction activity prohibitions apply to protect bald eagles, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act: (a) No construction activity authorized under a NWP shall occur within 114 mile of an occupied bald eagle nest, noctumal roost site, or wintering concentration area, within the following seasonal work prohibition times. (b) No construction activity authorized under a NWP shall occur within 1/2 mile BY LINE OF SIGHT of an occupied bald eagle nest or nocturnal roost site, within the following seasonal work prohibition times. Work prohibition times: (1) Nesting between January 1 and August 15 each year. (2) Wintering areas between November 1 and March 31 each year. Exceptions to these prohibited work times can be made by request to the Corps and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Contact the USFWS to determine if a bald eagle nest, nocturnal roost, or wintering concentration occurs near your proposed project: 17 253 931 0752 PAGE.25 05/22/01 TUE 11:43 FAX 253 ( 0752 MUCKLESHOOT FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 West of Cascades: Olympia Office - (360) 753 -9440 East of Cascades: Ephrata - (509) 754 -8580 or Spokane - (509) 893 -8002 Mainstem of the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam: Portland - (503) 231 -6179 z z w regional condition will no longer be valid. co 0 J LLI Regional General 401 Conditions w 0 State w ? co . Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls: w Z = (a) For in -water construction activities: An individual.401 Certification is O not required under this condition for projects or activities authorized w w under NWPs that will meet the following requirements of the water 2 o quality standards (WAC 173 -201A -110): 0 cn 0 H (1) All necessary local and State permits have been obtained; = v F (2) Best Management Practices have been implemented; and, —" O .z (3) Turbidity does not extend beyond the following limits: o z NOTE: If the bald eagle is delisted (6 July 2000 at the earliest), this .(a) Up to 100 feet downstream from the activity in waters flowing up to 10 cfs (cubic feet per second) at the time of construction; (b) Up to 200 feet downstream from the activity in waters flowing between 10 cfs to 100 cfs at the time of construction; (c) Up to 300 feet downstream from the activity in waters flowing above 100 cfs at the time of construction; or, (d) A radius of up to 150 feet for projects or activities within or along lakes, ponds, wetlands, estuaries, marine waters or other non flowing waters. For WDOT in -water construction projects or activities, an individual 401 certification is not required for those projects or activities in compliance with the Ecology approved Implementing Agreement regarding compliance with the State of Washington Surface Water Quality Standards. 18 R1 0 2 6 NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/? JUNE 2000 ._t -1 1 f]• • I • I I Applicants whose projects or activities will not or do not meet the above requirements must contact Ecology to request issuance of an individual 401 Certification or a modification to the water quality standards pursuant to WAC 173 -201A -110. z (b) For upland and wetland construction activities: An individual 401 Certification is not required under this condition for projects or activities w authorized under NWPs that meet the applicable turbidity standards in adjacent waterbodies (per WAC 173 -201A -030). o � For WDOT projects or activities authorized under NWPs, an individual w 401 certification is not required under this condition for projects or J i- activities that are in compliance with the most current applicable w o WDOT Highway Runoff Manual and the Ecology- approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) document for project site plans. = a � z z Applicants whose projects or activities will not or do not meet the above requirements must contact Ecology to request issuance of an individual 401 Certification or a modification to the water quality standards pursuant to WAC 173 -201A -110. 2. Stormwater Provisions. An individual 401 Certification is not required o under this condition for any project or activity authorized under NWPs complying with applicable provisions of: _ 0 LL (a) the stormwater - related conditions of an HPA issued for the project or w z U= H� (b) the most current Ecology- approved version of the Puget Sound z Stormwater Manual, the WDOT Highway Runoff Manual, or any other Ecology- approved local stormwater manual. Compliance may be determined by submitting a letter signed by a professional engineer certifying that the stormwater design meets the applicable manual. 3. Compliance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). An individual 401 Certification is required for and project or activity authorized under NWPs that are not in compliance with all applicable requirements of a general or individual NPDES permit. activity; or, 4. Projects or Activities Discharging to Impaired Waters. An individual 401 Certification is required for projects or activities that will discharge to a waterbody on the state's list of impaired waterbodies (the 303(d) list) if the discharge will result in further exceedances of the 303(d)- listed contaminant or will result in further impairment of the listed reason for impairment of that waterbody, except as described below: 19 n�-r rt-s r••••■ •P•.- 05/22/01 THE 11:44 FAX 253 j 0752 MUCKLESHOOT FISH f NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 (a) For projects or activities that will discharge to a 303(d)- listed waterbody that has an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), an individual 401 Certification is not required under this condition if the applicant ' provides documentation for Ecology approval showing that the discharge is within the limits established in the TMDL. (b) For projects and activities that will discharge to a 303 listed waterbody that does not have an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), an individual 401 Certification is not required under this condition if the applicant provides documentation for Ecology approval showing that the project or activity will not result in further discharges of the listed contaminant or further impairment of the listed reason for impairment. Note: For example, if a waterbody is on the 303(d) list for exceeding the water quality criteria for fecal cotiform, applicants must provide • documentation showing that the proposed project will not result in further fecal coliform exceedances in that waterbody or individual 401 Certification will be required. When an individual 401 Certification is required for projects or activities that would result in further exceedances or impairment in 303(d)- listed waterbodies, Ecology may issue a 401 Certification if mitigation is provided that would result in a net decrease in listed contaminants or less impairment in the waterbody. This determination would be made during individual 401 Certification review. 5. Notification. For projects or activities that will require individual 401 Certification, applicants must provide Ecology with the documentation provided to the Corps (as described in Corps Natiorial General Condition 13), including, when applicable: (a) Delineation of special aquatic sites, including wetlands. [Note: delineation should also be provided for areas described in local Critical Areas Ordinances, such as riparian zones, locally - significant wetlands, shorelines of statewide significance, etc.] (b) Proposed compensatory mitigation or restoration plans. (c) Proposed water quality and water quantity management measures (e.g., proposed stormwater management plan and designs, proposed BMPs, etc.). (d) Endangered or threatened listed species that may be affected by the proposed work. 20 IJ028 r NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICTR JUNE 2000 MIS \I ^1^l r» 4 4 • AC Historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Site plans showing the 100 -year floodplain. Other applicable requirements of Corps National General Condition 13, Corps Regional Conditions, or notification conditions of the applicable NWP. A request for 401 Certification is not complete until the applicable documents noted above have been provided to Ecology and Ecology has received a copy of the final authorization letter from the Corps providing coverage for a proposed project or activity under the NWP Program. 6. Compliance Certification. Applicants must provide a copy of the compliance certification to Ecology whenever it is required to be submitted to the Corps (as described in Corps National General Condition 14). 7. Mitigation. 401 Certification is based on adequate compensatory mitigation being provided for wetland and other water quality - related impacts of projects or activities authorized under the NWP Program. An individual 401 Certification is required for projects or activities authorized under NWPs that do not receive written approval from Ecology of proposed mitigation plans for the following: (a) Any fill- related impacts to Category 1 wetlands or other high- quality wetlands including bogs, mature forested wetlands, vernal pools, camas prairie wetlands, playas, and prairie potholes. (b) Any fill- related impacts to tidal waters or to non -tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters. (c) Any Corps - required proposed compensatory mitigation. plan (as described in Corps National General Condition 13) under NWPs 14, 39, 40, 42, and 43 for any fill- related impacts greater than' /4 acre. Mitigation plans submitted for Ecology review and approval shall be based on the guidance provided in Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals (Ecology Publication 94 -29) and shall, at a minimum, include the following: (a) Evidence of wetland hydrology at the mitigation site. (b) Completion and submittal of an "as -built report" upon construction of the mitigation. 21 05/22/01 THE 11:45 FAX 253 T 0752 (a) NOAA- designated marine sanctuaries. (b) National Wild and Scenic Rivers. (c) State natural heritage sites. MUCKLESHOOT FISH X1030 NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/? JUNE 2000 (c) Completion and submittal of monitoring reports at Years 3 and 5 showing the results of monitoring for wetland hydrology, vegetation types, and areal coverage of vegetation. (d) For projects proposing mitigation at an Ecology- approved mitigation bank, applicants shall provide a copy of the proposed impact and mitigation bank credit determination. In addition to the above, WDOT projects and activities autho - rized under NWPs must comply with applicable provisions of the "Implementing Agreement between the Washington Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of. Ecology Wetlands Protection and Management ". 8. Temporary Fills. An individual 401 Certification is required any project or activity authorized' under NWPs that does not receive written approval from Ecology allowing temporary fill to remain in wetlands or other waterbodies for more than 90 days. The 90 -day period begins when fill is first placed in the wetland or other waterbody. 9. Designated Critical Resource Waters. An individual 401 Certification is required for any project or activity authorized under NWPs in waterbodies on the most current list of the following Designated Critical Resource Waters (as described in Corps National General Condition 25 on page 101): In addition, an individual 401 Certification is required for any project or activity authorized under NWPs in any aquatic reserve established by WDNR or in any outstanding national resource waters or other waters officially designated by a State as having particular environmental or ecological significance and identified by the District Engineer after notice and opportunity for public comment. 10. Fills Within 100 -Year Floodplains. An individual 401 Certification is required for any proposed project or activity authorized under NWPs that includes permanent, above -grade fill within the 100 -year floodplain. 11. Standard 401 Certification Requirements. All permittees whose projects or activities receive 401 Certification are subject to the applicable requirements below: 22 NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 MAY 22 '01 11:45 (a) Spill prevention and response: When operating equipment in or near wetlands or other waters of the State, extreme care shall be taken to prevent any petroleum products, chemicals, or other toxic or deleterious materials from entering the wetlands or other waterbodies. If a spill occurs, the operator shall immediately cease work, take steps to contain the material, and notify Ecology's appropriate regional office. (b) Equipment fueling. Fuel hoses, oil drums, oil or fuel transfer valves and fittings, etc., shall be checked regularly for drips or leaks, and shall be maintained and stored to prevent spills into state waters. Fueling is to be done only in areas designed to contain spills and not within 50 feet of wetlands. (c) No wash water discharges: Wash water containing oils, grease, or other hazardous materials resulting from wash down of equipment or working areas shall be contained for proper disposal, and shall not be discharged into state waters or storm drains, unless authorized through a separate NPDES permit or state waste discharge permit. (d) Disposal of material: Construction debris and excess excavated or dredged material shall be disposed of at an upland location in a manner to prevent degradation of State waters. (e) Clean fill: Fill material used in projects or activities authorized under NWPs shall not result in exceedances of state water quality standards (WAC 173- 201A), including exceedances of the surface water quality numeric criteria, beyond the approved area of fill. Note: For example, fill material should not contain contaminants or toxic substances that would leach through the material and into wetlands or other surface waters of the state at rates or concentrations that exceed the surface water quality numeric criteria. (f) Identifying construction boundaries: Prior to clearing and grading in wetlands, the adjacent wetlands and waterbodies shall be protected from construction impacts. Construction fencing or flagging (using brightly colored tape at no less than twenty -five foot (25') intervals) of the existing wetlands and other waterbodies to be protected shall be completed prior to clearing. All project staff shall be trained to recognize construction fencing or flagging that identifies wetland boundaries. Equipment shall not be moved into or operated in wetlands or other waterbodies that are not authorized to be impacted. 23 253 931 0752 PAGE.31 05/22"/01 TUE 11:46 FAX 253 C. 0752 NUCKLESH00T FISH Access: 401 Certification is'based on NWP permittees providing access to project and mitigation sites upon request of Ecology personnel for site inspections, monitoring, or data collection to determine compliance with 401 certification conditions. (h) Liability. Any 401 Certification issued for projects or activities authorized under NWPs does not absolve the applicant from liability for contamination occurring as a result of construction or operations and for subsequent cleanup of surface waters or sediments: NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 EPA • •(g 1. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. 401 Certification determination is based on the project or activity meeting established turbidity levels. EPA will be using as guidance, the State water quality standards [WAC 173 - 201A- 110(3)]. Projects or activities that are expected to exceed these levels or that do exceed these levels will require individual 401 Certification. The water quality standards allow for short -term turbidity exceedances after all necessary Best Management Practices have been implemented (e.g., properly placed and maintained filter fences, hay bales and/or other erosion control devices, adequate detention of runoff to prevent turbid water from flowing off -site, providing a vegetated buffer between the activity and open water, etc.), and only up to the following limits: (a) Up to 100 feet downstream from the activity in waters flowing up to 10 cfs (cubic feet per second) at the time of construction; (b) Up to 200 feet downstream from the activity in waters flowing between 10 cfs to 100 cfs at the time of construction; or (c) Up to 300 feet downstream from the activity in waters flowing above 100 cfs at the time of construction. 2. Compliance with Stormwater Provisions. 401 Certification of projects and activities authorized under NWP permits will use the applicable provisions of the most cur-ent Ecology- approved version of the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual, or the Washington State Department of Transportation Highway Runoff Manual on highway projects as guidance to meet water quality standards. 3. Compliance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). For projects and activities requiring coverage under an NPDES permit, certification is based on compliance with the requirements of that permit. Projects and activities that are not in 24 Froini -r. t rTi.i NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 'compliance with NPDES requirements will require individual 401 Certification. 4. Projects or Activities Discharging to Impaired Waters. Projects or activities that will discharge to a waterbody on the state's list of impaired waterbodies (the 303(d) list) require individual 401 Certification if the discharge may result in further exceedances of the 303(d)- listed contaminant or will result in further impairment. The current list of 303(d)- Iisted waterbodies is available on Ecology's web site at http: / /www.wa.gov /ecology or by contacting Ecology's Federal Permits staff. For projects or activities that will discharge to a 303(d)- listed waterbody that does not have an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), the applicant must provide documentation for EPA approval showing that the discharge will not result in further exceedances of the listed contaminant or impairment: For projects or activities that will discharge to a 303(d)- listed waterbody that does have an approved TMDL, the applicant must provide documentation for EPA approval showing that the.discharge is within the limits established in the TMDL. EPA may issue 401 Certification determination for projects or activities that would result in further exceedances or impairment if mitigation is provided that would result in a net decrease in listed contaminants or Tess impairment in the waterbody. This determination would be made during individual 401 review. 5. Notification. For projects that will require individual 401 certification determination, applicants must provide EPA with the same documentation provided to the Corps (per Corps National General Condition 13), including when applicable: (a) Delineation of special aquatic sites, including wetlands. (b) Proposed compensatory mitigation or restoration plans. (c) Proposed water quality and water quantity management measures. (d) Endangered or threatened listed species that may be affected by the proposed work. (e) Historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. (f) Site plans showing the 100 -year floodplain. 25 05/22/01 TUE 11:47 FAX 253 w 075 MUCKLESIIOOT FISH NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 (g) Other applicable requirements of Corps National General Condition 13, Corps Regional Conditions, or notification conditions of the applicable Nationwide Permit. A request for 401 Certification is not complete until the applicable documents noted above have been provided to the certifying agency. 6. Compliance Certification. Applicants must provide a copy of the compliance certification to EPA whenever it is required to be submitted to the Corps (per Corps National General Condition 14). 7. Suitable Material: No activity, including - structures .and work in navigable waters of the United States or discharges of dredged or fill material, may consist of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.) and material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act). 8. Mitigation. 401 Certification is based on adequate compensatory mitigation being provided for wetland and other water quality- related impacts of projects and activities authorized under the NWP Program. Compensatory mitigation is required under Corps General Condition 13 for projects and activities authorized under NWPs 14, 39, 40, 42, and 43. 401 Certification is subject to the applicant receiving written approval from EPA of the mitigation plan for projects and activities resulting in any of the following: (a) Any impacts to Category I wetlands; (b) Any impacts to tidal waters or non -tidal waters adjacent to tidal waters (applies to NWP 14); or, (c) Any impacts to wetlands greater than 1 /4 acre. Compensatory mitigation plans submitted for EPA review and approval shall be based on the guidance provided in Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals (Ecology Publication 94 -29) and shall, at a minimum, include the following: (a) Evidence of wetland hydrology at the mitigation site; (b) Completion and submittal of an "as -built report" upon construction of the mitigation; (c) Completion and submittal of reports at Years 3 and 5 showing the results of monitoring for wetland hydrology, vegetation types, and areal coverage of vegetation. 26 • 1: NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DiSTRICT/7 JUNE 2000 Projects and activities that do not receive written approval of their mitigation plan, or do not meet the conditions stated above, will require an individual 401 Certification. Note: Characterization of wetlands shall be based on field identification and using the "Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington, Second Edition ", dated August 1993 (Publication 93 -74) and "Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Eastern Washington ", dated October 1991 (Publication 91 -58) as guidance. Copies are available through Ecology's Publications Office at (360) 407- 6000.) 9. Management of Water Flows. 401 Certification of projects and activities authorized under NWP permits is based on guidance and /or compliance with the applicable provisions of the most current Ecology- approved version of the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual. Projects and activities not meeting the applicable provisions will require individual 401 Certification. 10. Temporary Fills. An individual 401 Certification is required for any activity where temporary fill will remain in wetlands or other waterbodies for. more than 90 days. The 90 day period begins when filling activity starts in the wetland or other waterbody. 11. Designated Critical Resource Waters. An individual 401 Certification is required for any proposed project or activity in waterbodies on the most current list of the Designated Critical Resource Waters per Corps National General Condition 25. Critical resource waters include, NOAA- designated marine sanctuaries, National Estuarine Research Reserves, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, critical habitat for Federally listed threatened and endangered species, coral reefs, and outstanding national resource waters or other waters officially designated by a Tribe as having particular environmental or ecological significance and identified by the District Engineer after notice and opportunity for public comment. The District Engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for comment. 12. Fills Within 100 -Year Floodplains. An individual 401 Certification is required for any proposed project that would increase permanent,.above -grade fill within the 100 -year floodplain (including the floodway and the flood fringe). The 100 -year floodplain is defined as those areas identified as Zones A, Al -30, AE, AH, AO, A99, V, V1 -30, and VE on the most current Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Rate Insurance Maps, or areas identified as within the 100 -year floodplain on applicable local Flood Management Program maps. The 100 -year flood is also known as the flood with a 100 -year recurrence interval, or as the flood with an exceedance probability of 0.01. 27 05/22701 TUE 11:47 FAX 253 / 1 0752 _� PROPERTY LINE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT t licALe PURPOSE: Inter Habitat Development PROJECT DATUM: MLLW = 0.0 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See this sheet LOCATION MAP SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE MUCKLESIIOOT FISII WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATION MAP AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS SEC 4. T23N. R4E. WM Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave SE. Auburn. WA 98092 PH(360)871 -2727 FAX(360)871 -4460 LATITUDE: 47' 30' 43" N LONGITUDE: 122 18' 19" W LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE BUCKLET DONATION CLAIM IEIMQER LINE. ACCORDING TO SURVEY OF TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST V.A. . IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. ON FILE WITH THE U5 DEPT. OF INTERIOR GENERAL LAND OFFICE. SPOKANE. WASHINGTON. APPROVED MARCH 71. 1163. WHERE SAID POINT I5 INTERSECTED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT S5. MOORE'S FINE ACRE TRACTS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN YOUNE S OF PLATS. PAGE 21. RECOROS OF KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. AS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE SO EXTENDED TO THE POINT. OF INTERSECT= THEREOF BATH THE EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF THE a101r- flF -1fAY ACQUIRED BY 71E CITY OF SEATTLE DEPART1 xr OF LIGHTING. CY CAUSE NO. 449557. RECORDS OF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. FOR KING COID(TYt THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAND EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF SAID RIGHT -OF-WAY TO A ?OIWT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT 55 TO THE SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINEI THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID 5(JCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION O VACATED FRAENER ROAD ADJOINING WHICH. UPON VACATION. ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAWN TOGETHER WITH ALL LAND LYING TO THE EASTERLY OF SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE BEr EN AM EASTERLY EXTOISION OF THE NORTHENLY AMO SOJflICLY LINES OF SAID TRACT 55 AMO BETWEEN THE EASTERLY LIME OF SAID BUCJLEY DONATION CLAIM. AND THE HICK WATER LINE OF THE WESTERLY IA1NI OF THE DUVAMTSH RIPER. EX THAT PORTION CONDEMNED IN RINK COLETY SUPERIOR COURT CASE N0. 5411135 FOR STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1. SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF RING. STATE OF WASHINGTON. q -z - 470 PROPOSED: Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development IN: Duwamish Waterway AT: Tukwila COUNTY OF: King STATE OF: Washington SHEET 1 0 DATE: 3/24/9! wr?nw,e.. ..,b'�ii%.?i'SY.: �N.. g,"' h' �Y?.°. C4k' �9x: .r {; *'a�.�rt,_tv,^.T7±�.ert�rrS� ,•{ 'VYM'a'�r c'4 .."""'�h`47'a ,tr"`;,e:etp�rteT K�..., rnx' 2, �tiit +^,"."tY.x•.- r } <K'<rr.t',+Y� 1" =ME M1aT PROJECT DATUM: MLLW = 0.0 saw ~ .• MASTIC IC • M•STTC r Os. M. • cq -z 0 • 1 / • • w aT T PURPOSE: • Interidal /Upland Habitat Development ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See sheet 1 of 12 DEMOLITION NOTES: o1 Korn ru ono moms ao sum PM= © WOK 16TM. ILULIMa. IlS mNTIMIS W 000111 I'IfIdT101 la memos. • arnernm � i ll IS � WY re M M W W la ry M � 4 I 1 1 t ti MMa -O PW1 114111941 1RTLIIIL$ Im i�S KW. ETC...1 BYl1. t 0010 Poi Mt1. O - iQ/fYMENET[ T<TWIa WIZ aIOL 01f. • SKIM aITJMMI! MR 101 notes. © MI T1';' 11%,11767 ITS p�t�T7 •Cal a.s rwlotMMTly MI' IV Mta 70 ata iT- M IT a lea M1KML QT atmM usPrnia aWL mown. O atone laemaoo 1TU1lgattn T =S =arm RT11i T9 mtaim4 Qi gime �mS. Mr. IIMIMOI Sa VIM s 01 TS tT Ttlt: tom Ia aoai sui la • - MM, l M. K EXISTING /DEMOLITION PLAN SEC 4. T23N. R4E. WM Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave SE. Auburn. WA 98092 PH(3G0)871 -2727 FAX(360)871 -4460 LATITUDE: 47' 30' 43" N LONGITUDE: 122. 18' 19" W • • a. ` ‘ \\ .. `,.. MAIM PROPOSED: Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development IN: DuwamTsh Waterway AT: Tukwila COUNTY OF: King STATE OF: Washington SHEET 2 of YL D ATE: 3/24/9 05/22/01 TUB 11:49 FAX 253 ( 0752 OAA 5 ( 940 0' -0' HICK EHAIILINX FENCE TO ELEVATION 14.0 12-0' WIDE GATE 1 float r t¢T Ae' IIEPAI ACE EXISTING RETAI IWG NALL AS IECESSART DURING E3CAVATION AA0 GRADE OF SITE W W OE E 11 WI i V* 1YMNI t01lZTnwl 1 A�i1 Of VAi�l• NORTH MEXI VERTICAL 0ATW -1511 INYAOI* LOWEST WATER LEVEL 101/21113511 PURPOSE: Interidal /Upland Habitat Development PROJECT DATUM: MLLW = 0.0 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See sheet 1 of 12 it o ( DRAWING L RV °M — 1 / 1 S lil E .lae N — N , \ DA T I IIII/11T. / I � '_ I SET REDA* / CAP. F I C, TR C TIDAL DATUMS AT SEATTLE. PUGET SOUND aEvAtlo6 OF TIDA:DATU6 REFERRED TO MEAN LOWER LON MATER IN.L11 ARE AS FOLLOW.: 14.13 FEET 11.03 EET 1 0.49 1.13 2.13 FE - 4.17 FEET • MAYO IS RASED OM ELEVATIONS PUILISNED IM 11013. AID MOS LEI/ELM OF 1194. MUCKLESHOOT FISH • 1 u 1 \ 11 , . . \ � � 1 1 11 0G s ' t 1 1 1 I I • � L -sr I s \ ; t 1 `, L .f 9ok • } �-Sr 1- t Eo tiHE SH MOMIW MO L A0' LI t __ � \\}}} LOG TRAWL ES TYPICAL SFE. O_TAIL 1. 31EET 1 / i •t J 1 j \ 1 i 1 ` t ILEA = .57 AEAES 1 \ • . }\\ ` 1 \ 11 ; \ . \ N. • I N. \ . \ 1 GAL SHEET R -•,,• ` \ \ . ..�\ 1 VAT OM sow SO ‘ET WOO I L. XS' CROWD C0 33 Cr.11 AT Y ATION VI+� JW m FT \ • FSTAI141 C06 &n l PA THIS 1IAIMORY L • 1. RESTORATION PLAN SEC 4. T23N. R4E. WM Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave 5E. Auburn, WA 98092 PH(360)871 -2727 FAX(3G0)871 -4460 LATITUDE: 47' 30' 43" N LONGITUDE: 122' 18' 19" W • \ ��•� a te. •�\ �� a 1 � -!q - Z - 4'7 0 PROPOSED: Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development IN: Duwamish Waterway AT: Tukwila COUNTY OF: King STATE OF: Washington SHEET 3 of j, DATE: 3/24/9 1 —I: _�._ _.__ i ._......._......._... _._ . _.. _ ......__... __....._ 1 1 ' L 1 I I_. _. ___._._ �. j _ LDG 1uel.L _ 1v-as we _ — _ . — —_— i say :mac 1 1 ; _.__.__ -1 -_.. _._.. PROJECT DATUM: MLLW = 0.0 MAY 22 'R1 11:AA 20 1• 10 •1111∎■If•dMEM • PURPOSE: Interidal /Upland Habitat Development ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See sheet 1 of 12 • EII'11 10 SECTION a 4 5TATION 0+03 NENCONIML =AL ww 1124.1L w RR ■ fal 'ate �t_a R1 MOO swa� ' mr6 ' � ' � SECTION @ STATION 0+41 I J&L U ! wa as mac ■ ow osL w .¢T 'CS IIIMYI 01 Et,sTwO a '2ME um EIEATn WT1111•11C -4- - _1 SECTION a STATION 0+79 Iw.R/TL . M r WU w MIT >at w I1Q 1I �y a ZIOE 1.121E0 Kw* 20 10 to IS • MY !a O O w-L 1 . AM' KNOLL S.l 11.1.2 •7r. - t 071 (A70 SITE SECTIONS 1 SEC 4. T23N. R4E. WM Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave SE. Auburn. WA 98092 PH(360)871 -2727 FAX(360)871 -4460 LATITUDE: 47' 30' 43" N LONGITUDE: 122' 18' 19" W PROPOSED: • Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development IN: Duwamish Waterway AT: TukWl I a COUNTY OF: King STATE OF: Washington SHEET 4 of) DATE: 3/24/1 DO= - - ' L 1 I I_. _. ___._._ �. j _ LDG 1uel.L _ 1v-as we say :mac __.- .._— _.__.__ -1 -_.. _._.. __...__ - ___ ____f_ __._._ • i_..__....__.__._._.._...__ .- _..- .t_- PROJECT DATUM: MLLW = 0.0 MAY 22 'R1 11:AA 20 1• 10 •1111∎■If•dMEM • PURPOSE: Interidal /Upland Habitat Development ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See sheet 1 of 12 • EII'11 10 SECTION a 4 5TATION 0+03 NENCONIML =AL ww 1124.1L w RR ■ fal 'ate �t_a R1 MOO swa� ' mr6 ' � ' � SECTION @ STATION 0+41 I J&L U ! wa as mac ■ ow osL w .¢T 'CS IIIMYI 01 Et,sTwO a '2ME um EIEATn WT1111•11C -4- - _1 SECTION a STATION 0+79 Iw.R/TL . M r WU w MIT >at w I1Q 1I �y a ZIOE 1.121E0 Kw* 20 10 to IS • MY !a O O w-L 1 . AM' KNOLL S.l 11.1.2 •7r. - t 071 (A70 SITE SECTIONS 1 SEC 4. T23N. R4E. WM Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave SE. Auburn. WA 98092 PH(360)871 -2727 FAX(360)871 -4460 LATITUDE: 47' 30' 43" N LONGITUDE: 122' 18' 19" W PROPOSED: • Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development IN: Duwamish Waterway AT: TukWl I a COUNTY OF: King STATE OF: Washington SHEET 4 of) DATE: 3/24/1 DO= - "%MEW IF IUD VERIFY! r NOM/ COVER NO Wan /ME MME O2012. 11GC11r rn 1123•31 LIMIT .0101 501 -1 i- w w - -. 1 ri 1111 _ _ y \ \ 7_�_�rr ~.....� --.�4 FFILM. .�.tw.t -..1 --. _ _` -� rE1 211 \� -. Anal _-__ _.._! •_ _11-_--•11 _..._..-4 -- .–. 1 - - -- 1 -� 05/22/01 THE 11:50 FAX 253 0752 MUCKLESII0OT FISH PROJECT DATUM: MLLW = 0.0 1 20 10 a IA 'URPOSE: Interidal /Upland Habitat Development ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: See sheet 1 of 12 • • RITMO 12111 =MEM == 2100 / :: WA!. •,• • IFIELI � 0IFTI plIt1110 OMR MO AMA 21011E tIrt11FEN1 22111E 11R0101 * 10071 000111 — 1 SECTION a STATION 1 +17 .URIEML MILE r r,cs rac ■ eat r SECTION t STATION 1 +55 =Ira Ira 11vm , eat sac r tm %.4==Y T - 10 t . - %0C MAME 20 10 0 .ncLi 0 0 ILLY SITE SECTIONS 2 SEC 4. T23N. R4E. WM Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave 5E. Auburn. WA 98092 PH(3601871 -2727 FAX(360)871 -4460 LATITUDE: 47 30' 43" N LONGITUDE: 122' 18' 19" W PROPOSED: Turning Basin #3 Hobitot Development IN: Duwamish Waterway AT: Tukwila COUNTY OF: King STATE OF: Washington SHEET 5 of )4 DATE: 3/24/9 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permit Number: 1999 - - 00470 Name of Permittee: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Date of Issuance: APR 18 2001' Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address: Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, Regulatory Branch Post Office Box 3755 Seattle Washington 98125 -3755 Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' representative. If you fail to comply with your authorization, your project is subject to suspension, modification, or revocation. L__/ The work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. The mitigation required (not including monitoring) by the above referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. NWP 27 11 February 1997 CLM7; B:CERTCOMP.97 Signature of Permittee '706 ,'00 ' FRI 09:35 FAX 253 9' ' 0752 ILi SEP 2 8 2CQO Tom Mueller Chief, Regulatory Branch Department of the Army Seattle District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 Dear Mr. Mueller: MUCKLESHOOT FISH T 0 2 2000 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLthE SERVICE Western Washington Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 Phone: (360) 753 -9440 Fax: (360) 753 -9008 (COE Reference 1999 -2 -00470 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe FWS Reference: 1- 3 -00 -I -1827) This letter is in response to your cover letter and attached Biological Assessment for the proposed Turning Basin #3 Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project in King County, Washington. The project is proposed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department under the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program. The letter was dated August 16, 2000, and received in this office on August 17, 2000. The Ietter also included attached correspondence between the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Corps of Engineers clarifying effect determinations and other issues raised at the April 12, 2000, batch meeting where the project was initially discussed between your staff and the Services. The proposed action is being undertaken to restore intertidal and riparian habitat in the vicinity of Turning Basin Number Three in the lower.Duwamish River at River Mile 5.2. Proposed activities include removal of an existing commercial wharf and associated upland structures, excavation of fill material and the creation of three habitat benches, and the establishment of native intertidal and riparian vegetation. The project is one of four intertidal habitat restoration projects being completed under the auspices of the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program which includes involvement by the Mukleshoot and Suquamish Indian Tribes, City of Seattle, King County, Washington Department of Ecology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Corps of Engineers has determined that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and will have no effect on the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with these determinations. OCT 06 '00 09:42 253 931 0752 e002 LE 1/06/00 'FRI 09:36 FAX 253 9 0752 MUCKLESHOOT FISH QJ 003 This concurrence is based on our understanding of the following issues as described in the November 1999 Biological Assessment and subsequent correspondence: 1. Creosote treated piles removed from site will not be used by the Muckleshoot Tribe for future in water construction projects. 2.. Pier pilings requested by Tribal fishers will be replacements constructed of concrete, steel, or other non - treated materials. 3. Native trees removed from the project site to allow for excavation of habitat benches will be used in the project area. 4. Any in water work will adhere to Hydraulic Project Approval timing restrictions to minimize impacts on migrating salmonids. This concludes informal consultation pursuant to 50 CFR 402.13. This project should be re- analysed if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed/proposed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation; if the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat • that was not considered in this consultation; and/or, if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this project. If you have further questions about this Ietter or your responsibilities under the Act, please contact John Grettenberger at (360) 753 -6044 or Curtis Tanner at (360) 753 -4326. Sincerely, Gerry A. Jackson,, Manager Western Washington Office c: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department, (G. St. Amant) 2 icr�ac « :c xs i qa x.a :s s:- vr:Wklsauu:s0intiuur:«'u ;+ 4; :•tia.V.4 4✓ 1 � ' c tx stf d:. uy isi 07/21/2009 14 :48 2538598024 RODERICK MALCOM PAGE 06 SUBJECT: if UNITED STA''' '. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Ocea...,: and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 1315 East -West Highway Sliver Spring, MD 20910 THE DIRECTOR IN 2 6 2030 MEMORANDUM FOR: Susan B. Fruchter Director, Office Poli and Strategic. Planning FROM: Penelope D. Dalton Environmental Assessment and Fining of No Significant Impact - Turning Basin #3 Restoration Project The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the lead Federal agency for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for the proposed Turning Basin #3 Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project, Duwamish River, Seattle, Washington. The . cooperating agencies and tribes•include the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, and the State of Washington. Participating governments also include the City of Seattle and King County. These participants are members of a combined natural resource trustee /potentially responsible party settlement implementation panel (EB /DRP) established under a natural resource damage assessment Consent Decree for Elliott Bay /Duwamish River Natural Resource Damage • Assessment and Restoration (NRDA). The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project and evaluated five alternatives, including the "no action" alternative. The public has been afforded several opportunities to review and provide input on the alternatives through public meetings and the State of Washington's environmental review process. NOAA and the cooperating agencies, tribes, and participating governments (EB /DRP) have concluded that the preferred alternative is Alternative 5, the excavation of three habitat benches with upland buffer vegetation and habitat improvements. This alternative is based upon best available technology and best meets the goals and .objectives of the natural resource trustees by maximizing ecological benefits and minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The EB /DRP proposes restoring aquatic and terrestrial habitat (Alternative 5) to a portion of Turning Basin #3 on the Duwamish Estuary /River. The proposed project, located at River Mile 5.2, would involve removing existing upland and inwater structures, and excavating the bank to create a total of three intertidal and supra -tidal habitat benches on a 0.82 acre site owned by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Native intertidal and riparian • vegetation would be planted to increase habitat and food for fish JUL 21 '00 15 :58 THE AsSZsTAtvr AOMNGTRA MIA 2538598024 PAGE.06 . y„ c�3�ar+? F. Jtru. ;; Y�j?� r^ f;' S' 9C^«^ �:, r�ySZ !� >::M..i".t;Sii��t:�!nrrfl; m.•u� ».�+: 07/21/2000 14:48 2538598024 and wildlife. The proposed alternative would provide the largest restoration area, maximize habitat diversity, and generate the greatest input of detrital material to the estuary. There would be short -term impacts to ambient noise levels and to vehicle traffic on West Marginal Place South during construction. In addition marine commercial and recreational traffic in the Duwamish River area would experience short -term impacts from heavy machinery and barges used during construction. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife species will be mitigated through construction windows and employment of best management practices (BMPs). Conversion of this site will benefit fish and wildlife, including chinook and chum salmon. Habitat restoration at this site would provide a more aesthetic view and allow for public education opportunities. No significant short- or long-term adverse impacts are anticipated to either the built or natural environment. No adverse impacts would occur to'Federal.or state listed species. Based on the Environmental Assessment and supporting documents for the proposed Elliott Bay Turning Basin #3 Restoration Project, I have determined that no significant impacts to the quality of the human environment will result from the proposed action. I request your concurrence in the determination of a Finding of No Significant Impact. Attachments I c I do not concur: Date: JUL 21 '00 15:58 RODERICK MALCOM rMUt Or Sat) I;;C6ef Date: 6 P1100 2538598024 PAGE.07 07/21/2000 14:48 2538598024 Prinicd on Recycled Piper JUL 21 '00 15:59 LOCATION: Duwamish River, Seattle, Washington RODERICK MALCOM PAGE bbb UNITED STATUS DE.. .RTMENT OF COMMERCE Off1oe of the Under B.oretery for Deanna end Atmosphere Washington, O.C. 20230 JUN 29 ? TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental review has been performed on the following action. TITLE: Environmental Assessment - Turning Basin #3 Restoration ' Project and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) is the lead Federal agency for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for the proposed Turning Basin #3 Aquatic Habitat'Restoration Project,. Duwamish River, Seattle, Washington. The cooperating agencies and tribes include the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, and the State of Washington. Participating governments also include the City of Seattle and King County. These participants are members of a.combined natural resource trustee /potentially responsible party settlement implementation panel (EB /DRP) established under a natural resource damage assessment Consent Decree for Elliott Bay /Duwamish River Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDA). The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for'this project and evaluated five alternatives, including the "no action" alternative. The public has been afforded several opportunities to review and provide input on the alternatives through public.meetings and the State of Washington's environmental review process. NOAA and the cooperating agencies, tribes, and participating governments (EB /DRP) have concluded that the preferred alternative is Alternative 5, the excavation of three habitat benches with upland buffer vegetation and habitat improvements. This alternative is based upon best..available technology and best meets the goals and objectives of the natural resource trustees by maximizing • ecological benefits and minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The EB /DRP proposes restoring aquatic and terrestrial habitat (Alternative 5) to a portion of Turning Basin #3 on the Duwamish Estuary /River. The proposed project, located at River Mile 5.2, would involve removing existing upland and inwater structures, and excavating the bank to create a total of three intertidal and supra -tidal habitat benches on a 0.82 acre site owned by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Native intertidal and riparian vegetation would be planted to increase habitat and food for fish and wildlife. The 2538598024 PRGE.08 07/21/2000 14:48 2538598024 proposed alternative would provide the largest restoration area, maximize habitat diversity, and generate the greatest input of detrital material to the estuary. There would be short - term' impacts to ambient noise levels and vehicle traffic on West Marginal Place South during construction. In addition marine commercial and recreational traffic in the Duwamish River area would experience short -term impacts from heavy machinery and barges used during construction. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife species will be mitigated through construction windows and employment of best management practices (BMPs). Conversion of • this site will benefit fish and wildlife, including chinook and chum salmon. Habitat restoration at this site would provide'a more aesthetic view and allow for public education opportunities. No significant short- or long -term adverse impacts are anticipated to either the built or natural environment. No adverse impacts would occur to Federal or state listed species. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Enclosure JUL 21 '00 15:59 2 RODERICK MALCOM PAGE 09 Penelope D. Dalton Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East -West Highway, 14th Floor Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 -3226 Phone: 301/713 -2239 The environmental review process led us to conclude that these restoration actions will not have a significant effect on'the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. A copy of the FONSI, including the EA is available from the Responsible Official. Sincerely, Susan B. Fruchter NEPA Coordinator Office of Policy • and Strategic Planning 2538598024 PAGE.09 07/21/2000 14:48 2538598024 4 RODERICK MALCOM t'Atac l b Finding of No Significant Mcnpact Environmental Assessment - Turning Basin #3 Restoration Project Duwamish River, Seattle, Washington The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the lead Federal agency for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for the proposed Turning Basin #3 Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project, Duwamish River, Seattle, Washington. The cooperating agencies and tribes include the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, and the State of Washington. Participating governments also include the City of Seattle and King County. These participants are members of a combined natural resource trustee /potentially responsible party settlement implementation panel (EB /DRP) established under a natural resource damage assessment Consent Decree for Elliott Bay /Duwamish River Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDA). - The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project and evaluated five alternatives, including the "no action" alternative.. The public has been afforded several opportunities to review and provide input on the alternatives through public meetings and the State of Washington's environmental review process. NOAA and the cooperating agencies, tribes, and participating governments (EB /DRP) have concluded that the preferred alternative is Alternative 5, the excavation of three habitat benches with upland buffer vegetation and habitat improvements. This alternative is based upon best available technology and best meets the goals and objectives of the natural resource trustees by maximizing ecological benefits and minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The EB /DRP proposes restoring aquatic and terrestrial habitat (Alternative 5) to a portion of Turning Basin #3 on the Duwamish Estuary /River. The proposed project, located at River Mile 5.2, would involve removing existing upland and inwater structures, and excavating the bank to create a total of three intertidal and supra -tidal habitat benches on a 0.82 acre site owned by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Native intertidal and riparian vegetation would be planted to increase habitat and food for fish and wildlife. The proposed alternative would provide the largest restoration area, maximize habitat diversity, and generate the greatest input of detrital material to the estuary. There would be short -term impacts to ambient noise levels and vehicle traffic on West Marginal Place South during construction. In addition marine commercial and recreational traffic in the Duwamish River area would experience short -term impacts from heavy machinery and barges used during construction. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife species will be mitigated through construction windows and employment of best management practices (BMPs). Conversion of this site will benefit fish and wildlife, including chinook and chum salmon. Habitat restoration at this site would provide a JUL 21 '00 16:00 2538598024 ' PAGE.10 . , mitt'gouvme@ !13 4 "k.tte l r !.mwirm {!?ah� '� aomw Xw# u t stmr'� r •c . �'t� ';YY,... kvr,� a .. •.,., ; 4. ., .�`�4� . . s�1e'k�.�. , .:"�r;�Txt, , „�!Y�.r�r u�x�•�rs�s� . v r.,, 07/21/2000 14:48 2538598024 RODER1GK MHLUUM I more aesthetic view and allow for public education opportunities. No significant short- or long -term adverse. impacts are anticipated to either the built or natural environment. No adverse impacts would occur to Federal or state listed species. DETERMINATION: JUL 21 '00 16:00 Based upon an environmental review and evaluation of the Supplemental Environmental Assessment and supporting documents, I have determined that the proposed action does not constitute a p major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the coo human environmental within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the w w National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, an environmental co impact s tement wi 1 not be prepared. O 5 � A,.. ‘ w Date: 114 Z6 on enelope D. Dalton = w Assistant A. - - rator for Fisheries z H National Marina Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration w O w . j c U O - CI F- LU W F- — LL. W z U= • O E- z 2538598024 PAGE.11 z • w 11/ /Lli Ldtid r 14:40 LJJ0J70L -' fl N 2 8 2000 PATE OF ISSUE: June 26.2000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: WRIA WATER BODY 01 09.MARI Duwamish Waterway JUL 21 '00 15 :55 l llJ Turning Basin #3, Duwamish Waterway TRIBUTARY TO Puget Sound PROVISIONS Page 1 of 4 ttULGr l Vn JRAULIC PROJECT APPRO\ �. 23RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Turning Basin #3 i NJC UL � - 1 State afW FI gt Department ands and Wildlife Re-glen 4 Office 18018 Min Creek Boulevard Mill Creek Washington 98012 LOG NUMBER; 00- D982403 At the request of, Roderick Malcolm, on May 18, 2000, this Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes all previous HPAs for this project, is a change of the original HPA issued May 8, 2000, and last modified on May 22, 2000. PEE Muckloshoot Indian Tribe ATTENTION: Roderick Malcolm 39015 172 Avenue SE Auburn, Washington 98092 (253) 931-0652 Fax: (253) 931 -0752 AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR FishPro, Inc. ATTENTION: Patty Michak 3780 SE Mile Hill Drive Port Orchard, Washington 98366 (360) 871-2727 (360) 871 -4460 ,1,(4 SEC• ,SEC, TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY 04 23 North 04 Bast King NOTE: The recent listing of chinook salmon and bull trout as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may affect future construction projects in or near marine waters of Puget Sound and freshwater streams. Future work may require consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: The project may begin July 16, 2000 and shall be completed by February 14, 2002 provided: a. Work below the ordinary high water line shall not occur from February 15 through July 15 of any year for the protection of migrating juvenile salmonids. 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT": The permittee or contractor shall notify the Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below of the project start date. Notification shall be received by the AHB at least three working days prior to the start of construction activities. The notification shall include the petmittee's name, project location, starting date for work, and the control number for this Hydraulic Project Approval. 3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "Turning Basin #3 Habitat Development ", dated March 24, 1999, and submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220 - 110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction. 2538598024 PAGE.02 } rleir •.,�?E- �«r,�cEi�'�*!�±�x�';? tai' i+ 'm�'�'�ti"?,!�;5?4!!.'Ysf"�"�, its." e° ?�gjxw, xrc+ cyi� t':.n�:rxx"?fi�F:�^��xr�,.en. 0,7/21/2006 14:4b • PATE OF ISSUE; June 26.2000 SEPA: Exempt; NEPA decision pending. JUL 21 '00 15:56 Page 2 of 4 MULGr iL1\ MHLL,UM H )RAULIC PROJECT APPRO L 23RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 LOG NUMBER: 00- D9824-03 4. Revegetation shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Tum -Around #3 Restoration ", dated March 3, 1999, and March 11, 1999 and submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, except that re -green shall replace the meadow foxtail in the revegetation plan. Z w re 2 6 0 00 u) ❑ J = F— U) w � Q 7. Revised Provision: Removal of the pier shall result in the total extraction of the piling. No pilings shall be cut off at c ❑ or below the mudline. 8. Use of equipment on the beach shall not occur when the project area is inundated by tidal waters. 9. The use of equipment below the ordinary high water line shall be limited to that necessary to gain position for work. 10. Excavated material shall not be stockpiled below the ordinary high water line. 11. Excavated materials shall be disposed upland such that they do not re-enter surface waters of the state. 12. All trenches, depressions, or holes created in the beach area shall be backfilled prior to inundation by tidal waters. 13. All manmade debris on the beach shall be removed and disposed of upland such that it does not enter waters of the state. 14. Project activities shall be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach arca and bed. 15. If a fish kill occurs or fish are observed in distress, the project activity shall immediately cease and WDFW Habitat Program shall be notified immediately. 16. No petroleum products or other deleterious materials shall enter surface waters. 17. Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life. 18. Aquatic vegetation shall not be removed or disturbed, except for that incidental to the physical removal of pilings. 5. New Provision: Revegetation work may occur during fish closure periods using hand tools only. 2538598024 State of Washlaetoa Department of Fish sad Wualre Region 4 omee 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard MITI Creek, WaeMagto,t 98012 6. New Provision: As per conditions outlined in the land sales agreement between the Muckleshoot Tribe and previous landowner, the former landowner may take possession of the pier piles and other pier components. However, if the previous landowner chooses to not take possession of the pier components, the structure will be dismantled and all piling will be transported by the construction contractor to an upland disposal or recycling site. 19. Equipment used for this project shall be free of external petroleum -based products while working around the stream. Accumulation of soils or debris shall be removed from the drive mechanisms (wheels, tires, tracks, etc.) and . undercarriage of equipment prior to its working below the ordinary high water line. Equipment shall be checked daily for leaks and any necessary repairs shall be completed prior to commencing work activities along the stream. PAGE.03 = a I — w Z = I— 0 Z H W U • ❑ O - w Z 07/21/2000 14:48 2538598024 DATE OF ISSUE: June 26: 2000 APPLICATION ACCEPTED: April 15, 1999 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Frame 124 [P3] Pamela Erstad (425) 379 -2306 Area Habitat Biologist H1I)RAULIC PROJECT APPROV 23RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 693-121d cc: Ted Muller, WDFW Jack Pace, City of Tukwila, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development Alice Kelly, NWDOE Jack Kennedy, COE Nancy Brinnon- Dubbe, USFWS Robert Donnelly, NMFS This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. This HPA shall be available on the job site at all tames and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the wodc. This EPA does not authorize trespass. The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result ire a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The permittee has the tight pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130. APPEALS - GENERAL INES)RMATIQN IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL, THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE, A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220 -110 -340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20,100, 75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of: (A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or JUL 21 '00 15:56 Page 3 of 4 GENERAL PROVISIONS RODERICK MALCOM PAGE 04 2538598024 State of Warhlogte, Deaartm, t of Fish and Wildlife Region 4 Office t601a Mill Creek Boulevard MITI Creek, Wathlegten 98012 LOG NUMBE QQ- D9834 -03 for Director WDFW PAGE.04 Q7/21/200 14:48 2538598024 D o FISH r MEM DATE OEJSSUE; June 26. 2000 JUL 21 '00 15:57 R _ JRAULIC PROJECT APPRO _ �L 23RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 RODERICK MALCOM PAGE 05 (B) An order imposing civil penalties. It is recommended that an aggrieved parry contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems arc resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501 -1091 and shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30 -days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil penalties. The 30- day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed. w B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220 -110 -350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR g Q 75.20.106: D A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of: = d (A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; I— W (B) An order imposing civil penalties; or . Z 1=- (C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act, Z O Chapter 34.05 RCW. Ill j A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the.Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, D (3 Olympia, Washington 98501 - 1091,. shall be plainly-labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be•RECEIVED U O 92 DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30 -days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period p H for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal W w appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30 -days of the date of the Department's written decision in I=— 0 response to the informal appeal. IL ~O Z C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160: U A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a I H HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board per Z WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459 -6327. D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE. Page 4 of 4 LOO NUMBER: 00 D9824 2538598024 PAGE.05 mcm State .rWashington Department of Mai and Wildlife Reston 4 Office 1 018 MITI Creek boulevard MITI Creek, Washington 98012 z ~ z 6 UO U) � U)w J t e Mr. Jack Kennedy, Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124 RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR A HABITAT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON THE DUWAMISH RIVER Ref: A. Response from the US Fish and Wildlife Service B. MITFD letter dated 24 November 1999 C. MITFD letter dated 12 April 1999. Dear Mr. Kennedy: FISHERIES DEPARTMENT MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 17 May 2000 The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Ref A) has provided comments upon a Biological Assessment (Ref B) submitted by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department (MTIFD) in support of a request for a permit (Ref C) to construct a habitat restoration project in the Duwamish River. The USFWS (Ref A) stated that it might be possible to reach a NLAA for bull trout based upon additional information regarding how trees that will be removed are currently functioning in providing habitat components for bull trout. Additionally, the USFWS requested additional information to support the statement of NLAA for those sections of the BA which currently state that effects would be adverse. This letter provides the additional information requested by the USFS. Detailed responses to those questions are found in the attached document. However, a summary is presented here. The bulk of the existing vegetation is found in a fringing band along the waterward perimeter of the site. The existing vegetation on the site provides some limited overhanging vegetation that could provide cover to juvenile bull trout and other juvenile salmonids during high tide. Additionally, this fringing band of vegetation provides a source of detrital input to the estuary as well as insects that may enter the juvenile salmon and trout food chain. However, one of the existing vegetation on site provides structural complexity in terms of creating pools, inwater habitat complexity, etc. The conclusions in the original BA regarding adverse, construction, related impacts to salmon and bull trout were very conservative. The original conclusions did not arise from anticipated, adverse changes to the structural components of habitat. Instead, the "may effect, likely to adversely effect" calls arose from perceived avoidance of the site through behavioral 39015 172nd Avenue Southeast • Auburn, Washington 98092 • (253) 931 -0652 • FAX (253) 931 -0752 responses to (1) avoid construction related noise and inwater activity and (2) construction related increases in turbidity. However, a re- analysis of the potential impacts suggests that a call of "not likely to effect" is more warranted. Inwater work will occur during the standard in -water construction windows established by the WDFW. These windows are set to minimize the overlap of inwater construction activities with salmon and trout. By following these construction windows, the potential overlap between fish and construction, and resulting behavioral responses are thought to be minimized. Additionally, though construction will increase turbidity in the project vicinity, construction will occur during the construction window when the use of the Turning Basin by chinook salmon and bull trout is expected to be low. For these reasons, it is probable that a NLAA is warranted Of additional note is that since the original BA was prepared, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Peregrine Falcon is no longer an endangered or threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act'. Additionally, after further review of the proposed restoration design, it is considered that though the site could benefit Bald Eagles, the measurable direct benefit would be so small that the statement on page 22 of the original BA "[I]mprovements at the site would create habitat that is presently lacking for bald eagle. This could result in a beneficial effect to this species." should be reworded to "[I]mprovements at the site could create habitat that is presently lacking for bald eagle. This may result in a beneficial effect to this species." Therefore, a call of No Effect is appropriate. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please feel free to call me at (253) 939- 3319, extension 119. att: 2 cc: WDFW Fish Pro ' Federal Register: August 25, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 164). Si Roderick Malcom Senior Habitat Biologist. Detailed Response to USFWS Questions The MITFD responses to the Services' comments on the BA for the Turning Basin No. 3 Restoration Site follow. The Service's comment are listed first, with the response following. All references refer to documents included in the original, submitted BA. Unless otherwise noted, all references to figures are to those included with this letter. References to figures in the original, submitted BA are noted as such. Pg. 2 # I. piles should be removed in their entirety, not just cut off. All piles will be removed in their entirety if permits are granted to remove them in their entirety. Pg. 2, #2. More information is needed regarding the removal of non- native and native landscape vegetation. What is being removed. How much? One of the objectives of the project is to increase the extent of emergent estuarine vegetation. This emergent vegetation cannot be created without removing the existing, fringing, vegetation around the waterward perimeter of the site. Due the cessation of upland operations at the site, the area occupied by Himalayan blackberry and other invasive species is increasing and the site is considerably more vegetated than when the BA was prepared. The following description reflects the condition of the site in early May 2000. None of the existing vegetation on site provides structural complexity in terms of creating pools, inwater habitat complexity, etc. The upland area contains non - native vegetation (Deodar cedar, mountain ash, Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, common tansy, and grasses) and landscaped native vegetation shore pine, big -leaf maple, western red cedar, and fir. The majority of this vegetation is concentrated in a fringe around the waterward perimeter of the site. Himalayan blackberry is the dominant vegetation on site. It exists in a band extending from a mean distance 6 feet inland from the top of bank waterward to just above the line of the OHWM. It is estimated the total area covered by Himalayan Blackberry does not exceed 2,000 square feet. The majority of the other species of plants, unless otherwise noted are interspersed in this band of blackberries. Currently, the Himalayan blackberry and other plants in the fringing band provide some benefits to juvenile salmon and bull trout. During high tides, the most waterward portion of this vegetation overhangs the water and provides a source of cover for juvenile salmonids. At high tide, insects using the vegetation may fall into the water and be consumed by juvenile salmonids. However, as the tide recedes this function diminishes and the main role of this vegetation becomes input of detrital material into the estuary. During the late afternoon, when combined with high tides, this vegetation provides some shade to the water. However, though limited shade is provided, there is no influence on water temperature. Water temperature at the site is a function of the inflows of water from Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River (Warner and Fritz 1995). Bank stability at the site is provided by armoring, not by the root masses of the fringing vegetation. ! Tyre' i•! t'. 7r:'.. �',.` i. iF, �, l' p* �rbW�Y° �i14; r. 5Y,•.+ ci•' n4,"' 4.- �.. �,"!' � %vJ"•y`'.ntus�,!!a.W;a'S""'a:a! Species Serial Height (ft) dbh (in.) Distance from top of bank (ft) Potential to be retained Cottonwood 1 12 1.5 4 No Willow 2 15 2 4 No Deodar cedar 3 15 4 2 No Deodar cedar 4 15 4 2 No Shore Pine 5 12 2 2 No Shore Pine 6 12 2 2 No Shore Pine 7 15 3 2 No Cottonwood 8 20 4 40 No Western Red Cedar 9 25 6 75 Yes, but will greatly reduce extent of emergent vegetation Fir 10 25 4 80 Yes Big -leaf Maple 11 25 80 Yes Western Red Cedar 12 12 2 80 Yes Most trees on the site appear to have been planted as ornamentals, based upon observed species composition and location. None of the trees on the site, if they entered the water are of sufficient size to be considered wood as defined in the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (NMFS 1999). However, if they did enter the water, they would serve as a source of detrital material, attachment points for plants, and provide some, inwater cover and complexity for juvenile salmon and trout. No trees on the site provide overwater cover to adult or juvenile salmon or trout. Within 2 to 8 feet of the top of bank, and predominately located with the blackberry band are seven trees (Table 1; Fig 1). These trees range in height from 12 to 15 feet and a diameter at breast height of 1.5 to 6 inches and provide a source of detrital material to the water. As these trees do not overhang the water, the contribution of insects to the juvenile salmon food chain is probably low. During the late afternoon, when combined with high tides, these trees provide some shade to the water. However, though some shade is provided, there is no influence on water temperature. Water temperature at the site is a function of the inflows of water from Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River (Warner and Fritz 1995). These trees do not contribute to bank stability. Located next to the existing building on waterward side is a cottonwood. The largest, existing trees on the site are found on the landward side of the building (Fig. 2 to BA). During the late afternoon, when combined with high tides, these trees could provide some very limited shade to the water. However, though some limited shade may be provided, there is no influence on water temperature. Water temperature at the site is a function of the inflows of water from Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River (Warner and Fritz 1995). Table 1. Summary of trees found on the site. The number listed in the serial column corresponds to the number on attached Figure 1. The tree, labeled as Serial 9, is located in a part of the site, slated to be graded to an elevation of 12 to 14 feet MLLW, approximately 6 to 8 feet below the existing grade. Though, it is possible • m Y l5Miit`M$:+u;�*- s WA rSV."5 ' SEATTLE CITY LIGHT NO SCALE F15HDR0 PROJECT LOCATION PROPERTY LINE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATION MAP WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT -OF -WAY TO SEATTLE LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE. ACCORDING TO SURVEY OF TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST W.M.. IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. ON FILE WITH THE US DEPT. OF INTERIOR GENERAL LANO OFFICE. SPOKANE. WASHINGTON. APPROVED MARCH 31. 1863. WHERE SAID POINT IS INTERSECTED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT 55. MOORE'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS. PAGE 28. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. AS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE SO EXTENDED TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAY ACOUIRED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING. CY CAUSE NO. 469557. RECORDS OF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. FOR KING COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT 55 TO THE SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED FRAEGER ROAD ADJOINING WHICH. UPON VACATION. ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW; TOGETHER WITH ALL LAND LYING TO THE EASTERLY OF SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE BETWEEN AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID TRACT 55 AND BETWEEN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM. AND THE HIGH WATER LINE OF THE WESTERLY BANK OF THE OUWAMISH RIVER. EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 547035 FOR STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1. SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF KING. STATE OF WASHINGTON. FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP z nc • 6 J U 0 OD C UU H W W D cc.Q :) S d I- W Z _ I- H O w ~ uj U ca O g I-- wW 1-U IL. .. Z W U _ • 0 I- z o co SCALE IN FEET PROPERTY BOUNDARY —\ 20' 40' 60' 60' — ROOTWAD5, ANCHORED SIMILAR TO LOG BUNDLES. • • TYPICAL WHERE SHOWN. • . OLD BARGE OLD BARGE ENCH AT 1 NOMINAL 40' LONG LOG BUNDLES, TYPICAL EMERGENT ZON ELEVATION +4.5 T 6050 50 FT TRAN5ITION AREA +11 TO +14 I967 50 FT GROUND COVER AND SHRUB ZONE BENCH AT ELEVATION +14 TO +17 1650 50 FT RIPARIAN ZONE AT ELEVATION +17 TO +21 5567 50 FT FIGURE 8. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE z W tY UO U U. J F- U WO J u_ w Z = F- F- z W w U O � O I- W W 2 1 - U u"O Z W U co . 0 z FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P -SHORE Planner: '� � b 1`4C,v.:___ File Number: Lo 1 - 0 4 2_ Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: p _ no? Application Incomplete (Date:G,, Zc- 61) Other File Numbers: 1 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, W4 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwilawa.us APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. Name: Address: Phone: Signature: OO 5 LA Gl r 5 ( 2 20-- 09 O Lk) 0.c,•\ Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) G "SHURLINE DGC, oe(15,1X) a:,.u:•:sf::•::'t u:: Ii: i/ �GYtialS e.:is AThe o( T n r\ R.,\ COL,(.4 CM1N‘A) FAX: Date: SHORELINE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. z . w 6 00 U) CO MI J1.- U) u_ 0 u Q C d w z � 1- 0 z ►- ui U 0) 0 - 13I- w W u-O ..z U = O ~ z DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TURNING BASIN #3 AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Area 2 1.1.1 Green/Duwamish Basin 2 1.1.2 Turning Basin Number 3 Project Area 2 1.2 Public Participation Efforts 3 1.3 Administrative Record 4 2.0 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 4 2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 6 2.2 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches 6 2.3 Alternative 3 - Two habitat benches 7 2.4 Alternative 4 - Two habitat benches 7 2.5 Preferred Alternative - Three habitat benches 8 3.0 Affected Environment 9 3.1 Aesthetic Resources 9 3.2 Air Quality Resources 9 3.3 Land Use Resources 9 3.4 Economic Resources 9 3.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources 10 3.5.1 Fish 10 3.5.2 Birds 11 3.5.3 Mammals 13 3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Resources 13 3.6.1 Chinook salmon 13 Chinook Critical Habitat 14 3.6.2 Bald Eagle 14 3.6.3 Marbled Murrelet 14 3.6.4 Bull trout 15 3.6.5 Coho salmon 15 3.6.6 Oregon spotted frog 16 3.6.7 Species of Concern 16 3.6.8 WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Program (PHSP) 16 3.6.3 Peregrine falcon 16 3.7 Essential Fish Habitat 17 3.8 Vegetation Resources 17 3.9 Wetland Resources 17 3.10 Historical and Cultural Resources 17 3.11 Noise Resources /Light/Glare 18 3.12 Recreational Resources 18 3.13 Transportation Resources 18 3.14 Soil Resources 19 3.15 Sediment Resources 19 3.16 Water Quality Resources 20 Pollutants 20 Dissolved Oxygen 20 Water temperature 20 pH 21 Turbidity 21 3.16 Public Safety 21 3.18 Flooding 21 4.0 Environmental Consequences 21 Turning Basin #3 EA ii 4.1 Effects on Aesthetic Resources 22 4.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 22 4.1.2 Alternative 2 22 4.1.3 Alternative 3 22 4.1.4 Alternative 4 22 4.1.5 Proposed Alternative 22 4.2 Effects on Air Quality Resources 22 4.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 22 4.2.2 Alternative 2 22 4.2.3 Alternative 3 22 4.2.4 Alternative 4 22 4.2.5 Proposed Alternative 22 4.3 Effects on Land Use Resources 23 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 23 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches 23 4.3.3 Alternative 3 23 4.3.4 Alternative 4 23 4.3.5 Proposed Alternative 23 4.4 Effects on Economic Resources 23 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 23 4.4.2 Alternative 2 23 4.4.3 Alternative 3 23 4.4.4 Alternative 4 23 4.4.5 Proposed Alternative 24 4.5 Effects on Fish and Wildlife Resources 24 4.5.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 24 4.5.2 Alternative 2 24 4.5.3 Alternative 3 24 4.5.4 Alternative 4 24 4.5.5 Proposed Alternative 24 4.6 Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Resources 24 4.6.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 24 4.6.2 Alternative 2 24 Bald eagle 25 Marbled Murrelet 25 Bull trout 25 Coho salmon 26 Oregon spotted frog 26 Species of Concern 26 WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Program (PHSP) 26 Peregrine falcon 26 4.6.3 Alternative 3 26 4.6.4 Alternative 4 26 4.6.5 Proposed Alternative 26 4.7 Effects on Essential Fish habitat 27 4.7.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 27 4.7.2 Alternative 2 27 4.7.3 Alternative 3 27 4.7.4 Alternative 4 27 4.7.5 Proposed Alternative 27 4.8 Effects on Vegetation Resources 27 4.8.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 27 Alternative 2 27 4.8.3 Alternative 3 28 4.8.4 Alternative 4 28 4.9 Effects on Wetland Resources 28 4.9.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 28 4.9.2 Alternative 2 28 4.9.3 Alternative 3 28 Turning Basin #3 EA iii 4.9.4 Alternative 4 28 4.9.5 Proposed Alternative 29 4.10 Effects on Historical and Cultural Resources 29 4.10.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 29 4.10.2 Alternative 2 29 4.10.3 Alternative 3 29 4.10.4 Alternative 4 29 4.10.5 Proposed Alternative 29 4.11 Effects on Noise Resources /Light/Glare 29 4.11.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 29 4.11.2 Alternative 2 29 4.11.3 Alternative 3 30 4.11.4 Alternative 4 30 4.11.5 Proposed Alternative 30 4.12 Effects on Recreational Resources 30 4.12.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 30 4.12.2 Alternative 2 30 4.12.3 Alternative 3 30 4.12.4 Alternative 4 30 4.12.5 Proposed Alternative 31 4.13 Effects on Transportation Resources 31 4.13.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 31 4.13.2 Alternative 2 31 4.13.3 Alternative 3 31 4.13.4 Alternative 4 31 4.13.5 Proposed Alternative 31 4.14 Effects on Soil Resources 31 4.14.1. Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 31 4.14.2 Alternative 2 31 4.14.3 Alternative 3 32 4.14.4 Alternative 4 32 4.14.5 Proposed Alternative 32 4.15 Effects on Sediment Quality Resources 32 4.15.1. Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 32 4.15.2 Alternative 2 32 4.15.3 Alternative 3 32 4.15.4 Alternative 4 32 4.15.5 Proposed Alternative 32 4.16 Effects on Water Quality Resources 33 4.16.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 33 4.16.2 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches 33 4.16.3 Alternative 3 33 4.16.4 Alternative 4 33 4.16.5 Proposed Alternative 33 4.17 Effects on Public Safety 33 4.17.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 33 4.17.2 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches 33 4.17.3 Alternative 3 34 4.17.4 Alternative 4 34 4.17.5 Proposed Alternative 34 4.18 Effects on Flooding 34 4.18.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery 34 4.18.2 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches 34 4.18.3 Alternative 3 34 4.18.4 Alternative 4 34 4.18.5 Proposed Alternative 34 4.19 Summary of Environmental Consequences 34 General 34 Controversial Impacts 34 Turning Basin #3 EA iv 4.20 Cumulative Impacts 35 5.0 Selection of the Preferred Alternative 35 6.0 Consultation, Permit and Review Requirements 35 6.1 General 35 6.2 Biological Assessment 36 6.3 Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application (JARPA) 36 6.4 City of Tukwila Permits 36 7.0 Budget Summary 36 8.0 List of Preparers 37 Appendix A: Correspondence Appendix B: Description of Green/Duwamish Basin. Appendix C: Figures Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Existing Plan Figure 3. Alternative 1 Figure 4. Alternative 2 Figure S. Alternative 3 Figure 6. Alternative 4 Figure 7. Turning Basin #3 individual and total habitat bench surface area by alternative Figure 8. Proposed Alternative Figure 9. Restoration plan Figure 10. Sitework details Figure 11. Material quantities Figure 12. Erosion control Figure 13. Planting plan Figure 14. Planting schedule, notes, details Turning Basin #3 EA v 1.0 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)', as amended (40 CFR Part 1500). The purpose of the EA is to determine the significant impacts to the quality of the human environment resulting from the implementation of the preferred alternative for the Turning Basin #3, Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project in the Duwamish River, King County, Washington (Township 23, Range 4 East, Section 4). This EA will also meet the requirements of the State of Washington State Environmental Policy Act The project proposes to remove an existing commercial wharf, associated upland structures, excavate fill material, create three habitat benches, and plant native intertidal and riparian vegetation to restore fish and wildlife habitat at River Mile 5.2 of the Duwamish Estuary. This project is proposed by the Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program Panel (EB /DRP or Program), an intergovernmental program established under a consent decree to help restore natural resources injured by pollution in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are the federal natural resource trustees on the EB /DRP Panel. The settlement identified the need to remediate various contaminated sites and restore habitat for the purpose of restoring aquatic health and safety. This project is one of a series of habitat development projects proposed under the settlement. For more information about the settlement and Program established under it, see the Concept Document (EB /DRP 1994) and the Consent Decree. Both documents are part of the Administrative Record for this project and incorporated herein by reference. The Turning Basin No. 3 property was acquired, on behalf of the Panel for restoration purposes, by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe using a combination of King County's Shoreline Improvement Funds and the Panel's settlement implementation funds (Appendix A). The project will recreate previously lost intertidal habitat and functions necessary for the successful survival of juvenile salmon, such as the federally, listed chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) migrating down 2 3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TURNING BASIN #3 AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT 42 USC 4321 et seq., 40 CFR Parts 1500 -1508, and requirements set out in NOAA's Administrative Order 216 -6. State Environmental Policy Act, Ch 43 RCW, Ch 197 -11 WAC; SEPA Rules WAC 197 -11 -960 United States. et al. v. The City of Seattle and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Civ. No. C90 -395WD (W.D. Wash., Dec. 23, 1991). In 1994, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle became the King County Department of Metropolitan Services. The Natural Resource Trustees are: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the U.S. Department of Commerce; the U.S. Department of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; the Suquamish Tribe; and the State of Washington, acting through the Department of Ecology. The Consent Decree and the Concept Document, both incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the Administrative Record, provide additional information on the settlement. 7t x a arum_ ,ram ^ r ro "? � y.. ••'mow" Turning Basin #3 EA 1 1 the Green/Duwamish River system. The project involves removing existing upland and inwater structures and excavating the bank to create a total of three intertidal and supratidal habitat benches on the 0.82 acre site. Based on a review of the environmental impacts associated with the five proposed alternatives, Alternative 5 was selected as the preferred alternative. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, was not selected even though some natural recovery will occur. The action alternatives vary in the number and scope of the habitat benches that would be constructed. While all alternatives would provide habitat benefits, Alternative 5 maximizes the restoration area and habitat diversity, as well as generates the greatest amount of detrital material to the estuary. The adverse environmental impacts of Alternative 5 are similar to the other action alternatives. 1.1 Project Area 1.1.1 Green/Duwamish Basin A detailed description of the Green/Duwamish Basin is found in Appendix B. The lower ten - mile segment of the Green/Duwamish River (WRIA 09.0001) system from the City of Renton to Elliot Bay by Seattle is known as the Duwamish River. The rest of the river, upstream from its confluence with the Black River, approximately the upper extent of tidal influence, is known as the Green River (Williams et al. 1975). The lower 10 miles of the river, the reach in which the project is located, has been almost completely altered from its pre - development condition (Blomberg et al. 1988). The Duwamish estuary once contained nearly 5,300 acres of intertidal mudflats, marshes and riparian habitats (Blomberg et al. 1988). Today, only 2% of these areas exist in the Duwamish Estuary (Blomberg et al. 1988). Since settlement, there has been a 98% loss of shallows, intertidal mudflats and tidal marshes in the Green/Duwamish estuary and a 100 percent loss of tidal swamps (Blomberg et al. 1988). As a result, Blomberg et al. (1988) estimated that there are only 45 acres of intertidal mudflat and tidal marsh left in the Duwamish Estuary. There are 22.6 miles of total shoreline length between the mouth of the river and River Mile 6.5. Of this distance, 44% is rip rapped, 34% covered by pier aprons and 7% covered by sheet piling, leaving approximately 15% in lessor forms of disturbance (derived from data in Tanner 1991). Furthermore, barges cover some of the remaining intertidal and shallow subtidal portions of the Green/Duwamish estuary (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department [MITFD], unpub. data). 1.1.2 Turning Basin Number 3 Project Area. The project site is located at 10054 West Marginal Place South, Seattle, Washington and is adjacent to the Duwamish River (Figure 1) in Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Section 4. The project site is within the City of Tukwila. The project site is on the left bank (looking downstream) within the last upstream, vessel turning basin, or Turning Basin #3, at River Mile 5.2 of the Duwamish River. Prior to modern development, Turning Basin #3 was a tidal swamp and river channel (Blomberg et al. 1988; Tanner 1991). The 0.82 -acre property (32,000 ft of Riparian is the area of transition between the terrestrial and aquatic communities. Turning Basin #3 EA 2 upland and 4,100 ft of intertidal mudflat) was purchased by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in 1997 to restore fish and wildlife habitat on behalf of the EB /DRP. There is an office /warehouse structure, small storage sheds, and asphalt and concrete pads on the site (Figure 2). A T- shaped, commercial pier made of creosote treated wood extends approximately 125 feet into the Duwamish River. Kenco Marine Services formerly owned this site, and used it for commercial marine operations, including moorage and vessel repair (Corps 1994). Minor repair work, such as battery replacement, oil lubrication, and minor painting of tugs and barges also occurred at the site (Corps 1994). All tug and barge staging, support and maintenance operations that previously occurred at the site have ceased. The following exempt or authorized activities have been completed on the site to date: 1) placement of a temporary security fence in September 1998, to prevent dumping of refuse; 2) remediation of two upland areas of approximately 100 and 40 ft to remove hydrocarbons. This remediation work was completed by the previous owners of the site in July 1998 as part of the terms of sale (Radix Ortega Group 1998); and 3) removal, by the respective owners or operators, of the barges and tugs formerly moored at the site to new locations by 30 September 1998. There is a 30 -ft wide King County River Protection Easement parallel to the top of the riverbank. The easement gives King County the right to enter the property to construct, reconstruct, maintain, and repair bank protection and /or other flood control works. King County also has the right to trim, cut, fell, and remove all trees, brush and other natural growth and obstructions as necessary. King County Parks has an easement for a bike and pedestrian trail through adjacent properties to the north and the south of the project site along Marginal Place. However, King County does not have an easement through the project site. King County will construct the trail within the existing road right -of -way between the project site and Marginal Place (pers. comm. between Roderick Malcom, Muckleshoot Tribe and Mile Lozano, King County Parks). Owners of property adjacent to the site include: Seattle City Light to the North at 9600 West Marginal Way South, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to the South (Jim Ward, WSDOT, pers. comm. dated March 2, 1999). Either the DNR or the Port of Seattle owns the riverbed located to the east of the property. 1.2 Public Participation Efforts The public has had numerous opportunities to comment on the Panel's selection of this location for its restoration project, including during the development of the Concept Document, and through the Panel's public meetings and open houses. A public scoping meeting for this project design was held on October 21, 1998. Public opportunities to comment on the scope and design of the project have been, and will continue to be, available through the federal and state permitting processes that may be required for this project. Public comments on this EA will be considered in the federal agency's final determination (i.e., whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) should be issued) for this Project. Turning Basin #3 EA 3 1.3 Administrative Record This EA references a number of resource documents prepared by and for the Program and through the SEPA process, including the applications and permits required for the Panel's Turning Basin No. 3 Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project. These documents, incorporated by reference into this EA, are part of the Administrative Record. The construction records will be on file with Roderick Malcom, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (see Fact Sheet for additional information). 2.0 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action As a result of the public meeting, five alternatives were developed, including the no- action alternative. Alternative 1 is the no- action alternative. Alternatives 2 through 5 involve removing the existing pier and buildings, and regrading the existing slope. The four Action Alternatives differ in total affected area, retention of some of the existing bank as a protective spit for bank stability, and the number and area of potential benches to be constructed. The purpose of the benches is to provide areas of relatively flat ground at various intertidal or supra -tidal elevations as the platform upon which intertidal and riparian vegetation would be planted. The use of the benches enables a larger area or greater, desired function at a specific elevation to be created. Alternatives 2 thorough 5, the action Alternatives, include the following common modifications to the existing site: 1) removal of the pier by either by barge or upland equipment based on the wharf apron. The preferred method would be to remove the structure by basing the equipment on the wharf and working landward. The exact methodologies for each construction activities listed below will be determined by the permit conditions and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The piles will either be pulled or cut off at the mudline; the preference is to pull the entire pile; 2) removal of concrete rubble and riprap from the bank; 3) excavation of upland fill material to the desired grade. Much of the work will be done in the dry, though inwater work will be required. Erosion control measures will include use of silt fences, as applicable, and other standard BMPs. Erosion control measures will be taken during excavation, including installing a silt fence at the construction area perimeter. As excavation progresses toward the final finished grades, the silt fence will be repositioned to the next targeted excavation perimeter; 4) removal of existing upland structures and features (e.g. buildings, concrete foundation, and wooden bridge). One upland concrete pad, which is partially outside of the property boundary, will remain. The concrete retaining wall along the property boundary at Marginal Way will remain, but would be either repaired or replaced; 5) removal of existing utilities and storm drains; 6) a lower intertidal bench buttressed with large woody debris connected with galvanized chain to earth anchors to prevent bank sloughing during root development. The Elliott Bay /Duwamish Habitat Development Technical Work Group decided to use large wood rather than rip rap to maintain the slope during root development to minimize unnatural Turning Basin #3 EA 4 r3�A, 57+ ca' m. 2r�w, rgwN� '.attn�!tnPn€+�a?o3?tthYt�'��:�� '"�.'�. :c, ,; t � 1*YfS'+c•,q � M1 -tab ^ � �' n• m�'.". e. �..« �. �,.... mx.:'^ r..' �` r•. �.,. �` va '?!1�. +�n:.�r:�mar,.c�..x, -mc. .. ,....�„»....,,........ elements in the project and river, and to mimic nearby areas in the estuary where sedge benches are formed and stabilized by naturally occurring large wood. Some root wads would be emplaced to roughen the edge of the woody debris to create eddies and reduce flow laminarization so as to minimize bank erosion, at and off the site. The large woody debris would be left to decay naturally, as it is expected that the planted intertidal vegetation would have become established in the interim and the bank stabilized. As it is not the intent of the Technical Work Group to maintain bank stabilizing features at the site over the long term, ecology blocks or other large weights will not be used. Loss of wood from the project will not be considered a failure, unless the rate of loss is such that the growing root masses are unable to stabilize the bank. Root wads observed to interfere with the exercise of Treaty Fishing access, would either be moved or removed; 7) each habitat bench and zone would be planted with native vegetation appropriate for the target elevation; 8) fences approximately 3 feet high and maximum two -inch mesh, would be erected for 3 to 4 years to protect growing plants from forging geese until intertidal vegetation becomes established (Caren Crandall, University of Washington, Center for Urban Horticulture, pers. comm. August 14, 1998). Facilities to exclude geese from vegetation plantings are becoming more common and designs are changing. Between the preparation of this document and permit issuance, other designs might be deemed to provide more benefit. Though, the exact design may differ, the potential footprint would be equivalent; 9) the upland boundary of the site would be marked by a 6 -ft high chain link fence to protect the site and prevent dumping of refuse; 10) two pier pilings would be left, or replacements set in existing locations, for tribal fishermen to attach set nets during fishing season; 11) the hired contractor would be responsible for maintaining and replacing dead or dying vegetation until the entire site has been vegetated to the standards set by the EB /DRP; 12) a stewardship plan to maintain the site; 13) a monitoring plan being developed by the Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Panel (the decision making body); and 14) due to the current elevations of the mudflat at the site and the proposed slopes leading to the lower bench, there will be a minor, but unquantified, increase in the area of intertidal mudflat at the lowest tidal elevation. Alternatives 2 and 3 would, through leaving parts of the bank at its current location, provide a spit extending from the uplands to protect the restored area from potential erosion or scour by the river. The spit would reduce the area of intertidal habitat that could be created. Subsequently, it was determined the site was a depositional, rather than an erosional area (pers. comm. Hugh Shipman November 1998). The main force of the river does not strike the project area, but instead is directed towards the City Light Property to the north. Therefore, these Alternatives were not selected as the preferred alternative as there is not need for the spit. The areas of fish and wildlife habitat for each Alternative are shown in Table 1. Detailed descriptions of each Alternative, and the targeted elevations are presented in the following sections. Turning Basin #3 EA 5 ' ?.a!'�v6ti; Alternative Fish Habitat Wildlife habitat (indirect benefits to fish) In- common habitat Total habitat area (ft 1 — No Action 1,800 19,367 680 21,847 2 — Three Benches 4,246 13,431 4,000 21,677 3 — Two Benches 5,180 11,450 4,550 21,180 4 — Two Benches 9,780 7,810 6,500 24,090 5 — Preferred 6,500 7,404 6,050 19,954 Table 1. Summary of Alternatives. Area (ft of fish and wildlife habitat provided under each Alternative. Areas of differing tidal elevation providing similar benefits have been grouped. 2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery Under Alternative 1, No Action/Natural Recovery, the Program would not take any direct action to restore injured natural resources or create habitat development projects. No habitat restoration activities would occur on -site. The No Action/Natural Recovery Alternative allows biological impacts to recover naturally (Figure 3). The No Action/Natural Recovery Action is the baseline against which the impacts and benefits of the Action Alternatives will be compared. Though the infrastructure at the site is the same as before purchase, commercial operations at the site have ceased and the barges and vessels relocated, increasing the potential for natural recovery. Deposition of fine- grained materials would over the long term cover some of the rip rap and debris found along the bank. At suitable elevations, the current small fringing marsh of emergent vegetation might expand. Some introduced upland plant species would grow and dominate the abandoned parking lot. However, the wharf, hardened shoreline, and existing upland features would generally constrain natural restoration. Rainfall falling offsite would run off the adjacent road, collect contaminants, pass through the property, where fine sediment would be entrained, and discharge the materials to the Duwamish River. In order for Alternative 1 to be selected as the preferred alternative: (1) natural processes must be more effective in restoring the environment than available or potentially available restoration options and alternatives; (2) the time to recovery must not be significantly different from that resulting from human intervention; (3) the affected area will not suffer from additional adverse ecological effects before the site returns to a natural state; (4) no negative threats to the health and safety of the general public will be caused by the time lag of natural recovery; and (5) funds are not available for restoration. 2.2 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches This Alternative involves removing all existing structures, regrading the current slope to provide three habitat benches (Figure 4) and leaving a spit extending from the upland area. The existing slope would protect restored area from erosion, but the current shoreline of rip rap and broken concrete would be softened by removing the bank hardening material and planting native vegetation. This proposal would not maximize the area available for the restoration of emergent or riparian vegetation. The following specifies the habitat bench and zone area with applicable elevation ranges for this Alternative: B E..__ ---- n:u :e "'"' 1T7Jat?3F.!+l"¢r Y+t(1t!`ltptiYit 9j T 4F .�i' J"!!!,;?7T, r,iktrfrfir; 47k Turning Basin #3 EA 6 tY'fiSM:•'^Yw,y]CV.,rq„ 5 1) lower bench (2,900 ft constructed from +2.0 to +6.0 ft MLLW; 2) transition area (1,346 ft from +6.0 to 9.5 ft MLLW; 3) emergent bench (4,000 ft constructed from +9.5 to +11.0 ft MLLW; 4) transition area (2,600 ft from +11.0 to +14.0 MLLW; 5) ground cover bench (1,485 ft constructed at +14.0 ft MLLW; and 6) riparian zone (9,346 ft from +14.0 to + 21.0 ft MLLW. i w The emergent bench would be planted with Lyngby's sed (Carex lyngbyei), hardstem bulrush D sedge g P g (Scirpus acutus), three - square bulrush ( Scirpus americanus), and seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin -J v0 maritima). The area of transition between the emergent and shrub benches would be seeded with co w Douglas aster (Aster subspicatus), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), saltgrass (Distichlis J = 1— spicata), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum) and Pacific silverweed (Potentilla N u. anserina). The groundcover or shrub bench would be planted with Red -osier dogwood (Cornus g O sericea), sweet gale (Myica gale), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) and Hooker's willow g n (Salix hookeriana). The riparian zone would be planted with red alder (Alnus rubra), Indian co n plum (Oemleria cerasiform), black cottonwood (Populus balsa), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) = a w shore pine (Pinus contorta contorta) and snowbeny ( Symphoricarpos albus). z F - 1- O 2.3 Alternative 3 - Two habitat benches w 1-- w This Alternative involves removing all existing structures, and regrading the current slope to v provide two habitat benches, a riparian zone (Figure 5) and leaving a spit extending from the o upland area. The following specifies the habitat bench and zone area with applicable elevation w w ranges for this Alternative: 1 9 1) lower bench (3,600 ft constructed from +2.0 to +6.0 ft MLLW; z 2) transition area (1,580 ft from +6.0 to +9.5 ft MLLW; v 3) emergent bench (4,550 ft constructed from +9.5 to +11.0 ft MLLW; p 4) transition area (6,260 ft from +11.0 to +18.0 ft MLLW; z 5) transition area or riparian zone (2,220 ft from +18.0 to + 21.0 ft MLLW. This Alternative would provide two benches (lower and emergent) and a riparian zone planted with native vegetation. The emergent bench would be planted with Lyngby's sedge (Carex lyngbyei) hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus), three square bulrush (Scirpus americanus), and seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima). The riparian zone would be planted with red alder (Alnus rubra), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiform), black cottonwood (Populus balsa), Pacific willow (Salix lucida) and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). 2.4 Alternative 4 - Two habitat benches This Alternative involves removing all existing structures, and regrading the current slope to provide two habitat benches and a riparian zone (Figure 6). There would be no protective spit extending from the upland area. This proposal would provide approximately the same habitat area has Alternative 5, and almost twice that of Alternatives 2 and 3. The benefits of the increased habitat area are increased production and delivery of detrital materials and food items Transition area is the area of transition between constructed habitat benches or zones. Turning Basin #3 EA 7 ' 52'i}".H t?:f r?l ! 7' s,A L;"'.7?SY?5 , .. , v."!?"it:'iy,t «e' = +r into the estuarine food chain. The planting scheme is similar to that proposed for Alternative 3. The following specifies the habitat bench and zone area with applicable elevation ranges for this Alternative: 1) lower bench (7,650 ft constructed from +2.0 to +6.0 ft MLLW; z 2) transition area (2,130 ft from +6.0 to +9.5 ft MLLW; 3) emergent bench (6,500 ft constructed from +9.5 to +11.0 ft MLLW; .H z ILI n: 4) transition area (4,950 ft2) from +11.0 to +18.0 MLLW; and 6 5) riparian zone (2,220 ft from +18.0 to +21.0 ft MLLW. v v 0 0 2.5 Preferred Alternative - Three habitat benches w = The proposed Alternative was selected to (1) provide the maximum amount of surface area for n u. u . the lower vegetated intertidal habitat bench and (2) the greatest number of different habitat w O benches (Figure 7). The current slope will be regraded to provide a lower, emergent and g 5 groundcover bench, and riparian zone (Figure 8). There would be no protective spit extending u_ from the upland area. This proposal would provide approximately the same habitat area as - W Alternative 4, and almost twice that of Alternatives 2 and 3. The benefit of the increased habitat z = area is increased production and delivery of detrital materials and food items into the estuarine z O food chain. Unlike alternative 4, there will be three benches, rather than two. The increased I number of benches allows for a wider diversity of vegetation types at the project site. v 0 After current slope is regraded, the lower bench would be buttressed with large wood (Figure 9) o E- and connected with galvanized chain to small earth anchors (Figure 10) to prevent bank sloughing i v during root development. Some root wads would be placed to reduce erosion at the site. After u_ 0 the intertidal vegetation is established, the wood would be left to decay naturally. Root wads w z observed to interfere with the exercise of Treaty Fishing access would either be relocated or v removed. O This Preferred Alternative will involve excavating approximately 1,794 yd of material below the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) and moving it to an authorized, off -site location (Figure 11). This volume of material includes material located within the upland portion of the site that is located below the plane of the OHWM if extended towards Marginal Place. Erosion control measures will include use of silt fences, (Figure 12) as applicable, and other BMPs. Erosion control measures taken during excavation of fill material will include a silt fence at the construction area perimeter. As excavation progresses toward the final finished grades, the silt fence will be repositioned to the next targeted excavation perimeter. The following specifies the habitat bench and zone area with applicable elevation ranges for this Alternative: 6 Mean Higher High Water is a tidal datum. It is defined as the average of the higher high water height of each tidal day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. Turning Basin #3 EA 8 q.rrd z 1) lower bench (6,500 ft constructed from +2.0 to + 9.5 ft MLLW; 2) emergent bench (6,050 ft constructed from +9.5 to +11.0 ft MLLW; 3) transition area (1,967 ft from +11.0 to +14.0 MLLW; 4) groundcover zone (1,850 ft constructed from +14 to +17 ft MLLW; and 5) riparian zone (3,587 ft from +17 to +21 ft MLLW. The planting scheme (Figure 13) is similar to that described for Alternative 3, though the areas �— w differ. 2 J U 3.0 Affected Environment U co o 3.1 Aesthetic Resources co ill Current property conditions do not present an attractive view. A dilapidated, small, wooden w "- 0 pedestrian bridge of approximately 10 feet width and 20 feet length, a concrete block of a minimum size of 50 cubic feet, an old aluminum Quonset hut building, a 120 foot commercial wharf, and small piles of gravel currently exist on the property. There is a tendency for garbage cn .a and refuse to collect along the fenced property boundary. _ 3.2 Air Quality Resources p z♦— This is a Class II area according to national air quality standards (Gary Rothwell, DOE, pers. w comm. dated May 18, 1999). Class II classification allows for a moderate deterioration in air v o quality. o wW L I O z w U = O ~ 3.3 Land Use Resources The project site is located in a commercial industrial area. The shoreline designation for this area is Urban and the zoning designation is Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy. The property is bounded to the south and east by the Duwamish River, to the north by a Seattle City Light Station, and to the west by West Marginal Way. There are several estuarine habitat restoration or mitigation projects within one mile of the site. Two hundreds yards south of the site is an intertidal mitigation site constructed by the Port of Seattle. Approximately 400 yards to the south is a Coastal America Restoration site. Approximately one thousand yards to the south is the proposed North Wind's Weir Restoration Site, an intertidal slough funded by the EB /DRP. Approximately 400 yards to the north is the Hamm Creek Restoration Site, partially funded by the EB /DRP. 3.4 Economic Resources The Turning Basin #3 project site is located in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, and is part of the Duwamish industrial corridor. The Duwamish industrial corridor extends from Harbor Island to the City of Tukwila. This corridor is the most concentrated area for industry in the State of Washington and consists of covers more than 8,500 acres. The 2,000 plus businesses in the corridor provide nearly 87,000 jobs, with an annual payroll of $2.5 billion. These businesses provide a wide range of economic opportunities for workers with a variety of skills. One in ten jobs in the King County is found in the Duwamish industrial corridor. Average annual wages paid in this corridor are above the countywide average of $29,869. The area is targeted to accommodate 25,000 additional jobs over the next 20 years. Large businesses in this area include Turning Basin #3 EA 9 z the Boeing Company and PACCAR/Kenworth Truck, along with hundreds of smaller traditional industrial businesses (Environmental Coalition of South Seattle 1999). The Port of Seattle lies at the north end of the corridor, and the SeaTac Airport lies approximately five miles beyond the southern end. The King County International Airport (Boeing Field) is another major facility in the corridor. Two interstate highways and rail lines service the area. The Duwamish River also serves as a major maritime resource that transported 21.7 million tons of cargo in 1989 (Environmental Coalition of South Seattle 1999). Commercial marine operations in the Duwamish River occur downstream of the project site. The Turning Basin #3 is within the "Usual and Accustomed" fishing areas of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Tribal fishermen commercially harvest chinook, coho, and chum salmon and steelhead trout during late summer, fall and winter. At any one time, there are approximately 8- 10 tribal fishing boats at the Turning Basin #3 during chinook fishing season (Roderick Malcom, Muckleshoot Fisheries Department, pers. comm. dated May 19, 1999). 3.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources Threatened and Endangered Species, Species of Concern, Priority Species and Essential Fish Habitat are discussed in detail in separate sections. 3.5.1 Fish The Duwamish River is a significant migratory route, rearing area, and holding area for anadromous salmonids in the Green/Duwamish River basin (NMFS 1998a, Warner and Fritz 1995; Salo and Grette 1986). The Green Duwamish basin is used by many species of salmonids. Chinook (0. tshawytscha) and coho salmon (0. kisutch) are found in the basin and are known to rear and hold at the project site. The Duwamish River also supports runs of churn salmon (0. keta), and summer and winter runs of steelhead trout (0. rnykiss) Williams 1975; WDFW and Western Washington Treaty Tribes 1994). Juvenile churn salmon have been found in larger numbers at the project site (Warner and Fritz 1995), and particularly dependent upon an estuary for growth prior to moving to marine areas. Churn salmon spawn in the Green River above RM 30. Juvenile steelhead have a short estuarine residence time due to their large size at outmigration. Upstream adult steelhead migration occurs year round. Sockeye salmon (0. nerka) also occur in the river though it is unknown if the population is self - sustaining or consists of strays from the Lake Washington system. The tinning of adult sockeye migration is unknown, but spawning adults are seen in the Green River above RM 35 in September and October. Adult pink salmon (0. gorbuscha) spawn in low numbers in the Green River (pers. comm. between Roderick Malcom, MITFD and Steve Foley, WDFW). Pink spawning has been successful in the Green River as juvenile pink salmon have been found in the Duwamish River estuary (Warner and Fritz 1995). However, it is unknown if the observed spawners are strays, a relict population, and a new population in the process of being established. Sea run cutthroat trout (0. clarkii) and Dolly Varden char (Salvelenius nnalma) are also present in the Duwamish River (NMFS 1998a). Sea -run cutthroat (0. clarkii) occur in the project area. Resident cutthroat trout are found in the Green/Duwamish River and in Hamm Creek, 0.5 miles downstream. The large size of juvenile sea -run cutthroat at outmigration reduces their dependency on the estuary, though they can move repeatedly in and out of the estuary to feed. The outward migration of Turning Basin #3 EA 10 sea -run smolts would typically occur in April and May with upstream migration of adults in July through February. It is possible that sea -run cutthroat spawn in Hamm Creek. The mouth of Hamm Creek is located approximately 0.5 miles downstream (south) of the Turning Basin #3. Hamm Creek contains resident populations of cutthroat trout, sculpin (Cottus, spp.) and western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni), (Divens 1997) and is used by spawning and rearing coho. A detailed list of salmon stocks and trout in the Green/Duwamish River is presented in Table 2, as well as the status of these stocks. 3.5.2 Birds There were 58 species of birds observed over three seasons of monitoring at four Coastal America Restoration sites along the Duwamish River (Cordell et al. 1997), including the Coastal America Restoration site approximately 400 yards upstream of the proposed project site. Fifteen bird species were observed on the Duwamish Waterway, near Terminal 107 and the Seaboard Lumber site (approximately 5 miles downstream of project site), during previous studies conducted in 1995 and 1977 -1978 (NMFS 1998a). The Duwamish River also provides important forging habitat to waterbirds throughout the year. During previous studies conducted in 1995 and 1977 -1978 (NMFS 1998a), 39 species of waterbirds were observed near Kellog Island on the Duwamish Waterway, approximately 5 miles downstream of project site. Turning Basin #3 EA 11 0.'".5:cvt?.xr4; :em STOCK' STOCK ORIGIN 2 PRODUCTION TYPE 3 ESU ESA Status Duwamish/Green River Fall Chinook Mixed " Composite ' Puget Sound 1° Threatened Newaukum Creek Fall Chinook Mixed Wild 8 Puget Sound 1° Threatened Duwamish/Green River Fall Chum Mixed Composite Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia 11 Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia 11 Not Warranted Not Warranted Crisp (Keta) Creek Fall Chum _ Non - native Cultured 0____ Green River /Soos Creek Coho Mixed Composite Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia 12 Candidate Newaukum Creek Coho Mixed Composite Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia 12 Candidate Duwamish/Green River Summer Steelhead Non - native Composite Puget Sound 1 3 Not Warranted Duwamish /Green River Winter Steelhead Native 6 Wild Puget Sound 13 Not Warranted Duwamish/Green River Early Winter Steelhead Non - native Cultured Puget Sound " Not Warranted Following species or stocks are not listed in the 1994 document Green River Sockeye Unknown Wild Not Determined Uncertain Green River Bull Trout ' Native Wild Puget Sound Threatened Green River Coastal Cutthroat Trout 15 Native Wild Puget Sound Not Warranted Notes: 1. facility. 10. Meyers et al. (1998). 11. Johnson et al. (1997). 12. Weitkkamp et al. (1995). 13. Busby et al. (1996). 14. Listed in WDFW SASSI (1998). 15. Johnson et al. (1999). Table 2. Salmon species and stocks found in the Green/Duwatnish River. Species and stocks are derived from WDFW and WWTT (1994) unless otherwise noted. The NMFS Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for listed or proposed species or ESU are included. As defined in WDFW and WWTT (1994), the fish spawning in a particular lake or stream(s) at a particular season, which fish to a substantial degree do not interbreed with any group spawning in a different place, or in the same place at a different season. 2 The genetic history of the stock. 3. The method of spawning and rearing that produced the fish that constitutes the stock. 4. A stock whose individuals originated from commingled native and non - native parents, and /or by mating between native and non - native fish (hybridization), or a previously native stock that has undergone substantial genetic alteration. 5. A stock that has become established outside of its original range. 6 An indigenous stock of fish that have not been substantially impacted by genetic interactions with non- native stocks, or by other factors, and is still present in all or part of its original range. 7. A stock sustained by both wild and artificial production. 8. A stock that is sustained by natural spawning and rearing in the natural habitat, regardless of parentage (includes native). 9. A stock that depends on spawning, incubation, hatching, or rearing in a hatchery or other artificial production . + �7".'.. 1�. w;YiR}'!:R¢ .,,+?!Nf!rtivHY°M'?I Turning Basin #3 EA 12 Common Name Scientific Name Status Occurs at the site Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened Yes Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened Yes Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Yes Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon O. kisutch Candidate Yes Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened Unknown marmoratus Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa Candidate Unknown 3.5.3 Mammals No specific information on the occurrence of mammals at Turning Basin #3 has been found. Previous studies near the Seaboard Lumber site, approximately 5 miles downstream, revealed the presence of river otters, raccoons, snowshoe hare, Townsend vole, muskrat and Norway rats (NMFS 1998a). It is expected that the Turning Basin #3 site will have a small mamtnal community typical of disturbed urban areas along rivers. Harbor seals have been observed in Turning Basin #3 (pers. comm. Roderick Malcom, MITFD, dated May 11, 1999). 3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Resources Copies of the Biological Assessment, the correspondence applicable to the informal Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State consultations are included in the Administrative Record. A list of Threatened and Endangered Species is found in Table 3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Peregrine Falcon is no longer an endangered or threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act Table 3. Threatened and Endangered Species 3.6.1 Chinook salmon Puget Sound chinook salmon were listed as Threatened (Status List received 21 May 1999, Appendix A) by NMFS under the US Endangered Species Act. Chinook salmon in the Green/Duwamish River are considered part of the Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) (Meyer et al. 1998). Green/Duwamish chinook are considered to be ocean type chinook. The Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory Report (SASSI) (WDFW and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes 1994) lists two summer /fall chinook stocks in the Green/Duwamish system: (1) Duwamish /Green summer /fall chinook; and (2) Newaukum Creek summer /fall chinook. These two populations are listed as separate stocks pending genetic analysis (WDFW and WWTT 1994). The Green/Duwamish summer /fall chinook is a composite stock with minimal influence from stocks outside of the Green River, while the Newaukum Creek stock is considered native (WDFW and WWTT 1994). Spawning occurs in the Duwamish /Green from RM 26 to the TPU Diversion Dam at RM 61, as well as in the major tributaries. 7 Federal Register: August 25, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 164). Turning Basin #3 EA 13 Adult chinook salmon commence entering the Duwamish Estuary in early July and the upstream migration through the estuary peaks in late August to early September (NMFS 1998a). Turning Basin #3 is a major holding area for adult chinook waiting to ascend to the spawning grounds in the Green River. Adult chinook are generally not found in the estuary after the end of the first week of October (MITFD, unpub. data). Spawning occurs in September and October with the young generally emerging from the gravel by February. Juvenile chinook salmon are present in the Duwamish estuary from mid - February through early September, with the peak in mid to late May (Warner and Fritz 1995). The observed peak of juvenile chinook in the Duwamish Estuary and at Turning Basin #3 corresponds with the release of hatchery fingerlings (Warner and Fritz 1995). Juvenile chinook salmon densities were higher at Turning Basin #3 than at nine other sampling stations in the Duwamish Estuary between river miles 1.6 and 10.4 (Warner and Fritz 1995), suggesting that Turning Basin #3 is an important rearing area for juvenile chinook salmon. The critical, saltwater transition zone for juvenile chinook salmon appears to be located between RM 7 and 5 (Warner and Fritz 1995), an area that straddles the proposed restoration site at RM 5.2. Chinook Critical Habitat Chinook salmon critical habitat, as listed by NMFS Protected Resource Division, includes all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Puget Sound. This includes the Duwamish/Green River. 3.6.2 Bald Eagle The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as Threatened under the ESA. Bald Eagles are present in Elliot Bay all year. Elliot Bay is located approximately five miles downstream of the project site. There have been documented occurrences of eagles in the Duwamish Estuary, Kellogg Island, Lincoln Park and Seward Park. Bald Eagles were observed on the Duwamish River from September 1996 through February 1997 (Cordell et al. 1997). The USFWS provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) indicating that wintering Bald Eagles might be present from October 31 to March 31 in the vicinity (Township 23N, Range 4E, Section 4) of the project. No specific literature information on the occurrence of bald eagles at Turning Basin #3 has been found, though Bald eagles have been observed flying over Turning Basin #3 (pers. obsn. Roderick Malcom). Present habitat at Turning Basin #3 is not conducive to Bald Eagle perching, roosting, or foraging. The site does not contain large trees suitable for perching, though eagles might be attracted to large electrical transmission towers at the Seattle City Light transformer station adjacent to the north property boundary (Corps 1998). 3.6.3 Marbled Murrelet Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus) is listed as Threatened. There is no habitat at or near the site for Marbled Murrelet nesting or roosting, through Marbled Turning Basin #3 EA 14 �iT.'.kSQ lid ?tLiSd.SVn.�T!i;.- .. r 5 .. , y . .,,n,. , . , . „,nr� "Y 'tysry:.y ;mr ,rr r tmr �� �.r gip.... _ - ,� ,• �:t;SYF.w''! kb '�• v r±�u...�.... .>, .N..,. »........ .,.. Murrelets could forage or rest in the waters adjacent to the project site. No specific information on the occurrence of Marbled Murrelets at Turning Basin #3 has been found. 3.6.4 Bull trout The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) is listed as threatened under the ESA. The USFWS z provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) stating bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) might z I-= z inhabit the area in the project's vicinity. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has approved a w Habitat Conservation Plan for Plum Creek Timber Company, LP. that notes that bull trout are 6 v not found in the Green River above Howard Hanson Dam (US Fish and Wildlife Service and the U 0 National Marine Fisheries Service 1995, 1996)). Watson and Toth (1994) also note that despite w = extensive surveys no bull trout have been found in the headwaters of the Green River. Native -J1- char have been found in the Green River as far upstream as RM 40; however, there is insufficient w O evidence to determine if these fish are fluvial or anadromous bull trout or dolly varden (US Fish 2 and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 1995, 1996). However, a bull trout was collected in the Duwamish Estuary at the project site in 1994 (Warner and Fritz 1995). = a The collected individual was identified as a bull trout by genetic analysis. It is unknown if this 1- _ collected bull trout was of Green/Duwamish origin or a migrant from another system. Z '- I— O z '— Bull trout are generally non - anadromous and live in variety of habitats. However, the UJ IA Coastal/Puget sound bull trout are anadromous, migrating and maturing in Puget Sound or the v o Pacific Ocean. Bull trout may spend 2 to 4 years in natal streams prior to migrating to larger 0 E water bodies in transit to Puget Sound. w W U If bull trout do occupy the proposed project area, it is likely that the use is one of migration and feeding. Anadromous fish migrate to the ocean in the spring and return in late summer and the w z early fall. Spawning will not occur in the estuary. Spawning generally occurs in September and U 2 October, with some spawning in August in streams above 4,000 feet in elevation and as late as z ~ November in coastal streams. Spawning occur in low gradient stream reaches in areas of cold water, generally from 2 to 4 ° C. No such streams are found at or near the project area. The migration periods of juvenile bull trout are similar to that of juvenile chinook salmon. Because of the complexities involved in the life history characteristics of bull trout, and the considerable variation among subpopulations, it is difficult to isolate and estimate how, and to what extent particular activities may impact bull trout. 3.6.5 Coho salmon Coho salmon (0. kisutch) were listed as a Candidate species under the ESA by NMFS (Status list received May 21, 1999, Appendix A). Adult coho salmon migrate upstream in late August through December (Salo and Grette 1986, WDFW and WWTT 1994). There is no distinct peak to the upstream migration (MITFD, unpub. data). All spawning occurs in freshwater. Coho salmon spawn in most of the accessible tributaries of the Green River as well as much of the mainstem river above RM 25. Additionally, coho salmon spawn and rear in Hamm Creek, whose mouth is located approximately 0.5 mile downstream (south) of the Turning Basin #3 (Divens 1997). Juvenile coho salmon migrate downstream from mid- February through mid -May. The peak of downstream migration is mid to Turning Basin #3 EA 15 M late April which corresponds with hatchery releases (Warner and Fritz 1995). Due to their large size at outmigration, 70 to 120 mm, coho smolts are less dependent on the estuary for acclimation to salt water and growth, therefore their residence times are shorter than churn or chinook. 3.6.6 Oregon spotted frog The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is a Candidate species under the ESA. The USFWS provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) stating Oregon spotted frogs might occur in the vicinity of the project site. No specific information on the occurrence of the Oregon spotted frog near the project site was found. In general, frogs require moist, forest habitat with riparian and freshwater pools (Corps 1998). The absence of this type of habitat at the Turning Basin #3 suggests that frogs would not be present. 3.6.7 Species of Concern The following are Species of Concern under the ESA. The USFWS provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) stating the following species may occur in the vicinity of the project: Pacific Townsend's big -eared bat (Cornyorhinus townsendii townsendii) Long -eared myotis (Myotis evotis); Long - legged myotis (Myotis volans); Olive -sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi); Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi). River lamprey were caught in the Duwamish River estuary in a beach seine during a distribution and growth study in 1994 (Warner and Fritz 1995). However, there is no suitable spawning habitat at the project site for lampreys. The nearest spawning area would be Hamm Creek. No specific information on the occurrence of other Species' of Concern at Turning Basin #3 was found. 3.6.8 WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Program (PHSP) The PHSP was contacted concerning potential utilization of the Duwamish uplands by State - listed species (May 24, 1999, Appendix A). The following are Priority anadroinous and resident fish species that occur R4E, S4) of Turning Basin #3: 1) fall chinook salmon; 2) chum salmon; 3) coho salmon; 4) pink salmon; 5) sockeye salmon; 6) summer steelhead; 7) winter steelhead; and 8) bull trout. Priority habitat maps indicate the presence, wetlands, riparian zones, estuarine zones, and urban natural open spaces in the vicinity (T23N, R4E, S4) of Turning Basin #3. 3.6.3 Peregrine falcon River and adjacent in the vicinity (T23N, Turning Basin #3 EA 16 .! /!:� '�s �'+ a7 .��tSa:co�._i's- 5- �;:'iiiN:titf " a. �'v�JHd1a��.1�1SC4 <, VYwDI�'St�{�ty�`� L•'� Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is a listed as Endangered under the ESA. The USFWS provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) stating that spring and fall migrant falcons might occur in the vicinity of the project. Peregrine falcons have been observed foraging along the Duwamish Waterway. Known roosts, perches and hunting areas include: the Washington Mutual Tower; the Interstate 5 Freeway Bridge; Terminal 91; Terminal 86; West Seattle Freeway Bridge. All of these areas are more than 1 mile from the project site. Eight to ten peregrine z falcons wintered in the area in 1996 (NMFS 1998a). ce g No specific information on the occurrence of peregrine falcons at Turning Basin #3 has been v vo found. co Lu Lu 3.7 Essential Fish Habitat$ - LL The Duwamish/Green River below the Diversion Dam at RM 61 is designated as Essential Fish w o Habitat (EFH) for Pacific Salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999). The project site is located near the upstream extent of an estuary. Estuaries are designated as Essential Fish t'- Habitat for numerous species of ground fish (NMFS 1998b). y w 3.8 Vegetation Resources Z I- 0 The upland area at this site contains non - native vegetation (Deodar cedar, mountain ash, w w Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, common tansy, and grasses) and landscaped native o vegetation (shore pine). The largest of the four existing conifer trees is approximately four inches p N dbh and 25 feet high. ° ~ = w tL O The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (1990) does not indicate the presence of wetlands id Z at the project site. The entirety of the upland site is fill material of various depths. o There is a small wetland fringe (approximately 50 ft along the south property boundary that z extends onto the adjacent property. The steep slope in this location confines the wetland plants to a narrow band in the intertidal zone. The emergent area includes native vegetation 3.10 Historical and Cultural Resources The US Army Corps of Engineers (1997a) completed a Phase II Site Assessment that included a Cultural Resources Assessment. Report findings revealed that most of the surface fill on the site postdates 1950. No archaeological evidence has been uncovered at this site to date (Corps 1997b). There are two structures on site: a wharf and a small warehouse. These mid- twentieth century structures do not meet the criteria of eligibility for the National Register. The closest National Register - eligible prehistoric site is a mile downstream (Corps 1997b). The National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470 et seq.) and Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice are applicable to this restoration proposal. 3.9 Wetland Resources 8 Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 USC 1801 et seq., 50 CFR 600 920(a). Turning Basin #3 EA 17 The Muckleshoot utilizes the Duwamish River for fishing for commercial, subsistence and cultural purposes. Approximately 1 mile upstream there is a riffle in the river known as North Winds' Weir. This upstream site is of cultural importance to Native Americans. 3.11 Noise Resources /Light /Glare This is a commercial /industrial area. Sources of background noise include automobile, boat and airplane traffic. Aircraft landing and departing SeaTac airport to the south often fly over the site. These flights, at times, can generate sufficient noise to make it difficult to carry out a conservation at the proposed restoration site. The existing building has outdoor lighting. Light and glare is common in the area from vehicles on the adjacent roads and building lighting across the river. 3.12 Recreational Resources There are five marinas located on the Duwamish River. It is estimated that approximately 1,000 recreational boats (averaged over a year) use the Duwamish River (Jim Quinn, Quinn's Boat Sales located on the Duwamish River, pers. comm. dated 19 May 1999). The Duwamish River provides opportunity for sport and tribal fishing. Fishing activities in the lower Duwamish River and Elliott Bay are co- managed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Suquamish Indian Tribe and the WDFW. Fishing activity in the project vicinity are co- managed by the Muckleshoot Tribe and the WDFW. Limited recreational fishing from boats occurs in Turning Basin No. 3 due to current fishing regulations. Kayakers and canoeists use the Turning Basin for recreational activities. It is likely that bird watchers also come to the site. Walkers and joggers use East Marginal Place. King County Parks has a right -of -way to the north and south of the project site and is in the process of completing a trail system along the Duwamish River. Upon completion, the trail will be adjacent to the riparian area of the project. When completed the trail system is expected to bring greater numbers of walkers, joggers and bikers by the restoration site. 3.13 Transportation Resources The Duwamish River Turning Basin #3 is located at the upstream boundary of the river's maintained navigation channel. Information on the number of commercial, and recreational boats that use Turning Basin #3 is not available, but commercial usage near the project site would be significantly reduced since the closure of marine operations at the proposed restoration site. At any one time, there are approximately 8 -10 tribal fishing boats at the Turning Basin #3 during chinook fishing season (Roderick Malcom, Muckleshoot Fisheries Department, pers. comm. dated May 5, 1999). The project site is adjacent to West Marginal Place South. This road is a two lane arterial that was first constructed as an access road for Seattle City Light's power station (WSDOT, Jim Ward, pers. comm. dated March 2, 1999). The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Traffic volumes on West Marginal Place South are approximately 1,439 vehicles per day (Robin Tischmack, City of Tukwila Public Works Department, pers. comm. dated 22 April 1999). The recent addition of Wire MoM. sx Prr.r.natwf «,, Turning Basin #3 EA 18 three new trucking companies and a US Post Office have increased traffic volumes in the area (Scott Moore, City of Tukwila Public Works Department, pers. comm. dated 22 April 22 1999). 3.14 Soil Resources The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resource Conservation Service (1952) classifies land in this area as urban. Urban land is defined as land that has been modified by disturbance. The natural soil layer has additions of fill material several feet thick in order to accommodate large industrial and housing developments. In the Green River valley of which the Duwamish River is part, the fill ranges from 3 ft to 12+ ft thick and has a texture from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam. A Phase II Site Assessment, conducted by the US Corps of Engineers in 1997, determined that a release of diesel and heavy oil had occurred at two small locations on the upland portion of the site (Corps 1997a). These areas on the upland portion of the site were removed by the previous property owner and subsequent testing indicated that the remaining soils in the two, rerediation areas are below acceptable concentrations listed in the MTCA (Radix Ortega Group 1998). However, despite removal of soils from the two spill areas, soils from the site contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) slightly above the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B cleanup levels (Corps 1997a). 3.15 Sediment Resources The US Army Corps of Engineers (1994) analyzed sediment samples from the site for a Phase I Assessment. Samples exceeded the state Department of Ecology's (DOE) Sediment Management Standards (SMS) for arsenic and acenaphthylene. None of the samples exceeded DOE Minimum Cleanup Levels (Corps 1997a). Maintenance dredging of the Duwamish Waterway occurs approximately every other year. The portion of the Duwamish Waterway adjacent to the project site, but outside the work boundaries of the proposed project, is ranked "low- moderate" for sediment contaminant levels (Corps 1997a). A Phase II Site Assessment was conducted in 1997 to address concerns arising from the Phase I Analysis conducted in 1994. The 1997 assessment concluded that sediments adjacent to the property, and the pier, did not contain contaminants above Washington State Sediment Management Standards Minimum Cleanup Levels, though two samples exceeded Sediment Quality Standard (Corps 1997a). During sediment sampling, hydrocarbon sheens were visible in some samples, however, in each case, the sheen was not on the surface of the sample, but at a depth of about 5 cm, reflecting the historical nature of the contamination (Corps 1997a). ?�t Turning Basin #3 EA 19 yy3 7 3.16 Water Quality Resources The Duwamish Estuary has a simple saltwater intrusion process as a result of the dredged channel. This simple saltwater intrusion process results in minimal mixing between the salt and freshwater, which influences water quality characteristics in the river (Warner and Fritz 1995). The Turning Basin #3 is under tidal influence and as such, it is flushed from tidal cycles. This flushing activity influences dissolved oxygen level, temperature and water column quality. The 1996 Section 303(d) List for the State of Washington lists the Duwamish Waterway (that portion of the Duwamish River at and downstream of the project site) and River as exceeding numerous State water quality parameters. Pollutants Water quality in the Duwamish River has been severely degraded by years of industrial discharge, municipal sewage, stormwater runoff and nonpoint source agricultural waste. Metals that have been documented in the Duwamish River estuary include: arsenic; cadmium; chromium; copper; iron; mercury; nickel; lead and zinc (NMFS 1998a). The Duwamish Waterway and River exceeds State water quality parameters for bioassay, numerous metals and organics. Dissolved Oxygen The Duwamish Waterway and River fails to meet State water quality parameters for dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen levels were normally above 7 ppm at nine sampling sites located from Duwamish River mile 1.6 to 10.4 with dissolved oxygen levels near saturation in the spring and lower in the late summer (Warner and Fritz 1995). However, dissolved oxygen levels decreased with increased water depth (Warner and Fritz 1995), with decreasing freshwater inflow and increasing water temperature. In the Turning Basin, dissolved oxygen decreased with increasing depth from 11.1 to 7.1, while in September, DO decreased from 6.3 to 5.3 as depth increased. Late summer and early fall dissolved oxygen concentrations are likely to impair chinook holding, migration and rearing. Water temperature Though the Duwamish Estuary is not listed on the 303(d) list for failing to meet State water quality parameters for temperature, water temperatures can exceed preference levels for salmonids. Surface water temperatures in the Duwamish Estuary are dependent upon the temperature in the Green River system. Surface flow temperatures ranged from 7.58 ° C in late March to 19.5 ° C in early August at nine sampling sites located from Duwamish River mile 1.6 to 10.4 (Warner and Fritz 1995). Approximately 200 feet from the proposed restoration site, waster temperatures have varied from 2.5 to 17.8 ° C (MITFD, unpub. data). At the project site, water temperature is primary influenced by the relative temperatures of the freshwater inflow and the salt water intruded from Elliott Bay (Warner and Fritz 1995). This saltwater intrusion profoundly influences water temperature at various depths in the Turning Basin (MITFD, unpub. data). In January, water temperatures measured at 1 m depths can increase from 2.5 ° C to 8.2 ° C over a depth of 8 m. In May, temperatures measured at 1 m depths can decrease from 17.7 to 11.6 ° C measured over a total depth of 4 m. In September, temperatures are more uniform decreasing from 16.6° to 13.8 ° C. The range of temperatures over depth is also influenced ''. Fxr !!- �txf?^�.wcrgyt *,SStic: >�n Turning Basin #3 EA 20 by the tidal stage. The variation in water temperature with depth provides adult and juvenile salmonids some refuge from the higher temperatures. However, in the late summer and early fall, the general range of temperatures offers no refuge from temperatures considered outside the preferred range. pH The 1996 Section 303(d) List for the State of Washington lists the Duwamish Waterway and River has failing to State water quality parameters for pH. Duwamish River pH values are subject to change following changes in salinity. The pH levels at nine sampling sites along the Duwamish River ranged from 6.9 and 8.9 (Warner and Fritz 1995). However, in the Turning Basin, pH ranged from 7.1 to 8.9 as a function of depth, tidal stage and date. Turbidity The river meets Ecology water quality standards for turbidity according to the 1996 Section 303(d) list. Turbidity is mainly a function of river flow. Warner and Fritz (1995) found the highest turbidity levels were recorded at low tide. Turbidity levels at 3.25 feet below the surface of the water averaged 18.8 NTU in the estuary as a whole (Warner and Fritz 1995). Turbidity as measured in the Turning Basin over a period of several months can range from 2.0 to 122 NTUs (mean of 29 with a standard deviation of 23.8) and varies with depth and tidal stage (MITFD, unpub. data). 3.16 Public Safety The current building and creosote treated wharf represent a fire and safety hazard. There is the possibility of arson. The abandoned building could become an attractive nuisance or be used for a variety of illegal activities. There have been incidents of trespass at the site due to the cessation of commercial operations and the lack of a security guard. Additionally, refuse is being dumped at the perimeter of the site. Injuries could result from people attempting to enter the building or jump from the wharf. Illicit and illegal activities at the site, as well as the possibility of an accident create a need for emergency services. 3.18 Flooding The upland portion of the site is above the 100 -year floodplain, however the riverbank is armored to prevent lateral erosion of the bank that could threaten the property or the adjacent road. 4.0 Environmental Consequences To accomplish the objectives of the project, excavation of soils, placement of fill and stabilization of the lower intertidal bench will be necessary. During the construction phase of the project, there will be short-term direct and indirect impacts to the environment, some of which are unavoidable. These short -term direct and indirect impacts will be offset by modifications to the site which are expected to result in long -term positive environmental impacts. There will be no long —term, direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts to the natural environmental or resources. Turning Basin #3 EA 21 4.1.2 Alternative 2 4.1 Effects on Aesthetic Resources 4.1.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery This Alternative would leave the site undisturbed. Current site conditions offer a unattractive, and run -down appearance. No immediate habitat restoration would occur at the site. The existing z adverse impacts to aesthetic resources would continue under this Alternative and adverse z consequences to the site and adjacent properties would increase over time due to dumping of Lir cc 2 refuse at the site J 0 00 uJ The presence of construction equipment and the act of construction will have short-term adverse -J E- impacts on aesthetics. There would be long -term benefits to onsite and adjacent property uj wo aesthetics resources under this Alternative as the existing upland structures and wharf would be 2 removed and the area revegetated with native intertidal or riparian vegetation. A small area will g Q be established to provide public viewing of the Duwamish River and the restored site. co I 4.1.3 Alternative 3 Z F- 0 z F- w • w 0 o P O F- w w I • U - O w Z U= 0 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.1.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.1.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.2 Effects on Air Quality Resources 4.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery There has been improvement in air quality at the site from the termination of commercial activities. No further improvements in air quality would occur. 4.2.2 Alternative 2 There will be short-term vehicle and marine emissions during the construction and pier removal phases. During excavation and hauling, the potential exists for suspended particles to be released into the air. There will be no long -term adverse impacts to air quality. 4.2.3 Alternative 3 Same short-term adverse and long-term beneficial impacts as Alternative 2. 4.2.4 Alternative 4 Same short-term adverse and long -term beneficial impacts as Alternative 2. 4.2.5 Proposed Alternative Same short-term adverse and long -term beneficial impacts as Alternative 2. Turning Basin #3 EA 22 z 4.3 Effects on Land Use Resources Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery The site is no longer available for commercial activity and thus there has been a small, long -term reduction in the commercial land base. The site would be used for fish and wildlife habitat, but z without added habitat improvements. z Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches re Long -term impacts to the commercial land base are similar to Alternative 1. The site would be v p used for fish and wildlife habitat with an opportunity for limited public passive use after habitat u) W improvements are made. The habitat area would be greater than under Alternative 1. LL 4.3.3 Alternative 3 w 0 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.3.4 Alternative 4 a Same impacts as Alternative 2. z w 4.3.5 Proposed Alternative z o U • ❑ O - ❑ I- wW � r u. O .z w U= 0 0 I — Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.4 Effects on Economic Resources Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery The property was purchased with a restrictive covenant that the site is to be used for habitat restoration purposes and thus no future commercial use can occur at the site. There would be no significant adverse impacts to economic resources under this Alternative. Natural recovery at the site over the long -term may increase fish production and income derived from fishing. 4.4.2 Alternative 2 Same potential adverse impacts as Alternative 1. However, there is a greater potential for increased fish production and therefore, indirect economic benefits. A potential increase in tribal or recreational fishing at Turning Basin #3 or an increase in salmon production due to this project would provide an increase in income. The extent to which the loss of income that would accrue from converting the site from commercial to non - commercial use would exceed or not exceed the direct and indirect income accrued through habitat restoration is unknown and beyond the scope of this analysis. 4.4.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.4.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. Turning Basin #3 EA 23 z 4.4.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.5 Effects on Fish and Wildlife Resources Threatened and Endangered Species, Species of Concerns, Priority Species, and Essential Fish Habitat are discussed in separate sections. 4.5.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery Over the long -term, the is the potential for adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat through continued leaching of contaminants from the treated pilings into the water and sediments. 4.5.2 Alternative 2 There would be no long -term, adverse impacts to fish or wildlife under this Alternative. There would be minor loss of exotic vegetation used by small birds and mammals due to clearing at the site. These animals would be forced to move to adjacent sites. After the project was completed there would be an increase in onsite habitat available for birds and small mammals, a beneficial impact. This alternative would increase connectivity between existing upstream and downstream habitat patches for fish, birds, and small mammals. Increased connectivity would benefit fish, birds, and small mammals using the adjacent properties and habitat patches. 4.5.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.5.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.5.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.6 Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Resources 4.6.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery This Alternative, over the short-term, would provide no greater better benefit for fish and wildlife than currently exists. Over the long term some improvements would occur as natural sedimentation filled in the depressions in the mudflats caused by grounding of barges at the site and filled and cover the rip rap and concrete rubble found at the lower tidal elevations. However, this improvement will be minor. 4.6.2 Alternative 2 Chinook salmon During the pier removal and bank excavation phases, there is the possibility that water quality would be effected by an unavoidable increase in turbidity from the disturbed sediments and uplands. Impaired water quality can effect both adult and juvenile fish migration and use of the site. The removal of the piles and wharf and other inwater works has the potential to disturb adult or juvenile fish rearing, feeding, or holding in the vicinity. By using the erosion control Turning Basin #3 EA 24 measures outlined in Section 2, doing as much work as possible in the dry, and adhering to the WDFW in- stream work windows of June 15 to 1 July and 16 October to March 14 impacts to fish would be reduced. There are no spawning areas downstream of the project site that will be impaired by the turbidity. The nearest spawning area is located in Hamm Creek and is suitable for coho salmon and cutthroat trout, not chinook. Furthermore, and any turbidity from the zz project site is unlikely to move upstream against the current into the spawning areas of Hamm z Creek 2 There would be no long -term, adverse impacts to chinook salmon or their habitat under this v v o Alternative. The value of this area will be increased by habitat improvements at this site co 0 compared to the existing conditions, would benefit juvenile chinook salmon by: J F- 1) increased area of intertidal vegetation available for foraging, uj LL w0 2) increased production of invertebrates consumed by juvenile chinook; 3) providing overhanging riparian vegetation for cover from predators and detrital input; g 4) removing creosote treated pilings from the water, a potential long -term source of PAH c a contamination in the juvenile chinook food chain; I- _ 5) root wads to provide cover from predators and attachment points for food items; and Z 6) increased connectivity between existing upstream and downstream habitat patches and w w restoration projects located on different properties. U a Bald eagle o As stated in Section Section 3.6, the project site does not provide good habitat conditions for = w bald eagles due to nearby electrical transformer towers and commercial industries and lack of suitable perches. Upon maturation, planted black cottonwood planted in the riparian zone, z would provide better perching conditions for immature and adult bald eagles. The mature riparian v =. zone would also provide a visual and sound buffer from road traffic. Increased structure along the 0 face of the project may trap salmon carcasses upon which eagles could feed. z Improvements at the site would create habitat that is presently lacking for bald eagles. This would result in a beneficial impact to this species. Marbled Murrelet No short- to long -term adverse impacts are expected. Bull trout Potential short -term adverse impacts to bull trout as the same as for chinook salmon. Improvements at the site would create cover and foraging estuarine habitat that is presently lacking for bull trout. This would result in a beneficial impact to this species, though the beneficial impacts would not be as great for bull trout due to their reduce dependency upon shallow water estuarine areas. firldGa ta e,, Turning Basin #3 EA 25 Coho salmon Same potential short-term impacts as listed under chinook salmon in this Section, however the extent of beneficial impacts will be less as juvenile coho are not as estuarine dependent than juvenile chinook. Oregon spotted frog z As mentioned in Section 3.6, the Oregon spotted frog's preferred habitat is currently absent at Turning Basin #3. Improvements at the site would create a forested riparian area, but not Li] 0 freshwater pools. If there is fresh water in the area and a source of immigrants, Oregon spotted N ❑ frogs might eventually utilize the newly created habitat at Turning Basin #3. This could result in J a beneficial impact to this species. cn u_ tij 0 There would be no short-term or long -term, adverse impacts to Oregon spotted frogs under this Alternative. u_¢ Species of Concern = 0 F w There will be some short-term construction related impacts to species of concern that occur at z the site. All species of concerns would benefit from the habitat improvements at the site. There I-- O are no long -term, adverse impacts to these species under this Alternative. j WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Program (PHSP) o cn ❑ !— There will be some short-term construction related impacts to these species. All these species w • w would benefit from habitat improvements at the site. There are no long -term, adverse impacts to these species under this Alternative. "-- z Peregrine falcon U= 0 O ~ The project site does not provide good habitat conditions for peregrine falcons due to nearby Z electrical transformer towers and commercial industries. Upon maturation, planted black cottonwood planted in the riparian zone, would provide better perching conditions for peregrine falcons. The increased area of intertidal mudflat and vegetation would provide habitat for some birds taken as prey by peregrine falcons. The mature riparian zone would also provide a visual and sound buffer from road traffic. Improvements at the site would create habitat that is presently lacking for peregrine falcons. This would result in a beneficial impact to this species. There would be no adverse impacts to peregrine falcons under this Alternative. 4.6.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.6.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.6.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. Turning Basin #3 EA 26 4.7 Effects on Essential Fish habitat 4.7.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery Over the long -term, there is the potential for adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat through continued leaching of contaminants from the treated pilings into the water and sediments. 4.7.2 Alternative 2 Soil excavation would only occur during designated time periods to avoid salmonid migration 6 = periods. Minor disturbances to fish and fish habitat occur during the construction phase, but 0 0 these impacts would be short-term in nature. Over the long-term, the proposed restoration co w UJ project would increase biological diversity and improve Essential Fish Habitat. Some species of ground fish and all juvenile salmonids would benefit from increased habitat quantity and quality. w w 0 The project would enhance resting areas for rearing and feeding, increase prey species and reduce 2 environmental stresses. g Essential Fish Habitat for Pacific Salmon and Ground Fish would not be adversely impacted. = a Federal laws pertaining to fish and wildlife and essential fish habitat will be followed to ensure Z that no long -term adverse impacts would result. Consultation with NMFS regarding the Pacific 1. p Coast Groundfish estuarine composite EFH has been initiated and will be completed during the w w permit process. Related correspondence will be included in the Administrative Record for this v 0 project. The project will be in compliance with all state and federal permit conditions. O SQ 0 1- 4.7.3 Alternative 3 = w tL O w Z U= 0 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.7.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.7.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.8 Effects on Vegetation Resources 4.8.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery This Alternative would leave existing vegetation on site. The existing vegetation is composed mostly of non - native, invasive or ornamental species that would not provide optimum habitat conditions for fish and wildlife. There would be no adverse impacts to existing vegetation under this Alternative. Alternative 2 This Alternative would involve the removal of all non- native and probably all of the native landscape vegetation and planting native marsh and riparian vegetation on newly created habitat benches and zones. Most of the native landscape vegetation such as shore pine must be removed so that the banks could be cut back. This will result in the loss of three to five trees, of which only one is greater than 15 feet height. No trees at the site exceed 25 feet in height. Turning Basin #3 EA 27 z Removal of the existing vegetation would create a adverse impact over the immediate to short term, the planting of native vegetation at the site would provide better overall habitat conditions in terms of species composition and density. The non- native vegetation growing along the banks of the property will be predominately replaced by intertidal vegetation. Within 15 years of planting the riparian area will have trees exceeding 25 feet and in greater density than the existing condition. This alternative would increase connectivity between existing upstream and = z downstream marsh and riparian vegetation patches. Marsh vegetation plant on the site may ce g become a source of colonizers for the adjacent properties, increasing the habitat value of the 6 v adjacent intertidal properties. v o 4.8.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. w 0 4.8.4 Alternative 4 4n. Same impacts as Alternative 2. u� a Ill 4.8.5 Proposed Alternative Z Same impacts as Alternative 2. z o w 4.9 Effects on Wetland Resources 2 o U 4.9.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery o 2 There are no adverse impacts to wetland resources under this Alternative. = T 4.9.2 Alternative 2 L--- p z. This Alternative would create 6,900 ft of new wetland at Turning Basin #3 project site. v The current intertidal wetland on site is approximately 50 ft in size and is located along the O I' north property boundary. It would not be directly affected by construction activities. The value of the existing wetland would be increased as it would be functionally enlarged due to the newly created intertidal benches with emergent vegetation. This alternative would increase connectivity between existing upstream and downstream marsh and riparian vegetation patches. Marsh vegetation plant on the site may become a source of colonizers for the adjacent properties, increasing the habitat value of the adjacent intertidal properties. There are no direct short- or long -term adverse impacts to wetland resources under this Alternative. 4.9.3 Alternative 3 This Alternative would create 8,100 ft of new wetland at Turning Basin #3 project site. Increased benefits compared to Alternative 1. Adverse impacts similar to Alternative 2. 4.9.4 Alternative 4 This Alternative would create 14,150 ft of new wetland at Turning Basin #3 project site. Turning Basin #3 EA 28 z 4.9.5 Proposed Alternative This Alternative would create 12,550 ft of new wetland at Turning Basin #3 project site. Increased benefits compared to Alternative 1. Adverse impacts similar to Alternative 2. 4.10 Effects on Historical and Cultural Resources z 4.10.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery = z There are no adverse impacts to historical and cultural resources under this Alternative. 6 = JU 4.10.2 Alternative 2 U o The EB/DRP has concluded there are no low income or ethnic minority communities that would L be adversely affected by the proposed restoration activities. The restoration proposal complies w with National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470 et seq.) and Executive Order 12898, g Environmental Justice. The proposal will not adversely impair the extent to which the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe utilizes the Duwamish River for fishing for subsistence and cultural c purposes. There will be no impact to known cultural or historical resources or artifacts. Known = w sites are located hundreds of yards away from the project site. However, despite the filled nature z of the site there is always the potential that excavation of material will expose unknown cultural z O resources or artifacts. If during construction and excavation, cultural or historic artifacts are 2 ui found an archaeologist will be sent to the site to take the necessary precautions to preserve the v remains or materials. The State Historic Preservation Office, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and o H the Suquamish Indian Tribe will be informed, as applicable. The project will not effect historical i or cultural resources located on other properties in the Duwamish River. ti O 4.10.3 Alternative 3 w z U =. OH Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.10.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.10.5 Proposed Alternative Same as impacts Alternative 2. 4.11 Effects on Noise Resources /Light /Glare 4.11.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery There would be no adverse noise impacts under this Alternative. The cessation of the former commercial operation has reduced noise, light and glare at the site. The no action alternative will have no effect on noise, light or glare. 4.11.2 Alternative 2 There would be short -term noise impacts during pier removal, building demolition and bank excavation phases on and off the site. Noise, light, and glare impacts will be mitigated by following applicable regulations and permit conditions. There would be no noise impacts expected during the planting phase of this project. Turning Basin #3 EA 29 z Upon maturation, the planted riparian area would provide a sound buffer from road noise and lighting. There would be no long -term, adverse noise impacts under this Alternative. 4.11.3 Alternative 3 z Same as impacts Alternative 2. i— w 4.11.4 Alternative 4. JU Same as impacts Alternative 2. N o rnw 4.11.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. in o 4.12 Effects on Recreational Resources ¢ 4.12.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery cn a There would be no adverse impacts to recreational resources under this Alternative. However, Z the existing building would block certain views of the Turning Basin from Marginal Place and the z O proposed King County Parks trail. w w 4.12.2 Alternative 2 v ° 0 N . No onsite short- or long -term adverse impacts to recreation are anticipated from this alternative ° since it is currently not used as a recreational area nor has the public had access through the site v to the Duwamish River. The public would not have access to the Duwamish River through this u. �. site. A restrictive covenant dated November 8, 1996 mandates that development at the site is w Z restricted to fish and wildlife habitat and restricted passive public use. Removal of the existing 1 � , building would improve the public's view of the Turning Basin as well as enhance the view of the z restoration site from Marginal Place providing a beneficial offsite consequence. There would be a public viewing/educational area established under this alternative. Interpretive areas and signs would constitute a small component of the project area to maximize ecosystem re- establishment potential and minimize long -term maintenance requirements (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department 1997). King County Parks is developing a trail along Marginal Way, between the road and the river. The proposed trail alignment would place the trail at the edge of the proposed riparian area, offering trail users the opportunity to view the restoration site. Removal of the wharf structure would remove an obstacle in Turning Basin #3, and therefore benefit canoe and kayak recreation. The project will have long -term benefits for adjacent recreational use. 4.12.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.12.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. Turning Basin #3 EA 30 an 4.12.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.13 Effects on Transportation Resources 4.13.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery There are no adverse impacts to transportation under this Alternative. 4.13.2 Alternative 2 There would be short -term impacts to river and vehicle traffic by increased heavy machinery in the area. Work would begin in July and last through December 2000, though the work would not be continuous. Traffic would be impacted during construction work hours (8 hrs /day, for 5 days /week) by the movement of vehicles containing construction workers and supplies. The project is expected to generate 10 round trips a day. Sufficient parking is available on and off the site to avoid impacts to adjacent properties. During demolition, excavation, and pier removal activities, there would be an increase in traffic on West Marginal Way Place South and in the Duwamish River. It is estimated that the initial removal and construction phase would be completed within four months. After excavation and planting of vegetation, maintenance work would be required for approximately eight months to establish planted vegetation. There would not be an impact to traffic during the vegetation maintenance phase of this project. There are no long -term, adverse impacts to transportation under this Alternative. The removal of the wharf will increase the area of water available for commercial vessels and barges to turn. 4.13.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.13.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.13.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.14 Effects on Soil Resources 4.14.1. Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery There would be no adverse impacts to soil resources under this Alternative. 4.14.2 Alternative 2 This Alternative would remove existing soil, which could result in an adverse impact from possible erosion exposure of low level contaminants in the soil (Corps 1997a). Soil will be removed from the site and deposited off site during excavation. The deposition location would be Turning Basin #3 EA 31 �� j- Y- „x' "� N��4.:;'. ' .� ������•'Y, E3:'. determined by the contractor. The removed creosote treated pilings and wharf apron would be transported to an authorized disposal site or stored for salvage at a suitable site. There would be no long -term, adverse impacts to soil resources under this Alternative. Restoration would improve on -site soil quality. 4.14.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.14.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.14.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.15 Effects on Sediment Quality Resources 4.15.1. Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery This Alternative would leave sediments and the existing wharf undisturbed. The creosote - treated pier pilings would continue to decompose and leach contaminants into the water. There would be adverse impacts to onsite and adjacent sediment quality under this Alternative as creosote or its degradation products leach from the pilings. 4.15.2 Alternative 2 This Alternative could result in short -term, adverse impacts to sediments during pier removal. However, the majority of sediment samples taken at the site did not exceed the Washington State Sediment Management Standards Minimum Cleanup Levels, so release of contaminants from sediments would be minimal (Corps 1997a). To further reduce short-term potential impacts, a blanket of sand would be laid down around pilings during pier removal to minimize sediment disturbance and potential release of contaminants. There would be no long -term, adverse impacts to onsite or off -site sediment quality. Removal of the pier will eliminate direct sources of water contamination at the site (Corps 1997a). The removal of the wharf and piles will prevent the possibility of future leaching of creosote and PAHs into the sediments. Pier removal will improve long -term sediment quality in the project area. 4.15.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.15.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.15.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. Turning Basin #3 EA 32 4.16 Effects on Water Quality Resources 4.16.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery This Alternative would leave the existing pier intact. The creosote - treated pier pilings would continue to decompose and leach contaminants into the water. There would be long -term adverse impact to onsite and off -site water quality resources under this Alternative if the pier is not removed. 4.16.2 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches This Alternative will result in short-term, adverse impacts from increased turbidity during the removal of the pier and bank excavation. Erosion control measures include the use of silt fences, as applicable, and other standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). Erosion control measures would be taken during excavation by installing a silt fence at the construction area perimeter. As excavation progresses toward final finish grades, the silt fence would be repositioned to the next targeted excavation perimeter. The project will not influence water temperature, pH, or dissolved oxygen. There will be no long -term adverse impacts to onsite or off -site water quality. Removal of the pier will eliminate direct sources of water contamination at the site (Corps 1997a) and to adjacent properties and improve long -term water quality. 4.16.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.16.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.16.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.17 Effects on Public Safety 4.17.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery The existing building and creosote treated wharf would remain. These structures would continue the existing potential need for emergency services to respond to accidents, fire, or illegal activity at the site. The dumping of refuse at the site would continue. 4.17.2 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches Existing hazardous, wooden structures on site will be demolished. This would eliminate the risk of arson activity on site and substantially reduce the probability of illegal activity at the site. There will be significantly reduced requirement for fire, police, and emergency services over the long term as the structures most likely to generate the need for such services will be removed. During construction, there will be a small potential increase in the requirement for such services. Turning Basin #3 EA 33 4.17.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.17.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.17.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.18 Effects on Flooding 4.18.1 Alternative 1 - No Action/Natural Recovery There will be no change from the current situation. 4.18.2 Alternative 2 - Three habitat benches The project will not increase the level of the 100 -year flood plain, nor increase flooding potential on adjacent properties. As the project involves the net removal of hundreds of cubic yards of material from below the OHWM, the project will have no short- or long -term adverse impacts upon flooding due to encroachment into the floodplain. The restored bank will be at a much shallower grade than the existing bank and should be stable. Existing projects in the Turning Basin have been shown to have stable slopes at approximately the same grades as the proposed project. Additionally, much of the upland material close to the road will not be removed and thus will provide a buffer in case there is a sudden, unanticipated bank failure along the river. 4.18.3 Alternative 3 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.18.4 Alternative 4 Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.18.5 Proposed Alternative Same impacts as Alternative 2. 4.19 Summary of Environmental Consequences General The adverse, direct and indirect, site specific impacts of the four action alternatives are roughly comparable. Site specific short-term adverse to the natural and built environmental will be mitigate. After evaluating the potential environmental consequences associated with each of the alternatives, the Panel decided that their selection of Alternative 5 had the greatest potential for beneficial impacts to the natural environment, fish and wildlife, and endangered species. Controversial Impacts. The Panel participants believe that this restoration project, under any action alternative, would pose no uncertain or controversial risks to the natural or built environment. All construction Turning Basin #3 EA 34 activities proposed at the site are common to routinely approved maintenance and restoration projects in the Duwamish Estuary. 4.20 Cumulative Impacts The project is designed to restore and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and will not have any significant adverse, direct or indirect, cumulative impacts upon the environment. It is likely that this project will slightly reduce the cumulative impacts of habitat alteration and degradation that have occurred in the Duwamish Estuary. Creation of additional estuarine habitats such as this proposed project would be valuable to chinook salmon and would result in positive cumulative effects in the Duwamish River for these species, other natural resources, and their habitats by increasing habitat types that are now rare. In concert with existing and proposed estuarine restoration and mitigation projects in this part of the Duwamish Estuary, the project will have cumulative beneficial consequences through increased habitat connectivity between patches, increased effective patch size and decrease anthropogenic disturbance of intertidal and shallow, subtidal habitats. 5.0 Selection of the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1, the No Action alternative was not selected, though it met the legal requirements for complying with the settlement, it did not meet the Program's goals and objectives. Since purchase of the site and subsequent removal of the existing barges and business operations created an increase in accessible intertidal mudflat for fish and wildlife, and decreased potential water quality impacts, the legal requirements of the settlement agreement have been met. However, because nearly 98 percent of the riparian vegetation, estuarine wetlands and marsh vegetation in the Duwamish Estuary have been lost due to development activities, the Panel believes that restoring these habitats are mandatory to benefit fish and wildlife populations that have declined because of habitat loss and degradation. This Alternative will not restore these lost habitat functions and their benefits to fish and wildlife, and therefore will not be further considered in this evaluation. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 were not selected since though these alternatives will benefit fish and wildlife and restore lost habitat functions, they would not maximize the benefits provided by marsh and riparian vegetation. These alternatives have therefore not been further considered in this evaluation. 6.0 Consultation, Permit and Review Requirements 6.1 General The Concept Document (Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program 1994) references a number of area programs which may be potentially applicable to this project. The project manager will ensure that there is coordination where applicable. There are also a number of potentially relevant laws, regulations, and policies that need to be considered during the development of this restoration project as well as several regulatory requirements which are typically evaluated during the federal and state permitting processes. A supplemental listing of these requirements has been included in the Administrative Record. �1!V Frnl Turning Basin #3 EA 35 nt Permit Issuin ' agency Status Section 404 Army Corps of Engineers Applied April 12, 1999 HPA WDFW Applied April 12, 1999 Aquatic Resources Use Authorization Notification DNR Applied April 12, 1999 Substantial Shoreline Development Exemption City of Tukwila Applied April 28, 1999 6.2 Biological Assessment A Biological Assessment has been prepared for chinook and coho salmon and bull trout in the project area. 6.3 Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application (JARPA) The following permits (Table 4) were applied for by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe during the submission of the JARPA form. The permits will be issued upon receipt of the final NEPA EA and SEPA documents: Table 4. List of required permits. 6.4 City of Tukwila Permits The following permits are issued b y the City of Tukwila and will be applied for by the chosen construction firm for this project: 1) Demolition Permit 2) Hauling Permit 3) Miscellaneous Permit (Land altering and bank restoration) 7.0 Budget Summary Total project restoration costs are estimated at $639,000 divided as follows: $117,000 for planning, design, permitting and environmental review; $420,000 for construction; and $100,000 for maintenance and stewardship. Turning Basin #3 EA 36 Name Company/ Organization Contributions Expertise Marian Berejikian Fish Pro, Inc. Fisheries Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Fisheries, vegetation Rick Covert Fish Pro, Inc. Design Project design, construction mitigation measures and BMPs Roderick Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department Fisheries, Water Quality, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences Fisheries, environmental review and impact analysis 8.0 List of Preparers Table 5. List of people that prepared this report. 9.0 List of Agencies, and Organizations Consulted U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service Suquamish Tribe Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Department of Natural Resources King County Department of Natural Resources City of Seattle City of Tukwila Seattle City Light Turning Basin #3 EA 37 References Aitkin, J. Kevin. 1998. The Importance of Estuarine Habitats to Anadromous Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest: A Literature Review. U.S. Fish and Wild Service. Western Washington Office, Aquatic Resources Division. Lacey, Washington. Berman, C. H., and T. P. Quinn. 1991. Behavioral thermoregulation and homing by spring chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbuam), in the Yakima River. J. Fish. Biol. 39:301 -312 Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of salmonids in streams, pages 83 -138. In W. R. M. (ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, p. 519 -557. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Blomberg, G., Simenstad, C., and Hickey, P. 1988. Changes in the Duwamish River estuary habitat over the past 125 years. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples. F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead trout from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS - NWFSC -27. 261 p. Cordell, J.R., L.M. Tear, K. Jensen, and V. Luiting. 1997. Duwamish River Coastal America Restoration and reference sites: Results from 1996 monitoring studies. University of Washington. Fisheries Research Institute. Seattle, WA. Divens, K.A. 1997. Hamm Creek fish kill investigation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Habitat Management Program. Response and Resource Damage Assessment Section. Olympia, WA. Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program. 1994. Concept Document. EB /DRP. [Copies available from Administrative Director of Panel, c/o NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.] Environmental Coalition of South Seattle. 1999. The Duwamish Corridor. Website address: http: / /www.ecoss.org /duwamish /duwamish.html. Seattle, WA. Fuerstenberg, Robert R, Nelson Kristin, and Bomquist Rob. 1996. Ecological Conditions and Limitations to Salmonid Diversity in the Green River, Washington, USA: Structure, Function and Process in River Ecology. King County Surface Water Management prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resource Sections, Seattle Washington. Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Kope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-32, 280 p. King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. 1990. King County, WA. King County Surface Water Management. 1995. Habitat Sites in the Duwamish /Lower Green River: A self - guided tour. Seattle, WA. Lister, D. B., and H. S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (0. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum River, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27:1215 -1224. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department. 1997. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Kenco Marine /Duwamish Turning Basin No. 3 estuarine habitat restoration proposal: Scope, schedule, management plan and budget. Auburn, WA. Myers J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS - NWFSC -35, 443 p. National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). 1998a. Finding of No Significant Impact, Environmental Assessment. Seaboard Lumber Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project. [Copies available from Administrative Director of Panel, c/o NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.] Turning Basin #3 EA 38 zg9�;+>..' 47;;:!; s a?yrtxrc! n' ES: r} rzi �: 7^? �> T, :ri;vtrr,:g^ smwr, National Marine Fisheries Service1998b. Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Ground Fish Appendix. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1997. Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group Report 1997. An assessment of the Status of Puget Sound Chinook and Strait of Juan De Fuca Coho Stocks as Required under the Salmon Fishery Management Plan Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1999. Appendix A. Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Perkins 1993. Green River Channel Migration Study. King County Department of Public Works. Surface Water Management Division. Seattle. WA. R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 1999. Juvenile Salmonid Use of Lateral Stream Habitats Middle Green River, Washington. 1998 Date Report Draft. Redmond, Washington. Radix Ortega Group. 1998. Kenco Marine Soil Assessment Final Report. Prepared for Kenco Marine Services, Inc., 10054 West Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA. Roberts, B. and R. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and pre - emergent fry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 12: 450 -459 Salo, E.0, and G.B. Grette. 1986. The Status of Anadromous Fishes of the Green /Duwamish System. Final Report Submitted to the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tanner, C.D. 1991. Potential intertidal habitat restoration sites in the Duwamish River estuary. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Evaluations Branch and the Port of Seattle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Distribution and food habits of juvenile salmonids in the Duwamish Estuary. Olympia, WA. United States Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Commencement Bay Cumulative Impact Study, Vols. 1 and 2. [Project Manager: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District; copies available from agencies cited.] United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1998. 1 -90 Land Exchange USDA Forest Service /Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P.: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species. Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P. Lands in the 1 -90 Corridor King and Kittitas Counties, Washington. United States Forest Service. 1996. Watershed Analysis: Upper Green River Basin. US Army Corps of Engineers 1994. Level 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Recommendations for Further Action. Kenco Marine Inc, Property, Duwamish Turning Basin, King County, WA. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Green /Duwamish River Basin General Investigation Ecosystem Restoration Study Reconnaissance Phase. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997a. Phase II Site Assessment Kenco Marine, Inc. Duwamish Turning Basin No. 3 Tukwila. WA US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997b. Cultural Resources Assessment Report for Kenco Marine, Duwamish River, King County, Washington in Phase II Site Assessment Kenco Marine, Inc. Duwamish Turning Basin No. 3 Tukwila. WA. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Draft Duwamish River, Turning Basin #3 Section 1135 ecosystem restoration report. King County, Washington. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Additional Water Storage Project, Draft Feasibility Report and EIS: Howard Hanson Dam, Green River, Washington. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1952. Soil survey. Series 1938, #1. Issued Sept. 1952. King County, WA. Turning Basin #3 EA 39 Warner Eric J. and Fritz Robert L. 1995. The Distribution and Growth of Green Rive Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Chum Salmon (Oncoryhnchus keta) Outmigrants in the Duwamish Estuary as a Function of Water Quality and Substrate. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department. Water Resources Division. Auburn. WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory Report. Z Q • Watson G and S. Toth. 1995. Limiting Factors analysis for salmonid fish stock in the Plum Creek's Cascades Z Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area. Plum Creek Timber. Co., LP., Tech. Rept. No. 13. Seattle, a Washington. 58 pp. uJ Weitkamp L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.K. Kope, and R.S. Waples 1995. Status U O review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. N Memo. NMFS - NWFSC -24. 258 p. W =. Williams, R. W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames, 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, to Volume 1: Puget Sound, Olympia, Washington. W 0 g J - d. I— _ Z � O ; Z I- LL! ELI 0 �. O — : '0 H W I I— U : 11 O Turning Basin #3 EA 40 eeil�a5c +�r't,Ws'QC a./ Z NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Appendix B. Detailed Description of the Green/Duwamish Basin Turning Basin #3 EA 2 Z • ; •< ru . • 2 : 00 .co cr. • U) W W I, LL: uj 0: • = • i— = Z F-, 1-0 . I—;- w. -2 a LP- 111 1 r-, I • LIJ :0 1- Green/Duwamish Basin r f a The lower ten -mile segment of the Green/Duwamish River (WRIA 09.0001) system from the City of Renton to Elliot Bay by Seattle is known as the Duwamish River. The rest of the river, upstream from the its confluence of the Black River, which is approximately the upper extent of tidal influence, is known as the Green River (Williams et. al 1975). Historically, the Duwamish /Green River drained a 1,642 square miles watershed (US Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] 1997). The three main sub - basins, the Black, Green, and White Rivers were separated for navigation and flood control in the early 20th century (Blomberg et al. 1988). The White River was diverted by a high water event in 1906 and retained in the new channel. The bulk of the Black River was drained permanently in 1916 with the construction of the Ballard Locks in Lake Washington and the lowering of Lake Washington, with flow now restricted to a small tributary, Springbrook Creek. Currently the Duwamish drains only the Green River basin of 483 square miles. As a result, the present watershed of the Duwamish /Green represents a 93% reduction from historical levels in accessible length for anadromous fish (Blomberg et al. 1988). Furthermore, the remnants of this system, the present Green /Duwamish basin have been greatly modified from its pre - development ability to create and maintain salmon habitat. The City of Tacoma built a water diversion darn at RM 61 in 1913. The US Army Corps of Engineers Howard Hanson Darn was constructed at RM 64.0 in 1961. Neither dam was built with fish passage facilities, eliminating access to an estimated 107 miles of historic anadromous fish habitat (Corps 1998) as well as dramatically altering the quantity and quality of downstream salmon habitat. The lower floodplain, below RM 37.3, historically consisted of rapidly shifting meanders, but now this area is almost completely contained within levees or revetments, resulting in the lack of riparian cover, large woody debris, off - channel rearing areas, and reduced channel storage capacity (Corps 1997; Fuerstenberg et al. 1996). Flood control operations at the HHD have encouraged further urban and commercial development in the floodplain (Corps 1997, 1998; Fuerstenberg et al. 1996), which have reduced the extent of the riparian corridor, filled side channels and degraded water quality and quantity. The lower 10 miles of the river, the reach in which the project is located has been almost completely altered from its pre - development condition (Blomberg et al. 1988). The Duwamish estuary once contained nearly 5,300 acres of intertidal mudflats, marshes and riparian habitats (Blomberg et al. 1988). Today, only 2% of these areas exist in the Duwamish River (Blomberg et al. 1988). Since settlement, there has been a 98% loss of shallows, intertidal mudflats and tidal marshes in Green/Duwamish estuary and a 100 percent loss of tidal swamps (Blomberg et al. 1988). As a result, Blomberg et al. (1988) estimated that there are only 45 acres of intertidal mudflat and tidal marsh left in the Duwamish Estuary. Of the 22.6 miles of total shoreline length between the mouth and River Mile 6.5, (an area 1.3 mile distance upstream from the project site), 44% is rip rapped, 34% covered by pier aprons and 7% covered by sheet piling, leaving approximately 15% in lessor forms of disturbance (derived from data in Tanner 1991). Furthermore, a considerable portion of the remaining intertidal and shallow subtidal portions of the Green/Duwamish estuary is covered by barges (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department [MITFD], unpub. data). Turning Basin #3 EA 3 kl',"Y_'`.t .'.�Dv F? 'C•'= Fi�:y!?»Fi�?'* �f�CNd. Ys.' r' s.,. J?!"Y1 }k{`. f,^r�nt: The result of these alterations is that 1) both the extent and quality of habitat has declined greatly and 2) the natural processes that contribute to the formation and maintenance of salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish River severely diminished. The diminishment of these natural processes have significantly reduced the to form salmon habitat in both the freshwater and estuarine reaches of the river (Corps 1997). Given the dramatic reduction in sediment inputs and channel confinement (Corps 1997), it is unlikely that natural processes will create additional habitat in the Duwamish estuary. Turning Basin #3 EA 4 .z I- Z .C4 D J UO CO W; W =; H. ( i ) W: W LL Q ` d W •Z H .1-O Z 2 ..0 �. 0 H W W: �U u- O .Z. W = , •z NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. SEATTLE CITY LIGHT tr F 9 PROJECT LOCATION PROPERTY LINE N. sA PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATION MAP SUBJECT PROPERTY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT -OF -WAY TO SEATTLE LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE. ACCORDING TO SURVEY OF TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST W.M.. IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. ON FILE WITH THE US DEPT. OF INTERIOR GENERAL LAND OFFICE. SPOKANE. WASHINGTON. APPROVED MARCH 31. 1863. WHERE SAID POINT IS INTERSECTED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT 55. MOORE'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS. PAGE 28. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. AS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE SO EXTENDED TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING, CY CAUSE NO. 469557. RECORDS OF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. FOR KING COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT 55 TO THE SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED FRAEGER ROAD ADJOINING WHICH. UPON VACATION. ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW; TOGETHER WITH ALL LAND LYING TO THE EASTERLY OF SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM MEANDER LINE BETWEEN AN EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID TRACT 55 AND BETWEEN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM. AND THE HIGH WATER LINE OF THE WESTERLY BANK OF THE DUWAMISH RIVER. EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 547035 FOR STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1. SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF KING. STATE OF WASHINGTON. FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP z = ~ W o 6 JU 0 ND OD UU J = I LL W UL OD _ = a w . z = I- 0 zF- w w U� 0D- C) 1- w _ 0 u. 0 ..z U = 0~ z STEEL BLOCK WALL CATCH BASIN RIM 17.58 IE 15.61 6" PVC OIL /WATER SEP UILDINC 2450 50 FT OLD BARGE HIGHEST POI EL. 7.32 o-- CATCH BASIN RIM 17.93 IE 15.89 6" P OIL /WATER SEP CATCH BASIN I RIM 18.40 IE 16.44 6" P1/C OIL /WATER SEP( o- Ifl BLOCK WALL OLD B HIGHEST EL. 5.19 BRIDGE CATCH BASIN RIM 22.87 IE 18.85 8" PLASTIC SE \ IE 18.80 8" PLASTIC NW IE 18.09 18" CONC. SW. NE \ SITE BENCHMARK: �\ CHISLED X TOP SW BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT ELEV 26.55 ILLW Fl* PRO I t 5' SCALE IN FEET 3 1 31 PROPERTY BOUNDARY CATCH BASIN RIM 23.29 IE 19.35 8 "PLASTIC NW. SE IE 18.26 18" CONC SW. NE �., 9yr� • \ 4. BRIS PIER r WATER ELEV. —1.70 G 10:50 AM 8/7/98 DOLPI I) OLD BARGE HIGHEST POINT EL. 4.98 FIGURE 2. EXISTING PLAN DOLPHIN \ 5' _ ± 1." I�' isP4143i .;J.�?,.'.wk5'L'•h.,'='i`�a t ' .;k n .IK . �iq ,'�.`�.',;`,�`•, ;SnL'I'2^- �gmt++zer.�en,.,... EXISTING BANDOt�� \ � TRANSM 15510N TOW \R CONCRETE FO OT ING � • �•� •., ` �.___....__..__ �`.\.�� ` j OLD BARGE SCALE IN rtt 0 20' 40' 60' 80' FIS►I-PRO TRANSITION AREA +6 TO +q.5 1546 50 FT EBRIS LONER BENCH A ELEVATION +2 TO +6'\ 2q00 50 FT ■ } ■ \ OLD BARGE EMERGENT ZO =ENCH AT ELEVATION +q.5 T I 4000 50 FT SOFTEN EXISTING SLOPE PROTECTION GROUND COVER Aj■D SHRUB ZONE BENCft AT ELEVATION +II TO +14 1485 50 FT RIPARIAN ZONE\AT ELEVATION +14 TQ +21 g564 50 FT i FIGURE 4. ALTERNATIVE 2 - SOFTEN EXISTING SLOPE PROTECTION EMERGENT ZONE BENCH AT ELEVATION +9.5 TO +1I 4550 50 FT \ TRANSITION AREA +II TO +l8 6260 50 FT \. RIPARIAN ZON AT ELEVATION +18 TO +21 2200 50 FT 1 Z • W 6 fY� J U U O O . W I J 1- W O . g Q = d W Z 1- O Z 1- W U • c O D- o ff W H - I O Z W U= O ~ Z o (V)O� o c�� 0 0 0 o , � ` OcOc. cxy 0 SCALE IN FEET 0 20' 40' 60' 60' F7SFPRO PROPERTY BOUNDARY 4 EBRIS r'? rv�+ �trx : ;r�x*x�vc:�a�t�sxrsaw:v�z",T:: im s.�!-i:Mws�u..a OLD \ BARGE TRANSITION A +6 TO +q.5 213O SC? F' WER BENCH AT ATION +2 TO +6 FT EMERGENT ZO BENCH AT ELEVATION +q. TO +11 6500 SQ FT TRANSITION AREA, +11 TO +IB N 4g5O SO FT RIPARIAN ZONE AT ELEVATION +15 TO +21 2220 5Q FT FIGURE 6. ALTERNATIVE 4 Z W CC JU 0O CO w co WO 2 �Q U � I I— W Z = I— O Z I— W U • � co 0— O F— WW I - U u'O .. Z w • = 0 Z PROPERTY BOUNDARY • •, L.; • ' ".• OLD BARGE . - -.... • , 6(... 000c. CP' ) 6 6' 0 l N_ e SCALE IN FEET RSHVO 0 20' .40' 60' 80' ROOTWADS, ANCHORED SIMILAR TO LOG E3UNDI,ES. ----TYPICAL\WHERE SHOWN. FIGURE 8. NOMINAL 40' LONG LOG BUNDLES, TYPICAL EBR1S LOWER BEk6.1-kAT ELEVATION +2 +q.5 (SAND AND GRAVE L) 500 SO FT \ ROOT BARGE EMERGENT ZO ENCH AT ELEVATION + T' I 6050 SO TRANSITION AREA +11 TO +14 Ic167 SO FT GROUND COVER A SHRUB ZONE BENG AT ELEVATION +14 TO +17 1850 SO FT RIPARIAN ZONE AT ELEVATION +17 TO +21 asa7 50 FT \ PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE SET 3 4 REBAR Mt< C REMOVE BAR AT END F CONSTRUCNON. \ 6' -0' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE TO ELEVATION 14.0' 12' -0" WIDE GATE SCALE IN FEET 30' REPAIR /REPLACE EXISTING RETAINING WALL AS NECESSARY DURING EXCAVATION AND GRADE OF SITE I„ ,r a% C` y9 y L ROPERTY BOUNDARY. SEE LUND AND ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS MUCKLESHOOT " FOR SHEET 1 OF 1. JOB # 7897. DATED 11/29/97. I CONSTRUCTION BASELINE ROOTWADS. ANCHORED SIMILAR TO LO BUNDLES. --TYPICAL WHERE SHOWN. \ NOMIMAL 40' LONG LOG BUNDLES. TYPICAL SEE DETAIL 1. SHEET X SET 3 /' REBAR w/ CAP. REMOVE BARS AT END F CONSTRUCTION. TIDAL DATUMS AT SEATTLE. PUGET SOUND ELEVATIONS OF TIDAL DATUMS REFERRED TO MEAN LOWER LOW WATER (MLLW) ARE AS FOLLOWS: HIGHEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL (01/27/1983) MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (MHHW) MEAN HIGH WATER (WW1 MEAN TIDE LEVEL (MTL) MEAN SEA LEVEL (MISL ) MEAN LOW WATER (MLW) A R1LOW WATERCIILLW�UM -1988 (NVAD)* LOWEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL (06/20/1951) 14.65 FEET 11.35 FEET 10.49 FEET 6.66 FEET 6.63 FEET 2.83 FEET 2.51 FEET 0.00 FEET - 4.87 FEET • NAVD IS BASED ON ELEVATIONS PUBLISHED IN 1995. AND NOS LEVELING OF 1994. 0 0 \ AREA = .57 ACRES LOWER BENCH AT ELEVATION +2 TO 46 (SAND AND GRAVEL) 00 SO FT EMERGENT ELEVATION 6050 SOFT MHHW 1 35' GROUND COVER AND SHRUB ZONE BENCH AT ELEVATION +14 1850 SO FT \ \ n \ Q G4- y ESTABLISH CONST BASELI NE PARALL ARALL THIS BOUNDRY LI I. ...>,F CT FIGURE 9. RESTORATION PLAN {I z z 00 09 LIU W N LL, W O = r 00 d W Z Z Z O W uj p U 0 I- W W I- LL Z LIU U S F- _ 0 z 2' LAYER OF MASHED COARSE SAND MIN 1S MASHED CRUSHED ROCK GRADE , e GRADE AND DIA ARTMANCHOR (3) R.I� CHAIN ROOT WAD (TYPICAL) 143 ITEM AREA ABOVE MHHW AREA BELOW MHHW CU YD ABOVE MHHW CU YD BELOW MHHW STATION 0+03 EXCAVATION TOPSOIL MIX 45.1 28.2 1793.80 587.24 CY TOPSOIL MIX -CY STATION 0 +41 256.29 58.27 CY GRAVEL -CY EXCAVATION 336.9 85.9 268.81 38.84 TOPSOIL MIX 34.8 45.7 44.33 STATION 0 +79 EXCAVATION 577.9 233.6 643.75 224.83 TOPSOIL MIX 37.1 40.1 50.60 60.38 GRAVEL 14.46 SAND 9.64 STATION 1+17 EXCAVATION 769.7 404.1 948.31 448.75 TOPSOIL MIX 40.1 42.9 54.33 58.41 GRAVEL 18.96 SAND 12.64 STATION 1 +55 EXCAVATION 704.4 430.8 1037.33 587.52 TOPSOIL MIX 44.0 48.6 59.18 64.39 GRAVEL 13.98 SAND 9.32 STATION 1 +93 EXCAVATION 584.4 157.8 906.93 414.20 TOPSOIL MIX 47.1 55.3 64.11 73.11 GRAVEL 2.46 SAND 1.64 STATION 2 +31 EXCAVATION 108.39 10.6 487.52 118.50 TOPSOIL MIX 35.9 9.3 58.41 45.46 PROJECT TOTAL ITEM -UNIT TOTALS ABOVE MHHW TOTALS BELOW MHHW 6086.45 CY EXCAVATION -CY 4292.65 1793.80 587.24 CY TOPSOIL MIX -CY 330.95 256.29 58.27 CY GRAVEL -CY 58.27 38.84 CY SAND -CY 38.84 Ne Fl* PRO TURNING BASIN #3 MATERIAL QUANTITIES (AVG END METHOD) FIGURE 11. MATERIAL QUANTITIES FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL PI CONTINUOUS ROLLS; USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE TO N RSHDRO CONSTRUCTION BASELINE T PLAN SCALE IN FEET 3CA 1°' NO SCALE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE FOR SUT FILM FABRICS-.. r 41 fU ROPERTY BOUNDARY. SEE ND AND ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS DRAWING "A.L.T.A. SURVEY FOR MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE' SHEET 1 OF 1. JOB # 7897. \ DATED 11/29/97. WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE FOR SLIT FILM FABRICS FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL PROVIDE WASHED GRAVEL BACKFLL OR COMPACTED •:.■,'" NATIVE SOIL AS DIRECTED BY KCPWD '0 BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER I I MATERIAL IN 8' BY 12' TRENCH--.., -/r H H 61-0.1AAX II LI 2'x2' WOOD POSTS. STANDARD LI OR BETTER OR EOUIVALENT ELEVATION FILTER FABRIC FENCE BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL IN 8' BY 2' TRENCH MIN 2'x2 'WOOD POSTS. STANDARD OR BETTER OR EQUIVALENT SECTION \ \ \ \ \ \ .\ PHASE 1 SILT FENCE PHASE 2 SILT FENCE PHASE 3 SILT FENCE , FIGURE 12. EROSION CONTROL i.. T \ SCALE IN FEET j ? IS' \ FM-PRO j LYNGDY'S SEDGE HARDSTEH BULRUSH THREE- SOUARE BULRUSH SEASIDE ARROWGRASS TRANSITIONAL GROINIDCOVER 0 RED OSIER DOGWOI O SWEET CALE PACIFIC NINEBARR HOOKERS WILLOW O INDIAN PLIAI SNOfDERRT O RED ALDER 0 BLACK COTTONWOCO 0 SITKA SPRUCE 0 SHORE PINE \ \ FIGURE 13. PLANTING PLAN z W J U U O U CO W W H • u W O g ▪ O W Z = F- 1- O Z I- W • W U0 U OH W I- r- O W z 0 • = O ~ z Came( Nan Sc /rM /f /o Nor % by Weight Yin % Pure Seed Min % Germination Slender wheatcra.. AArgo)cn tructnnultor 30 28 95 Meadow /oxtail A /ac( as9e protons/. 20 16 60 Native red Demo. rvatuco rub,/ 10 9 90 Meador barley At G'nntraaAtwur 10 9 94 R.Or..n..trl I. ✓+.abhors x newt 30 29 15 Wood seed SJm.Mr /co p e o /Ae 24' 1 met 95 • Inert and other coo T wax TOTAL 100 Cannon Nam■ Sc/ont/f /c Mar Min Size Soaping Quantity Red alder A/rme /TL.'o 36' 12' DC T Bladt oaf t("mood RHou /or bo /sow /fora 36' 12' OC S Sitka .pruo. Pima st /dire /I 36' 16' OC 4 Shore pin. P /nca ar/hrfo cmta- o 36' 16' OC 6 Indian plum O../r /o o rnr /fa -m /. 24' 6' DC 15 Snonb.rry SJm.Mr /co p e o /Ae 24' 3' DC 95 • Carom Na,. Sc /mat /f /c Mar Min Si!. Spacing Quantity Douglas Oster A.R.- txtlgo /tu 4' pot 2' DC 125 • Tufted hairgra.. Owxcanrps /o coomo /t0PO plugs 2' DC 125 • Saltonoa O/st /o //s :W /cob pltg. 2' DC 125 • M.odor barley No -cbrw troolo nrr.w plugs 2' DC 125 • Poo lf to sl Iv ern .d Potent / //o Orr /no 4' pot 2' DC 125 • Comm( Na,. So /trrt /f /o Mar Mtn. Sic. Spacing Ouanflty Lyngby's ..dg. Co-., /.n,iy,' plug. (3 stem min) 2' OC 565 • Hordstem bulrush Sc/rpe avtte plug. 11 gal pot) 2' OC 569• Tine -.Wars bulrush Sc /axe ar - /cvw OUR* 2' OC 565 Seas de arrahgrues ?/O /oat /n s.r/t /He plugs 14' pot) 3' OC 166 Comm( Nan Sc /Ant /f /c Mar Min Six. Spacing Quantify 9.4-osier dogwood Carr./ sr /too 24' 6' OC 32 Sheet pole A0r/ca go /. 24' 6' OC 36 Pacific( ninebark Htrecoesyta ap /toter 24' 6' OC 46 Hooker's 'Allow So //x Aanfr /ano 24' 6' OC 31 GENERAL PLANTING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY 01 SCREPANCI ES BETWEEN ACTUAL SITE COAL TIERS AND DRAWINGS AtC SPECIFICATIONS. 2. PLAITING SHALL TAKE PLACE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE DURI HC THE GROWING SEASON IN ORDER TO ENSURE GOOD ROOT DEVELOPPENT PRIOR TO DO 4ANCY AND SHALL NOT OCC1H AFTER JULY 16TH. 3. SBGRACE SHALL BE ROTOTI LLED TO A DEPTH CF 6 INCHES PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF SPECIFIED TOPSOIL TOPSOIL SHALL THEN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE UPPER PART OF THE SUBGRAOE. 4. ALL PLANTS STALL SE HEALTHY ANC FREE FROM A014011M4l. DISEASE, DEFECTS AND INFESTATION ANC SHALL HAVE 6000 ROOT OEVELOPIENT WITHOUT BEING EXCESSIVELY RO07BOAMQ 5. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE GOWN IN WASHINGTON FROM PUGET 50UC LOILAA NATIVE PLANT STOCK ANC BALL BE TYPICAL OF THEIR SPECIES. 6. OCT NATIVE SPECIES INDIGENOUS 70 THE PROJECT AREA MAY BE INSTALLED IN RESTORATION AREA. PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS AND ANY MAJOR CHANGE TO TIE RESTORATION PLAN MUST DE PIE-APPROVED. 7. TREES SHALL BE A MHIMM 36- INCHES TALL( SHRUBS SHALL BE A MNIIUM 24-INCHES TALL. HERBACEOUS PLANTS SHALL HAVE A HEIGHT PROPORTIONAL TO CONTAINER CR ROOTSTOCK SIZE. 5. PLANT MATERIAL LAYOUT SHAL1. BE COPLETED BY TIE CONTRACTOR ANO APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANTS. PLANT MATERIAL MAT NOT BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO VERIFICATION ANC APPROVAL OF PLANT COAT TION BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. THE PROJECT ENGINEER RESERVES RIGHT TO REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF PLANTS THAT ARE DEQED UNSUITABLE BASED ON THE PLANT SCHEDULE OR PLANT CHARACTERISTICS. ANY PLANT ARTERIAL WITH INVASIVE PLANTS ATTACHED SHALL BE REJECTED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DIG. PACK, TRANSPORT NG HANDLE PLANTS WITH CARE TO ENSURE PROTECTION FROM DAMAGE. ALL PLANTS SWILL BE STORED IN A MANNER NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR HORTICULTURAL REQUIREMENTS. PLANTS SHALL BE KEPT SATURATED. SHALOM MO PROTECTED FROM WINDBURN UNTIL THE ACTUAL TI iE OF I NSTALLATI OL IS. ALL PLANTING WITHIN THE RESTOATI ON AREAS SHALL BE DOE BY HAND WITH AS LITTLE O STIMBANCE AS POSSIBLE. NA MECHANICAL EOUIP1ENT SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE RESTORATION AREA INCORPORATION CF TWSOIL 11. PLANTS SHALL BE PLANTED WITH THE CROWN AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE GRADE LEVEL AT (MICH THEY HERE GROWL PLUGS SHALL HAVE 1(105414 OF 3 TO 6 CGU45 OR SPRIGS PER HOLE. ANO SHALL BE PLANTED NO MORE THAT 3 INCHES DEEP. 12. PLANTING HOLE SHALL BE DUO OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ACCOFCOATE FULL ROOT SPREAD. PLANTING STOCK I S TO BE PLACED INTO THIS OPENING TAKING CARE TO AVOID FO*M NG A CURVE 1011 J) I N THE ROOT SYSTEM 13. AGRIFO94 OSCCOTE OR EQUIVALENT SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER N.Y BE MOO TO PLANTING HOLES AT THE RATE OF LS DUNCES 11501 PER PLANT OR ACCORDING TO M4MFA:IUER'S INSTRUC- TION. CARE BALL SE TAKEN TO ENSURE FERTILIZER DOES NOT TOUCH THE ROOTS 14. ALL PLANTS SHOO BE THOROUGHLY WATERED WITHIN 4 HORS OF PLANTINR BRAE -ROOT MATERIAL SHALL BE WATERED IMFDI ATELY AFTER PLANTING TO AVOID CAPILLARY STRESS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING NEWLY INSTALLED PLANT MATERIALS TO ENSUE SURVIVABILITY. 15. ANY TREES MACH ARE STAKED SMALL BE STS.® AT THE LOEST HEIGHT THAT WILL KEEP THEN UPRIGHT. ALL STAKES ANC TIES SHALL BE BIOOEGNAGABLE, ANO BALL BE REMOVED BY THE END CF THE SECOND GROWING SEASON. 16. ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SHRUB ANO RIPARIAN PLANTING ZONES LEFT BARE AFTER PLANT INSTALLATION SWILL BE SEEDED WITH SEED OF THE CW0SITI11. PROPORTION AHD. DUALITY NOTED IN THE PLANT SCHEDULE AT THE RATE OF 2S PUNTS PER ROE. 17. PERIIETER. WATERFOWL EXCLUSION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SPECIFIED OR THE PLAN. DETAILS NC NOTES. FENCING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED USING S MESH (MAX.) ANO SHALL BE A 1(101414 3-FEET HIGH. POLYPROPYLENE LINE CR !MAR TAPE SHALL BE USED TO CREATE A HILLY VISIBLE AERIAL GRID WITH 3-FEET SPACING OMNX.1 BETWEEN CROSS TIES. IS. ALL PLANTS SIAM.!. BE WATERED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NEEDED TO KEEP TIER HEALTHY ANA GROWING THM(QuG10UT THE FIRST GROWING SEASON. 19. CONTRACTOR SWILL WARRANT ALL PLANTED MATERIAL TO REIGN ALIVE ANO HEALTHY FOR A PERI00 OF ONE YEAR AFTER COkPLETION AC FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PLANTING. THE CONTRACTOR SWILL REPLACE DEAD OR UNHEALTHY PLANTS PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS DIRECTED BY THE PROJECT ENO NEER. 211. A WARRANTEE INSPECTION SHALL BE SCHEDULED ONE YEAR FROM ACCEPTANCE OF MITIGATION INSTALLATION. TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWER IN 1MRI TI NG TWO HULKS PRIOR TO THE ONE YEAR WARRANTY INSPECTION DATE. VEXAR PLASTIC 1ES14 (2' MESH). 3' -0' HIGH. TYPICAL WATERFOWL EXCLUSION FENCE NO SCALE RSiPRO MYLAR TAPE. ATTACH TO O'PISITE FENCE LINE. TYPICAL • 3'-0' OC MAX eee e• .. •44 . e 5!....... :.. :. : . . ❖. ❖.❖. ❖. �!. ❖. ❖. . '�. ❖. ❖.•i ❖i ❖••� ❖. ❖. •.i DEED l' T-POST. I' !.4...44444.'4...4' EMBED 1'-i'. TYPICAL •... ♦�. i4♦ i ❖� ❖i� ❖. e ��i 444.44444....44.44. • ❖. ❖. ❖. ❖. ❖.❖. ❖ ❖. • PLANT SCHEDULE - Emergent Zone Bench ( +9.5' to +11.0' Tidal Elevation) • Plant In monotypio Stands as epeolfl.d m p an e• Plant In grasps op S to 9 randomly distributed along outer perimeter of emergent bend( PLANT SCHEDULE - Transitional Groundcover Zone ( +110' to +13.8' Tidal Elevation) • Plant In approximately equal Timber.. randomly distributed In g of 5 or more PLANT SCHEDULE - Shrub Zone Bench ( +13.8' to +17.0' Tidal Elevation) PLANT SCHEDULE - Riparian Zone Bench ( +17.0' to +21.0' Tidal Elevation) • Plant 3' OC In hedge Tike stonde. as speolfied on plan PLANT SCHEDULE - Native Seed Mixture • Application 'Rhin Shrub and Rlpanlan Zone( a. .p.olfl.d In general planting not.. FIGURE 14. PLANTING SCHEDULE, NOTES AND DETAILS z ~ W C 00 W u_ W O 227 V/ ry F" _ Z C) Z I- W W U O- O F- LU W 7C 0 F O • Z W co O~ Z Proposed agency actions: For further information: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE TURNING BASIN #3 AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT Approval of a habitat restoration plan submitted by the Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program (EBDRP) in the Turning Basin #3 located at River Mile 5.2 on the Duwamish River, King County, Washington Township 23 Range 04E Section 4. Type of statement: Biological Assessment Lead agency: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department Cooperating agencies: Federal: Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration State of Washington: Department of Ecology Department of Fish and Wildlife; Department of Natural Resources; Tribal: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Suquamish Indian Tribe Local: City of Seattle; King County /Metro Roderick Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department 39015 172"`' Avenue Southeast Auburn, Washington 98093 Phone (253) 931 -0652 Facsimile (253) 931 -0752 Abstract: This Biological Assessment (BA) evaluates the impacts of the preferred restoration alternative to construct the Elliot Bay /Duwamish Restoration Panel (EB /DRP) Turning Basin Number 3 restoration project upon chinook salmon and coho salmon, bull trout, coastal cutthroat trout, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and Oregon spotted frog. The EB /DRP proposes restoring estuarine intertidal and riparian and terrestrial habitat to a portion of the Turning Basin #3 on the Duwamish River. The project, located in the Duwamish River at River Mile 5.2, involves removing existing upland and inwater structures, and excavating existing 1,794 yd of fill material to create three intertidal and supra -tidal habitat benches on a 0.82 acre site. Approximately 6,500 ft of salmon and trout habitat; 7,404 ft of bird and wildlife habitat and 6,060 ft of habitat used by salmon, trout, birds, and wildlife would be restored for a total of 19,954 ft of fish and wildlife habitat. Intertidal and riparian native vegetation would be planted to increase habitat and food for fish and wildlife. Project construction is considered to "may affect, likely to adverse affect" chinook and coho salmon and bull and coastal cutthroat trout. However, the project itself will have beneficial impacts upon chinook and coho salmon and bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout through improved long term water quality, increase riparian corridor, restored estuarine wetlands, and increased feeding sources and opportunities. Project construction and the project are considered to have "no effect" on Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and Oregon spotted frog. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment i BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR TURNING BASIN #3 AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Project Description 2 2.0 Project Area 4 2.1 Green/Duwamish Basin 4 2.2 Turning Basin Number 3 Project Area 6 2.2.1 General 6 2.3 Environmental Baseline 7 3.0 List of Threatened and Endangered Species 11 4.0 Description of the Species and Habitat 12 4.1 Fisheries Resources in the Basin 12 4.2 Chinook Salmon 14 4.2.1 General Habitat Requirements 14 4.2.2 Duwamish/Green Chinook 14 4.2.3 Critical Habitat/Essential Fish Habitat 16 4.4 Coho salmon 16 4.3 Bald eagle 17 4.4 Peregrine falcon 17 4.5 Bull trout 17 4.6 Coastal Cutthroat Trout 18 4.7 Oregon spotted frog 18 5.0 Inventory and Surveys 19 6.0 Analysis of Effects 19 6.1 Introduction 19 6.2 Effects on salmon and trout 19 6.3 Bald eagle 22 6.4 Peregrine falcon 23 Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment ii • Appendix A: Correspondence Appendix B: Figures Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Existing Plan Figure 3. Intentionally left blank. Figure 4. Intentionally left blank Figure S. Intentionally left blank Figure 6. Intentionally left blank Figure 7. Intentionally left blank Figure 8. Proposed Alternative Figure 9. Restoration plan Figure 10. Sitework details Figure 11. Material quantities Figure 12. Erosion control Figure 13. Planting plan Figure 14. Planting schedule, notes, details 6.5 Bull trout /coastal cutthroat 23 6.6 Oregon spotted frog 23 7.0 Management Actions Related to the Species 23 7.1 Chinook salmon 23 7.2 Coho salmon 24 7.3 Bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout 24 8.0 Conclusion 25 9.0 References 26 Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment iii Z 2; •00. fA 0. w i. • J i- Q u- w O: � co a _ �: 1- w. z z 1- 0. Z I, La 0 O 0 1--` w W. I - ui z: U N; O • z . BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR TURNING BASIN #3 AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Introduction This Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to determine the impacts of implementing the preferred Alternative for the Turning Basin #3 Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project in the Duwamish River, King County, Washington upon Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended and Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This BA covers species under the jurisdiction of either the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The project proposes to remove an existing commercial wharf, associated upland structures, excavate fill material, create three habitat benches, and plant native inter -tidal and riparian vegetation to restore fish and wildlife habitat at River Mile 5.2 of the Duwamish Estuary (Township 23 Range 04 East Section 4). This project is part of the implementation of a Consent Decree as detailed below. This restoration project is proposed under the Elliot Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program (EBDRP). The EBDRP is cooperative, inter - governmental program established under a Consent Decree entered on 23 December 1991. The Consent Decree settled a complaint filed on 19 March 1990 by the United States for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) acting of behalf of the public as a trustee for natural resources. The complaint was filed under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607 9 (a) to assess and recover damages for alleged injuries to United States' trust resources in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River. The other natural resources trustees parties to the consent decree were: The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Suquamish Indian Tribe and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The defendants named in the lawsuit were the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro') and the City of Seattle (City). The settlement, under the Consent Decree, stipulates that Metro and the City will provide a combination of cash payments, real estate, and in -kind services to be used to clean up contaminated sediments, make habitat improvements, and prevent recontamination of sediment remediation and habitat projects in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River. A Panel of Managers is implementing the Consent Decree. The Panel of Managers of the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program (EBDRP) include: U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service; Washington State Depainnent of Ecology, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Suquamish Indian On 1 January 1994, the Muncipality of Metropolitian Seattle became the King County Department of Metropolitian Services (Metro) Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 1 .f .,..'�M'� .�v�l.._ �" it' c. QP,' lr@ R'; R"'. �7' ��. tFa!•, vn! yFis�c?mc�; r-, �y�-, �,.�.rro >rz�hn;•z ^a;A.....y.;.,. Wvna.ro- �+.:....�.�.'n'"..7;a wa rrv'rsr._+�'�rrnw�.':u.,.ry.rw Tribe, City of Seattle; and King County. In 1992, the Panel established several Technical Working Groups, including the Habitat Development Technical Working Group (HDTWG) chaired by the USFWS. The Technical work groups consist of representatives from the entities comprising the Panel of Managers, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR); the US Army Corps of Engineer (COE), the Port of Seattle, and others. The Turning Basin #3 Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project will restore previously lost aquatic and riparian habitat and ecological functions to aid in recovery of fish and wildlife. This project will aid in providing connectivity among past, present and future projects along the Duwamish River. 1.2 Project Description The purpose of this project is to restore estuarine emergent marsh and riparian areas to benefit fish and wildlife resources in the Green/Duwamish River by removing fill material placed into the estuary, upland buildings, and a commercial wharf. The project is located at RM 5.2 of the Duwamish River (Fig. 1) on property owned by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Currently, the site is an abandoned, commercial marine operation (Figure 2) with upland buildings and a wharf. A detailed description of the site is found in Section 2.2.1. Project construction would start in May 2000 and end by 31 December 2000. The upland buildings, much of the wharf as possible without involving inwater work and much of the fill material would be removed to create intertidal benches and habitat zones (Fig. 8) prior to June 15. Between June 15 and 1 July, the existing wharf would be removed and the site exposed to the Duwamish River. Riparian and intertidal plantings would occur during appropriate tidal stage and time of the year. The following activities will occur at the site 1) removal of the pier by either by barge or upland equipment based on the wharf apron. The preferred method would be to remove the structure by basing the equipment on the wharf and working landward. The exact method will be determined by permit conditions and equipment availability. If a barge is to be used, the barge will only work at times of the day when it will not ground on the existing mudflat. The piles will either be pulled or cut off at the mudline. The exact method will be determined by the permit conditions, though the preference is to pull the entire pile. 2) removal of all non - native and all native, landscape vegetation. 3) removal of existing upland structures and features (e.g. buildings, concrete foundation, and wooden bridge). 4) One upland concrete pad, which is partially outside of the property boundary, will remain. excavation of the upland fill material to the desired grade. Proposed construction will involve excavating approximately 1,794 yd of material below the Mean Higher High Water 2 (MHHW) and depositing to an off -site location (Figure 11). This volume of 2 Mean Higher High Water is a tidal datum. It is defined as the average of the higher high water height of each tidal day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 2 material includes a material located within the upland site that is located below the plane of the OHWM if extended towards Marginal Place. Much of the work will be done in the dry though inwater work will be required. The exact sequence and timing of work will be determined by permit conditions. Erosion control measures will include use of silt fences, as applicable, and other standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). Erosion control measures will be taken during excavation by installing a silt fence at the construction area perimeter. As excavation progresses toward final finish grades, the silt fence will be repositioned to the next targeted excavation perimeter. 5) removal of existing utilities and storm drains; 6) removal of concrete rubble and riprap from the bank; 7) after the current slope is regraded into habitat benches (Figure 8) and slopes, the lower bench would be buttressed with large woody (Figure 9) and connected with galvanized chain to small earth anchors (Figure 10) to prevent bank sloughing during root development. After the intertidal vegetation is established, the wood would be left to decay naturally. The Elliott Bay /Duwamish Habitat Development Technical Work Group elected to use large wood rather than rip rap to maintain the slope during root development to minimize unnatural elements in the project and river and to mimic nearby areas in the River where sedge benches are stabilized by naturally occurring large wood. Some rootwads would be emplaced to roughen the edge of the woody debris to create eddies and reduce flow laminarization so as reduce erosion at and off the site. The large woody debris would be left to decay naturally as it is expected that the intertidal vegetation would have become established in the interim and the bank would be stable. As it is not the intent of the Technical Work Group to maintain bank, stabilizing features at the site over the long term, ecology blocks or other large weights will not be used. Loss of wood from the project will not be considered a failure unless the rate of loss is such that the growing root masses are unable to stabilize the bank. Root wads observed to interfere with the exercise of Treaty Fishing access, would be relocated or removed after consolation with the NMFS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service; 8) habitat benches and zones, and transition areas, would be planted (see following description)with native vegetation (Figure 13); 9) fences approximately 3 feet high and maximum two -inch mesh, would be erected for 3 to 4 years to protect growing plants from forging geese until intertidal vegetation becomes established (Caren Crandall, University of Washington, Center for Urban Horticulture, personal communication, dated 8- 14 -98). Facilities to exclude geese from vegetation plantings are becoming more common and designs are changing. Between the preparation of this document and permit issuance, other designs might be deemed to provide more benefit. Though, the exact design may differ, the potential footprint and impacts to natural resources would be equivalent or less. 10) the upland boundary of the site would be marked by a 6 -ft high chain link fence to protect the site and prevent dumping of refuse; Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 3 11) two pier pilings would be left, or replacement set in existing locations, for tribal fishermen to attach set nets during fishing season; 12) The hired contractor would be responsible for maintaining and replacing dead or dying vegetation until the entire site has been vegetated to the standards set by the EBDRP; 13) A stewardship plan to maintain the site; and 14) A monitoring plan being developed by the Elliott Bay /Duwamish Habitat Technical Development Work Group. The following specifies the proposed habitat bench and zone areas with elevation ranges (see also Figure 8): 1) lower bench (6,500 ft constructed from +2.0 to + 9.5 ft MLLW; 2) emergent bench (6,050 ft constructed from +9.5 to +11.0 ft MLLW; 3) transition area (1,967 ft from +11.0 to +14.0 MLLW; 4) groundcover zone (1,850 ft constructed from +14 to +17 ft MLLW; and 5) riparian zone (3,587 ft from +17 to +21 ft MLLW. z Z re 2 O 0 co o co Lir -I F- • w w 0 g -± z = i- 0 w ~ w Given these tidal elevations approximately 6,500 ft2 of salmon and trout habitat; 7,404 ft of bird o . and wildlife habitat and 6,060 ft of habitat used by salmon, trout, birds, and wildlife depending � N o!— upon tidal stage would be restored for a total of 19,954 ft2 of fish and wildlife habitat w w The emergent bench would be planted with Lyngby's sedge (Carex lyngbyei), hardstem bulrush u o ( Scirpus acutus), three square bulrush (Scirpus americanus), and seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin w z maritima). The area of transition between the emergent and shrub benches would be seeded with U Douglas aster (Aster subspicatus), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), saltgrass (Distichlis 0 spicata), meadow barley (Horde= brachyantherum) and Pacific silverweed (Potentilla z anserina). The groundcover or shrub bench would be planted with Red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), sweet gale (Myica gale), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) and Hooker's willow (Salix hookeriana). The riparian zone would be planted with red alder (Alnus rubra), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiform), black cottonwood (Populus balsa), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) shore pine (Pinus contorta contorta) and snowberry (Symphoricaipos albus). 2.0 Project Area 2.1 Green/Duwamish Basin The project site is located in Township 23 Range 04 East Section 4 along the Duwamish River (Fig 1). The Duwamish River is this location is also referred to as the Duwamish Estuary and the Duwamish Waterway. The lower ten -mile segment of the Green/Duwamish River (WRIA 09.0001) system from the City of Tukwila to Elliot Bay by Seattle is known as the Duwamish River. The rest of the river, upstream from the its confluence of the Black River, approximately the upper extent of tidal influence, is known as the Green River (Williams et. al 1975). Historically, the Duwamish/Green River drained a 1,642 square miles watershed (US Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] 1997). The three main sub - basins, the Black, Green, and White Rivers were separated for navigation and flood control in the early 20th century (Blomberg et al. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 4 F'Y- t y:seex pan + ?'7..xry;�,s,Mafe;Y; 1988). The White River was diverted by a high water event in 1906 and retained in the new channel. The bulk of the Black River was drained permanently in 1916 with the construction of the Ballard Locks in Lake Washington and the lowering of Lake Washington, with flow now restricted to a small tributary, Springbrook Creek. Currently the Duwamish drains only the Green River basin of 483 square miles. Furthermore, the remnants of this system, the present Green/Duwamish basin have been greatly modified from its pre - development ability to create and maintain salmon habitat. The City of Tacoma built a water diversion dam at RM 61 in 1913. The US Army Corps of Engineers Howard Hanson Dam was constructed at RM 64.0 in 1961. Neither dam was built with fish passage facilities, eliminating access to an estimated 107 miles of historic anadromous fish habitat (Corps 1998a) as well as dramatically altering the quantity and quality of downstream salmon habitat. The lower floodplain, below RM 37.3, historically consisted of rapidly shifting meanders, but now this area is almost completely contained within levees or revetments, resulting in the lack of riparian cover, large woody debris, off - channel rearing areas, and reduced channel storage capacity (Corps 1997; Fuerstenberg et al., 1996). Flood control operations at the HHD have encouraged further urban and commercial development in the floodplain (Corps, 1997, 1998a; Fuerstenberg et al., 1996), which have reduced the extent of the riparian corridor, filled side channels and degraded water quality and quantity. The lower 10 miles of the river, the reach in which the project is located has been almost completely altered from its pre - development condition (Blomberg et al. 1988). The Duwamish estuary once contained nearly 5,300 acres of intertidal mudflats, marshes and riparian habitats (Blomberg et al. 1988). Today, only 2% of these areas exist in the Duwamish River (Blomberg et al. 1988).. Since settlement, there has been a 98% loss of shallows, intertidal mudflats and tidal marshes in Green/Duwamish estuary and a 100 percent loss of tidal swamps (Blomberg et al. 1988). As a result, Blomberg et al. (1988) estimated that there are only 45 acres of intertidal mudflat and tidal marsh left in the Duwamish Estuary. Of the 22.6 miles of total shoreline length between the mouth and River Mile 6.5, (an area 1.3 mile distance upstream from the project site), 44% is riprapped, 34% covered by pier aprons and 7% covered by sheet piling, leaving approximately 15% in lessor forms of disturbance (derived from data in Tanner 1991). Furthermore, a considerable portion of the remaining intertidal and shallow subtidal portions of the Green/Duwamish estuary is covered by barges (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department [MITFD], unpub data). The result of these alterations is that 1) both the extent and quality of habitat has declined greatly and 2) the natural processes that contribute to the formation and maintenance of salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish River severely diminished. The diminishment of these natural processes have significantly reduced the ability for the river and estuary processes to form salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish in both the freshwater and estuarine reaches of the river (Corps 1997). Given the dramatic reduction in sediment inputs and channel confinement (Corps 1997), it is unlikely that natural processes will create additional habitat in the Duwamish estuary. 3 Riparian is the area of transition between the terrestrial and aquatic communities. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 5 47, Mid; z�., mz� .:3- , .rl'L''n >.;2::hr;;r7•w,*i : =i'z' :'t"k= *'nlnrw, 2.2 Turning Basin Number 3 Project Area. 2.2.1 General Past dredging and filling within the lower ten miles of Duwamish River created a constructed waterway four and a half miles long with three "turning basins" (Sato, 1997). The project site is located on the left bank (looking downstream) within the last upstream vessel turning basin or Turning Basin #3 at River Mile 5.2 of the Duwamish River. Prior to modern development, Turning Basin #3 was a tidal swamp and river channel (Blomberg et al. 1988; Tanner, 1991). The project site is located at 10054 West Marginal Place South, , Seattle, Washington and is adjacent to the Duwamish River (Figure 1). The 0.82 -acre property (32,000 ft of upland and 4,100 ft of intertidal mudflat) was purchased by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in 1997 for the purpose of restoring fish and wildlife habitat as part of the EBDRP. There is an office /warehouse structure, small storage sheds, and asphalt and concrete pads located on the site (Figure 2). A T- shaped, commercial pier made of creosote treated wood extends approximately 125 feet into Turning Basin #3. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (1990) does not indicate the presence of wetlands at the project site. The entirety of the upland site is fill material of various depths. There is a small wetland fringe (approximately 50 ft along the south property boundary that extends onto the adjacent property. The steep slope in this location confines the wetland plants to a narrow band in the intertidal zone. The emergent area includes native vegetation. The upland area at this site contains non - native vegetation (Deodar cedar, mountain ash, himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, common tansy, and grasses) and landscaped native vegetation (shore pine). The largest of the four existing conifers trees is approximately four inches dbh and 25 feet high. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resource Conservation Service (1952) classifies land in this area as urban. Urban land is defined as land that has been modified by disturbance. The natural soil layer has additions of fill material several feet thick in order to accommodate large industrial and housing developments. In the Green River valley of which the Duwamish River is part, the fill ranges from 3 ft to 12+ ft thick and has a texture from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam. A Phase II Site Assessment, conducted by the US Corps of Engineers in 1997, determined that a release of diesel and heavy oil had occurred at two small locations on the upland portion of the site (Corps, 1997a). These areas on the upland portion of the site were fully remediated by the previous property own as a condition of sale to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. This upland soil was removed and subsequent testing indicated that the remaining soils in the two, remediation areas are below acceptable concentrations as listed in the MTCA (Radix Ortega Group, 1998). However, despite removal of soils from the two spill areas, soils from the site contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAH) slightly above the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B cleanup levels (Corps 1997a). Kenco Marine Services formerly owned this site, and used it as a commercial marine operation, including moorage and vessel repair. Under the previous ownership of Kenco Marine, the site was used primarily as a staging and support area for one boat in the northern fishing fleet and moorage for barges and tug boats (Corps, 1994). Minor repair work, such as battery replacement, oil lubrication, and minor painting of tugs and barges also occurred at the site (Corps, 1994). The barges and ships previously moored at the site were moved to other locations Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 6 by September 1998. As a result, all tug and barge staging, support and maintenance operations that previously occurred at the site have ceased. Owners (Figure 1) of property adjacent to the site include: Seattle City Light to the North at 9600 West Marginal Way South and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to the South . The Port of Seattle and the Washington Department of Natural Resources own various portions of the bed of the river. To the south and east the site is bounded by the Duwamish River. At low tides, extensive mudflats are present. Two barge hulks are located approximately 25 feet beyond the property boundary of the site. Across the Duwamish River are commercial buildings associated with the Boeing Corporation. To the north is power station operated by Seattle City Light. Towers are present at this site, one within 100 feet of the northern boundary of the restoration site. Powerlines pass over the site the northwest part of the site. To the west is West Marginal Was, then State Route 99. Just beyond SR -99 is a low, vegetated bluff above which residential development occurs. King County Parks has an easement for a bike and pedestrian trail through adjacent properties along Marginal Place to the north and the south of the project site. King County does not have an easement through the project site. King County will construct the bike trail within the existing road right -of -way between the project site and Marginal Place (pers. comm. between Roderick Malcom, Muckleshoot Tribe and Mile Lozano King County Parks). 2.3 Environmental Baseline The Environmental Baseline at and influencing the site as well as species use at the site was evaluated against the NMFS Matrixes of Pathways and Indicators (Table 2a) contained in "A Guide to Biological Assessments" (NMFS 1999) and contained (Table 2b) in `Essential Fish Habitat" for Pacific Salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999; NMFS 1998a) and "Essential Fish Habitat for Ground Fish (NMFS 1998b). This discussion 1) elaborates, if required, upon the habitat information presented above; 2) explains, if necessary, the reasons for the various rankings; and 3) explains why specific indicators are not relevant to the project site. Though the Duwamish Waterway and River meets State water quality parameters for temperature. However, temperatures are a problem. Surface water temperature in the Duwamish River are dependent upon the temperature in the Green River system. Surface flow temperatures ranged from 7.58 ° C in late March to 19.5 ° C in early August at nine sampling sites located from Duwamish River mile 1.6 to 10.4(Warner and Fritz, 1995). In the Turning Basin, approximately 200 feet from the proposed restoration site, waster temperatures have varied from 2.5 to 17.8 ° C (MITFD, unpub data). At the project site, water temperature is primary influenced by the relative temperatures of the freshwater inflow and the salt water intruded from Elliott Bay (Warner and Fritz 1995). This salt water intrusion profoundly influences water temperature at various depths in the Turning Basin (MITFD, unpub data). In January. water temperatures measured at 1 m depths can increase from 2.5 °C to 8.2 °C over a depth of 8 m. In May, temperature measured at 1 m depths can decrease from 17.7 to 11.6 °C measured over a total depth of 4 m. In September, temperatures are more uniform decreasing from 16.6 to 13.8 ° C. The range of temperatures over depth is also influenced by the tidal stage. The variation in water temperature with depth provides adult and juvenile salmonids some refuge from the higher Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 7 tom K?+Y e fen ...r, , .. k . , , ,A...v>s:;.Tt.`IITtl 01• :;y; "'.rns'-r4.4 -. .,•� . •nT • ! 4,n - sd.. "� ;...,... .....'n +.; temperatures. However, in the late summer and early fall, the general range of temperatures offers no refuge from temperatures considered outside the preferred range. The River meets Ecology water quality standards for turbidity according to the 1996 Section 303(d) list. Turbidity is mainly a function of river flow. Warner and Fritz (1995) found the highest turbidity levels were recorded at low tide. Turbidity levels at 3.25 feet below the surface of the water averaged 18.8 NTU in the estuary as a whole (Warner and Fritz, 1995). Turbidity as measured in the Turning Basin over a period of several months can range from 2.0 tO 122 NTUs (mean of 29 with a standard deviation of 23.8) and varies with depth and tidal stage (MITFD, unpub data). The exposed gravel parking is a source of fine sediment and hence turbidity to the Duwamish River. The sediment indicator is not relevant to this site. The site is located in an estuary and salmon spawning does not and will not occur at the project site. The 1996 Section 303(d) List for the State of Washington lists the Duwamish Waterway and River has exceeding numerous State water quality parameters. The River has high levels of contamination from industrial and other sources and is listed on the 303(d) list for a variety of pollutants, dissolved oxygen and pH. Water quality in the Duwamish River has been severely degraded by years of industrial discharge, municipal sewage, stormwater runoff and nonpoint source agricultural waste. Metals that have been documented in the Duwamish River estuary include: arsenic; cadmium; chromium; copper; iron; mercury; nickel; lead and zinc (NOAA Restoration Center, 1998). The Duwamish Waterway and River exceeds State water quality parameters for bioassay, numerous metals and organics. The US Army Corps of Engineers (1994) analyzed sediment samples from the Kenco Marine site for a Phase I Assessment. Samples exceeded the state Department of Ecology's (DOE) Sediment Management Standards (SMS) for arsenic and acenaphthylene. None of the samples exceeded DOE Minimum Cleanup Levels (Corps 1997a). Maintenance dredging of the Duwamish Waterway occurs approximately every other year. The portion of the Duwamish Waterway adjacent to the project site, but outside the work boundaries of the proposed project, is ranked "low- moderate" for sediment contaminant levels (Corps 1997a). A Phase II Site Assessment was conducted in 1997 to address concerns arising from the Phase I Analysis conducted in 1994. The 1997 assessment concluded that sediments adjacent to the property, and the pier, did not contain contaminants above Washington State Sediment Management Standards Minimum Cleanup Levels, though two samples exceeded Sediment Quality Standard (Corps 1997a). During sediment sampling, hydrocarbon sheens were visible in some samples, however, in each case, the sheen was not on the surface of the sample, but at a depth of about 5 cm, reflecting the historical nature of the contamination (Corps 1997a). The Duwamish Waterway and River fails to meet State water quality parameters for dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen levels were normally above 7 ppm at nine sampling sites located from Duwamish River mile 1.6 to 10.4 with dissolved oxygen levels near saturation in the spring and lower in the late summer (Warner and Fritz, 1995). However, dissolved oxygen levels decreased with increased water depth (Warner and Fritz, 1995), with decreasing freshwater inflow and Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 8 z =z w -J C.) 00 C o J CO LL w co LLa _ w Z = 1- 1- 0 Z ~ 0 �_ 0 I- wW I 0 r- Li. z . w O ~ z itteM i .e Mrtor; Q. kutw .m, . 3Mt?SLFWr WIt r7t ` ::.... 1", Pm. s increasing water temperature. In the Turning Basin, dissolved oxygen decreased with increasing depth from 11.1 to 7.1, while in September, DO decreased from 6.3 to 5.3 as depth increased. Late summer and early fall dissolved oxygen concentrations are likely to impair chinook holding, migration and rearing. The 1996 Section 303(d) List for the State of Washington lists the Duwamish Waterway and River has failing to State water quality parameters for pH. Duwamish River pH values are subject to change following changes in salinity. The pH levels at nine sampling sites along the Duwamish River ranged from 6.9 and 8.9 (Warner and Fritz, 1995). However, in the Turning Basin, pH ranged from 7.1 to 8.9 as a function of depth, tidal stage and date. Though passage barriers exist on numerous tributary streams and on the mainstem Green River at RM 61, no mainstem passage barriers exist downstream of the site or on the site. The intertidal and subtidal portions of Turning Basin No. 3 consists of mudflat. This is a natural condition for the site (Blomberg et al. 1988). As mudflat is the natural condition of the project vicinity the substrate indicator does not apply. F W Z No large woody debris is found at the site. The site is located at the current head of navigation and is dredged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, whom use the area as a sediment trap. This z O dredging operation also removes wood that poses a threat to navigation. Though, the NMFS has ? o not set standards for the volume or quantity of large woody debris in estuaries, estuaries are c� naturally expected to have large quantities of wood. Due to the lack of naturally occurring wood o 1-- at the site and the lack of a riparian corridor to contribute wood to the river, the site was ranked = - v as "Not Properly Functioning ". z Pool frequency was considered not applicable at this site. The project area is in a tidally, ui U) influenced, low energy environment with considerable deposition. Pools are not expected to o occur frequently in this environment. However, the dredging operations of the Corps can create a z large, deep pool. Additionally, the rise and fall of the tides plus the high turbidity at the site provide a very, large concealed area for adult salmon to hold in. For this reason, pool quality is considered to be "Properly Functioning ". The southwestern part of the Turning Basin functions as a backwater. However, past land use practices, river channelization and construction of levees and revetments have eliminated off channel habitats, the majority of other estuarine backwater areas, habitat refugia, and floodplain connectivity. The width to depth ratio is considered none applicable to this site. The ratio was developed in response to observed changes in freshwater streams due to alterations in flow, bank vegetation, in- channel complexity, etc. Depth is not constant at the project site is it is tidally influenced. Most of the stream bank in the Duwamish River is stable. However, this stability is achieved by the presence of levees and bulkheads. Due to the pervasive extent of this bank hardening, a "Not Properly Functioning" rating was used. The River at the project location has experienced pronounced change in peak flow and base Howard Hanson Darn at RM 63 operates as a flood control facility, reducing peak flows to less than 12,000 cfs, a level insufficient to maintain natural processes (Corps 1997). The City of Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 9 z ce ~ w 00 • 0 L11 w • 0 PATHWAYS: ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE INDICATORS Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Water Quality Temperature X Sediment/Turbidity NA/X Chemical contamination /nutrients X Habitat Access X Physical Barriers Habitat Elements Substrate NA NA NA Large Woody Debris X Pool Frequency NA NA NA Pool Quality X Off - channel habitat X Refugia X Channel condition and dynamics Width /depth ratio NA NA NA Streambank condition X Floodplain connectivity X Flow /Hydrology Peak/Base flows X Drainage network increase X Watershed Conditions Road density and location X Disturbance History X Riparian Reserves X Tacoma Water Diversion Darn at RM 61 reduces low flows to below naturally occurring levels. Urban development in the surrounding cities of Tukwila and City has created a large, but unquantified increase the drainage network. It is considered that this increase exceeds 25 %. Major, valley bottom roads occur in former wetlands, intertidal mudflats, and riparian areas. Though unquantified, it is considered that there are more than 3 miles of road per square mile. There is no Late Successional Old- Growth in the project area nor the Duwamish Estuary Corps 1997. Urban development is intensive throughout the area. The riparian reserve system is effectively non - existent in the Green River below River 26 (Corps 1997). The riparian areas near the project site and both upstream and downstream consist generally of exotic species, landscaping, or planted native vegetation. The riparian reserve provides inadequate protection of habitats and refugia. Table 2a. The following table is derived from the NMFS "A Guide to Biological Assessments" dated 23 March 1999. "NA" means not applicable. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 10 INDICATORS Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Estuarine Conditions Habitat quantity /quality X Aerial extent X Hydrologic conditions /sediment/nutrient input X Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved oxygen, temperature nutrients, chemical contamination X Sediments X Exotic species X The Duwamish estuary once contained nearly 5,300 acres of intertidal mudflats, marshes and riparian habitats (Blomberg et al. 1988). Today, only 2% of these areas exist in the Duwamish River (Blomberg et al. 1988). Since settlement, there has been a 98% loss of shallows, intertidal mudflats and tidal marshes in Green /Duwamish estuary and a 100 percent loss of tidal swamps (Blomberg et al. 1988). Due to this the estuary is considered "Not Properly Functioning" for habitat quantity and aerial extent. Due to sediment contamination problems described above, and loss of upstream contributing sources of habitat inputs such as water, sediment, and wood, and shoreline alterations due to bank stabilization as well as the frequent occurrence of piers and wharves, habitat quality at the project site and in the Duwamish Estuary is considered "Not Properly Functioning ". Exotic plant and animal species are present in the basin, though there impact upon threatened species at or off the project site is unknown. However, exotic plant species have adversely influenced estuarine and riparian areas. The other indicators in listed in Table 2b have been previously discussed and that discussion will not be repeated. Table 2b. The following indicators are taken from Appendix A to the Description of Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, dated 28 August 1998. 3.0 List of Threatened and Endangered Species The NMFS was contacted for list of Threatened and Endangered Species as well as candidate species known or suspected to be at the project site or in the vicinity. A response was received (see Appendix A). A summary of known or suspected Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species is presented in Table 3. 4 Riparian is the area of transition between the terrestrial and aquatic communities. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 11 Common Name Scientific Name Status At site In vicinity Fish Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawyscha Threatened Yes Yes Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon O. kisutch Candidate Yes Yes Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Yes Yes Coastal Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki Candidate Yes Yes Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened Yes Yes Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Threatened Unknown Yes Amphibians Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa Candidate Unknown, but unlikely Unknown, but unlikely Table 3. Summary of known or suspected Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species. 4.0 Description of the Species and Habitat. 4.1 Fisheries Resources in the Basin The Duwamish River is a significant migratory route, rearing area and holding area for anadromous salmonids in the Green/Duwamish River basin (NOAA Restoration Center, 1998, Warner and Fritz, 1995; Salo and Grette, 1986). The Green Duwamish basin is used by many species of salmonids. Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytsha) and coho salmon (0. kisutch) are found in the basin and are known to rear and hold at the project site. The Duwamish River also supports runs of chum salmon (0. keta), and summer and winter runs of steelhead trout (0. myldss) (Williams et al., 1975; WDFW and Western Washington Treaty Tribes, 1994). Juvenile chum salmon have been found in larger numbers at the project site (Warner and Fritz 1995) and are particularly dependent upon an estuary for growth prior to moving to marine areas. Chum salmon spawn in the Green River above RM 30. Juvenile steelhead due to their large size at outmigration have a short estuarine residence time. Upstream adult steelhead migration can occur year round. Sockeye salmon (0. nerka) also occur in the river though it is unknown if the population is self - sustaining or consists of strays from the Lake Washington system. The timing of adult sockeye migration is unknown, but spawning adults are seen in the Green River above RM 35 in September and October. Adult pink salmon have been observed spawning in low numbers in the Green River (pers. Comm between Roderick Malcom, MITFD and Steve Foley, WDFW). However, it is unknown if the observed spawners are strays, a relict population, and a new population in the process of being established. Pink spawning has been successful in the Green River as juvenile pink salmon (0. gorbuscha) have been found in the Duwamish River estuary (Warner and Fritz, 1995).Sea run coastal cutthroat trout (0. clarki) and Dolly Varden char (Salvelenius rnalma) are also present in the Duwamish River (NOAA Restoration Center, 1998). A detailed list of salmon stocks and trout is presented in Table 4, as well as the status of the stock. Estuaries are designated as Essential Fish Habitat for numerous species of ground fish (NMFS 1998b). The extent to which adult or juvenile ground fish use the site is unknown. The mouth of Hamm Creek is located approximately 0.5 mile downstream (south) of the Turning Basin #3. This creek contains resident populations of cutthroat trout, sculpin (Cottus, Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 12 STOCK' STOCK ORIGIN Z PRODUCTION TYPE 3 ESU ESA STATUS Duwamish/Green River Fall Chinook Mixed 4 Composite' Puget Sound 111 Threatened Newaukum Creek Fall Chinook Mixed Wild 8 Puget Sound 11 ' Threatened Duwamish/Green River Fall Chum Mixed Composite Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia it Not Warranted Crisp (Keta) Creek Fall Chum Non - native s Cultured `' Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia u Not Warranted Green River /Soos Creek Coho Mixed Composite Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia 12 Candidate Newaukum Creek Coho Mixed Composite Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia 12 Candidate Duwamish/Green River Summer Steelhead Non - native Composite Puget Sound " Not Warranted Duwamish/Green River Winter Steelhead Native ' Wild Puget Sound " Not Warranted Duwamish/Green River Early Winter Steelhead Non - native Cultured Puget Sound 13 Not Warranted Following species or stocks are not listed in the 1994 document Green River Sockeye Unknown Wild Not Determined Uncertain Green River Bull Trout'" Native Wild Puget Sound Threatened Green River Coastal Cutthroat Trout 15 Native Wild Puget Sound spp.) and western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni), (Divens, 1997) and is used by spawning and rearing coho. Table 4. Salmon species and stocks found in the Green/Duwamish River. Species and stocks are derived from WDFW and WWTT (1994) unless otherwise noted. The NMFS Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) and listed or proposed Endangered Species Act (ESA). Notes: I. As defined in WDFW and WWTT (1994), the fish spawning in a particular lake or stream(s) at a particular season, which fish to a substantial degree do not interbreed with any group spawning in a different place, or ill the same place at a different season. 2 The genetic history of the stock 3. The method of spawning and rearing that produced the fish that constitutes the stock. 4. A stock whose individuals originated from commingled native and non - native parents, and /or by mating between native and non - native fish (hybridization) or a previously native stock that has undergone substantial genetic alteration. 5. A stock that has become established outside of its original range 6 An indigenous stock of fish that have not been substantially impacted by genetic interactions with non - native stocks, or by other factors, and is still present in all or part of its original range. 7. A stock sustained by both wild and artificial production 8. A stock that is sustained by natural spawning and rearing in the natural habitat, regardless of parentage (includes native) 9. A stock that depends on spawning, incubation, hatching, or rearing in a hatchery or other artificial production facility. 10. Meyers et al. (1998). 11. Johnson et al. (1997). 12. Weitkkamp et al. (1995). 13. Busby et al. (1996). Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 13 14. Listed in WDFW SASSI (1998) 15. Johnson et al (1999) 4.2 Chinook Salmon 4.2.1 General Habitat Requirements Adult chinook can return to their natal rivers to spawn from early spring to late fall, though summer and fall returns dominate. Chinook spawning mainstem rivers and larger tributaries in areas with acceptable depth and water velocity above areas of suitably sized gravel. Spawning does not occur in estuaries. Stream flow, gravel quality and turbidity influence the survival of developing chinook eggs. Two races of chinook have evolved: 1) stream type and 2) ocean type. Stream type chinook have a longer juvenile freshwater juvenile residency and tend to spawn higher in streams than ocean type chinook (Meyers et al. 1998). Chinook salmon fry are typically 33 -36 mm in length when they emerge from the spawning gravel and move to rearing areas. Juvenile residence in freshwater and subsequent size and timing of migration to the estuary are highly variable. Ocean -type chinook, can migrate seaward immediately after yolk absorption, but most migrate 30 -90 days after emergence and typically reside in estuaries for one to three months before entering coastal waters of higher salinity (Healey 1980, 1982; Congleton et al. 1981). Regardless of time of entrance into the estuary, juvenile ocean -type chinook salmon spend from 1 to 3 months in these habitats (Meyers et al. 1998)). In an estuary, chinook salmon fry (< 40 mm) prefer protected habitats with lower salinity, moving from the edges of marshes during high tide to protected tidal channels and creeks during low tide (Healey 1980, 1982). As the fish grow, they move into more saline waters and increasingly less - protected habitats. In contrast, chinook fingerlings (55 -70 mm), with their larger size, immediately take up residence in deeper -water estuarine habitats upon estuary entry. Juvenile chinook salmon diet during estuarine residence is highly variable and is dependent upon the particular estuary, year, season, and prey abundance. In general, chinook are opportunistic feeders with feeding and growth functions of fish size and the habitat occupied. Insects dominate the diet of fry ( <40mm) whether the fish is rearing in a stream or the tidal channel of an estuarine marsh (Meyer et al. 1981; Levings et al. 1995). Fingerling diet (55 -70mm) is very dependent upon the habitat occupied. Fingerlings in freshwater feed on insects, while those in more saline areas feed on epibenthic crustaceans (Meyer et al. 1981; Levings et al. 1995), while taking insects opportunistically (Meyer et al. 1981; Levings et al. 1995). In altered estuaries, the diet can be dominated by pelagic species such as calanoid copepods (Weitkamp and Schadt 1982). At 70 mm, juvenile chinook are physiologically capable of osmoregulating in full strength seawater (Clarke and Shelbourn 1985) and are large enough to feed on larger prey including larval and juvenile fish (Healey 1991). Ocean -type juvenile chinook that have been using estuarine or marine shoreline habitats will have typically migrated offshore at about this length. 4.2.2 Duwamish/Green Chinook. Overview Chinook salmon in the Green/Duwamish River are considered part of the Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) (Meyer et al. 1998). Green/Duwamish chinook are considered to be ocean type chinook. The Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 14 ��s�hlQ! !'�9�.IW. i! �JRM' !gMI�N?I!'HSO4+ „�,!7!� } Y3?r. 1Y1�AY1 `1".' h*V_ ?', Inventory Report (SASSI) (WDFW and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes 1994) lists two summer /fall chinook stocks in the Green/Duwamish system: 1) Duwamish /Green summer /fall chinook and 2) Newaukum Creek summer /fall chinook. These two populations are listed as separate stocks pending genetic analysis, however it is possible that they are of the same population (WDFW and WWTT 1994). Both stocks are considered part of the Puget Sound chinook Evolutionary Significant Unit (Meyer et al. 1998). Chinook salmon are found through the entire accessible portion of the Green/Duwamish River as well as the major tributaries, such as Soos and. Newaukum Creeks (WDFW and WWTT 1994). The Green/Duwamish summer /fall chinook is a composite stock with minimal influence from stocks outside of the Green River, while the Newaukum Creek stock is considered native (WDFW and WWTT 1994). Duwamish /Green chinook production is composite with hatchery production at Soos Creek, which enters the Green River at RM 34, and natural spawning throughout the river from RM 26 to the TPU Diversion Dam at RM 61, as well as the major tributaries. Hatchery chinook are considered part of the ESU, but the hatchery itself is not considered essential for recovery. Chinook production in Newaukum Creek is based upon natural production and considered wild (WDFW and WWTT 1994). Genetic Stock Identification sampling has indicated that the chinook taken at the hatchery and chinook from the natural spawning grounds in the Green River are genetically identical. Escapement levels into the Green River between 1990 and 1998 ranged from 2479 to 10584 with a mean of 6893 chinook. Between 1990 and 1998, the escapement goal of 5,800 chinook was meet in all but two years, 1993 and 1994. The Newaukum stock though, initially classified as healthy (WDFW and WWTT 1994) based on escapement estimates ranging from 300 to 3,000 from 1987 through 1991 with an average of 1,600 per year, the escapement from 1992 through 1996 has dropped to an average of approximately 700 chinook. Adult Use Adult chinook salmon commence entering the lower Duwamish River in early July and upstream migration peaks in late August to early September (NOAA Restoration Center, 1998). Turning Basin #3 is a major holding area for adult chinook waiting to ascend to the spawning grounds in the Green River. Above this reach, the River is narrower increasing river velocity and thus salmon energy expenditures during holding and below the reach there is considerable disturbance from barge and shipping traffic. Adult chinook are generally not found in the estuary after the end of the first week of October (MITFD, unpub data). The lowermost extent of chinook spawning observed in recent years in the Green/Duwamish River is approximately RM 24, 19 miles upstream of the project area (MITFD and WDFW, unpub. data). Spawning occurs in September and October with the young generally emerging by February. Juvenile Use Upon emergence from the gravel, juvenile chinook can either migrate downstream to the estuary to rear as fry or spend weeks to several months rearing in freshwater prior to departing for the estuary. Recent surveys of side channels in the Green River between RM 34 and 44 and found juvenile chinook use of side channels (R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 1999) suggesting an extended freshwater rearing phase for Green River chinook. Chinook residing within upstream Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 15 ?' t?"k'• ".. freshwater habitats (or hatcheries) can be in excess of 70 mm when they reach the estuary. These fish are capable of moving offshore very soon after migrating from the river and are less dependent on estuarine rearing. It is unknown if the lack of observations of fry migrants in the estuary is a result of habitat or genetic factors or an extended freshwater rearing phase. . Juvenile chinook are present in the Duwamish estuary from mid- February through early September, with the peak in mid to late May. The observed peak of juvenile chinook in the Duwamish Estuary and at Turning Basin #3 corresponds with the release of hatchery fingerlings (Warner and Fritz, 1995). After the second week of June, the number of juvenile chinook declines rapidly to where less than 2 were collected per beach seine in July (Warner and Fritz, 1995). Juvenile chinook salmon densities were higher at Turning Basin #3 (River mile 6.2) than at nine other sampling stations between Duwamish River mile 1.6 and 10.4 (Warner and Fritz, 1995), suggesting that Turning Basin #3 is an important rearing area for juvenile chinook salmon. Juvenile chinook were observed in the Duwamish Estuary from later February through early September, The extensive mudflats and appropriate salinity regime probably account for the large numbers of observed juvenile chinook. Warner and Fritz (1995) found the greatest juvenile chinook densities were found over the finest grain size substrate, and corresponded to surface salinities in the 5 -10 %-- range. However, chinook appear to be slowing their movement into the estuary near RM 7 to begin their acclimation to salt water. Thus, the critical saltwater transition zone for juvenile chinook salmon appears to be located between RM 7 and 5 (Warner and Fritz, 1995), an area that straddles the proposed restoration site at RM 5.2. Warner and Fritz (1995) noted that the bulk of the juvenile chinook reached the estuary as fingerling rather than a fry migrants. 4.2.3 Critical Habitat /Essential Fish Habitat Critical habitat, as listed by NMFS Protected Resource Division, includes all marine, estuarine and river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Puget Sound. This includes the Duwamish/Green River. The Duwamish /Green River below the Diversion Dam at RM 61 is also considered Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) (Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1999) (Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1999). The important elements of chinook salmon marine EFH are 1) estuarine rearing; 2) early ocean rearing; and 3) juvenile and adult migration. Important features of this estuarine and marine habitat are 1) adequate water quality; 2) adequate temperature; 3) adequate prey species and forage base (food); 4) and adequate depth, cover, marine vegetation, and algae in estuarine and near -shore habitats (Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1999). 4.4 Coho salmon Coho salmon (0. kisutch) were listed as a Candidate species under the ESA by NMFS (Status list received May 21, 1999, Appendix A). Adult coho salmon migrate upstream in late August through December (Salo and Grette, 1986, WDFW and WWTT 1994) and there is no distinct peak to the upstream migration (MITFD, unpub. data).. Spawning occurs in smaller and shallower streams than for chinook. However, all spawning occurs in freshwater. Coho salmon spawn in most of the accessible tributaries of the Green River as well as much of the mainstem river above RM 25. The major spawning Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 16 ' ms �L' , jt':.Y+�'�tiaf, ":''8:m,?r ?7".� 2' itiYFt� .�C•.t•.gK,,':vi7:�,.;.• -1'.0 t tributaries are Newaukum Creek and Soos Creek. Additionally, coho salmon spawn and rear in Hamm Creek, whose mouth is located approximately 0.5 mile downstream (south) of the Turning Basin #3 (Divens, 1997). Juvenile coho salmon migrate downstream from mid- February through mid -May. The peak of downstream migration is mid to late April which corresponds with hatchery releases, though outside of hatchery releases the number of coho in the system was unpredictable (Warner and Fritz, 1995). Due to there large size at outmigration, 70 to 120 mm, coho smolts are less dependent on the estuary for acclimization to salt water and growth, therefore their residence times are shorter than chum or chinook. 4.3 Bald eagle The Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as Endangered under the ESA. The USFWS provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) which states wintering bald eagles might be present from October 31 to March 31 in the vicinity (T23N R4E S4) of the project. No Bald Eagle nests were reported in the vicinity of the project by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Bald eagles are present in Elliot Bay all year. Elliot Bay is located approximately five miles downstream of the project site. There have been documented occurrences of eagles in the Duwamish Estuary, Kellogg Island, Lincoln Park and Seward Park. Bald eagles were observed on the Duwamish River from September 1996 through February 1997 (Cordell et al. 1997), time periods outside of the normal wintering period. No specific literature information on the occurrence of bald eagles at Turning Basin #3 has been found, though Bald eagles have been observed flying over Turning Basin #3 (pers. obsn Roderick Malcom, MITFD). Present habitat at Turning Basin #3 is not conducive to bald eagles perching, roosting or foraging. The Turning Basin #3 project site does not contain large trees suitable for perching, though Eagles might be attracted to large electrical transmission towers at the Seattle City Light transformer station, which is adjacent to the north property boundary (Corps 1998b). 4.4 Peregrine falcon Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is a listed as Endangered under the ESA. The USFWS provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) stating that spring and fall migrant falcons might occur in the vicinity of the project. Peregrine falcons have been observed foraging along the Duwamish Waterway. Known roosts, perches and hunting area include: the Washington Mutual Tower; the Interstate 5 Freeway Bridge; Terminal 91; Terminal 86; West Seattle Freeway Bridge. Eight to ten peregrine falcons wintered in the area in 1996 (NOAA Restoration Center, 1998). No specific information on the occurrence of peregrine falcons at Turning Basin #3 has been found. 4.5 Bull trout The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) is listed as threatened under the ESA. The USFWS provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) stating bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) might inhabit the area in the project's vicinity. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has approved a Habitat Conservation Plan for Plum Creek Timber Company, LP. which notes that bull trout are not found in the Green River above Howard Hanson Dam (US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 17 ��` 3". z. k" rti#: 4k'; u^ A! ?'+° �r' t�:".^ r,•:: rti: n��p:.*-:.t`.;;"+`, r�: C+. 4'?' n`?. y' �tiY%}, SITYr?Tnv ;4W, •!rt y. P^�: !a:t ? s,..v• ,. «......�_..� National Marine Fisheries Service 1995, 1996)). Watson and Toth (1994) also note that despite extensive surveys no bull trout have been found in the headwaters of the Green River. However, a bull trout was collected in the Duwamish Estuary at the project site found at the site in 1994 (Warner and Fritz 1995). The collected individual was identified as a bull trout by genetic analysis. It is unknown if this collected bull trout was of Green/Duwamish or a migrant from another system. Native char have been found in the Green River as far upstream as RM 40; however, there is insufficient evidence to determine if these fish are fluvial or anadromous bull trout or dolly varden (US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 1995, 1996). Bull trout are generally non - anadromous and live in variety of habitats. However, the Coastal/Puget sound bull trout are anadromous, migrating and maturing in Puget Sound or the Pacific Ocean. Bull trout may spend 2 to 4 years in natal streams prior to migrating to larger water bodies in transit to Puget Sound. z .F- w QQ � JU 00 U O J w gQ If bull trout do occupy the proposed project area, it is likely that the use is one of migration and w feeding. Spawning will not occur in the estuary. Spawning generally occurs in September and z October, with some spawning in August in stream above 4,000 feet in elevation and as late as z O November in coastal stream. Spawning occur in low gradient stream reaches in areas of cold water, generally from 2 to 4 °C. Water temperatures in the lowland streams adjacent to the v co project site are unlikely to support spawning bull trout. Anadromous fish migrate to the ocean in o the spring and return in late summer and the early fall. w w U The migration periods of juvenile bull trout are similar to that of juvenile chinook salmon. „0 Because of the complexities involved in the life history characteristics of bull trout, and the w z considerable variation among subpopulations, it is difficult to isolate and estimate how and to what extent particular activities may impact bull trout. r:: 1— 4.6 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Coastal cutthroat trout (0. clarki) are a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Coastal cutthroat may occur in the project area as resident cutthroat trout are found in the Green/Duwamish River and in Hamm Creek, 0.5 miles downstream. The large size of juvenile sea -run cutthroat at outmigration reduces their dependency on the estuary, though they can move repeatedly in and out of the estuary to feed. The outward migration of sea -run smolts would typically occur in April and May with upstream migration of adults in July through February. It is probable that coastal cutthroat spawn in Hamm Creek. 4.7 Oregon spotted frog The Oregon spotted frog is a Candidate species under the ESA. The USFWS provided a letter (March 15, 1999, Appendix A) stating Oregon spotted frogs might occur in the vicinity of the project site. No specific information on the occurrence of the Oregon spotted frog near the project site was found. In general, frogs require moist, forest habitat with riparian and freshwater pools (Corps 1998b). The absence of this type of habitat at the Turning Basin #3 suggests that frogs would not be present. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 18 5.0 Inventory and Surveys The presence and timing of coho and chinook salmon in the project vicinity and Duwamish River is well known due to a lengthy history of harvest (MITFD, unpub. data) and research surveys (Warner and Fritz 1995) and compilations of existing information sources ( WDFW and WWTT 1994; Salo and Grette 1986)) The information contained in these reports is consistent with the general knowledge of species requirements and migration timings. Little is known about bull trout use of the Duwamish River. 6.0 Analysis of Effects 6.1 Introduction Though the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to chinook, coho, bull trout, and coastal cutthroat and their habitats, there will be construction related adverse affects to these species. Project construction is not expected to result in a take of listed species, but may cause some adverse impacts to listed and candidate salmon and trout and segments of their habitat. Adverse impacts to groundfish essential fish habitat were considered to be equivalent in nature for those presented in this discussion for the salmonid species. Project construction will have "no effect" on Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, or Oregon spotted Frog 6.2 Effects on salmon and trout A summary of project effects upon chinook and coho salmon is presented in Tables 5a and 5b. The same tables were also used to analyze project construction effects and project effects on bull trout and cutthroat trout. Construction impacts are separated from the impacts of the project once constructed. Construction effects, if they differ project effects following construction , are noted with a "C ", while project effects following construction are noted with a "X ". All adverse impacts are local in nature and would be non - discernable at the scale of the Duwamish Estuary. Beneficial project impacts listed in the "restore" category are presumed to be local benefits in the immediate project vicinity. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 19 PATHWAYS: ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF THE ACTIONS INDICATORS Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Restore Maintain Degrade Water Quality Temperature X X C Sediment/Turbidity NA/X /X X/ /C Chemical contamination/nutrients X X Habitat Access X X See Turbidity Physical Barriers Habitat Elements Substrate NA NA NA NA NA NA Large Woody Debris X X Pool Frequency NA NA NA NA NA NA Pool Quality X X C Off - channel habitat X X Refugia X X Channel condition and dynamics Width/depth ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA Streambank condition X X Floodplain connectivity X Flow /Hydrology Peak/Base flows X X Drainage network increase X X Watershed Conditions Road density and location X X Disturbance History X X Riparian Reserves X X C Table 5a. The following table is derived from the NMFS "A Guide to Biological Assessments" dated 23 March 1999. Project construction and operation will have no influence upon water temperature. Water temperature in this part of the estuary is a function of freshwater inflow and tidal stage (Warner and Fritz 1995). The existing vegetation on the site does not influence local water temperature and hence is removal will not increase temperatures or the duration of elevated temperatures. The intertidal area in the project vicinity is a mudflat; Fine sediment concentrations are naturally high and the area is not used by spawning salmonids. However, the operation of project construction equipment and project construction will increase turbidity at the site and adjacent locations due to pile removal and bank excavation. This has the potential to create behavioral barriers to the movement of fish or impair their use of the project area. Following project construction, construction related turbidity from the site would cease. Turbidity leaving the site following construction is expected to be less than the existing condition due to the filtering effect of the planted vegetation and the removal of the fine sediment generating surfaces such as the existing gravel parking lot. The project does not include any activities that will generate the compounds listed on the Section 303(d) list. The closure of the former marine facilities and trucking operation has reduce the Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 20 inputs of many of the metals and organics into the Duwamish Waterway. The removal of the creosote treated piles and wharf at the site will remove a long-term leaching of creosote and its degradation products into the sediment and the water column (Corps 1997a). The construction of the riparian buffer, though not the primary purpose, will filter some street runoff prior to it entering the water. The project is not expected to alter the dissolved oxygen fecal coliforms, or other natural water quality parameters at the site. The project will not create any additional passage impediment or barriers, nor exacerbate existing offsite passage problems. However, construction activities at the site, such as pile and wharf removal singularly, or in combination with turbidity generated by construction activities have the potential to create behavioral barriers to the movement of fish and /or impair fish use of the immediate vicinity. Though not generally considered a passage barrier, removal of the fill at the site restore salmon and trout access to a formerly accessible, estuarine area. w° � Project will have no effect upon substrate as the term is used in the Matrix of Pathways and co Indicators. = w z �. � Z ~ o U O - , w .. w co 0 Project construction will not remove or move large woody debris. The project will include the placement of wood along the bank and the planting of trees which over the long term will contribute wood, shade, and detrital input into the estuary. The operation of construction equipment and turbidity is expected to have some adverse impacts upon the ability of salmon use portions of the Turning Basin for rearing and holding, and this is considered a decline in pool quality. Project construction will not effect existing off - channel habitat, nor will the project create any off - channel habitat. No existing refugia are found on -site. The project will increase refugia by the creation of a riparian area. In concert with other restoration projects in the Turning Basin, such as the upstream Coastal America site, locally significant increases in refugia are expected. Project construction will not degrade streambank condition, though the project itself will restore the existing hardened bank to a slope, naturally vegetated bank. The local decrease in bank hardening is considered to be in the "restore" category. Project construction and the project will restore some of the former estuarine floodplain, emergent intertidal vegetation, and riparian areas. Project construction and the project itself will not influence the existing level of peak/base flows, the drainage network increase and the road density and location. Construction will remove three to five trees, of approximately 25 feet. Removal of the existing vegetation would create a adverse impact over the immediate to short term, the planting of native vegetation at the site would provide better, overall habitat conditions in terms of species composition and density. The non- native vegetation growing along the banks of the property will be predominately replaced by intertidal vegetation. Within 15 years of planting the riparian area will have trees exceeding 25 feet and in greater density than the existing condition. Overall, the constructed riparian area will be more diverse, and will increase riparian function in the local area and provide a long -term source of wood recruitment, shade, and detrital input. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 21 z w ft 2 JU 00 UI J z INDICATORS Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Restore Maintain Degrade Estuarine Conditions Habitat quantity /quality X X Aerial extent X X Hydrologic conditions /sediment /nutrient input X X Estuarine Water Quality Dissolved oxygen, temperature, nutrients, chemical contamination X X Sediments X X C Exotic species X X Table 5b. The following indicators are taken from Appendix A to the Description of Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, dated 28 August 1998. Project construction will not degrade existing estuarine habitat area and quality, while the project will restore estuarine habitat area and quality. Singularly and in concert with existing nearby estuarine restoration projects, this project will have cumulative, beneficial impacts upon on- and off -site detrital inputs. Project construction and presence will maintain the current baseline environmental conditions for hydrologic conditions, sediment, and nutrient input. Project construction will not increase the current level of environmental degradation associated with dissolved oxygen, temperature, nutrients, chemical contamination, however, an effect of the project will be to reduce long -term potential for chemical contamination as previously described. Project construction will not increase levels of contaminants in the sediments, however there is the potential for release of low -level contaminants during pile removal. The project itself will reduce long- source of contaminants to the sediment. The project will not influence the existing distribution of non - native animals or fish; however, project construction will remove existing non - native vegetation and replace it with native vegetation. 6.3 Bald eagle The project site does not provide optimum habitat conditions for bald eagles due to nearby electrical transformer towers and commercial industries and lack of suitable perches. No nesting eagles will be disturbed by construction activities. Upon maturation, planted black cottonwood planted in the riparian zone, would provide better perching conditions for immature and adult bald eagles. The mature riparian zone would also provide a an visual and sound buffer from road traffic. Increased structure along the face of the project may trap salmon carcasses which eagles upon which eagles could feed. Improvements at the site would create habitat that is presently lacking for bald eagles. This would result in a beneficial impact to this species. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 22 6.4 Peregrine falcon The project site does not provide optimum habitat conditions for peregrine falcons due to nearby electrical transformer towers and commercial industries. As all known nesting areas are more than 1 mile from the project site, no adverse effects are expected upon nesting falcons. Upon maturation, planted black cottonwood planted in the riparian zone, would provide better perching conditions for peregrine falcons. The increased area of intertidal inudflat and vegetation would provide habitat for some birds taken as prey by peregrine falcons. The mature riparian zone would also provide a visual and sound buffer from road traffic. Improvements at the site would create habitat that is presently lacking for peregrine falcons. This could result in a beneficial effect to this species. 6.5 Bull trout /coastal cutthroat Project construction is considered to "may affect, likely to adverse affect" bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout. Potential construction related short-term adverse effects to bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout as the same as for chinook salmon. The project itself will have no adverse effects on either species. Improvements at the site would create cover and foraging estuarine habitat that is presently lacking for bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout. This would result in a beneficial impact to this species, though the beneficial impacts would not be as great for bull trout due to their reduce dependency upon shallow water estuarine areas. 6.6 Oregon spotted frog Project construction would not effect Oregon spotted frogs or their habitats. As mentioned in Section 3.6, the Oregon spotted frog's preferred habitat is currently absent at Turning Basin #3. Improvements at the site would create a forested riparian area but not freshwater pools. If there is freshwater in the area and a source of immigrants, Oregon spotted frogs might eventually utilize the newly created habitat at Turning Basin #3. This could result in a beneficial impact to this species. 7.0 Management Actions Related to the Species 7.1 Chinook salmon To accomplish the objectives of the project, excavation of soils, placement of fill and stabilization of the lower intertidal bench will be necessary. During the pier removal and bank excavation phases, there is the possibility that water quality would be effected by an unavoidable increase in turbidity from the disturbed sediments and uplands. Impaired water quality can effect both adult and juvenile fish migration and use of the site. The removal of the piles and wharf and other inwater work has the potential to disturb adult or juvenile fish rearing, feeding, or holding in the vicinity. By using the erosion control measures outlined in Section 2, doing as much work as possible in the dry, and adhering to the WDFW in- stream work windows of June 15 to 1 July and 16 October to March 14 impacts to fish would be reduced. There are no spawning areas downstream of the project site that will be impaired by the turbidity. The nearest spawning area is located in Hamm Creek and is suitable for coho and trout, not chinook. Furthermore, and any turbidity from the project site is unlikely move upstream against the current into the spawning areas of Hamm Creek Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 23 The following additional activities will be implemented to reduce construction related adverse effects on chinook: 1) Inwater work will cease if dead, dying or distressed salmonids are observed. Appropriate regulatory agencies will be contacted and the reasons ascertained; z 2) fueling and staging areas will be as located as far from the river as possible; ;= = ..,„I-: 3) a spill response plan will be in place cc 2 4) remove piles and wharf elements will be removed at the discretion of the contractor to an i o authorized disposal site or storage facility for recycling purposes; 111 = 5) garbage from work crews will be removed from the site daily; N u_ O 6) temporary erosion and sediment control facilities will be inspected daily. 2 There would be no long -term, adverse effects to chinook salmon or their habitat under this LL Alternative. The value of this area will be increased by habitat improvements at this site = Cr compared to the existing conditions, would benefit juvenile chinook salmon by: Z = t- 1) increased the area of intertidal vegetation available for foraging, z 0 w al 2) increased production of invertebrates consumed by juvenile chinook; ? o 3.) providing overhanging riparian vegetation for cover from predators and detrital input; o Y 4.) removing creosote treated pilings from the water, a potential long-term source of PAH = v contamination in the juvenile chinook food chain; and ~ �. "-- O 5.) placing root wads to provide cover from predators and attachment points for food items. iui U — A long term monitoring plan is being developed as part of the EB /DRP to ensure the site 0 1- develops the desired habitat characteristics and to ensure the corrective action is undertaken as Z needed. 7.2 Coho salmon Same potential short-term adverse effects as listed for chinook salmon. However the extent of beneficial impacts will be less as juvenile coho are not as estuarine dependent than juvenile chinook. 7.3 Bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout During the pier removal and bank excavation phases, there is the possibility that water quality would be effected by an unavoidable increase in turbidity from the disturbed sediments and uplands. Impaired water quality can effect both adult and juvenile bull trout and coastal cutthroat migration and use of the site. The removal of the piles and wharf and other inwater works has the potential to disturb adult or juvenile fish rearing, feeding, or holding in the vicinity. By using the erosion control measures outlined in Section 1.2, doing as much work as possible in the dry, and adhering to the WDFW in- stream work windows of June 15 to 1 July and 16 October to March 14 impacts to fish would be reduced. There are no mainstem spawning areas downstream of the project site that will be impaired by the turbidity. The nearest potential Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 24 �F; Common Name Scientific Name Status Conclusion Fish Puget Sound Chinook Salmon O. tshawytscha Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect Puget Sound /Strait of Georgia Coho salmon O. kisutch Candidate May affect, likely to adversely affect Birds Bald Eagle H. leucocephalus Threatened No effect Peregrine falcon F. peregrinus Threatened No effect Bull Trout S. ca jluentus Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect Coastal Cutthroat Trout O. clarki clarki Candidate May affect, likely to adversely affect Amphibians Oregon spotted frog R. pretiosa Candidate No effect spawning area is located in Hamm Creek. It is unlikely that any turbidity from the project site would move upstream into areas suitable for spawning in Hamm Creek. There would be no long -term, adverse effects to bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout or their habitat under this Alternative. The value of this area will be increased by habitat improvements at this site compared to the existing conditions, and would benefit bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout by: 1) increased the area of intertidal vegetation available for foraging, 2) increased production of invertebrates consumed by juvenile trout; 3) increased production of small, estuarine fish for adult trout consumption 3) providing overhanging riparian vegetation for cover from predators and detrital input; 4) removing creosote treated pilings from the water, a potential long -term source of PAH contamination in the juvenile chinook food chain; and 5) placing root wads to provide cover from predators and attachment points for food items. A long term monitoring plan is being developed as part of the EB /DRP to ensure the site develops the desired habitat characteristics and to ensure the corrective action is undertaken as needed. 8.0 Conclusion The project's construction effects upon listed and candidate species are presented in Table 6. Table 3. Summary of known or suspected Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 25 9.0 References Aitkin, J. Kevin. 1998. The Importance of Estuarine Habitats to Anadromous Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest: A Literature Review. U.S. Fish and Wild Service. Western Washington Office, Aquatic Resourcs Division. Lacey, Washington. Berman, C. H., and T. P. Quinn. 1991. Behavioral thermoregulation and horning by spring chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbuam), in the Yakima River. J. Fish. Biol. 39:301 -312 Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of salmonids in streams, pages 83- 138. In W. R. M. (ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, p. 519 -557. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Blomberg, G., Simenstad, C., and Hickey, P. 1988. Changes in the Duwamish River estuary habitat over the past 125 years. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples. F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead trout from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS - NWFSC -27. 261 p. Cordell, J.R., L.M. Tear, K. Jensen, and V. Luiting. 1997. Duwamish River Coastal America Restoration and reference sites: Results from 1996 monitoring studies. University of Washington. Fisheries Research Institute. Seattle, WA. Divens, K.A. 1997. Hamm Creek fish kill investigation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Habitat Management Program. Response and Resource Damage Assessment Section. Olympia, WA. Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program. 1994. Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program Concept Document. Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program. NOAA Restoration Center Northwest. National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle. WA. Environmental Coalition of South Seattle. 1999. The Duwamish Corridor. Website address: http:// www. ecoss .org /duwamish /duwamish.html. Seattle, WA. Fuerstenberg, Robert R, Nelson Kristin, and Bomquist Rob. 1996. Ecological Conditions and Limitations to Salmonid Diversity in the Green River, Washington, USA: Structure, Function and Process in River Ecology. King County Surface Water Management prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resource Sections, Seattle Washington. Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Kope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS - NWFSC -32, 280 p. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 26 King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. 1990. King County, WA. King County Surface Water Management. 1995. I-Iabitat Sites in the Duwamish /Lower Green River: A self - guided tour. Seattle, WA. Lister, D. B., and H. S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of z chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (0. /cisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum i z River, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27:1215 -1224. x 6 Myers J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand, v 0 F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook co W salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA w i Tech. Memo. NMFS - NWFSC -35, 443 p. cn o w National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. A Guide to Biological Assessments. 2 National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998a. Draft Proposed Recommendations for Amendment w a 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan for Essential Fish Habitat. _ I- w National Marine Fisheries Service1998b. Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Ground Fish z � Appendix. Z O NOAA Restoration Center. 1998. Seaboard Lumber site aquatic habitat restoration project. n o Environmental Assessment. Seattle, WA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 0 52 Administration. Seattle, Washington. o E- w Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1997. Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group Report 1 H 1997. An assessment of the Status of Puget Sound Chinook and Strait of Juan De Fuca O z Coho Stocks as Required under the Salmon Fishery Management Plan v cn Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1999. Appendix A. Description and Identification of z E- Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Perkins 1993. Green River Channel Migration Study. King County Department of Public Works. Surface Water Management Division. Seattle. WA. R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 1999. Juvenile Salmonid Use of Lateral Stream Habitats Middle Green River, Washington. 1998 Date Report Draft. Redmond, Washington. Radix Ortega Group. 1998. Kenco Marine Soil Assessment Final Report. Prepared for Kenco Marine Services, Inc., 10054 West Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA. Roberts, B. and R. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and pre - emergent fry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 12: 450 -459 Salo, E.0, and G.B. Grette. 1986. The Status of Anadromous Fishes of the Green /Duwamish System. Final Report Submitted to the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tanner, C.D. 1991. Potential intertidal habitat restoration sites in the Duwamish River estuary. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Evaluations Branch and the Port of Seattle. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 27 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Distribution and food habits of juvenile salmonids in the Duwamish Estuary. Olympia, WA. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1992. Commencement Bay Cumulative Impact Study. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1998. 1 -90 Land Exchange USDA z Forest Service /Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P.: Draft Environmental Impact w Statement. 6 v United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Draft c o Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Issuance of a Permit to Allow w UJ Indicental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species. Plum Creek Timber Company, cn L.P. Lands in the I -90 Corridor King and Kittitas Counties, Washington. w O United States Forest Service. 1996. Watershed Analysis: Upper Green River Basin. US Army Corps of Engineers 1994. Level 1 Environmental Site Assessment and = a Recommendations for Further Action. Kenco Marine Inc, Property, Duwamish Turning Z Basin, King County, WA. Z O US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Green/Duwamish River Basin General Investigation Ecosystem Restoration Study Reconnaissance Phase. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 1- o1— US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997a. Phase II Site Assessment Kenco Marine, Inc. Duwamish v Turning Basin No. 3 Tukwila. WA u_ z US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997b. Cultural Resources Assessment Report for Kenco o cn Marine, Duwamish River, King County, Washington in Phase II Site Assessment Kenco Marine, Inc. Duwamish Turning Basin No. 3 Tukwila. WA. z US Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Additional Water Storage Project, Draft Feasibility Report and EIS: Howard Hanson Dam, Green River, Washington. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1998b. Draft Duwamish River, Turning Basin #3 section 1135 ecosystem restoration report. King County, Washington. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1952. Soil survey. Series 1938, #1. Issued Sept. 1952. King County, WA. Warner Eric J. and Fritz Robert L. 1995. The Distribution and Growth of Green Rive Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Chum Salmon (Oncorynhchus keta) Outmigrants in the Duwamish Estuary as a Function of Water Quality and Substrate. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department. Water Resources Division. Auburn. WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory Report. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 28 4 Watson G and S. Toth. 1995. Limiting Factors analysis for salmonid fish stock in the Plum Crek's Cascades Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area. Plum Creek Timber. Co., LP., Tech. Rept. No. 13. Seattle, Washington. 58 pp. Weitkamp L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.K. Kope,and R.S. Waples 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS - NWFSC -24. 258 p. Williams, R. W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames, 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume 1: Puget Sound, Olympia, Washington. Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 29 Appendix A. Correspondence Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 1 Appendix B. Figures Turning Basin #3 Biological Assessment 2